REMOVAL APPROVED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18254, 24 November 1933, Page 7

REMOVAL APPROVED

MOTU HOTEL SITE CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN HOUSE (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The principle of removing a hotel license for more than the mile limit piescribed in the Licensing Act, provided members of the House of Representatives last night with a talking point which they thoroughly exploited. The Bay of Plenty Licensing Committee Empowering Bill seeks to authorise that body to transfer a license more than one mile where it is satisfied that such a transfer is in the interests of the travelling public. The bill actually applies to an hotel at Motu, once halfwav house between Gisborne and Opotiki, but now isolated nine miles from the modern thoroughfare through an extensive road deviation. It is proposed to remove it to the new road at Matawai. These points were briefly explained by Mr. J. A. Murdoch (Coal., Marsden), who, on behalf of Mr. K. S. Williams JoaL. Bay of Plenty), who was temporarily absent from the Chamber, moved the second reading. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab.. Napier) , a id lie realised that there was a problem in the licensing district which could only he dealt with by legislation. However, this bill, instead of dealing with one articular case, gave power to remove any number of licenses under siinilai conditions He could see other licensing committees coming along with local bills for tlie same purpose, and thus a general change would occur in the main hi easing law. “VERY VICIOUS PRINCIPLE” Sir' Apiraua Ngata (Eastern Maori) pointed out that the Local Bills Committee bad dealt with the point raised by Mr. Barnard, because it had limited its opeiation to the situalion already created by road diversion, and not to provide for future contingencies. He recognised the necessity for the bill, and heartily supported it. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Coal., Eden) suggested that there was no proof that the case concerned was an isolated one. There might be a crop of bills which would undermine the general licensing law —a very vicious principle. It was setting up a-precedent. Mr. J. A. Leo (Lab., Grey Lynn): A good precedent. Mr. Stallworthy admitted that a case could be made out for the hotel proprietor and for the convenience of the travelling public, but there was a stronger argument against what he termed “this method of torpedo attack on the general licensing! law of the Dominion.” Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said he had listened the evidence before the Local Bills Com mittee. and although there must be a fair proportion of prohibitionists in the district. not one had come forward with ibie-tions. It was a common-sense proposal-, and received support from witnesses who said that they were life-long abstainers. It was wrong to introduce general questions of the licensing of hotels. There was a road 100 miles long without an accommodation house except the one under discussion. DEPARTMENTS OBJECT

“I look upon the bill with grave kpprehension,” declared Mr. H. Holland (Coal., Christchurch N.J. Practically everv fourth house on the west coast of the South Island was an hotel, and if a precedent was created by this bill they were waiting to get some of these licenses moved . Mr R. A. Wright (Coal.. Wellington Suburbs) described it as a shrewd move to introduce the measure as a local bill. It involved a big principle, and should have been dealt with by the Government. He could, assure the House that there was strong feeling in the district among prohibitionists against it. He would franklv admit that because of the road diversion this hotel was completely out of the way. The Local Bills Committee vas not unanimous, three voting against p, motion that the bill should proceed. The Internal Affairs Department reported strongly against creating a precedent which was dangerous. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) contended that' if the transfer was approved all similar cases throughout the. Dominion should be similarly treated. He was against accepting the principle in a local bill. • _ t , Mr. A. E. Jull, chairman of the Local Bills Committee, remarked that the last speaker was a member of the committee, but did not hear the evidence. The bill was favorably reported by six votes lo three. The Department of Justice did f s port unfavorably on the bill, but it ivas not a strong report, and was countered by two magistrates who approved, and a police inspector who gave evidence in favor. He had no concern whether the Licensing Committee which promoted the bill was "wet” or “dry.” LETTERS OF PROTEST

Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) pointed to the importance of unanimous support for the bill from the district concerned. There was actually a majority of prohibitionists on the Local Bills Committee. Mr. R. W. Hawke (Coal., Kaiapoi) said he knew there was a good case from the public convenience viewpoint, but he saw the danger of creating a precedent. The bill went through quietly at first, but since the committee had reported on it he had received 12 letters of protest. Mr. Williams, in reply, pointed out that the Licensing Committee, after the passing of the bill, would make a local investigation into the merits of an application for a transfer. The principle of moving a license was admitted in the Licensing Act, but its framers could not foresee the different conditions which motor transport would eventually create. There was a big] passenger traffic on the route. The bill was not asking for a fresh license, a’nd only wished to have the hotel moved from a point where it was of no use to the travelling public. Another point was that his constituency and a great part of the Gisborne area was barred from using any other method of transport than by road- The promoters of the bill had intimated their acceptance of the Select Committee’s amendment which prevented the bill from applying to cases which might arise hereafter.

He could not understand why certain members were troubled about the hereafter of the licensing question ; it could look after itself, and the House could be trusted to watch anv bill which might be brought in hereafter. MR. COLEMAN’S SUPPORT

Mr. Wricdit challenged the second vending, which was carried on a division bv 48 votes to seven, the latter comprising Messrs. Wright, Stallworthy, Hawke, W. Nash, P. McSkimming (Coni,, Chitlin), Holland, and J. W. Munro (Lab., Dunedin N.). Further attempts to obstruct the bill were made in committee, when Mr. 1). W. Coleman (Lab.. Gisborne) came to the defence of the measure. lie said the alteration as far as the site of the hotel was concerned met with the approval of the people of both the Bav of Plenty and Gisborne electorates. The matter had been before the people for many months, so it could not be said that hole-

in-the-corner methods were being adopted. It could not he said, either, that ail hotel could lie shifted at the whim of the owners, as any removal was subject to the approval of the Licensing Committee. MENACE OF ISOLATION "Whether we are prohibitionists or not,” said Mr. Coleman, “we have to admit that the people of New Zealand have declared themselves in favor of, licensed houses, and that being so it is surely common sense that licensed houses should be placed where they are a convenience to the people. Speaking as a prohibitionist, I believe it is a greater menace to have an hotel in on out-of-the-way place than on a main highway. If an hotel is in an out-of-thc-wav place there is a greater likelihood of drinking and debauchery. The present hotel is a first-class one and well managed.” Mr. Wright moved an amendment that before a transfer was granted it should lie subject to the approval of the electors on a poll taken at the next Licensing Committee election, a three-fifths majority being necessary. Mr. .S. G. Smith, chairman of committees, ruled the amendment out of order, as it involved an appropriation of public moneys. Air. Stall worthy: Can we add that a poll he taken at the expense of the county council. The chairman replied that no addition could he made to nil amendment which he could not accept. The bill missed the committee unamended Mr. Williams being applauded as lie left the committee table. The third rcadirw gave Mr. Stallworthy an opportunity of making anctlier protest, including comment that rl>o Minister of Justice had voted for a bill which his own department regarded as embodying a dangerous precedent. The third reading was agreed to without a division.