LICENSING BILL

Evening Star, Issue 16912, 9 December 1918, Page 7

LICENSING BILL

SHARP EXCHANGES IN HOUSE. ALLEGED BRIBERY AND INTRIGUE. THREAT TO WITHDRAW BILL. [Fi’.om Our Parliamentary Eepoeieb.] WELLINGTON, December 7. There was a ilutter of temper in the lasae 10-night following the introduction l y G.ivenior’s Message of amendments to the Licensing Bill suggested by the Legislative Council and dealing with the manner in which compensation would bo assessed. Mr Leo immediately desired. to know if the proposed amomhvieuts increased the amount of compensation which was provided for in the Hill. The limit fixed l'-y the House could, of course, bo increased hv the Council, but could the Prime Minister give members any idea apt 'oxiruately how much increase would, bo involved by the enlarged provisions suggested by tho Council ? ALLIANCE AND THE “ TIRADE.” Mr M'Combs made a statement relative to his previous reference as to the necessity of giving a bribe to lire “trade” in order to secure the passage of the Bill. That statement, he asserted, had no reference to the Alliance. He had referred aolelv to the fact that the composition of

the House and the members of the National Government made it impossible to get any licensing legislation dealt with ou its merits or to get a vote at ail without an offer of compensation, and without granting other demands. The Alliance did not. as far as he knew, cuter into any compact whatever. THE “TRADE” DEFENDED. This drew a protest from tiie Hon. A. M. Myers, who said he had never spoken previously in the House c« the Licensing Question. It was necessary, however, to take exception to the inference by the member for Lyttelton that the “trade” had accepted a, bribe. The “trade” had not sought the licensing legislation, which was the outcome of the Eiiicieucy Board's recommendation. The “ trade “ ’were perfectly satisfied with the present posh tion, cud desired no bribe. It was most unfair that. such an allegation should have been made. Ho trusted that tho member would immediately withdraw the inference that tho “trade” wanted a bribe. INFOR MATI ()N WANTED. Mr Malcolm hoped the Prime Minister -would drop the suggested amendments. He understood that the “trade” were aware of the contents of the Bill, and had the opportunity to make representations. He also unaerstood that the suggest,ed amendments came irom a number of men. and were submitted to a committee of the Council without any examination by these who were opposed to compensation and who were opposed to any such proposals. He had been given to nncierstuml that tho suggested amendments would result in an increase iu compensation. This. he thought, was uude.-irablf. It might mean hundreds of thousands of pounds over the prescribed limit. PRIME -MINISTER’S EXPLANATION. The Hon. Sir Massey said he would tel! the House exactly what had happened. ' The Bill was drafted hv the Live Draft mg ! Department, presided over by t ; ho Attorn 1 aey-General. Reprneentatires of the trad? and tho Prohibition party were invited to I be preterit and d'senss the manv important I proposals after the Bill had hern drafted It was a perfectly fair thing to do. The Attorney-General *wu, not trio sort of man to be influenced by any side. As for the statement of the boa. 'member for Lvttelton, it was like- that member. Ha would leave it_at that. The Council could not j insert tue suggested amendments in the Bill, eo it became necessary to set up .a committee and invite the people concern ?(1 to give evidence. He admitted that the Bur was an experiment but deprecated j ;he suggestions that (here had been intrigue. He did not like such and felt inclined to drop tho Bill even r,ow. He was not going to have it sug-

C-estr-d that he- had bad intrigues with the ‘‘trade’ - or any ether see: ion. The Government ha-el dons the right thing by the BUI. RURAL HOTELS. Mr Smith OVarmarino) urged that com-?-thins more should he done for the needs of rural hotels in the- matter of compensation. Mr liTtt protested a trains t- any extension of the ptopoitiesi to country hotels. Messrs IV-he«. Edward Xewman, Jen nmy’. and other members supported Air Smith’s appeal on behalf or country hotels XO IyCBEASE- IN' COMPEXSATIOX. In an-rtver t-n a remark by Mr Lee, Sir Jcscph Ward said there wa.-. no- rac&csttau of an increase of the £-], SCO OCA hj; tho Bill. That mas his interpretation of it. The danse iut reduced simply proviikd that if the alloca Lion of compensation <j:c. cee-drd £4.560 .OCO ;> pv.mo:tion-ato reduction should lake place in valuation, and 60 par cent, be then paid as preliminary pay .men t Mr L-e- contended that the compensation might h-> £B,CT!.OCO. According u , the new clause 60 per cent, mould be p-aid. The Prime Mini-tar; It doe-; not matter what the aggregate value is. The corn pulsation to be paid must not exceed £4, SCO.COO. Mr Witty asked if th > redaction in hotel re ut« (>v;iny to 5 ok-loek closingwon’d i be contiiiuod. The Prijne Minister raid ho vaderstood ‘ the arrengen-en;, wieg )■ -. .--nrricd on, but ho could not make certain of it. In ruse to a .Mvr-.-dmn from members. Mu- Prime Minister raid he y.-runos-'d to -trlir or if oC per f'-r-t. ai-.d uuu.ut 10 per cent- resneatinc country lu.U-ls. After a little further d-.-vu.ur ivom several members. -tne amcndii-eutfl nies'en'w! bv Mir- v.'ere p•';/!]-tod. with t!--’

adriihon r-f 70 rew cent, for rural hot-el*, instead of 60 per cent.