LICENSING BILL DROPPED

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 204, 17 November 1927, Page 1

LICENSING BILL DROPPED

VITAL DEFEA TS “No Compromise, No Bill” PRIME MINISTER’S ATTITUDE (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. nEFEATED on two vital points the Prime Minister has U disclaimed responsibility for the Licensing Bill. The House adjourned at 4.25 this morning after having passed the second reading of the measure and, in committee, eliminated the six-year tenure proposal and approved the two-issue ballot. It was upon the rejection of the 55-45 majority and the substitution of the bare majority that Mr. Coates declared that he could not carry the Bill any further, and moved to report progress, which removes the measure from the Order Paper. The possibility of again seeing the Bill is speculative. A Reform Party meeting might ask for it, but from the indications received after the House rose it is gathered that no conciliatory spirit moved Alliance members who say that there will be compromise. It can be assumed that Mr. Coates’s attitude will be “No compromise, no Bill.”

Thu debate developed largely Into a wcctssion of personal explanations of hew Individual members felt upon the liquor issue. It became increasingly evident as the debate proceeded that members’ minds were made up and none would be swayed by the oratory of their fellows. “I don’t suppose it is possible for anybody, tot even a heaven-born genius, to bring down a Bill that would suit both sides in this country or any other,” said the Hon. D. Buddo, Kslapoi. Falling local option, howeter, it was a fairly well-balanced position for both parties. He did not favour a lengthy period between polls, but felt that it would be better if the period between elections should be extended from three years to four, considering a three-year Parliament too short. > "I shall never vote for prohibition as long as I live,” said Mr. T. M. Wil[ord, Hiitt. "That’s plain and straight, so everybody knows where I am! I believe in the three issues, State control, and a longer tenure than six years. I do not believe this Bill will get through. It may pass the second reading, but my opinion is that in the committee stage it will receive a stab in some vital clause that will end its life.” Speaking of prohibition In the United States, from his observation, Mr. Wilford expressed the firm belief that the day of the "saloon” was gone for ever, and spirits would never come back by the popular vote of the people. ‘But I do believe that as surely as night follows day, the time will come when America will revert to light wines and beer,” said Mr. Wilford. Mr. T. K. Sidey, Dunedin South, •aid he found himself obliged to vote for a two-issue ballot paper because ha had promised, on the occasion of the last general election that if the rotes cast for the third issue did not reach 10 per cent, of the total votes he would support its elimination. This had proved to be the case and he would vote for two issues. Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Nationalist Party, said some soil of reform in the control of the traffic should be assured before the interval between polls was extended. He did not wish to see such a drastic change as prohibition effected upon one vote, but would prefer to see any change backed up by a large body of public opinion so there would be a reasonable prospect of It being carried out. The people of New Zealand taken as • whole, were a very sober people; in fact, he knew none more so. If corporate control were considered to be an effective solution of liquor problems, it should be tested out in a small way. Prime Minister’s Reply It was after 9 o’clock when Mr. Coates rose to reply to the mixed reception which had been accorded the from all sides of the House. He could discover no documental evidence £ a Pact in respect to liquor in the Country, he said, nor could the Minister representing the Maori race any such proof. If a pact had been however, it would be the duty of the Government to see that this was honoured. Mr. H. E. Holland: Did not Sir Robert Stout make a statement on this?

Mr. Coates: Yes, but he might not nave had all the facts before him.

Mr. Holland: X thought he made the pact. Mr. Coates: I think the member for Eastern Maori cleared that up when he said the King Country was meant to be a permanent reserve for the Maori. It had been suggested, continued Mr. Coates, that he had advocated larger hotel bars as an Inducement to tourists, but he was astounded that his speech should have been so interpreted, as he had not mentioned bars. The accommodation now provided was not sufficient for the overseas tourist, who wishes nothing less than separate suites with every convenience, as well as medicinal comforts. (Laughter.) If an unpleasant impression were made upon the mind of the tourist it would be the worst day’s work accomplished by the Dominion; but if security of tenure were given a request for good accommodation could be made. “I know that there are people in England who are prepared to put down £IOO.OOO in one centre of New Zealand if they are assured that sufficient security of tenure can be given,” Mr. Coates went on. “It was true that an extended tenure would ensure inducement for the improvement of premises, but the Bill threw certain directions to the Licensing Committees, which would be required to carry out their part. So far as the sale of liquor was concerned it was not worthy of consideration, except that it was sufficient to provide an attraction for the capital which was ready for investment, and which would prove of great benefit to the country in more ways than one. “There has been no mandate for prohibition in this country.” Mr. Coates went on. "On the contrary there has been a mandate against it. This justified my proposal in this Bill. I felt we must first of all be certain that, if we are to have prohibition here, there must be the weight of public opinion behind it to see that it is enforced. We must not get it into the minds of our young people that it is clever to break a law. People do not realise the danger and the heavy responsibility which rests upon their shoulders if they bring in prohibition without having the power to enforce it. It is not ridiculous to say that prohibition should not be carried by one vote. A greater responsibility rests upon members of Parliament upon the people who are voting.” Mr. Coates predicted that those members who had made pledges would find themselves in a difficult position as the debate proceeded, because such an amendment might be discussed that might cause them some difficulty in reconciling themselves with the promises they had made. If such a position arose, however, he hoped to see members stick as closely as possible to their pledges and treat the question on the broadest possible view, always havin'- some consideration for the national issue as well as the individual viewpoint. In his endeavour to please everyone he admitted defeat. Second Beading The second reading of the Bill was carried on a division by S 8 votes to seven, Messrs. H. T. Armstrong, H. Atmore. F. N. Bertram W. E. Parry, M J. Savage, H. E. Holland and J. A. Lee being the only members who would not concede Mr. Coates his second reading decision. The Bill was sent into committee at Shortly after the House went into committee on the Bill a few members commenced a long talk on the first clause, Mr. H. E. Holland asking pei - sistentiy for an indication from Mr. Coates as to whether he intended to go on with the Bill or merely to keep members occupied for a number of hours and then throw the measure overboard. . _ . Mr. Coates: It all depends what you do with it. . ~ , Mi*. Holland: That is not a satisfactory answer. We are entitled to know what is the intention of the Minister in charge. It is not usual for a Prime Minister to treat us with discourtesy. Mr Coates explained that he could not tell what would happen. “I hope the Bill will go through without amendment,” he said. It is a lot o hope for, but I hope it will. .t trouble arises there must come a stage where, if necessary, I might have to ask to be relieved of the responsibU-

lty of the Bill, but if the House decides to go on, then it is out of my hands and in the hands of the House. I do not threaten and will take no action till I can no longer be held re-, sponsible for the Bill.”

I think I can reintroduce it at any time and discuss the position with both sides. The chairman of committees said that if progress were reported the Bill would go off the order paper, but reintroduction would rest with the Speaker. Mr. McCombs: This kills the Bill if it is carried. Mr. Coates: I might bring it on again. The House decided by 41 to 34 to report progress and ask leave to sit again, the voting being as follows: AYES (41) Anderson Luke Armstrong Lysnar Atmore McLennan Bartram McLeod Bell Macmillan Buddo J. Mason Campbell Nash Coates Ngata J. S. Dickson Parry v Eliott Pomare Field Rhodes Forbes J. C. Rolleston Glenn Savage Hawken * Seddon Henare Smith H. E. Holland Uru Horn Veitch Hudson Ward Hunter Wilford J. A. Lee Williams Linklater NOES (34) Bellringer McKeen Bitchener Martin Burnett H. G. R. Mason Dickie Nosworthy J. McC. Dickson Potter Fraser Ransom Girling Reid A. Hamilton F. J. Rolleston J. R. Hamilton Sidey Harris Stewart H. Holland Sullivan Howard Sykes D. Jones Tapley W. Jones Waite Kyle Walter E. P. Lee Wright McCombs. Young “The end of a perfect day” called Mr. Fraser, as the decision was announced. The House adjourned at 4.25 a.m. SOLE SOLUTION METHODISTS DECLARE FOR PROHIBITION Methodists in the District Synod yesterday affirmed their belief in prohibition as the sole solution to the drink problem and recorded the following opinion on the new Licensing Bill: “This Synod desires to express its appreciation of the fact that the elimination of the middle issue is proposed, and that members of Parliament are left free to record their votes untrammeled by party ties. We strongly protest, however, against the imposition of a 55 per cent, majority, the extension of any time between polls, and any increased facilities for the consumption of liquor. We reaffirm our belief in prohibition as the only solution of the liquor problem and believe the people should have continued opportunity, as at present, of settling the question by their direct vote, on the principle of a bare majority.”

The short title was passed at 1.20 and a division was called at 1.40 on the clause which sought to extend the period between the polls to six years. This was the first initial blow suffered by the Bill, the clause being defeated by 51 votes to 23. Members voted as given here: AYES (23) Coates J. Mason Eliott Xgata Field Pomare Glenn J. C. Rolleston Henare Seddon Horn Smith Hudson Uru Hunter Veitch Luke Ward Lysnar Wilford McLeod Williams McMillan NOES (51) Anderson J. A. Lee Armstrong Linklater Atmore McCombs Bartram McKeen Bellringer McLennan Bitchener Martin Buddo H. G. R. Mason Burnett Nash Campbell Nosworthy Dickie Parry J. McC. Dickson Potter J. S. Dickson Ransom Forbes Reid Fraser Rhodes Girling F. J. Rolleston A. Hamilton Savage J. R. Hamilton Sidey Harris Stewart Hawken Sullivan H. Holland Sykes H. E. Holland Tapley Howard Waite * H. Jones Walter W. Jones Wright Kyle Young E. P. Lee Mr. J. G. Eliott’s amendment to include corporate control was lost on the voices. A Puzzled House It was a very wide-awakp but a very puzzled House that commenced at 2 o’clock to struggle with amendments to the ballot-paper issues, which accumulated like sacks on the mill till members did not know how they would vote and what their votes would signify. Mr. H. E. Holland’s effort to insert State control failed by 55 to 20. Mr. Tapley’s move to have the people decide upon the issues to be placed on future ballot-papers suffered rejection on the voices. Throughout the night the division bells rang, calling members from lobbies and lounge to vote on contentious points. The House divided at 3.45 on the question of the two-issue ballot-paper and Mr. Coates’s proposal for two issues was adopted by 53 votes to 21, as follows: AYES (53) Anderson McKeen Armstrong McLennan Bellringer McLeod Bitchener McMillan Burnett Martin Coates H. G-. R. Mason Dickie J. Mason J. McC. Dickson Ngata Fraser Nosworthy Girling Pomare A. Hamilton Potter • J. R. Hamilton Ransom Hawken Reid Harris Rhodes Henare F. J. Rolleston H. Holland Sidey Howard Stewart Hudson Sullivan Hunter Sykes D. Jones Tapley W. Jones LTru Kyle Waite E. P. Lee Walter Linklater Williams Luke Wright Lysnar Young McCombs NOES (21) Atmore H. E. Holland Bartram Horn Bell J- A. Lee Buddo Parry Campbell J. C. Rolleston J. S. Dickson Savage Eliott Seddon Field Smith Forbes Veitch Glenn Ward Wilford Mr. Coates would not accept an amendment by Mr. McCombs to insert provision for a bare-majority decision at the polls. “I cannot possibly accept this clause,” he said. “The Bill has been drafted on a definite policy. I have already lost one clause, and a most important one, and this would leave ’me with a baremajority provision without any safeguard. A safeguard is essential and vital to the Bill.” The House supported the baremajority proposal by 43 votes to 32, as follows: AYES (43) Anderson McCombs Armstrong McKeen Bartram Martin Bellringer H. G. R. Mason Bitchener Ngata Buddo Nosworthy Burnett Parry Dickie Potter J. McC. Dickson Ransom Fraser Reid Girling F. J. Rolleston A. Hamilton Savage J. R. Hamilton Sidey Harris Stewart H. Holland Sullivan H. E. Holland Sykes Howard Tapley D. Jones Waite W. Jones Walter Kyle Wright E. P. Lee Young J. A. Lee NOES (32) Atmore Lysnar Bell McLennan Campbell McLeod Coates Macmillan J. S. Dickson J. Mason Eliott Nash Field Pomare Forbes Rhodes Glenn J. C. Rolleston Hawken Seddon Henare Smith Horn ITru Hudson Veitch Hunter Ward Linklater Wilford Luke Williams At this decision of the House complications arose and Mr. Coates, with more than a slight touch of bitterness in his voice, expressed disappointment at the drastic change that had been made in the Bill, and moved to report progress so that he could take time to consider the position. He was obviously disappointed with those whom he had expected to stand by him. and announced that he was not prepared to accept the responsibility of amendments made by the House, so vital was the change made in the fabric of the measure. “I think I was entitled to more consideration in this respect,” Mr. Coates went on. “However, if Parliament decides that it will not give me this motion, I take it I am relieved of any responsibility—(Hear, hear) —but if progress is reported, I am prepared to consider the question of the majority. This is disappointing to me. Naturally my responsibility must cease when the committee takes out of my hands.” “Kills the Bill” Mr. Young asked if progress were reported would the Bill disappear? Mr. Coates: As Leader of the House