N.Z. ALLIANCE ATTACKED

Evening Star, Issue 25619, 20 October 1945, Page 9

N.Z. ALLIANCE ATTACKED

ALLEGATIONS UNSUPPORTED LICENSED TRADE CASE PUT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 19. " How quaint the ways of paradox when common sense she gaily mocks," quoted Mr P.. B. Cooke, K.C., declaring before the Royal Commission on Licensing to-day that the New Zealand Alliance "would never be able to explain or lire down its complaint that when a man paid his money he did not get enough beer." Mr Cooke is one of the counsel for the licensed trade. "We saw," he added, " the alliance condemning alcohol right and left and at the same time and in the same breath, without a blush, straining every nerve to see that you and 1, when we pay our 7d, get full measure —we must have enough of this poison. I submit that the alliance is just making a laughing stock of itself." Mr Cooke referred to the criticism of the Customs Department and the Price Tribunal by Mr It. Hardie Boys, one of the counsel for the alliance. "Wo are not representing either the Customs Department or the Price Tribunal and'it is not our concern that when two important State departments are attacked there is no one here to defend them," he said. "When, however, we are involved in the allegations, it does become out- business," Mr Boys had spoken of the Customs Department's " apparent subservience to the power and pressure of the trade," and had said that in a dozen ways it had acted as an. agent for'the trade.

The alliance, said Mr Cooke, had - no justification whatever for attacking the department or including the trade, and there was not a jot of evidence to support the allegations or to justify any right-thinking man in applying the terms " subservience," " pressure," or " agencies " to the relationships existing between the trade and the department. Why had the alliance not followed the ordinary rough and ready rules of fair play—the ordinary rules of advocacy? Why had they not put their allegations fairly and squarely to one of the many responsible trade witnesses? They were too cowardly to put questions of that kind to the witnesses. They had not said a word in opening their case about the relations between the trade and the department, but had " come in this cowardly way at the eleventh hour" to throw into the arena allegations which there was not a word of evidence to support. "We have tried," concluded Mr Cooke, "to present the trade's case with dignity and restraint." The chairman, Mr Justice Smith, said he did not think he should allow the use of the word " cowardly," which might be taken to imply cowardice on the part of counsel for the alliance. " I disclaim as emphatically as I can that I intended any reference to Mr Boys or Mr Spratt," said Mr Cooke, " but I say it, and I repeat it. of the alliance as a body." EFFECT OF SALES TAX On the question of prices there had been a mass of uninformed and useless criticism, said Mr Cooke. The public simply did not understand that a large part of the price of a "handle" of beer went in taxation collected by the State, he added, quoting evidence to the effect the the removal of the excise duty and sales tax would reduce the price from 7d to 3id. Since 1939 the price of beer to the public had been increased by less than the amount of the increased duties and taxes. Finally the trade relied on the opinion expressed on behalf of the Price Tribunal that the public had not been exploited—and that if it had action would have been taken. The evidence, Mr Cooke said, had clearly established several broad conclusions: With each increase of the duty or sales tax from 1939 the Price Tribunal had fully investigated the position both between the brewer and the retailer, and between the retailer and the public. In conducting that investigation, the tribunal had applied certain fundamental principles: \(D That the increased duties and taxes were in their very nature consumer taxes intended by the Legislature to be largely borne by the public; (2) that the adoption of any other policy would have meant a substantial reduction in the amount of income tax payable by the trade; (3) that nevertheless it was fair -and reasonable that some part of the increase should be borne by the trade and that, though the increases in production costs should not be allowed to the trade as price increases, reductions in the production costs arising from the lower alcoholic strength should be taken into account against the trade. These broad factors, said Mr Cooke, were uncontradicted by. any evidence. NEW ZEALAND WINE LARGELY INFERIOR. The charging of the same prices for measures of different size was a wellestablished practice in New Zealand, and there were solid reasons for it, Mr Cooke said. The effect of the practice was that it enabled the larger containers (" handles ") to be sold at 7d, Evidence had been given that it was the opinion of the Price Tribunal that it was only by means of the 7d charge for all beer measures that the average rate of profit in the public bar could be kept at a reasonable margin. The tribunal had felt that any attempt iu war time to fix prices in relation to content would have meant an increase in the price of beer Discussing the trade's attitude to New Zealand wine, Mr Cooke said it was. conceded by the industry itself that more than 50 per cent, of the product was inferior and in many cases in other wine-making countries would be classed as unfit for human consumption. Neither the trade nor the public was to blame for the present attitude of the public to the product. In fact, the trade had treated the industry very well The trade wholeheartedly agreed with the policy of the Department of Agriculture, which was to improve the quality of New Zealand wine and increase the output of quality products. It submitted that the importation of overseas wines should continue for the following reasons:—lt created healthy competition and spurred on the New Zealand producer. Only certain types of New Zealand wine were likely to be of high quality. There would always be a public demand for imported wines, and, in addition, imported wine was needed for blending. The trade was definitely opposed to the distillation of brandy, whisky, or gin in New Zealand. Mr H. F. O'Leary, K.C., in his final address for the National Council of the Licensed Trade, said that as a re-

stilt of the opening address by counsel assisting' the commission, criticism by magistrates and wrong allegations by the Under-Secretary of Justice, Mr B. L. Dallard, the trade had quickly been placed in the position of a defendant The inquiry, which should have been directed to an examination of a system with its strengths and weaknesses, had become little different from the hearing of an information in the Magistrate's Court. Much time had to be spent preparing to refute charges, which even if they had been true had litth bearing ,on the larger issues involved. Where specific allegations had been made they had been met aud answered and the great bulk of the worthwhile information before the commission had been supplied bv the much-condemned trade itself.

Much had been said about the imposition of ; ' ties 7 and, the word had attained a sinister significance as the result of the lack of public understanding Mr O'Leary said. The form of tie now iu use was not a breach of the law. and it was no offence to keep outside the statute. In addition there was not a particle of complaint from those who had entered into " ties," and after all it was for them to say whether they found them oppressive. Then there had been allegations about hotel managers, who were said to be " dummies put in to attract penalties and put out when the necessity arose." But there had been no evidence whatsoever to that effect, and in fact the best hotels in the country were managed hotels.