No Fault Found With Liquor Prices

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31121, 26 July 1966, Page 3

No Fault Found With Liquor Prices

(.New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 25. The action of the Hotel Association in recommending new liquor prices to hotels in June last year was a trade practice which did not detrimentally affect the public interest by preventing or unreasonably reducing or limiting competition in the sale of liquor.

This decision in favour of the association was given today by the Trade Practices and Prices Commission, which held a public hearing last March,

The prices complained of] 6d for soz glass of beer. 9d] for Boz, Is Id for 12oz, 3s 4d for jugs, 6s 3d for flagons and Is 4d for nip of spirits (except New Zealand made gin). The prices still apply in nearly all hotels, with the notable exception of whisky which has gone up to Is 6d. The commission undertook i the inquiry on the allegation of the Examiner of Trade Practices that the Hotel Association was observing a trade practice contrary to the public interest in recommending standard prices to hotels.

In its decision, the commission said: “The Examiner has advanced very little, if any, evidence that the Increases in prices were unreasonable. On the other hand, the association put forward evidence which supported the increases.

“It appears to the commission that, whether the increases were sponsored by the association or were imposed by individual hotelkeepers, there would invariably have been increases in prices.

“In the opinion of the commission it has not been proved that the consequence of the

trade practice has been to increase unreasonably the prices at which liquors are sold. “It is clear that the association is a responsible body. It was actually requested by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, after the lifting of price control, to exercise some control over prices. “Moreover, the association stated at the hearing that it would notify the Examiner before implementing any further suggested increases in prices.” It appeared that some responsible body should exercise some form of control or direction under the circumstances of strict licensing and hours which applied to the industry, said the commission. This was preferable to a licensee with a monopoly fix-

ing unreasonably high prices which would be detrimental to the public interest The association could not prevent him from doing that now, but it could ensure some measure of uniformity in prices. “Its advice in the past has been followed by its members and trust hotel licensees." The commission said the association has in the past functioned wisely. Its practice of recommending prices was not, on past performance, against the public interest. “Licensees can still sell liquor at whatever price they like. They are not disciplined in any way if they do not adhere to the suggested prices. “It is the opinion of the commission moreover that some measure of guidance by the association is in the interest of the public.” The members of the commission for the case were Messrs B. S. Barrie, S.M., F. F. Simons and J. R. Dench.