WOULD WINESHOPS BE DANGER TO DOMINION ?

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6620, 5 August 1931, Page 7

WOULD WINESHOPS BE DANGER TO DOMINION ?

Attempt to Encourage Winegrowing

OPINION SHARPLY DIVIDED IN HOUSE Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Niglit. xn moving mo soconu l'ciiuiug in we jlouse tins uitornoou of tno incensing Amendment Jjiu, Mr. it. u. iv. mason said it aimed at giving leiiei to tuo wine-giovving inuUotry. inoie was no ioason wiiy me wine conaumed in New Maiauct suonid not lie grown here, under me inow Zealand law us it stuou at tno present tno winegrower nud to grow, manuiacturo and sell his own wine, allowing lor co-operation with no oilier person, urowois also were not allowed to havo depots at any otnor than their own towns. Eonio alarm Had. been expressed tnat the oujeet oi the Bui wa s to establish wine siiops in every street in the country, but suen alarm was entirely unfounded. Be Hoped the Bid would bo referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee. Mr. K. S. Williams said no one could but be impressed with the excellent way in which the vineyards of New Zealand were kept and as long as we were permitted to drink w r iue there was no reason why New Zealand manufacturers should not bo allowed to have greater facilities. He proposed to move an amendment when the Bill was in Committee to remedy what he considered a defect in tho main Act which made it unlawful to remove a hotel license more than half a mile in a borough or a mile in the country. Ihis restriction had been fixed many years ago and tho alterations which had taken place since had rendered many hotels useless in their present situations as a result of tho changed road routes, etc. Mr. J. McCombs referred to the wine shop as an undoubted menace and expressed the opinion that if tho Bill passed there would bo licensed wine shops all over tho country. Mr. E. A. Wright claimed that if the minimum amouut of wino which was permitted to be sold here were reduced from two gallons as at present to one quart as tho Bill proposed there would be a big increase in the trade. Mr. W. D. Lysnar said there was no reason why a person should have to buy two gallons of wino when all he wanted was one bottle. Ho contended that there was practically no drunkenness in France whero wino could be bought freely. Mr. W. E. Parry submitted that there was no reason why local growers should not have the opportunity of supplying tho New Zealand market in place of imported wines. Mr. A. M. Samuel said he did not think tho Bill would result in more wino being sold. It merely sought to give preference to New Zealand wine as against Australian. Mr. W. E. Barnard said the House should be able to consider the question without indulging in prohibition or anti-prohibition views. The measure should be considered fairly on its merits. Mr. G. C. C. Black suggested than when tho Bill was in Committee the definition of wine should be made to include liquor produced from apples. Thero was good reason for advocating tho development of tho eider industry in New Zealand. Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) expressed opposition to any increased licensing facilities. Mr. H. T. Armstrong said ho would be favourably disposed to the Bill if it merely sought to give assistance to wine-growers, but it would be damaging in its effects and very far-reach-ing. Hr. E. A. Hamilton expressed the opinion that the local industry plea could bo carried too far. Mr. J. A. Young said there wore possibilities of abuses in tho establishment of wine shops over which, there was less control than over licensed hotels. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Industries' Commerce Committee.