THE BEER DUTY

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14810, 30 October 1913, Page 8

THE BEER DUTY

SHOULD IT BE RAISED?

A "DANGEROUS" MOTION

(__CIA_ to "tub priss.")

WELLINGTON, October 29. The beer duty was again under discussion in the House this evening, when Mr Pearce moved the addition of a new clause to the Beer Duty Act Amendment Bill providing that section 14 of tho principal Act bo amended by providing that tho beer duty should be on© penny instead of threepence per gallon as an indication to the Government that tne Houso was in favour of the duty oeing raised from threoponco to sixpence per gallon. He said that as ho would not oo in order in moving that the duty bo increased, he had moved the reduction as an indication that it should be raised. (Under the Standing Orders no member can move to increase any item ot revenuo or expenditure, and the motion to reduce is the usual method of getting over the difficulty.) Air Pearce said that thero had been no incroab© in the beer duty uuring tho past 30 years. The increase, he said, would not affect the price of beer so Jar as the consumer was. concerned. He referred to the nature of the conditions ot many leases granted by brewers to hotelkeepers. ■■

Mr Witty submitted that the duty should bo raised, if it was to bo raised, by the Government by a Governor's Message, and not by a side issue oy a private member. Tho increase would not affect the brewer.

Mr Pearce: Yes, it will. Mr Bradnoy found a big hurdle to supporting tho proposal in tho difficulty that would obtain m explaining tho reduction with intent to increase to the electors. He advised members to think very carefully about this. While ho would vote to increase the duty, he would not support tho proposed reduction.

Mr Glover said that the brewer would press the increase on the publican. . Both Mr E. Newman and Mt IS. A. Wilkinson, although they professed their willingness to vote for an increase in the beer duty, said that they could not support tho motion to reduce, because it did not make its intention to increase clear. A comparison made by Mr Wilkinson to show the necessity for increasing the beer duty was that, while one pound of tobacco was taxed at 3s 6d, it required 1401bs. weight of beer to bo sold to produce tho same result. Mr L." M. Isitt, a pronounced opponent of "beer," was also unable to support the amendment, because, he said, experienced members of the Houso warned him that it contained an element of danger. It was his intention to see if he could move an amendment on the third reading, which would indicate to tho Government the desire of the Houso that the beer duty should he increased.

A general laugh was caused by this juxtaposition of ideas on the part of Mr Isitt. "My friends tell mc," he added, "this will mean more water in the beer. I can only say that would be an unmixed blessing." Mr Hanan enquired curiously: What was tho attitude of the Government on this matter? Why did Mr Fisher remain silent? As it stood, the prci*>sal was merely a blank cartridge. »*/hy could they not have a straight-out vote on the question, instead of a "pitiable shuffle which anyone could see through?" Had tho Government got backbone enough to give the House a lead on the question? Was it necessary to always use a corkscrew to get indication of the Government's policy ?

Mr Buick said that he was in favour of an increase in the beer duty, but he could not vote for Mr Pearce's amendment. vSir Joseph Ward joined the. chorus of condemnation aimed at the motion, and wanted to know if Mr Pearce had been put up by the. Gqvernment to put forth this feeler. The inference was that the Government was afraid to announce its intentions until it secured an idea of the feeling of the House. That was a petty step. He wanted to see some firmness and determination displayed, and would certainly vote against th© proposal in this form. The Hon. W. H. Herries rose to the. challenge, and said that the Government knew absolutely nothing about the amendment- proposed. It did not even know that it was to be brought up that night. The first time they heard of it was Mr Pearce's declaration on the second reading debate. The Government had nothing to do with it, and was going to stick to the Bill. Mr Hanan: Now we know where we are. Mr Herries: And the policy of tho Government will be disclosed in due course. (Opposition laughter.) Mr Anderson said he would like to support the amendment, but he could not do so, as it might pflace' him in a false position. He waa certain that there was a majority in the House in favour of increasing tho taxation on brewers. '" . "

Mr Russell said that if the reduction wero carried, it would mean a reduction in revenue of £80,000 a year. Mr Pearco said that he did not intend to insert the proposed new clause in the Bill. He wished to get an ex-, pression of opinion on a preliminary vote that the new clause be read a second time.

Mr Mac Donald said that the proposed now clause 'did not express what it meant. "The hot weather is coming on," he said, "and the hon. gentleman must be wanting to get cheap shandy-gaff." (Laughter.). . Th© Minister of Customs (the Hon. F. M.-B. Fisher), said that the method adopted by Mr Pearce was quite a regular one, and it was one;that, had often been used before.

The Hon. A. T. Ngata suggested that the Government, through the member for Patea, was on a fishing expedition. He asked what the Minister of Railways meant by the Government's policy coming down "in due course." There was too much "duo course" about the Government this session. When he saw the Minister of Customs sitting tight in his chair — Mr Mander: He is quite sober. (Loud laughter.) Mr Ngata (laughing): I will withdraw the remark, and say that I am sorry to see tbe Minister preserving Such a policy of masterly silence. DEFENCE OF THE TRADE. Mr Vigor Brown said that he was fortunately or unfortunately connected in a small way with the Trade, because a gentleman happened to die and leavo him a smali share in a brewery. In speaking of the payments for the goodwills of hotels, he said that at any time tho licenses might be taken away, and there would be a great deal of loss incurred. As to "tied" houses, he said that no brewer tied a publican in tho way that farmers were tied by the big wool merchants. The hotelwere already taxed in a way in whioh no other business was taxed. When a man went into a draper's shop and bought a hat, he was a so asked to buy a tie, but there was nothing of that sort in an hotel. He had once tested the matter by making a £60 wager, and had won it. He and the person with whom he made the wager, after having a drink, sat in tho hotel for two hours, but no one asked them to have another drink. (Laughter). Some people were always attacking brewers, but ho pointed out that the brewers, both in Wellington and Auckland, had given a great deal away in charity. He was in favour of taxing men. whether brewers or land-owners. "Whatever he is, I will tax him," he said. ''I wou.d tax him off his feet if I could. . Mr Webb said that if the beer industry was to continne it should be owned b_ the State, At th© same turn©, he

thought that the making of be-rir_."'-' only the spoiling of good water. ' - ..' Mr Harris defended Mr p„_w-_" against tbe attack made on him \r! v Forbes asked whether the amendment hael been submitted to the Prinio Mink, ter. Mr Massey: Certainly not! _ Mr Ell said that the amendment w_ simply a kite that had been engineer©? if not by the Minister, direct thronßh tho medium of tho Whips. Mr Nosworihy aid that the demai already given by Mr Herries should be accepted. .**-*•" The Houso divided on Mr Pearcea amendment, which was reiectcd by S3 votes to 11 (Messrs Ell. Hanan. Isitt Laurenson. Ngata, Okev, Parata' Pearce. Rangihiroa. J. C. Thomson' and Wilson). All tho Ministers voted with tho noes.