LICENSING AMENDMENT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1531, 29 August 1912, Page 6

LICENSING AMENDMENT.

BILL TO REMOVE ANOMALIES.

PEOPOSED BY ME. BELL. Mr. W. 11. I). BELL (Wellington Suburbs) moved the second reading of- the Licensing Amendment Bill, lie explained that tho Bill was not intended to niter the. main provisions of the present licensing laws, but merely to remWe some of flic anomalies of the present law. The intention of tho Act was (hat the licensing issue should be determined only bv a three-liftlis majority of the voters. *He had himself voted for a measure to reduce tho majority to 55 per cent., but while the law required that the grant or rescission of licenses should ba determined by a three-iifths majority, the. issue should bo determined by a three-filths .majority, and not by mero chance. People residing in a part of a license district taken into a No-License district should not bo brought under No-License law until they had voted so to place themselves. They were, by being brought into a- No-License area, not only penalised by the non-issue of hotel licenses, but they were under prohibition to take liquor into the district to their homes, except under certain restrictions. The same applied to a part of a No-Licenso district taken into a license district. He explained tho provisions of his Bill—to constitute such transferred areas special areas for the purpose of determining the licensing issue at tho poll within their own boundaries, by the vote of their own electors, always providing that tho whole electorato did not carry any proposal by a three-fifths majority. Tho object of the Bill was to givo to everybody an equal right .under tho law. It would 1)6, retrospective only so far as last poll wa3 concerned. He understood that a great deal of time was likely to be taken up in debating tho Bill, and he asked tho supporters of it to help its pas'sage by refraining from speaking. Would Bring About Chaos. Mr. A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) said he regretted that ho could not support tho measure, believing as he did that, if enacted, it would create moro anomalies than existed under tho present law. Hβ admitted that what tho Bill sought to correct was a curiosity rather than an anomaly in the present law, but, whatever law was passed, there must bo anomalies or curiosities. No-Licenso districts already suffered inconvenience by having hotels within their district, but the Bill proposed to bring hotels right into a No-License district. Mr. Bell: They are already there. You are bringing them no nearer. Mr. Malcolm insisted that the Bill would make confusion worse confounded— would bring about chaos. In answer to the argument that the people in the district affected suffered an injustice, he pointed out that 56.4G of the people in the electorate of Wellington Suburbs, including those who lost their licenses, voted for Noiicense. So that there was really no injustice. The effect of the change would be to tear the electorates to shreds, and to bring about parish licensing districts. "One-Eyed in His View." Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) said that Mr. Bell was very one-eyed iu his view. Mr. Isitt did not see why the House should do anything to rectify anomalies for a trade which could well afford to leok nfter itself. Mr. Bell: Have not the people of tho district any right to consideration? . Mr. Isitt said that if tlie liill was necessary it should have been introduced as a Government measure, not brought down by a private member. lie contended that the machinery of the Bill did not reflect credit on. the person who had drafted tho Bill. Mr. Bell: Why not put it right in committee? . Mr. Isitt said that licensing committees were not now elected ia No-License districts. Messrs. Bell and Lee: They are. Mr. Isitt: I say that they are not. Mr. Bell (laughing): You are wrong. 'Mr. Lee: You had better put up that hospital money you talked about tho other day. Mr. I'itt contended that if there was an injustice to the people referral to in the Bill because they could only get restoration by a three-fifths majority, those people were merely sufforins the. injustice which the Prohibitionists had bceu inborn-ins- under. Mr. Isitt was speaking of monopolies ond waf vhvin; one of his .-irras about when Mr. .r. V. Brown interjected: "Don't point, atiie,' 1 Mr, Isitt; 1 did not l'oiiit to. jcu A aj

dear friend, ami, if your conscience pricks you, kr?n quirt. Mr. J sit t aslcd if Mr. Bel! Would accept a suggestion, Hint in tho event of hotel? boinpr taken into a. No-License district throughTearrangoment of boundaries, tin licensing issues should bo decidcd by bare majority. Mr. Ml said til at the effecting of that proposal would cicnto anomalies. > .Mr. Isitt concluded by Miying that they would tight Iho Bill clauso by clause, and that even at the third rending he would lu prepared to move the proposal he had already referred to. ' Support for the Bill. [ Mr. J. VIGOR. liliOWX (Napier) s.iid i he felt inclined to speak after the heated ■ address of the member for Christchureh [ North. That, honourable gentleman was i accustomed to addressing audiences that i always agreed with liim—Sunday school children, young people, and the like. Mr. Isitt: Sunday school children don't > throw rotten eggs. Mr. lirown: You've never had any rotten ■ eggs. Mr. Jsitt: Oil, yes, I hove. Mr. lirown: Oh well, they've done von i no harm. He went, on to twit Mr. Isitt : with having adopted *an unnecessarily • patronising'tono in discussing the knowledge of law of Mr. Bell, who was a trained lawyer. Ho supported the Bill as being , an attempt to give justice to people with whom circumstances had dealt unfairly. , Compensation. Mr. ,T. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) said that ho was in favour of the bars majority, but that lie was not in favour of publichouses . being wiped out through a rearrangement of electoral boundaries. II hotels wero to bo closed, it should be by tho vote of the people. The question of compensation should/not bo dismissed summarily. Take the' case of men who had taken up poor lands many years age and had now brought them to be smiling viticulture farms; if National Prohibition' wcro carried those farmers would be very heavy losers. ' Must not a question of compensation' be considered there ? ■ Mr. F. H. SMITH '(Waitaki) said that lie intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, because an injustice had been done to places which had been shut, not by the voice of the people, .but by an alteration in boundaries. However, lie ivould not vote for the third reading of tho Bill while it embodied what it did at Dissent. Mr. J. A. HAXAN .(Invercargill) accused the members of the Government for keeping their mouths shut concernin? the measure, 1 It' was the duty of Ministers of the Crown to speak their opinions on a measure which was to be retrospective in its operation. Such a ■measure wculd establish a dangerous precedent which would have to l;e followed later. An Amendment. - . ■ » Mr. A. HERRIES (Waitcmafa) said that he intended to tuovc' an amendment to the effect that the Bill should. be read this day six months. - If the Bill was to be.retrospective, it"ought to be niade retrospective' right, back to tho'"beginning of things. There was a growing feeling in tho country against the granting of licenses to; hotels, "and-, if the No-License party, which was already, under a serious handicap, was going to-be asked to bear another injustice, they, were not going to submit to it. 1 The licenses referred to had already been wiped out, and there was no power to restore them, so it was absurd to ask the House to. do so. Mr. Herries then moved tlie amendment indicated above. Dr. A. K-. NEWMAN (Wellington East) seconded the amendment-He thought .that the Bill, was a'bad one. He did tiot think that boundary commissioners should have siich great. power that tlify could take hotels out of one .electorate and put.' theta into another district. The •Temperance party was seriously handicapped, and theirs was tho only case in New .Zealand in which one voter had an advantage over another. Ho objected to tho system cf making licensing districts coterminous with electoral districts. There should l;o fairly laige licensing electorates. - and there should be some fixity in the mittw. ,It had be2ll a. bad day for New Zealand when it was decided to hold the licensing and the general elections on the fame day. It would be a good thing for the country to 'have the licensing,question settled. Retrospective Legislation. Mr. .1. 11. ESCOTT (Pahiatua) said that he intended to oppose the BilK There should not be any retrospective legislation; if there was, the consequences would lie serious. He believed that hotel licenses should not be taken away -except by vote ot »the people, and he would bo prepared to support a. Bill embodying that principle so long ns it was not retrospective. Individual crises of hardship made very bad legislation. Mr. 11. G. ELL (Christchurch South) •said that he intended to vote'for the amendment, and that if that did not attain his purpose he would vote against the second reading of the Bill. Mr. A. H. HINDMAKSH (Wellington South) said that he would oppose the Bill because tho measure had not been submitted to the people by Mr. Bell or anyone else at the last election. Mr. Bell said that he had mentioned it. Mr. Hindmarsh: I didn't hear it in your speeches. Mr. Bell: You didn't attend my meetings. Mr. Hindmarsh; No, but I read your speeches. In reply to a question by Mr. Hindmarsh, Mr. Bell said that lie had mentioned tho matter in his speeches over the electorate generally, nnd particularly in the "portion affected. When the Speaker ■ was putting the question, Ml". Isitt, who had been aboutto leave tho Chamber, rushed back to speak to the-amendment • Mr. A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) said the only way to correct existing licensing anomalies was to allow the poll to be taken on tho baro majority. A Close Division. The Hon., A. T. NGATA (Eastern Maori) moved the adjournment of the debate, at IUO p.m. . He thought an adjournment was desirable if only for a week, in order that the Government might make up their minds on some aspects of the licensing question. Dr. Te Rangihiroa (Northern Maori) seconded the motion. 1 Tho motion was carried by 32 votes to 30. Following was tho division list:— Ayes (32) — • Noes (30)— Anderson Allen Atmore' , Bell ' " Bradney Bollard (2) Buddo Campbell Buxton Carroll Crqigie Coates ' Ell Colvin Escott Davey ' Fisher Dickie Forbes Dickson • ' Harris Eraser Hindmarsh Glover Hihe " ' Guthrie • Isitt Herdman Laurenson Herries - - Macdonald Hunter Malcolm , Lee Mande'r Jf'Callum Dr. -Newman M'Ronzio Ngata Massey Okey Nosworthy Payne Pearce Rangihir'oa Pomare RobertsonX. Rhodes, R. H, Russell Scott Smith, E. W. . Smith, F. 3JSyke3 Ward Thomson' (2) Wilford Yeitch Witty Wilson Young Pairs: Hanan (aye), Brown (no),