PROHIBITION REFERENDUM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 97, 18 January 1921, Page 8

PROHIBITION REFERENDUM

NOT TO BE TAKEN IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

The New South Wales Government has definitely abandoned the proposal to take a referendum on the question of prohibition this year. The Premier, Mr. Storey, said the time was not opportune to introduce the issue in New South Wales. He added that the Government was satisfied it had the power to ignore the: Jaw which provides for a referendum before June 30 next. Tho decision of the Government was the outcome of the report of the Compensation Assessment Board, which estimated! that the total amount of compensation payable if prohibition were put into effect would bo £12,610,479, says tho “Herald.” . Judge Hamilton wns tho chairman ot the board, and the other members wore Mr. E. Stooke (representing the liquor interests) and Mr. H. M. Hawkins (representing the advocates of prohibition). The report stated that the inquiries covered 17 breweries, four maltsters, four distillers, 60 wine producers and vignerons, 253 G owners of hotels, and about 1300 licensees of hotels, saloons, etc. The board declared its inability to estimate compensation to employees in the industry, but set out tho appended estimate of the amounts that would be parable on a basis of capitalisation at B}' per cent, of the profits of the trade done in 1918. Since 1918, the report said, there had been a big increase of profits, so that if the estimates were based on either 1919 or 1920 figures the compensation would be still hoarier: —

Compensation to— Brewers and maltsters ... £2.815.617 Wino growers and producers 1,104.207 Owners and lessees of premises 5,416,657 Licensees 3,243.998 Total £12,610.479 Premier Explains Decision. "There is not the slightest reason to seek further the motive which has prompted the Government to decide not to hold the liquor referendum this year,” said Mr. Storey. “Tho Treasurer is having the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient money to carry on the work of Government and to finance certain urgent and necessary public works, as well as to cope with the growing problems of unemployment, and at a t-me like this lie Government was being urued *o held a referendum on the liquor question which would cost at least £56,600 to conduct; while, if prohibition werei carried, the State would be committed, according to tho report now published, to an expenditure of £12,500,000 for compensation to licensed victuallers, to say nothing of tho amount to bo paid to the thousands of employees who would, for n time at any rate, be thrown out of work. "There is another contingency which cannot be overhoked,” added Mr. Storey. “Judging by the poll at the last State general elections, the important issue of prohibition would pro Babiy be decidied 1 on a vote of from 4n per cent, to 50 per cent, of the electors. In the event of prohibition being carried in such circumstances, there must inevitably follow an agitation for a further referendum on account of the smallness of the poll, and the. result might bo a reversal of the previous decision. The cost involved in the two references in such case would be ,1100,<ioo, while the Government would have been committed to the payment of compensation to the extent of approximately £14,000,000 in respect of prohibition for a period of three years.”