THE LICENSING LAW.
THE SECOND READING. P?BK Piikss Association 1 Wellington, July 21. In the House of .Representatives tonight, Mr Massey moved the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill. He said he was convinced that every memehr of the House had made up Ins mind how he was going to vote on the Bill, therefore it needed little explanation. He would have preferred to have been able to introduce a consolidating measure, dealing with all the required amendments in the licensing law, but pressure of business before Parliament precluded that. He dealt with the views put before him i by the respective deputations, and expressed the hope that the discussion of the measure would be friendly in spirit and the minority loyally abide by the decision, whatever it might be. The principal proposal was the reduction of the majority required to carry no-license or to restore licenses, and for that lie took the whole responsibility. The discrimination made between local no-license and national option was necessary to put the question on the broadest basis. Personally, ho was not in favor of the bare majority on either question, and the majority fixed in the Bill was a proper one. The other clauses were more or less machinery clauses. The measure was not a party one. In the ballot paper there were only two issues put to the the people: National continuance, or National prohibition. That was as plain and simple as it could be. The clause dealing with barmaids was now, he thought, unnecessary, owing to the decision of the Supreme Court a few days ago, and when the Bill got into committee he proposed to strike the clause out. In conclusion, he impressed upon the House the fact that the carrying of ..prohibition would necessitate the readjustment of the finances of the country, but he had no fear as to the future, and he thought they would be aide to carry on the government just as- well under prohibition as under licenses. He had looked into the Gothenburg system, and was now convinced that the less the State had to do with State control the better. He proposed to ask the House to agree to further amendments dealing with the sale and manufacture of Australian wine. The question of tied houses would also bo dealt with. The state of affairs in the King Country also required attention. Europeans now out-numbered the natives, and were claiming the right to have a vote. He favored the setting up of a Commission to inquire into the state of affairs in the King Country, and if they came hack next election he hoped to bring in a consolidating measure dealing with thb whole question. SIR JOSEPH WARD. Sir Joseph Ward said he never gave a silent vote on any question, and he-was not going to now. He declared that alter the Premier had met the deputations that waited on him,, no one could tell what attitude the Ministers were taking towards the Bill. ‘ It was generally understood that at least six Ministers were against the Bill, and if not sanctioned and approved hy the majority of Cabinet, the House should know the fact. When he had brought down the Licensing Bill be had made it clear that it was a Government Bill, hut now the Premier was trying to divest himself of his responsibility hy declaring that they were not policy proposals. That was nothing but cool, colossal assurance, and such a system was a menace to future government. If Ministers were .not with their Premier upon an important question such as this, their clear duty was to tender their resignations before the elections. Mr Massey had pledged himself to the three-fifths majority. After coming into office he had changed his opinion, but bad surrounded himself with Ministers who were still in favor of the three-fifths majority. Personally, he would'carry out his public pledge to his constituents and vote for the second reading of the Bill. Ho was not in favor ol State control, but be felt that if prohibition were carried in the Dominion there would ho a strong movement in favor of some form of State control. HON. W. FRASER. Hon. W. 'Fraser said ho was going to oppos.e the reduction ol the majority. Ho was pledged that way, and was going to carry out his premises. The measure had never been made a party one, and the Ministers were just as free to exercise their right to vote as private members. The issue was much too serious to be determined by a bare majority. Prohibition would result in a crop of private stills and infovrners, and those evils would bo worse than any that could arise from the licensed trade. MR WILEORD’S WAY. Mr Will'drd said he was not in favor of prohibition under any circumstances, and least of all in favor of local no-1 icon so. If it would he accepted, he would vote lor 55 per cqnt. for national prohibition, and so settle the question. IT such an amendment could not be accepted, he would vote against t*ho Bill. Dr. Newman stated that ho had always been in favor of the three-fifths majoritv, because a substantial majority was necessary to determine toe question whore such large interests were concerned. Prohibition only created deceit and sly drinking. Mr Atmore said the figures quoted by the Attorney-General would make anyone pause and seriously consider whether any real benefit had been accomplished hy twenty years’ legislation. There was the extraordinary paradox of the vote for no-licenso inI creasing alongside the growth of tin-
drink bill and convictions for drunkenness. What would happen if all the people voted no-license, and the demand for liquor continued ? Mr Vigor Brown said it was just as well that the House should hear both sides of the question. They had heard a lot about tied houses, but he pointed out that the tied house had this advantage—tho people knew where the liquor was coining from. Ho pointed out that the tied house had the supervision of a man who owned it, and careful supervision was made of its conduct. Secret drinking was far worse in its effect than drinking in public bars. Ho strongly opposed the Bill, and would vote to maintain the threefifths majority. He knew well enough that plenty of businesses besides the publichouso trade .were tied, banners were tied to their .wool merchants as closely as any pulican was tied. Mr Ngata asked that in the native polls taken upon the licensing question the cost should be borne by the Government, and not placed upon the shoulders of the natives. He would support the Bill, for there was no question whatever as to the damage n hie i liquor had done to bis race. Mr Glover opposed the Bill. Mr Webb warmly condemned the hypocrisy displayed in the debate. Cabinet had brought Parliament to •« low level by its evasion of the real issue. The Premier should show Parliament what he intended to do. Mr Payne held that other big economic questions should be considered besides the drink question. The bare majority would give a true expression of the wish of the people. SECOND READING CARRIED. ' Mr Massey, in reply, pointed out that while the leader of the Opposition had accused him of inconsistency, the Bill of 1910 was also a compromise. Sir Joseph Ward’s Cabinet was divided, and had not supported him when the Bill was brought down. In the case of the prfesent Bill, the Cabinet was unanimous in wishing that Parliament should he given an opportunity to discuss the question. Tho second reading was carried by by 38 to 36. THE DIVISION. Ayes, 38: Anderson, Bell, Baxter, Colvin, Craigie, Davey, Ell, Escott, Fisher, Guthrie, Hamm, Harris, Hindmarsh, Hine, Isitt, Leo, McCombs, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nosworthy, Okey, Pearce, R. H. Rhodes, M. Rhodes, Robertson, Seddon, Sykes, G. M, Thomson, Veitch, Ward, Webb, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young. Noes, 36.—Allen, Atm ore, J. Bollard, R. F. Bollard, Bradney, Brown, Buchanan, Buick, Campbell, Carroll, Coates, Dickie, Dickson, Fraser, Glover Herdman, Herries, Hunter, McGalium, McDonald, McKenizc, Millar. Myers. Payne, Pomare, Bangihiroa, Heed, Russell, Scott, Sidey, F. H. Smith, 11. W. Smith, Statham, J. 0. Thomson, Wilford, and Witty. Puirs. Ayes; Newman and Ngata ; Buddo and Clark. Noes: Forbes and Parata.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19140722.2.3
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 77, 22 July 1914, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,383THE LICENSING LAW. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 77, 22 July 1914, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Copyright undetermined – untraced rights owner. For advice on reproduction of material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.