Eight-hour-Debate on Beer Duty Remission

Manawatu Times, Volume 59, Issue 219, 19 September 1934, Page 7

Eight-hour-Debate on Beer Duty Remission

Clause Retained After Matter Taken to a Vote

Who Will Benefit

Per Press Association

■ WELLINGTON, Last Night. The committee stage of the Customs Act Amendment Hill was resumed in the House of Representatives this afternoon, the clause relating to the remission of beer duty being under discussion. Mr. A. J. Stalhvoi'tliy could not sc* how, if the remission of the duty would benefit the hotelkeeper and not the consumer, Mr. Coates' statement that the remission would result in increased consumption of beer could be justified. Mr. I’. Eraser said that, unless an advantage was given overseas brewers, the hopgrowers would not benefit; yet the local brewers were given a remission amounting to £112,000. He would like the position clarified and know who was going to get the benefit. Mr. 11. Holland said that brewing interests were very largely, if not wholly, responsible for the sad condition of the licensed victuallers to-day. Mr. P. McSkimming said that Mr. Coates' reasons for the remission were not very convincing, and he thought other taxes should come of! before that on beer. Hon. J. G. Coates said beer to-day was taxed far too heavily and the people had been driven to brow their own beer, which paid no taxation. He, therefore, thought he should reduce taxation to encourage the consumption of other beer. Would Have to Drink tight Pints! Mr. C. A. Wilkinson said the Minister should see that the reduction affected the consumer. To obtain a reduction of threepence a man would have to drink eight pints of beer, and it -was seldom that beer was consumed that way. Mrs. McCombs said not one argument of the Minister would hold water. She thought the Minister was solely concerned with the benefit that would be given the brewers. Mr. I?. A. Wright said he would not offer the opposition ho was offering if (lie reduction were to bo passed on to the consumer. Ho had made inquiries, which had showed that it was utterly impossible for the consumer to benefit. After the tea adjournment Mr. Stallworthy asked the Minister to reconsider the beer duty item. Was it wise and prudent to grant a romission amounting to £112,000 when Budgeting for a surplus of only' £8000? Mr. W. E. Barnard said that, if the Minister desired people to consume more beer, lie would achieve that more quickly by increasing their incomes than by a reduction of the beer duty. Mr. Coates reiterated that the duty was too high, as a result of consumption going down, that was being reflected in the revenue. lie contended that those who predicted a loss of £IIO.OOO would be wido of the mark when the end of the financial year was reached. Mr. 11. G. Dickie contended that the figures in the Year Book showed that the consumption of beer was going up and not down. Mr. J. A. Leo said the way to got more beer consumed was to increase the workers’ wages. Mr. A. E. .Tull submitted that the reduction would ultimately bo passed on to the consumer, with benefit to the brewer. Mr. P. Webb said that 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 givo a larger reduction to hotels. Mr. H. Atmorc said 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. Homo Brew Cheap. Mr. E. Langstone said the reduction would not displaco home-brew, which could be made for a penuy a bottle. Mr. C. H. Cliukard was pleased to sco the reduction made in taxation. He intended to support the Minister. Mr. E. W. Schramm. said he also intended to vote for the clause and said the reduction to the brewers could be passed on the shape of an increase in wages and better conditions for brewery and hotel employers. Mr, lv. Semple said, 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 a reduction in the beer duty. Mr. H. T. Armstrong said he learned that the brewers resolved last week to grant a 5 per cent, increase in wages in anticipation of a reduction in the duty. That was one way and the best way of passing tho reduction on. There were also a number of small breweries to which the reduction would be most helpful. A division was called for at 0 p.m. after the clause had been under discussion for about eight hours. Tho clause was retained by 41 vites to 27.

Export Duty on Gold,

Divided Opinion in House Over

The division list was:— For tho Clause. Ausell McLeod Armstrong Macmillan Broadfooi Macpherson Campbell J. N. Massey Chapman W. W. Massey Cliukard Murdoch Coates J. A. Nash Cobbe Ngata Connolly' O'Brien Eudcan Poison Eield Hansom Eorbes Beid ilargest Samuel Harris Schramm llcaly Stewart Henaro Stuart ilolyoake To Torno .full Yeitch Kyle Webb Linklatcr Young Lye Against the Clause. Atmorc McSkimming Barnard .Mason Burnett Muuro Coleman W. Nash Dickie Barry Eraser Bioliards Holland Bushwortk Howard Savage Jones • Semple Jordan Staliworthy Langstone Sullivan Leo Wilkinson. McCombs Wright McKccn The tobacco duties were then discussed. Mr. Barnard moved an amendment to reduce the duty ou cut tobacco from 4s (Id per lb. to os lOd per lb. and a second amendment to reduce the duty on other tobacco from 4s 4d per lb. to os Sd. He contended that the present duties were driving smokers to the tailor-made cigarette, instead of the pipe or rolling their own cigarettes. Mr. K. J. Holyoakc said he had intended to move a similar amendment. Ho said the reduction had to be eightpence to enable a reduction to be made by the retailer of a penny on a twoounce tin.

Mr. Coates said the manufacturer did not require the protection provided by the ■ amendment. The manufacturer might or might not pass it on. Ho said tho Government W’ould havo to stand the proposed duties, and lie appealed to members to support, him. Mr. Barnard said he had authority for saying that the reduction would be passed on to tho consumer. The first amendment was lost by 35 votes to 29 and the second amendment was lost on tho voices.

The other clauses relating to tobacco were agreed to without discussion.

Coming to the gold duty, Mr. Webb moved an amendment providing that the export duty of 12s fid per ounce shall not apply to gold sold by registered unemployed gold prospectors whose miners’ rights have been endorsed by the Unemployment Board. Mr. Coates said ho would like to do as the amendment suggested, but it would bo impossible to administer. Mr. W. Nash suggested that as the difficulties of administration woro so great, the Minister might forego the 10 per cent, tax paid to another fund.

Mr. Coates said he had a great admiration for the men prospecting the valleys, but he would not like to commit the Unemployment Board without first consulting tho board. Ho would consult tho board.

Mr. Webb suggested that the members representing the mining districts might discuss the matter with the two Ministers concerned.

Mr. Coates said he would willingly arrange such a conference, as he thought some relief might be given some men who had not reached a payable basis, The amendment was lost.

Mr. W. Nash gave notice of intention to move as a new clause an amendment ho moved on Friday relating to the duties on wheat, flour and other wheat products, but the chairman of committees ruled it out of order, as it involved an appropriation. Dealing with the first schedule, Mr. Wilkinson moved an amendment to abolish the sliding scale on wheat and flour.

The amendment was lost by 45 votes to 17. Mr. Wilkinson moved a further amendment, which fixed the duty at £2 10s per ton on British flour and at £3 10s per ton on foreign flour. He said ho was not particular about wheat. | The amendment was lost by 50 votes to 11. Progress was reported and the House i rose at 12.40.