LICENSING REFORM

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 268, 6 August 1920, Page 8

LICENSING REFORM

MR, M'CALLUM'S BILL

THE HOUSE DISCUSSES LIQUOR

Mr B. M Callum (Wairau) moved the second reading of his State Control of Mcenses Bill in tho House of Uepresonratives yesterday. Ho said that the present licensing law was forty years old licenses con d comply with the law by providing a bare six rooms for the travelling public, and in consequence there nas a great and growing shortage of.accommodation. Tins position would grow o! , ttor ,lnder present conditions, since tho issue of new licenses had been effectively blocked, and the existing licenses had no -security Tho aw of 18!) i had created a monopoly of icenses, and ho believed that (his had been a factor in the spread of prohibitiou. 1 eoplo had voted prohibition in *>me districts becansp tliey resented tho holding of a monopoly by a few ppoplo Iho Government said- Mr. JfCallimi would be well advised to sot up a commission to study tho whole iwsition and nwki recommendations. His Bill was nicrelv a sketch of the legislation he conceived to bo required. It proposed to save the Government increased control of licenses, to abolish monopoly, to provide tor tho payment of compensation in tho event of prohibition being carried. He would abolish the national prohibition issue, prevent trafficking in licenses, and secure tho quality of liquor. The local option poll, under the Bill, would lie retained, but would bo taken at intervals of six years. He believed that if present conditions were retained prohibition might be carried; licensing refnr.u would convinco tho people that prohibition was not necessary. Tho Bi.l sugRested various lines of reform. , Prohibition members of tho lton:,s proceeded to ridicule tho Bill. They wanted to know what the author of the Bill meant when he proposed that the Minuter should make regulations "to prohibit the sale of liquor at any bar or in the presence of moro than a certain number of persons, 3 ' and "to establish rewards for those employed in hotel bars and S'lio conducted tho 'same s 0 that those addicted or becoming addicted to intemperanco will be restrained,, or reformed." They asked the House to do the member for Wairau a kindness by killing his Bill at once. '

Mr. L. M. Isit'. (Christchurch North) denied vehemently that reform of tho liquor traffic was possible. , Alcohol was a poison tliat could''not be control'led. and that would take its toll of each generation under any system of sale. Mr. Isitt ironically described ilr. M'Calhmi's scheme as a proposal to set up tho liquor trade in the guise of a philanthropic guild, with the publicans as bishops and tho barmen us curates. "A Dorcas Society," suggested tho Hon. Dr. Pomare.

"If the honourable member will strike out twenty-eight clauses of the Bill and amend the 29th, I am prepared to support tho Bill," announced Mr. D. Jones (Kaiapoi). The clause Mr. Jones favoured was that which proposed to make the publica.ii pay as hceiiso fee a percentage on the amount of liquor sold. Mr. "W. ]). Lysnnr (Gisborne) tcld the House that prohibition was not the remedy for '.excessive drinking. Prohibition increased drinking—the caso of Invercargill gave proof ot that. Tho liquor poll should be held on another date than that of the general election. The unrest caused by the taking of a poll every three years wa9 a direct cause of the difficulty that people experienced in obtaining hotel accommodation to-dny. Mr. Lysnar. hoped that the Government would take up tho liquor question and see what .could be done in tho way of practical reform.

Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutlia) toso to dispute'Mt. Lysnnr's assertions about the effect of prohibition on the nniount of liquor consumed. During tile three nnd a half years following the introduction of prohibition in Clutlia, as compared with the three and a half years before, lie said, the number of convictions for drunkenness fell from 167 to six. Tlio decrease in consumption of liqucr per licad wasl equally striking. Mr. H. Atmoro (Nelson) claimed that there was' no fray of finding out accurately tho amount of liquor taken into a no-license area. . M'r. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that the no-licenso cause should not bo charged with the amount: of liquor taken into no-liconso areas, beeauso it was from adjoining licensed areas that tho liquor was imported. He believed that the humanitarian "argument was tho soundest advanced in favour of prohibition. Tho mero "national efficiency argument was not sufficient. Ail appeal must be made on a higher ground than tho mere business question. Mr. W. D. Eowdrell (Patea) saw m the Bill, with its many proposals for reform, a sweeping admission of the many evils of the liquor traffic.. The discussion rtvealed a widespread opinion among members that hotel license fees ought to l>e increased. Suecessive speakers pointed out that the license fee had not been increased for several decades, and that it was the snme for all classes of hotels, A uij? city hotel, with a goodwill worth many thousands of pounds, paid the same license fee m a small country hotel .of low value. ' The speakers suggested that the Government; could obtain a largely increased revenue by graduating the license fees. ilr. D. .Tones (Kaiapoi) declared that the fees should be tho, actual market value of the licenses in all eases. Mr. M'Callnm, in reply, described as "insincere humbugs" the people . who took drink and yet voted for prohibition. The banning'of the liquor trade, he declared nmid many interjections from tne prohibition members, would mean the enslavement of the workers" nnd .the wrecking of the national character. He assured the House that his Bill represented the result of many hours' labour, nnd that he was not working, in the interests of the liquor trade in making proposals for reform. When Mr. M'Callum' sat down, Mr. M'Combs (I/vttelton) suggested that the Bill should be ruled out of order as containing nrnironriation clauses. The Speaker said that the usual practice was to give a private member's Bill a second reading withojit. too close nil examination. The Bill was read a second time without dissent