PROHIBITION--AND AFTER.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 August 1922, Page 3

PROHIBITION--AND AFTER.

(Lyttelton Times, August 25). Tin- point raised by the member for Wairau, Mr M’Callum, in Parliament on Wednesday, regarding the possible effect on the country’s finances in the event of national prohibition being carried at the poll next December, was quite a good one. The Government of the day is faced at present with the problem of keeping a war-inflated expenditure within the bounds of a revenue depleted by the post-war slump—a slump which has more than counteracted record-breaking exploits in the matter of taxation. Mr M’Callum asked the Prime Minister a plain question as to what he proposed to do if national prohibition cut another two and a half millions off his diminishing revenue. The head of the Government did not dispute the figure. He replied that he would have to call Parliament together. The fact that something over two and a half millions of revenue would be lost to the Treasury seems to us indisputable. The latest statistics on the subject of liquor consumption make it clear that even on the basis of consumption in 1921 the Government stands to lose in customs and excise revenue more than £2,500,000. Taking the 1921 quantities of liquor consumed we find that there were 1,000,875 gallons of spirits, which at 36s per gallon, the present dutiable rate, would yield 01,801,575. Beer duty at the present rate of approximately Is per gallon, will yield, on last year’s consumption, £715,462, so that there is here £2,517,037 of revenue without counting the duty on wines, income tax, land tax, rates, licenses, and other revenue yielded by the trade and certain to be depressed or cut out altogether by national prohibition. Now it seems to us that the Administration ought to have some plans for dealing with such a considerable reduction of its financial resources. We already have railways which are losing money at the rate of some thousands a day. We are threatened with a dietary change which will mean a further loss of close upon £7OOO per day. It must be remembered in this connection that the Licensing Act of 1918 is a very looselyconstructed measure which was pushed through Parliament in three days in a depleted House, just on the eve of an adjournment, and when a terrible epidemic was raging throughout the country. We have drawn attention to its omissions and to its general lack of cohesive policy on many occasions, and we have justifiable ground for, believing that the Government itself does not know exactly what the measure means. But at ,a time like the present when we have an outcry from one end of the Dominion to the other concerning the crushing weight of taxation and the need for economy in national finance it is surely not too much to ask that the Government should disclose its intentions in the event of its revenue being suddenly curtailed. Air Massey says he will convene Parliament immediately after the election if prohibition should lie carried. Elections, like horse-races, being uncertain, lie may have another reason for a hasty summoning of the national assembly. But his plain duty to the country is to take under advisement all the possibilities, and to say what he intends to do if the national verdict in December leaves him in office and drastically reduces his revenue. Tin’s Parliament is just as well qualified to pass judgment on His proposals as that which will be elected four months hence, and it might save the expense of an extra session if Mr Massey would, for once, take a look into the future. Moreover, this is a question for the people as well as for Parliament. The passing of prohibition would reduce the taxrevenue by about one-fifth, requiring other taxation to be increased at an average rate of five shillings in the pound. The people are surely entitled to know the proposals of the Finance Minister in such an emergency before casting the votes which are to determine the issue. HOLD fast to liberty vote for continuance