THOSE PAIRS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3852, 2 October 1928, Page 1

THOSE PAIRS.

LICENSING BILL. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? In a statement forwarded to the press, the general secretary of the New Zealand Alliance (Mr. C. E. Edmond, of Auckland) reviews the events arising out of the defeat of .the Licensing Bill. The statement is as follows : The defeat of the Licensing Bill of 1928 on the Third Reading determined that the electors will again vote at the coming poll on the existing undemocratic three issues ballot paper when casting their votes on the licensing issue. The career of the existing Parliament is unique, in that during each of three sessions, held in 1926, 1927, and 1928, a Licensing Bill has been introduced by the Prime Minister, and on each occasion has failed to reach the Statute Book. The Licensing Bill introduced by the Prime Minister this year proposed an extension of time between polls; a handicap on the Prohibition voters equal to approximately 75,000 at the next poll; extension of hours of sale in clubs and hotels until 10 p.m. for the convenience of banqueters, etc.; restoration poll providing for re-distribution of licenses, and permitting the manufacture of New Zealand wine, either with or without an ad-mixture of imported brandy up to 40 per cent, of proof, spirit. It is gratifying to note that the clauses of the Bill as introduced were drastically altered in the Committee stage. The proposal to extend the time between the polls was defeated by 47 votes to. 26; the two issue ballot paper proposal was carried by 51 votes to 22 and the crucial division on the bare majority was carried by 42 votes to 30. A proposal to provide for a poll in the King Country to. enable licenses to be established was also defeated by 48 votes to 21. When the Bill finally emerged from Committee stage, it contained three clauses, which were considered retrograde, clauses 18 and 19 providing for the admixture of imported brandy to enable New Zealand wines to be fortified up to 40 per cent., proof spirit, and also clause 37, which provided facilities for an extension of trading in hotels after 8 o’clock at night under certain restrictions. These were challenged, and the Prime Minister promised reconsideration. The crucial division was taken on the third reading of the Bill, which was defeated by 34 to 33. During the previous session the third reading of a similar Bill was carried in the House of Representatives by a majority of 7 votes. Three of the members who voted for the Bill last session were away in Canada attending the Empire Parliamentary Union, these members being the Hon. Wl Nosworthy, Mr. W. J. Jordan, and Mr. T. W. Rhodes. Two of these (Messrs Nosworthy and Jordan) had left definite instructions that pairs on the Licensing Bill should be arranged for them in accord with their votes of last session. Unfortunately, pairs were not arranged, and this meant that these three votes were not available this session. In addition, Sir A. T. Ngata was not present when the vote was taken' on the third reading, and he also voted for the Bill last session. This reduced the majority in favour of the Bill to 3 ancl this was converted into a minority of one by Sir George Hunter, of Waipawa, and Mr. C. E. MacMillan, of Tauranga, changing their votes. Had pairs been arranged for Messrs Nosworthy and Jordan, the Bill would have been (arried on the third reading by one vote, and would have been sent to the Legislative Council. Seeing that these members were away on official business, representing the Parliament of the Dominion, it was anticipated that pairs would be granted, but fhis was not done, and the result is, that the will of the minority prevails. In a statement made by the Senior Government Whip (Mr. J. S. Dickson) as reported in the Press, he tries to cloud the issue in regard to Mr. Nosworthy’s pair by stating that Mr. Nosworthy did not wish to be paired on the third reading of the Bill. He then goes on to state that Mr. Nosworthy was paired on clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, these being the clauses dealing with the question of the two issues ballot paper, and the bare majority. I challenge Mr. Dickson to produce his evidence that pairs had been arranged. I ant in receipt of definite information that at 11.15 on Monday morning last no pairs had been registered on anj of the divisions taken during the Committee stage of the Bill. In addition, Mr. D. G. Sullivan, Whip of the Labour Party, has a letter from Mr. W. J. Jordan (copy of which I hold) stating definitely that Mr. Jordan had paired with Mr. T. W.

Rhodes on such portions as were agreed upon. As Mr. Rhodes voted last session for the two issues ballot paper and the triennial poll, but voted against the bare majority, and then voted for the third reading, there was only one issue on which Mr. Rhodes could be paired with Mr. Jordan, and that was ihe issue on the bare majority. And vet Mr. Dickson (Government Whip) states that Mr. Nosworthy was paired with Mr. Rhodes on the bare majority issue. Mr. Jordan’s instructions are proof positive that Mr. Rhodes should not have been paired with Mr. Nosworthy on this issue.

Subsequent to the voting on the third reading, Mr. Sullivan (Whip ol the Labour Party, cabled to Mr. Jordan in Canada and asked him t’or confirmation of his instructions in regard to his pair with Mr. Rhodes on the bare majority issue. Mr. Sullivan has now received a reply, jointly signed by Mr Jordan and Mr. Rhodes, confirming the ar(Concluded on page 4).