The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1927. LICENSING BILL.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 November 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1927. LICENSING BILL.

J The good intentions of the Prime I Minister to produce a Licensing Bill to please all shades of opinion failed. I His Bill was not acceptable to any I party, though having reached the stage it has, the New Zealand Alliance is rather sorry it spoke too soon, and now rails at Mr Coates for withdrawing the Bill. At the outset Mr Coates took all the credit—or discredit—for the Bill, claiming paternity. The division lists indicate—the reason—members of the Cabinet were divided in their opinion on crucial points. In that respect Ministers were not any different to the rank and file, for generally, members found themselves hound by pledges which they were in honour hound to respect. And so we find Reform. Liberal and Labour well mixed up in the division lists, and some of the members bewailing the fact that owing to pledges given on the hustings they were voting against their own convictions ! That is a state of affairs which should remind the unwary to he careful of in the future, and no doubt with the lesson learned greater circumspection will l>c shown in the future. As to the Bill, it was frankly a compromise as between what the two main parties on the liquor question desired. The third party was eliminated, and with that went the third issue. Reduced to two issues—continuance and prohibition—the ballot paper was adopted by the House. So far, so good. Next came the tenure. Mr Coates had provided for polls every six years instead of three years as at presnt. He gave a cogent reason for so doing, namely a more secure tenure whereby some security would he given the licensee to justify building or improving the licensed premises to meet general requirements. It was (and is) a good and sufficient reason to that end, but the House threw out the clause., and virtually maintained the three years’ proposal. Assuming that Mr Coates had suggested six years as a compromise for rendering one of the issues of the ballot paper, his Bill was at once jeopardised hv the action of the House—and a substantial majority at that. However, he persevered with the Bill, and then came another test on the majority required to carry prohibition or to restore continuance, in the event of prohibition being carried. The Prime Minister placed the required majority as 55 per cent, to 45 per cent, with the idea again of securing stability, that is, that the majority would he substantial enough to justify the full operation of the decison. Here again, the House by a marked majority threw out the proposal and reverted to the bare majority. This meant the complete upsetting of Mr Coates’ main proposals, and by a majority of seven lie secured progress being reported in order to give time to consider the matter. Til asking for progress he threw the onus on the House and plainly stated the facts, and by the small majority mentioned he has gained time to consider the position. At the time of writing it would appear Mr Contes will he disposed to drop the Bill for the session, in which ease, if it is to come up again there -will have to he a beginning do

novo next session. In the Bill, as presented, Air Coates offered what lias been regarded generally as a fair compromise The two issue ballot paper was a great gain to the prohibition cause, and really minimised the tenure value. The serious stumbling block was the majority, but that seemed to be a secondary consideration if the two issues could be gained first, and that was possible. The Alliance appears to have been over anxious at Ibis juncture, and missed rather a good opportunity for a material advantage. However, in the respite which lias come the situation will be closely plumbed and there may l>e some developments yet before the session terminates.