Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 19. May 29 1975

The Background

The Background

The liquor industry has long been involved in some of the shadiest dealings in New Zealand's history. For three examples:

In a large number of cases, at least from 1898 onwards, policemen who have attempted to obtain prosecutions of pubs or the breweries have been transferred to other areas. There have also been allegations from time to time that considerable bribery has been going on of the police force by liquor interests.

In 1958 the Price Tribunal set beer prices at 8 d. for 8½ ounces and 6 d. for 5 ounces. These regulations were consistently ignored by the industry amidst widespread public concern, which gained an extra penny profit per glass. Similar machinations to boost profits have been associated with many other price tribunal decisions. If a private individual has broken a Tribunal's decision he would undoubtedly have been arrested and tried, because of the Breweries' political power however, they get away with these illegalities scot-free.

Thirdly, the Auckland Task Force has made many arrests, on occasions actually inside pubs - two or three of which are notorious for drunkeness. Yet not once has a publican ever been arrested for breaking the law (as he is doing in serving drunk people). The Task Force, as with many other aspects of the law, is curiously one-sided.

There are very many other cases in which undue influence has undoubtedly been used by the liquor interests to ensure their point of view gets across. In 1911 they even resorted to outright bribery of politicians and there is widespread belief that the Breweries donate funds to both the major political parties to support their interests, but this is not even necessary. As major financial giants and monopolists, the Breweries have considerable sway over what happens in New Zealand's economy - they could, for example, make a lot of people unemployed tomorrow if they wanted to.

With such power, and their position in the elite of New Zealand industry it is not surprising that neither Labour nor National dares to attack the Breweries. Mr Freer, the Minister of Trade and Industry, announced that the Breweries would be referred to the Commerce Commission (to investigate monopoly) as soon as it was set up. Monopolies investigators have a long history in the States, in Britain and recently in Australia. They have been almost completely ineffectual. For example, after years of litigation the Standard Oil Company, a leading American monopoly (on which Rockefeller wealth is founded) was declared illegal in 1911 and broken up into smaller units. These parts, nominally separate companies, soon had many directors in common and had many negotiations together to rig prices, etc.. Exactly the same would happen in New Zealand if the two big breweries were broken up.

The entire New Zealand Liquor trade is bound up in two companies - New Zealand Breweries Ltd. and Dominion Breweries Ltd.. Apart from a couple of small local concerns, these companies own all the breweries in New Zealand, own a large, and increasing, number of hotels, and have many more hotels 'tied' to them by forcing the licensee to take only one type of beer. In recent years there has been a stepping up of such activities - nearly all the new hotels built in New Zealand are owned and operated by the breweries, and many existing independent hotels are being bought up.. Price control and monopolies are national concerns - they plan on a national basis, they produce on a national basis, they make profits on a national basis. The only thing that is not national about them is their ownership - all this national activity goes to pay high dividends to a very small number of New Zealanders. The cries about "free enterprise" Can thus be seen as the farces they are — attempts by people making large profits to restrict anybody elses' ability (such as the people they are exploiting) to take the profits away from them.

It's a goddamn shame, that's what it is, a goddam crying shame

It's a goddamn shame, that's what it is, a goddam crying shame

The liquor trade has always had far stronger financial resources than its opponents. In the mid 1950's when Porirua was facing a trust proposal, the breweries subsidised lavish publications arguing their case (or more correctly, deceiving and distorting). They were narrowly defeated - yet the breweries spent considerable funds from then trying to frustrate the popular vote - trying to persuade the Trust to dissolve itself, for example. And at various-commissions set up to examine the liquor industry the breweries have always had expensive lawyers to present their case and appeal it as far through as possible.

The essence of the breweries' position is that it is being as rational as possible in protecting its interests. Yet all its interests - planning, producing, building, and so on, are all geared, not to social needs but to the making of profits. The local corner pubs, recommended by the most recent liquor commission, in the interests of more social and reasonable drinking have nowhere yet appeared. Quite clearly the reason is because they might encourage discourse and moderate habits - both against the need for as many as possible to drink as much as possible in as little time as possible. That's what maximising profits is all about.

One last social issue concerns drinking and driving. According to various doctors' estimates, alcohol is involved in over half the fatal accidents on New Zealand roads yearly. Yet the big new "drinking bams" all have massive carparks around them to encourage people to take their cars out to drink It would be facile in the extreme to credit the breweries with all the responsibility for this social problem but it is equally stupid to claim that they are in no way responsible - as they themselves state.