LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 28 January 1928, Page 1

LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL

(Hansard Report.)

The Hon. Mr. Michel.—l think the Hon. Mr. Triggs struck the riglit keynote when he said this question was too important and momentous for us to allow the second reading to pass without some comment and without giving some reasons for the votes we are about to record. First, I would like to say that J think the Prime Minister of this country is in he commended for bringing down a Bill in accordance with the understanding which existed generally in the country at the last election. It is true that the Prime Minister declared that the question should not he a party matter. In this he followed the example ol the late Mr Seddon, and also that of the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, and our late Prime -Minister, .Mr Massey. So he has followed very good examples ; and there is no doubt that the Government is to-day, as were Government in.the past, right in keeping the matter as far as possible clear of party. But there is no blinking the fact that the issue before the country to-day is a most momentous one, and it is one which we cannot afford to treat lightly or brush aside the contentions of either partv. MVe remember that, when the last poll I was taken, no less than 310,000—nearly 320,000, or one-third of a millionpeople voted for the extinction of the liquor trade. That is a tremendous vote, and we cannot get away from it. It is true that 299,000 voted for con- j tinuance, and that there was a third issue, for which, I think, 50,000 people voted—l am speaking from memory. The Prime Minister declared, when he brought the Bill before the House a few weeks ago—and I feel sure the great majority of the people will agree with him—that the third issue is not

a live one. ft has been pointed out that there has been an increase in the number of people voting for the third issue since 1919. That is true; but the number has increased because a large number of people voted for State I control as it was well known their | votes would not count against continuance. I wish to say that 1 am absolutely opposed to State control of the liquor trade. I believe we have been ( blessed in this country for many years past with a Government’ which is probably one of tho best in the Southern Hemisphere, and 1 believe we are blessed with such a Government Id-day. But if 1 were asked to find fault with

tlie Government to-day I would refer to the distinct tendency that there is to interfere with business, for we lmvo it from the time we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed at night. To have State control of the liquor trade is unthinkable. I am sure that a State system would lead to corruption of the very worst kind, and that tu adopt such a system would, in general, he a most undesirable change to make. 1 feel perfectly certain that the men and women of this country will never agree to the State going into the liquor trade. It appears to me that there are many clauses in the PHI that are good, and, in fact, that the Hill generally is quite a good one; and I .suppose that when it comes to the crucial test to-night it will be a question of the majority that should obtain. F desire to say at once tintL I always have been opposed to a hare majority on this question. 1 am not in favour of the 55-‘ls per ceil! majority, as I think it involves far too great, a loading for those who believe that changes are wanted in the liquor trade; and J entirely agree with the Hon. Mr. Triggs that something between that and the hare majority should he decided upon. Now, why am 1 opposed to the hare majority? AYe are most of us opposed, as I suppose we are. to the hare majority on this question. I know there is the argument that the hare majority must rule, whether we like it or not; but a bare majority on this question will, in my opinion, never he satisfactory. \Ye have had some experience even in New Zealand of laws not being operative. Many years ago

we had the question of vaccination prominently before us. It was compulsory for fathers and mothers to have their children vaccinated, hut those parents contended that there was no need for tho children to he vaccinated and they were not going to take the risk. Jt is true there were some prosecutions and some men and women were fined ; but the law ultimately became absolutely a dead-letter, and in recent veals, I believe, speaking from memory, vaccination became optional. Let us take a more recent instance—i..ie anti “ shouting ” law. AYe had i law, during the war period, and foi

some time afterwards, prohibiting “shouting” or treating. That law also became a dead-letter. AA’hy? Recause it had not the force of public opinion behind it: it could not be on fored, and so the bare majority rule in that case was of no avail. 1 Think it is quite right that the three-years tenure should stand. The whole tendenev in this country is to extend the franchise to the people in every possible way, and I do not think we can attempt to curtail their liberties by taking away the right they now have to review the state of the liquor trade whenever they like. The argument that an extension of time is necessary docs not weigh with me much. AAe have in Now Zealand over eleven hundred licensed houses, and I feel sure that if we gave even a tenure of sixteen years it would not pay the owners of eight or nine hundred of them to re-build or erect'palatial hotels—l refer to those in the .smaller centres of population. An extension of the period might induce some of those in the larger centres to build first-class hotels; hut, speaking generally, the owners would not spend large sums merely because they had a six-years tenure. 1

feel sure that we shall he wise ill allowing the people to review tho liquor trade every three years. As a rnattci of fact, every one of ns has his business continually reviewed. If we wan; to import Hour we are only allowed to do it under hard conditions. Even our dairy-farmers have been unable, to export butter when they wanted Lo. Parliament reviews other people’s businesses, and I do not think we can deny the right of the people to review the liquor trade every three years. Therefore I shall vote for the retention in the Bill of the three-years period. I

quite agree with the Hon. Mr Gow that if this Bill is adopted the issue will he a clear-cut one. It is generally reported in this Chamber and the other Chamber that if we make any change at all with regard to the majority—if wo do not agree to the bare majority, or make any other material change with, a view to what we may call stabilizing the position—that amendment

will not bo accepted by the other House. I sincerely hope that rumour has no foundation in fact. It will be regrettable if iio real attempt is made to get this vexed question out of the way before the next general election. It will be most regrettable if the nolicense issue is brought into the next political contests, because they must upset many other very important matters. If we cannot settle the question this session we are not at all likely to do so next year. Coming to the 52.5-47. J proportion, I would point out that after all it loads the prohibition rote, only to the extent of about thirtylive thousand votes. The Hon. Mr. Cohen..—There is to be no third issue this time. The Hon. Mr. Michel.—Well, that is my opinion. That proportion would stabilize the majority, and would not unduly load the question. AVe have no right to try to decide the question of prohibition or licensed houses. All we have to do is allow the two parties to run their race. AVe are here only to assist the other branch of the Legislature in making the rules. The Hon. -Air. Cow.—You arc going to load the majority against one of them. The Hon. Air. -Michel.—l hardly see that. The Hon. Air. Gow.—A'ou would not give them a fair run. The Hon. Mr. Michel. —I never said that. All I said • was that we had to make the rules of the race. If certain issues are involved in the race we must see that the road is kept safe. Therefore I shall in Committee be only too glad to support the amendment to the Bill in the direction of making the majority something in the direction of 02J-47L The Hon. Air. Isitt.—AVhat price did the prohibition party pay in order to obtain the bare majority? The Hon. Air. Alichel.—T think, Sir, the honourable Air. Isitt can best answer that question himself. However. Sir, T cannot see where I have denied the right of the other party a fair run. and so T will vote for any amendment in Committee making the majority 521-475, or anything at all in that ' direction.