GRAFT IN N.S.W.?

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 176, 15 October 1927, Page 10

GRAFT IN N.S.W.?

PASSING LIQUOR BILL DEFENCE FUND STORY Startling 1 statements concerning the disposal of money raised to “influence” the passage of amending legislation dealing with the Liquor Bill were made at a meeting of the Wine and Spirit Grocers’ Defence Association in Sydney. Mr. R. Roney, who presided, stated that some months ago the association found it necessary to call upon members—of whom there were 235 —to subscribe £25 each for the purpose of establishing a fighting fund to obtain an amendment of the Liquor Act that would allow grocers to sell wine and spirits by the single bottle, instead of in minimum quantities of two gallons, as at present. A deputation to the Minister of Justice followed, but as his reply was unsympathetic it was gathered that the deputation had been forestalled by the Liquor Association. “Subsequently,” said Mr. Roney, according to the “Sydney Morning Herald.” I saw certain Ministers, and told them that they had extracted something from us and gave us nothing in return. At that time I was told to keep quiet, not to cause a newspaper controversy, and that if we waited, what we wanted would be brought in at the ‘death.’ On January 20 last I got an urgent message to attend Parliament House, as the proposed amendment to the Liquor Act was about to be dealt with. I attended the House, and was asked certain questions. I said we were still prepared to do what we could in any shape or form if the amendment, as we wanted it, went through. Later. I was shown a copy of the draft of the proposed Bill, but intimated that I was not satisfied with* it. But the brewers were now on the scene, and were determined not to allow the passage of legislation permiting us to sell liquor by the single bottle. They thought that if that were done the trade of the hotelkeepers would be injured. Later on, when I complained to a prominent Labour man of the way we had been treated, he said: ‘lf was getting £50,000 or £60,000 out of it, and you got the amended Act, it would be cheap for you at the price.’ ’ A Member: There is £25 of my money here, and I want to know what has become of it. At our last meeting there was no balance-sheet, and the secretary was not present, and tonight neither the secretary nor the treasurer is here, and you have no bal-ance-sheet. This is not a matter of politics, in any case. The Chairman: When you subscribed the £25 it was political means you were trying to obtain. The Member: When we subscribed our money it was agreed that it should be held in trust until it was decided how it should be spent. No decision lias since been reached. The Chairman: A decision was reached, but surely you did not expect to be told how the money was spent? Our organiser resigned his position because he found he could not get a free hand in spending the money. He wanted unlimited sums to % spend just how and when he liked without any questions being asked. I was told that we did not get the Act amended as we desired it because we did not pay for it. The trouble was that the Government would not trust us, and we would not trust them. A Member: The money was not used for the purpose for which it was raised. i The Chairman: How do you know? I say it was, but we are not prepared to show a balance-sheet. How could we, in the circumstances? If the Government had been honourable with this association, we would have got the Act amended, and according to what I was told there would have been no doubt about it if we had paid the money over before the Bill went before the House. In fact, the amendment was up for sale to the highest bidder. It was decided to call a special meeting within a month to further discuss the question.