Extended Period Of Six Years May Be Asked For In Licensing Referendum.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18614, 16 November 1928, Page 10

Extended Period Of Six Years May Be Asked For In Licensing Referendum.

LIQUOR TRADE CONSIDERS PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF CONSTANT VOTING—STATE CONTROL URGED AS ALTERNATIVE ISSUE.

Although nothing definte has been decided upon, an extended period between licensing referendums of six years will probably be sought by the advocates of Continuance of the liquor trade.

“ People Tired of Issue.” “ The people are becoming tired of this issue coming before them every three years,” said Mr H. J. Otley, who expressed himself as very pleased with the result of the licensing poll. “ I think that the handling of the Licensing Bill at the last Parliamentary session caused dissatisfaction among a great number of people, and the number of members who were tied on the question without the electors’ knowledge caused people to get tired of the issue. The result this year can be taken as an indication that the electors as a whole do not want the liquor question to intrude in party politics. Formerly the Prohibition issue has been the dominant factor in many constituences, but this year the people have shown that they do not want the political issue clouded.”

Mr Otley was very.pleased with the results in the Avon and Christchurch North districts, which were formerly strongly in favour of Prohibition. He had always felt that there were not enough people in the Dominion to carry Prohibition, and that, if all the people voted, Prohibition would never be carried. State Control should remain as an issue in the referendum. There were always a number of people who wanted a change, and this section should be given the opportunity to express its views without having to vote on either extreme. The Continuance party was quite prepared to give State Control exponents the chance to express their own opinions.

“ There is a growing feeling that the tenure is too short, and that unless it is extended people will grow tired of the issue,” said Mr Otley. “ The public cannot expect men to spend money on their hotels in the very short tenure of three years. I think that the referendum should take place every six years —at every second general election. This would be a good thing for the public and also for the Prohibitionists.”

Mr Otley went on to defend the present system of liquor control. Legislation ensured strict control of publicans, and the laws were enforced with a view to keeping the trade clean. Personally, he thought that any publican breaking the law should have his license taken away. There was very little—practically none at all—drunkenness, even at race time. The accommodation should be as good for the public as it could be, and Prohibition would do nothing to improve hotels in this respect. “ For twenty years the Prohibitionists have been claiming that they would succeed, but they are further away than ever now,” concluded Mr Otley. Would Oppose Extended. Tenure. That the New Zealand Allience would vigorously oppose and fight ay movement towards an extended tenure, was the statement made to a reporter, by Mr J. I. Royds, a former president of the Alliance. “The vote is, of course, unsatisfactory from the point of view of those who desire the abolition of the liquor traffic,” said Mr Royds. “It is impossible to say how far the result is due to the expensive and in-

tensive liquor campaign of misrepresentation, accompanied by the usual appeals to appetite, cupidity, ignorance and prejudice, but the overwhelming endorsement of American Prohibition by the recent election of Mr Hoover, the ‘Dry’ candidate, as President, will make it increasingly dfficult to delude New Zealand people as to the position there, and the heavy campaign of education, which is always in progress, must in time nullify the propaganda of the liquor interests. “If this is not a reasonable view of the future of Prohibition in New Zealand, then, from a national point of view, the position is disquetng, for here s a trade which our Government National Efficiency Board has classed as a menace to the morals and efficiency of the lotion, a fruitful cause of economic waste and unemployment, a disturber of the peace, and a recognised destroyer of home life. Yet our people vote overwhelmingly for its retention, as they have a perfect right to do. “Will Not Relax Efforts ” “The New Zealand Alliance ■will not relax its efforts. The trade in intoxicating liquor is a menace to nearly everything that is worth while in national life, and every civilised coun r try is attempting to deal with it. A referendum is merely an incident by the way just to see how things are going, and while we may lose battles, as we have lost this one, we shall eventually win the war. “As to the political situation as affect ed by the changes of members, it is impossible to say anything at the moment. “We have had some gains and some losses, but the views of all the newlyelected members are not known at present, outside the Alliance headquarters in Wellington, where the answers to our questionnaire are assembled.” Prohibition Not Wanted. Archdeacon F. N. Taylor, president of the Canterbury branch of the Licensing Reform Association, said that he was optimistic in his view of the State Control issue in the future. About 60 per cent of the voters had shown clearly that they' were oposed to Prohibition. This majority had increased steadily from 50.4 in 1919, and it should be plain that Prohibition was out of the question for a long time. Those wh desired to maintain and support _ the movement towards complete national sobriety must do so along other lines. “It is fair to ask that those who still think Prohibition the best way should put it aside for the time being, and give their help to other measures of reform and more complete control of the drink traffic,” said Archdeacon Taylor. “The State Control vote has not increased, but) a cause that in it* eaily day octroi 60,000 votes cannot rightly be termed a “dead fe*ue." There was a time when. Prohibition itself had fewer advocates in New Zealand than that. A Separate Issue. “I am convinced that a very lareg number would vote for some form of public control if that issue _ was presented to them as a separate issue. The scheme for Corporate Control avoids one of the drawbacks of State Control, and the scheme needs dhly to be better known to be widely supported.”