THE DUTY ON BEER.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 53, 3 November 1913, Page 2

THE DUTY ON BEER.

AN INCREASE DISCUSSED. In the House the HOn. F. M. B. Fisher (Minister of Customs) moved the second reading Of the Beer Duty Amendment Bill. He said the Bill wai. mainly a departmental measure to safeguard the collection of beer duty, and to regulate the establishment of breweries near the boundaries of No-License areas. This Bill would give the Minister, and through the Minister would give Parliament, the right to control the issue of new brewers’ licenses. The Bill Avas not retrospective in any way. Generally the measure was a technical Bill, and had been drafted to meet Avith Departmental difficulties. MORE BEER DITTY WANTED.

Mr G. Y. Pearce (Patea) said he regretted that the Bill contained no mention of increase in the excise duty on beer. He would move in committee an amendment to'give the House, ah opportunity of siting whether the duty should or should not he doubled. He regarded the beer manufacture as one of the worst monopolies in the country, earning huge profits, and the monopoly was made worse by the fact that all over the country the brewers had bought up the hotels or the goodwills of the leases. Hotelkeepers were put into hmises at high rents, with heavy mortgages, and they were tied up to deal with brewers owning the houses. The increase of taxation would provide an extra revenue of £120,000, and it would not increase the price of beer to the consumer. It would only reduce the goodwill of hotels, which, had appreciated enormously. Mr J. V. Brown (Xapier) Criticised some details of the Bill. Mr A. Harris (Waitemata) said that he was disappointed at the Bill containing no mention of an increase in duty. He considered that the duty should be increased from threepence to sixpence per gallon. This would not increase the price of the working man’s beer.

Mr L. M, Isitt (Christchurch North)

said that ho considered that it would be a wise step to increase the duty on beer. There was no doubt largo profits were made on beer. A member: No profit in drilling it. ) Mr Lsitt: No, there is nonprofit in drinking it. That means hobnailed liver, fatty degeneration of the heart, and a nose like a danger signal in a dark night. It was a pity, he continued, that the Minister had hot accepted the numerous hints tendered him to bring down a proposal to increase the duty on beer.

Mr H. G. Ell (Christchurch South) agreed that if there was one’, thing that could stand: ian increase of taxation it was beer. An hon. member; Andt land. Mr Ell; And land. / Mr Pearce': You increased the tax on land last year. i . .

Mr Ell: We could charge a great leal more on land. Ho added that then the House was considering an increase in excise duty on 'beer, it should also consider the reduction of Customs duties on articles of common necessity. ... -.1/ ■

Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt) said'he had always believed the Bill was being introduced to help the large landownws, and when he heard the speech of he member for Patea he was sure of t. The idea was to get more revenue,; o relieve the land from increased Uirdens. He thought ,soine clauses foaling with licensing: questions should be attached to .the Hill W amendnents, for such taxation was certainv needed. ~ .n.

Mr J. A, Young said .he ould moke hold to suggest, that the irewer would not pay any increase, •i the beer duty. The brewer, would eld to his selling price, and pass the luty on to his hotelkeeper. The later would perhaps not be able to get i higher price, but he .could neither

;ivo loss beer for that price or aclulterte the beer in some way. He also do, by urging an increase in beer 'uty, were on dangerous ground, in hat they were increasing the dependv tco of the State on liquor revenue. “THE GREATEST CURSiL’V The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, in mid he had hoard the statement of the member for Patea with considerable satisfaction. At last a very large monopoly which had escaped taxation 'or thirty ydars had reached a stage t which a* Government,! yifhich did not n-otect monopolies, would see that it lid not escape taxation any longgcj Hear, hear.) He ivisfiQd to put on

word a few figures relating to thd Hi-owing industry. In 1906 the number f breweries in‘ the Dominion was 72, ( n *l9ll' the' number to 60. i 'bo, monopoly (was increased. : In 1906 he 72 breweries employed hands,

■liioj .-wcire- paid! £02,308; >irti hbages. In , 11,1* tha 60 breweries! employed 7slj tpiUds, htidr »paid :£-M)9/544<«4 , n wag£f< n 1906 the 72 breweries produced ,373,362 gallons of beer, and iri 1911 00i breweriefiioPW«lncßd‘>i}>s^2,79o aliens. In 1906 the 72 breweries paid :103,986 in beer duty; in 1911, the 60 'boweries paid £119,187. The total luty collected v oji beer last year, at the n,te 4 of ;^d V ;X>eii { .gi>llon i , bW9s £122,000. An additional 3d per gallon would prodpco.another £122,000. The subscribed capital ,of the 60, vvhs about ,’jalf .a. i'million, he but figures frera very difficult to get. B\it the annual profits were a quarter of a million a year, excluding.'.entirely .the evenue from the goodwill, anti rent, pf publichouses. The ,manufacturers’ urffits of the brewers,u e.O-; far as he .■ould get the figures, were ©‘quarter of i million a year, and in order to earn hat profit of a quarter of a million a year they paid £109,000. a year in wages. Mr Brown: What about' the runholder? , Mr Fisher: I hold no brief for the innholder; but there is .this in his favour: he does not manufacture, I unities and criminals.' The brewer by his trade, he continued, caused not only lai'ge increased expenditure on charitable aid, in expenditure on prisons and mental asylums and in hospital returns, but he imposed on publicans conditions which made them criminals. Sometimes they were caught

'in breaches of the law, but more often they were not. The brewing monopoly, ras the greatest Curse that had ever ■ome to this country. , i 4 ; (, , . Mr Brown: The brewers don’t want i monopoly. , ( Mr Fish'er; But, they have got. it, ind they have paid for it, and they rill spend £100,0t)0 at one*election to Veep it. They will also send for Monitions from outside to help themstd defend their vested interests. The House would have an opportunity of discussing all this later, and he would bo very'glad to enter the lists with the member for Napier. He was quite sure that the member for Christchurch North would assist him (Mr Fisher)

i'll the contest. Under a critical analysis this trade would bear least examination. A man might own five million acres of land, Tfdt he -wOuld run •i sheep on every acre of it, and he lid not manufacture poverty and vice. He did not manufacture criminals, he did not bring about divorces or family dissensions, or a hundred and one evils of that kind associated with the liquor trade. If the member for jPatea moved his amendment, he would find that it would meet with support. He would find that this monopoly was going to receive a Parliamentary check, that Parliament would allow the people to impose upon the trade a chock which public opinion alone could impose upon it. He hoped that later in the session there would be opportunities afforded the member for Napier for defending his trade. The Hill was read a second time on the voices.