THE FIFTY-FIVE PER CENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10535, 9 August 1912, Page 4

THE FIFTY-FIVE PER CENT.

HOUSE ON LICENSING ISSUE. EFFORT TO REDUCE THE HANDICAP. , HAS THE GOVERNMENT AN ATTITUDE? CANDID QUERIES BY MEMBERS. [Fhom Oca Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, August 8. "This is an important proposal, but there is no need for me to sp?ak at any length," remarked Mr Malcolm in mov- • tog the eecond reading of his Licensing Act Amendment Bill. The member for Clutha added that his reason for refraining from entering into any lengthy explanation was that every member of the House, was pledged to support or oppose the object set out in the Bill. He did not intend to speak at any length, and he would be gratified if tho friends of the Bill would advance its interests by 1 refraining from speaking oil it. Mr Dickson (Parnell) said he opposed ' the Bill. He was not doing it in the interests of the "trade." as he owed the trade nothing. * Members knew that the trade did not aid in his return to the House. He considered that the ballot paper should be altered. There ehould be "national continuance." Hundreds of people had been misled. That should be dealt, with before they altered the majority. He objected to . a private member bringing in such a Bill. It should have been a Government policy measure. The Government 'should be man enough to do so. (Opposition " hear, hears.") He hoped the , (House would not pass the Bill, but that next session the Government would bring down a comprehensive licensing measure. He went on to express the hope that next session a complete Li censing Bill would be brought down by the Government. T£ was too largo a question for a private member to bring before the House. HOW SHOULD HE VOTE? Mr Wilford (Hutt) said he was a 55 per cent man on local option and a , 60 per cent, man on national option. ' How, then, could"he vote for the Bill? Glancing across at Mr Massey, he suggested that the Prime Minister was m a similar position, only that he w_as 60 per cent for local option and 55 per cent for national , prohibition. "Is he?" asked the member for Hutt. The Prime Minister: I would suggest < that the honourable member address Mr Speaker. (Lauehter.) Mr Wilford: I take that as an indication that the honourable gentleman does not wish to say. It is in keeping with the action of the honourable member in asking the .member for Clutha to . introduce the Bill. (Renewed laughter.) - - Tna. Prime Minister: I did not ask him. Mr'Wilford: Well, let us say you suggested it. (More laughter.) Proceeding, the member for Hutt congratulated Mr Dickson in regard to his attitude towards his leader, because there was no "doubt a private member had only about a 49 to 1 chance of carrying his measure. He would say a 50 to 1 as those were the woirls ' of the now Prime Minister. The Prime Minister: Don't lay the odds.

Mr Wilford: There is no offeme laying odds, unless there is a taker. (Laughter.) Quoting from a speech made by Mr • Massey in 1904, Mr Wilford pointed out that the Prime Minister had there said that the introduction of a policy measure by a private member was only done to place tne responsibility on someone else, and even then he had not a 50 to 1 .chance Of having it passed. Why he considered that there should be a coneiderable majority was for of stability. He believed prohibition .would come, but it could only come with stability on a substantial majority. He was a representative of the great moderate party, which should receive far more consideration than either of the contending parties were ready to grant. GREATEST EVIL OF THE DAT. The whole cause of in connection with the_ licensing qnestion_ was due almost entirely to the " tied" house. He declared that a liotelkeepor could not make a living in many instances if he kept within the four corners of the law. One of the greatest evils of the day was she " tied " house eystem. After emphasising the ereat monopoly that existed in the sale of liquor, the member for Hutt strongly unred'the necessity for the inspection of'liquor. More men were poisoned than were made drunk. He hoped that the Government wo-dd institute a rigorous inspection of all liquor, and assured ' the House that such a course would be welcomed by many honest hotelkeepers. Mr Bradney (Auckland West) declared himself to be a member of the great moderate party and favoured the retention of the three-fifths majority. • Mr Russell (Avon) expressed the opinion that a vote of the majority of the people would never extinguish the sale of alcoholic liquor in the dominion. He said that notwithstanding the introduction of no-license in several districts there had been no reduction in the consumption of spirits in New Zealand during the last few rears, while in beer the Consumption had increased. He believed, however, that the present lioensing system was doomed. It behoved tne House, therefore, to devtee some plan by which the reasonable wants of the moderate people could be supplied in the event of the present li- , censing system bein? abolished. Mr E. Newman (Rancitikei) declared that although a temperance advocate he believed in a "substantial majority, and must, therefore, oppose the Bill. . HUMBUGGING A DEPUTATION. Mr Hanan (Invercargill) asked what vas the policy of the Government on the no-lioense question. What was the use of humbugging a deputation by Faying that a private member could . Introduce a licensing Bill when the Prime Minister himself had declared on a former occasion that a private member had no chance of getting a Bill of big issues through the House. He intended to support the Bill, as he believed they would be failing in their cluty to the democracy to turn it down, .. but every member knew well that it had no chance of going through. Mr Guthrie (Oroua) denied that the Government was frightened to tackle the question. It waS unreasonable to expect that a Government that had .only taken office should bring down a licensing Bill. Mr laitt: If you can give time for discussion on a private member's Bill, why not in the Government's own time P i. Mr Guthrie: It is unreasonable to expect that. He asked what was the policy of the previous Administration dq tne subject. AN UNFAIR HANDICAP. Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that the movenxent had been started twenty-five years ago by a handful of men who were regarded as fanatics. They had no money, and were up against people of influence and against monopoly. They depended entirely upon the logic of their position, upon truth and right, until to-day they had ,n vote of 260,000. It was not right that they should take advantage of the people and entrench the liquor traffic in an impregnable fortress that those who supported the no-license movement could not capture while they had this unjust burden on their brck. At the 1902 poll the NoLicence Party had a majority of 3000 end required" 70.000 to win, whilst at . the following poll they had increased their majority to 6000, but instead of . making any real advantage they still wanted 76,000 to win. Again at last poll their votes increased from 190.000 to 260,000, but they still wanted 48,000 to win. These figures, lie said, emphasised the unfairness of the GO per cent handicap with which they were burdened, They had poll 104,000 irotea before they had a right to count single yorfce. That was not democracy. >•

He would scorn to take advantage of men in that way. He was prepared to trust the country and take their decision on a majority vote. The liquor vote at the same time had not gone back. It was steadily advancing, and before the No-License Party could win in 1914 they had to win not only 19,000 votes but 19,000 votes from tue supporters of the liquor traffic. The movement was up against a tremendous monopoly and the present handicap was, therefore, a monstrous injustice. The forces that made for the prohibition of the liquor traffic were liardening up. He felt that they could not much longer endure the tender consciences of some people. If the present liiil was refused, then during the next two and a half years there was not a constituency but in which they would make a house-to-house canvass for the election of members who • would not deny the right asked for. Mr Lee (Oainaru): You have done that already. Mr latt: It may have been done in an irresponsible, disorganised way. Mr "Wilford; What is your threat? Mr Isitt affirmed that his party were getting tired of gentlemen who were troubled with tender and analytical consciences. Mr Wilford. But what is your actual threat ? Mr Isitt: We have practically• made up our minds that, if we come to this House and ask for justice for the people and liberty for the people to place their expressions on the Statute Book and we are refused, then we will go to our 260,000 voters whoiiave voted for no-license and ask them to help the party to force the reform from Parliament. The only way we can do that is to see that these gentlemen with their closely analytical minds and tender consciences, if they cannot vote for the 5-5 per cent majority, that they are not returned to Parliament. Mr F. H. Smith (Waitaki) said he was there to support the interests ol the great moderate party. Mr Harris (Waitemata): They are the people who are supporting the Mr Smith: Well. I am one of the moderate party, and I am opposing the Bill. Mr Stathani (Dunedin Central) 'declared that the three-fifths majority gave the proper stability, and that he would oppose the Bill. Mr M'Callum (Wairau) was also opposed to the reduction of the three-fifths-majority on the national issue. Mr Glover (Auckland Central) declared that if the Bill went to committee he would move an amendment to it. He Wcis opposed to the Bill. He also would like to know the attitude of the Government towards it. Why did they shirk the issue by putting it on the shoulders of a private member? Mr Coates (Kaipara) dealt with-the threat of the New Zealand Alliance to enter the political lists against all candidates who would not support the bare majority, declaring that it made the licensing issue a party one. He believed in State control, as it would enable better liquor to be provided. New Zealand wa3 just the country wheie it would work.

GREY LYNN IDEAS. "Now Zealand is an ideal country for smuggling," declared Mr Payne (Grey Lynn), and his reason for saying this was to show that it would be hard to keep liquor out of the country if national prohibition were adopted. There should be complete control of the drink traffic, and there should be only , one drinking place in an hotel, this to have plate-glass windows reaching to within twelve inches of thp ground. The evil of drinking lay in the back parlour. Mr Wivty (Riccarton) ridiculed the Government for allowing a favourite supporter to fight for his Bill alone. . In a few sentences Mr Davey (Christchurch liast) declared himself against the Bill. A MINISTER SPEAKS. Tho first Minister to rise was the Hon F. M. B. Fisher, who said he would support the Bill, in accordance with his election pledges. He said that Sir Joseph AVard, in an exactly similar situation, declared as Prime Minister that members should exercise their individual vote in accordance vith their election pledges and regardless cf party. He admitted that the revenue would suffer under national prohibition, but the savings in charitable aid would be enormous. For twenty years tnere had been legislative power to deal with the adulteration of liquor, whi':h was responsible for much of the insanity ar.d insobriety, but the party then m power had too much backing from the liquor monopoly to venture upon acti( n. An Oppositionist: Are you to do it? The Minister: I am not, because it is not my department, but I shall be disappointed if my friend (indicating the Minister of Public Health) dof« net do it. Mr Davey: It was tried once. The Minister: And drooped because it was unpopular. If the no-license party had to furht under the three-fifths banner it would never win. Mr Atmore (Nelson) contended that the Government ought to have given a lead on a great moral question. Had it not been so ticklish they would doubtless have endeavoured to gain kudos over the matter. He urged that ihere should be a reasonable balance of power behind any restrictive law. MR BROWN'S DILEMMA. "I am in tho position that a gentleman left me a small brewery," confessed Mr J. Vigor Brown (Napier). He added that ever since he had been howled down, but what would his critics have doneP Would they have given it to the Church—(laughter)— and would the Church have taken it? In his opinion there should bo no monopoly of licenses. WHAT THE TRADE DESIRES. Mr Myers (Auckland East) expressed the opinion that so important an issue as the licensing question should be decided on a substantial majority. Personally he stood for Parliament not as a brewer but as a member of the public, and as far asjiis trade was concerned he would never do anything inimical to the interests of the people, even though it meant that his action might be inimical to his, own interests. He stood as a three-fifths man and would uphold that attitude. It was, he thought, to be defcply deplored that the views on the licensing question should receive such prominence at election time, and on that point he regretted to hear the threat uttered by the member for Christchurch North. As far a§ members of the trade were concerned, thev would view with the greatest possible pleasure the appointment of inspectors to ensure the quality of tho liquor sold. On behalf of the trade in Auckland, he would undertake that whatever the cost of such inspectors might be it would be willingly borne by the trade. He believed that the licensing lav/ was strictly observed, and he invited the member for Christchurch North to visit Auckland, and undertook if he found any breach in going a round of the hotels to contribute £IOO to any charity tho honourable gentleman might name. But such a measure as the one b-fore the House he certainly thought should have been a Government measure.

The Prime Minister: Do you want to see such a measure made a Government measure P Mr Myers: Yes. I should have^ preferred it. The Prime Minister: I am very glad to have your opinion. Mr Myers proceeded to say that he would like to see the Government put before the electors nt the next election the issue whether or not tho State or municipalities should have the right to take over control of the sale of alcoholic liquor. A member: Without compensation? Mr Myers. Yes. Without _ compensation, so that a reasonable time were fixed.

The member for Auckland East went on to say that he was sorry to_see tho question introduced into politics, but if the people wished the State or municipalities to talco over control of the traffic the trade would bo ready to bow.

to the inevitable. Personally he thought it would be a good tiling to appoint a commission, embracing both sides, to arrive at a conclusion likely to satisfy ail classes of the community. British fair play wanted. Mr Malcolm, in replying, said they had reached the stage in Clutiha that when they did away with licensed houses they got rid of the evils ol drinking. If they abolished licensed houses they would increase the prosperity and the health of the people more than by all tho legislation over a score of years. Dealing with the arguments of members who were pledged to vote on the oo per cent majority on one issue and 60 per cent on tho other, ho declared that if they voted against the Bill they would be voting u gainst 'the principle to which they were committed. Mr Wilford: What about Mr Isitt's threat P Mr Malcolm declared there was nothing that so incensed a British community as a sense of injustice, and there were those in the community who were beginning to feel a sense of injustice. They had for years past been making very great sacrifices in support of their cause, and they had received no reward. Naturally they were becoming incensed, and li 9 did not wonder at the suggestion made by the member for Christchurcli North. The present majority was not British fair play. If the House refused the Bill they would bo flouting public opinion. A division was reached at 11 p.m. after a debate that had lasted from three o'clock. THE BILL DEFEATED

The motion for the second reading was lost by 42 to 32. The division list was as follows:

Ayes (82) —Messrs Anderson, Bell, Buddo, Buxton, Clark, Craigie, Ell, Escott, Fisher, Hanan, Harris, Hindmarsh, Hine, Isitt, Lang Laurenson, Lee, Malcolm, Mander, Ngata. Nosworthy, Okey, Payne, Peerce. Poland, R.obertson, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Veitch, Wilson, Young and Dr Newman.

Noes (42) —Messrs Atmore, J. Bollard, R. Bollard, Bradney, Brown, Buchanan, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Colvin, Davey, Dickie. Dickson', Forbes, Fraser, Glover, Guthrie, Kerdinan, Herries, Hunter, M'Callum, ?»lacdcnald, R. M'Kenzie, Myers, E. Newman, Parata. Pcmare, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Russell. Scott, Scddon, Sidey, F. Smith. 11. W. Smith, Statham._ J. C. Thomson, Wilford, Witty, Sir James Carroll, Sir Joseph Ward.

Pair—For, Mr Massey; against, Mr J. Allen. There were onlv three absentees—the Hon J. A. Millar, the Hon T. Mackenzie and Dr Rangihirca.

UNEXPECTED DEFEAT EXPLAINED.

As the friends of the Bill had confidently predicted a jnajority on the second rending, its defeat came as a surprise, but the solution was quickly explained in the lobbies. A close analysis of pledges showed that six members who voted against the Bill would have supported it had the 55 per cent majority applied to the national issue alone instead of to local as well as to national prohibition. Tho Prime Minister, who paired in favour of the Bill, is, for instance, only pledged to support the 55 per cent on the national issue. Knd that been the only point in the measure it would have got through the second reading, though its chances in committee under the circumstances would have been boneless.