Auckland Hotel Is Refused Dancing Permit

Press, Volume C, Issue 29458, 9 March 1961, Page 16

Auckland Hotel Is Refused Dancing Permit

(New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 8. The Licensing Control Commission has declined an application by Trevor Rhodes Williams, licensee of the Station Hotel, Auckland, for authority to hold dancing, concerts, or theatrical entertainments on the licensed premises.

In a decision released today the commission says: “We reach this decision reluctantly, and shall be not a whit disturbed if we are subsequently found to be wrong.”

The commission says it acknowledges that the hotel is of good repute and under competent management, and could provide the facilities for which the application was made.

“If the act f did not prescribe the sort of hotel which may be granted exemption to allow guests to dance or be entertained, the commission would have given the authority sought without any hesitation,’’ says the decision. The commission says, however, that the legislation has put a hedge about the authority it gives the commission, which is obliged “to try to interpret how Parliament meant us to act.’’ The commission is required by statute to And that hotel premises for which exemptions as to entertainments are sought “will be used substantially for the accommodation of tourists or holiday-makers.’ ' After reviewing the evidence it heard, the commission finds that nothing that was said could persuade it that the Station Hotel is or

has been of any special significance to tourists or holiday-makers. In a further reference to present legislation the commission says: “If there is one point that is certain from a reading of this unclear piece of legislation, it is that the act seeks to provide for the distraction of guests who are lodged at the hotel. We realise that people other than guests may dine at a hotel legally and justifiably. There are guests of the guests, for instance: others may and do dine at hotels occasionally, and a few regularly. “But the provision for exemptions as to entertainments is designed for those who come to the hotel for accommodation, and of those who do so, quite a sizeable proportion must be tourists and holiday-makers.

“If we are correct in this view, then it is so much of Mr Williams’s plan which concerns those who come to reside in the hotel which we must consider, even if others would like to take advantage of it. We have already said that there is no distinguishing feature about the hotel that marks it as a place to which tourists and holiday-makers will resort any more than to most other recognised accommodation hotels in Auckland, and rather less than some. “We do not believe that the mere provision of a dancing space and meals at a later hour will materially change the general status of this particular hotel. We quite well believe that it may improve business, particularly in attracting residents of Auckland to dine or

entertain there, but that is not the purpose of this particular provision.

“It will thus be evident that we think this application on the evidence before us must be declined, and an order is made accordingly.” After referring to its reluctance in reaching such a decision, the commission adds: “If we are correct in our interpretation of the statute, it is immediately apparent that restaurants licensed to serve liquor will enjoy an advantage over hotels, and for that there is no conceivable justification. We are not able to think of anything objectionable to a dancing space being provided in the dining room of a hotel which the commission finds to be suitable for the purpose and the hotel itself is under acceptable management. We have already indicated that we think this hotel would have qualified but for the restrictive provisions of the statute.”