THE LICENSING BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20013, 2 December 1927, Page 7

THE LICENSING BILL

PASSED BY THE HOUSE Two-Issue Ballot Paper and Bare Majority VICTORY BY SEVEN VOTES. [ Per Press Association. 1 WELLINGTON, Dec. 1. The all-night debate on the Licensing Bill ended at 3.35 a.m. to-day, when the House of Representatives passed the third reading by 39 votes to 32. As amended the Bill provides for a two-issue ballot-paper and a bare majority. The division list was as follows:- - Tor (39) Against (32) Anderson Armstrong Bellringer Atmore Bitchcnor Bartram Burnett Bell Dickie Buddo McDickson, J. Campbell Fraser Coates Hamilton, A. Dickson, J. S. Hamilton, J. R. Elliott Harris Field Holland, H. Forbes Howard Glenn Jones, D. Hawken Jones, W. Henarc Jordan Hockley Kyle Holland, 11. E. Lee, E. P. Horn Linklater , Lee, J. A. McCombs Luke McKean Lysnar McLennan McLeod McWilliams Mason, J. Martin Nash Mason (Eden) Parry Nosworthy Pomare Potter Rolleston, J. C. Ranson Savage Reid Seddon Rhodes Veitch Rolleston, F. J. Ward Stewart Wilford Sullivan Williams Sykes Pairs— Tapley Uru Waite Forsyth Walker Girling Wright Young Ngata Hudson Smith Provisions Explained. The following official summary of the Licensing Bill as amended in committe has been supplied:— Questions whether barmen are to be licensed and whether restoration will be on a 55 per cent, majority are to be determined. Clause 2—the proposal that licensing polls be taken only with every alternative general election of members of Parliament —has been deleted from the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4: These clauses provide for submission of two issues only, namely, national prohibition and national continuance at licensing pods to be hereafter taken as attended by the House. A bare majority will be sufficient to carry the proposals of national prohibition. Clause 5 is as introduced. This clause provided that in the event of national prohibition being carried, a poll should be taken simultaneously with the next general election on the proposal to restore licenses. If, at such poll, proposal to restore licenses was not carried, no further polls could be taken without further legislative action.’ This clause was amended in committee to provide that at every general election a poll shall be taken on the proposal to restore licenses, or on the proposal of national prohibition (as the circumstances for the time being require). By a further amendment it was provided that a 1 are majority would be sufficient in any case to carry a proposal. It was further provided in committee that in the event of national prohibition being carried at one poll and national restoration being carried at the next succeeding poll, the following special provision shall apply: (1) No licenses should in any case be granted in a former no-liccnsc district; (2) the number of licenses in any licensing district or in any borough within the licensing district as existing at the time when national probihition was carried should not be exceeded, in the event of national prohibition being carried at any place and national restoration being carried at a subsequent poll other than the first poll. The Bill as amended in committee authorises Licensing Co mittees to grant publicans’ licenses as follows: (1) The maximum number of such licenses to be granted in any licensing district must not exceed one for every 500 electors in the district; (2) the Licensing Committee, however, may limit the number of licenses to be granted so that the number shall not exceed one for every 1500 electors of the district. A new clause was added to the Bill with special reference to the position in the present no-license districts to the following effect: (V In the event of national prohibition being carried, a poll is to be taken in each no-license district on the proposal to restore licenses in that district, simultaneously with a poll on the proposal for national restoration; (2) if the proposal to restore licenses is carried in a nolicense district, but the determination in the national poll is in favour of a continuance of national prohibition, the poll in no-license districts is to be of no effect; (3) if, however, the result of the poll in no-license districts is against the proposal to restore licenses, that determination is to be effective, notwithstanding that the result of the Dominion poll may be to restore licenses. This special provision is limited to one poll only, the reason being that after national prohibition has been in force for more than one Parliament, the identity of the new electoral districts with the present no-license districts could not without great difficulty be established. Other Matters. Clauses 16, 17, and 18 providing for improved accommodation in licensed premises were omitted, on the motion of the Right. Hon. the Prime Minister, the reason being that with a reduced tenure it was not reasonable to impose on licensees the serious financial responsibilty of carrying out extensive‘al-

terations or improvements in licensed premises. The Prime Minister further agreed to have clause 17 (relating to the provision of hot water service in publie bars, and the provision of sufficient sanitary and other accommodation) reconsidered, with a view to its being dealt with in “another place.” Clause 24: This clause as drafted had refe r enee to the publication of liquor advertisements in newspapers published or circulated in no-license districts. The clause provided that such advertisements were not unlawful unless their object was to procure orders for liquor in no-license districts. The clause was amended in committee to confer a similar benefit on newspapers published or circulating in areas proclaimed under Section 272 of the Licensing Act, 1908 (King Country). Clause 28 is as introduced. This clause prohibited, save in exceptional cases the supply of liquor to persons under the age of 21 years. Exceptions were in favour of a parent or guardian or other person acting with the authority of a parent of guardian. The clause was amended in committee to eanble the host to supply liquor to his guests in his own home or in premises to which for the time being he may be entitled to exclusive prossession. Clause 33: “Sale of Liqour Restriotion Act. Intoxicating liquor may be sold as part of a substantial evening meal between the hours of six and eight o’clock in the dining-room of an hotel or chartered club. As introduced the Bill proposed to allow these hours to be extended until ten o’clock in the case of an hotel on occasions, or when an association or society of persons was holding a banquet or other like functions. In committee this provis- 1 ion was extended so as to apply to chartered clubs as well as to hotels. No such extension can be granted ex- ' ccpt by permission of the superintentdent of police for the district or othei responsible officer of the police authorised to grant extensions by the commissioner. Clause 34. This clause made provision for the transfer of the registration of barmaids from the Department of Labour to the Commissioner of Police. This caluse was deleted from the Bill in committee discussion. As the Prime Minister had refused to take responsibility for the Bill after it had been so extensively amended, the third reading was moved by Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru).

MAKING PROGRESS SECOND READING IN THE UPPER; HOUSE WIDELY DIVERGENT VIEWS [ Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, Dec. 1. Having been read a first time this afternoon, the Licensing Amendment Bill came up for its second reading discussion in the Legislative Council tonight. In moving the second reading the Hon. J. Gow urged members to have regard for the fact that the elective Chamber had passed the Bill. The Hon. W. Triggs thought the measure should be sent back to the House to give members another opportunity to consider it. He opposed the bare majority and said 55—45 majority was little enough, but he was willing to agree to a compromise at 52J and 47*. The Hon. E. A. Newman also opposed the bare majority, which, he considered would lead to trouble and confusion. To ensure success there must be a substantial majority. He deplored the taking of polls every three years, believing that the issue clouded the general election. He also opposed State Control and the extension of tenure, arguing that while opinion was so evenly divided it was not right to deprive people of the right to express their opinion every three years. The Hon. J. A. Hanan maintained that the Council had no right to alter what had been decided by the House, for the members of the House had voted according to their pledges to the people. The Council had no mandate on the licensing question. Sir Robert Stout advocated a bare majority, which, he said, was democratic and had I eon recognised for 50 years in New Zealand. It was a restriction of liberty to pass a law requiring the abolition of a thing injurious to the people by a two thirds majority. The Hon. H. L. Miclel opposed the principle of State Control, which, he saia, was not a live issue. He also opposed the bare majority and said the people could not be deprived of the right to vote every three years. Sir Frederick Lung declared he would vote for the bare majority if he thought everybody would exercise his vote. He supported the retention of the. third issue. The Hon. Mark Cohen said he would never advocate a bare majority. He supported the two issue ballot papci and the six year tenure, and referred to the need for improvements in hotel accommodation. The Hon. L. M. Isitt declared that above all the piohibitionists had fought for a bare majority, and as they had a majority in the House concessions should be made by their opponents. The Hon. W. Carrington spoke in favour of a substantial majority and a six year tenure. The second reading was carried on the voices and the Council adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.