Licence To Make Alcohol In Dominion Refused

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 August 1947, Page 6

Licence To Make Alcohol In Dominion Refused

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day/ Mr C. R. Petrie, (Govt., Otahuhu), chairman of the Industries and Commerce Committee, reporting to the House of Representatives today on the petition by Charles John Bax, of Wellington, for a licence to distil alcohol said the committee had no recommendation to make. Mr C. M. Bowden (Opposition, Karori), a member of the committee, said an interesting question had been opened up by the petition, to which tne committee gave its close attention, b.Ut came to the conclusion that because the petitioner had been fined previously for distilling without a licence the committee was bound legally to decline the application. The committee considered it was not economical to establish a distillery in New Zealand, because at present there was not sufficient grain to divert for that purpose. Another 1500 acres of barley would require to be grown. Neither was there a sufficient quantity of sugar. Mr Langstone: Grow sugar beet. Australian Production

Mr Bowden said that Australia produced sugar alcohol and utilised waste sawdust to produce wood alcohol for industrial purposes. For the industry to become successful in New Zealand it would require to be undertaken on on a very large scale by people with the technical resources.

Mr C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington Central), who introduced the petition, said he regretted the committee did not make a favourable recommendation. Alcohol had many uses and the petitioner had discovered how to produce alcohol economically. Alcohol for all sorts of purposes might very conveniently and economically be manufactured in New Zealand, but apparently to meet the wishes of overseas exporters obstacles had in the past been placed in the way of manufacturing alcohol in the Dominion. The petitioner was very sincere in his desire to manufacture alcohol. Mr J. T. Watts (Government, St Albans): What kind? , »

Mr Chapman- For all kinds of purposes. I cannot'see any logical objection to the manufacture of alcohol in New Zealand.

Savings Mentioned Mr Chapman said local manufacture would save sterling and dollars and shipping space. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition, Hauraki): What about the customs? Mr Chapman said the committee would have been justified in recommending the Government to consider the petitioner’s application and he regretted a more satisfactory recommendation had not been made.

Mr Petrie, replying, said the committee gave the petitioner every consideration and did not doubt that he was sincere, but no one in the country could experiment with a worm until a licence had been obtained.

Mr C. L. Carr (Government, Timaru): Even a worm will turn.

Mr F. Langstone (Government, Roskill): The early bird gets the worm.

Previous Prosecution

Mr Petrie said the petitioner’s previous prosecution had prevented the committee from giving the petition favourable consideration. Over 70 years ago there were two distilleries in New Zealand, fiut they had failed eventually. Mr P. G. Connolly (Government, Dunedin West): How many are there now?

Mr A. C. Baxter (Government, Raglan); How about the King Country ones? Mr A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehunga): How about Hokonui? Mr Petrie said it had been proved conclusively to the satisfaction of the committee that such an industry would not be an economic one for New Zealand. The country did not produce sufficient grain for its own requirements. The committee had considered that no satisfactory case had been made out for the manufacture of whisky in New Zealand, and the weight of evidence was against such a proposal. The committee, therefore, had no recommendation to make.