LICENSING BILL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 1 December 1927, Page 5

LICENSING BILL

“I WILL NOT MOVE IT”

THE THIRD READING. MR.- COATES'S DECLARATION. (BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL TO "THE STAR.") WELLINGTON, Nov. 30. The House <jf RepreAentarives this afternoon went into committee on the Licensing Bill at the point where progress had been reported. The Prime Minister (the lit. Hon. J. G. Coates) again took his seat, at the committee table in charge of the measure, but some opening question from the Leader of the Opposition drew from him the most emphatic declaration that if the Bill reaches the third reading stage still containing the bare majority provision, “1 will not move it.” He declined to express an opinion in advance whether he would .recommend the Governor-General to sign the statute, assuming that it gets through the Legislative Council in that form. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, questioned the Prime Minister’s bona lides in again proceeding with the Bill after describing clause four as “the pup which Reform sold the brewers and the new clause providing for the bare majority as the gold brick the prohibitionists are asked to buy-.” He said that if he believed for a moment that there was a serious intention to put the Bill on the statute book, he would view it in a different light, but he could not convince himself that there was a serious intention on the Prime Minister’s part to see it passed. He must again invite the Prime Minister to make a definite answer to hi® question: “Will ybu permit this Bill definitely to go through all its stages and on to th« statute book?” Mr Holland added that he would get the same old answer “wait and see,” but while they were waiting, time was being wasted, also the expense of the sitting of Parliament was mounting. Mr Coates: “Why is it the time now?” Mr Holland : “The Prime Minister cannot sidetrack this perfectly fair question.” Mr W. D. Lysnar: “How can. the Prime [Minister give that assurance?” Mr Holland: “If he had very many uncertain supporters like the honourable gentleman, he would not be able to give any assurance.” (Laughter). Mr Lysnar: “We do not know where he stands; he is all over the place.”. (Laughter). Mr Holland acidly suggested that the member for Gisborne, not being a Minister yet, was not entitled to reply for the Prime Minister.” MR, COATES’S EMPHATIC ANSWER “I have made my position perfectly clear in my statement,” replied Mr. Coates. .“With the exception of that portion of the Bill which refers to the majority, 1 am in favour of the amendments that are drafted. Let me'put- it quite clearly'. So long as the Bill contains the bare majority, I do not support it,” and he continued in more emphatic tones, “1 wont vote for it, and 1 wont vote for the third reading, and I wont move the third reading.” Mr Holland: “What if it is carried ?” Mr Coates: “If this House decides to, send it to the other place and it is carried and. we have to consider it when it comes hack, my advice to members is that they shall keep an open mind, knowing my views, that 1 am opposed to the bare majority.” Mr Holland: “That was not what 1 asked.” Mr T. W. Rhodes: “You have got your answer.” The Prime Minister declined an invitation to predict the Bill’s fate in the Legislative Council. “They can,”i he said, “have the opportunity of overhauling it as they think fit. What they will do I am not in a position t<t. say. I do, not know.” “If the Bill passes the third leading of the House and bare majority is carried,” said Sir Joseph Ward, “and the honourable gentleman is not in charge of the Bill and it goes through the Legislative Council, will the Prime Minister sign the recommendation to the Governor-General to put that Bill on the statute book?” The Prime Minister in reply took pains to assure Sir Joseph Wal’d that he was not being rude or impertinent in referring him to a favourite axiom of a famous statesman, “Wait and see.”

NOVEL POSITION ARISES

PRIME MINISTER REFUSES.

TO' MOVE! THIRD READING. THE BILL INi COMMITTEE. (UY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 30. In the House qf Representatives in dealing with the Licensing Rill the Prime Minister moved an amended subclause providing for a poll for the restoration of licenses, such poll to be carried if more than one-half qf the. voters vote in favour of restoration. This was agreed to on the voices. Mr Lysuar J protested against these important amendments being brought down without notice. The Prime Minister said lie would explain the amendments, and the member was generally .satisfied with hi* explanation. The Prime Minister moved an amended sub-clause which would enable licensing committees to restore licenses on a maximum of one to every 500 electors of a district, and a minimum of one to every 1506 electors. Mr Lysnr.r protested that this was weak and was giving in to the prohibition party. In the" event of restoration being voted, every license existing when prohibition was carried should be restored without any reference to- the population basis. This was an. underhand business; it was the sort of thing prohibition was teaching the people to do.

'The amendments proposed by the Prime Minister were- agreed to. The Prime Minister then moved the following addition to sub-clause (e) : Notwithstanding anything la the contrary in the last preceding paragraph, if a proposal, in favour of national restoration is carried at the first poll taken after the poll at which the proposal in favour of national prohibition was carired, the following provisions shall apply, namely:—- * (1) No licenses shall "be*, granted ih ; a. former no-license district unless the determination of the electors of that 1 - .«■ * •' > V- ■: IN*. '■ « Lir ulj;. '

district at the poll taken in accordance •with th» nest succeeding section, is in favour of the restoration of licenses therein. (2) The number of publicans’ licenses to be granted in any other licensing district, or in any borough situated within such licensing district, '-ball not exceed the number of such licenses in force in such district or in such borough as the case may be immediately prior to the coming into force of the determination in favour of national prohibition. A technical alteration was made in the definition of "private bar”, in clause 9.

The Prime Minister proposed to strike out clauses 16, 17, and 18, dealing with the standard of accommodation provided by licensed premises. Mr. T. \V. Rhodes and Mr. G. AV. Forbes protested against the deletion of these clauses, which they regarded as most important to the public. Mr. V. H. Potter said these were the very clauses the public were demanding. The Prime Minister said he put these clauses in as compensation to the public for the extended tenure given in the original Bill, but, as the tenure had not been extended and the majority had been cut down, he thought they must be fair ancl give the licensees something. He therefore preferred to leave the law to stand as at present. Mr. H. "Atmore said he could not understand the Prime Minister denying the general public the ordinary sanitary condition of a bathroom. Mr. A. Harris thought the present law gave licensing committees ample room to deal with accommodation for the public. Mr.' Forbes maintained that men who were keeping good houses would not object to clauses 16, 17, and 18. The Prime Minister’s proposal to strike them out was all in favour of those houses which would not supply decent accommodation. Either the trade or prohibitionists seemed to dominate the position, and the public had no say because the Prime Minister’s party had turned him down He would be in a fit of pique if he turned round and said he would do nothing. Mr. H. T. Armstrong thquglit the 20 rooms insisted on by thb , Prime Minister’s clause were too many. Mr. Forbes said they could reduce the number of rooms if necessary, but in view of the fact that hotels had the monopoly to sell liquor he considered they should supply reasonable accommodation. Mr. Atmore asked the Prime Minister if he would retain the clauses with a reduced number of rooms. If he did not do so he was helping prohibition, because the public would resent bad accommodation. The Prime Minister said he appreciated that point, but he would adhere to his decision to withdraw the clauses.

Mr. E. P. Lee (Oamaru) said the clauses proposed to be struck out referred only to new licenses, and licensing committees had ample power to deal with the position. After further discussion the clauses were withdrawn, the Prime. Minister promising^to reconsider them. At clause 24, Mr. R. W. Smith (Waimarino) moved an amendment intended to give the Press in the King Country the right to publish liquor advertisements.

The Attorney-General (Hon. F. J. Rolleston), who was temporarily in charge Bill, said he agreed with the principle of the amendment but he could not accept it as drafted. He suggested postponement of the clause, to give time for further consideration. The clause was postponed. At clause 28 Mr. P. Fraser asked, and the Minister promised to take into consideration, a proposal to prohibit the employment in breweries and bottling stores of persons under 21 years of age. Mr. Lee asked that clause 32 should be so amended that the law relating to the taking of liquor into proclaimed areas and into no-license districts should be made uniform. The Minister promised to look into the discrepancy pointed out. Mr. V. H. Potter objected to clause 33 granting an extension for the sale of liquor at social functions on police recommendation. Messrs T. AI, Wilford, W. A. Veitch, Bartram, and the Hon’. D. Buddo favoured the extension of this favour to chartered clubs. The Prime Minister said this could not be done without a new clause. Mr. "YV. I>. Lysnar urged that the concessions should also be extended to restaurants

A member: What about pie carte? Mr. J. A. Lee argued that so long as we had continuance there should be less restriction on the use of liquor at banquets. If people had to drink six or eight toasts in water they would suffer from rheumatics. Mr. G. W. Forbes urged that the extended hour should be 10.30 p.m. The Prime Minister said he could not accept that proposal, but he was prepared to insert chartered clubs if they had dining rooms on their premises, and on the motion of Mr. T. M. AA'ilford an amendment was inserted to give effect to this. At clause 34, providing that the registration of barmaids be transferred from the Labour Department to the Police Department, Mr. H. E. Holland said that although he was certain the Bill was not going on the Statute Book and that the whole discussion was farcical, he would object to any section of the wage workers being taken out of the control of the Labour Department and being placed undei the Police Department. He wanted to know why such a clause had been placed in the Bill and who asked for it. It would do no good and would only irritate those concerned. The Hotel Workers’ Union should be consulted before such a step was taken. The Prime Minister said the Labour Department was anxious to be relieved of the duty of registration of barmaids. The police administered the law and were in a better position to watch the observance of the law. It was many years since barmaids were compelled to register, yet many of them were jus* as young and goodlooking as ever, and the suggestion had been made that a certain amount of trafficking in certificates was going on ’

Mr. H. T. Armstrong said the proposal in the clause was an insult to barmaids, who were just as respectable as any other section of workers. The Hon. G. J. Anderson said the barmaids were now nominally registered by the Labour Department, but the work was actually don© by the police. The clause was struck out on the Toices.

A new clause was added providing for restoration on a bare majority.

Mr. P. Fraser objected to a new clause proposed by the Prime Minister proposing the registration of barmen by the police. He urged that this placed these men on a plane with criminals. The clause had not been asked- for, and he suggested it he held over till the men concerned had been consulted. 1 ' The Prime Minister said he took full responsibility for the clause. It was necessary to' have reliable men retailing Jiquor, and this provision would,

in course of time, get responsible men behind the bars> and so elevate the tone of the trade.

Mr. V. H. Potter It is raising it to the status of a profession. He will be able to put B.M. after his name! The Prime Minister: I am not joking; I am serious. It might create a close corporation, but if that will improve the character of the trade I will vote for dose corporation every time. On resuming after supper the Hon. F. J. Rolleston, who was in charge of the Bill, said the Prime Minister was quite prepared to meet representatives of the barmen and to reconsider the clause in the light of their representations.

Mr. J. A. Lee said that if this registration was insisted on every barman would be expected to estimate at a. glance the cubic capacity of each customer. In these circumstances the barman should have some measure of protection, and to that end every customer should have his plimsol mark plainly exhibited. If this was not done they would require some mechanical means of supply, and it would not he long before we had bowsers for boozers as part of our social equipment. Other amendments were either withdrawn or lost on the voices, and at 1.35 the Bill was reported with amendments.

On the Speaker resuming the chair a. somewhat novel situation arose, the Prime Minister refusing to move the third reading of the Bill he introduced This duty was taken up by Mr. E. P Tee (Oamaru), who proceeded l to traverse the history of liquor legislation since the special polls of 1917. when State purchase was the issue. This was a chance- for the trade to be Paid out. he said, but they failed to take advantage of this opportunity.

BILL BEAD A THIRD TIME. BY 39 TO 32 VOTES. WELLINGTON, Nov. 30After tin? Telegraph Office closed, Mr Lee continued his speech on the Licensing Bill. Dealing, with thei bare majority, he said that this principle was established in 1918, and in putting it into this Bill the House was only preserving to the people what they already had. They introduced no new principle. The National Cabinet established the bare majority and the Minister of Finance supported it. It was reasonable to .suppose that they had thought out the questions of finance and unemployment, but the vital point of the Bill was the right of the people to decide the issue on thje bare majority, which right they had enjoyed for some years- and held sacred. The Leader of the Opposition said that he did not believe the Bill was intended to go on to the statute book. It had been deserted by its lawful parent and would meet with a violent death in another place. He raised the point that as the Prime Minister had introduced a Bill bristling with appropriations, could a private member now take it up and carry it on and be responsib’e for its appropriations? The Speaker ruled that the Crown, having given its assent to tlip Bill when it was introduced, a change of ownership did not affect the position. Mr Lysnar denounced the Bill as propagating “poisonous humbug of prohibition.” Mr T. M.. Wi’ford, as a supporter of State control, opposed the Bill, which, he regretted, the Prime Minister had brought back to the House after progress had been reported. The Hon. 0- J. Bawken feared the bare majority, but ridiculed the idea that there was no intention to pass the Bill. Mr J. McCombs quoted statistics to show that America was having no difficulty with finance and unemployment as- a result of prohibition. If the twelve millions now worse than wasted in New Zealand were turned into useful channels of production there would be no fear of unemployment. Mr V. H. Potter ueclared that the finest thins that con- 1 d ever happen to New Zealand would be prohibition if carried, and if carried it could be kept. The debate eloped at 3.35 ia.m., and on the question that the Bill ho read a third time a division was called for, the voting being: For the- Bill 39 Against 32 The Bill was read a third time and passed. The House rase at 3.50 a.m. till 2.30 p.m. The following is the division list: Ayes (39) : Anderson, BelVinger, Bitchener, Burnett. Dickie. J. Me. C. Dickson, Fraser. A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Harris, H.Holland, Howard, Hunter, T>. Jones. W. Jones, Jordan, Kyle, Ei. P. Lee, Linklater, McCombs, MeKeen, McLennan. McMillan, Martin, Mason (Eden), Nosworthy, Potter, Ransom, Reid, Rhodes, F. J. Rolleston. Stewart, Sullivan, Sykes, Tapley, Waite, Walter, Wright, Young.^ Noes 652) : Armstrong, Atmore, Bartram, Bell. Buddo, Campbei'J, Coates, J. S. Dickson, Elliott, Field, Forbes. Glenn, Hawken, Hen-are, Hockly *E. Holland. Horn, J. A. Lee. Luke, Lysnar, McLeod. J. Mason, Nash, Parry, Poma-re. J- C. Rolleston. Savage, _Sed-(i-ou. Veitch. Ward. AV-ilford, Williams. Pairs. —For the Bill: Uru, Forsyth and Girling. Against; Ngata, Hudson , and Smith.