WAR REGULATIONS BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLI, Issue 9417, 2 August 1916, Page 6

WAR REGULATIONS BILL

THE THIRD READING. THE LIQUOR QUESTION—MR ; ISITT iDAIN EXPLAINS. The Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L. Herdman) formally moved the third reading of the War Regulations Bill. Mr L. M. Xsitt (Christchurch North) repeated his explanation that ho had not made, or intended to, any compact with the Government to the effect that the anti-shouting clause would satisfy tho wishes of the temperance party at tho present time. He did not question the bona fidcs of Sir Joseph Ward’s statement to tho contrary, he said. The difference between them was no doubt due to mutual misunderstanding, for which he fully accepted his share of the responsibility, though he had said at the time that he could not commit the temperance party to any compact whatever. Mr Isitt added that he had been loyal to th« National Government and intended to remain loyal; but be held that loyalty did not demand that he should bo made a scapegoat to save Che face of the National Government in regard to the matter, and he refused to accept that position. The legislation in the bill, he declared, was what it was for one reason only, because the National Government had come to the conclusion that that measure of temper ancj reform was tho smallest -iota that tho Government could dole out in response to the demand, of the people of N«w Zealand for more drastic antiliquor war measures. He should have been disappointed at an ordinary party Government bringing down such- a paltry measure, but ho was more than disappointed with the National Government. But for the wars would the temperance party of the House have supported a Cabinet containing seven avowed supporters of the trade and only two men of temperance sympathise? He felt that a National Government should have told the House that every member was free to follow his conscience in regard to temperance legislation. But the Government had, instead, used the position given them to stand between the trade and the will of the neople, and protect the tradp against the people. If the Government could not give six o’clock closing, he thought they should at least have given right o'clock closing : but they announced that they would stand by the bill, with the result that men pledged to nine o'clock closing had swung over to support the Government and the temperance party in the House could not even carry 9 o’clock closing. STATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL SUGGESTED. Mr J- Payne (Grcr Lynn) contended that the proper way to deal with tho liquor question «m to take over the

breweries and public-houses in return tor biato cicoentures and io carry on tile trade under Government controlTaos© now engaged in the trade, h© said, wo ala ho ouiy too gtaa to receive tair compensation in cue way _of debenuues for their breweries aD<l An experiment on thos© linc-s was being made by t he British uoverjim©r m tne city of Oarhsl©, whero tat? State would supply a light beer only, run ab-lisu aii “slugs'' or private bars. With. regard to venereal he oelievea. that they couid oniy be adequately dealt with and tnat tnc regulations coaid cmly be properly earned °ut by establishing a syottm of women police like that which proved such a success in the United Slates. Mr E. Newman vltar.«iukei) also supported the employment of women ponce tor the purposes cf the Act. Ho bad no bias one way or the ocher in rogaici to the liquor question, but be felt that economy was desirable during tbo war, and be must contess that bo tbougnt that the expenditure on liquor was ore of the beat of tho subjects upon winch vbev cou.d exercise economy. Vie tod been informed that anti-snouting was more against the interests of the publicans than early closing. In f -hat connection the Minister in charge of the bill had not been consistent in not pi oposmg compensation on account at the loss that would be sustained tluough tne abolition of shouting, do far fa ne tMr Newman/ was concerned ho had advocated restrictions entirely from tne economic point of view. Me had voted for 8 and U o’clock closing ind also for tho referendum, thougn he was not ,ery keen on tha latter, lie cougiatlated the Government on tlie bill geuto give his reasons lor the stand ho had taken in committee. He icgarded the anti-shouting clause as a chudish out. The reasons submitted were the weakest that had been advanced for any cause, ■mere nad evidently been a misunderstanding between Sir Joseph Ward atm Mr Xsitt on the subject, 'inis clause did not meet with tho honset approval 01 the House. Meitiws simply supported it because it was in the bill, and many had expressed their intention not to respect it. It simply meant that sneaking intrigue would be resorted to in the shape of a boh-iu and other methods which would be far more vicious than straight-out shouting. He contended that the arrangement came to with Mr isitt was an improper one, for it meant the gagging of members. Two members had no right to-come to any secret compact. So far as* drink was concerned he considered indulgence in it was more u matter of habit than any desire for it. Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt) M ith some people it is more a gift than a habit. said it was absurd to talk about cutting off luxuries so far as. the means of . the people were concerned i'heir incomes permitted . qf no luxuries. If the member for Kangitikoi wanted to Jo tho proper thing let him_6np]fort the wiping out of all sorts of monopolies Which represented far more evil tha i drink. The burden of tho _ poor had been increased by the great .increase m the expense of the necessaries of lifeWhen an appeal was made to redut the cost of living there was absolute silence on the other side of tho Bouse. Since the last election a T ar P®. i} u of people had invested in hotel pto nerty. Ho knew of cases where men had become physical wrecks from oveiwork and put all they had in a oolo ' hi order to bring up their children. Early closing would mean their ruin, and bs did not believe in confiscation. This anti-shouting clause aiso meantthe persecution of hotelkeepers w * t .^“ ut terforiDer very matena-ily witu . wealthy brewers. It did not materially affect the temperance question. He stood for a referendum on all questions, hut many members wanted a reference to the people on this liquor W“txon. To take a referendum would take two or three months and cost Such an amount would be oetter spent in building homes for the people. He. regretted so much time had been taken over this bill, while the cost of living was utterly neglected. REFERENDUM PROPOSAL.

Mr E. A- Wright (Wellington Suburbs) contended that if the principle of .the referendum was a sound one it mignT be resorted to on any question of particular interest- , The National Government deserved credit for its courage in taking tho stand it had on this mil when the constituencies of many Ministers had voted Solidly for prohibition. As to the State ownership question, Russia, where this system obtained, bad wiped out tho liquor altogether. Kusria had learnt that State ownership was no solution of the problem. He believed in compensation, but not by the State. The brewers had received huge sums of money from licensees, and in the event of early closing they should bo called upon to disgorge. He denied that the prohibition party were solely responsible for this early closing movement Various Conservative newspapers had strongly supported the proposal. Mr Webb: "What stand does the New Zealand Times’ take?" Mr Wright: “I don t know. Mr Payne: “You never read it, I snpP °Mr Wright considered a great mistake had been made in not .giving the people an opportunity of voting on this issue. Mr W. T. Jennings (Taumarunui) remarked that it was strange that, notwithstanding all the efforts of the prohibition party, the consumption of liquor had not decreased. He was afraid the party was not getting at the hearts of the people. Their methods resulted _in creating a feeling of malevolence. He was against tho local option system, which had enormously enriched some people at the expense of others. He believed in the “all-in or all-ouv pnndole. It had recently transpired that in the King Country methylated spirits were being sold to people to imbibe. In that country there should be State or municipal control. The vote at the last licensing poll had been taken during tho war- It clearly indicated tho wishes of tho people, and the House should abide bv it. He thought that 9. to 9 would have been a fair compromise in regard to the early closing question, but the prohibition party would accept no compromise, and they had nobody but themselves to thank for the result. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) said that definite offers were made by those interested in early closing for the hours of 8 to 8, which they thought a reasonable compromise, but the other side refU|lr jf s. Dickson (Parnell): “With or without anti-shouting?” Mr Wilkinson: "Anti-shonting was in the Government and wb had nothing to do with that.” Mr Dickson: "Oh!" Mr Wilkinson thought that economy was necessary in the present crisis, and two things they could economise on were motor-cars and liquor. They spent 45 millions a year on liquor, and he thought they might reduce that sum with great advantage. The people looked for a shortening of hours to deal with the question: and though he was not a prohibitionist nor an extremist, be would say from his place in the House that sixteen hours a day for the Kile of liquor was absurd. Ho believed that not only for the duration of tho war. but as a permanency the people would demand a shortening of hours, and the trade might well have met them in the matter.

Mr Jennings: "What about the people arriving by train at 6 o’clock in the morning, or by boat?” Mr Wilkinson: “Oh, there will always be hardships.” (Laughter.) THE BILL PASSED.

The Hon. A. L. Herdman, in reply, asked why members should single out one particular trade for attack in regard to the demand for economy. He thought such action very unfair. They ought to consider the rights of property and the rights of people to carry on their trade under the law of tho land. By vote two and a half years ago, during the war.

the people bad decided bv a largo majority to continue the trade in question, and that licensed houses should remain open from 6 in the morning till 10 at eight. Yet the temperance enthusiasts, or extremists, would shorten the hours without compensation, which was most unjust. It was true that they did prosi -se to comoensate the license holder—at the expense of the landlord; but that was simplv robbing one man to comnensate another. If the temperance party had submitted an earlv closing puopcM’A accompanied by proper compensaiion it would have been a different ma’t»r. The Government had endeavoured to hold the balance justly. They had introduced the anti-shouting danse, which he believed would prove valuable; and he thought that the neople had shown a desire to economise. Alter the war a‘ anj rate, they would have to economise. The bi 1 was read a third time on thr voices and pasred. A TRIBUTE TO THE PREMIER.

Mr Xsitt craved the indulgence of the House to make a statement. Members: “No! No!" Hr Massey urged that Mr Isitt should be heard. , . . Mr Isitt; "It is in justice to the Prime Minister—in favour bi the Prince Minister. We Had certain conference* over which the Prime Minister presided, and I wish to pay my tribute to the absolute impartiality with which he presided over oui conferences. We could not have had a more model chairman." (Hear, heat.)