LIQUOR CONSUMPTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10689, 8 September 1920, Page 5

LIQUOR CONSUMPTION

m NO-LIGENSE AREAS

SOME STARTLING FIGURES QUOTED IN HOUSE. INTERESTING DEBATE. A lengthy and nt times lively debate took place yesterday afternoon on a return presented by the Prime Minister in tho House of Representatives ' as to tho amount of liquor taken into no-liceiise districts. 'Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that tho return showed that tho amount of liquor taken into the thirteen no-licenso districts, with their population of 205,268, was 381,504 gal. lens. That meant I.S gallon per head or 9.3 gallons foi each household of five. It was far u>o much to go into a no-liwnse Area, but it compared vorv favourably with the rest of the Dominion. During the last six months there had been an increase in the consumption of alcohol in the Dominion The total consumption for the six months amounted to 8,497,000 gallons, or at tho rate of 16 to 17 million gallons a year—l3.B9 gallons per head, or 69} gallons per family of five. It meant that we were spending nearly £7 per head on alcoholic liquor, as against £5 10; in 1919. and some £4 per head in pre-war days; while in no-lioenso are>a* the expenditure on drink was onlv 18s 6d per head. The Government, he urged, 'should consider how we were to deal with this problem. He contended that the Labour movement favoured prohibition, not State control. "NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS DO THE DRINKING." < Mr W.. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said that it was pitiable that a man should quote figures which he knew to be wrong. The hon. member must know that the return took cognisance only of parcels of liquor of two gallons and upwards. It was the no-license _ districts that were swelling bo alarmingly the consumption of liquor in the Dominion. (Loud laughter.) Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suborns): Who does the drinking? Mr Lv6nar: The no-license districts. (Loud laughter.) „ Mr L. M. Isitt (Christehurclf North) characterised Mr Lysnar's speech as an attempt to burlesque the whole question. There was- not a single note of earnestness in it. He hoped that the hon. gentleman's constituents would take note of the tone in which he dealt with so 6erioua a subject. .Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) , protested against an hon. member hnvingseen a copy of the report before it was" brought down,, and a motion moved .that it lie on the_ table. Mr McCombs said that he had not seen the report till It was brought down. "WHAT OF THE PROHIBITION CAMPAIGN?'- 5

Mr H. Atmoro' - (Nelson) said that the honourable member for Lyttelton knew that the figures as to.the amount of liquor going into no-license areas did npt. tell the whole truth. Most of the&'liquor, he.,.contended, was taken, into • no-license areas under the clause which permitted any person to take one gallon of beer and a quart of spirits a day into, such a district. What, he asked, became of the thirty prohibition campaign if at the end pf it, as Mr McCombs said, there had been this alarming increase in tho consumption, of intoxicating liquor? It was impossible—as the honourable member for Christchurch North had admitted, and he had put it in "Hansard"—to calculate the amount of liquor taken into no-license districts, 6o that it was absurd to'give figures per head, ei e» down to decimal points, as to the consumption of liquor in such districts. He condemned the intolerant and intemperate language of the two members in question. Mr A. S. Malcolm (Olutha) contended that the argument that the amount of liquor brought in in less than two-gallon lots could make up the great difference between 1.86 and 14 gallons per head would not commend itself to serious-minded people. Mr J. Bitchener (Waitaki) said that he did not believe that tho statement' of the honourable member for Gisborne would bo borne out by the rest of the people of the country. Now that America had prohibition many of tho workers owned t&eir own houses and a motor-car.

Mr Lysnar said that he did not say that the no-license people were consuming more liquor. What ho said was the no-license districts.

HOUSES AND MOTOR-OAKS. Mr Pv. A. AVright (Wellington Su. burbs) asked why, if there was more drinking in the no-license districts, did the supporters of the liquor trade so strongly oppose the increase in the number of no-license districts? (Laughter.) He supported the statement as to American workers owning their own houses and a motor-car. Mr P. Fraser ( Wellington Central) said that he did not wish to speak in favour of alcohol, but prohibition hau been introduced so recently in America that it was .economically impossible for such a change as that claimed to have taken place. Mr Wright: Maine has had prohibition for many years. . Mr Fraser said that he knew as much about the Maine controversy as anv other honourable member, and he had vet to learn that the workers in Maine owned their own houses and motor-cars. , Mr A. Hamilton (Wallace) urged that the Government should take action to check the enormous waste on alcoholic liquor. ~ „,, The report was laid on the table. THE RETURN. REMARKABLE FIGURES. The return shows that the total number of persons summarily convicted held to bail, etc., in no-license districts during the year 1919 was 2070 males and 77 females. The total number of convictions for drunkenness in these districts was 249 males, 5 females; for being drunk and disorderly, 16 malos; for being an habitual drunkard, 1 male; for breaches of prohibition orders, 48 males, 2 females; and for breaches of the licensing laws, 7S males and "1 femaJo. The tblal amount of liquor, in lots ovor two gallons, taken into no-license districts was 381,604 gallons—beer and stout, 348,570 gallons; brandy, 1543 gallons; gin and schnapps, 722 gallonss rum, 620 gallons; whisky, 20,754 galilor»; wine. 9283 gallons, fractions of a gallon being omitted.