THE LICENSING BILL

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 302, 21 September 1928, Page 13

THE LICENSING BILL

FATE STILL IN DOUBT MEASURE SEVERELY MUTILATED SLENDER MAJORITY EXPECTED The fate of the Licensing Amendment Bill is still in doubt. As was generally expected, the House of Representatives m Committee has amended the major clauses to provide for a threeyearly tenure and settlement of the two-issue poll by a bare majority of the voters. The bulk of the machinery provisions jwere debated at some length, during the resumed proceedings (which constituted the main business of the House yesterday), and divisions were taken on all questions where there was a mat Red difference of opinion. The Prime Minister has intimated that in view of the nature of the amendments he cannot take charge of the Bill at its third reading. The belief is held in some quarters that the third reading of the Bill will be carried by a slender majority,

After it had affirmed the principles of She three-year tenure and the two-issue ballot-paper in the early hours of yesterday morning, the committee faced its most critical division on the details of the Bill —that on the question of the majority. The Bill proposed that the carrying of national prohibition or national restoration should depend on either issue receiving the endorsement of fifty-five per cent, of the voters, and when the clause came up for consideration the members became absorbed in a discussion as to which of several amendments that were advanced should have priority. The ruling of the chairman of the committee (Mr. F. F. Hoddy) was challenged, and was referred to Mr. Speaker, and eventually it was decided that Mr. J. Bitchener (Waitaki) should have precedence. By 43 votes to 30 the fifty-five per cent, provision was deleted, and the pros and cons of an amendment moved by Mr. H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay) suggesting determination by a majority of fifty-two and a half per cent, were gone Into. This proposal was defeated by 42 votes to 29. Mr. Bitchener then moved as a further amendment that the question should be decided by a bare majority, and this was carried by 42 votes to 30. The Vital Division. What can be taken as the vital divi don list on this aspect was as under:— For the bare majority (42): Armstrong J. A. Lea Bartram Linklater Bellringer McCombs Bitchener Martin Buddo H. G. R. Mason Burnett Ngata Dickie Parry J. McC. Dickson Potter Forsyth Ransom Fraser Reid Girling F. J. Rolleston A. Hamilton Savage J. R. Hamilton Sidey Harris Stewart H. Holland Sullivan H. E. Holland Sykes Howard Tapley D. Jones Waite W. Jones Walter Kyle Wright E. P. Lee Young Against the bare majority (30): Atmore Lysnar Bell McLennan Campbell McLeod Coates Macmillan J. S. Dickson J. Mason Eliott Nash Field J. C. Rolleston Forbes Samuel Glenn Seddon Hawken Smith Henare Uru Horn Veitch Hudson Ward Hunter Wilford Luke Williams Following the course he took last year ■when the House amended his proposals in similar fashion, the Prime Minister then intimated that he could not undertake to sponsor the Bill through its third reading, but that he would accede to a request that he should see it through the remaining Committee stages. “Members will realise that, as far as the Bill I introduced is concerned, it has lost all recognition almost of what I think were the masterful proposals and principles contained in it,” Mr. Coates said. “However, I am anxious that, if possible, during this Parliament we should get a Bill through the House that will, I hope, have the effect of satisfying the majority of members of Parliament. I am going to persevere and try to do it.” (Hear, hear.) In view of the alterations the Committee hud made to the Bill, Mr. Coates said he would have to ask some other member to move the third reading of the measure. A member: Who will you ask to take charge of the Bill for its third reading? The Prime Minister: Any member can take charge of it. , Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East): Give it to Mr. Lysnar. (Laughter.) At this stage, 3.5 a.m,, Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) moved that progress be reported. To Kill the Bill. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that the effect of carrying such a motion would be to kill the Bill. Mr. Wilford: I hope so. Mr. McCombs: Had the motion contained the words, “With leave to sit again,” the Bill might come back. If the motion is carried, however, the Bill cannot coine back. Mr. Wilford’s proposal is to kill the Bill dead at this stage. Mr. Wilford: In order that there may be no mistake, I wish to say that that is my desire. (Loud laughter.) The Prime Minister said he could not accept a motion to report progress. He desired to see the Bill through. (Hear, hear.) . . The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. JI. E. Holland) : Is it proposed that we should go on for two or three hours more on the other controversial clauses' The Prime Minister: I want to make iiome headway. The Leader of the Opposition said it was clear the Bill in its amended form was not acceptable to the Prime Minister, who, however, intended to go on with it at the cost of time and money. Nothing would be gained by doing that. Voices: Let’s get on. We don t want to go home. A member: Rot! Mr. Holland: I think the farce has gone far enough. Voices: Hear, hear. On a division the motion to report progress was lost by 55 votes to 18. The House endorsed by 36 votes to 27 the proposal in the Bill giving winemakers the right to dispose of wines containing up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit. The Prime Minister said that the winemakers now had authority to manufacture wine up to that strength, but thev could not sell. Progress with leave to sit again was reported at 4.40 a.m., and the House yose. The Fight Resumed. Protest against the inclusion of the clause which sought to confer the right to object to the renewal of a license on the specific ground that the premises were not provided with a sufficient hotwater service was made by Mr. W. is. Glenn (Rangitikei) when the debate was renewed in the afternoon. His plea was for the licensees of small country hotels, and he contended that since the ■lx-year tenui proposal had been defeated it would not be fair to require such hotelkeepers to go to the expense «f putting in a hot-water service. “I am sick and tired of hearing about

the poor country hotelkeeper and the poor farmer,” said Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central). He urged that the average hotelkeeper would not object to the clause and that Mr. Glenn was doing the licensees a disservice by objecting to it. The clause was agreed to. Goodwill Ban Dropped. The clauses seeking to prohibit the payment of goodwill and to give a licensing committee the right to impose conditions with regard to additions, alterations and repairs to hotel buildings and furnishings were withdrawn. The Prime Minister said it had been agreed that the inclusion of the clauses would be conditional on the House agreeing to an increase in the tenure and to the poll being determined by other than a bare majority. The House had decided on the three-yearly tenure and the bare majority, aud, in view of the understanding, he asked that the clauses be deleted from the Bill. Some modifications might be found, and if that were so he would arrange to have them brought forward in the Legislative Council. The House agreed to Mr. Coates’s suggestion. Advertisements in No-license Areas. There was some discussion on the clause dealing with the publication in no-license districts of advertisements relating to liquor. The Bill provided that it would be no offence to publish such advertisements unless the Court were satisfied that they were published with the express purpose of soliciting orders for liquor from no-license areas. Mr. R. W. Smith (Waimarino) moved that the latter portion of the clause be deleted, his contention, and that of other speakers, being that it would act unfairly against the small country newspaper published a dry area, as the metropolitan papers with the liquor advertisements would have the right of circulation. References by Labour members to the “big metropolitan papers” brought Mr. Wilford to his feet with a copy of the “New Zealand Worker” containing a substantial advertisement for a particular stout. “I know it circulates in the King Country,” Mr. Wilford said, “as in the news columns it shows the contribution Waimarino has made to the Labour Party’s election campaign fund.” “What is the amount?” queried Labour members. Mr. Wilford: One pound and sixpence. (Loud laughter.) Mr. McCombs claimed that the clause was a deliberate attempt to thwart the will of the people and what the people themselves had done. “The only thing that is sacred in this country is not the will of the people but the will of liquor as expressed through the legislation of this house,” lie declared. “ . . There are certain interests in this House who are prepared to have the rights of the people overridden for the divine rights of beer and the divine rights of whisky. . . . Democracy is being sacrificed to the liquor and the vested interests of this country.” Mr. W. S. Glenn said it was nonsense for Mr. McCombs to talk catchwords about the will of the people when, as far as the King Country was concerned, the members representing the two districts there —Waitoino and Waimarino —-were returned to Parliament by a majority of thousands of “wet” votes. On a division the amendment was carried by 47 votes to 24, and the clause as amended was passed. Other Clauses Approved. After further discussion the Committee approved without amendment the clauses relative to the restriction on the emplovment of women in bars; unlawful sale of liquor; the offence of supplying liquor to young persons; discretionary power of the Court in regard to endorsement of licenses; the liability of licensees for acts or defaults of servants or agents; the application to Polynesians of certain provisions relative to Natives; and delivery of liquor in proclaimed areas. , „ Liquor at Banquets. There was some discussion on the clause which proposed to empower the police to authorise hotels and chartered clubs to sell and serve liquor at banquets or similar functions, held in a room set apart as a dining room, up to 10 p.m., instead of 8 p.m. under the existing law. In the case of the clubs, the Bill sought to limit the extension to one occasion only within a period of six months. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) moved an amendment designed to remove the limitation proposed with respect to chartered clubs, suggesting that the maximum number of occasion should be fixed at six a year, and that the absence of a dining room should not be a barrier to the granting of an application. Prohibition members suspected in the proposal an increase in the facilities for drinking, but supporters of the amendment contended that the concession would not be abused, aud that it meant the removal of what were now regarded as harassing restrictions. On a division, the amendment was carried by 43 votes to 25. The division list was as follows :— Ayes (43) : Noes (25) : Armstrong Bellringer Atmore Bitchener Bartram Burnett. Bell Dickie Buddo .1. Me. Dickson Campbell Eliott Coates J. R. Hamilton J. S. Dickson Harris Forbes 11. Holland Forsyth Howard Fraser W. Jones Girling Kyle Glenn McCombs 11. A. Hamilton Martin Hawken Nash Henare Potter H. E. Holland Ransom Horn Reid Hudson Sidey Hunter Sullivan D. Jones Sykes Linklater Waite Luke Walter Lysnar Wright McLennan Young McLeod McMillan 11. G. R. Mason J. Mason Parry Pomare F. J. Rolleston J. C. Rolleston Samuel Savage Smith Stewart Tapley Uru Veitch Ward Wilford William#

Without discussion the Committee approved the clauses giving discretionary power for the cancellation of charters on the ground that a licensing offence has been committed within a club, and providing for the keeping by innkeepers of a lodgers’ registration book. No Registration of Barmen. The registration of barmen clause came in for criticism from members of the Labour Party, who objected to these men being sing'led out for registration and control by the police. . The Prime Minister said he considered the clause an important one. He thought that if the men were to be vested with authority to dispense liquor, the people should know something about them. “What is wrong with the barmen now?” asked Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn). “Nothing that I know of,” the Prime Minister replied. “Their union does not want registration,” Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) interjected. The Prime Minister: Now you are putting them in the hands of the union. Mr. Bartram : Better in the hands of the union than iu the hands of the police. (Laughter.) The Prime Minister mentioned that the general object of the Bill was to improve the licensed trade, and the registration clause was part of the scheme. After some discussion, the Prime Minister said he had told the representatives of the barmen’s organisation that he did not regard the clause as vital, although he thought it was a desirable one. He was prepared to withdraw it. Mr. E. J.. Howard (Christchurch South) : The Prime Minister has stopped me from making about twenty good speeches, but I will now say “Thank you” to him. The clause was withdrawn. Women Licensees. In accordance with the intimation he gave to the House on the second reading of the Bill, the Prime Minister moved for the insertion of a new clause giving authority for married women, being daughters or sisters of deceased licensees, to hold the licenses of the premises affected. The clause was added to the Bill, as was also one moved by Mr. Lysnar,. providing for organisations of the liquor trade furnishing certificates of character of applicants for publicans’ licenses. Sale of Mead. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) sought to have the sale of mead included in the list of exemptions from the provisions of the main Licensing Act. Mr. McCombs considered the proposal a great extensin of the facilitise for the sale of spirits. The Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) : The honey producers would have to take out a prohibition order against their bees. (Laughter.) The clause was rejected on the voices. Effect of a Deviation. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) moved also for the insertion of a new clause providing that where licensed premises within a county are situated on a road which has been closed or deviated, the Licensing Committee may permit the. removal of the license to a house on another road, where it will best serve the interests of the public, notwithstanding that the latter premises may be within another riding, or more than a mile from the site of the existing licensed premises. Mr. Mason explained that the proposal was to meet an isolated case in Hawke’s Bay. The Prime Minister said the Government had made a road, which had had the effect of deviating all the traffic from an hotel which had served a useful public purpose for many years. The licensee had been the victim of unfortunate circumstances. There was, however, at present, no power to shift the place. Mr. McCombs: But, under this clause, we don’t know where it will be shifted. The Prime Minister: “I am prepared t<> consider a clause to meet that position. In common fairness, however, we should make provision for the shifting of the hotel to a place nearer the main road. It ought to be done.”. He was prepared to consider some amendment which would meet the case in question, and others referred to. •Mr. Mason accordingly withdrew his amendment. Wine Exhibits. The object of another amendment moved by Mr. J. Mason (Napier) was to permit holders of wine-makers’ licenses to exhibit wines of their own manufacture at exhibitions and agricultural or pastoral shows in no-lieense districts, and to take orders for the sale and delivery of their products. Mr. Mason explained that the amendment was necessary to meet the ease of the Wellington Winter Show, which now had its building in a no-license area. The clause was added to the Bill. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East): It will take, a week! The Prime Minister: “Oh, dear, no.” He added that he promised the members of Parliament concerned to give Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question. Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Wnitomo) reminded the House that the Prime Minister had intimated earlier that an amendment dealing with the question would appear at some stage. It was absurd to suggest, as Mr. McCombs had. that members were taken by surprise. Without wishing to go into the merits of the Bill, he could say that the Native members of the House were in favour of the referendum. The amendment was rejected by 48. votes to 21. The Final Stages. The Bill was reported to the House with amendments at 11.45 p.m. Mr| A. Harris (Waitcmata) moved the recommittal of the Bill to give further consideration of the clauses relating to the quantity of proof spirit in wine, and the sale of liquor in hotels at meiils up to ten o’clock nt night. He thought the effect of the clauses had not been fully appreciated. The Prime Minister asked Sir. Harris not to place the House in the position of running the risk of the Bill becoming so involved that it. would have to be dropped. It was his desire that the Bill go to the Upper House. Both the points raised by Mr. Harris would be the subject of legal examination later. , Mr. Harris withdrew his amendment. The third reading was moved at midnight by Mr. C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki),

and members proceeded to place on record the views given expression to in committee. Sale of Wine. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) moved an amendment designed to enable holders of wine-makers’ licenses to sell each other s wine. Pointing out that the proposal was under consideration as part of another Bill now before a committee, the Prime Minister said he would be prepared to have the matter looked Into later. The clause was accordingly withdrawn. Referendum in King Country. By Governor-General’s message amendments were introduced providing for the taking this year of h special local option poll in the King Country to decide whether licenses shall be granted, a threefifths majority to determine the issue. In the event of the proposal being carried, the number of publicans’ licenses are not to exceed (the clause provided) one for every complete 500 electors, or be less than one for every complete 1000 electors. . In explaining the proposal, the J. nine Minister said the question had been placed before Governments for many years. The amendment gave Maori and Pakeha in the King Country the right to vote—(hear, hear)—and dealt with how the licenses would be distributed in the event of the proposal to grant licenses being carried. (Left Sitting.) ' J EDUCATION SYSTEM THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY Educational questions were again under discussion in the Legislative Council yesterday, when debate was resumed on the motion of tiie Hon. G. M. Thomson, that, in the opinion of the Council, the report of the Minister of Education should give a more definite undertaking than was contained in its introductory statements that the whole question of the educational policy of the Government would be considered in the immediate future. , , ... The Hon. J. Barr said that when it was costing the State well over £3,000,000 for education, and there was a suspicion that we were not getting full value for that sum, it was desirable that the educational policy of the Government should be considered at once. At the present time there appeared to be little prospect of employment for many lads in certain trades. This applied specially to the engineering trade. He quoted figures to show how few openings there were for boys to become apprenticed to trades. The country must fit in the education of boys and girls to the professions or trades that could absorb them. Serious consideration should be given to the question of reconstruction of the system under which we had an Education Department and education boards. It was a question whether much of the money spent by the boards on buildings and extensions was wisely spent. There was a tremendous leakage in this respect, and it was a question whether many of the men composing the boards were fitted for the duties. The huge leakage made one despair, and what was needed, if there were not to be complete centralisation, was much closer scrutiny of the boards’ handling of their affairs. Referring to technical education Mr. Barr said there was a strong tendency on the part of certain directors to build up great institutions which were partly high schools. This caused a great deal of overlapping. A tremendous amount of money was wasted in giving boys instructional training in trades which they had no intention of following. The technical schools must be checked from laying down extensive machinery plants. The motion was carried.