THE LICENSING BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19809, 2 December 1927, Page 13

THE LICENSING BILL.

ATTITUDE' OE COUNCIL. BARE MAJORITY OPPOSED. AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED. A DEADLOCK POSSIBLE. SECOND READING CARRIED. [by telegraph.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Thursday The Licensing Amendment Bill entered on its final stages to-day, when it was brought before the Legislative Council. Tho bill was read a second time on the voices, but in Committee to-morrow several amendments are expected. There has been much counting of heads in the Council during the past two or three days, and the general opinion is that the clauses amended in the House will be reamended in the Council, with the result that there will be a disagreement between the two Houses, resulting eventually in the dropping of the bill. The bill, as it came before the Council, provided for a ballot on the two issues of Continuance and National Prohibition, the ballot to be decided by a bare majority. It proposed tho polls should be taken at every general election.

Moving the second reading of the bill the Hon. J. B. Cow stressed the importance of the measure, which, he said, agitated the minds of all classes of the community. He considered the bill-was an earnest attempt to improve the licensing law, and likely to bo of benefit to the community. Turning to the major clauses of the bill he said it reasserted the principle of the bare majority, which he considered was only reasonable. Members Ready to Vote. "I am conscious 1 am speaking on a question that is riot a new one," continued Mr. Gow. He believed most members had made up their minds on the various aspects of the bill, but he reminded members that it was for them to remember that the bill had been passed by the House of Representatives, the direct representatives of the people, by a substantial majority. When Mr. Gow sat down there was some hesitancy on the part of other members, and the Speaker had put the second reading motion and there was some voting on it before the Hon. W. H. Triggs rose to speak. Mr. Triggs said the bill was far too important' to allow it to go to a vote without some discussion. There were two conflicting sets of opinions. He believed the time would come when the unextreme section of the people would agree that the compromise in the bill as originally introduced in another place was the right thing. He could not understand the attitude of those who made a fetish of the bare majority. There was no virtue in the bare majority; indeed, it might bo wrong. If 11 Judges had to decide a point, six of them deciding one way might r.iot be right against the five deciding the other way. The decision of the five might be upheld by the High Court as against the decision of the six.

Question of Party Loyalty. When the question of personal liberty came in the decision of a bare majority would not be satisfactory. Passing a law by a bare majority would not put a stop to the drinking of strong liquor, although it might lessen the quantity consumed. In America prohibition was not carried by tho vote of a bare majority; it was enforced by an amendment of the constitution. He could not understand the attitude of' some of those. who were pledged to support the present Government being so determined on a non-party issue, caring nothing for party loyalty or tho effect their actions might have on the progress of the country. When New Zealand was recovering from the post-war depression and about to enter on an era of renewed prosperity there were men who were prepared to thjw down the Government on the licensing question and give the reins of power into the hands of those who believed in the socialisation of all the means of production and exchange and who believed in

the confiscation of private property. He would agree to a compromise on the majority question by suggesting * majority of 52J- per cent ; " I ask Mr. Gow would he accept prohibition if it were carried by one vote," Mr. Triggs continued. "If he were Prime Minister, responsible for the . whole of the country to the country, would he be prepared to face all the turmoil that would attend the inauguration of prohibition if it were brought in by even 500 votes ? " Bare Majority Opposed. Mr. Triggs favoured the extension of the tenure to six years, suggesting that this should commend itself to the prohibitionists, for if prohibition were carried a six years interval before the next poll would give the people a better opportunity of becoming used to it and make for stability of conditions. However, he had an open mind on the tenure issue, but if tho bill went to the third reading with the bare majority clause he would vote against it. Tho Hon. E. Newman said he believed all tho members had already made up their minds on the bill. He had always been on the side of temperance and against the great evil of those who were led to the excessive use of alcohol, yet he had not always been able to support the ideas of the temperance party in this matter. He had never been in favour of tho bare majority. (Hear, hear.) They should consider also that there were a large number of people connected with the " trad-s " who were in no way responsible for the evils of the "trade." Were they to be displaced on a bare majority vote and perhaps three years afterwards supplanted by another set of people. There were members elected solely because they had been supporters of the bare maiority on this question. and he submitted that, was not in the public interest. In regard to State Control, he had never believed in that, because once it had been agreed to it would be there for all time and prohibition would be done for O'nce the State got its hand info that very lucrative pie the people would never get it out of it. Eights of the Council.

Mr. Newman said one could easily imagine that with a corrupt Government every hotel controlled by the State would be a centre of interest for that corrupt Government. The only question in regard to liquor was "yea" or "nay," and the clearer the issues were put to the people the better. Many of the country hotels were in poor condition and some were a disgrace, but when complaints were made the proprietors asked what could be expected with only a three years' tenure. He was not in favour of extending the tenure at present because the public were more or less evenly divided on the question, and the present was not an opportune time to make the change. He hoped the protagonists on either side would come together and devise remedies which would not only improve the existing conditions but remove the licensing question from the sphere of politics. " I say definitely that if the Council alters the bill it will exalt the licensing question into the chief issue at the next election," said the Hon. J. A. Hanan. "Our amendments will not remove it from politics. This House has no right or power to alter the decisions of the elected representatives." The Leader of the Council, Sir Francis Bell: Oh, nonsense! Voices: Rubbish!

Mr. Hanan said the people did not elect the members of the Council, but they elected the members of the House of Representatives. The decisions of the House were those demanded at the last election by the people. The Hon. G. J. Garland: By part of the people. A Voico: The issues were not part of the election. Mr. Hanan: They were. Sir Francis Bell: Is that all youi argument about this subject ? Mr. Hanan: Oh, no, I have more. Turning to the majority issue Mr. Hanan, who proclaimed himself in favour of the bare majority, twitted Sir Francis Bell witn having in the past supported the same principle. Sir Francis Bell: Another argument? " Morality and Law."

Sir Robert Stout, who was greeted with u round ot' applause, said alcoiiol was not a welj of cloth and it was not t ordinary goods; it was a racial poison. What, then, was to be done with it ? Was it to be sold like ordinary goods ? To suggest that was to suggest that there should be free trade in alcohol and that there was to bo no restriction on its sale because it was injurious to the people. ''lf you see a great injury being done to the community are you going to say you would not move a foot to stop this murdering of the people unless by a two-thirds majority ?" he asked. The whole question was one of morality and law and not a case of private liberty. The Hon. H. L, Michel said tha Prime Minister was to be congratulated on having brought down the bill and on having declared it was not to be a party question. The majority of the people of the Dominion were with Mr. Coates in saying that the State Control issue was not a live one. He could not for one moment accept State Control. Mr. Michel said he was definitely opposed to the question being decided on the bare majority, but he thought the 55 per cent, to 45 per cent, margin was too wide. He believed in tho three-yearly polls, and expressed the opinion that there would not be any great expenditure on hotel building simply because the tenure was extended.

■'We have heard report* that _ »ny amendment wo make in the majority clause will not be accepted by the House, continued Mr. Michel. "I etnceroly hope that report is without foundation. We do want to get this licensing question out of the way of the political life of this country." Mr. Michel added that if the issue was decided on the basis of 52£ per cent, to 47£ per cent., it would load the prohibtion vote by 35.000 votes. Price oi the Bare Majority. The Hon. L. M. Isitt: What price did the Prohibition Party pay to get the bare majority ? Mr. Michel: I do not know, Mr. Isitt. The local restoration polls on 55 per cent. Sir Frederic Lang said he had been for 30 years in the House, and on every occasion when the matter came up he had not voted in favour of a bare majority, but he would willingly vote for a bare majority if every voter was compelled to vote. Sir Frederic added that he. favoured the State Control issue appearing on the ballot paper and he had always favoured five-yearly Parliaments. He hoped the bill would be improved when it was in Committee. Ho thought candidates should not give pledges on this question in writing: they should answer them from the platform. The Hon. M. Cohen said he never had been and never would be a bare majority man. He supported two issues, but thought the three years term was a mistake in more ways than one. He would, if the opportunity offered, vote for a six years term. The Prohibition Attitude. The Hon. L. M. Isitt said many were unduly alarmed at the possibility of the bare majority vote. The prohibitionists had struggled hard for it and paid for it with the local restoration polls. The prohibitionists were in a majority in the House, and if any concession were made it should be made by those who were opposed to them. They had been told that the greater proportion of the State Control votes would go for Continuance in the two-issue ballot, and now they were asked to forego the bare majority for the sake of a small proportion of that vote. The prohibition cause had been fostered in the face of determined opposition and there was- no chance of the liquor traffic being abolished without the prohibitionists having a substan tial majority behind them. Amendments in Committee. The Hon. C; J. Carrington said the retention vote had increased by 32,000 between the 1919 and i 925 polls. Was the Council justified in imposing a heavier handicap on the increasing majority of people who did not want prohibition ? He intended to vote for the second reading of the bill because he thought it should be altered in Committee. He was opposed to the bare majority principle and he favoured the six years tenure. The second reading was carried on the voices. The bill will be considered in Committee to-morrow. Speakers in the debate to-night indicated that amendments will be introduced designed to alter the bare majority clause to one providing for the decision to be made bv at least 52£ per cent, of the electors.