LICENSING AMENDING BILL.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1166, 15 August 1912, Page 20

LICENSING AMENDING BILL.

REJECTED BY PARLIAMENT.

On Thursday last Mr •A. S. . Malcolm, M.P. for Clutha, moved the second reading of his Licensing Act Amendment Bill in Parliament, and an interesting discussion resulted; but the Bill was eventually defeated by 42 votes to 32. In moving the second reading of the Bill, Air Alalcolm said that the arguments for and against the Bill were so well known that he did not propose to speak at length on it. He knew also that most of the members of the House were pledged on the question, and he asked friends of the Bill to expedite its passage by refraining from speaking. The object, of the Bill is to abolish the threefifths majority rule in order that a proposal in a licensing poll should be carried, and to substitute for it a 55 per cent, majority. Mr J. S. Dickson (Parnell) said that he would oppose the Bill because he was pledged to support the three-fifths majority, not because he owed anything to the trade. He was not speaking in the interests of the trade, and some honourable members knew that he had not been supported by the trade at his election. He urg-

ed that the voting papers on the licensing question were very confusing, and some changes were needed. ABOUT PLEDGES. Air T. Al. Wilford (Hutt) said the Bill would place himself and other members in a peculiar position. He was pledged to vote for 5 5 per cent, on local option questions, and 60 per cent, on the National Prohibition vote. He did not know how to vote on the Bill. There were other members in the House who had given pledges exactly the converse to his. How were they going to vote? The Prime A'linister had been a three-fifths majority man. Was he so still? The Prime Alinister: I think you had better address the Chair. Mr Wilford went on to suggest that perhaps it was because Mr Massey was not sure of his position that he had asked a private member to bring in a Bill. The Prime Alinister: I didn’t ask him to bring in the Bill. Air Wilford: Well —suggested? The Prime Minister: I didn’t suggest it. Air Wilford: You suggested that a private member could bring in a Bill on this question. The Prime Alinister: That is a different thing. Mr Wilford went on to say that he objected to such an important measure of policy being brought up by a private member. If Prohibition were carried in this country by a bare majority of voters, of whom about half were women, he was perfectly certain that Prohibition would never be carried out. He was of opinion that total Prohibition would come in this country, but the time was not yet. For himself, he was neither for Prohibition nor for the Trade; he represented the third party, the greatest party, which was usually not represented in these agitations by any executives or committees —the great moderate party. He maintained that the foundation of the Temperance agitation was the wicket tied-house system. No men could take hotels, pay the huge sums demanded for goodwill, and keep strictly within the four corners of the law. The system was really an inducement to hotelkeepers to take risks in law-breaking for self-preservation. Whatever was done, the Government ought at once to establish a thorough system of inspection of liquor sold. He could not support the Bill. .Air J. H. Bradney (Auckland West) said he thoroughly endorsed the remarks of the member for Hutt, and he was proud to be a member of the great moderate party. A COMMISSION SUGGESTED. Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) said that he also belonged to the moderate party, and that he did not belong to either of the two great camps which ranged themselves in the licensing battle every three years. • The voting on the question showed plainly enough that there was a growing sentiment in favour of the prohibition of drink in this country. With the consumption of alcoholic liquor so large as it was in this country, was it right that such a proposal should be given effect to by law? Would Parliament ever deprive moderate men from purchasing such liquor as would satisfy their reasonable wants? In any case, it was provided that national prohibition should not take effect until four years, and in the meantime there would be a general election, in which the whole question would be fought again. There would presently grow up a strong party between the extremists on either side, and in the interests of this party he suggested that there should be a commission set up, representing not only the warring parties, but also students of history and social affairs, to put our licensing laws in order. He believed that the present license system could not stand, and possibly some form of State control would be the only solution. But it behoved the Parliament to devise

some plan by which the reasonable wants of some people might be supplied, even if No-License were carried by the electors of the country. THE TWO ISSUES. Jlr E. Newman (Rangitikei) said that ever since he had been in Parliament he had been friendly to the temperance movement, but he could never see that it would be to the advantage of that movement to decide proposals on a bare majority.. He had, therefore, always opposed it. He was in favour of the 55 per cent, majority on the national issue, but he had never been in favour of a reduction of the three-fifths majority on the local option issue. He thought this operated unfairly in any case. THE ESSENTIAL THING. Mr J. G. Coates (Kaipara) said he had given distinct and clear pledges on the licensing question. He had told his electors that he would support the three-fifths majority. On such an important matter stability was the essential thing, and a good deal of stability, too. He believed in State control as the only method by which the sale of liquor could be properly regulated. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher (Minister for Marine) said he had given very emphatic and distinct pledges on the liquor question to his constituents, and he would in discharge of those pledges support the Bill. Replying to the accusation that the Government had failed in their duty in that they had not given the House a lead on the Bill, he said that argument previously had been that when private members’ Bills were under consideration, the Government ought to stand off the grass. Mr Payne: Hear, hear. Mr Fisher then asked why the her for Christchurch North wished to have the House divided into parties on the licensing question. Mr Isitt: Rather. An Hon. Member: He wouldn’t care. Air Fischer then asked why the member for Christchurch North associated himself with two gentlemen interested in the trade when he wanted to secure advantages for his party. Mr Vigor Brown: Who. are they? Air Fisher: I thinky; after hearing the interjection, that there.; is not much doubt as to who one of;them is. He went on to discuss the merits of the liquor question, expressing the belief that prohibition would be good for the community. He was not a teetotaller, but he had always -voted prohibition. He had once believed in stability and the three-fifths majority, but he had recognised that it was impossible to win the battle against those odds, and he had abandoned the stability ideal. He congratulated the member for Clutha on having introduced the Bill, and he would have much pleasure in supporting it. Air IT. Atmore (Nelson) said he was “a three-fifths man by conviction,” being satisfied that no smaller majority would suffice for stability-on this special question, which could not be approached in cold blood. He believed that the question must be finally settled by some form of State control of the traffic. He was not Socialistic, but if there was one trade in which private profit was immoral it was the liquor trade. “ALMOST HOUNDED DOWN.” Air J. Vigor Brown (Napier) said he felt diffident about speaking on the question, because people said he was connected with the trade. (Laughter.) He admitted that he, with another man, had an interest in a small brewery, and he was almost hounded down in consequence. The property of many people was involved in this question. When a squatter’s land was taken by the Government, the squatter was paid fair value for it. Why, then, should the property of other people be taken away from them on the vote of one man who might be a fool? He stated that the tied-house system did not work for evil, but rather the reverse. Alost of the cheap spirit that was sold was, in fact, sold in free houses. There was no monopoly, as was alleged, and he did not want to make it so for his part. He would be in favour of doing away with all restriction of the number of licenses, and of giving licenses to everybody who wanted one, provided always that the licensees should be required to conduct their houses properly. STATE OR MUNICIPAL CONTROL. Air A. M. Myers (Auckland East) said that he did not propose to address himself to the question of whe-

ther the majority required should be three-fifths or 55 per cent., . but to several remarks made by other members. He commended members for the extremely temperate language in which they had expressed themselves on this most controversial question. He made no apology for speaking on the question, because he was a member of the trade. When he stood for Parliament he did not stand as a brewer, but as an elector of this ■country. 'He had declared himself a supporter of the three-fifths majcrity, and his trade need not influence his judgment on questions before the House. He regretted to hear from the member for Christchurch North that the Prohibition party were aiming for political power in this issue, irrespective of the other vreat national issues coming before the House. He agreed that there ought to be some method of inspection to ensure that all the liquor was of the very best quality. This would be welcomed by the trade, and the trade in Auckland would be willing to defray the cost of any such inspection. He regretted that the Prime A rinister had not given a lead on the Bill. The Prime Minister: Do you want us to make this a Government measure? Air Aiyers: I should prefer it; I think it would be very desirable. The Prime Alinister: I am glad to have your opinion. Mr Aiyers asked that at the next local option poll the people should have an opportunity of voting on a proposal to establish State or municipal control. This might seem strange coming from a man interested in the trade. He and others had entered upon the trade believing it was a legal trade, and if the people now did not want to have it carried on under the present constitution, then it was time they should have a chance of saying so. Mr Isitt: Without compensation? Mr Aiyers: “Without compensation, "rovided a sufficient reasonable number of years of grace be allowed before the law comes into force.” He also reminded the member for Christchurch North that only about 2 5 per cent, of the people who voted Prohibition were in truth Prohibitionists. THE MOVER IN REPLY. Mr A. S. Alalcolm (Clutha), in replying, admitted that he felt very deeply on the question dealt with in the Bill. In presenting this Bill, he did not desire to make any attack on property. But, although a good deal had been said about the loss of. property that would result from the abolition of licenses, nothing had been said in the debate about the hardship and misery inflicted on many people—particularly women and children —by the ex-, istence of the licensed trade. Air Malcolm justified the threat to form a party to advance licensing reform on the score that licensing reform was the most urgent political question of the day. The abolition of licenses would do more to advance prosperity than other measures would do in a score of years. As to the members who were prepared to support a reduced majority on one issue, but not on the other, they should support the Bill. They had pledged themselves to support some change in the licensing law. If the Bill passed its second reading members would have an opportunity of amending it in committee. He would not approve any amendment, but he had no more authority than any other member of the House. A member pledged to vote for a reduced maiority on one issue would deliberately break not only the spirit, but the letter, of his pledge if he opposed the second reading of the Bill. The member for Dunedin Central had said that if the bare majority were applied in licensing polls, the drinking of tea might also be forbidden. A crusade of this kind would be more hopeless than that of Don Quixote.

Parliament was humbugging the people in telling them that the licensing question was submitted to themselves, and at the same time imposing such a tremendous handicap as now obtained. He appealed to the British sense of fair play in members. It was not fair play that people who had been educated on this question until they understood it as well as any member of the House, should be required to poll six votes out of every ten in. order to wipe out the liquor trade. Even if the 55 per cent, majority were adopted, a majority of 600 votes would be required to carry a proposal where 6000 votes were cast. To reverse this decision 1200 voters would have to change their minds. This should amply ensure stability. To reject the Bill at this stage would be to flout public opinion. THE DIVISION. The motion foi' the second reading was defeated by 42 votes to 32. The following is the division list: — Ayes (32): Anderson, Bell, Buddo, Buxton, Clark, Craigie, Ell, Escott, Fisher, Hanan, Harris, Hindmarsh, Hine, Isitt, Lang, Laurenson, Lee, Malcolm, Mander, A. K. Newman, Ngata, Nosworthy, Okey, Payne, Pearce, Poland, Robertson, Sykes, G. M. Thompson, Veitch, Wilson, Young. Noes (42): Atmore, J. Bollard, R. Bollard, Bradney, Brown, Buchanan, Buick, Campbell, Carroll, Coates, Colvin, Davey, Dickie, Dickson, Forbes, Fraser, Glover, (Guthrie, Herdman, Herries, Hunter, M‘Callum, MacDonald, R. McKenzie, Myers, E. Newman, Parata, Pomare, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Russell, Scott, Seddon, Sidey, F. H. Smith, R. W. Smith, Statham, J. C. Thompson, Ward, Wilford, Witty. The Hon. W. F. Massey (aye) and the Hon. James Allen (no) were paired. The Hon. T. Mackenzie, the Hon. J. A. Millar, and Dr. Te Rangihiroa were absent, and they, with the Speaker, were the only members not accounted for in the division. THE MEMBER FOR INVERCARGILL. Mr J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said he had been assured that there was a majority of the House in favour of the Bill, and also that the Bill had not a chance of becoming law. He claimed that the intelligence of the electors was being flouted, and Parliament, controlled as it was by the Executive, could not give effect to the people’s will. The Government were concealing their views on the licensing question, and on the Bill. They were, he believed, opposed to it, and they were endeavouring to lead people to' suppose that they were in favour of it by allowing one of their party to introduce it. WHAT DID THE LATE GOVERNMENT DO? Mr D. H. Guthrie (Oroua) said that Mr Hanan had altogether failed in his object, which was to make it appear that the Government were unfriendly

to the measure. His own view about the Bill was that the reference to the local option poll should be deleted. He was not in favour of the local option poll at all, and certainly not in favour of the three-fifths majority on this issue. He had no hope of getting an amendment to this effect carried, and he would not move it. He would not support the Bill. Mr J. Robertson (Otaki) said he would support the Bill. He declared, however, that any majority, such as a three-fifths or 55 per cent was a departure from the democratic principle, that all issues ought to be decided by a bare majority. WHERE THEY DIFFERED. Mr C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said that he supposed all members were anxious to eradicate drunkenness, but they differed as to how this happy ideal should be brought about. He was in favour of the threefifths majority, believing that all drastic reforms should be carried by a reasonably substantial majority. He did not attach any weight to the argument that all questions should be decided by a bare majority. Presently a bare majority might decide whether people could smoke or not, or what church people should attend. Mr R. M’Callum (Wairau) said he would oppose the Bill on the ground that he did not think the vote on the Dominion issue should ever have been submitted to the people. He would have liked the Government to take up the Bill. He admitted the need for licensing reform, but he did not think national prohibition would ever be tolerated. He would not have so much objection to national nolicense as an issue. He blamed the temperance party for the confusion which delayed licensing reforms that were needed. ON TENDER CONSCIENCES. Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch Notch) said that members professing to discuss the Bill had left the Bill alone, and raised every conceivable side-issue. He sketched the history of the No-License movement, and showed what the effect of the 50 per cent, handicap was. It was far too large a handicap to be justified by the argument as to permanency. Surely the 55-45 handicap was quite sufficient to ensure reasonable permanency. If a poll were to be taken on State control of the traffic he would not suggest that there should be a handicap to either side of 50 per cent. He could not be so false to the principles of democracy. The temperance party were getting tired of the men with too tender consciences who could vote for a reduction of the majority on one issue and not on the other. He had more respect for the man who said straight out, “I support the three-fifths.’ The party had practically made up its mind to have no more of these men with analytical minds and tender consciences.

OPPONENTS OF THE BILL. Mr T. H. Smith (Waitaki) said that members supporting the Bill had been talking as if there were only two parties to be considered —'the NoLicense people and the Trade. They took no account of the moderates. I’m a moderate, and I’m not going to support the Bill. Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay) said that the Bill did not go far enough in the right direction. What was needed was the abolition of tied houses and the regulation of the traffic to ensure the sale of good liquor. He believed in the threefifths majority, and he would oppose the Bill. Mr A. E. Glover (Auckland Central) said the measure was a temporary expedient to secure an end. The measure was too drastic to be brought down by a private member, involving as it would questions of revenue. He objected also to the displaying of a chart in the lobby of the House showing what the voting on the liquor question had been. If the lobby of the House was to be used as an advertising medium, he was willing to pay £lOOO a year for the privilege of using it. The Government could get some revenue from it.