LICENSING BILL REJECTED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 September 1928, Page 5

LICENSING BILL REJECTED.

ONE VOTE MARGIN AFTER LENGTHY DEBATE. N.Z. WINE AND CLUB CHARTERS CAUSE DIVISION. The debate on the Licensing Bill came to an unexpected end i»a the House early this morning. Despite the fact that the various amendments yesterday were carried by what seemed to be a Comfortable Prohibition majority of ten* or twelve votes, the third reading was rejected by 34 votes to 33, which means that the forthcoming, poll will be fought on three-issue baremajority lines. Doubt about the effect of Clauses 19 and 37 appears to have been the main* factor in the defeat of the BiU/ S*'-'' / Clause 19, which was endorsed by 36 votes to 27, gave New Zealand wine-makers the right to dis- . pose of wines containing up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit. Clause 37 proposed to empower . the police to authorise hotels and chartered clubs to sell and serve liquor at banquets or similar functions in a room set “apart as a dining room up to 10 p.m., instead of 8 p.m. under the existing law. In the case of clubs the extension of * hours was limited to one occasion in six months. Mr J. Mason (Napier) moved an amendment which would extend the concession to chartered clubs which did not have dining rooms by giving them the right to sell liquor between six o’clock and ten o’clock on six nights in the year. Prohibition members declared these clauses provided loopholes Which destroyed the whole value of the Bill, and the third reading was lost.

THE FINAL DEBATE. (By Telegraph—Press Association). WELLINGTON, This Day. Consideration of the Licensing Bill was resumed after the Telegraph Office closed. King Country Licenses. A further amendment, moved by Mr. Mason was withdrawn ahd the Prime Minister then moved to report progress in order to bring in a further amendment by x Governor General 7 s message providing Hhat a poll be taken in the King Country as to whether licenses shall or shall not be granted in that area on a 3-sths. majority. The Prime Minister said this was a proposal that had been put before many Government- but it could not be done unless brought in by Governor’s message. He had, in response to a request of members of the district, decided to give Parliament the opportunity to express an opinion on it. At present, he would express no personal opinion upon it. Mr. McCombs protested that a surprise was being sprung upon the House and on the pe pie of the district concerned, by the raising of a question which was surrounded wiu. great difficulty. It was most unfair. Mr Armstrong said this amendment was a Local Option Bill. It was foreign to the present Bill and l would jeopardise its third reading. Mr, Lee (Auckland East): “So much the better.’’,, Mr. Armstrong: “So much the better, then. The amendment is a catch and we want no catches here.” The Leader of the Opposition protested against tnc introduction of such important matters at that late hour, after an all-night sitting. It should be withdrawn and brought down in a special Bill, ’ since there was much to be said on both sides. Mr. Rolleston (Waitomo) declared the element of surprise was not present, as the Prime Minister had, when the Bill was brought down, promised that this amendment would be placed before members. House Rejects King Country Poll. On resuming in committee on the Bill, the new- clauses were submitted in detail, the following being the effective provisions. A poll of European and Maori electors in the King Country shall be taken simultaneously with the licensing poll to be taken next after the passing of this Act, to determine the question whether licenses shall be granted within that area or not. The proposal that licenses shall be granted within the area-mentioned shall not bo deemed to be'carried unless three-fifths of-the voteb cast shall ve in favour of such proposal.. If the proposal to grant licenses is carried/ a licensing district shall be created and the number or publicans’ licenses granted shall not exced one complete 50(1 electors of the district at,the date of the coming, into force of the determination and shall not be ; less (if a sufficient number of such licenses is duly, applied for) than one fdr every complete 1000 electors of th© ; district at the date aforesaid.’’ ;v " On the? -motion being put that the. clauses be>read a second time, a division was;spalled for, when tiio voting was for ./the -clauses 21, against fiie clauses 48. 'The clauses were not read a secon#;time<- - The schedules of tbe Bill were/then agreed to. and the committee -stage of the Bill was concluded. . ' V Contentious Classes. On resuming in the House, Mr. Harris moved;,to re-commit the Bill in order to reconsider clauses 19 and 37. He did so, because hb thought- members did not. ‘fully realise what had been done. The?’ Prime Minister asked Mr. Harris not to press his motion, because there whs tt difference offi©pinion as to the meaning of clause 19, which dealt with proof spirit of New Zealand wine. The bad his opinion, but he (Mr. Coates) had gone further and had for Another opinion and ho would-fhave the-matter looked into before the Bill went to the Legislative woulcL also give further consideration to clause 37, dealing with clubs. . Qq.^this, agreedto.. withdraw his proposal to re-commit the Bill. . ... ; . M? Potterßeverses'His 'VotA,'. »• When.the third reading of .the. Bill was caliph : on, the Prime Minister de-.

dined to move it and this was done by Mr. Bellringer. The Leader of the Opposition reverted to the printing of ballot papers for a licensing poll and was replied to Dy the Minister of Lands on lines previously published. ; Mr. Potter said he would vote against the third reading of the Bill, because it. contained clauses 19 and 37. He felt that by agreeing to those clauses, prohibition *would lose more than it would benefit by its other gains. Messrs McCombs and Harris expressed regret that Mr Potter proposed to take that step in view of the de* finite assurance of the Prime Minister that clauses 19 and 37 would $3 reviewed. \ :/ , The Prime Minister defended; himself against'Mr Holland's charges , with regard to ; the printing of the ballot papers. When he introduced the Bill, he know nothing of, the ballot papers being printed and he was not in any way deceiving the House or the people of the country. He had introduced the Bill at the request of a great majority of his own party and of other members. He was sincerely convinced that the principles of the Bill, as he introduced it, were sound and since the Bill/had been so changed as to make it almost the reverse of his opinions, Jie could not be expected to vote for the third reading. If in that ho failed, he would do his best to get it through the Legislative Council, because ho wanted to see.the licensing question out of the way. Third Reading Lost. On the third reading a division was called for and resulted as follows:-^-For the Bill . ... . ,33 Against the Bill 34 The Bill was not read a third time and the House rose at 7.35 a.m. Following is the division list: —- For the Bill —33: Against —34: Bellringer Armstrong Bitchener Atmore Burnett Bartram Dickie Bell J. McDickson Buddo Forsyth Campbell Fraser Coates Girling J. v F. Dickson A. Hamilton Eliott J. B. Hamilton Forbes Harris Glenn H. Holland Henarc Howard Hoekly D. Jones. H. E. Holland. W. Jones Hudson Kyle funter Linklator Lee McCombs Luke Martin nar v H. G. R. Mason 'Potter McMillan rotter , ; j Mason Eansont Nash Reid Parry F. J. Eolleston j C. Rolleston Sidey Samuel • Stewart Savage Shllivan ‘ Seddon Sykes - Smith Tapley Uru Waite : Wditch Walter • Ward Wright '. / ■ - Williains Young Wilford