THE LIQUOR BILL.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 21 September 1917, Page 5

THE LIQUOR BILL.

SIX O'CLOCK CARRIED. A SUBSTANTIAL MAJOEITY. WELLINGTON, September 20. When the House of Representatives this afternoon went into committee on the Sale of Liquor Eestriction Bill, Mr. Payne raised a point of order that as the Bill would result in loss of revenue, and consequently increased taxation must be imposed, the Bill should have been introduced by Governor's Message. The Speaker ruled that as it was by no means clear what the result of the Bill would be, its method of introduction was in order. Mr. Anderson moved in Clause 2 to Strike out the world "eight," with a view to inserting "six." The amendment was carried by 41 to 28.

The Hon. W. T. Massey said that when he moved the second reading he promised the House that no pressure would be brought to bear on members and in the division just taken every member had been free to vote as he pleased. The result had been that the principal provision of the Bill had been struck out. He accepted the position on behalf of the Government. He now moved to (insert "six o'clock." (Cheers.) Continuing, he said he hoped the result would set at rest the uneasiness which had existed for some time ion this question. He previously expressed the opinion that this question would have to be dealt with in some manner that would be final, and his opinion was that this step would have to go somewhat in the direction suggested by the Efficiency Board. Either there must be continuance or total prohibition on the basis of compensation. He was not prepared to go into details as yet, because the position had not been considered by the Cabinet, but he hoped to make a statement in the course of a very few Hays. Sir Joseph Ward said that as the House was evidently determined Jfco make drastic alterations in the hotel hours, he desired, as Minister of Finance, to make it clear that the position must be seriously considered by the country, and the liquor traffic put upon some more permanent b&sis, one way or another. It was impossible for any man to carry on the finances of the ■country, unless he could depend upon his sources of revenue. It was no use members striking out the sources" of revenue and airily telling him that he could get revenue in this way or that way. He had to know where he was. He therefore agreed with the Premier that the liquor traffic should be dealt with on the lines suggested by the Efficiency Board, and that within six months, or at least before the war was over. He personally favoured that course, but the position must be dealt with one way or the other. Mr. Webb said he had not heard any reason why the hours should be reduced at all. He therefore proposed to vote against the Premier's proposal to insert "six o'clock" in the Bill. Mr Pearce declared that the Minister of Finance was unnecessarily sensitive about the loss of revenue. He did not think six o'clock closing would result in any serious loss, nor did he think the present position warranted any extreme action in the direction of total prohibition. Mi Payne contended that the only proper course for the Government to pursue was to institute State control.

Mr. Massey's proposal to insert "six o'clock" in the Bill was then put, and on a division being called for, the amendment was carried by 44 to 26.

Mr. Wilkinson moved an amendment to Clause 3 ; the effect of which was that the hours of closing as fixed in the Bill should stand until altered by the people at a poll. Mr. Massey said he could not accept the amendment. This was a war measure, and it looked like "rubbing it in" to try to get an extension of time in this way. Like all other war measures, it should end with the war. Speaking as a country member, he was of opinion that if the Bill passed it would be illegal to be on licensed premises after six o'clock and if so, it might create hardship. It might therefore be necessary to amend it after we had had some experience of it. He said Mr. Wilkinson and his ffTends had a good win( and ought to be satisfied with the progress made. He therefore suggested the withdrawal of the amendment, to which Mr. Wilkinson agreed. Mr. Witty moved a new clause having for its purpose the repeal of the Regulations Amendment Act, 1916. Messrs. Pearce, Hornsby, Webb, Veitch, Glover, Payne, and Parata spoke in favour of the amendment and Messrs. Isitt, Hudson, Sir Jas Allen, Hunter and Dickey against it. A division was called for, and tbtt amendment was lost by 47 to 21. The House rose at 5.30.