A NEW SYSTEM?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 52, 2 March 1944, Page 4

A NEW SYSTEM?

INVERCARGILL POSITION

Invercargill's future as a licensed area was discussed by the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon in the second reading debate on the Invercargill Licensing Committee Bill which seeks to postpone the election of a licensing committee until not later than September 12. The possibility of some system of control ne%v to the Dominion being introduced in Invercargill was touched on by Government members, but Opposition members were hostile to the measure. After an afternoon devoted to discussion the debate was arjourned at 5.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Mason) said that it was impossible to contemplate the building programme that would be involved if the -number of hotels permissible under the present law were to be erected. Another factor was that there was a desire on the part of the Invercargill people that an attempt might be made to consider some improvements in the licensing law as far as Invercargill ' was concerned. The main thing the gill would do would be the postponement of the election of a licensing committee. He was of the view that the sub-clause stating that until a committee was elected Invercargill should be regarded as a no-licence area was unnecessary and might as well be struck out. "I do not want the impression to prevail," added the Minister, "that a long or indefinite postponement is contemplated. The people voted for restoration and it is incumbent on the executive to see they get it. Therefore the Government will be active to see that provision is made for people to purchase liquor as they "are entitled to in accordance with their votes."

He hoped that it would not be later than June before liquor was available under conditions sufficient to carry on in the meantime. All that was asked was that time be given to consider the matter. It would be a futility to elect a committee until it was seen what was possible in Invercargill. OPPOSITION LEADER'S VIEWS. "This seems to be a Bill designed to help the,sly-groggers," said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland). "Under the present law, it being a nolicence &rea, no one can bring in liquor without declaring it and therefore the authorities have a means of tracing that liquor.. From now on that liquor can be taken into Invercargill in bulk and they don't have to account for it.

"The people voted in an overwhelming majority for a certain result and now the Government proposes to interfere with the people s right to have that vote implemented, but the Minister has not said one word of what he proposes to put in its place. Would it not be proper for the Minister to give an assurance that if any alteration is intended the people of Invercargill and New Zealand should have the opportunity to vote on that?

Mr. Holland added that the various systems which were suggested for Invercargill were aimed at public control of some kind. He would point out that when the poll was taken some 1250 people out of 14,000 said they wanted State control. The question that arose was whether Restoration, which the Invercargill people had carried by such an overwhelming majority, was to be implemented. The Bill was merely a measure to postpone the evil day when the Government would have to make up its mind. Pointing out that licensing committees granted licences at their annual meetings in June, Mr. Holland said that the anointment of a licensing committee after June would mean that no licences could be issued in Invercargill until June, 1945. There was more in the Bill than met the eye. PEOPLE'S BIGHTS. "This Bill is intended to withhold the rights of the people being put into force," he concluded. "It is a clever method of postponing the setting up of a Royal Commission. Before appointing a commission the Government will say they want to see how the Invercargill scheme works out. The Bill is a clear indication that the Government wants to find some measure of State control over the sale of alcoholic beverages. If the people want liquor they are entitled to it. We have no right to interfere with. their decision. They voted for Restoration under the existing law and they are entitled to have it."

Mr. W. M. C. Denham (Government, Invercargill) said that the Leader of the Opposition had stated that the people of Invercargill had voted for Restoration under the existing law, but that was not borne out by the petition he had read that afternoon or by a petition which was on its way to Wellington asking for municipal control. The great majority of the people of Invercargill wanted some reform, but there was objection, which he upheld on the ground of a breach of a democratic principle, to the proposal that Invercargill meantime should be deemed a no-licence district. In his opinion it would be flouting the will of the people to deem the district a no r licence district meanwhile. The people wanted liquor by June 30, and the Bill before the House did not say they were not going to get it by that date. Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford): Why the Bill? Mr. Denham replied that the Bill was necessary to pave the way for any change of control that might be decided upon. The' situation in Invercargill provided the opportunity for instituting reforms, and he did not think the Government could do anything else at the present juncture than to suspend the operation of the Act. He saw no reason why licences should not be restored by June 30 in some temporary way.

"SOME FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL." It was quite apparent, said Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) that the Government was deliberately holding up the matter in the hope that it might work up public opinion in Invercargill to justify some .form of Socialist control of the liquor traffic there. The statement that the people of Invercargill had not voted for the restoration of licences under the existing law was not justified by the facts. Those who voted for Restoration voted according to the law. The Labour Party was doing its very best to flout the will of the people in what might be termed a very doubtful way. The Minister of Supply (Mr. Sullivan) said there was no intention of having a sine die postponement. The best that could be done would be provided for in the limited period available. The Government desired to give Invercargill a system it would be proud of. He did not think the people wanted small drinking dens, but hotels in the strictest meaning of the term. That was what the Government was trying to do in the quickest time possible. If a municipal or State control system were advocated he had no doubt that the people as well as the House would have an opportunity of expressing themselves following the announcement of the Government's intentions. PEOPLE SHOULD DETERMINE. Mr. T. L. Macdonald (National, Mataura) said both sides of the House should be in agreement that the licensing laws should be overhauled. It should be the object of the proposed Royal Commission to formulate a scheme to put before the people. It should be for the people, and not the Government to accept any change in the licensing law. How did the Government know that the proposal it would bring down for Invercargill would be accepted by the rest of, New Zealand. Uniformity was required. Anything more in the nature of a patchwork structure was to be avoided. There was no valid reason for delay in the setting up of a licensing committee in Invercargill. The debate was interrupted on the motion of Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne).