LABOUR AND LIQUOR

Grey River Argus, 19 September 1918, Page 3

LABOUR AND LIQUOR

LABOUR PARTY'S POSITION DEFiA'ED. BY MR. H. E. HOLLAND, M.P. Before commencing his address on the Election Petition last night Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., de%lt with the Labour Party's attitude in connection with the Liquor question. He said the Labour Party was neither a Liquor Party nor a Prohibition Party. It mists and also many anti-prohibitionists, ists and also many anti-prohibitions, j The Liquor question was' one of great importance, it was true, but important' as it was, it became a minor question when placet! in comparison with Labour's supreme objective, the - achievement of which would provide the real solution of the drink problem. Over and above everything else, the Labour Party stood for democratic decisions on all questions, and they had to recognise that neither of the petitions at present before the people, furnished any guarantee of a democratic decision. The Alliance in its petition wanted a poll o n one question only — the Efficiency Board's proposal, which meant prohibition with compensation to the extent of at least four and a half million pounds, but which provided no compensation for the jjotel workers. This, of course, meant a complete abandonment by the Prohibitionists of 'their previous demand for Prohibition without compensation. The Liquor people were calling for a poll on three issues — Continuance, Prohibition, and State Control, and wanted the decision to rest on a simple majority. This, if acceded to, would render a majority decision almost impossible, a^d would at any rate make it highly improbable. It would make it possible for either Prohibition or Continuance or State Control to carry on the votes of little more than a third of the votes cast. The Labour Party wanted the whole four issues placed on the ballot paper, viz., National Prohibition, without compensation ; National Prohibition, with compensation (the Efficiency Board's proposal) ; Continuance; and State Control; and, further, the Labour Party wanted the only possible democratic method of voting*' to be employed to ascertain the people's will — the method, of preferential voting,- which would ensure that whatever decision was arrived at it would be the decision of an absolute majority of the people voting. The soldiers in the trenches should be permitted to vote, and the Labour; Party would insist that in the event««j of Prohibition carrying the term Com- j pensation shouldl be extended to meet the case of every hotel worker deprived of employment until such time as fresh employment was found for them. The Labour Party went further than any of the other parties, and demanded that a general election should be held early next year. There was a grave danger of the present agitation overshadowing the fact that the people were deprived of constitutional rights that ought never to be- permitted to remain m abeyance — a grave danger that once the liquor referendum waß disposed of, the life of the present enormously . discredited Parliament might be continued indefinitely. Had the general election been permitted to take place in 1917, as it should have done, the present anomalous situation touiu not have arisen. JThe Liquor question would always be a contentious question, overshadowing the greater issues, and tho only satisfactory way in which it could be dealt with would be on a majority decision o$ 'the people themselves. Such a majority decision could only be arrived at by the method advocated by the labour Party.