REFERENDA TO BE HELD THIS YEAR

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31379, 26 May 1967, Page 1

REFERENDA TO BE HELD THIS YEAR

Bar Hours Option With Meal Break (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 25. Voters will be asked to say this year whether they want a change in drinking hours and whether they want the three-year term of Parliament extended to four years.

Legislation providing for referenda was introduced in Parliament today by the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan).

The alternative to six o’clock closing proposed in the legislation is a vote for 10 p.m. closing with no increase in the total weekly licensing hours and with a break for an evening meal. Mr Hanan said Government members were not unanimous on the wording of the ballot paper. The referenda will be held simultaneously on a date yet to be decided. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said the polls would cost about £150,000. The bills—The Liquor Poll Bill and The Electoral Poll Bill—were referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for consideration and the hearing of evidence. Parliament agreed that the

hearings should be open to the press. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) questioned the wisdom of holding the referenda jointly. Because there were some who held very firm views over the liquor hours issue, an emotional reaction to the liquor referendum could carry through and give a distorted result in the electoral referendum. The Electoral Poll Bill involved a constitutional issue which affected the civil rights of the voting public, he said. The referendum on the electoral bill should not be coloured by other referenda. Emotion aroused on one isssue could affect the result of another, “but I don’t think it would be affected too much,” said Mr Holyoake. Splitting the referenda would involve another £150,000 for administration. “If the Statutes Revision Committee recommended that they be held separately 1

think I would be saying to the Minister of Finance that I don’t think we could provide £300,000 this year,” Mr Holyoake said. This would mean holding one of the referenda in another year.

If the proposed change of drinking hours was defeated by the voting public, it might be 10 years before a Government would consider holding a liquor referendum again.

Mr Hanan said Government members were not unanimous on the form the ballot paper for the liquor referendum should take and it was doubtful whether Opposition members would be unanimous either.

The bill did not attempt to spell out in detail what would be done if a majority vote was in favour of a change of liquor hours. It was not desirable that at this stage Parliament should be “tied down" on the question.

Electoral Bill

Mr Kirk said: “The wording

of the ballot paper must be such that it must give a really firm indication of public opinion on this question.” If public opinion calls for an extension of the term of Parliament the present' Parliament will not be affected. The voting paper for the Electoral Poll Bill will set out two alternatives: I vote for a maximum of three years as at present; and I vote for a maximum of four years. What was being sought from the people by the bill was whether they were prepared to dilute their rights by voting once every four years- instead of once every three years, Mr Kirk said. It was very important that the public approach the issue with a clear understanding that it substantially affected their civil rights, he said. The Government should consider preparing an explanatory publication setting out the arguments for and against an extension of the Parliamentary term.

The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said any explanatory publication should be made by Parliament as a whole—and not by the Government alone—to ensure that it was not biased. Mr Kirk said he considered the suggestion appropriate.