ANOTHER LICENSING BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 207, 29 August 1912, Page 7

ANOTHER LICENSING BILL.

TO INTRODUCE SPECIAL AREAS A SPEEDY DISPATCH. (By Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Mr. W. H. D. Bell (Wellington suburbs) in moving the second reading of the licensing amendment No. 2 Bill in the House of Representatives, said that the anomaly which the bill was designed to prevent worked just as much against those who favoured continuance as those who were against it. People who formed part of a no-license district might find themselves, as a result of electoral boundary adjustments, situated in a licensed area and vice versa. He proposed to deal with this by providing that any such area should be regarded as a special aren —either license or prohibition, as was the position of the electorate from which it originally came. Mr. Malcolm (Clutha) expressed the opinion that the anomalies introduced by the operation of the legislation proposed in the bill would be as great as those at present existing. Mr Isitt (Christ North) contended that if any wrong were, being inflicted on a section of the people, then it was the duty of the Government, and not of a private member, to bring in a bill to remedy the wrong. He maintained, further, that the bill before the House would, if enacted, result in a state of endless confusion and l'tigation. He suggested to the member in charge of the bill an amendment, "that in those nolieense districts where, as the result of the alteration of boundaries by the commissioners portions of the licensed area including existing public houses have been added to the no-license district, the local option and the Dominion prohibition vote shall be determined by the bare majority.'' Mr. Bell: No, that makes an anomaly, and J am not in favour. of the bare majority. Mr. Isitt expressed his intention of moving the amendment—if the bill reached the committee stage. Mr- Payne (Grey Lynn) said he was a bare majority man, and would therefore support Mr. Isitt on that basis, but be , did not balieve in unfair conditions, and for that reason he was in favour of the bill. Mr. Hanan (Invercargill asked why • the Government had not shown Some j■■ courage by giving the House and the , country a lead. The Government seemed i to be involved in a fog of doubt nnd in- j decision. What were the convictions of ! the Government on the bill ? They wanted to find out how the wind blew aud so . keep the people in ignorance of their own opinion on the subject meanwhile. The > hon. gentleman proceeded to declare the measure to be a retrospective one, nnd asked where they were going to stop if oases of past hardship were to be legislated for. He contended that retrospec- * tive legislation was bad legislation. Mr. Harris (Waitemata) moved "That i the bill be read a second time that day i >ix months/ In other words, he admitted 1 Frankly that lie would like to kill the 1 >ill. He did not believe in the retrospec- ' ive quality of the measure. Personally, * le thought, the day of national probilri- ' ion was not far distant. ' Mr. A. H. Hindmarsb ' (Wellington , South) objected to the bill because it _ proposed to alter a law of fifteen years' ! standing which had never before been ' questioned. Mr. Bell did not raise the ' point during his election far as he * knew. Mr. Isitt asked why these licenses should get special privileges when the : community created the value of the i license aud could take it away. At -1.35 the Hon. A. T. Ngata moved ' the adjournment of the debate, pointing '■ mt the bilk had not a chance of getting ' through. He thought it was a pity at • that stage of the session to devote bo > much time to this particular bill. < The motion for adjournment was car- < ried by 32 votes to 30. and at 11.55 p.m. the House rose.