CUSTOMS BILL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 234, 15 September 1934, Page 3

CUSTOMS BILL

Deer-Duty Remission PROTRACTED DISCUSSION By Telegraph—Press Association. ' WELLINGTON, September 14. The committee stage of the Customs Bill in the House of Representatives was continued to-day. Most of to-day’s discussion centred about remission of the beer duty. Opposition and Independent members contended that brewers would benefit from the reduction, but the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates assured the House that the purpose underlying the proposal was increased sales of hops, in which New Zealand growers could participate.

The question of wheat duties again aroused considerable discussion. Mr \V. Nash (Hutt, Labour) moved an amendment to clause nine adding a new sub-clause giving the Minister power to make such provision as would ensure (a) complete control of the production and importation of wheat and wheat products, (b) control of the prices of wheat, flour, bread and other wheat products, (c) an adequate guaranteed price to the wheatgrower, (d) payment of standard rates of pay in the wheat, flour and bread-making in dustries. The chairman of Committees ruled the amendment out of order as tho amendment was not pertinent to that clause ami should have been dealt with under the Board of Trade Act; also, as it involved an appropriation, Mr Nash said that in that case he would move the amendment later ss a new clause. After further discussion a division was called for on clause nine, which was agreed to by 59 voles to six. BEER-DUTY CLAUSE. The remission of beer duty also gave rise to discussion. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr M. J. Savage, saw no reason why beer-drinkers or brewers should be considered while tea and other drinkers were given no benefit. Brewers did not need the £112,000 they would receive, and he did not think bop-growers would receive any benefit. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Co-ates said that if more imported beer came in hopgrowers would be able to enter into contracts for the sale of a greater quantity of hops. A tax on home-brew was considered, but it was found al most impossible to administer. If the reduction were made contracts would be able to be made for the sale of hops tor llio next four or five years. Mr H. Atmore (Nelson, Independent} held there was no reason lor remission of the Over duty. If the reduction was meant as a gesture to Guinness, let tho import duty bo reduced, Out not the New Zealand duty. Mr Savage, who had been told by Mr Coates earlier in the debate that he adopted a pompous attitude and was totally ignorant ot the principles underlying the remission of tho beer duty, said he resented tho Minister's words. He said it was a queer way of assisting a local industry to reduce the duly on an imported article. Mr -Savage said there was no foundation to tile Minister’s attitude; the only people who would receive any benefit from the remission would bo the brewing trade. SALE OF HOPS ABROAD. Mr Coate a said he had never been approached directly or indirectly by brewing interests, but was approached by representatives ol hopgrowers, who informed him that they had been negotiating with English, Irish and Scottish brewers to take hops. He said the Government would not lose £110,00(1. He thought the finances would benefit trom an increase in imported beer. He said hotelkeepers were hard hit. In Wellington 69 had approached tho Mortgagors’ Relief Commission flor reduction of rent. Brewers would not receive the whole benefit, it would be decidedly unfair to New Zealand brewers if the import duty were reduced and not the duty on local beer. Labour and Independent members supported Mr Savage. They said the brewer, not the consumer, would derive the benefit from the reduction. Mr W. Dowme Stewart (Dunedin W. Government) said that if the doors could be opened lor an export market for hops it would be an important industry. At Ottawa, representatives ol British brewers had said that the New Zealand duty against their ale and stout was too high. Representations were made, and the duty was reduced. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden, Independent) was criticising the reduction of the duty when Mr Coates asked him if he would vote for reduction of the beer duty if he (Mr Coates) would restore old-age pensions. Mr Stallworthy, m reply, said that if the Minister restored tho old-age pensions cut for a lull year he would vote in favour of the beer-duty reduction. Mr Savage said that if a concession was given New Zealand brewers it would not assist, the overseas interests with whom they wanted to make trade agreements. He suggested that they might fix the price of hops and let tho grower know where he stood. Mr H. G. Dickie (Patea, Government) said it was a pity to grant the reduction when there was uncertainty as to who would benefit. Many pubhcans were in a bad way at tho present time. Mr W. Nash contended that reduction of tho duty would not increase the importation of beer by 1000 gallons. The debate was carried on till 5.30, when progress was reported and the House rose.