THE LICENSING BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3726, 6 December 1927, Page 2

THE LICENSING BILL.

AMENDMENT'S DISAGREED WITH. BILL SUSPENDED. The Bill ps amended by the Legislative Council was reported back to the House of Representatives on Saturday afternoon, and the present sponsor of the measure, Mr. E. P. Lee (Oamaru), moved that the amendment' be agreed to, with the exception of those affecting certain vital clauses. These were the alteration of the bare majority determination to the 52i per cent- majority decision and the consequential amendments of the relating to national restoration of licenses; the institution of six-yearly licensing polls; the deletion of the clause for local restoration being determined on the bare majority principle; and the new clauses dealing with the strength of wines. REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT. A committee consisting of Messrs C. E. Bellringer, E. A. Ransom, and J. McCombs, prepared the following reasons for objecting to the amendments: (a) That the proposal to substitute a six-year poll for the threeyear poll is objected to on the ground that: the extension of tlie-' period on which the poll is taken is a serious curtailment of the power of the people to control the granting of licenses. (b) That the proposal to substitute an artificial majority for the present law of decision by a bare majority which has been in existence for nine years is nob warranted on the grounds: (1) There has been no expression of public opinion that there should be any curtailment of the popular will. (2) That at none of the three general elections held since the enactment of bare majority in 1918 has there been any mandate for an alteration in the present law, which provides for decision by an absolute majority. (e) That the proposal to alter the law to allow wine shops to sell wine up to 40 per cent, proof spirit is distinctly retrograde. It would in effect turn a wine license into a spirit license. COUNCIL’S ATTITUDE. The reasons were approved by the House, and they were transmitted to the Legislative Council, which decided to insist on the amendments, and apponted a committee consisting of Sir Francis Bell, Hon. W. H. Mclntyre, and Hon. R. Scott, which prepared the following reasons:— (1) The majority by the Council is a reasonable substitution for the issue of State control which the Bill excludes from future ballot papers on the licensing question. (2) During the nine years referred to in the reasons presented by the House the issue of State control has been included in the ballot papers. The existing law does not provide for an absolute majority on two issues. (3) With regard to the amendments providing for p,n extention of the period between licensing polls the Council considers that whichever party succeeds on the two issues now proposed as the sole issues, the party should have a longer interval than the present law allows from disturbance of its position. (4) The clauses dealing with wines do not penn.it a new or higher percentage of proof in New Zealand wine than is authorised by the existing law. THE FIRST CONFERENCE. The House declined to accept these reasons, and Messrs Bellring- . er, Ransom, and McCombs were appointed to conduct a conference with Sir Francis Bell and the Hons. Mclntyre and Scott. Reporting to the House in the evening, Mr. Bellringer stated that the conference had failed to come to any agreement. It was decided to hold a second conference, the representatives of the House to be Messrs E. P. Lee, D. J. Sullivan, and A. Harris. The committee appointed by the Legislative Council consists of the Hon. Sir R. Heaton Rhodes and the Hons. J. Barr and G. J. Garland. SECOND CONFERENCE FAILS. • When the House met yesterday morning, Mr. E. P. Lee (Oamaru), reported that the second conference had been held, but that members had failed to reach an agreement. Mr. C. E. MacMillan (Tauranga) saked Mr. Lee if agreement had been reached on any of the points at issue. “I may say that the amendments we objected to were not adjusted between us—any of them,” replied Mr. Lee. COUNCIL ABOLITION SUGGESTED, At question time in the House of Representatives this morning, Mr. J. M’Combs, Lyttelton, raised a hearty laugh by giving notice of his intention to introduce the Legislative Council Abolition Bill. Mr. P. Fraser, Wellington Central, remarked that he doubted whether the money spent on “another place” was justified, judging by results. STATEMENT BY ALLIANCE. The Standing Committee of the New Zealand Alliance at a meeting held yesterday to consider the position in relation to the Licensing Bill, released the following statement for publication : “The New Zealand Alliance enters an emphatic protest against

the action of the Legislative Council in over-ruling on the Licensing Bill the decisions of the people's elected representatives in Parliament. We consider it a glaring violation on the principles of Democratic Government that the non-eleeted Chamber should render null and void the decisions of the House of Representatives on questions which were clear issues before the electors at the last general election. Seeing that the House of Representatives carried the retention of the triennial poll by 51 votes to 23, the two-issue ballot paper by 53 votes to 21, the bare majority by 43 votes to 32, and the third reading of the Bill by 39 votes to 32, it cannot be contended that the decision of the popular Chamber was not emphatically in favour of the Bill as it reached the Legislative Council. . . .On the ground that the action of the Legislative Council is opposed to the rights and the expressed wishes of the people, we shall approach the Prime Minister with an urgent request that facilities he given for the passing of a Licensing Bill early next session with the .object of giving expression in law to the declared will of the elected representatives of the people. We express our appreciation of those members in both Houses of Parliament who loyally supported the right of the electors to determine the licensing issue every three years on a two-issue ballot paper, arid by a bare majority vote. We still hope that the matter will be settled next session, as no other course will relieve us of making it a test question at the general election. ‘No question is ever settled until it is settled right.’ We unhesitatingly affirm that this question will not be settled until it is left to the electors to decide without hindrance or handicap on the basis of one elector one vote, and one vote one value.”