LICENSING QUESTION

Southland Times, Issue 19394, 7 November 1924, Page 5

LICENSING QUESTION

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE POSTPONED “TILL NEXT SITTING DAY” END OF SESSION DELAYED. (Our Parliamentary Reporter). WELLINGTON, November 6. Quite unexpectedly this morning the House of Representatives launched out on a debate on the Licensing question, but what was described by the Prime Minister as a prospective wrangle, was brought to a close by a motion for the adjournment of the debate being carried. BILL NOT YET PRINTED. The matter was introduced by Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs), who asked if there was any prospect of the Licensing Bill being circulated during the recess. Mr Massey said the Bill had not been printed yet. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton): It never will be. Mr Massey: Oh, yes, it will. The Law Drafting Office, he said, had been working night and day during the last fortnight in order to keep the business of Parliament going. In regard to the circulation of the Bill, that would be a matter for consideration, and there would have to be careful consideration in view of the fact that next year they would have a General Election. As soon as the Bill was printed and considered by Cabinet, a decision would be reached as to whether the Bill should be circulated or not. A member: Have the report printed. Mr Massey: I have no objection to that course. Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North): I think if the report is printed some of the evidence should be printed and circulated with it. A member: All of it. Mr Massey: It is for the House to de* cide. Mr F. Hockly (Rotorua) then moved that the report should be printed. Mr Isitt said that the report was that of a one-sided Committee, and many people in the country believed that the Prime Minister had advanced the proposals. A member: Who set up the Committee? Mr Massey: Parliament Mr Isitt said that in his opinion there should be a minority report printed and circulated. The Speaker said there could be no minority report on the question. MEMBER FOR AWARUA. Mr P. A. de la Perrelle (Awarua) re* seated the statement of Mr Isitt that the Committee was one-sided, and opposed to licensing reform. He, for one, was in favour „of licensing reform. The Prime Minister regretted that the matter had been mentioned at that stage of the session, when members should be imbued with a feeling of goodwill, one towards the other. It seemed to him that they were on a fair way to wrangle over the licensing question such as they had in days gone by. “I think you had better drop it,” said Mr Massey. Mr McCombs moved as an amendment, that the evidence should be printed with the report. This was seconded by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon). The Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Pair) moved the adjournment of the debate. Speaking to this motion, Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) urged the importance of the matter. He thought the debate should not be adjourned. The printing of the report might cost a few pounds more, but why not have it? Mr Wright expressed the hope that the evidence would be printed, as it might be of extreme value when the Bill was being considered. Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) asked the Minister in charge of the Government Printing Office what the cost of printing the evidence would be. Hon. G. J. Anderson: That, I couldn’t say, unless I knew the extent of the evidence. He thought the printing of the evidence would do no good. Mr Hockly: The printing of evidence is quite unwarranted. Mr Isitt said he was anxious for fairplay. (Laughter). He thought it would be the best thing to support the adjournment of the debate, although he still held the opinion that the evidence should be printed. ADJOURNMENT CARRIED. A division was called for by Mr Mo Combs, and the adjournment was carried by 38 votes to 14. The Speaker: The continuation of ths debate is set down for next sitting day.