BEER DUTIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22368, 15 September 1934, Page 10

BEER DUTIES

THE PROPOSED REDUCTION STRONG LABOUR OPPOSITION PROLONGED AND BITTER DISCUSSION (From Ouk Parliamentary Reporter) •WELLINGTON, September 14. The reduction of the beer duties proposed iu the Customs Acts Amendment Bill was the subject of prolonged and at times bitter discussion in the House of Representatives to-day when the appropriate clause of the Bill was being considered' in committee. The Labour Party obstructed the retention of the clause, some members speaking repeatedly throughout the afternoon. Their attitude was due in part to an exchange of sharp words between Mr Coates and ■Mr Savage, Mr Coates at one stage was stung to deny that he had been approached by the brewing interests for a reduction in the excise duty. It had been explained by Mr Coates that in order to secure a market for New Zealand hops in England it was deemed advisable to reduce the duty on imported beer by threepence a gallon. The duty on'imported beer could not justly be reduced without a corresponding modification of the rate of excise duty on local beer, which, from a revenue-pro-ducing point of. view, was too high. Therefore a reduction threepence _ a gallon both in the impoTt .gad,. ..excise duties was proposed. '*'7 ■ Mr' Savage said he could not accept the view of the Government. The Mii)ister could not find money for other purposes, but he could make concessions to local brewers. Mr Savage said he failed to see why those concessions were necessary to ensure a market for our hops in England. Replying with some warmth, Mr Coates said that Mr Savage did not know what he was talking about.. The quesj tion whether the brewer, licensee or consumer got the benefit of the concession was one that could onlj v be left to the • industry. His point was that on account of the high taxation on beer there had been a terrific growth in home brewing. He had had proposals prepared for the taxing of the home-brewing industry, but it was found that it would be almost impossible to administer them, aq Australia was finding out. In his opinion a reduction of duty would not result in a reduction in revenue. Mr F. Jones (Dunedin South) : Will it increase the revenue? Mr Coates said it would enable local beer to compete better with “ home brew.” Ho contended that Mr Savage was wrong in his interpretation of the position. If the House agreed to a reduction it would be possible to make contracts for the sale of New Zealand hops,, not only for this year but for four or five years ahead.„ , Mr H. \Atmore (Nelson) said if it were-desired to make a gesture to Guinness it would be all right to reduce the import duty, but it was nonsense for the Minister to say it would he unfair to reduce the import' duty without reducing'! the excise duty too. A remission of threepence a gallon to New Zealand brewers could not be passed on unless a coin valued at onc-flfth of a penny were introduced, or larger glasses were provided. No reason had been shown for the gift of £112,000 to local brewers, which was the amount of the concession based on last year’s figures. A complaint was made by Mr J. A. ' Lee (Grey Lynn) that the Chairman of Committees (Mr S. G. Smith) had not called on a Labour speaker, so that Mr Coates’s attack on Mr Savage could he answered. He called the Chairman a crook referee,” but withdrew the term at the Chairman's instructions. Speaking after the luncheon adjournment, Mr Savage said that Mr Coates had accused him of adopting a pompous attitude, which was the last thing of which he expected to be accused. He had also been accused by Mr Coates of being ignorant of the reasons behind the proposal; “ I resent that,” _ said Mr Savage. “ I will meet .the Minister anywhere, and we will see who is ignorant, The Minister wants to lay the foundations for the sale of our hops overseas, so he is going to give concessions to New Zealand brewers, competitors of ilie- people who will buy our' hops. If the Minister wants to help overseas interests, would it not be more logical to curtail local beer? Mr Coates: A high excise duty does not mean the restriction of the sale of beer. It means the illicit sale of “ home brew.” Mr Savage: There is no foundation to the Minister’s argument.' He can twist it any way lie likes. If the Minister thinks that by .presenting the brewers with £llo,ooo'he is going to stop home . brewing he is nlaying with the common sense of this committee. I resent tl)6 personal attitude he has taken up against me. If he adopts that attitude outside this House, I will meet him anywhere.

Mr Coates: If you impute motives you will get' back what you give. Mr Savage: Well, the fight is on and you need give me no quarter because you will get none from me. Mr. W. Nash (Hutt) declared that the import duty was being reduced liecause of some undertaking given by the Minister.

Mr Coates said that that was not so. There had been an approach by two parties, one by the people who sold English beer, and the - - other by an agent who arranged contracts. Mr Nash: We arc'' giving away £112,000 of revenue on internally produced beer. The value of hops exported last year was £23,060. If that trade is trebled, the Minister..will still be from £40,000 to £50,000 to the bad; Mr Coates said that the Leader of the Opposition had imputed motives, Mr Savage; I did not impute motives. Mr Coates: Well, you left it in the air and asked reasons for what has been done.

Labour members: Wo all want to know that.

Mr Coates said that no brewing interests in this country had approached him at all, either directly or indirectly. It was incorrect to say that the Government would lose £112,000 in revenue as the result of the proposal. He was not so certain that the , figures would not balance out at the end of the year. Labour members: In what way? ■ Mr Coates: On account of the extra consumption. lie added that 0!) applications from hotelkeepers in Wellington had been dealt with by the Mortgagors’ Relief Commission. Mr Lee: They have been trading ! on goodwill that docs not belong to them. Quoting from the latest price list issued, Mr Coates said the proposed reductions were now being passed on. There had been a reduction of 13s 6d per 54-gallon cask of beer,/Os on - ' 3O gallons, 4s 0d on 18 gallons, and Is 3d on 10 gallons. On large size bottles of ale and stout the reduction was Cd a dozen, on small bottles 3d per dozen, and on nip bottles lid. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino) saiu that the Minister had changed his grounds of argument from Ottawa to hops, from hops to “home brew,” and from « home brew ” to public house mortgages. It seemed as if it would be much easier for the country to drink itself back to prosperity than to starve itself back to prosperity, and it looked ns if the Minister wanted the people to take this

course. No sensible man would take notice of the hop bogey —the Minister was trying to “ bulldoze the House with his balderdash.” The export value of hops to-day was not more than £23,000. Mr Langstone said that neither the publican nor the public would get the benefit of the reduction —the money would, go to the pockets of the brewers. The publicans were mostly the stool pigeons of the brewers. Why was not the liquor fighting fund used to relievo those publicans who were in trouble? Mr Langstone added that the action taken by the controlling interests of the trade was no Credit either to them or to the country. Mr E. F, Healy (Wairau) said that Mr Atraore would have a big hurdle to face in explaining to his hop-growing constituents the attitude ho had adopted iu the debate. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said that brewery shares had risen by 4s immediately the Government’s intention to lower the duties became known —these speculators knew what they were doing. Mr Wright supported Mr Savage, saying that although he was not a prohibitionist lie had attacked the proposal on the broad principle that only one class would derive any benefit from it. The hop argument, ho added, appeared to have hopped away.— (Loud laughter.) Mr Wright amused the House when he said lie was the only former publican and therefore the only sinner in Parliament. He claimed that the brewing industry should have to wait for remissions until other sections of the industry were given remissions. When the Leader of the Opposition had said this, however, Mr Coates had charged him with being pompous and ignorant. Mr Coates: I did not say “ ignorant.” Mr Lee: The Minister’s outburst when explaining his proposals to the house almost suggests that his conscience was uneasy, ' Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford): Would not the hon. member get hot under the collar if motives were imputed to him. Mr Lee: Perhaps; but I would not get hot under the hat. Mr Lee added that he agreed that the excise duty on beer had been pushed far too high in the past, largely because the Government had been influenced by the prohibitionists; but now the consumer was not going to benefit from the reduction. Mr C. L. Carr (Timaru): They want bigger mugs. Mr A. J. Stallworthy • (Eden): Does the hon. member agree that there is no virtue in a glass of beer? Mr Lee: No, Ido not. But I honestly believe that if the member for Eden had not been a prohibitionist be would have seen political light a decade eai’lier, Mr G. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) set the House laughing again when he said that the threepenny reduction would be lost in transit—it would never reach its destination. Mr Coates quoted figures to show the steady increase in the production of hops and the rapid increase in their export. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said that when he went to buy a half pint of milk he did not have to pay for a full pint. “I want beer to be put on the same basis,” he declared. “If I want only a half pint of beer why should I bo compelled to pay for a pint?” Mr Downie Stewart (Dunedin West) said the hop industry had always.found it very difficult to establish an export market. When a trade agreement was being negotiated with Australia that country wanted New Zealand hops and a reduction in the duty on them was sought. Shortly afterwards, however, vested interests in Australia 1 obtained practically tin embargo. Mr Stewart said that if the door were opened to the export market the hop industry would be a very valuable one to the Dominion. He detailed also the difficulties that were encountered when an effort was made to establish a market in Ireland, in return for which Irish brewing interests sought a reduction in duty on their products in New Zealand.

Mr R. Semple (Wellington East) referred to the “crushing” attack made by the member for Wairau on the member for Nelson. "If you go into any hotel in Blenheim— —

Mr W. A. Bodkin (who had relieved Mr Smith in the Chair) : Order! Order!

Mr .Semple sought to finish what he was going to say in spite of the Chairman’s admonitions and, ignoring him for a moment, carried on. “If you go into any hotel in Blenheim you can ask for a Tim Hcaly,- and if yon want to know what it means they will tell you—the biggest mug in the house.” The Chairman made Mr Semple resume his seat, for which Mr Semple remarked: “Thank you, your liver must be crook.” The suggestion was made by Mr Stallworthy that the proposed reduction of threepence should be reinstated and the equivalent should be used to restore to the old-age pensioners the full 10 per cent, cut, retrospective from April 1. Mr Coates: Will you vote for this threepence reduction if the old-age pensions go back? Mr Stallworthy: If the Minister will promise to restore the full 10 per cent, in old-age pensions I will vote for this.It is estimated that £84,000 is required to give back 5 per cent, for the half year, so about four times that will be needed to give 10 per cent, for the whole year. With another £12,000 or £13,000 added to this beer duty the Minister could restore the pensions, if we have the surplus of £1,000,000 w’hich the Minister of Lands has talked about. Mr Savage said be wanted to help the hopgrowers, but the Government’s proposal would not do that. He had not had it in mind to make any insinuations that any undue influences had been brought to bear on the Government. The discussion was unfinished when the House rose.’