THE LICENSING ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 133, 2 December 1922, Page 6

THE LICENSING ISSUE

For months past there has been public discussion of the licensing issue which is to be submitted to the electors by referendum oh 7th December. Advocates of Continuance, of State Purchase and Control, and of Prohibition have had the opportunity of placing their views, before the public, and have taken full advantage of that opportunity. Much of the advocacy has been wide of the mark, and has tended rather to obscure the issue than to clarify it. It is highly undesirable that the poll should be taken with the public mind in a state of confusion, and we believe that it is a duty of the PrSss to so state the issues that the air may be cleared. Reason, not blind prejudice, should guide the electors, and reason has not full play in an atmosphere-filled with recriminations. We have opposed Prohibition in the past, and we see no reason now to warrant a change of attitude; but we desire neither to dictate to the electors nor to have the issue submitted and decided upon false arguments. The issue is one for the people to decide, and they can neither delegate that right of decision nor escape the responsibility for that decision when it is made.

As we see it, the poll presents greater difficulties to the voter than it did three years ago. Times and circumstances have changed, and the issue before voters is now not simply whether Prohibition is desirable at any time, but whether it is desirable at the present time. . Our opposition to Prohibition has not been based upon changing times and circumstances, but upon constant, unchanging traits in human nature. We have held that temperance is greatly to be desired, but that it is best obtainable by the force of individual precept and example, and if attained in this way will be more certain and enduring than if an attempt is made by mass action to force it upon the general body of the people. 'Temperance reform is reform by evolutionary process; Prohibition is an attempt to apply more drastic methods. Such methods always involve the danger of a sharp recoil. We have the authority of the Prime Minister for the assertion that New Zealand is a temperate country—" probably the most temperate in the world outside Franoe." If the people accept this statement as correct —and few, we believe, will venture to contradict it—should they not concentrate their attention upon a sobriety policy rather than upon abolition? The answer may be made that reform is too slow; that the elimination of abuses is difficult; and that the results of education become evident only gradually. But may this not be attributed in a large measure to the concentration of attention upon abolition? Adapting an aphorism of G. K. Chesterton applied to another subject: temperance has Dot been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried. The elimination of abuses arising from defects in the controlling system may not have proceeded quickly enough for the ardent reformer, but the Prime Minister has made a definite promise that next session there will be a revision of the licensing laws in the interest of the public. There may, however, be voters who, accepting Prohibition in theory, are yet doubtful of the wisdom of its immediate application. To such people the financial aspect is one of prime importance. It is undeniable, we believe, that Prohibition will involve loss of direct revenue of an amount variously estimated. Prohibitionists argue that loss will be ' compensated—(l) by the diversion of money now spent on liquor to other uses which will also yield revenue to the State; (2) by the reduction of expenditure caused by abuse of liquor. This compensation and saving, however, is at best problematical, and it certainly will not be immediate. If Prohibition is carried, the 1 State revenue from the liquor traffic will stop practically at once, but it cannot, be said that the compensatingrevenue and savings will be available to the Treasury fov some time. Indeed, it is possible that the enforcement of Prohibition will involve new and heavy expenditure,

State finance is no* the cause of great concern to the Government, .and people who hold Prohibition to be an experiment may well decide that this is not the time to try it. The Prime Minister has said:

The disturbance of' taxation, if Prohv bit-ion were carried, would have to be considered when the time arrived. The loss of revenue would have to be pro vided for, and Parliament would have to say how.

On another occasion Mr. Massey stated that if Prohibition were carried he would summon Parliament at once; but when pressed for a more definite statement upon the financial aspect he replied: "You expect me to tell the people how to vote." It is certainly notl the province of a Prime Minister to dictate to the people upon such a question; but it is the province of the Minister of Finance to tell the people clearly what will be the result of proposals which are being submitted for their decision. There are some people who will vote for Prohibition at any price, but with others, just as anxious for the country's good, the price may de-i cide the issue. They have a right 1' to be told by the only authority, possessing Certain information what' that price will be. There is just one more point that' should be mentioned. For close on thirty years the country has been fighting the liquor issue at trien-' nial polls. Is it not time to consider whether this process should continue indefinitely?. The submission of the question, triennially involves the periodical disturbance of the public mind, and the introduc•tion of an issue apart from politics and disturbing to politics at each General Election. Moreover, such short terms of probation place an unfair handicap upon those persons engaged in the liquor trade who desire to introduce reforms. If Prohibition is now rejected, Parliament may justifiably consider that the issue has been replaced in its hands if or reconsideration of both the method of submitting it and the times..