Invercargill Licensing Committee Bill Passes Second Reading

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 52, 4 March 1944, Page 4

Invercargill Licensing Committee Bill Passes Second Reading

Various Opinions on State Control (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 3. Members of the House of Representstives had a change of subject during! the afternoon sitting, the Government deciding to continue the second reading j debate on the Invercargill Licensing l Committee Bill instead of the Address-, in-Reply debate. A large proportion of the speakers were new members and the ■ debate centred mainly around the argu-; ments for and against the postponing! of restoration in Invercargill after j June. The first speaker (Mr. R. M. Algio) ! said he was struck by the ease with; which the Labour Government could i postpone the will of the people. He] had always understood Labour stood j for the rights of the ballot box, but the > measure would suspend the statutory! rights of the people of Invercargill to enable the Prime Minister and hi 3 colleagues to perfect details about which they were unwilling or unable to speak. Mr. Algio suggested that the Government should drop the Bill and allow the licensing laws to take their course, thus leaving the people of Invercargill their democratic rights. Then the Municipal Corporations Act might be amended to enable a municipality to apply for a license. That j would enable an experiment in municipal control which he believed would be better than private enterprise. Another suggestion was that the Licensing Act might be amended to enable licenses to be granted at quarterly meetings instead of only in June. Mr. F. Langstone said the Bill was a small measure, but the issue was a large one and had got to be faced. The question of setting aside the democratic rights of the people was a very serious one, but on the other hand. Parliament could alter the laws providing it had a good and cogent reason for doing so. If there was anything in the country that needed overhauling it was the hotels. He would abolish bars altogether and have liquor served in places where men could sit down at tables and take their wives. Mr. Langstone said he could not support the Bill because it meant the postponement of what the people had voted for. He suggested that the Government should immediately acquire properties in Invercargill, restore liquor and then the licenses could be transferred to a trust or to municipal control. Mr. T. C. Webb (Opposition) said he had anti-liquor leanings but he considered that as the people of Invercargill had voted restoration they should be given liquor without undue delay He agreed that the whole question of the sale of liquor should be overhauled as suggested by Mr. Langstone. Mr. G. H. Mackley said as an old resident of Invercargill he had received letters from a number of people there telling him that feeling was running high because the Government was going to postpone restoration. He considered that the matter should be left to he Licensing Committee in the normal way.

Mr. W. T. Anderton said be could see no reason why liquor could not be restored in June. What the Government was doing was to consider the good of the people of New Zealand irrespective of party. It wanted to see the liquor trade reformed. If the Bill were turned down and the election of licensing committees proceeded with it would be too late for reform. Licensing conditions in New Zealand were bad beyond description, said Mr. A. C. Morton. We probably had the worst and most out-of-date licensing code in the British Empire to-day and a disgrace to our young country. No past administration had the courage to tackle the question and he deplored that the present Government, despite its numerical strength, apparently also was unprepared to face up to the situation. Nevertheless he favoured the Bill and as a member of the Opposition. Ho was perfectly free to vote against his party in accordance with his conscience rather than being bound by riding instructions. Mr. Peter Carr said drunkenness would decline if men could take their wives and families openly with them for a drink as was done overseas. We wanted to bring drinking into the open where nobody need be ashamed to be seen going in or out. The Bill presented an opportunity to set up decent drinking conditions in at least one part of the country. Mr. F. Doidge protested against the suggestions of Government members that the Opposition was under the palm of vested interests. Rather it was commonly accepted that the Government was under the thumb of the trade. Hon. D. G. Sullivan rose to a point of order as to whether Mr. Doidge was entitled to make such a statement, and on the Speaker’s ruling that without doubt he was entirely out of order, Mr. Doidge withdrew. Continuing, Mr. Doidge suggested that a licensing committee should be elected and should be able to issue provisional licenses until the improvements all desired could be brought about. Hon. W. Parry said he wanted to see the sale of liquor made so open that ale and tea could be sold together where the public could see who went in. The dark bar should disappear entirely. He spoke of the efforts the Government was making to develop youth guidance and youth centres and said the clean and open dispensing of liquor was essential to such projects. He gave an assurance that the best possible thing would be done in connection with the problem for the future of the country and the country’s youth. Mr. Bowden said that when the reform of the country’s licensing legislation came before the House he would support it, and so he thought would any member of the Opposition, but he opposed the present Bill because it denied constitutional rights and because of the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept constructive suggestions for reform such as had been made by several speakers. Hon. H. G. R. Mason, replying to the debate, said despite its length the debate introduced little new matter. Any attempt to deny the Bill’s simplicity was to introduce complications. What was not in the Bill need not trouble members. Perhaps in the not so distant future they could have another Bill which would give members an opportunity to discuss liquor legislation and its reform. As for the present Bill, had the Government not introduced it to explain its intentions concerning Invercargill, the Opposition clamour would have been still greater. The Opposition divided the House on the second reading of the Bill which was carried by 42 to 29, Mr. Morton voting with the Government. In the committee stage Mr. W. M. C. Denham asked for an assurance from the Minister that there would be no delay in restoring liquor to Invercargill. He was supported by Mr. Langstone, who said he had personally received that assurance and it had in-

fluenced his vote, but be wanted to bear an assurance given in the House. Mr. Mason said that the sale of liquor would not be delayed after the date fixed by the existing law—that way in July. The Bill was passed and the House adjourned until 2.30 on Tuesday.