LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 16 November 1927, Page 9

LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL

HOUSE DISCUSSES THE MEASURE

STATE CONTROL ISSUE ABOLISHED

LONGER PERIOD BETWEEN POLLS

The Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Incensing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday, declared his intention of pushing the measure through this session unless it was so changed by amendments as to fail in its original intention. The chief features of the Bill are the elimination of the State Control issue from the ballot paper and the extension of the period between the polls from three to six years.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Prime Minister, in the House of Representatives this afternoon, .moved the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill. He said that in bringing the Bill before the House he was perfectly free to look on the matter from the broadest point of view, because he bad signed no pledges to any party. Mr. Coates said that only once at the last election was he asked what life position was. Then he said he was not in favour of the two-issue ballot-paper and was not in favour of an extension of the time between the polls. His position was thus a little different to that of others. He had endeavoured to draft legislation which, if placed on the Statute Book, would, be an improvement on the existing legislation. He justified the elimination of the State Control issue by saying it never became a live issue. He might have been told the voting for it had increased but, looking at it broadly, he did not think the public really wanted it.

The whole question was an extremely troublesome one, and whether they liked it or not they had to give it considerable attention. That was so in almost every country. When he looked at Canada and America he was not prepared to say that prohibition was or was not a success. He did not like criticism of the administration of other countries, and for that reason he was diffident about expressing his own views. He might, however, quote the opinions of Other men in discussing the question as It affected New Zealand. .

Mr. Coates favoured extending the period between polls, so as to remove from political contests that which was always a disturbing element. Then there was the constant cry from end to end of the country for improved hotel accommodation. We were constantly asked lo advertise our scenery and tourist re>orts, but it was useless to do that unless we gave the tourists the hotel accommodation they required. Mr. J. McCombs: How do they get on In America where they have the best jotels in the world ?

Mr. Coates said the American hotels Were not the best in the world, but Ihey were good. They were quite different" to others. However, we must have accommodation of high class. The trade was always stating that they could not give it unless they had a better tenure. Therefore he was disposed to give tlyjm the opportunity. Moreover, the Bill gave increased power to licensing committees to insist on accommodation of desired quality. For these two reasons the eliminating of liquor from politics and the improvement of accommodation he favoured holding polls every six years instead of three. “ONLY TWO REAL QUESTIONS.” With regard to the issues on the bal-lot-paper, Mr. Coates* opinion was that there were only two real questions before the country, namely, prohibition or continuance. Whatever might bo said of the third issue he was satisfied it was not a live one since it received so small a proportion of the votes cast. Having then decided that there could be only two issues, the next question was on what majority should either be carried? He was satisfied if prohibition was carried it should be carried on such a majority as would make it stable and respected. Canada had gone in for prohibition, but had gone back to State Control. That was, he thought, because there was so much difficulty in enforcing the law. Other countries had varied their systems. With regard to the United States, it was very difficult to say what the position actually was. If you talked to one set of people they said prohibition was a great success, while another set said It was an absolute failure. He was unable to form any personal opinion, but thought it was wrong to say that America’s economic prosperity was adue entirely to prohibition. There were other circumstances contributing to that end. ( The difficulty in America seemed to be enforcing the law, and it was a question whether we in New Zealand could enforce the law if we adopted prohibition on a bare majority. That was the question that worried him, because it would never do to have a law on the Statute Book which was flouted. That had been done once in connection with the antishouting law and he did not want to sec that sort of thing again. The Premier said they had to consider the position of what was known as the “trade.” It was. he understood, valued at £18.000.000, and employed 12.000 people. They also had to consider the interests of the State. In this he was thinking of the Minister of Finance. To him it meant nearly £2,000.000 in Customs duty, and there was also income tax to he considered. These things would all have to be adjusted if prohibition were carried, so that it could be seen how serious a matter it was to carry nroliib'tion by a bare majority. I nder all the circumstances lie thought that t 55 per cent, majority was fair and reasonable. LIQUOR AT BANQUETS.

For the rest the Bill contained a number of amendments to the law which, he considered, experience rendered necessary. Provision for the supply of liouof at banquets, he thought, was reasonable. The sale of liquor to young people was being safeguarded. The Bill was clear-cut an.l fair to both sides as

it stood. It was for Parliament to say whether it became law. He would accept amendments, but if he found the Bill getting into such a state that he could not support it, he would have to tell the House he could not go on with it.

i Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition] said he did not believe it I was the serious intention of the Prime Minister to put the Bill on the Statute Bqok. There did not seem to be sincerity behind it. He had heard qualified statements such as that made by the Prime Minister before, and he was not convinced. The Bill was belated; it should have been introduced long ago. Mr. Holland then proceeded to review the circumstances -surrounding the last election, contending that the money spent on big advertisements by’ the Reform Party came from the brewers. Certain clauses in the Bill indicated this. The first of these was the extension of the period between the polls, for which In would not vote until it had been referred to a vote of the people. Having given something to the trade, the Bill proceeded to give the prohibition party something—the two-issue ballot-paper. Mr. Holland did not think this would alter the position, because the State Controller, deprived of his vote, would vote continuance. What did matter was that the vote was being taken from the people who now possessed it, and that was repugnant to him. Personally he thought the vote should be on a preferential basis and that should enable them to retain the three-issue ballot-paper. On that point the Labour Party was solid and he would move in that direction in committee. He would vote against the 55 per cent, majority. The Labour Party stood for a bare majority on all questions, and nothing had been said in favour of the 55 per cent, that could not be said in favour of- 75 per cent. This Bill should be a Government measure. The Prime Minister was trying to trim his sails. He was trying to get all sides into his net. The Prime Minister: And I have evidently caught the hon. member.

LABOUR'S POSITION EXPLAINED

Mr. Holland: Not at all. He said his position was quite clear. He had always been in favour of the three-issue ballot-paper, but he was satisfied clauses 2, 3 and 4 would not all go through in their present form unless the prohibitionists in the Reform Party voted against the pledges they had given to the Alliance. What he wanted to know was how far the business of New Zealand was going to be held up for this Bill. He did not believe the Bill was going through unless the Prime Minister made it a Government measure and cracked his whip. The Labour Party was solid on the question of preferential voting and the three-issue ballot-paper. If that was altered they were free to do as they liked. When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. W. D. Lysnar said six o’clock closing had done a great deal of good, but if the House pressed it as far as prohibition a great deal of harm would be done. No-license was not the remedy and therefore he opposed a bare majority. Mr. J. McCombs said the Bill contained something for prohibitionists and something for the “trade. ’ It was a Bill on tfie 50-50 principle and it was surprising that the Prime Minister, who was such an able exponent of the 50-50 principle, should have adopted a. 00-4 o majority. He commented that while the Prime Minister had said the House was I free to deal with the Bill as it pleased i he also said if amendments were put into •it of which he did not approve he would drop the measure. Evidently the Prime Minister did not tell the House exactly what he meant. Mr. McCombs declared that six years’ intervals between polls would simply’ mean an increase in "trade” goodwills and would send Amalgamated Brewery shares up in price. The majority proposed in the Bill disfranchised 75.000 voters because, only after that number of people had voted would the prohibitionist’s vote count as of equal value to that of any other. This was plural voting with a vengeance. New Zealanders were law abiding people and if prohibition was carried it would be enforced because the people respected the law. I They were not to be compared with the ' people of other countries. The artificial I majority created in the Bill was a re- • fnsal to trust the people who created Parliament. What right had they to set themselves up as.superior to the people? The people now had the right to elect Parliament on a bare majority and all they asked was the right to express their opinion on this great social problem on a similar basis. America did not have to impose extra taxation when she gave up one hundred million dollars liquor revenue, and yet she was extremely prosperous. What would happen in New Zealand? IVo would turn £8,500,i 000 worth of wasted material into more i profitable channels and help to reduce unemployment.

REFORM AND LIQUOR. The Hon. A. D. McLeod deprecated the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the relations of the Reform Party to the liquor party. It had no foundation in fact and had been made for purely party purposes. A Labour member: Produce your bal-ance-sheet; ~

The Hon. A. D. McLeod: The member would not produce the balance-sheet of his party. (Labour dissent.) Mr. McLeod said the Labour balancesheet would not disclose the position if they did produce it. Mr. P. Eraser: “That’s a lie, anyhow.” The Speaker called on Mr. Fraser to withdraw that imputation, which he did, substituting for it “a deliberate inaccuracy,” which was also ruled to be offensive and was withdrawn. Mr. Holland: Are you prepared to send this Bill to a committee and take evidence on all its aspects? Mr. McLeod said Mr. Holland knew how impossible it was to get evidence before a committee, and then, at the request of the Speaker, to “get back to the Bill,” hd proceeded to argue against the bare majority because of its instability. He favoured ah extension of the period between the polls as being less disturbing. If, however, it was logical to settle the question whether the country was to be wet or dry on a bare majority, then on a bare majority the people should say whether the polls should be every’ three, six or niqe years. With regard to the position in the King Country, Mr. McLeod had read a great deal about it and had come to the conclusion that there was a definite bargain between the Government of New Zealand and the Macri chiefs in the King Country chat if the railway was allowed to proceed through their country no liquor should be sold there. That being so, that compact should be held sacred by the pakeha, and it should not be broken unless at the unanimous request of the natives.'

Sir Joseph Ward said he was not a prohibitionist and he favoured a threeissue ballot-paper. He did not believe the Bill would go through this session and he deprecated the procedure of bringing in such a measure as a nonGovemment Bill. The Prime Minister should not have been put in the position of saying “This is no man’s child and no member of Cabinet has seen it.”

Mr. W. E. Parry contended that the questions raised by the Bill should, not be settled by the House, but should be referred to the people. PLEA FOR KING COUNTRY. Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) said that before licenses for the King Country were granted he wished Parliament to determine what form those licenses should take, because the people in the King Country’ did not wish to perpetrate the evils of the liquor trade as known in other district®. He maintained that if a compact with the Maoris were ever made it was never enforced, and therefore was of no effect. In addition, the Maoris were being served with spirits of the worst class.

Sir A. Ngata was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not taken greater advantage of his apportunity to effect real internal reform within the Trade itself. He also favoured, the two-issue ballot paper because he never regarded the State control issue seriously’, nor did he think the Government took it seriously. Dealing with the compact between the Maori and the pakeha as to the introduction of .liquor into the King Country, he quoted from official documents to show that a compact was made in 1884, by the Stout-Vogel Government, and he paid a tribute to the pakehas for the manner in which they had honoured that compact for all these yeans. At the same time, by permitting sales of land the Government had introduced white settlement into the district and so made the observance of such a compact impossible, and the question should bo looked at from the present day point of view. The whole position should be reviewed. He was glad that Mr. Rolleston had in his amendment proposed that the Maori in the King-Coun-try should be included in the proposed vote. The New Zealand Alliance now agreed that the Maori electors should be given a vote at the Dominion poll, and they agreed to that believing that the Maori vote would be a Trade vote. He asked the Alliance lo regard the King Country in the same spirit. All the Maori members were in agreement on this question, and would support Mr. Rollcston’s amendment. He thought the Maori electors should be given the right to vote in tlie Dominion polls, and he did not think that the right of some 20,000 electors could much longer be delayed.

Mr. V. IL Potter advocated higher license fees as one of the necessary reforms. That would be putting taxation on the shoulders able to bear it. Forty’ pounds per year was a paltry sum to pay for a monopoly. He would charge 2J per cent, on the alcoholic liquor sold. He ridiculed £5 as an adequate fee to be paid for a license for clubs, many of which were close corporations. Increased fees from licenses would give the extra revenue which would relieve taxation in other directions. He favoured triennial polls, for longer periods meant huge gains in the trade. He stood for the two-issue ballot paper, and a bare majority, but he did not believe the Prime Minister intended to pass the Bill this session. The debate was adjourned, and. the .House ros® at 1.20 a.m, till to-morrow.