BROKEN PARTY RANKS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 459, 14 September 1928, Page 13

BROKEN PARTY RANKS

Second Reading of Licensing Bill Prime Minister in No-Man’s Land (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, To-day. AFTER talking until 2 o'clock this morning the House of Representatives passed the second reading of the Licensing Amendment on the voices. The debate was marked by a few lively exchanges, but in general followed well-worn lines. Both sides apparently have held their fire for the committal stage, which will probably be taken next Tuesday.

THE keen public interest in the j question was illustrated bycrowded galleries, so great being the demand for the accommodation that many were turned away. Once again divisions of opinion in . otherwise united parties were evident, and it was clear that many conceded their support to the second reading , only so that they could apply pressure to the Bill in committee stages. Mr. Coates, outlining the, Bill, traversed the familiar arguments in favour of longer periods between polls, which Would raise the standard of hotel accommodation. Though he had previously supported the three issues he now saw, from the viewpoint of the man in the street, that the third issue was only confusing the people. Mr. J. A. Lee: That’s only what the prohibitionists say. Mr; W. S. Glenn: The third issue represents moderate thought. Mr. T. M. Wilford: There were 56,000 votes for the third issue last election. Mr. V. H. Potter: And they went i round all the clubs to get them. Mr. Coates said that if prohibition came he didn’t know how much ft would cost to enforce the law, nor how many would obey it. It should be carried, if carried, by something more than a bare majority. “The machinery portions of the Bill,” concluded Mr. Coates, “are a most important advance in licensing legislation for many years.” “NOT SERIOUS” Mr. H. E. Holland reiterated his belief that Mr. Coates was not serious in his intentions. The Bill would make an' interesting discussion, but otherwise waste of Parliament’s time. It was peculiar that though Mr. Coates had said the Bill was not a Government measure, it * had been introduced by Governor-General’s message. He himself favoured the three-issue ballot paper and preferential voting.

Mr. Wilford said that his observations in America had convinced him that prohibition wrought more evil than good. Prohibition there was temperance between drinks. If the hotelkeepers of New Zealand would not -clean up their own stables Parliament would have to do it for them, but he believed, nevertheless, that the Prime Minister’s Bill was not a fair Bill, and was depriving a large sec-, tion of the community of the chance of recording their convictions. He objected to being turned into an extremist one way or the other. “No social reform can be put into effect unless backed by a majority of men rather than of women,” continued Mr. Wilford, “because it is on the men enforcement of the social reform would ultimately depend. I am an apostle of temperance, but I hate prohibition.” Mr. W. D. Lysnar said that the law that was not enforced was worse than no law at all. Prohibition was immoral and ungodly. They had to look after the children. Mr. Potter: Do you suggest free beers for school children at 11 o’clock? Mr. Lysnar: You might like to go there when free beers, were on, but I wouldn’t go across the street. DEMOCRACY AND LOAFERS Mr. J. McCombs said that the simple effect of the Bill, with its inequitable majority, was to give the hotel loafer a more powerful vote than, say the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice. Mr. F. N. Bar tram said that the Prime Minister had deliberately flouted the democratic Wishes of the community.

Mr. Coates: Oh, you're speaking with your tongue in your cheek. Mr. Bartram: The lion, gentleman said I had my tongue in my cheek. I want to tell him that my tongue has just enunciated the principles of truth and justice. Mr. Coates: I accept your word. Mr. Bartram: Ah, I see a glimmer of intelligence. Mr Bartram objected to the deletion of the third issue, and went on to quote figures for State control. Mr. Samuel: I think you’re one out. Mr. Bartram: Is that all? (Laughter.) Mr. C. E. Bellringer said that the extension of the period between polls would mean a tremendous financial gain to the hotel-owners and liquor interests. SECRET PLEDGES Sir Joseph Ward deprecated attempts to induce members to pledge themselves. He himself had been approached. Mr. Bellringer: You’re not the only one. Sir Joseph: But some members accepted. Mr. D. Jones: Name one. Sir Joseph: I won’t name one. I am not a spy; but for myself I would rather be out of Parliament one hundred times than give a secret pledge. Mr. D. Jones: No secret pledges were given. Sir Joseph: I had the pledge of a certain member in my possession last session, but I returned it to the sender. Mr. Samuel, after pointing out that

| Ohinemuri had realised the defects of I local prohibition, and now at least had decent hotels, which it never had before, stated that the licensing question should never cross the trail of politics, otherwise they would ultimately have a House with no other politics than liquor or no-liquor. They already had an interesting spectacle of a prohibition Parliament in a country favouring continuance. Mr. D. G. Sullivan asked what >vas the use of Mr. Wilford saying that prohibition had failed in America when a large majority of Americans wholeheartedly believed in it. Mr. W. E. Parry, dealing with the remarks of Mr. McCombs, said that there were other loafers beside hotel loafers. 9 Mr. Glenn. And perhaps they helped to put him in. The parties in Parliament, said Mr. Parry, handled the licensing issue about as skilfully as they would an Australian porcupine. The debate was carried on while the galleries gradually emptied. An interesting feature was that relatively few among the no-license elements, spoke. Notable speeches in the closing stages were those of Mr. Atmore and Mr. Savage, both of whom deplored the deletion of the third issue. Following Mr. J. A. Lee, who assailed the weakness of prohibition as a social reform, Mr. Coates began a brief reply at 1.50. He was opposed to preferential voting on any such question as this, and believed that many prohibitionists thought the Bill, which stood an excellent chance of passing, was just what was wanted. The second reading was carried on voices. The committee stage will probably be taken on Tuesday.