DECISION IN HOUSE.

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

DECISION IN HOUSE.

PASSAGE OF THE BILL. MARGIN OF SEVEN VOTES. ATTITUDE OF MR. COATES. " HELPLESS CHILD DESERTED." [BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER. ] WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Licensing Bill was passed by the House of Representatives early this morning, the third reading being carried by 39 votes to 32. When the debate in committee had been' resumed, the Prime Minister, Mr. Coates, intimated plainly that ho was still opposed to the principle of the bare majority on the licensing issue, and that in its amended form ho would not vote for or move the third reading of the bill. For this reason there was a feeling of expectancy when in the early hours of the morning the chairman of the committee, Mr. F. F. Hockly, reported to the Speaker that he had been directed to report the measure to the House with amendments. t The usual procedure in such cases is for the Speaker to turn to the sponsor of the bill and ask for a motion that the report be considered forthwith, and that the amendments made in committee bo agreed to. -In this case, however, he turned to the Prime Minister and remarked: "I understand the right honourable gentleman does not intend to move the third reading." The Prime Minister (shaking his head): That is so. Private Member Takes Bill. Mr. E. P. Lee (Oamaru) stepped into the breach and moved the necessary motions. Mr. Lee spoke of the Efficiency Board's recommendations in regard to liquor control in 1917, and maintained that the principle of the bare majority had been definitely laid down by Sir Francis Bell. Mr. Lee submitted that no difficulty would be encountered in regard to finance and unemployment as a result of the carrying of prohibition. The Minister of Finance had voted for the bare majority, and he could not have anticipated any difficulty. He maintained that the bare majority would give stability. If it was fair in regard to prohibition it •.was also fair in regard to restoration.

"I have been in this House for ten years," said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, "and I 1 have never had an experience similar to this. The Prime Minister brings down a bill and the House amends it. Then the Prime Minister abandons it and a private member moves the third reading. I take it that the bill is now a private member's bill. " A Peculiar Mixture."

"I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell us what will become of these amendments which the Prime Minister promised to give consideration to when the bill is in another place. Will the consideration be given by the private member, who is a kind of step-father to the bill, .or will the Prime Minister still keep to his promise and see these amendments through so far as consideration is concerned ?"

The bill was a peculiar mixture—a little bit. of promise for the "trade" and a good deal of promise so far as the prohibitionists were concerned. "Here we have a helpless child deserted by its lawful parent at the last moment and thrown on the tender mercies of sn unsympathetic step-father." proceeded Mr. Holland. " I predict that this bill is not going on the Statute Book." The Hon. W. Noswortliy: What if you are wrong ? Mr. Holland: If I am wrong the honourable Minister will be right, and that will be a calamity for the country.

Silent Voters in House. Mr. Holland said the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, was entitled to introduce a bill involving appropriations, but the Prime Minister had abandoned the bill, which was now in the hands of a private member. Gould a private member move the third reading of a bill which involved appropriations? The Speaker said the change of ownership of the bill did not affect the question. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said the bill brought down by the Prime Minister had been shattered, but there was no question but that the Prime Minister would have to take the responsibility if the bill went through. Many of those who had supported the bill in its present form had given a silent vote, and it was not saying much for politics when men gave secret pledges on so important a question. Those members had been content to keep their seats. Mr. E. J. Howard: I wish you would. (Laughter.) Mr. Lysnar declared that the Prohibition Party had a number of members in the House in the palm of their hands. He maintained that prohibition was no euro for the evils of the drink traffic.

Plea lor Stat® Control. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) denied that those who had lost the right to vote State Control could satisfy themselves by voting Continuance. Enough information had not been given to the House about State Control, but he intended to go to British Columbia to ascertain the facts before next session. As a "State controller" lie was disfranchised by the bill. By bringing the bill down again the Prime Minister had placed the country and himself in an invidious position. Ho was a believer in the three-fifths majority. Prohibition did not prohibit and should be guarded against, as it brought about worse conditions than were found under lfquor. The Minister of Agriculture, Hon. 0. J. Hawken, said he had always been opposed to a bare majority. Speaking as a prohibitionist he considered that the prohibitionists had driven too hard a bargain. It would have been better for them to have accepted a compromise in regard to the majority. He thought the Prime Minister had taken up the right attitude in handing over the bill to a private member. Mr. J. McCombs quoted American experiences to show that prohibition had no detrimental effect on the country's revenue. He saw no difficulty, in enforcing prohibition in New Zealand in the event of it being carried. Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskill) said he had always voted for prohibition. He congratulated the Prime Minister on having brought back the bill to the house. Mr. H. CI. R. Mason (Eden) favoured the bill as amended. How the Members Voted.

The debate on the third reading of the bill was sustained until 3.40 a.m., when a division resulted in the third reading being carried by 39 votes to 32. The bill was passed and the House rose at 4 ».«.

The division list is as follows: — Ayes—r39. Anderson McKcen Bellringer McLennan Bitchener MacMillan Burnett Martin Dickie Mason, H. G. B.> Dickson, J. McC. Nosworthy Frasor Potter Hamilton, A. Ransom Hamilton, J. It. Reed Harris Rhodes Holland, H. Rolleston, F. J. Howard Stewart Hunter Sullivan Jones, D. Sykes Jones, W. Tapley Jordan Waite Kyle Walter Lee, E. P. Wright Linklater Young McCombs Noes—32. Armstrong Horn Atmore Lee, J. A. Bartram Luke Bell Lysnar Buddo McLeod Campbell Mason, J. Coates Nash Dickson, J. S. Parry Elliott Primare Field Rolleston, J. C. Forbes Savage Glenn Seddon Hawken Veitch \ Henavc Ward Hockley Wilford Holland, It E. Williams ■ Pairs.—For the Bill as amended: Ngata, Forsyth, Girling, Sidey. Against: Uru, Hudson, Smith, Samuel. The division list discloses that every member of the House was accounted for, the eightieth member being the Speaker. King Country and Liquor. In the last stages of the bill in committee several amendments moved bv other members of the House were considered. Those which had been covered by the amendments made by the Prime Minister were withdrawn and the others speedily dealt with. In most cases members evinced little desire to discuss them at length and the suggestion of the chairman that the longer ones should be taken as read was received with a chorus of approval. The most contentious of the amendments was that moved by Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo), providing for the taking of a referendum on the question whether licences should be granted for the sale of liquor in the King Country. This amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it involved an appropriation of public funds for the taking of the poll and incidental procedure. 1 The Prime Minister promised to look into several suggestions designed to make the sale of New Zealand-made wine a little easier, and to remove whaft were suggested to be anomalies in the present law in respect of the wine industry. Mr. Coates also agreed to consider the question of the obligation imposed by statute on the Government to cancel the licences of chartered clubs which commit breaches of the licensing laws. He agreed that some discretion should be vested in the Minister in charge in such matters, and he mentioned that although the subject had been raised many times during recent years it had noi yet been found possible to do anything to meet the position.