LICENSING BILL

Southland Times, Issue 20207, 18 June 1927, Page 7

LICENSING BILL

PREMIER’S STATEMENT

LEGISLATION THIS SESSION

REPLY TO NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE DEPUTATION

(Per United Press Association.)

Wellington, June 17. The views of the New Zealand Alliance’s deputation to the Premier were presented by Mr Charles Todd (president), who said that the members were all anxious to hear his views of the licensing question as they understood that the Licensing Bill was to be introduced in the coming session. They hoped the Bill would be introduced early in the session, dealt with on non-party lines and given a free run in the House, the majority of whose members were pledged to poll on a two-issue ballot paper and to no extension of the period between the polls. He had been greatly disappointed when he saw the Licensing Bill last session to find in it nothing that the Prohibition Party had asked for, but clauses favoured only by the liquor party. All that the Prohibitionists desired w’as that the Bill should have a fair field with np favour. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church he was glad to know that even the most conservative church was now coming into line on the Prohibition issue. With a clear run on the two-issue ballot paper they were confident they could win. They were utterly opposed to State Control, which would mean a great deal of bribery and corruption in New Zealand politics. If the liquor traffic was to continue they would far rather see it remain in private hands than come into the hands of the State.

The general secretary of the Alliance (Mr C. R. Edmond) said that on two previous occasions they had been assured that it was the intention of the Government to introduce licensing legislation as early as possible. The Bill was introduced very late last session and withdrawn before the second reading, so it could hardly be claimed that a serious attempt was made by the Government to deal with the vital subject of licensing legislation. They wished to deny that they asked for a withdrawal of that Bill. They desired that the Bill should be amended as they considered that it was essentially favourable to the licensed liquor trade and opposed to the democratic principles of the Government. Two principal suggestions they made last year were not included in the Bill: (1) That no alcoholic liquor should be supplied to hotel guests „or otherwise during hours when the sale of liquor to the general public is prohibited; (2) that no licensed premises should be permitted to have more than one bar. It was the duty of the Government to provide machinery whereby electors could clearly, without confusion, cast their vote. Therefore they considered the ballot paper should contain only two real issues on the licensing question, viz., National Continuance and National Prohibition. The third issue of State purchase and control was unreal and discredited. They opposed the demand of the licensed liquor trade for an extension of time between the polls because they felt that it was a definite attempt to curtail the rights of electors to abolish the liquor traffic and was therefore undemocratic.

The Dominion president of the W.C.T.U. (Mrs T. E. Taylor) said the women of New Zealand were asking for legislation providing for only two issues on the ballot paper and were certainly against any extension of time between the polls. In the light of experience and service they had concluded that the liquor traffic must be done away with. Their ideal as women and mothers was to see everything removed which handicapped the progress of humanity and civilisation. In reply the Prime Minister said: “The speakers have covered a great deal of ground, but I do not intend to follow them in regard to all the points they have raised. However, I know the burden of your request and here I would just like to state to the New Zealand Alliance that to my mind the attitude taken up by the Alliance when the Government introduced the Licensing Bill last year had, without doubt, the effect of preventing to some extent the Bill being fully considered by Parliament. That Bill was trounced—it seemed to be nobody’s child, it did not seem to meet with anyone’s favour, and I am certain that if Parliament had had an opportunity of considering the proposals contained in the Bill it would have been found that it was not a party measure in any sense and that there was valuable machinery in the Bill for effecting reforms in the Trade, particularly in the retail trade. I do not know whether Mr Edmonds has gone carefully through the proposals of that Bill. Personally I doubt it very much. I am afraid he did not take a broad view of it. lam in deadly earliest and what I say, and every member of Cabinet is of the same opinion, is that the Bill was never looked at from the point of view of improving the trade.” Mr Coates said that the Bill introduced last session was never regarded from the point of view of the trade itself. There were points in which affected the business of everybody, including the trade. The great burden of the complaint came from those opposed to the movement represented by the deputation. They said it would cripple their business. Personally he did not believe it would do anything of the kind. Whatever legislation was brought before Parliament should contain principles of enforcement of properly regulated laws. In regard to the trade, he was pleased to hear from Messrs Edmonds and Todd that whatever legislation was brought before Parliament it should contain reforms in regard to the ordinary carrying out of liquor business in the Dominion. He would not traverse the question from the many points of view that had been raised because there were other views as well and he could not subscribe to them all. “I can subscribe to these, however,” he said, “to endeavour to draft a Bill and bring it before Parliament in order that Parliament shall have an opportunity to express its opinion upon various matters you have brought up this morning. In this respect I hope an opportunity will present itself during the session whereby Parliament can give its attention and consideration to a matter which to you, I hope, is one of great and vital importance.” The Prime Minister said he did not intend to take up any more time in discussion on the question. In due course he would reply to their requests by presenting a Bill to Parliament which he hoped would give the Legislature the opportunity they were asking for to express its views on various questions that were in the minds of people to-day.

COUNTER FROM LICENSING REFORM ASSOCIATION. Wellington, June 17. The Dominion Executive of the New Zealand Licensing Reform Association passed the following resolutions—“ That a vigorous protest be immediately voiced against the attempt of the New Zealand Alliance to dragoon Parliament into deleting the third issue of the licensing ballotpaper; that the various sections opposed to Prohibition and the several branches of the New Zealand Licensing Reform Association be called together in conference to decide on a course of united action and to place before the Prime Minister and Parliament their views.”