UNIFORM PRICE

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVII, Issue 23186, 27 April 1945, Page 4

UNIFORM PRICE

Measures Of Beer Attitude Of Price Tribunal (N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, April 26. The net result of the Price Tribunal’s authorisations was that the price of beer since 1939 had increased by less than the actual amount of the increased taxation, the difference having been absorbed by brewers and hotelkeepers in accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice of requiring traders to absorb additional costs where that could reasonably be done, said Mr H. L. Wise, a member of the Tribunal in evidence before the Royal Commission on Licensing. The question had been raised as to the reason why the same price was charged in hotel bars for measures of beer of whatever size. So far as the Tribunal was aware, this had always been the position in the trade with very few exceptions. The Tribunal, as a general rule, did not interfere with established commercial practices. If it had insisted on different prices for different containers the price of Boz and lOoz “handles” would have necessarily been higher than they were. The great shortage of glass containers had made it impracticable for the Tribunal to order that all hotels should provide a lOoz “handle” if asked for. Inquiry showed that so far as the four main centres were concerned such a course was practicable, and that was adopted. When the heavy Increase in duty was imposed in May, 1942, the Tribunal authorised an increase from 9d to lOd a nip for whisky, gin and rum, said Mr Wise. That increase of Id a nip provided only for the recovery of the new, additional taxation and did not take into account any previous increase in taxation or overseas cost and shipping charges. The Tribunal caused a price order to be prepared setting out the maximum price to be charged for nips of these liquors at lOd, and the maximum number of nips to a bottle at 42. That price ordei' had received the approval of the Minister of Industries and Commerce and would be gazetted forthwith. As far as brandy was concerned, the Tribunal had authorised an increase of Id a nip on the 1939 price. The cost of brandy was now undergoing changes in view of the opening of new markets, and the Tribunal expected to be able soon to include brandy in a price order. There was considerable variation in the kind and quality of wines at present on the market, and it had not been possible to relate prices to a specified standard of quality. The rents of hotels were entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Price Tribunal.