PARLIAMENT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VIII, Issue 311, 4 December 1918, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3rd. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Legislative Council met al 2.30 p.m. The Electric Power Boards Bil was passed through all stages with' out amendment. The Aviation BdLL was read tht first time. The Crimes Amendment and th( Reformatory Institutions Amend ment Bill were introduced and reac the second time pro forma. The Council adjourned at 5.5( ' p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LICENSING BILL. The House met at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Massey moved . the secojic reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill. He said in view of the tremendous and unceasing unrest ir the liquor question the Government felt they were bound, if possible, tc find a solution. This they hoped tc do by means of the bill, which was based largely on the proposals oi the National Efficiency Board on the question. He cited the proposals of the board, the principal of which is that if prohibition be carried compensation be paid. In support of this he read the petition of the New Zealand Alliance signed by 240,000 persons, asking that effect be given to the -board’s proposals. He also read the “Trade” petition signed by 306,826 persons asking that the issue of, national ownership should be submitted to the people as well as continuance and prohibition. Then followed the “Labour” petition, signed by 1850 persons, and then the “Moderates’ ” petition signed by between 70G and 800 persons. He also, referred to deputations which waited on the Government, all of which he said expressed their views in plain and concise terms. He said some doubt had been expressed whether four, and a half millions would be. sufficient to provide compensation if that issue were carried, but he had the estimates prepared on the bases of the clauses of the bill, and a competent authority considered £3,691,666 would be sufficient. Coming to the bill itself, he said there were only two outstanding proposals. In April next the people would vote on the Question of continuance or nrohibtion with compensation. If continuance were carried then at the next general election the people would vote on three issues, continuance, prohibition or national ownership. If at this poll one of the three issues does not get an absolute majority of votes cast, then continuance would be declared carried. He estimated that the compensation in the event of State Control being carried would cost ten millions. The bill was a simple one, easily understood, and its object was to give effect to a large body of public opinion which favoured reform of the liquor trade, and he thought it capable of providing sound reform. Mr. E. P. Lee said this bill came before the House as the outcome, of public agitation, not as the policy of the National Cabinet, which he thought was not much to the credit of the National Cabinet. Discussing the bill, he said it was drafted in such a way that there was grave doubt as to the limit on the compensation to be paid. If the .National Cabinet, could not definitely determine this amount, it was next to impossible for a private member to do so. Yet he proposed to attempt the impossible by moving in committee that compensation. be limited to four and a half millions. He was not prepared to give the National Cabinet a biank cheque in a matter of this kind. He contrasted the action of the Government noW with that of 1910. Then they refused reform of license. They could not afford to lose re”enue. Now revenue did not count, and thej’ were prepared to pay compensation on top of the loss of revenue. But they were going much further, for if prohibition was not carried in April, then at the next general election they were prepared to place themselves in the position of having to buy out the “trade” at any price to take up State control, no matter what it cost. He censured the constitution of the Compensation Court which contemplated one of the assessors being a direct representative of the “trade,” while it- was not contemplated that'the other should represent the opposite party. This tribunal should b.e strictly impartial and he intended to move an amendment which he hoped would have the effect of so constituting the tribunal. He believed some such bill was wanted by the people, and no obstruction should be put in the way of its passage. Mr. G, Witty said the National Government had always shirked its duty in not submitting their proposals "to the people. Long ago they put off a general election when the people could have expressed an opinion on the subject cheaply, but they thought it- impossible to get money for schools and necessary works. The Government wai%oing to spend many thousands on the referendum. Then if the Prohibition Party was not successful at the first poll a second poll is to • be held, which he characterised as distinctly unfair to the “trade.” All this was brought- about by the Efficiency Board, some members of which did not always practice what they preached. He further complained that no opportunity would be given to soldiers to vote, which was most: unfair. | Mr. Massey said that eighty per j cent of the soldiers would be able I to vote. Mr. Witty, continuing, said he doubted that very much. In any! case the whole project was simply a means to permit the Government to escape its obligations. If there was to be prohibition, it should be complete prohibition. No- a drop of I liquor should come into the country, not even for sacramental pur-1 poses. For that kind of prohibition he would vote, |

(Continued from Page 2). Mr. R. AlcCallum said he was wholly opposed to the referendum because it took power out of the hands of Parliament, and was tne sheet anchor of the political shirker. It was deplorable that the House should be called upon to discuss such a bill as this, because it contained no policy but was a simple chopping block of the Moderate Party, which lay between the other two, one of which was largely made up of selfish brewers and. the other largely of cranks. The bill was an unreasonable bill when we were, all striving for peace, when the soldiers were away, and w’hen the leaders of the House will be away. He therefore proposed to move that the bill be read that day six months. Mr. J. Payne considered the carrying of prohibition would have a highly detrimental effect on the unskilled labour market, which was most unfair to the returning soldiers. He favoured State control as a solution of the liquor problem, as it put that trade beyond the pale of private profit. Mr. Downie Stewart said exception had been taken to the bill because it did not definitely limit the amount of compensation to be paid ; but the Government could not fix the amount. All they could do in a bill of this kind is to lay down the principles on which compensation should be paid, and if. people were satisfied with these principles the people must take the risk of how much compensation must be paid. That was a matter entirely for the Court, which had all the evidence before it. In no case that he could remember was ever. a Court set up to grant compensation where the maximum amount of compensation was already fixed, for it had been said that if this were not done they were giving the Government a blank cheque. But why not, if the people were prepared to pay it. That was a point for the people and not the House to decide. He thought the ballot paper was not the most perfect form of voting on the question, and he thought that the chairman of the Compensation Court should be a judge of the Supreme Court, not a stipendiary magistrate. Air. R. P. Hudson did not favour cither prohibition or a referendum, especially a referendum on the bare majßrity. He would vote for the bill, but if any one moved an amendment substituting a three-fifths majority for a bare majority he would give it his support. I Mr. IV. T. Jennings did not favour ' prohibition, but he asked the PreI niier to sav in his reply whether all the adults in the King Country would be allowed to vote.

Air. O. J. Anderson said there was no good postponing the bill, nor die he favour giving the Government :i blank cheque in the matter of compensation. The amount of compensation should be fixed. Dr. Thacker said the greatest word in the British language wa: "moderation,” but the Natioria Government was not practising moderation, for it was the mosi keenly controversial measure that could be introduced. Air. R. McCallum's amendment was wise, as i*l gave everyone time to think abou! the question. It would give tin soldiers time to come back. It gavr the leaders of the House time tc get back, and he was going to .vote in that direction. The Natrona! Cabinet wholly missed its mark in the direction of social legislation. There was extravagance going on in all directions, and no effort made tc cheek it. Why, then, strike at the social pleasures of the people. The bill was not a square deal. Dr. Newman said he could not understand providing compensation for the trade when the trade Cquio be abolished without it. Certainly compensation should be limited, and people should know exactly what they were voting for. He was willing to do something to settle the liquor question, but the bill seemect only to consider the rights of the I trade, taking no cognisance of th> I rights of the people, and the people would not get a nearing. He great 'ly depreciated the unseemly hast.' with which the bill was being rushes through. Sir J. G. Ward said members who complained at the proposal to gran I s compensation seemed to forget that j under the existing law if national I prohibition were carried those in the trade were entitled to four years respite, but that right- was taken away from them under the bill, ami suredv that concession was worth something. He was quite, in favour of limiting the amount of compensation, and"he thought every membei of the Government was in favour cl a limit, but what they had to be sure of was that the limit fixed within the amount required. Hi did not know’ on what basis the accountant worked who made tm estimates for the Premier, but in was prepared to make the limit a million more than these authorities fixed it if necessary, so that the limit was above the amount required and not wfithin it. The second part of the bill was necessary because no one wanted the licensing question revived next session. *lhey wanteo to get the question out of the way. and so they made provision for a futher poll if it was required. th wanted clear issues put- before the people so that they could give a decision on a question of which he nacj never been clear during the whole o! the t.hirtv-one vears he had been in the House, and he felt convinced that the bill would' accomplish that object. Air. J. McCombs said the measure was ’characteristic of the Nationa Government, which was too weak to give a lead. The people were entitled to come to the House, ano ask to be allowed to vote on any great question, but they were not entitled to say how they may vote on these questions. It was the dut. of Parliament to protect the interests of the people m this respect, and the bill did not do this. . bn J (i. AVard spoke of « ascertaining the will of the people,” but under the svstem of voting provided in t.ie bill the issue was all in favour Oi the trade. The only fair system m voting when there were [° ur T issues was that proposed b.v the. Labom partv, viz., preferential voting, and he proposed to move amendments in this direction when the bnl was in committee. . , Air. W. Nosworttiy said tne House had no: a hope of settling the liquor question by passing inis bid.

which was more a trade bill than a prohibition measure. He did not like the principle of compensation, but he felt he had to do the best under the peculiar circumstances, and vote for the bill, Mr.. C" E. Stratham considered there must be a limit fixed in the bill as to the amount of compensation to be paid, otherwise the public could be intimidated in voting through not. knowing what prohibition would cost. Mr. P. Fraser said the bill bore the character mark of the National Government, the mark of weak compromise. The Labour party wanted to trust the people, and thts bill did not trust the people. He criticised the voting scheme of the bill and claimed that the transferable vote was the only way to get a true expression of the people. Therefore the Labour party would move'in that direction in committee. AMENDMENTS LOST. A decision was taken on Mr. McCallum's amendment at nine o’clock, when the amendment was lost by 54 to 9. Mr. Massey in reply defended the compensation proposals, which were on exactly the same principle as employed in the case of taking land for a road or a railway under the Public Works Act. Replying to Mr. Jennings, the Premier said all adults in the King Country would have an opportunity of voting on the issues of the bill, but he pointed out there was no proposal in the bill to establish licenses in the King Country. He justified the postponement of the elections, and the consequent delay of the referendum owing to the war conditions, pointing out that there had not been an election in England for ten years. In New Zealand we would probably have an election next December, in which case we would have had a five years Parliament. Personally he thought triennial Parliaments too short, though he might not be prepared to go so far as to say they ought to be for five years. Discussing the methods of voting, he said a bare majority had been, conceded for all ’ issues and he believed that had come to stay. In his opinion the trade in giving up the four and ■ fl.half years’ respite had parted with their sheet anchor. He moved the second reading of the bill, which was challenged, and a division called for. The bill was read the second time by 55 to 8. Following was the division list on Mr McCallum’s amendment to the Liquor Bill. The division for the second reading was identical except that. Mr. Jennings changed over. For the amendment (9) Brortm, Colvin. Jennings. A. B. Newman, Poxircc, Tt, AV. Smith, "Witty, Di. Thacker, McCallum. Against (5-1). —S’r J. Allen, Anderson, Anstey. Bollard, Btnldo. bir J. Carroll. Craicie. Dickie. J. M. Dickson. Ell. T. Field. IV. FT. Field, Forbes, P. Fraser, Sir. Wm. Fraser, Guthrie, Hanan, Harris, Herries, Hornsbv. Hudson, Hunter, Isitt, Lee, Luke, McCombs, MacDonald, . Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Myers, ’ E Newman, Ngata, Nosworthy, Parr, Payne, Poole, T. TV. Rhodes, Russell, Scott, S. G. Smith. Strac'iani, Stewart, Sykes. Talbot, Thompson. Ltu, Veitch, Walker, Sir f. G. AVard, Wilford, Kilkinson, Wright, Young.

1N COMMITTEE

The Housi then went into Committee. , Mr. C. P. Lee moved an amendnent, the effect of which was .to limit tiie amount of compensation o be paid under the bill at four and , i-half millions. ] Mr. Massey said he believed four and a-half millions would be ample ■ but he desired to protect . himself i igainst the possibility that it would not be sufficient. If not sufficient then there would have to be a pro ( -ata reduction all round, but that ( would mean they would be open io . lie accusation that they had taken . nropertv for nothing. They must i rely on the impartiality of the tnbu- ( FIXED. ' Immediately on resuming after ' time supper adjournment, Air Massey announced that he hao accepted All Lee's amendment fixing the Emit of , compensation, at four and. a half millions. . The amendment was earned on the voices. Mr. A. T. Ngata moved that the electoral districts shou’d include the Alaori electorates so that the opinion of the Alaori people for what it was worth should be given expression to at the same time as the European poll. Air. Alassey said dt was all a question as to how the amendment would affect the proposals m the bill. He doubted if the rolls could be prepared and machinery made available in time, but if the honourable member would withdraw the amendment he would see what could be done and if necessary, amendment could be moved later. Air. L. Al. Isitt asked it the p-" could not be taken tin Alarch instead of April, when the Peace c( le brations would probably be obse.. Mr. Massey promised consideration, and if arrangements could be made he would have the cnai* o c made in the Legislative, Council. Air. Nosworthy move to deletv the words “with compensation, seeking to* secure national prohet* tion with compensation The amendment was lost by 41 to to 14. Those supporting the amendment were Anderson, Anstey, Dickson (Chalmers), Fraser (Wellington Central), McCallum. McCombs Dr. Newman, Scott, A eitch, Walker, Wilkinson, Young, Nosworthy, and Pearce. . Air. McCombs moved an amendment providing for four issues to be submitted to the people on the referendum, national piohibition .with and without compensation, national ownership and continuance, on the basis of preferential voting. Inis, he said, meant- trusting the people. Mr. Massey said he could not accept the amendment. It was tot, dangerous a thing to experiment with when 4> millions of the people’s money was at stake. Mr. Isitt said he could not afford to risk the bill even for democratic principles. . . . . After lengthy discussion a division was taken, the amendment oemg lost by 45 to 14. Replving to Air. G. Hunter, who asked if it was proposed to give the soldiers an opportunity of taking pare in the poll, Mr. Massey said the regulations would have to be carefully thought out, as it was the t intention to give every soldier a vote - wherever possible. , The Premier accepted an amend--3 mens suggested by Air. P. Fraser . placing those engaged in clerical 1 work about hotels amongst those f entitled to compensation. 3 The Premier also accepted an s amendment moved by Air. G. J. Ans derson striking out the provision 9 that one of the assessor • of compen- • sations shaH*be a person represents ing the class of persons entitled tc t compensation. B Mr. C. E. Statham moved ar amendment providing that prohibn

tion without compensation must tie carried by a three-fifths majority. The amendment was lost by 45 to 9. A new clause was inserted on the motion of the Premier providing for greater punty of the polls. Mr. C. A. ’Wilkinson moved an amendment making six o’clock closing a 'permanent institution. Mr. Alassey said he favoured the proposal but this was not the proper measure in which to embody it and he was unable to accept it. On a division the voting was equal 27 On either side. The Chairman of Committees gave his casting vote for the amendment, which was read the second time. On the question that the clause be added to the bill the voting was: — For the amendment 28, against 27. The voting was as follows: — For the amendment, (28). — Allen, Anderson, Anstey, Buddo, Craigie, Dickson J. Al., Ell, Field T. A. H., Fraser P., Hanan, Harris, Isitt, Lee, AlcCombs, Alander, Newman A. K., Newman E., Nosworthy, Parr, Pearce, Poole, Sykes, Talbot, Veitch, Walker, Wilkinson, IVright, Young. Against (27). —Bollard, . Brown, Carroll, Colvin, Dickie, Dickson J. S., Field AV. H., Forbes, Fraser Sir AV., Guthrie, Herries. Hornsby, Hudson, Hunter, Luke, McCallum, AlacDonald, Alassey, Myers, Payne, Rhodes T. AV., Scott, Stnith S. G., Thomson, AVard, Wilford, AVitty. . The bill was then reported with amendments, read the third time, and passed. POST AND TELEGRAPH. The Post and Telegraph Reclassification Bill was introduced by Governor’s Alessage and read the first time.

The House rose at 12.35 a.m., till noon.