LICENSING DEBATE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 November 1927, Page 11

LICENSING DEBATE

SOME LIVELY FEATURES. GOVERNMENT AND TRADE. ALLEGATIONS HOTLY RESENTED. (BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL TO “THE STAR.”) WELLINGTON, Nov. 15. Two features stood out prominently in the opening stages of the debate on the Licensing Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, one was the intention of the Prime Minister to push the measure to a definite decision and the other was an allegation at once denied, that the licensed trade had financed Reform candidates and expected some return. The Prime Minister, ibefore he was allowed to proceed on liis speech in moving the second reading, submitted smilingly to some banter regarding the blue tie he wore, a member asking if he was a blue ribbonedite.

“Not exactly a blue ribbon,” he replied, “but a shaded colour, more exactly suited to a difficult situation. ” uVflr 'Coates directed his remarks immediately to the question of members ’ pledges. He personally was not bound hand and foot.

.Mr Wilford: “Are any other members?” Mr Coates: “I have not done it and don’t know whether many members have signed pledges, but even supposing I had, and 1 am in the position I am, I should feel it incumbent on me, as being responsible to introduce a Bill which must always be contentious, to have looked at the matter from the broad standpoint as much as possible. 1 have done that.”

Dealing with the ballot paper, Mr Coates declared: “I say there are only two issues of real live consideration, they are prohibition or no prohibition. I know this Bill does not please those who want an alternative. lam not one of those who stand for the interests of the trade, and I’m not one of those who can see eye to eye with the prohibitionists, but I—”

Mr 'Parry: “Then why did you cut the third issue out.” Mr. Coates: “Because it Avas not possible for it to be carried; it is hopeless. ’ ’

Sir Joseph Ward: “It Avas agreed to by both sides before it Avas put there.” Mr. Coates: CYes, I knoiv all about it.”

Mr Parry: “It Avas agreed to then.” >M,r Coates: “I understood it Avas by agreement and compact.” Mr 11. Atmore: “Would you prevent a third party contest?” Mr Coates said it Avas no use being draAvn off into theoretical arguments. The real point Avas Avhat were the issues and to his mind the tAvo Avere the only issues of importance. When the Prime Minister’s hour had nearly expired, he Avas granted an extension of time on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition.

Thanking the House for its consideration, Mr Coates laughingly observed that it AA r as probably the Avorst day’s Avork he had ever done, because it was a stormy subject.

PARTY 'FUND ALLEGATIONS). Mjr 11. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, Avas quickly drawn into a cross talk discussion Avith the Prime Minister, Avhen he revived the familiar suggestions about monetary support for the GoA'ermnent party, and questioned the Prime Minister’s bona fides in expecting legislation to be passed. Air Holland said that his own considered opinion Avas that at the last election a section of the Government party committed themsel\ T es to the, liquor interest, Avhilc apparently a majority of the party signed the pledge to the NeAV Zealand Alliance. It Avas quite clear that the liquor party poured money into the Reform campaign. GoA’crnment members: “No, no!” Mr. Holland: “Then I Avant to know Avhere the money came from to pay for those huge advertisements. My oAvn opinion is that it came from the breAA'ers. ’ The Prime Minister (emphatically): “Don’t talk such utter nonsense. It does not dp the honourable gentleman credit. ’ ’ Mr Speaker called for order and asked Mr Holland to slioav the balance of reference to the Bill. Mr Holland: “I am coming to clauses in Avhieh the undertakings are involved, in my opinion.” The Prime Minister: “That, is not fair, and does not do the honourable gentleman credit.” WILL BILL BE PUSHED? Tit is fair to ask,” continued Mr Holland, “lA'hether it is the intention of the GoA-crnment to go right through Avith the Bill, or will they drop it, the same as other Bills this session. ’ ’ Mr Coates: “We will go into committee and the full opportunity will be giA-en to A’ote on it.” Mr. Holland: “But Avill it go through?” Mr Wilford: “‘Surely that depends on tlie House.” Mr Coates, addressing the Leader of the Opposition: “If the honourable gentleman will say he Avill help me to put it on the statute book that Avill go a long way. ’ ’ Mr Holland: “Yes, if you make tlie alterations I Avant.” Mr Coates: “Yes, the honourable gentleman. Avants alterations; everyone wants alterations and the more you go into it the more diverse the opinions and the more difficult it is to get anything to satisfy the community as a whole. In my opinion this Bill is easy to understand. Tf it went, on the statute book it Avould give general satisfaction. I belioA'e it is fair to both sides, though neither appreciates the Amlue of the Bill.” Mr Holland: “Will you accept amendments? ’ ’

Mr Coates: "It all depends on what tlie amendments are." ■Mir McCombs: "Will that not be for the House to say?" Mr Coates: "It is no use facing about like that. Parliament will have a full opportunity of discussing it and if T find the Bill was getting into such a state that it was difficult for me to support it, T should have to indicate that to the llo,use."

SECOND 'READING DEBATE 00 N'T E N T TO T JiS~DO IN TS R AI.SED. (by telegraph—press association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 16. The Prime Minister, in the House of Representatives this afternoon, moved the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill. He said that the whole question was an extremely troublesome one, and whether they liked it or not they had To give it considerable attention. That was so in almost every country. He favoured extending the period between polls, so as to remove from

political contests, that Avhich A\-as alAvays a disturbing element. Then there AA'as the constant cry from end to end of the country for improved hotel accommodation. We Avere constantly asked to advertise our scenery and tourist resorts, but it Avas useless to do that unless Ave gave the tourists the hotel accommodation they required. The trade was ahvays stating that they could not give it unless they had a better tenure. Therefore he AA r as disposed to give them the opportunity. Moreover, the Bill gave increased poAA'er to licensing committees to insist on accommodation of desired quality. For these tAA r o reasons the eliminating of liquor from politics and the improA'einent of accommodation he favoured holding the polls every six years instead of three. He was satisfied if prohibition AA'as carried it should be carried on such a majority as Avould make ic stable and respected. Canada had gone in for prohibition, but had gone back to State Control. That AA'as, fie thought, because there Avas so much difficulty in enforcing the laAv. Other countries had varied their systems.

Wi’th regard to the United States, it Avas very difficult to say Avhat the position actually AA'as. He AA'as unable to form any personal opinion, but thought iY was Avrong to say that America’s economic prosperity AA'as due entirely to nroliibition. There Avere other circumstances contributing to that end. The difficulty in America seemed to be en forcing the luaa 7 , and it AA'as a question whether Ave in NeAV Zealand could enforce the law if Ave adopted prohibition on a bare majority. 'That was the question that Avorried him, because it Avould never do to have a Lav on the Statute Book which AA'as flouted. 'That had been done once in connection ’ th the antishouting laAv and lie did not want to see that sort of thing again.

Mr Coates said they had to consider the position of Avhat Avas luioAvii as the “trade.” It. Avas, he understood, valued at £18,000.000, and employed 12,000 people. They also had to consider the interests of the State, lu this he ay as thinking of the Minister of Finance. To him it meant nearly £2,000,000 m Customs duty, and there Avas also income tax to be considered. These things Avould all have to be adjusted if prohibition Avere carried, so that it could be seen liuav serious a matter it Avas to carry prohibition by a bare majority Unrfer all the circumstances he thought that a 55 per cent, majority Avas fair and reasonable.

For the rest the Bill contained a number of amendments to the law which, he considered, experience rendered necessary. Provision for the supply of liquor at banquets, lie thought, was reasonable. The sale or liquor to young people was being saie-o-uarded. The Bill was clear-cut and fair to both sides as it stood. It was for Parliament, to say whether it became law. He would accept amendments, but if he found the Bill getting into such a state that lie could no .support it, he would have to tell the House he could not go on with it. LABOUR PARTY’S POSITION. Mr 11. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said be did not belie'e it was the serious intention of the i rime. Minister to put the Bill on the Statute Look. There did not seam to be sincerity behind it. He had heard qualified statements such as that made the Prime Minister betore, and he was not convinced. The Bill was belated; it should have been introduced long ago. Discussing the two-issue ballot paper Mir. Holland said that lie did not think this would alter the position, because the State controller, deprived of his vote, would vote continuance. What did matter was that the vote was being taken from the people who now possessed it, and that was icpugiiant to him. Personally lie tliowgn tlie vote should be on' a preferential basis, and that should enable them to retain the three-issue ballot-paper. <Jn that point the Labour Party was solid, and he would move in that' direction in committee. The Labour Party stood for a bare majority on all questions, and nothing had been said in favour ol the 55 per cent, that could not be said in favour of 75 per cent. M r Holland sa id lie had hi ways been in favour of the three-issue ballotpaper but lie wa.s satisfied clauses 2. 3 and’ 4 would not all go through in their present form unless the prohibitionists in the Reform Party voted against the pledges '£hey had givpn to the A'liance. What lie wanted to know wasi how far the business of New Zealand was going to be held up lor this Bill. He did not believe the Bill was going through unless the Prime Minister made it a Government measure and cracked his whip- The Labour Party was solid on the matter of preferential voting and the three-issue ballot paper. If that was altered they were free to do as they likyad. Mr W. D. Lysnar said six o’clock closing had done a great deal of good, but if the House pressed it as far as prohibition a great deal of harm woufid be done. No-license was not the rem-

edy and therefore he opposed a bare majority. Mr J. McCombs .said the Bill contained something for' prohibitionists and something for the ‘‘Trade.” He declared that t&ix years’ intervals betAA'een the. polls Avould simply mean an increase in “trade” goodwills and would send Amalgamated Brewery shares up in price. The majority proposed in the Bill disfranchised 75,000 voters because, only after that number of people had A'oted Avow'd the prohibitionist’s A'ote count as of equal value to that of any other. This, was plural voting with a vengeance. New l Zealand's here IaAV-abiding people and if prohibition Avas carried ,it Avould be' enforced because the people respected the law. Parliament Avas elected on a bare majority and all they asked Ava& the right to express tlieir opinion on this groat social problem on a simiar basis. America did not have to impose extra taxation Avhen she gave up one hundred million dollars liquor revenue, and yet she was extremely prosperous. What would happen in, New r Zealand ? We Avould turn £8,500,000 worth of wasted material into more profitable channels and help to reduce unemployment. Mr Holland, to Hon. A. D- McLeod: ‘‘Are you prepared to send this Bill to a committee and take eAddence on all said Mr Holland knew hoAv Impossible it was to get evidence before a committee.

THE, KING COUNTRY. With regard to • the position in the King Country, Mr 1 McLeod had read a eroat deal about it? and had come to tlie conclusion that there was a definite bargain between the Government of New Zealand and the Maori chiefs in tlie King Country that if the railway was allowed to proceed through their country no liquor should be .sold there. That being so, the compact should be held sacred by the pakeha, and nt should not be broken unless at tlie unanimous request of the natives. Sir Joseph Ward said he was not a prohibitionist, and he favoured a threeissue balot-paper. He: did not believe .the Bill would’ go through this session and h,u deprecated the procedure ot bringing ' in such a measure as a nonGovernment Bill. ; , ~ , .. Mr. W. EL Parry contended that the questions raised by the Bill should not be settled by the House, but should be referred to the people. Mr J, C. Rolleston (Waitomo) said that before licenses for the King Country were granted he wished Parliament to determine what form those licenses should take, because the people in the King Country did not wish to perpetrate the evils of liquor trade as known m other districts. He maintained that if a compact with the Maoris were ever made it was never enforced, and therefore was of noj effect. In addition, the Maoris were being served with spirits of the worst class.

Sir A. Ngata was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not taken greater advantage of his opportunity to effect real internal reform within tlie- Trade itself. He also favoured the two-issue ballot paper because he never regarded the State control issue seriously, nor did he think the Government took it seriously.

Dealing with the compact between the Maori and the pakeliiai as to introduction. of liquor into the King Country, lie quoted from official documents to show that a compact was made in 1884, by the Stout-Vogel Government and he paid a tribute to the pakehas for the manner in which they had honoured that compact for all these years. At the same time, by permitting sales of land the Government had introduced white settlement into the district and so made tlie observance of such a compact impossible, and the question should he looked a.t from the present day point of view. The whole position should lie reviewed. He was glad that Mr Rolleston had in his amendment proposed that the Maori in tlie King Country should be included in the proposed vote. The New Zealand Allianz now agreed that the Maori electors should be given a- vote at the Dominion poll, and they agreed to that believing that .the Maori vote would be a Trade vote. He asked the Alliance to regard the King Country in the same spirit. All the Maori members were in agreement on this question, and would support Mr. Rolleston’si amendment. He thought the Maori electors should be given the right to vote in the Dominion polls, and he did not think that the right of some 20,000 electors could much longer be delayed.

Mr V. H. Potter .advocated higher license fees as one of the necessary reforms. That would be putting taxation on the shoulders best able to bear it. Increased fees from licenses would give the extra, revenue which would relieve taxation in other directions. He favoured triennial polls, for longer periods meant huge gains in the trade. He stood for the two-issue ballot paper, and a bare majority. but he did not believe the Prime Minister intended to pass the Bill this session. The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 1.20 a.m. till to-morrow,