Licensing Laws: Support For Referendum Plan

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 September 1947, Page 5

Licensing Laws: Support For Referendum Plan

WELLINGTON, Sept. 25.

A complaint that the House of Representatives was entitled to have a lead from the Government was made today by several Opposition speakers in this afternoon’s debate on the report of the Royal Commission on the licensing laws. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr H. G. R. Mason), who opened the debate, said he was less concerned with airing his own views than with hearing those of members generally The Opposition’s attitude was that in general it opposed nationalisation but that it favoured submitting the proposal of public or State ownership of breweries and licences to a referendum. It also supported the submission of other recommendations of the commission to a vote of the people. r Apart from Mr Mason, the Government speakers were back-benchers. Mr G. H. O. Wilson (Palmerston North) claimed that the whole arrangement of hotels in New Zealand was scandalous, and Mr P. Kearins (Waimarino) said there was little sly-grogging in the King Country now because the clubs, which were really outside the law, had killed it. The debate was interrupted by the tea adjournment. Minister's Speech

It had been the policy in New Zealand for half a century that major issues in the licensing law should be referred to the people by way of referendum and he felt that that was an enlightened policy, said Mr Mason. While the Government should not shirk the responsibility for taking legislative decisions, there were certain measures on which a Government must be assured of the backing of the people, and that certainly applied to the licensing law and its effects upon social habits. A new issue now would be that of whether, in the event of Continuance’s being voted for, control should be vested in a public corporation as recommended by the commission The vexed question of a tied house might also be settled by the majority report’s suggestion of a public corporation to take over the breweries. It was not likely that a bill giving effect to any of the commission s recommendations would be introduced th The e Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland): Next year? Mr Holland also asked what was the Government’s attitude towards a plebiscite on the leading issues involved. Referendum Issues

Mr Mason said there was no danger of the Government s imposing on people reforms which they did not want. The privilege of the referendum would not be / at all, but consideration would have to be given to the question ol how detailed could be the proposals submitted at a referendum. Mr T. C. Webb (Opposition, Rodney) said he had supported tion all his life, but he was now convinced that P roh L bltl ?P| W n a n S + n think it tlrnl because he did not think COUM be e enforced . without. a great body of public C arrytbnf reason he was against tne ng of prohibition by a bare majority. Mr Webb said the Attorney-Gen-eral should- have expressed some definite views instead of mere y i - vitin® them from others. The Op /option favoured submitting to a refeSdum'the commission’s proposal for a liquor manufacturing anc sale corporation and, if a vote la ouied such a change, the Opposition would facilitate legislation to it about. A referendum also be taken on the question oi thei pub _ lie ownership of licences and eries. —■—