LICENSING BILL REJECTED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 September 1928, Page 7

LICENSING BILL REJECTED.

ANOTHER LATE SITTING. Conveniences In Hotels, The House met at 2.30 p.m. and al- ■ i.uo'st ■ immediately proceeded ' to the Orders of the Day, the first of which was further consideration of the Licensing Bill in committee. At Clause 20, which provides that hotelkeepers may be required to provide a proper hot water service in hotels, Mr. AY Glenn protested that this was most unfinir to small country who by the Bill'had been deprived of security of tenure. Therefore, they could not afford, to provide a hot water service. Small hotelkeepers were having a hard struggle to make ends meet. Mr. W. Parry said some of the publicans’- best friends were their worst enemies and Mr Glenn was one of them. Hotelkeepers were prepared to play the game and did not object to this provision. ; ' Mr. G. W. Forbes pointed out that the obligation to provide a hot water service . was optional and he did not think the- licensing committee would enforce that'provision where it was likely to cause hardship. The clause was agreed to. - • Clauses 21 and 22 were passed without discussion. The Prime Minister- intimated that he wished to withdraw clauses 23., 24 and 25, which dealt wi. the sale of goodwill and with additional obligations imposed on hotelkeepers, in view of a longer tenure being granted them. Mr' Coates explained that as the improved tenure had not been granted, owing to the restoration of triennial polls, he did not wish to impose these obligations on them. Messrs Forbes and Atmore argued that while it was unfair to impose excessive expenditure on hotelkeepers, owing to their insecurity of tenure, it was imperative that the comfort of the public should be provided for, especially in the matter of sanitary convenience, which was more important than having hot water in the bar. The clauses wore withdrawn. Illogical Ban on “Ads.” On Clause 28, Mr. R, W. Smith (Waimarino) desired an amendment in the direction of permitting papers published in no-license districts to accept liquor advertisements. He pointed out that papers published in metropolitan centres could contain liquor advertisements and could circulate in no-license

districts, which placed the local papers at .a great disadvantage. - Mr. j. McCombs urged that the law as it stood was dong standing and a logical no-license provision. He asked the Prime Minister not to give, himself over wholly to the “ Trade ’ ’ by ac--cepting this amendment. Mr. Coates said the present position was too ridiculous for words. The oig city papers were publishing liquor advertisements in every no-license dis: trict, while struggling local papers could not accept, a penny from the Trade. ’• Mr Lysnar hoped the clause would be amended and give all papers the same chance. On a division, the amendment was carried by 47 ( to 24 and the, clause now reads “No person shall, after the passing of this Act, be deemed to have committed the offence of solicitingorders for liquor within a no-license district/or within ah area proclaimed by the Governor-General under section 272 dt the principal Act, by reason of the fact that he has published, or caused to be published in a newspaper circulating in that district or area (whether published therein or not) an advertisement relating to such liquor.” Rights of Clubs. At Clause 37, Mr. J. Mason (Napier) moved an amendment which would give chartered- clubs which did hyf have dining rooms on six nights of the year/ the right to sell liquor between six o’clock and ten o’clock. Mr. P. Fraser, Sir John Luke and Sir Joseph Ward supported the amendment as being reasonable. At present a club , desiring to hold a social had to go to some other hall where liquor could be consumed. This would only give them the same facilities on their own premises and save' them a great deal of trouble. Mr. Lee (Oamaru) a.sked the Minister of Justice if the Police had any objection to this proposal and the Hon. F. J. Rolleston replied that the police had no objection to it. The discussion was proceeding when • the House adjourn at 5.30 p.m. Sales After Six. •On resuming at 7.30, the committee of the House continued the discussion on Clause 37 and the amendment proposed by Mr. J. Mason (Napier). Mr. D. G. Sullivan said the amendment was a most undesirable one and ho hoped it would not be agreed to. Mr. McCombs said the amendment simply meant a wholesale extension of six o’clock closing. ■> On a division the amendment was carried by 43 to 25. Hon. J. A. Young moved to amend the amendment by ’ striking out the word “sale” of liquor at socials proposed to be held by chartered clubs. Mr. J. Mason said if a club was deprived of the right to sell liquor at socials,, it was being deprived of the purpose for which it ’was chartered, ; whch was the sale and consumption of liquor. Mr. Wilford said Mr Young’s proposal was absurd, because he was will* ing to permit members of clubs to con- . siime liquor on the premises but they would have to buy it elsewhere. Mr. Young did not press his proposal and the amendment as moved by Mr. Mason was embodied in Clause 37, which was then passed as amended. Registration of Barmen. At Clause 40, providing for the re-

g&tration of barmen by tlio Poliee)|iß Armstrong objected to this being no more reasonable than.tboiffl gistration of every shop assistant.J|H would inflict insult and humiliatSaM upon hundreds of the working clwH who were just as respectable as\|tj|fH other class. " '• Mr. F. N. Bartram said he : didWjiß object to the~ registration of barmajj but he did object to it being donejtw the Police.. It should be done by. tofl secretary of the Trade Union to* whiefl they belonged. "Why were the Pqlifffl called in?. Why yras this indignity pi« upon a respectable section of the eonjH inanity? Mr. Fraser asked who wanted -th<| clause. Did- the Prime Miniptat SPfinH itf • The Prime Minister said he regarded! the clause as a most important one:yHiijl view was that- if they were to haVel proper control of liquor, they must he! careful of the type of men who handled! it. <■ Barmen must be: given a higher! status than ever they had before. They! must have authority and their, . jgro.rdl must go, so that: there would, bfi' v moni! efficient control of the liquor~bqsiMtt£! At this stage the , Prime stated he had had- several inter with barmen’s organisations and. Jafl they put the matter before subject was not without its and his clause might require amendment. He was not wedded to it, and was quite'--to withdraw it. The clause was with-! drawn. . ’ The remaining clauses were passed! without amendment. v The Prime Minister then moved ft! new clause, permitting an unmarried! woman, being a daughter or sister of a! deceased; licensee, to hojd a n .f|l some kind in'"respect pf-the mises. , J '' - *'V^| h£r. Wilford thought lie saw erdbie danger in the clause, whieffi ever, was agreed to. M “Characters” For Licensees. ■ ; The following amendment moved ,bjj| Mr. Lysnar, was accepted; “Before’ granting a license for any - Jiceiscd| premises undei\this Act to any it shall be the duty of all clefkfiX-of|; licensing committees' to apply 'ttf <thc-1 Licensed. Victuallers other organisation of the liquor to furnish to the chairman of any:?) licensing committee- a, certificate ofPj character of'-any applicant for a; license. j; - > Mead and Wine. $ Tlxree new clauses, moved by -Mr.,'*. Mason (Napier) permitting the sale o£j liquor made from honey produced in f ;| ■New Zealand were withdrawn, afteM they had experienced soma opposition;! and were not accepted by the Prime ; Minister. . A new clause, moved by Mr, Mason, 7 ! permitting the exhibition of wine and--’? the taking of orders for wino at exhi-;| bitions in no-license districts, was.* agreed to. Mr. Mason explained that?: his amendment was intended to meet l * the case of the Wellington winter show.C which was now being held in a no-,4 license district and at which ■' wine'J.* workers had been in the habit of biting and canvassing for orders. Now ,< they could not do so. ‘- : J (Continued on Page 5). .