LICENSED TEADE AND TENURE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 17, 19 July 1929, Page 4

LICENSED TEADE AND TENURE

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The people at the last poll voted heavily against Prohibition. That does not make intoxicating liquor non-poisonous; it does not alter the fact that drink is a, factor in more thnu 54 per cent, of the serious offences dealt 'with in our Courts; neither does it make the liquor traffic desirable or economically justifiable. It docs call for more intense and widespread education in regard to the evils arising from the drinking habit and to counteract the vicious and misleading liquor trade propaganda in regard to the results of Prohibition in .the U.S.A.

I join issue with Mr. A. S. Bankart, chairman o£ New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., when he claims the anti-prohiibtion vote as a mandate for giving greater security of tenure to liquor-sellers. It is nothing of the sort. The liquor interests did their utmost to pack Parliament with members who would do their bidding. But they failed, and any proposal to give longer security to the traffic will fail in the E resent Parliament. Surely there should c some remarkable benefit accruing from a trade claiming special legislative protection. Can Mr. Bankart tell us what benefit the liquor traffic confers on New Zealand?

Again, I desire to combat the fallacy tlmt better hotel accommodation depends on security in the sale of liquor. What better accommodation was provided when the traffic had a seven-year tenure? It was not as good, and the trade was not as well conducted, as it is now. Mr. Bankart's company owns a number of hotels. Recently it has undertaken to bring its Thames district properties up to tho requirements of tho Licensing Committee. Would it not be belter for New Zealand Breweries to spend some of their enormous surplus in improving their hotel accommodation iustead of watering their stock by bonus gifts ■of shares to shareholders? The most modern and probably most complete hotel h» Australia with 400 rooms has this week been opened in Brisbane, and it will not have a liquor bar. Hundreds of millions are invested in hotel enterprise in the U.S.A. —and there is no liquor bar. f IC Mr. Bankart's inferences arc justified, it means we are paying too little for hotel accommodation because drinkers pay too much for their liquor. Suppose the position is for every £1 of accommodation £2 is spent on liquor. Assume for argument's sake that Prohibition involved . a 50 per cent, increase in aeeomodation charges. Then -we should pay 30s for what now costs a pound, but we should not have spent £2 on liquor, and would therefore have a surplus of 30s to spend on other things. As a matter of fact, in three years nearly £'20.000,000 is diverted from other trades to go over the liquor bar— that is the figure after allowing for revenue paid to the Government. Whilst other traders are struggling to make ends meet, the brewers can declare a 15 per cent, dividend and a £300,000 reserve fund while giving a bonus of one share for every two held by shareholders. Business men might profitably reflect on what the unemployment problem would look like if an additional £20,000,000 had gone through their tills during tho last three years. The Right Hon. Winston Churchill, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:— "If you can succeed in reducing the enormous expenditure of our population on strong drink, every trade in the country will benefit." Mr. Lloyd George said this year, "If you are going to cure unemployment then you will have to deal with our extravagant national drink bill.'' Mr. Philip Snowden, present. Chancellor of the Oixehequer, says> that one-tenth of the amount epent on liquor diverted to cotton goods would keep employed every spindle in Lancashire. Professor, Irving' Fisher, internationally esteemed economist, says: '•The simple truth is that Prohibition has replaced a parasitic industry by additions to the constructive industries which have enriched the national income."—l am etc.. .

•T. MALTON MURKAV, Executive Secretary, New Zealand Alliance.