LIQUOR BILL

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1918, Page 3

LIQUOR BILL

PROGRESS IN THE COUNCIL "A WANT OP COURAGE" THE CASE AGaWTST HASTE. The Licensing Amendment Bill was received by the Legislative Council from the House of Representatives, yesterday, read a first time, and a select committee was appointed to hear objections to the compensation clause. In moving the second reading, Sir Francis Bell suggested that the debate should be taken on the third reading. The Hon. 0. Samuel objected. Members had not had the opportunity of perusing the Bill. Sir Francis Bell proceeded to explain the Bill. The House of Representatives, he said, had struck ont the provision for the appointment of an assessor who would fairly represent the views of the claimants. In ordinary compensation law there was always an assessor representing the claimant, arid an assessor representing the respondent. The Crown in this case would have to pay, and it was not fair £hat it should appoint the whole of its compensation court. Therefore he would propose to the Council that the principle previously in the Bill should be reinstated; Another clause had been added to the Bill to make 6 o'clock closing permanent. With that proposal he entirely agreed, but the question aroee : Was this the proper place in which to bring it into effect? He left it to the Council to decide that. He had not yet made up his mind how he would vote on it.

The Hon. George Jones : The end jus tifies the means.

The Hon. O. Samuel was opposed to expediting .'thty passage of a BUI which was not urgent. It should never have been introduced at the present time. The introduction of the Bill showed a want of courtage on the part of the Government in endeavouring to eliminate from the programme of the general election a matter of such enormous importance as was dealt with in the Bill. The fact that there had been a compromise was no reason why Parliament should now hasten to legislate. The liquor trade was joining hands with its old enemy for the sake of a, compensation of four and a half millions and there would no^ be any opportunity of voting such as ougEt to be given to the soldiers. The opportunity given to soldiers for voting at a previous general election was not adequate, and they could not expect a beter method now. The effect of the referendum would be disturbing under war conditions or present conditions. It was equally as; objectionable as a general election. There was no reason why the issue should be precipitated when there must be a general election within twelve months when the matter could be submitted. Possibly it was thought that' the holding of this referendum would make people lees discontented with the postponement of the general election. , That might be politic as a reason for advancing the measure; but it was no reason why Parliament should pass it. Mr. Samuel characterised as grossly unfair the proposal to deprive people of their rights because of the war, and then to insert a clause to make the deprivation permanent. He referred to six o'clock closing, which was brought in on the ground that it was necessary in war to decrease the consumption of liquor. Hon. G. Jones : It is necessary in time of peace. ■ Mr. Samuel: The honourable gentleman says so now, but he did hot use that argument before. Mr. Jones: I was not here. (Laughter.) Mr. Samuel condemned the action of Parliament in submitting such a measure when the term for which it was elected had elapsed, and when its life' had been continued only for one purpose —the conduct of the war.

The Hon. J. T. Paul said he was afraid he would have to vote for the Bill, though he regarded it as one of the worst political compromises in the history of the country. The interests of a great many of the' people were ignored the Bill. The first poll did not provide for the expression of the wishes of many lof the people; the second absolutely defeated • the will of the democracy. Preferential voting 'on issues as proposed by the Labour Party would submit the issue fairly. It was dishonest to have such an issue submitted in such a way. Sir Francis Bell: You can move an amendment. Mr. Paul asked what use would that be. The Leaders refused to accept preferential voting because this was a compromise. Sir Francis Bell: Who said so? Neither the Leaders of the Government nor any member of the Government had said

so The Hon. C. H. Izard said he doubted whether this Bill would settle the question. If there were to be compensation, of which he was not quite satisfied, then it should be full and complete. Sir Francis Bell said this was not a compromise except insofar as it was an attempt on the part of the Government to apt fairly by both parties. He gave a most emphatic denial to the assertion that the parties had compromised. The legal representatives of the parties had met-in his room to deal only with questions of drafting. The Bill was read a* second time.