Freedom in the House

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 205, 18 November 1927, Page 8

Freedom in the House

LICENSING BILL DEBATE Analysis of Division Lists PARTY fetters were disregarded during the debate on the Licensing Bill. An analysis of the division lists discloses that the House as a whole took full advantage of the Prime Minister’s promise that the Bill should in no sense be regarded as a party measure. Only in two divisions were there block party votes, Labour members standing together in both those instances.

JVEGULAR followers of Parliament’s proceedings must have been refreshed by the spectacle of party leaders divorced from even their most foresworn adherents. There were five divisions, in three of which Mr. Coates found himself in the rare position of having a majority of Reformers against him. This was most pronounced in the first division, when only 16 Government supporters followed the Prime Minister in favouring the Bill. Twice that number of

X % SK % Sr & » the Reform flock was against the leader’s attitude. In the same division Labour was solidly against the extension of the time between the polls. No Labourites supported the six-year tenure, and for a change the Labour Party found itself tallied with a solid body of Reformers. Nationalists and Liberals favoured the extension of the tenure by six votes to four. INTEREST IN THE BILL Interest in the Bill was keen throughout. Of the 80 members of Parliament, the least number that participated in any of the Bills was 74, and generally there were more —a relatively high proportion. In registering their opinions members were clearly actuated by individual ideas as to the best methods of dealing with the liquor problem. As a result their voting was frequently to and fro, sometimes for, and sometimes against the Bill. The Nationalists were really the most consistent, as a party. Messrs. Seddon, Smith, Veitch, Wilford, and Sir Joseph Ward clung together in all the five divisions, and their preference generally was in favour of the original provisions of the

Bill. They supported the six-year tenure, approved of preferential voting on the three existing issues—a measure introduced by Mr. H. E. Holland — and were against either the two-issue ballot or the hare majority amendment. LABOUR PARTY’S ATTITUDE Labour members, as a whole, seemed to have “dry” inclinations. Where Labour majorities were recorded in the voting they were iu support of the changes so ardently desired by the New Zealand Alliance. Instances were the block votes cast by Labour members, one in opposition to the six-year tenure proposal, and the other in support of the bare majority amendment, which was introduced by Mr. J. McCombs, a Labour representative. Preferential voting on all three issues might have tended —or there was evidently that suspicion—to aid the liquor interests. Hence Labour was found opposing the proposal in the ratio of eight to five, in spite of the fact that the amendment was sponsored by the party leader, Mr. Holland. In the voting on the two-issue proposition, Mr. Holland was again in a minority among his flock, eight of whom supported the straight-out contest. Mr. Holland was again in a Labour minority in the last division, which decided that progress should be reported, leaving the fate of the Bill open. Like Mr. Coates, the Opposition leader thus had the rare experience of finding himself forsaken by his followers on three occasions out of five. Mr. Forbes was the only party leader who escaped. He had a National-Liberal majority sharing his views in four of the five divisions. The six-year tenure, which he opposed, was the only point in which his views differed from those of his various associates. CLEAR PREFERENCES Except for the Labour Party’s two block votes, the preference most clearly shown was Reform’s approval of the elimination of the third issue. In this instance 43 Reformers favoured the change, and eight opposed it. Mr. Coates was with the majority, and he was supported by all his Ministers. The Labour objectors, numbering five, included four Auckland representatives, Messrs. Lee, Bartram, Parry, and Savage, as well as their leader, Mr. Holland. On the other hand, Messrs. Lee, Bartram, Parry, and Savage all favoured the adoption of the bare majority system, though they had supported Mr. Holland’s amendment providing for a system of preferential voting on all the three existing issues. Every phase of the debate was marked by swings one way or another. The sequel to the pronounced rebuffs suffered by the original Bill could hardly have been unexpected. The Prime Minister’s move to report progress was entirely in accord with the usual custom, but by that time the House had clearly revealed its attitude toward the latest piece of licensing legislation.