LICENSING BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 17 November 1927, Page 4

LICENSING BILL

DELATE IN THE HOUSE. WELLINGTON, Nov. 15. When the Prime Minister rose to move the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill, there was only a moderate attendance of members, and the galleries were almost empty. Very soon, however, members were in their places, and in a remarkably short space of time the galleries also filled. Mr Coates said that in bringing the Bill before the House be was perfectly free to look on the matter from the broadest point of view, because lie bad signed no pledges to any Party. Mr Willord: Have Any? .Mr Coates replied that lie bad not. Only at last election was lie asked what his position was, when lie bad said lie was not in favour of a two-issue ballotpaper, and was not in favour of an extension of time between polls. 11 is position was thus a little different from that of others. He had endeavoured to draft legislation which, if placed on tl.o k!i o t nto lLinl.- lvmilil I nil lllT-

the Statute Book, would be an improvement on existing legislation. Tfe ] justified the elimination of the State 1 Control issue by saying that it had j never heroine a live issue. Tie might lie told that the vote for it bail increased, but looking at it broadly, lie did not think the public really wanted it. The whole question was an extremely troublesome one. and whether they ' liked it or not, they bad to give it . considerable attention. That was so in almost every country. When be looked at Canada and America, be was not prepared to say that Prohibition was or was not a success. lie did not like criticising the administration ol oilier countries, and for that reason be was diffident about expressing bis own views. He might, however, quote the opinions of other men. Discussing the question as it affected New Zealand, he said the licensing issue cut across other lines of cleavage, and so disqualified many capable men from entering Parliament, because they had at one time or another expressed a strong opinion on this subject. for that reason he favoured extending the period between polls, and so removing from political contests that which was always a disturbing element. Then there was the constant erv from end to end of the country for improved hotel accommodation. AA’e were constantly asked to advertise our scenery and tourist resorts, hut it would he useless to do that unless we gave tourists thi* hotel accommodation they required. Mr McCombs: How do they got on in America, where they have the host hotels in iho world? Mr Coates said that American hotels were not the host in tin l world, hut they are good. The host and the most comfortable hotels in the world are in England. However. New Zealand must have accommodation ol high class. Ihe trade representatives were _al ways stating that they could not give it, unless they had a belter tenure, and tlieielore ’ be was disposed lo give them an opportunity. Moreover, the Bill gave increased power to licensing committees to insist on accommodation oi the desired quality. For these two reasons—, the eliminating of liquor Irom politics, and the improving ol hotel accommodation of the country—he favoured holding polls every six years instead ol

every three years. Will! regard to the issues on the ballot-paper his opinion tvu> there we re only two real questions helore the country, viz.. Prohibition and Continuance. Whatever might be said of the third issue, he was satisfied that it was not a live one, since iL received so small a proportion of the votes cast. Having then decided that there could lie only two issues, the next question was on what majority should either lie carried. He was satisfied that if Prohibition was carried, it should be carried on such a majority as would make it stable and respected. Canada had gone in for Prohibition, hut had gone hath to State Control, but tTint was. he thought, because there was so much difficulty ill enforcing the law. Other countries had varied their systems, and Australian States had done similarly. With regard to the' United States ol America .it was very difficult to say what flic position actually was. If a visitor talked to one set of people they told him that Prohibition was a great success, while another set: told him it was an absolute failure. He (.Mr Coates) was quite unable to form any personal opinion, but thought it was wrong to say that America’s eeonomi • prosperity was due entirely to Prohibition. There were other circumstances contributing to that end besides Prohibit ion. The difficulty in America seemed to be enforcing the law, and it was a question whether wo in New Zealand multi enforce the law if we adopted Prohibition on a bare majority. ! That was a question that worrit'd him, because it would never do to have a law on the Statute Book which was Hooted. Thai had been done once in connexion with the anti-shouting law, ami ho did not want to see that sort of thing again. Then they had to consider the position of what was known as the “trade.” It was, he understood, valued at eighteen millions sterling, with some twelve thousand employees. They also had to consider the interest of the State. In this lie was thinking of the .Minister for Euinnoe. To him it meant nearly two millions in Customs duty, and there was also income tax to he considered. These things would all have tu he adjusted if Prohibition were carried, so tiiat it could be seen liow serious a matter it was to carry Prohibition by a bare majority. Underl all the circumstances he thought that a no per cent, majority was fair and reasonable. Kor the rest, the Bill contained a number of amendments to the law, which he considered that experience rendered necessary. The provision for, *. 1.. i:........ i........... 4... t... I

I no supply of liquor at banquets, he thought, was reasonable. The sale of liquor to young people was being safeguarded. The Bill was clear-cut and fair to both sides as it stood. It was before Parliament, and it was for Parliament to say whether it became law. Me would accept amendments, but if he found the Bill getting into such a state that he could not support it. lie would have to tell the Mouse he could not go on with it. THE DEADER OF THE OPPOSITION*. Air 11. E. Holland (Loader of the Opposition) said he did not believe it was the serious intention of the Prime Minister to put the Bill on the Statute Book. There did not seem to he sincerity behind it. Me had heard qualified statements, such as that made by the Prime Minister, before, and he was not convinced. The Bill was belated; it should have been introduced lo.ng ago. He then proceeded to leviow tho circumstances of the last election, contending that the money spent on the big advertisements by . the Reform Party came from the brewers. Clauses in the Bill indicated this. The first of these was the ex- ; tension of the period between polls, for which be would not vote until it bad been referred to a vote of the people. Then, having given something . to the Trade, the Bill proceeded to . give the Prohibition Party something ; i tliat was the two-issue ballot-paper. 1 He did not think this would alter i the position one bit, because the i State-Controller, deprived of his vote, <

would vote ’“Continuance.” What did matter was that the vote was being taken from the people who now possessed it, and that was repugnant to him. Personally, ho thought the vote should be on a preferential basis, and that should enable them to retain the three-issue ballot-paper. On that point the Labour Party was solid, and lie would move in that in Committee. He would vote agunist the 55 per cent majority. The Lal>our Party stood for the bare majority on all questions, and nothing had been said in favour of the 55 per cent majority that could not lie said in favour of 75 per cent. TTe thought the Bill should be a Government measure. The Prime Minister was trying to 1 1 iin his sails. He was trying to get all sides into his net. ’fhe Prime Minister: And T have evidently caught the honourable gentleman. Mr Holland: “Not at all.” He said his position was quite clear. He had always been in favour ol the three-issue ballot-paper, but he was satisfied that Clauses 2.3, and 4 would not all go through in their

present form unless the Prohibitionists in the Bcform Party voted against pledges they had given to the Alliance. What he wanted to know was how far the business of New Zealand was going to be hold up for this Dill. He did not believe the Bill was going through, unless the Prime M inidol made it a Government measure, and the Prime Minister cracked his whip. The Labour Party was solid on the question of preferential voting, while the three issues remained on the bal-lot-paper. If that was altered l he.v wore free to do as they liked. Air Lysnar (Gisborne) said that six o'clock closing had done a great deal of good, but if the House pressed it ns far as Prohibition, a great deal or harm would be done. No-License was not the remedy, and therefore he opposed the hare majority. “THE EI ET Y -FI ETY PRINCIPLE.” Mr McCombs (Lyttelton) said the Bill contained something lor the Prohibitionists, and something for the “trade.” It was a Bill on the “fiftyfifty” principle, and it was surprising that the Prime Minister, who was such an able exponent of the hftvfiftv principle should have adopted the 55-15 majority. He commented that while the Prime Minister had said the House was free to deal with the Bill as it pleased, he also said that if amendments were put into it of which he did not approve lie would drop the measure. Evidently the Prime Minister did mil tell the House exactly what he meant. He declared that the six year poll would simply mean an increase in “trade” goo 1u ills, and send Amalgamated Brewery shares up in price. The majority pmposed ill the Bill disfranchise,l 75.1K)11 voters, because only alter that number of people had voted would Ihi Prohibitionists’ vote count as of equal value with that of any other. Tins was plural voting with a vengeance. New Zealanders were a law-abiding people, and if Prohibition were carried. it would be enforced because Unpeople respected the law. They were not to he compared with the peoples or Other countries. The artificial majority created in the Bill was a i» fusal to trust the people who created Parliament. What right had they to set themselves up as superior? The people now had the right to elect l’alliament on Hie hare majority. and all they asked was the right to exri • ,c, i I.t

jiivss their opinion this social (jui’.ition <>ii similar basis. Aim iica did not hate to impose extra taxation when she gave up one hundred million dollars of liquor revenue, and vet, she was extremely prosperous. AY hat would happen in New Zealand: AYo would turn eight and a hall millions of wasted material into more profitable channels, and help to reduce unemployment. He quote'll statements by Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Air Philip Snowden, with a view to showing that the liquor trallic in Britain was wasteful, and harmliil to public morals. REFORM PARTY AND THE TRADE The Hon. Mr McLeod deprecated the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the relations of the Reform Party to the Liquor Party. They had no lottntlatiou in fact, and they had been made for purely Party purposes. A Labour member: Produce your balance-sheet. jAlr .McLeod: The lion, gentleman would not produce a balance-sheet ol his party. (Labour dissent.) Air McLeod. continuing, said a Labour bal-ance-sheet would not disclose the position if they did produce it. Mr Fraser: That’s a lie, anyhow. Mr Speaker called on Mr Fraser lo withdraw that imputation, which he did. substituting “deliberate inaccuracy,” which was also ruled to he otfousivc, and was withdrawn. Mr 11. E. Holland: Are you prepared to send this Bill to a Committee to take evidence on all ils aspects? Air Af-Lcod said Air Holland knew how impossible it would lie' lo get evidence before a Committee, and then, at the request of Air Speaker to “get hack to the Bill,” he proceeded to argue against the hare majority because of its instabilty. lie favoured extension of Iho period lietween polls as being less disturbing. If, however, it was logical to settle the question whether the country was lo he wet or dry on a hare majority, then on a hare majority people should say whether polls should ho every three, six or nine years. AYith regard to the position in the King Country, lie had read n great deal about it. and he had tome to the conclusion that there was a definite bargain between Hie Government of New Zealand and the Maori chiefs in the King Countiv. Hint if the railway was allowed to proceed through their country no liquor' should he sold there. That being so, that compact •should be held sacred by Iho pafioha. and il should not he broken unless at the unanimous request of the Natives.

Sljß JOSEPH WARD’S I’OSITIOX. Sir Joseph Ward said he was not a Prohibitionist .and ho favoured the three issue ballot-paper. He did not believe, the Bill would go through this session, and he deprecated the procedure of bringing in such a measure ns a non-f>overnnient Bill. Tt should have been a Government- Bill, and the Prime Minister should not have been put in the position of saying. “This is no man’s child, and no member of Cabinet has seen it.” That was putting the Prime [Minister in a false position. He was going to vote for the restoration of the State Control issue, and lie would not vote for the bare majority upon any issue submitted to the country. Mr J. A (a son (Xnpier) said he was returned free from any pledges and would vote for such portions of the Bill as he approved of. He was against the hare majority, which did not ensure stability, and he quoted a mini her of authorities in support of that view. The 00-lo majority was, he thought, quite a reasonable proposal, and he favoured holding polls every six, instead of every three years. Ho favoured taking a poll in the King County, in which the Natives could take part, because conditions had -so vastly changed there since the agreement was made with the Natives, if such agreement ever was made. The poll, however, should not bo decided on a bare majority. Air Parry (Auckland Central) contended that the questions raised by

the Bill should not- ho settled by the House, hut should he referred to the people. Any Tar-reaching change should come from the people themselves.

Mr J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) explained his amendment for pel milting licenses in the King Country. Before those licenses were granted lie wished Parliament to determine what form those licenses should take, liecause people in the King Country did not wish to perpetuate the evils, of the liipior trade as known in othpi districts. He maintained that if a

compact with Maoris was ever made, it was never enforced, niul therefore was of no effect. In addition to this, the Maoris were being served with spirits of the worst class. MAORI AN D PAKKHA.

Sir Apirana N'gata agreed with tue extended period between polls, hut ue favoured Ihe hare majority. Ik was disappointed that the. Prime Minister had not taken greater advantage _>,l Ills opportunity to effect a real interna! reform within the Trade itsell’. He ;ilso favoured the two-issue l>aliot-paper.\ because lae- pever regarded the State Control issue seriously. nor did lie think the government took it seriously. Dealing with the compact between the Maoli and the pakelia as to file introduction o' liquor into the King (ounti.v, hi qitbted from official documents ii show that the compact was made in 1881 hy the Stout-Vogol Government, and he paid a tribute to the honom of the ]>akelias lor the manner ii which they had honoured that compact- for all these years. At the same time, by permitting sales ot land, Iht Government had introduced white settlement into the district, and so made the observance of such a compact impossible, and the question should be looked at from the present day point of view, and the whole position should he reviewed. He was ghuthat Mr Rolleston had in his amendment proposed that the Maoris in toe King Country should he included in the proposed vote. Ihe New Zealand Alliance had agreed that Maori electors should he given a vote at the Dominion poll, and they agreed to that, believing that the Maori vole would he a T rude vote. Ho n>k d the- Alliance to regard the King Country in the same spirit. All Maori members were in agreement on tins question, and would support Mr Bolloston's amendment. He t hoiignt. Maori electors should he given the right- to vote in Dominion polls, and he did not think that the right ol some twenty thousand electors o mid much longer he denied. Mr Potter (Hoskill) advocated higher license Ices as one. of the necessary reforms. That would lie putting taxation Oil the shoulders best, able to hear it. Kollv pounds per year was a pa 11 rv sum to pay for a monopoly. He would charge M pec cent, on the alcoholic liquor sold. He ridiculed

J 35 as ail adequate lee to he paid !oi licenses for clubs, many of which were dose i orpnrat ions. Increased fees

from licenses would give extra revc

cue which would relieve the la..a tion in other directions. He favoured triennial polls, fur longer periods meant huge gains In the Trade. lie stood for the two-issue ballot-paper, and the hare majority, hut he did not believe the Prime Minister intended t„ pass (he Bill this session. The Prime Minister: Von nail and