END OF DEBATE ON LICENSING

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25310, 9 October 1947, Page 8

END OF DEBATE ON LICENSING

CRITICISM BY MR HOLLAND

“ FUTILE DISCUSSION ” (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 8. Only one Minister spoke and little enthusiasm was shown by either side when the House of Representatives resumed the debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing to-day. The debate, which had been expected to last at least all to-mor-row afternoon, ended late this afternoon. The debate was one of the most disappointing of the session. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said the debate was an extraordinary one which had yielded very little about control of the liquor trade. The debate was a waste of time and discussion was futile. “Government Bankrupt of Ideas'* He criticised the Government for opening the debate without having any proposals to put before the country. The Opposition had made up its mind, but the Government was “fishi.ig round” to see if the Opposition would give it a lead. The Opposition had already done so in its election policy. The Government had proved itself bankrupt of ideas. Reform of the liquor trade was long overdue, and the liquor laws were out-of-date and obsolete, and from the tourist point of view were keeping the country back, and liquor interests themselves would like to see reforms, said Mr Holland. The National Party wanted to submit all the questions involved to the people for decision. It should be for the people to decide the question of the ownership of breweries, the extension of hours, the redistribution of licences, and whether to have three or nineyear polls. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr W. E. Parry): What do you think of the commission’s recommendations? Mr Holland: They were made to the Government. Confl ct’-mr Opinions not Reconciled

Mr Holland said the majority and minority reports showed wide differences of opinion, and the weakness of the commission was that the convicting opinions could not be reconciled.

The Opposition’s position was crystal clear: it would oppose legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the commission without first referring those recommendations to the people. Mr Parry: Just a Mr Holland said it was useless to continue a futile di c cussion when the Government had the recommendations before it and did not know what to do. The Attorney-General (Mr H. G. R. Mason) in renly said it was quite wrong to suonose that the Government was eag*»r to take action without referring the issues to the people. The Government would take into consideration all the discussion there had been on the report.