"FIGHT IS ON”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18503, 15 September 1934, Page 5

"FIGHT IS ON”

INTERLUDE IN HOUSE BEES DOTY CONTROVERSY I * * REDUCTION RESENTED CRITICISM OF MINISTER r {Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this clay. « Allegations of bumptiousness were mixed up with criticism of the reduced beer duty when this phase of the tariff came under consideration in the House, a heated argument being heard between the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, and the Minister of Customs, the lit. Hon. J. G. Coates. “How could a reduction in the excise duty on beer, which would help production in New Zealand, appeal to English competitors of our brewers l ’ : asked Mr. Savage, commenting on the Ministerial explanation that the threepenny reduction in both the local exisc duty and import duty on beer had led' to an arrangement under which New Zealand's surplus of hops would be taken by English brewing interests for the next four, or live years. • • The retort of the Minister of Customs was that 'the Leader of the Opposition was totally ignorant of the principles underlying the arrangement, and he was adopting a “pompous attitude.” • • “The last thing in the world I thought I would be accused of,” declared Mr. Savage, who suggested that the Minister was really passing on to him something ho was practising himself. NOT RUNNING AWAY

“But 1 am not running away from him,” continued Mr. Savage. “1 haye never heard a more illogical statement in my life. He wants to help Now Zealand 1 hop-growers, so he is going to deny overseas interests from access here by. helping the people who compete against them in New Zealand. He also said that I was ignorant of the principles underlying this proposal, but I will meet hipi anywhere, and wo shall see who is the ignorant person. I resent his attitude on this question. ” If the Minister wanted to help overseas brewing interests, it would bo more logical, added the Leader of the. Opposition, if he had curtailed brewing in New Zealand. Mr. Coates: May I use this illustration: A high excise duty does not mean a restriction in the sale of beer; it means illicit sales of beer and 1 home brewing/ Mr. Savage replied that lie thought, that they were dealing with an arrangement to sell hops overseas. The only advantage given would be to the brewers, because It would not reach the consumers. To present tho brewing interests with £IIO,OOO, and say it would stop home-brewed beer was playing with common sense. “The Minister has adopted a personal attitude towards me which I resent, and if ho will adopt the same attitude outside this House, I will meet him.” EXPECT NO QUARTER

Mr. Coates: If you impute motives you must get it back, just as you gave. Mr. Savage: The light is on, and Mr. Coates need 1 not give me any quarter, and ho need not expect any from mo. Mr. A. E. Jull (Coal., Waipawa) assured members that there was no monopoly in the brewing industry, for there wore 51 breweries in New Zealand. The largest concern owned nitfe, which he would admit were large establishments. A suggestion that the brewers would retain the concession of 18s per hogshead was not in the slightest degree possible. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) said that apparently overseas brewers had arranged to take so much hops on condition that the duty was reduced, but the Government was giving away £112,000 to New Zealand brewers for this concession. In spite of an increase in the value of hops exported last year, the aggregate return was only £23,259. That meant that the Government was giving away £112,000 in revenue for the purpose of fostering an overseas contract which last year had brought in £23,259. Even if the exports were trebled, there would still be a loss. Mr. W. J. Poison (Coal., Stratford): There would be no actual loss. “LOST HIS HEAD” Mr. Nash said he realised that what the Government would lose, the brewers would gain, but the point remained that one section of people, the brewers, were gaining at the expenso of the rest of the community. If the Government retained the duty of Is 6d a gallon and gave hops away for nothing it would still be £40,000 better olf, even if the present volume of hop exports was trebled. Though -the discussion went on in general terms after Mr. Coates had replied. there were numerous references to the altercation between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister in charge of the bill. Mr. R. Semple (Lab. Wellington East) suggested that Mr. Coates had lost his head, “I was amazed,” added the member, “to see him so ruffled.” Then Mr. Semple found himself in difficulties with Mr. W. A. Bodkin, ■who was temporarily relieving the chairman of committees. He wished to tell a story at the expense of the member fpr Wairau, but the chairman firmly intervened, because the matter was irrelevant and personal. Bowing to the ruling, Mr. Semple remarked, vbry pointedly: “Thank you. Why don’t you go home? ¥our liyer is crook. ... The House had spent the whole morning discussing the ono clause which bore relation to the wheat duties. It occupied the wholo afternoon till the time for the adjournment in debating the beer duty clauses, and had' made no progress when the House rose, the Minister stating that the committee consideration of the Customs Bill would be resumed on Tuesday.