THE TAX ON BEER

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 19 September 1934, Page 9

THE TAX ON BEER

SUGGESTED REMISSION MEMBERS’ DIVERSE OPINIONS WOULD CONSUMERS BENEFIT? (By Telejrrapti —Press Association.) " WELLINGTON., Sept. 18. The committee stage of the Customs Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day, the clause relating to the remission of beer duty being under discussion. Mr A. J. Stall worthy (liid., Eden) said he could not see how if the remission of duty would benefit the hotelkeeper and not- the consumer Mr o>ates’' statement that the remission would result in increased consumption of beer could be- justified. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) said that unless an advantage was given overseas brewers the hop growers would not benefit, yet local brewers -were given a remission amounting to - £112,000. He would like the position 'clarified and to know who was going to get the benefit. Mr H. Holland (Co., Christchurch North) said the brewing- interests \vere very largely if not wholly responsible for the- sad condition of the licensed victuallers to-day. Mr P. McSkimming (Co., Clutha) said Mr Coates’ reasons for the remission were not very convincing. He thought other taxes should come off before that on beer. ' Mr Rl. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South) said the reasons so far given for . the reduction would not stand the light of investigation. BREWING THEIR OWN. Mr Coates said heer to-day was taxed far too heavily and the people had been driven to brewing their own Beer, which paid no taxation. Therefore' he thought he should reduce the taxation to encourage the consumption of other beeri

1 Air O. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) said the Minister should see that the reduction affected the consumer. To pbtain a reduction of threepence a i man would have to- drink eight pints of 'beer.. It was seldom that beer was cqnsuined that- way. , Mrs McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) said 'iiot one argument *of the Minister would hold water. She thought the was solely concerned with the -.bbnefit that would be given the brewers.

.'Mr Ri, A. Wright (Ind., Wellington | Suburbs) said he would not offer tlie [opposition he was offering if the reduction were to be- passed on to the • consumer. He had made inquiries which "showed it was utterly impossible for .'the consumer to benefit. [ -Mr Stallworthy asked the Minister j-fo reconsider the beer duty item. Was -it wise and prudent, he asked, to grant a.,. remission amounting to £112,000 when budgeting for a surplus of only •£BOOO. , Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) said if it was desired that the people should consume more beer the Minister could achieve that more quickly by increasing their incomes than by a re"d notion of the beer duty. i ] 'Mr Coates reiterated that the duty was now too high. The result of consumption going down wa-s being reflected iii the revenue. He contended that those who predicted a lpss of £IIO,OOO would be wide of the mark when the : end of the financial vear was reached. INCREASED CONSUMPTION. Mr R. G. Dickie (Co.. Patea) contended that figures in the Year Book showed that the consumption of beer was going up, not down. Mr J: A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) said the way to get more beer consumed was to increase the workers’ wages. Mr FI. A. Jull (00., Waipawa) submitted that til© reduction would ultim- | ately be passed on to the consumer, with benefit to the -brewer, i Mr P. C. Webb (Lab.. Buffer) said thp' taxation of beer had not affected .the[brewing interests, which had passed jit on. Therefore if the brewers ;vere given a- reduction of threepence they .should give a larger reduction to the' hotels. '.-Mr H: Atino-re (Ind.. Nelson) said the reduction t-ould hot benefit the consumer.-. It was not warranted in view of the country’s finances and the fin- , a rices of the people’s homes. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said the reduction would not displace home-brew, which could be made for a penny a- bottle. Mr Cl H. Olinkard (Co., Rotorua) said lie was pleased to see the reduction made in taxation. H© intended to support the Minister. Mr F. W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said he also intended to vote for the clause. The reduction to brewers could be passed on in the shape of an increase in wages and better conditions for brewery and hotel employ- ' j ees.

Mr R. Semple (Lab.. Wellington Ehst) said that in vieiv of the fact that there were tens of thousands of people in New Zealand who could not huv bread for their families he could not support a reduction in beer duty. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said he had learned that the brewers resolved last week to grant | a 5 per cent, increase in wages in an--1 ticipation of a reduction of the duty. That was one way and the best way of passing the reduction oil. There were also a number of small breweries tp which the reduction would be most helnful. A division was called for at 9 p.m. after the clause had been under discussion for about eight hours, and the clause was retained by 41 votes to 27. The division list was : For the clause: Ansel 1, Armstrong, Broadfoot, Campbell. - Chapman. Clinkard. Coates, Cobbe, Connolly. ESndenn, Field. Forbesj Hargest. Harris, Healv, Henare. Ijfolvbnke.' Jnll, Kvle. Liiiklater. Lye. McLeod, Macmillan, Maepherson. J. N. Massey. W. W. Mas- ’ sey, Murdoch. J. A. Nash. Npata. O’Brien. Poison. Ransom, Reid. Samuel. Schramm, Stewart, Stuart, To Tomo. Veit-h. Webb, Yopp.-r. Against the clause: Atipore. Barnard. -Burnett-. Coleman. Dickie. Fraser, Holland. Howard. Jones, Jordan,Xangj stone. Lee. McCombs. MoKean. M-- ~ SLimminer. Mason. M’mro. W., Nash, T>ari"c, Biohardsi Rush worth, Savae-o. ! Senipl.e. S+allworfh-r. Sulln-an, Wilkjn- ■ fio'n. Wright,