BEER DUTY REMISSION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 237, 19 September 1934, Page 4

BEER DUTY REMISSION

Clause Retained in Bill VOTING IN THE HOUSE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, September .18. Retention of the clause relating to the remission of beer duty was decided upon by the House of Representatives last night when the committee stages of the Customs Act Amendment Bill was under discussion. The voting favoured the clause by 41 to 27 votes. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden, Independent) oould not see how, if tfi u r e . missiou of duty would benefit the hotelkeeper aud not the consumer, the statement by the Minister ol Customs, tho Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, that a remission would result in increased consumption of beer, could bo justified. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central, Labour) said that unless the advantage was given to overseas brewers, the hop-growers would not benefit. Yet local brewers were given remission amounting to £112,000. He Would like the position clarified and know who was going to get the benefit. Mr H. Holland (Christchurch North, Government) said that the brewing interests were very largely, if not wholly, responsible for the sad condition of the licensed victuallers to-day. Mr P. McSkimming (Clutha, Government) said that Mr Coates' reasons lor the remission were not very convincing. He thought that other taxes should come off before that on beer. Mr R. McKeen (Wellington South, Labour) said that the reasons so fatgiven for the reduction would not stand the light of investigation. Mr Coates said that beer to-day was taxed tar too heavily and people hud been driven to brew their own beer, which paid no taxation. Therefore he thought that he should reduce taxation to encourage the consumption ol other beer. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont, Independent) said that the Minister should sew that the reduction affected the consumer. To obtain a reduction of threepence a man would have to drink eight pints ol beer. It was seldom that beer was consumed iu that way. Mrs E. R. McCombs (Lyttelton, Labour) said that not one argument of the Minister would hold water. She thought that the Minister was solely concerned with the benefit that would be given the brewers. NO BENEFIT FOR CONSUMERS. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suh urbs, Independent) said that he would not offer the opposition he was offering if the reduction were to be passed on to the consumer. He had made inquiries whicli showed that it was utterly impossible for the consumer to benefit. Mr Stallworthy asked the Minister to reconsider the beer duty item. Was it wise and prudent to grant remission amounting to £II2,(XX) when budgetting lor a surplus of only £BO6O. Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier, Labour) said that if it was desired that people consume more beer, that would be achieved more quickly by increasing their incomes than by a reduction of the beer duty Mr 11. G. Dickie (Patea, Government) contended that the figures in the Year Book showed that the consumption of beer was going up and not down. Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn, Labour) said that the way to get more beer consumed was to increase the workers’ wages. Mi A. E. .lull (Waipawa, Government) submitted that the reduction would ultimatelv bo passed on to the consumer with the benefit to the brewer. Mr P. C. Webb (Buller, Labour) said that tile taxation on beer had not affected the brewing interests who had passed it on. Therefore, if the brewers were given a reduction of threepence they should have given larger reduction to the hotels. Mr H. Atmore (Nelson. Independent) said that the reduction could not benefit the consumer. It was not warranted in view of the country’s finances and the finances of the people’s homes. COST OF HOME-BREW. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino, Labour) said that the reduction would not displace home-brew, whicli could be made lor a penny a bottle. Mr C. 11. C'liukard (Rotorua. Government) was pleased to see that a reduction had been made in tho taxation. He intended to support tho Minister. Mr E. W. Schramm (Auckland East, Labour) said that he also intended to vote for the clause. He said that the reduction to the brewers could be passed on in the shape of an increase in wages, and better conditions for brewery and hotel employees. Mr R. Semple (Wellington East, Labour) said that in view of the fact that there were tens of thousands of people in New Zealand who could not buy bread for their families, he could not support the reduction iu beer duly. Mr II T. Armstrong (Christchurch East, Labour) said lie had learned that the brewers resolved last week to grant a, 5 per cent, increase in wages in anticipation of the reduction in duty. That, "as one way, and the best way, of passing the reduction on. There were also a number of small breweries to which the reduction would bo most helpful. A division was called for at 9 p.m. after the clause had been under discussion for about eight hours. The clause was retained by 41 to 27 votes. The division list was: For the Clause. ; Ansell Lye . Armstrong McLeod I Hroudfoot Mueniillan I Uumpbcll Macpherson tluiptnan I N. Massey Clinkurd 'V. W. Massey Coateb Murdoch Collin J. A. Nash Connolly Ngata lindean O'Brien Eield Polson Forbes Ransom Hargest Reid Harris Samuel Healy Schramm Henare Stewart Holyoake To Tomo Ju 11 Veitch Kyle Webb Linklater 'Young

AGAINST THE CLAUSE. Atmore AlcKeeu Barnard McSkimming Burnett Mason Colein.>z Munro Dickie W. Nash Eraser Parry Holland Richards Howard Rushworth Jones Savage Jordan Semple Langstonc Stullworthy Lee Sullivan Wright Wilkinson McCombs