PROHIBITION ISSUE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25244, 24 July 1947, Page 3

PROHIBITION ISSUE

4 FEWER VOTES IN REFERENDUM COMMENT BY PRESIDENT OF NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE (P.A.) WELLINGTON. July 23. “Our cause is a moral one. and that is why it is declining.” said the president of the New Zealand Alliance (the Rev. W. A. Burley), in his address to the annual meeting of the Alliance today. Mr Burley was commenting on the drop in the number of votes for firohibition recorded in the referendum ast November and the loss of Masterton as a dry area. The majority of people to-day were unwilling for self-discipline. Mr Burley continued. People were saying: “I like what I like.” and what they liked was their standard of what was right. The Alliance should press for more education on the effects of alcohol, but education alone would not be enough. Moral impetus was wanted and, until there were higher ideals in the community, victory could not be looked for. Victory could not be won without the help of God. Form of Ballot Paper The form of ballot paper for future national licensing polls was discussed at length by the Alliance. Discussion centred on the suggestion of the Royal Commission on Licensing to divide the paper into two parts, as follows: —Part 1, continuance (subject to the vote in part 2) or prohibition; part 2 (to operate if continuance is carried), for corporate control or against corporate control. This form of ballot paper was finally accepted, subject to the provisos that the decision be taken on a bare majority of the votes recorded, and that the second issue be on a separate paper. Supporting the commission’s recommendation, the Rev. G. H. Goodman (Masterton), contended that at present the dice were loaded against either State control or prohibition, as each was one issue against two. Anything setting out two issues clearly should be encouraged. If continuance were carried, people would then get a vote on the form it would take. This, he said, was quite in harmony with the Alliance’s past position. Provision for a bare majority decision was included on the motion of Mr C. R. Edmond. Without it. he said, the cause of prohibition would be better off under the present set-up. At present. votes for State control were votes for continuance of a special type. They would not come to prohibitionists under the new proposal, ne said. Two speakers held that at least a 55 per cent, majority for prohibition, though undemocratic, was necessary for stability. A smaller majority would not give sufficient public support for prohibition to ensure its success.