LICENSING COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 April 1945, Page 3

LICENSING COMMISSION

CASE FOR THE TRADE WELLINGTON, April 26. The case for the National Council of the Licensed Trade of New Zealand was opened before the Royal Commission on Licensing to-day, by Mr P. B. Cooke, K.C. Although the chairman had nointed out that the Commission bad been set up to consider the public interest, and not to adjudicate between conflicting interests, he said, the Government department which had undertaken the reparation ot material for the C.ommission, in evidence led by counsel appointed to assist the. Commission, had seert fit to make a number of ser'ous charges against the trade. A lot of charges had been made, and none had been withdrawn, said M’ 1 Cooke. Mr Willis had not stated what were the facts thdt were beyond dispute or that he intended to prove, and they did not know -yet. “We want the Commission to know,” he added, “that such relevant charges as have been made in cases where there is anything that may be regarded as substantial evidence to back them up, will be met fairly and squarely by the trade. The trade will throughout endeavour to make a really constructive contribution to the question which the Commission has to inquire inro in the public interest.” Mr Cooke said that the barest justice demanded that a distinction should be drawn between matters due tc defects either in the law or m methods of enforcement. The Commission had been told that reforms, probably of a drastic nature, were vitally necessary in the public interest. That was a very sweeping statement, but its value could be judged from the fact that the Justice Department had not yet descended to particulars. He submitted: —(1) The people had repeatedly expressed their view at the polls in a manner that showed beyond question thru continuance was an established fact. (2) There was no real drink problem in New Zealand to-day. (3) There was an overwhelming case for the continuance of private enterprise. Discussing the second statement, Mr Cooke said that there had been a progressivce decrease in drunkenness. The consumption a head of alcohol in beer was no more to-day than in 1919, and the consumption of spirits had decreased over the years. STATE CONTROL . Referring to State and public ownership and control, Mr Cooke asked the Commission to approach the.suoject on the principle that an ounce of practice was worth a ton ol theory. He suggested .that it should look at the two most familiar practical experiments, Carlisle and Invercargill. While the English Commission on Licensing had expressed the view that there was a prima facie case for public ownershio, it had done no more than recommend that the Carlisle system should be submitted to further test. A Scottish report had recommended that the State management experiment at Gretna'and Cromarty should be discontinued That unanimous condemnation of State or public ownership was issued after the Carlisle experiment had been going 15 or 16 years. “I am going to submit,” concinueu Mr Cooke, “that the position m Invercargill is that it is an out-and-oru failure. I say that the main reason is that the public is against it. They don’t like it. They’ve seen it, ano they think it is just a bad system. We say that the tied house and the managed house system both opei ate for the benefit of the public and should be retained.” Mr Cooke added that if the business of the trade was a monopoly because it was licensed, so was every other business licensed under the Industrial Efficiency Act. He also said that it was a recognises practice for tied hotelkeepers, to oa allowed to carry makes, ot oon,‘ c -} beer other than those m tie, and then liciuor and goods were supplied to tie'd houses at no greater prices than to untied houses. , Mr Cooke was speaking at the adjournment. WESTLAND BREWERIES WELLINGTON, April 26. An explanation of why tne license of Westland Breweries was not cancelled when the Minister of Customs imposed penalties for breaches ot the law was given tp the Royal Commission on Licensing by the Comptrolkx of Customs (Mr E. D. Good). Thoffences, which resulted in the imposition of the penalties, he said, were committed by servants of the company at the Reefton Brewery anal at the Kumara Brewery. No evidence could be found to show that the manager of the company or the directors were aware of or connived at the offences, though the management or rhe company was negligent. p Of the paid-up capital oi £ss,lHk, the directors held only shares to the total value of £5844. Th £ share capital was held by. 229 shareholders, their average holding amounting io £240. Cancellation of the company s breV''e r s’ licenses would have been an unduly harsh penalty on tne shareholders of the company lor olfences of which the company had no knowledge. The real offenders were the two brewers, and the Minister imposed penalties of £5O and £-o respectively on them,. and directed I that the company be informed that as the brewers had shown by thenconduct that they were not persons of good character and reputation i.) act in general or special management or control of a brewery, the brewers licenses hold by the company m repeat of their three breweries would not be renewed if those men were m the company’s employ when application was made for such renewal. The company was unable to obtain a new brewer for the Kumara Brewery, and the company was thus forced to cease brewing at Ih'H brewery. The 'license for this brewery was allowed to lapse. ’“On careful consideration ol: incv’dcncc available, I felt I could, not have recommended to the Minister that the brewers’ licenses held by tne. company should have been cancelled,” said Mr Good. He went on to explain the different circumstances which led to the cancellation or n- ■ censes in two other cases.

WASTAGE ALLOWANCE

WELLINGTON, April 26. ’ A series of questions asked by the i Royal Commission on Licensing was answered to-day by the Comptroller: of Customs (Mr E. D. Good). , In* reply to a question whether he was satisfied with the present duty, liee allowance of 10 per cent, of, total worts made to breweries on account of wastage, Mr Good said the, allowance was admittedly arbitrary,! but it was based primarily on tne fact that beer in a brewery had no stable volumetric identity until the time when it was .filled into con-; tainers for sale. Even then it wash not always sold by volume. “We have rnven some thought to assessing a percentage allowance to each individual brewery during a particular period of time, but difficulties’ have been so apparent that up to the pre 7 c°nt the proposal has been discarded, i lie q aid. The weight of evidence had convinced the department that the existing statutory practice should be maintained. In reply to another question Mr Good said that there were real, prac - tical difficulties m the collection oI duties based on the specific gravity or proof spirit of beer in the condition in which it was retailed. In answer to another question, Mr Good expressed the opinion that if a amount of revenue was to be collected by way of beer duty and it duty was to be collected as at nrpsent by the Customs Department ?Jom the brewer, the Minister of Customs was the appropriate authority for the issue of a license to brew beer He thought, however, that a

separate license should be required ! to entitle a brewer to sell the' beer he brewed under his brewers’ license. Asked why some wine stills were sealed by the Customs Department 1 and not others, Mr Good said that as a matter of general principle the department would prefer to see only sealed stills in use, but felt that it I would be rather harsh to compel licensees who did not have that type .‘of still to make the change during | the war. ■ i Commenting in detail on the statedment made to the Commission by Mr R. F. Joyce, Mr Good said it appeared that he was not conversant with the existing law relating to ex--1 oise duty on beer,