LICENSING BILL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2217, 1 August 1914, Page 3

LICENSING BILL

AMENDMENTS IN COMMUTE BOUNDARY HARDSHIPS. The House went into Committee on tho Licensing Bill at 8.20 p.m. •Tho Right Hon. W, P. Massey said that he had had several amendments drafted, and others had been, handed to him for consideration. He had forwarded .'them to the Crown Law Office, and they had advised that it would not Bo fair to ask Parliament to agree to tile amendments iii,their present form. The' amendments would, however, be handed over to the Leader of the Council, and, if possible, they would be introduced into the Bill there. Mr. Isitt: Does that include wine? Mr. Massey!: That amendment has already been agreed to, but I want to amend that also.

The amendments, standing in the name of the member for Grey Lynn providing for the carrying of national prohibition by the vote of "a majority of the electors of the Dominion," and for compulsory voting, were defeated on the voices. ■

Mr. T. M. Wilford asked leave to withdraw his amendments proposing to abolish the local option poll. ' He had intended to move them only in the event of the clause to reduce the majority to carry local No-License from 60 per cent, to 55 per cent, being car-' ned. - . ■ ' • ■ • , The amendments were -withdrawn. The Boundary Hardship, . Mr. W. moved an amendment to deal with the case of parts'of license areas becoming No-License areae by being' transferred on a readjustment of_ boundaries into a No-License area. His amendment provided,that a License district put into a No-License aTea in this way should still retain licenses, unless at a poll subsequently taken 60 per cent, of the people in this special gart .of the electorate declared against licenses. His proposal was retrospective. ■• ■' ■ -■~ ■ --: The Right Hon. W. F. Massey, said he could not accept the amehdment; Hβ realised that on account of such circum 7 stances as had been mentioned; by Mr. Bell, certain hardsliips were caused, but he objected to retrospective legislation. He would be prepared to consider an amendment to provide against the loss of licenses ,in; future otherwise than by a vote of the people, but he did not think, the Act under consideration was .the beat' Act in which to insert it.

' Sir Joseph. Ward supported the amendment. ; , .•

ThejHon. F. M. B.,Fisher said that he too would vote for the amendment. He was pledged to the bare majority, and would vote for it, but he would not vote Vto- perpetuate the present unfair state of things,, which conferred upon the boundary commissioners the powers of the whole population of certain districte. He held that licenses should not be taken away by the boundary commissioners,;but by the vote of the,people,' ','.'.. Mr. A. H. HindmaTsh thoi»

proposal was dangerous because it was retrospective.- . r':'.,. •, ' . '. Dr. A. t K. .Newraan opposed , the amendment, saying that it was being introduced by Mr. Bell in the face ot the wishes of his own electors. l Mr. Bell: That.is not so. . ■ Mr. H. G. Ell mado a suggestion that the proper way to deal with the question was to pase alaw:prohibiting the Commissioners i from 'including a publicJhouse in a No-License area , in. re-' Distribution of boiindaries. •■■.-. ,;,;This proposal met iswith general ■■■■ proval, even the Prohibitionists in the House favouring it. ■ Mr. Boll's amendments, which ot course were now-clauses, were divided up into Clauses 6 to 11. Clause 6, on which the discussion had taken place, was purely an interpretation clause. The second reading of this clause was agreed to by. 34 votes to 27. .:' Following was the division list:— Ayes . (34).—Allen, Atmore, Bell, . BradneyV Browji, \ Buchanan, Carroll, Coates, Davey, Dick-son, Fisher, Glover, j Herdman, Herries, ' Lee, M'Callum, M'Kenzie, Millar, Myers, Parata, Poland, Pomare, Rangihiroa, Reed, Scott, Seddon, F. H. Smith, Statham, Sykes, Veitch, Ward, Wilford, Witty, Young.-

Noes ,(27).—Anderson, R. F. Bollard, Buxton, Campbell, Craigie, Ell, Escott, Guthrie, Harris, Hindmarsh, Hine, Isitt, M'Combs, Mander, Massey, Dr. A. K. Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Poarce, T. W. Rhodes, Robertson, R. W. Smith, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Webb, Wilkinson, Wilson. Pairs:— ' Ayes: Forbes, Dickie, Mac Donald, Hunter, Fraser. ' ' ■ -. ■■ . Noes: Buddo, Clark, Ngata,, Sykea, Escott. A Shorter Method. After the division Mr. Bell suggested that the Committee should next deal frith; Clause 9, the retrospective clause to , Which -exception had been taken, referring to loss of licenses owing to changes.,in the boundaries. If that clause were defeated he would not proceed .with his amendments, but would, instead, go on with an amendment 'on the lines of Mr. H. 6. Ell's suggestion— that the representation commissioners should, not be allowed to alter boundaries so as to include in No-License districts parts of license' districts in which there '■ were hotels actually'licensed. .., '. ;'-. .-■■ • The clause was struck out by 38 votes fcj 23. .if , ,. '•• Following was the division/list:— ; Ayes (23).—Atmore Bell, Brown, Buchanan, Carroll, Coates, v Dickson, Glover, Herdmari, Hemes, Lee, M'Callum, Mijlar, Myers, Parata, Pomare, Rangihiroa, Seddon, F. H. Smith, ,6tatham, Sykes, Ward, Wilford. * Noes (38).—Allen, Anderson, R. F. 'Bollard, Bradney, Buxton, Campbell, Craigie, Davey, Ell, Escott, Fishery Guthrie, , Harris, Hindmarsh, Hine, Isitt, M'Combs, M'Kenzie, •' Mander, Massey, Dr. A. K. Newman, Nosworthv, Okey, Pearce, 'Poland, Reed, T. W. Rhodes, Robertson, Scott, R. W. Smith, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Veitch, Webb, Wilkinson, . Wilson, Witty, Young. ... , Pairs:— . • ''. '. Ayes.—Forbes, Dickie, Mac Donald, Hunter, Fraser. Noes.—B.uddoj Clark, Ngata, Sykos, Escott. ' . : ■ Mr. Bell moved at once that Clause 6, previously agreed to, should be struck out; Tho Committee having disagreed with the retrospective clause, no redress could be giveu in casos where changes had already been made in boundaries, and it would not be necessary to follow his method to provide against injustice' for the'.future. . For this there.was a shorter method suggested by the member for Christohurch South', and accepted by the Prime Minister. Clause 6 was struck out, and Mr. Bell moved a new clause, which had, he said, been drawn by the Prime Minister. It provided that' when tho Commissioners were dividing New Zenland into electoral districts they should, wherever practicable, fix boundaries so' that licensed houses should not bo brought within No-License districts, and that where changes had been made which did bring licensed houses into NoLiccrise districts, tho Commissioners should givo their reasons for tho change. The clause was read a'second time, and added to the Bill. Other Amendments. A new clause to make it unlawful for the holders of wholesale licenses to sell liquor, to minors, and to put upon them exactly the samo restrictions as the' law now imposes on retail liquor sellers, Shis proposed by Mr. J. B. Hino, and aiWoil to the Bill. A new. ckuse moved by_ Mr, T. M. }VH- y

ford.to permit a woman ivbo, has obtained a divorce against her husband to hold an hotel license was added to tho BIU. Mr. Wilford pointed out that tho law was now anomalous in that it allowed a widow to hold a license, or a woman who ' had a protection order against her husband, but did not allow a woman who had divorced her husband. The Bill was reported with amendments. The House rose at 11.53 p.m. ,