DUTY ON BEER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 251, 4 August 1933, Page 3

DUTY ON BEER

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE. REPRESENTATIONS BY BREWERS (Pei' Press Association). AUCKLAND, August 3. "There is barely sixpence a gallon difference between the New Zealand duty and the duty on imported beer," said Mr H. C. McCoy (manager of the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Breweries, Ltd), in pointing out to the Tariff Commission the relatively small margin on which local brewers had to work considering that manufacturers in Britain and in other Dominions were able to produce at much lower cost. "In pre-war days," said Mr McCoy, "we had preference of Is 9d a gallon. To-day there is barely sixpence a gallon preference. That we consider to be insufficient." He emphasised that New Zealand Breweries had to pay more dearly for barley than had Britain and other Dominions. For instance Australian brewers could purchase at about half the New -Zealand cost. I Mr McCoy said he did not know the reasom for .reducing the tariff on British beer by Is a gallon last March, but. he assumed that this was done in accordance with the Ottawa Agreement. Increases in Duty. Referring to excise duty, Mr McCoy said that the rate was increased from Sid to lljd a gallon in 1921, when heavy taxation was general. However, while land tax, income tax, totalisator tax and amusement tax were each reduced in subsequent years no reduction was made in the excise duty on beer, which was maintained at the 1921 figure'until 1930, when it was increased to Is and in. 1931 it was raised to Is 6d. Comparing the years 1921 and 1929 Mr McCoy showed that while the rate of duty had been increased in the period by 830 per cent, and population had increased by 21.42 per cent, eonsumption had dropped 9.3 per cent., showing that a decline had occurred before the present economic conditions asserted themselves. The consumption in 1929 was 13,010,090 gallons, winch had progressively declined, to 9,786,511 gallons in 1932. Embarrassment to Treasury. "At the present time lightening of taxation is essential," said Mr McCoy. "It is necessary both to help industry by release of money for productive work and to give people a little courage. The decline in the consumption of beer, unless checked, will cause embarrassment to the Treasury m future years." The chairman (Dr. Craig): What rates do you suggest on imported and on excise beers?—l think Australia should pay the same rate as we have to pay. I think we are entitled to 8s 3d, or at least 3s a gallon. What about the United Kingdom?— While the exchange rate remains as at present we are all right. I thould say 3s a gallon if exchange comes off. Professor Murphy: Why did iiot English beer undersell you before exchange went up?—We had bigger protection then. In what way?—Lower excise. Answering further questions Mr McCoy said it was in lager beer that Australia was the principal competitor with the local product. Professor Murphy: But lager beer is only a small proportion of the beer consumed?—lt is growing, it is becoming a modern drink. But it is. not the beer usually .sold over a bar counter?—No, it is mainly a table beer. 'Decrease in Consumption. Dr. Craig said he thought the decrease in the consumption of beer was principally due to three causes —the economic position, the increase in excise duty and the development of home brewing. "I should say a further small factor is the spread of motoring," said Professor Murphy. "Men do not want to be caught in a collision when they are smelling of beer, although I suppose that factor would have a greater effect on the sale of spirits." DOMINION AND OTTAWA PACT THE ATTITUDE OF BRITAIN AUCKLAND, August 3. When the Tariff Commission continued its sitting William Parkinson and Co., Ltd., asked for the removal of duties on imported granite. A witness said that the United Kingdom imported monumental and decorative granite in the rough from Finland and Scandinavia. It was obtained duty free in Britain and could then be exported to New Zealand as dressed or polished granite to compete with the local product which was prepared from granite subject to a 10 per cent. duty. The firm asked that granite be duty free, whether imported from Britain or elsewhere. . This would place them on the same footing as the United Kingdom competitors as regards duty on raw material. Granite from Finland was imported under a Scottish name. Mr John Hislop. on behalf of .the Auckland branch of the United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives' Assocation, presented in general terms the case for the reduction and abolition of duties on United Kingdom goods. He contended that under Article 7 of the Ottawa Agreement there should be no tariff, unless it could be shown that the goods were being produced -in New Zealand and production could be assured of sound opportunities for success. When there •was such an assurance, then Article 8 became applicable, providing for allowing United Kingdom goods a reasonable opportunity. Under Article 7 New Zealand markets should be tree to Britain in cases where no local industry had developed. He contended that it* was beyond the province of the Tariff Commission to permit the revenue aspect to influence its decision. Questioned by Mr A. E. Mander, Mr Hislop agreed that if upon investigation it was found that the New Zenland tariff was. below the level of the Ottawa formula, New Zealand would have done all that was required of it. Mr Mander: Dp you contend that

Britain is dissatisfied with our tariff? Mr Hislop: Most emphatically I do. Mr Mander quoted recent Press cablegrams, including Mr Forbes's statement that the British authorities were fully satisfied. Mr Hislop: My answer is that the British people henestly believed that New Zealand would faithfully carry out the Ottawa Agreement, and the British Government is prepared to wait for the findings of this Commission.