BARE MAJORITY

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 20 September 1928, Page 5

BARE MAJORITY

LICENSING QUESTION BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE. TWO ISSUE BALLOT PAPER. NO EXTENSION OF TIME. (By Telegraph—Press A WELLINGTON, Sent. 19. As an outcome of an all-night sitting of the House of -Representatives on the Licensing Bill, introduced by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coaites, there were, as was expected, important amendments made in the measure, the main ones being:— No extension of the time between the polls. A two-issue ballot paper. Bare majority to decide the issue.

When t’.-.-e House of Representatives went into committee on the .Licensing n) Amendment Bill to-night, Mr W. D. tl Lysnar expressed the hope that the <s, Prime Minister would give reasonable facilities to nranbem to move-amend-ments which should be incorporated in s£ the Bill. ■ . ■ tl • Mr Lysnar had oiveu notice ot o it number of amendments, but lie speciall - desired the committee to consider Q] his proposal to hold the licensing poll ni on a dav apart from the day '-i the general election. He also desired to C( make provision against tied houses, and rp he wanted to see ©roper inspection ot q hotels made by properly appointed in- p srieetors. The'police could not do tins in addition to their ordinary work. On w snerial occasions it should he iiorrms- n f-a-ble to use liquor in restaurants. Mr J. A. Lee 'regretted that the Bill jy reduced the number of issues to be tub- *_ mitted to the people when trie modern c tendency was to have the issues increased. Mr W. S'. Glenn sard the Bril was a fair one. It was peculiar that 52 mem- J bensi of the House were returned by “wet” districts, yet the imaiorrty uere L “drv.” He wanted to see the- law re- * main' <ts it was, but- if could poi bs Iji3 would .support the Prime M ms"to f * Mr G. W. Forbes said the Bril v as u ortlv a. -sham fight. If that fact was n not obvious more interest in it cug/it bo displayed. The Bill hod lived and t died last* session and it was going to h die again this session. There was a majority of the rommittcie only waiting for the oppoitunitv to altar its vital v orinciples." for he did not know a single member who had changed tlie vote he ' nvij at the last (session. The Ur ne.' c House laid session made the Bill impos. t s-ibla by 22 votes to 1-1, and there war no evidence that a single vote io Innt Chamber had been changed. D here wan the sense in the Prime fMuii , '?ter ’■•iitting members through the. li<->>p s again? This was/ neither guidance- nor leadership. ' ~ , Mr J. McCombs argued that on lie question of a majority there /.is r.n half-wav house. It was a. otiesu m ot either a majority or a minority .nu as was the case in the House. McmqerS had to go either into the Ayxj <-t “Noes” lobby. , Mir J. Mason indicated that he intended to move an amendment M.ith would give greater facilities tor tlie- use of -alcoholic liquors in chartered clubs. < Mr H T. Armstrong said it the Bill i missed as it stood there might not be a 1 r>:)* 1 on liquor for ten years. Theie as « no mandate from tlie people to do that, ; c or it was never an issue put to the i ooole. He was not against an extension of time between polls,, for there was a good deal to be raid m favour ■f it but it was for the people and not lor the House to say what' should' be Mr :M. J. Savage said lie would not vote to extend the period between the -olio unless that extension wa® speci- . ficaliv sanctioned bv the i>eople. H-e wanted to see thiee issues retained on the ballot paper. State Control was not in the wav of prohibition, buu.it 1 State Control was taken off the ballot he could not vote for what he wanted to vote l for. , r ~ Mr D. Jones said the Leader ot the Opposition had tried to cover up Ins ooini-on of tue Bill by attacking tli i Prime Minister. Personally lie was -iiiite convinced of the Prime Minister s [ honesty of purpose. He wanted to see the political atmosphere cieared up iv o-etting. this licensing question out 1 y{ tl- Jj3 way so that both Houses could address themselves to the (political pioblems of the day. Mr E P. Lee said: the prohibition -arty was not responsible for the elim- ‘ inatlon of the State Control issue from ! the ballot paper. That was the ie--1 s non Ability ot the Prime Minister and. f rightly so. but while he did that he : was taking away what the -prohibition •arty wanted mainly—tlie right to <F- - to;'mine the question by a l-auge ma-jor- - tv .which was wrong. ... ~ The Leader of the Opposition said - there was no intention to pass the , ui-ii He therefore suggested that tne . committee should allow the clauses and amendments to go to quick decisions and settle the matter one way r or the other. There was, no use in " sitting up all night and finding that , after that they had got nowhere. They knew that ballot papers- containing three issues had been printed, s and there was a Bill providing for " two issues. Thef© could he no bettei •’ evidence of insincerity. The Hon. A. D. McLeod said Mr. * Holland had no right to accuse the, Q Prime Minister of dishonesty in his a intentions in introducing the Bill-. s The- Prime Minister knew nothing c about the ballot papers being printed, i- He (Mr. McLeod!) was responsible ter that- if any Minister was. He then l- lead a letter from the Chief Electoral e Officer, stating that the ballot papers t for the licensing noil bad not. been i,- printed, but, as the law provided, abc sent voters’ ballot papers had been printed for tlie no-license districts. That was all that had happened, and there was no dishonesty about it. Mr. D. G. Sullivan contended that the- present system of voting was unI democratic. If three issues were reI taine-d'.on the- ballot papers there must be perferential voting. If three issues I were not retained the issues should be j dete-mined by a hare maioritv. He was definitely against- an extension of .. the time between polls, since that ‘ would deprive a large number of j young voters of the opportunity to ' record their opinions. Mr. H. Atmore -said prohibition was >£ i not carried in New Zealand not because- there were- three issues oil the .ballot pa-ner, but because the people !j l did not want nrehibition. THE DIVISION LISTS, r, After Mr. W. D. Lysnar had made »n his fourth speech against wliat he ie called “immoral ‘and ungodly” pro,u -hibition, the first clause of the Bill was- agreed to at 11.35 p.m. a On the second clause, fixing the freil. quency of polls * at*, six years, ai divi-

sion was called for,, with • the . result that, the clause was struck out by 4votes to 26. . . ... . Following is the division list: For the clause (26).—8e11, Campbell, Coates, Eliott. Field, Glenn, Henare, Horn, Hudson Hunter, Luke, Lyshar, McLeod, MacMillan, J. Mason, Ngata, Pomare, J. C. Kolleston, Samuel, Seddon, Smitli, Urn, Veitch, Ward, Wilford, Williams. Against the clause (4/).—Armstrong, - Atmore, Bar tram, Bellringer, Bitchener, Buddo, Burnett, Dickie, J Me Dickson, J. S.- Dickson, Forbes, Forsyth, Fraser, Girliiig, A. Hamilton, J. H. Hamilton, Harris, Hnwken, H. Holland. H E. Holland, Howard, D. Jones, W. Jones, Kyle. E P. Lee, J. A. Lee, Linklater, McCombs, McLennan, Martin, H. G. RMason, Nash, Parry, Potter, Ransom. Reid, F. J. Rolleston, Savage, Sidey, Stewart, Sullivan, Sykes, Tapley, Waite, Walter, Wright, Young. To clause 3 Mr. P. Fraser moved an amendment providing that- the issues submitted to the people be decided by means of preferential voting. This was defeated by 51 to 12. Mr. T. M. Wilford moved a further amendment changing the issues on the ballot paper from “Continuance” and “Prohibition” to a vote for or against prohibition. That, lie said, would give the prohibitionists exactly what they said they wanted—a straight-out vote for" or against prohibition!. Mr. J. McCombs said the amendment was only calculated confuse the issues. What was the use of indulging in subtleties when they were dealing with practical questions? Mr. C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki) said this amendment was a gift from the Greeks’, and he was going to view it with considerable suspicion. Mr. Wilford’s amendment was lost on the voices. Mr. Wilford then moved a further amendment, the practical effect of which was to addi State control as an issue to the ballot paper. This was rejected' hv 51 votes to 22. Clause three was then agreed to, confirming the two-issue ballot paper. On clause 4, which provided on what majority the issues are determined, some confusion arose as to the priority of the proposed amendments. Mr. j! Bitchener had given not me to strike out practically the whole of the clause. Waving the la.w a.s it now stands, but with a bare -majority. Mr. H. M. Campbell then inter]>osed with an amendment to alter the majority of 55 uer cent proposed in the Bill to 52£ per cent. This gave rise to considerable discussion as to which amendment should he first taken. . The Chairman of Committees nued in favour of Mr. Campbell’s amendment. This ruling was and the Speaker was called in to determine the/ point. Hei ruled that.the first- portion of Mr. Bitchener’s amendment should he taken, which, if carried, would virtually determine the whole anestion of majority. Tim House was proceeding to vote when the telegraph office closed. _lt is obvious from the previous divisions that the hare majority will he carried.