Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Temperance and Prohibition in New Zealand

Popular Control

Popular Control

In another place will be found a summary of the Licensing Legislation in New Zealand from the year 1841 to the year 1918. It is interesting to note that the first successful attempt made in any British legislature to bring the liquor trade under popular control was made in the Auckland Provincial Council. On January 26, 1871, a Permissive Bill was passed by the Council, introduced by Mr. John Shepherd of Port Albert. It was easier to get it through the Provincial Council than the General Assembly. Many years were to elapse before the principle of that first Permissive Bill was recognized in the legislation of New Zealand, and it was only reached ultimately by stages. The first stage was that indicated in the Licensing Act of 1881. Prior to that, Licensing Committees were nominated by Government. By the Act of 1881 the country was divided into licensing districts and the election of Licensing Committees was placed in the hands of ratepayers. As the election was annual and the objective on both sides was to secure a majority on the Committee, there commenced at that period the straight-out struggle between the forces of liquor and of anti-liquor that has continued ever page 50 since. It is interesting to recall the intensity of the struggle and the paeans of victory that were sung when a majority of the anti-liquor party succeeded in gaining seats on the licensing bench, but the interest becomes pathetic when it is remembered how limited the powers of such committees were. There was, it is true, a clause in the Act giving ‘discretion to the committee to grant or refuse certificates for licenses (including renewals).’ That seemed to give very wide powers, even that of the extinction of all liquor licenses in the country. But even when a reduction of licenses was attempted, before reduction became an issue in a licensing election, the reasons for such reduction were challenged in law-courts. As is well-known, when in later years the ratepayers of Sydenham interpreted the clause literally, and elected a Committee pledged to refuse all licenses, and they did so, a judge of the Supreme Court, on appeal by ‘the trade,’ set aside the Committee's decision on the ground that in arriving at such a decision they were influenced by ‘an incurable bias.’ For all the strength that was put into the struggle for a majority on the Licensing Committees, the results in the way of curbing the evils of the liquor traffic were pitifully small. The one advantage gained was the sharpening of weapons for the bigger and longer fight when the issue at stake was the total abolition of the traffic.