WINE INDUSTRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 5 August 1931, Page 8

WINE INDUSTRY

BILL TO ENCOURAGE TRADE OPINIONS DIFFER ? (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 4th August._ In moving the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to day, Mr H. G. 11. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) said it was aimed at giving relief to the wine growing industry. There was no reason why wine consumed in New Zealand should not bn grown here. Under the New Zealand law as it stood at pro sent I he wine grower had to grow, manufacture and sell bis own wine, allowing co-operation /with no other person. Growers also were not allowed lo have depots at other than their own town. Some alarm had been expressed that the object of the Bill was lo establish' wine shops in every street in tlie country, but such alarm was entirely unfounded. He Imped the Bill would be referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee. NEW ZEALAND'S VINEYARDS Mr K. S. Williams (Reform, Bay of Plenty) said no one could but be impressed with the excellent, way in which I lie vineyards of New Zealand were kepi and ns long ns we were permitted to drink wine there was no reason why New Zealand manufacturers should not be 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 the 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. This restriction had been fixed many years ago and alterations which had taken place since had rendered many hotels useless in their present situation, as a result of changed road routes, etc. “WINE SHOP MENACE” Mr J, McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton) referred to the winS shop as an undoubted menace and expressed the opinion that if the Bill was passed, (here would be licensed wine shops all over the country. Mr R. A. Wright (Reform, Wellington Suburbs) claimed that if the minimum amount of wine which was permitted to lie sold were reduced from two gallons as at present to one quart, as the Bill proposed, there would be a big increase in Iho trade.

Mr W. D. Lysnar (Independent Reform, Gisborne) said (hero was no reason why a person should have to Imv two gallons of wine, when all lie wauled was one bottle, lie contended there was practically no drunkenness in France-, where wine could bo bought freely. Mr \V. E. Parry (Labour. Auckland Central) submitted there was no reason why local growers should not have the opportunity of supplying the. New Zealand market in place of imported wines. Mr A. M. Samuel (Reform, Thames) said he did not think the Bill would result in more wine being sold. It merely sought to give preference to New Zealand wine as against Australian. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) 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. CIDER Mr G. C. Black (Independent, Molnoka) suggested that when the Bill was in committee the definition of wine should be made to include liquor produced from .apples. There was good reason for advocating the development of the cider industry in New Zealand. Mr 11. Holland (Reform, Christchurch North) expressed opposition to any increased licensing facilities. Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said he 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-reaching. Mr A. Hamilton (Reform, Wallace) expressed the opinion that the local industry plea could be carried too far. Mr J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton) said there were possibilities of abuses in the establishment of wine shops over which there was Jess control than over licensed hotels. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee.