LICENSING BILL DEBATED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 September 1928, Page 7

LICENSING BILL DEBATED.

SIX YEARLY POLL HEAVILY DEFEATED. TWO ISSUES AND BARE MAJORITY . WELLINGTON, Last Night. At the opening of the evening session the House immediately went into committee on the Licensing Amendment Bill. Air. W. D. Lysnar expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would give reasonable facilities to members to move amendments which should be incorporated in the Bill. He had given notice of si number, but he specially desired' the committee to consider"his proposal to hold the licensing poll on a day apart.', from "the day of the general election. He also desired to make provision against ‘ 4 tied ’ ’ houses and he wanted t.o see a proper inspection of hotels made by properly appointed inspectors. The police v equld nol»do this in addition to their ordinary work. Gn special occasions it should be permissible to use liquor in restaurants. VMr. j; 'A. Leet (Auckland East) regretted that the Bill'reduced the number of issues to be submitted to the ’ people, when the modern tendency was t© ha ve the issues increased. Mr. W. Glenn said thel Bill before the committee was a fair one. It was peculiar that- 52 members of the House were returned by ‘ ‘ wet' * - districts, yet ■the majoiity of the House was “dry.” Thus,’the;will of the,minority was likely to be enforced, disregarclhig the will of the majority. Ho wanted to see the law remain as it was, but if that could not bo, he would support the Prltne Alinister. ‘‘A Sham Fight.” Air. G. W. Forbes said the Bill was only a sham fight. If* that factwas not obvious, mote interest in it might be displayed. The Bill had lived and died last session and it was going to die again this session. There was majority of thciHouse committee only waiting for an opportunity to .alter its vital principles, for he did not know of a single • member who had changed the vote he gave last session. The Upper House, last session made the Bill imby 22 votes to 11 and there was no evidence that a single vote in that Chamber had been changed. Where was the sense in the Prime Minister putting members through the hoops again? ■’'^kis s ‘wasr-nmtlier guidance nor leadership. Mr. J. McCombs argued that on the question of a majority, them was no half-way house. It was a question of cither a majority or a minority,! just as it was the case in the;House. Members had to go either into the 4 ‘ayes” or the “ noes ” lobby. Air. J. Mason (Napier) indicated that he intended to move an amendment which would give greater facilities for the use of alcoholic liquors in chartered clubs. Mr. H.'t. Armstrong said if the Bill passed as it stood, there might not be a poll on the liquor question for ten years. There was no mandate from the people to do that, for it was never an. issue to the people. He was not against an extension of time between polls, for there was a good deal to be said in favour of it but it was for the people and not for the House to say what should bo done. Air. At. J. Savage said he would not vote to extend the period between polls unless that extension was specifically sanctioned by the people. He wanted to see three issues ijetained on the ballot paper. State Control was not in, the way of prohibition but if State Control was taken off the ballot paper’s, then he could not vote for what he wanted to vote for. > Third Issue Elimination. Mr. E. P. Lee (Oamaru) said the Prohibition party was not responsible for the elimination of the State Control issue from the ballot paper. That was the responsibility of the Prime Minister and rightly so, but while he did that, he was taking away what the Prohibition party wanted mainly—-the right to determine the question by a bare majority, which was wrong. The Leader of the Opposition said there was no intention to pass the Bill. He therefore suggested the committee should allow the clauses of the Bill and amendments to go to quick decisions and settle the matter one waj or the other . There was no use in sitting up al! night and finding they Uau go!, nowhere. They knew that ballot papers containing three issues had been printed and there was the Bill, providing for two issues. There couKI bo no better evidence of insincerity. Hon. A. B. McLeod said the Loader of the Opposition had no right to accuse the Prime Alinister of being dishonest in his intentions in introducing the Bill. The Prime Minister knew nothing about the ballot papers being printed. The speaker was responsible for that, if any Alinister was. He then read a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer stating that the ballot papers for the licensing poll had not been printed, but as by law' provided) absent Voters ballot papers had boon .printed for no-lieonsc districts.. That was a-, that had happened and there was no d honesty about it. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) said the Leader of the Opposition had tried to cover up his opinions of the Bill byattacking the Prime Minister personal iy. Ho was quite convinced, of the Pi emier's honesty of purpose; he wanted to see the political atmosphere cleared by getting this licensing question out of the way, so that both Houses could address themselves to political problems of , the day. If they could prevent the next election being a liquor election, they should do so. Undemcfcratic Vote. Mr. D. G. Sullivan contended that the present system of voting was' undemocratic. If the three issues were retained on the ballot papers, then there must be preferential voting. If the three issues were not retained on the ballot paper, thou the issues should be determined by a bare majority. He was definitely against an extension of time ■between polls, since that- would deprive a large number of young voters of the opportunity, to record their opinions. , _ Mr. H. Atmorc said prohibition wad

not carried in New Zealand,. not be-; cause there' were three issues on the ballot paper, but because the people did 1 not* want prohibition/ Six-Year'Poll Defeated. After Mr. Lysnarhad made his fourth speech against what'he called “immoral and ungodly” Prohibition, the first of the Bill was agreed to at 11.35. ■ On the second , clause, fixing the fre; quency of polls at six years, a division was called for, with the result that the clause was struck out by 47 votes to 26. To this clause, Mr P. Fraser moved an amendment, providing that issues submitted to the people shall be decided by means of preferential voting. This amendment .was defeated by 61 votes to 12. Following is the division list on the question of retaining claused Ayes (for the clause) 26: Bell, Campbell) Goates.7 Eliott, Field, Glenn, Henare, Horn, Hunter, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, MacMillan, J. Mason, Ngata, Pomare, J. C. Rolleston, Samuel, Seddqn, Smith, Uru, Veitch, Ward. Wilford, Williams. * N6.es (against the clause) 47: Armstrong, Atmore, Bartram, Bellringer, Bitchener, Buddo, Burnett, Dickie, J At. Dickson, J. S. Dickson, Forbes, Forsyth. Fraser, Girling, - A. Hamilton, J. H. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken,- H. Holland, H. E. Holland, Howard, H. Jones, W. Jones, Kyle, B. P. Lee, J. A. Lee, Lknklater, McCombs, McLennan, Alartin, LV G. Mason, Nash, Parry, Potter, Ransom, Reid, F. J. Rolleston, Savage , Sidcy, Stewart, . Sullivan, Sykes, Tapley, Waite, Walter, Wright, Young. At Clause 3, Mr. Wilford moved a further amendment, changing the issues on the ballot paper from f “Continuance ’ ’ and “Prohibition "to a vote for or against Prohibition. . That, he said, would give the Prohibitionists exactly .whatV they - said they wanted—-a straight-out vote for or against prohibition. 1 Mr. McCombs said thev amendment was only calculated to confuse the issues. What was the use of indulging in subtlities when they were dealing with a practical question! Mr. Bellringer 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 add State Control as an issue to the ballot paper. This was rejected by 51 votes to 22. Two Issues and Bare Majority. Clause three was then agreed to, the two-issuo ballot paper. . ■ On clause 4, which provides‘on what.majority the issues . are- to be-'deter-mined. some confusion arose as to the priority -td' the proposed ainendmeius, Air. Bitchener had : given notice to strike out practically the whole clause, leaving the law as it now stands—a bare majority. . , 1 Air. Campbell (Hawke's Bay) then interposed with an amendment to alter the majority of 55 per cent, proposed in the Bill to 521 per cent. This gave rise to considerable discussion as to which amendment should be first taken. . The chairman of Committee ruled in favour of Mr. Campbell's amendment. This Tilling was challenged and the Speaker was'called in to determine the point. ■ ~ The Speaker ruled that the first portion of Air. Bitchener's amendment be taken which if carried, would, virtually, determine the whole question of majority. The proceeding to a vote when the Telegraph office closed, but it‘ is obvious from previous divisions, that the bare majority will be carried. The House was left sitting.