CHANGE TO LIQUOR HOURS

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31462, 31 August 1967, Page 1

CHANGE TO LIQUOR HOURS

10p.m. Closing, 11-Hour Limit If Poll Carried

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 30.

Hotels throughout New Zealand will definitely close at 10 p.m. if next month’s nation-wide referendum on sale of liquor hours is carried, but drinking hours in hotels will probably be extended from the present nine hours a day to 11 hours a day.

These were the major decisions reached by the Parliamentary Statutes Revision Committee which met this morning to consider the Parliamentary Paper on the liquor poll released by the Government last Friday to explain the reasons for the proposed changes in hours of sale.

The committee decided that: Drinking hours in hotels, taverns and clubs will not exceed 11 hours on any day Monday to Saturday.

In the main, hotels will open at 11 a.m.

In some areas where 10 p.m. i closing would be too late or i 11 a.m. opening would be unsuitable, or there was need ; for a break during the day or i a lesser total than 11 drink- i ing hours, application could ' be made to the licensing committees or district licensing l trusts in trust districts to de- i termine the fixing of drinking i hours. i Decisions on variations ' would be made after public hearings and would be sub- 1 ject to appeal. 1 The referendum on liquor- < sale hours will be held on i September 23 in conjunction < with the referendum on the extension of the Parliament- ’ ary term from three to four ' years. ' The Statutes Revision Com- i mittee’s decision on the paper i was announced in Parliament 1 this afternoon by the acting 1 ehairman (Sir Leslie Munro). “Loaded Issue” The Leader of the Opposi- j tion (Mr Kirk) said he was ' most concerned that the paper , purported to be a Parliamen- ' tary Paper. , “One cannot escape the uncomfortable feeling that Government policy is loading the , issue to carry the poll at any ' cost—rather than inform the ’ people so that they can make ; a decision.” He claimed that the object . of the paper—to present the - arguments for and against ex- 1 tending the hours of sale —was ' not being achieved. “The purpose of the paper is not to present Government ' policy but to present the issues involved,” said Mr ' Kirk. "Those who are opposed 1 to the change of hours are en- ’ titled to have their opinions : presented—whereas the paper 1 is written on the assumption , that the ballot will be car- : ried.” “Policy Statement” ] Dr. A. M. Finlay (Lab., Wai- ' takere) also said that the paper stated Government policy and was not strictly a Parliamentary White Paper. “We will not oppose the Government promulgating it but we would prefer the poll to be accompanied by a Parliamentary Paper setting down the pros and cons. “I hope the poll will be carried and I advocate later closing as a move to catch up with the rest of the world,” he said. Dr. Finlay said he regretted that both parties were bound to a referendum, but in deciding on a referendum the House sought from the electorate guidance as to the issues involved “We should say to the electorate, guide us and not tie us down. Do you want to end the 6 o’clock swill or not? “If you want to end the swill leave the problem to Parliament and the Licensing Control Commission to take into account the particular requirements of local districts,” he said. He added that he was disappointed that a 10 p.m. limit had been written into the paper, but he accepted it because he thought it might be a more acceptable time to the majority of the public. Details Of Change Replying to Mr Kirk’s claims that the opinions if those opposed to any extension of licensing hours were not presented in the paper, Mr Hanan said: “If people vote for the status quo then they know what they are voting for. “If they vote for a change then it is only right that they should know what it is all ■bout and that is the purpose of the paper.” Mr C. 3. Moyle (Lab., Manukau) said *hat the informed recommendations of the Statutes Revision Committee had been disregarded in the amended Parliamentary paper. “The major question of the ballot paper was whether to

include or exclude 10 p.m. closing,” he said. “There was a tremendous amount of evidence presented to the committee in favour of removing the 10 p.m. time limit.

“The paper in its amended form represents to a large measure the view of the Government caucus and not the original informed view of the Statutes Revision Committee.

“I regret that the original consensus of the committee to remove 10 p.m. closing should be so lightly disregarded by the Government caucus,” he said. Mr Moyle claimed that the very element of flexibility which the evidence presented to the committee emphasised so strongly had now been destroyed, and because of this he disassociated himself from the amended paper. All Represented The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said he wanted to make it clear that the paper was a Parliamentary Paper and not a Government Paper. Although the basic work on the paper had to be done by the Government it had been referred to the Statutes Revision Committee to be considered. All parties were represented on this commitMr Holyoake said the latest hour of 10 p.m. closing would appear to him to be the will of the majority of members of the House. Mr V. F. Cracknell (Soc. Cred., Hobson) said surely the paper was a statement of the Government’s intention and of Government opinion in the event of the people favouring a change in licensing hours. He had always believed that if there was to be a change in drinking hours there should be an “upper limit in time." There was still plenty of flexibility with a ceiling of 10 p.m. Mr W. W. Freer (Lab., Mount Albert) expressed disappointment with the Parliamentary Paper. “The Minister (Mr Hanan) does not appear to know his own mind on the issue,” he said. “This document is not as informative as it should be.”

Wholesalers’ Position

Mr Freer asked what was going to happen in the case of wine and spirit merchants who also owned and ran a public bar. Would they be allowed to tell drink for consumption off the premises until 10 p.m.? This was not covered in the paper, he said. Mr Freer said he thought the present wholesale system in New Zealand was “splendid” because it encouraged more people to drink in the home. It would not be a good situation if wholesalers were able to sell large quantities of liquor for consumption off the premises until 10 p.m. at night. Explaining Plans Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Lab., Island Bay) said the Government should introduce legislation providing for a change in liquor hours and get it passed before the referendum, only to come into effect if the people voted for a change. This would give the people a firm understanding of what they were voting for, he said. He felt that the Statutes Revision Committee should have brought out an explanatory paper setting out the pros and cons of the issue rather than the Government The Minister of Broadcasti ing (Mr AdamsGchneider) said he did not think it would be a good thing to have I extended total hours and said • opening hours of 11 a.m.-2 I p.m. and 4 p.m.-10 p.m. would i be a worth-while experiment. “I think this could lead to more modern drinking in New ! Zealand,” he said. “But it i i should be restricted to a maxi-

mum of nine hours a day and 54 hours a week.” The Minister said he was sure that many people opposed to longer drinking hours would support the proposal for a maximum of nine hours a day. Politics Alleged Mr W. E. Rowling (Lab., Buller) claimed that party politics had intruded into the issue. “I want to deplore the setting aside in part of the evidence in the Statutes Revision Committee,” he said. The changed views of some members of the committee was “staggering.” “The paper that we have before us is a Government paper. It is not the paper that has resulted from the original findings of the committee but the result of Government caucus decisions.” Mr Rowling deplored the “brushing aside” of the committee’s findings. “The flexibility which the committee set to put before the public has very largely disappeared," he said. “This eeases to be a Parliamentary Paper and becomes a Government paper.” Defeat Possibility The Chairman of Committees, Mr J. H. George (Otago Central) said he accepted the committee’s report, but he was disappointed that the committee had not considered the possibility of allowing for some flexibility in the event of the poll being defeated. “I am not sure people’s minds have changed greatly since 1949 (the date of the last liquor referendum) to give a majority in favour of extended hours. “I would like to see some flexibility so that if the poll is rejected nationally then the Government would give some regard for regional majorities,” he said. Regional Changes The Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) also urged some consideration of regional majorities in favour of extended hours if the poll was defeated on a national basis. Mr M. Rata (Lab., Northern Maori) asked if the Government intended printing in Maori both the liquor Parliamentary Paper and the Parliamentary Paper on extending the term of Parliament. He was told by Sir Leslie Munro, that the committee would meet later today and would discuss the question then. Mr N. V. Douglas (Lab., Auckland Central) read two telegrams from Auckland liquor wholesalers stating that they believed the poll was merely concerned with the question of extending drinking hours and was not concerned with a later sale of liquor off licensed premises. On this question they sought an assurance.

In reply Sir Leslie Munro

said that New Zealand liquor wholesalers had had ample time to present evidence to the committee and that the question of allowing the sale of liquor off licensed premises lif the poll was carried, would be considered when the legislation allowing for new licensing hours was introduced. “We should go to the country on this matter with no sense of party politics and believing we have produced a fair document adequately set? ting out the issues involved,” said Sir Leslie Munro.

On a point of order, Mr Kirk said it was important that the question of whether wholesale liquor shops should be allowed to remain open until 10 p.m. be decided and covered by the Parliamentary Paper. “This is crucial to the outcome of the referendum,” he said.

The committee’s recommendations on the paper were accepted by Parliament