SALE OF LIQUOR BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16673, 18 October 1917, Page 4

SALE OF LIQUOR BILL.

REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS. CONFERENCE OF HOUSES. ] DATE OF OPERATION CONFIRMED. [BY TELEGRAPH.— CORRESPONDENT.] r WELLINGTON, Wednesday. J The Sale of Liquor Restriction Bill came ' before the House of Representatives this f evening with the amendments made by the ( Legislative Council. ( The Prime Minister said many of the t amendments by tho Legiihtivo* Council ( were important and far-reaching. At the ] same time, he did not anticipate much 1 difficulty in bringing the two Chambers to < an agreement. He moved that the House i agree with the amendments with the ex- I ception of certain clauses, which lie i enumerated. He agreed with the amend- ! ment to clause 2, postponing the coming J into operation of the Act from November i 1 to December 1. 1 Mr. G. J. Anderson (Mataura): What ' is the reason of that? < Mr. Massey said he had been informed j > by the legal advisers of the Government ' I that it mijht be impossible to comply with I ' all the formalities before November. i' Proceeding, Mr. Massey said he was ' '• advised that to give effect to the intention ' lof the Council it would be necessary to ' < redraft the new clauses dealing with the ' ■ adjustment of rent, and the restriction of | wholesale dealing in liquor, and for that : ; purpose he proposed that the House j I should disagree with those amendments. I Ho did not agree with the proposal that ' licensees should have the option of closing i their premises during the operation of the i I Act. I I Liquor Wit.i Meals. j : Mr. Massey added that the new clause' J dealing with chartered clubs differentiated I between clubs and hotels. "We propose , to put them on the same footing," he said. It was also intended thai the provisions of the Bill should apply to Bellamy's. Ho proposed also that further consideration . should be given to the question of meals in ' hotels outside the hours for the sale of j liquor. The new clause provided that persons could have meals in hotels before 9 I a.m. and after 6 p.m., but could not have I liquor with the meals, unless they were boarders. Thus a man staying at a hotel and inviting some friends to dinner could have liquor himself, but could not invito his friends to share it with him. This was an arrangement that was bound to cause friction. It would b>3 very awkward in the country, where many drovers and farmers were in the habit of taking meals: :on licensed premises. Some of these men | liked a glass of beer with their meals, and j 1 to deny it to them would give rise to irrita- : i tion. Tho Bill was intended to close the | bars at six o'clock, and that provision j should be loyally complied with, but the restaurant side of the hotels required attention. Mr. G. Forbes (Hurunui): What is "a meal?" Mr. Massey said a slight amendment to the definition of licensed premises would i be necessary in order to meet such cases j as the annual dinners of societies which j might wish to entertain some guests. ! Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) contended i that the present trading hours should stand ! I until the expiry of the present 'licenses. The ■ No-license Party had gained a great deal j by securing six o'clock closing and he asked i it to show a little mercy to the men who were going to be ruined by the alteration lof the law. If prohibition had been : car- j ried at the last election, the licenses would ! still have run till the end of next? June. ■ He moved as an amendment that tho House should disagree with clause 2 containing the date of the operation of the Bill. He said the date could then be considered by the conference of tho two Houses. i Opposed to Any Delay. Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North)/ , said the Council had already given tho . I liquor trade an extra month. The proposal ' j to extend the time from November to De- ; I cember had absolutely no reason behind it, ; I except to give the trade another month. However, the No-license Party was not , I going to strain at that point, but to set , back the date to June 30 would destroy , : the value of the Bill altogether. i The Prime Minister eaid the effect of / disagreeing with the date proposed by tho . Council probably would be a return to the i original date, November 1. Tho amendment was defeated by 50 r votes to 24, the voting being as follows :— 5 For the amendment (24): Bollard, 5 | Brown, Buick, Carroll, Colvin, Fletcher, /, Forbes, Glover, Herd/man, Hudson. Jeni; nings, McCallura, Mac Donald, Myers, 3 : Parata, Payne, Scott, R. W. Smith', d Statham, Thacker, Ward, Webb, Wilford, I Witty, r Against the amendment (50): Allen, -1 Anderson, Anstey, Buddo, Craigie, Dickie, t ' J. M. Dickson, j. S. Dickson, Ell, T. A. y H. Field, W. H. Field, Findlay, Fraser, t Guthrie, Hanan, Harris, Henare. Herries, i- Hindmarsh, Hornsby, Hunter, Isitt, Lee, '- McCombs, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, A. r K. Newman, E. Newman, Ngata, Nose worthy, Okey, Parr, Pearce, Poland, it Pomare. Poole, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. d Rhodes, Russell, Sidey, G. H. Smith, n Sykes, Talbot. Thomson, Yeitch, Walker, y Wilkinson, Wright, Young. o ' Mr. Massey then moved that' Sir John >r Findlay, Mr. C. A. Wilkinson, and the sr mover should be a committee to confer ie with the representatives of the Council, it After some discussion Sir Joseph Ward was added to the committee, and the Prime Minister's motion was then carried.