LICENSING BILL

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 217, 2 December 1927, Page 1

LICENSING BILL

New Arena Sees No Slackening in Wordy Battle on MeasiL

COUNCIL DECLARES FOR 52} PER CENT

(THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE Legislative Council this morning, sitting in committee, carried an amendment by 21 votes to 11, substituting 52| per cent, majority instead of a bare majority in national prohibition polls. Most of the other clauses were passed, but the provision for the registration of barmen is being challenged.

The earlier proceedings in the Council last evening were comparatively tame, and after nine councillors had expressed their views on the main questions at issue the Bill was read a second time without dissent, the committee stage being reserved for today. There was a portentous atmosphere about the Council precincts from early evening for it was one of the rare oc-

casions on which the deliberations of the elder statesmen attract public attention. The visitors’ galleries began to All long before the time of sitting, and from time to time during the evening many members deserted the House of Representatives to watch the proceedings in the Council chamber. The silence in which the speakers were heard contrasted sharply with the low buzz of conversation and fire of interjections inseparable from the Lower House debates. Indeed, there were only two interjections. One was “Rubbish!” and the other “Nonsense.” Both proceeded from the Right Hon. Sir Francis Bell, leader of the Council, who thus disagreed with the views of the Hon. J. A. Hanan. The Bill is in charge of the Hon. tT. B. Gow, who, in moving the second reading, advised the Council to take into account the fact that the Bill had been carried by the House by a fairly substantial majority. This view was vigorously supported and enlarged upon by Mr. Hanan, who said that the Council had no authority or power to alter the wish of the people as expressed in the House of Representatives, and if the Council did alter the Bill it would be exerting powers that could not be justified. If the Council, which had no mandate from the people, interfered with the Bill there would be a storm of indignation. There was no warrant for such a usurpation of the rights by a council

that had never been invested with sovereign powers. A contrary opinion was voiced by the Hon. C. J. Carrington, who believed that the Council was better able to deal with the Bill than members of the Lower House. “We are not bound by prejudice and can exercise a clear and impartial vote,” said Mr. Carrington. Of the issues involved in the Bill

the question of majority received the most consideration. The Hon. W. H. Triggs believed that there was no virtue in the bare majority, which would impose a restraint on the personal liberty of a minority almost as large. The 55 per cent, originally proposed was, he thought, little enough to ensure stability, but personally he was willing to sacrifice his convictions to the extent of agreeing to 52i per cent., and in committee he would move an amendment making that provision. Mr. Triggs was supported by the Hon. E. Newman, the Hon. H. L. Michel, the Hon. M. Cohen, the Hon. Sir Frederick Lang, and the Hon. C. J. Carrington, the Hon. J. B. Gow, the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Stout, and the Hon. L. M. Isitt defending the bare majority principle. Mr. Isitt indicated that the prohibition party would not surrender any of the ground it had won. They could not possibly give up the bare-majority vote and receive practically no good in return. Period Between Polls Speakers were divided on the question of the time to elapse between polls. Mr. Triggs said that the extension from three to six years would make for stability, and was supported in this by Mr. Carrington and the Hon. Mark Cohen. The latter deplored the state of some of New Zealand’s hotels, and said that in the interests of tourists and the travelling public the question of better accommodation must be faced. The reinstatement of the State control issue in the ballot papers lias several adherents in the Council, but in view of the fact that so few members spoke on the second reading, it is difficult to forecast what support there will be for this proposal. In his reply Mr. Gow said that every law passed in Parliament was passed by the bare-majority principle. Questions of unemployment and finance had been mentioned, but he thought that the existence of the liquor traffic was productive of more unemployment than might come to pass for a temporary period as a result of the cessation of the trade. Regarding the question of finance, he would only say that the Hon. W. Downie Stewart and his predecessors had both voted for the bare majority. The second reading was agreed to on the voices arid the Council adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, when the committee stage of the Bill will be taken. VITAL CLAUSES MR. ISITT’S DETERMINATION “PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC” WELLINGTON, To-day. Members of the Council were as loquacious in the committee stage of the Licensing Bill as they were taciturn on the second reading last evening. Interested galleries closely followed the discussion of each clause of the Bill. Members were early at variance on the bare majority question and the Hon. Vernon Reed moved an amendment to substitute a 52i per cent, majority to carry prohibition. It was strongly opposed by the Hon. G. J. Smith and the Hon. L. M. Isitt. who said that the prohibitionists could not I possibly agree to having this handicap j put on them. Mr. Reed said that the prohibition i vote would be 1,200 better off under j his scheme than with the three issues, j "It is very feeble to pretend that that there is any object behind the amendment other than the protection of the liquor traffic/’ said Mr. Isitt. Mr. Reed’s amendment was carried by 21 votes to 11. The 'clauses dealing with national restoration polls were postponed and

run through down to the provisions for registration of barmen which Sir Francis Bell, Leader of the Council, thought should be struck out. He could see no particular reason for it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Isitt said that it was an attempt to shelve the whole responsibility and trouble on to the shoulders of the unfortunate barman who was to be the scapegoat for offences. The Hon. G. Witty: A bad barman can ruin a house. The trade must be cleaned up. The clause was deleted on the voices. Mr. Reed moved for the restoration of the six-year period between polls as in the Bill originally introduced in the House, in order to secure better hotel accommodation.

The Hon. O. S. Malcolm said there were many hotels which did not want to provide accommodation for travellers. The question was only a cloak for the extension of the tenure.

“How gracefully the bunch of carrots is dangled in front of the supposedly asinine nose of the enthusiastic prohibitionist,” said Mr. Isitt. “It is manifest that if we gave this extension to six years we might whistle for our chance of carrying prohibition.” Mr. Gow said the extension would greatly enrich the brewers and vested interests, which were fattening on the trade. (Hear, hear.)

Sir Francis Bell favoured a sixyear interval because that time would be necessary to establish prohibition if that reform were carried. The Hon. W. Michel said that the effect of the extension would completely crush temperance and the prohibition movement. The Council adjourned until 2.30.