LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL, 1927

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 96, 21 January 1928, Page 10

LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL, 1927

A BRIEF REVIEW

Since the above Bill failed to pass into law, owing to disagreement between the two Legislative Assemblies relative to its provisions, the New Zealand Alliance has been attempting to create public sympathy with it in its failure to attain its objective by unfairly criticising the Prime Minister, the members of the Lower House who opposed its views, and the Upper House whose actions ultimately resulted in the Bill being dropped. As one who has been closely associated with the licensed trade and licensing legislation of past years, and as President of the National Council of New Zealand it seems to me essential that, the electors of New Zealand, especially the great moderate party who hold the balance of power between the two extreme factions, viz., the licensed trade and the prohibitionists, should have the Position regarding past licensing legislation and the recent Bill concisely placed before them so that they may form an unbiased opinion on the much discussed licensing question and on the actions of the New Zealand Alliance and others relative thereto. It is necessary for me in this connection to briefly review what has eventuated in the past respecting licensing measures. It has been generally conceded that licensing bills have little chance of passing into law, owing to the bitter opposition of the two extreme factions, unless some compromise is agreed to by these opposing forces. In these compromises the rights and privileges of the moderate section of the country have been regarded but of little moment in comparison with those of the extremists on both sides. In the past no licensing bill has been introduced as a Government measure—such a bill has always been sponsored by a private member, and unless a compromise has been effected it has invariably failed to pass into law. The New Zealand Alliance, realising this position in the light of past experience, adopted at tlie last ejections the policy of obtaining signed pledges relative to their particular objectives in licensing matters from those Parliamentary candidates who were willing to give them. It was successful in obtaining pledges in this direction from fifty-two members out of a House of eighty members and, as an assurance had been given by the Prime Minister that he would introduce a licensing Bill in Parliament it naturally felt that with these pledges in its hands it would be successful in attaining its object without the necessity of agreeing to a compromise, as had been the case in past years. As to how, desnite these pledges, its efforts were rendered nugatory, I will refer to . later on. The ‘main objectives which the New Zealand Alliance had in view in connection with recent legislation were the non-extension of the present triennial licensing polls and the adoption of a two-issues ballot paper of National Continuance and National Prohibition on a bare majority deciding vote. It is difficult to understand its action in connection with its advocacy of a two-issues paper and the bare majority deciding vote when its actions in pa’st years in connection with licensing, measures are carefully noted and reviewed. In tlie year 1910 a . Licensing. Bill was propounded by Sir John Findlay, as the then Attorney-General, and a conference was held between representatives of the New Zealand Alliance and the Licensed Trade relative thereto. A compromise or compact was agreed to between these representatives which was then duly submitted bv the representatives of the New Zealand Alliance to a conference of delegates for confirmation or otherwise. These delegates, by a vote of 76 to 60, approved of the compact, but despite this majority in favour of the confirmation of the compact, it was decided by the delegates that it was not -sufficient to warrant the Alliance proceeding further with the compromise. In other words, “a bare majority” vote was not sufficient (o suit the Alliance’s purpose, but that it required a very stable majority to bind its members to a matter of policy. Tlie report relative to this matter appeared in the Wellington “Evening Post” on June 24, 1910, and reads as follows: “A compact was approved bv 76 to CO, and on the suggestion of Mr. Wesley Spragg, president of the Auckland Prohibition League, a committee was set up of equal numbers on both sides to see if some working compromise could not be arrived at between the majority and the minoritv so that a united front should be presented.” In the leading article, “Evening Post,” June 25, 1910, the following statement appears: . “It was then agreed,” says the official report, “to treat the division as confirming the compromise, but to proceed no further with it owing to the closeness of the division.”

In the same year a Licensing _ Bill was passed into law making provision for tlie determination of the questions of For or Against National Prohibition bv a two-issues ballot paper. . . . Prohibition to be carried by a 60 per cent, vote and not to come into force until four vears after the date of the poll. In 1914 the form of the issues on the ballot paper was altered to “National Continuance” and “National Prohibition.”

his two-issues ballot paper, providing the issues in the same wording as was inserted in the Prime Minster’s Bill o£ this year (National Continuance

or National Prohibition) remained in force until 1918, when representatives of the New Zealand Alliance, as a resuit of a compact, agreed to its repeal and accepted in substitution therefor the present three-issues ballot paper of National Continuance, State Control and National Prohibition upon which prohibition can be carried by a bare majority ol the votes recorded at the poll. Finding that as a result of recent polls the electors who favour abolition of liquor in this Dominion were in a minority, the New Zealand Alliance has again somersaulted in its policy and now advocates a reversion to the same two-issues ballot paper on the National question, which it agreed in 1918 to jettison in favour of the present three-issues ballot paper, with a -are majority vote as the deciding factor. Its vacillating policy has, however, this difference, that it now seeks a “bare majority” deciding vote on such a two-issues ballot paper to come into operation on the last day of June subsequent to the poll instead of a .60 per cent, vote with a four years’ respite before the vote comes into operation. It will be extremely difficult, for the moderate voters of the Dominion to understand such tortuous conduct, especially in the light that the voters in the Dominion have shown conclusively that they were, by a substantial majority, in favour of the retention of liquor as against its abolition. Such was tlie position which confronted the Prime Minister when he had to consider the nature of the Bill he had undertaken to introduce, dealing with the licensed hotel trade in the best interests of the people of this Dominion. With a full sense of his responsibility in the matter, he had the courage to formulate and introduce a Licensing Bill in a Parliament, in which he knew a majority of its members were pledged on lines contrary to the principles enunciated by him. This Bill contained many good reforms, providing for a better administration of the existing principles, viz., one for the the existing licensing laws, and also two main principles, viz., ’ one for the extension of licensing polls to every alternative Parliamentary election, such extension to take effect after the next election, and the other the substitution for the present three-issues ballot paper—of a two-issues ballot paper —such issues being national continuance and national prohibition, with a 55 per cent, majority requisite to carry the latter issue. As a corollary to the extension of the time between the poll as proposed by him, extended powers were given to licensing committees to order the completion by owners ol licensed hotels of such alterations and additions to licensed premises as might in their opinion be requisite to meet the demands of tourists and the travelling public. ' The Bill so introduced by the Prime Minister was disapproved of by not only the licensed trade and the prohibition party, but also by the License Reform Association, who advocated corporate control. The Bill duly came before the Lower House, and the New Zealand Alliance took active steps with those members who had signed pledges to remind them of their pledges and, to see that they acted strictly in accordance therewith. Many members expressed regret that their pledges stood in the way of their supporting a Bill which otherwise they would have liked to support. Their pledges, however, became effective, and the provisions of tire Bill relative to extension of the time for polls and the 5'5 per cent, majority deciding vote were deleted, a bare majority being inserted in lieu of the latter. In this form it ultimately left the Lower House for consideration by the Legislative Council, which, fortunately for the people of this Dominion, was composed of unpledged members who could consider the Bill calmly and dispassionately. As a result of the deliberations of this Council the Bill emerged therefrom practically in the form in which it was introduced into the Lower Mouse by the Prime Minister, with the exception that the 55 per cent, majority to carry Prohibition was reduced to a 52J per cent, majority. Certain other reforms in the direction of the better conduct of licensed hotels were introduced in the interests of the general public. The fate of the Bill, owing to disagreement between the two Houses, is well known. As the three-issues ballot paper still remains in force and no section of the people is disfranchised thereunder, the licensed trade are content with the position and the non-passage of the Bill. It is only fair, however, to the large moderate section of tlie people that they should realise which party was solely responsible for the defeat of a Licensing Bill possessing such merits in their interests, and generally those of the people. This party was tlie New Zealand Alliance, tlie executive controlling authority of the prohibition movement in this Dominion. This alliance stands solely for the abolition of liquor from' this Dominion. It cares nothing for reforms in the general interests of the people. It places prohibition before all other political questions affecting the welfare and progress of this Dominion. Because it has failed to obtain its objective of' a bare majority two-issues ballot paper, it endeavours to sow the seeds of dissension amongst elected Government members and is behind some of these members in their threat to consider their positions as members of the Government part}’ if their ultimatum is not acceded to by the Prime Minister. It seeks' to create a public sympathy with its prohibition movement and to cloud the real issues by speciously stating and protesting that the action of the Legislative Council is opposed to the rights, and the expressed wishes of the people—when it knows that in reality it is nothing of the sort—as the mere' fact of the pledges held by them in no way demonstrates that the members who signed the pledges were elected solely by reason thereof. It knows full well that these members were elected mainly by reason of their support of the platforms of the respective political parties—their pledges being merely an incident in connection with their election. It knows also that had it released the members from tlFeir pledges and not interfered with their political freedom the Licensing Bill, as introduced by the Prime Minister, would have been passed into law by a considerable majority. Had the Bill been so passed licensing polls, would, after the next licensing poll, have been taken at every alternate general election and hotel owners would probably have had to face the expenditure throughout the Dominion of a sum of probably in excess of £1,000,000 in. connection with hotel properties. This expenditure would have given employment to thousands of workers and would have met the reasonable requirements of tourists and the general public. Administrative reforms in the public interest providing for the better conduct of hotels would also have been brought into effect. All this has been defeated solely through the unreasonable attitude adopted by the New Zealand Alliance and its desire to force its views upon the people by tactics which deserve to be censured and reprehended. The New Zealand Alliance is prepared to subordinate all political questions affecting the welfare and progress of this Dominion to the one question of “Prohibition” and to achieve this it is prepared, if necessary, to disrupt any Government which may be in power. It desires to obtain legislative authority to apparently make it easier for it to force upon this Country the nostrum of Prohibition which has proved a failure in all countries in which it has been tried. Had this Dominion i not had a strong Prime Minister at the

head of its Government who was prepared to sponsor only such a Licensing Bill as appeared to him to be in the best interests of the general public and with the courage to stand up for his convictions, together with a Legislative Council capable of dispassionately considering the licensing issue, the hew Zealand Alliance might have, been successful in attaining its objective by the questionable tactics adopted by it. I have stated the position as concisely as possible in the hope that the large body of moderate voters in this Dominion will put the blame of obstructing true licensing reforms upon the proper party viz.. The New Zealand Alliance. and express their views relative to the methods fodowed by such Alliance by voting at the next licensing poll against the principle of prohibition or Abolition of Linaor. 1 ALFRED S. BANKART. President National Council of the Licensed Trade of b.Z. (Published by Arrangement.)