THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY AUGUST 25, 1926. LICENSING AMENDMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19415, 25 August 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY AUGUST 25, 1926. LICENSING AMENDMENT.

The lorigrexpected licensing Amendment Bijl ( has appeared. It. contains many clauses but all-the attention available, for 1 such a piece of legislation will be concentrated' on two of<' its The first is that which proposes a referendum at, the * next general election to determine thereafter, polls shall be taken, at six-year or'three•year. intervals. The .other provide's for restoration polls should prohibition be carripd. The proposal for a referendum , on' a referendum A I V* • \} 1 V . >•. •V? . it'\gpuld be an* incomprehensible. complication if it did not fit in, so. well wjth a, Known characteristic of'political life. 1 Every Governm&rit," every Parliament, is reluctant to make any change, in the licensing law, and g!a&. whenever, possible, to put ;the responsibility- on ■ other shoulders. TBe ; indiyidijal, , member is never completely happy when he has' to vote 4 yea .or, nay on anything.affecting the' liquor; laws. > A few are uncompromisingly'for or against prohibition* ' The majority prefer to say that the ' issue should be left to the-people, and to-say as little; more as iiQssilile.■ They .should not .be blamed) too much for this hesitation. N.o: doubt.it is not a very statesmanlike' attitude.* The; manner in , which it is . proposed, to .delegate responsibility for altering or retaining the present " interval between polls sav.ours* more of adroitness than statesmanship. • The reason in both ins.fcatic.es is .that the licensing, question exercises far too much influence on*'politics, a'nd has done so for a long time. It has become so much a bugbear to whole generations of political candidates, and to. successive Governments, that the hesitancy to dfT .anything decisive is", understandable even if not very admirable." ,

If; this bill, as .introduced, becomes law;;/'.the - people will haye to , decide whether a lionising poll will fee held at evcry general election, or at every second eleotibni "i The (change sul> mitted for approval or rejection has btjen urged for some time, and has found a fair -measure of . support. The 'arguments ,'Used to/support;-it' are that the present triennial; polls a maleficent influence 'on, thp licensed/trade. The insecurity-'of tenure thereby caused, it is argued, discourages the owners of licensed premises from , spending money "on them.;:V.lf, investment in a .hotel were; to-the risk of prohibition ,'beihg carried, there would ble'imore readiriesß to make the buildings.;«p: to date ' and; to provide better accommodation for the travelling; public". The, merits of this ckse need not be-, discussed. herei It/has been .Stated in these 'or equivalent terms. ; The prohibition movement does not, agree. It has never accepted the idea of polls at longer intervals, and, whatever support the; six-year: interval, may win elsewhere,' the official prohibition voice is not likely to be- heard favouring it. 'A much more neces-sary-change in the time of taking polls has- .been neglected.. Whatever' the, iiitevval between the succefesive referenda on this- question, it 'be, decidedly,;better.v for the country"; if the prohibition and electOrkl votes'were .held at' different times. Their .coincidence under the present law. indans that, two -cam? pai'gnS ' are /in' progress at once. They crosis and Across. Sometimes th# interest afqused by the/prohiki-' tiOn 4 question' has threatened to obscure the.concurrent political campaign. It/.always disturbs the course of -a general election, the chief business of .which* should be the and return.of.the possible .to . represent. the views .of .the .people and conduct the business., of' the: country. If' the prohibition' poll were isolated, and helftat a 'Hiffcrsnt time, the question behind it would" still influence politics. but possibly would not do so to/the 1 degree exemplified by this" bill, to the extent of ■ having a decision Parliament should make suggested 'as the subject' of a referendum. ; .Another amendment regarding polls Parliament will be asked to sanction. This is " the provision, for taking restoration votes; should prohiiition -be ■ carried. • The amending Act of 1018—which authorised the special poll on,prohibition with compensation, held in April, 1919 —estab-. lifehed - the procedure under ' which subsequent votes have been .taken. It alao makes provision for the extinction of licences should ■ prohibition be carried at any time, and adds that-; "No lieensin'g poll shall at anytime thereafter be taken in any district,'* This, as a piece of legislation, is as absurd as it is futile: Absurd,; because so far from stilling controversy oyer the liquor laws, it* would have ensured an immediate campaign for the establishment of restoration polls ; 'futile, because the Parliament of 1918 could no more bind' its -successors than any other Parliament could or can while the Constitution remains as it -is. In the /United States prohibition has been instituted by an amendment to | the Constitution.l If it comes in f New Zealand it will come by a vote of* the'people; based on legislation.

Legislation wilj still bo possible to authorise the taking of another vote, or as many more as may be desired. No Act df Parliament can effectively prevent this, because no Act can be passed which cannot be repealed,or amended. This is fundamental, and it is right. The provision of authority for further referenda iD the £ event -of prohibition beins carried is not a .very important matter at the present moment, but it does at least remove from the Statute Book an extraordinarily foolish clause, the presence of which in any Act is difficult to explain. Though the bill now before Parliament contains a considerable number of proposals bearing on the licensing law the two cited and disstand out as the mOst significant and the most controversial