Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LICENSING BILL

THIS YEAR'S MEASURE VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS There is st:' I a considerable amount of speculation in the lobbies as to the form which this year's Licensing Bill will take. Although it would appear that tho Bill iias not yet reached the stage of beiiig drafted, there'are not wanting suggestions as to what it should or should not contain. The situation is admittedly a most complex one, the more so as it h understood that the committee of three Prohibitionists and three opponents of Prohibition set up by the Reform caucus in April'last was unable to agree on a formula which would bo likely to meet with universal acceptance. One of the chief difficulties so far as the Prohibition members are concerned is to be sure of getting the Legislative Council to pass a measure embodying the principle o" a bare majority and no extension of the time between polls. Last year's Bill introduced by Mr. Coates provided for an extension of tenure to six years, with a 5 per cent, majority necessary to carry Prohibition, but the House substituted the bare maj-

oiity and eliminated the provision with reference to tenure. When the Bill reached the Upper House a clauso providing for a 2J per cent, majority was inserted, and this proved to be the bono of contention on which agreement was found to bo impossible. In view of what happened last session the chances of. getting a Bill through this year which will meet with general approval seem to be remote, particularly if it proposes anything more than the bare majority. Some members are expecting the Prime Minister to bring in a measure which will partially placate the Prohibitionists by proposing something in the nature of a slight majority, say, from 5000 to 10,000. They feel that if a Bill drawn something on the lines of that of last year after it had been amended by the Lower House, but providing for something slightly over the bare majority, it would have a chance of meeting with the support of the Legislative Council. Another suggestion which has been put forward as a likely solution of the difficulty is that the people should be allowed to decide by referendum whether they think the licensing question should bo snttled by a bare majority or something greater than that, and whether they consider that there should bean extension of time between polls. It is claimed that if the people gave a mandate to Parliament on these issues it would be easier to disposo of the licensing question by legislation.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19280705.2.98

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 4, 5 July 1928, Page 14

Word Count
427

LICENSING BILL Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 4, 5 July 1928, Page 14

LICENSING BILL Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 4, 5 July 1928, Page 14

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert