Comment From The Capital HOTEL HOURS REFERENDUM UNLIKELY IN NEAR FUTURE

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30593, 9 November 1964, Page 12

Comment From The Capital HOTEL HOURS REFERENDUM UNLIKELY IN NEAR FUTURE

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter} , WELLINGTON, November 8. Many members of Parliament seem predisposed to the revision of hours for the sale of liquor in bars, but the time of a referendum on this question is now at the heart of the issue. At first sight, there is evidence that public opinion has been softening in favour of a change. But there is lack of firm evidence on the extent to which opinion has changed since 1949, when the question was last put to the public.

The liquor trade- has not urged the Government to implement its policy which promises a national referendum before a change is authorised. Other voices have not been sufficiently clear or numerous to convince the Government that it is time for action.

The trade is no longer opposed to the spreading of hours. It is in the process of spending an estimated £lO million on improving hotels throughout the country. It would like to see some return for this.

In itself, the later closing of bars would probably not add to the amount of liquor consumed. This will largely be determined by social custom, population increase and the amount of money the public chooses to spend on liquor. Any change would come in where the money is spent —in the bars or in the liquor stores.

So the trade would, reasonably, like to see staggered, or rather, spread hours, if that will add to the profitable use of its improved services. There is a good case for discrimination in the assignment of hours in the interests of the trade, its employees and its customers. So the issue falls into two parts: whether there should be a change at all, and how the alteration should be effected. 15 Years Ago Fifteen years ago, 56 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls on the first question:—Should bars remain closed between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m.? Or should bars be open for a total of nine hours between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.? By three votes to one, the existing hours \vere favoured. Assuming that all those who favoured a change went to the poll, less than one person in seven supported later closing. The imponderable question now is:—Has public opinion yet swung to a point at which a majority would like to see hours changed. A fair guess must be that a national poll would still reject an alteration and that could defer a change for another 15 years. District polls might favour a change in some areas, particularly rural areas. So last month Parliament accepted the recommendation of the select committee, which con-

'sidered a petition from Ranfurly, that the Government should give most favourable consideration to holding local referenda in licensing districts to allow a revision of (trading hours for hotels. Possible Vote The only way this can be made to fit the Government's promise seems to be to devise a national vote along the lines: “Do you favour a change in hotel trading hours? If your answer is yes, should district polls be held before a change in your district is implemented? Or should be Licensing Control Commission rule on local hours according to demand and facilities?”

Both the commission itself and the trade favour the latter course. The trade would like to see the commission settle the whole question so that hours would not vary according to arbitrary district boundaries, but according to local conditions. The Government has not yet considered the recommendation of the petitions’ committee. If it does so soon, next year would be the obvious time for a referendum.

The plain fact is, however, that the Government is hypersensitive to public opinion, indecernible as it is —and the trade is ill disposed towards a poll in any case. Hopes of the question being soon resolved are therefore slight.