WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1928, Page 3

WELLINGTON TOPICS

THE LICENSING BILL. MISSING PAIR. (Special to “ Guardian ”.) WELLINGTON, September 24. The announcement by the Prime Minister that he will leave where it stands the discussion concerning the pair on the Licensing Bill entrusted to him by his absent colleague, the Hon. W. Nosworthy, will scarcely satisfy his critics. Mr Nosworthy wrote to his chief on the eve of his departure for Canada as follows:—“Auckland, July 30th, 1928. Dear Mr Conies]—When the Licensing Bill comes before the House this session I should' he greatly obliged if you could arrange for another ’Minister or someone else to pair with me should there be a vote on any oi the three main issues. I should like my* vote recorded in favour of: I.—-De-cision by bare majority ■ 2—Polls every three years as at present • 3—-Elimina-tion of the State' Control issue. It arrangements can be made for this to be done I shall regard it as a personal favour. With kind regards, your sincerely,—W. Nosworthy.” Mr McCombs, the member for Lyttelton, declares that oh the afternoon of the day on which the third reading debate was taken the Prime Minister promised the president of. the New Zealand Alliance that Mr Nosworthy would be paired on the third reading. . MR McCOMBS’S TESTIMONY.

“ When I interviewed the Government Whip as to why Mr .Jfoswoi-tlr* had not- been paired,” Mr McCombs goes on to' say in the course of R statement prepared for publication, “his first excuse was that Mr Nosworthy did not wish to be paired on the third reading. I pointed out the ■■ bsurdity rtf that contention, seeing that the Bill had been altered at that stage exactly as Mr Nosworthy wished ;+ to ’-p "Ibr-d: and further that when the Bill had been similarly altered las! session Mr Nosworthy had voted against the motion to ‘report progress,’ and had also voted for the third reading. The excuse then offered was that Mr Nosworthy would have voted against the third reading had he known of the two new clauses, numbers 19 and 37. That excuse was futile because the Prime Minister had promised reconsideration of these clauses. I was also' told that Mr NoswoYthy’s secretary had been consulted. Subsequently I saw Mr Nosworthy’s secretary, and lie informed me that he had asked t~ have Mr Nosworthy paired in favour of the third reading.” HE THOUGHT SO.

When Mr McCombs’s allegations were submitted to him the Prime Mihistei stated that in the course of'an interview. with the president, of the New Zealand Alliance he had told that, gentleman that Mr Nosworthy would be paired in accordance with his own request. When asked jf his absent colleague would he paired on the thiid reading he had replied that he thought so, but when he saw Mr Nosworthy’s letter he tfovnd. he was not to be paired on the third reading, “in any case,

Mr Coates added, “ Mr'Rhodes, who is accompanying Mr Nosworthy on. the trip to Canada, is not a bare majority man.” The General Secretary of the New Zealand Alliance challenges the

/ " 1 Prime Minister’s deductions. “Although it may be stated,” lie says, l “ that there is no definite instructions that a pair should be arranged on the third reading of the Bill it is hardly likely that Mr iNosworthy would wish to vote for the main clauses of the Bill and then lose the value of that vote on the third reading.” As last session Mr Nosworthy stood for the whole Bill it seems unlikely that he would have reversed his vote this session. AN EXPLANATION NEEDED. This is where the controversy stands at present, Mr McCombs having suggested a grave accusation against the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister having announced his intention oi leaving the matter “at that.” It is sun ply incredible that Mr Coates can have deliberately withheld a pair for which his absent colleague had asked. , I there hadTkcn no other means of meet ing the case the Prime Minister himself could have paired with Mr Nosworthy IVobably what really happened is that Mr Coates having jumped to the conclusion that Mr Nosworthy, having specifically stated his desire to support the bare majority, triennial polls, and the elimination of the State Control issue, limited his commission to these three points and did not wish to take part in determining the final fate of the Ball. This is presumably the way a judge of the Supreme Court would have interpreted the substance of Mi* Nosworthv’s letter. He would have stuck closely to the writer’s requests and would have ventured nothing upon an unsupported presumption. The fact that the Prime Minister did not give effect, to his colleagues expressed wisher doubtless'is capable of explanation.