"A FUNNYOSITY."

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1920, Page 5

"A FUNNYOSITY."

A NEW LIQUOR BILL. LIGHTLY TREATED BY HOUSE. By Telepraph,—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) moved the second reading of the State Control of Licences Bill. He said our present licensing law was forty years behind the times. He did 'ot believe in prohibition, and his Bill vas designed to make the sale aud control of liquor so respectable that few people would vote for prohibition. The Bill proposed setting up a separate State Department by a Minister, whose duty would be to administer' the Act. He had power to appoint a deputycontroller in various districts to assist in the administration of the law. T It was proposed to continue licensing committees aud their powers would be enlarged, one of which would be to act as advisers to the Minister. Compensation for the loss of licenses was provided where houses were abolished. No license was to be transferred under three years, and liquor was to be analysed. He .Btrongly .urged the Government when building, new railway stations at Wellington, Auckland, and'Christchurch, that hotel accommodation should be provided in them for the benefit of the travelling public. The subject was an enormous one, and his Bill was really in the nature of suggestions. Mr. McCombs condemned the Bill, which, he said, contained some of the most ridiculous clauses ever, submitted to Parliament. The House would be doing an unkindncss to Mr. McCallum by granting the second reading of the Bill. Mr. Isitt said the Bill was a "funnyoeity," not worthy of serjous consideration by the House. It was a fair ex- [ ample of the extremes to which moderates could go. "WORTHY' OF PUNCH;" Continuing the debate in the evening, Mr. Jones said he could only suppose Mr. McCallum had drafted the Bill for want of some better recreation. Some clauses in it were worthy of Punch. Altogether there were -29 clauses in the measure. If Mr. McCallum would strike out 28 of them, and amond the twenty-ninth, he would'support the Bill. The clause of which he approved was that which affirmed that the value of a license should be-based on the quantity of liquor sold over the bar. Mr. Lysnar said there was not a single argument in favor of prohibition. The results proved that it only increased drinking, and returns laid on the table of the House proved this to be the case in New Zealand. All countries which adopted prohibition were shocking examples of retrogression. Turkey was a case in point. Mr. Malcolm said the reference of the previous speaker to Turkey as an example of the awful result of prohibition showed to what poor refuge the liquor party had to retreat. He quoted statistics to show that whereas in a given period the average of liquor consumed in New Zealand was 22 gallons per adult, the average in Clutha, a nolicense area,,was two gallons. He agreed it was time more revenue was secured from licensees. Mr. Atmore said Mr Malcolm had fallen into an error, for there were no figures to ehow the consumption of liquor in a no-license area, for small quantities did not have to be notified. The only true method was to take the Dominion figures. For instance, in 1894, when 80,000 people voted no-license, the per head consumption was 7i gallons, whereas eight years later, with 151,000 voting no-license, it had risen to 9£ gallons. A LABOR VIEW. Mr. Bitchener said that if the Bill had done no other good it had at least shown the House that there was a stream of revenue flowing away to waste in the. low fees now being pais for hotel licenses. Mr. Sullivan said the Labor Party had no official attitude on the liquor question, but they did not reqognise in prohibition any solution for' the economic problems they had to face. At the same time he could not help thinking that if prohibition had increased drinking, as had been said, then \ the liquor party ought to be warm advocates of prohibition, but they were not, and he doubted their conclusions. Mr. Powdrell said he had never been a total abstainer, but he had always been a' prohibitionist, because he believed nothing would so contribute to the uplifting of the people as the abolition of the drink traffic. The £6,000,000 we spend on drink per annum was absolutely waste, as not a single benefit was derived from it. He would support the clause increasing licensing- fees. Mr. McCallum, in reply, said his Bill j was not in 'the interest of either the prohibition or the liquor parties. What lie was striving to do was to build up a people with character in them; people who could take drink or leave it alone. Mr. McCombs at this stage raised the point that the Bill was an Appropriation Bill, as it raised fees and imposed taxes. The Speaker said the usual practice in connection with private members' Bills of this kind was to let them go to the second reading, and this course was agreed to on the voices.