CORPORATE CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 16, 13 October 1927, Page 18

CORPORATE CONTROL

(To the Editor). Sir, —When, in your issue of September 15, the N.Z. Alliance committed the indiscretion of numbering a series of questions to be answered by the Licensing Reform Association, it evidently did not realise that it could not successfully return to its usual method of groundless assertion, vague innuendo, and misrepresentation As the correspondence on the subject of Corporate Control has developed the Alliance has made several attempts to break away from the ordered sequence of its questions and “the clear and concise” answers supplied by the Licensing Reform Association in your issue of September 16. After repeated requests on our part tho Alliance lias apparently finished its futile attempt to fault tho answers given. In its latest letter tho Alliance says “wo have now had two evasive epistles that have failed to clear up the following points:—(l) Why does the liquor'trade want the ballot-paper to read ‘State Purchase’ if it is selling itself its own business?”—(That point has already been fully cleared up—the liquor trade has not committed itself in the direction indicated at all.) “(2) Boes the L.R.A. claim that Corporate Control can be introduced and made effective without any’ legislative appropriation of, public monies in connection therewith ?” (The answer is ‘yes,’ and it will be.the duty of Parliament, as previously pointed out, to 1 safeguard the interests of the State in this matter.) "(3),Why did the L.R.A. Secretary fail to make it clear to vour readers that the profits of tho retailers tiro not to bo limited, and that it is not proposed that the retailers shall become partners in the Corporation?’ Every public pronouncement on the Corporate Control proposals must bo based on the proposals as they stand. From the outset it has been perfectly clear that the retailers do not become shareholders in the Corporation. It is also clear that the system under which the retailers will operate is to be completely changed under Corporate Control. Tho retailer will in every case become the tenant of the Corporation. Regulations will be drawn up for the purpose of safeguarding the public interest in regard to the retailing of alcoholic beverages. It is common knowledge that the retail prices of liquor aro standardised to-day. It is as well to point out that those licensees who are also owners of their properties will become shareholders in the Corporation to tho value of their P T?ere^are none so blind as those who will not see. The foregoing points have been perfectly clear to anyone who intelligently read the Corporate Control proposals with an open mind. The Alliance proceeds with a pretence of dealing with the questions and answers from number five onwards. It is a poor pretence and sustains itself on misrepresentation and avoidance. Number 5. • We stated and repeat that if prohibition is ever subsequently carried the State would be entitled to onefifth of tho material assets of the Corporation. The alliance makes the childish.comment, "Very good; will he kindly enumerate those assets?” Tbcse assets will consist of the actual valuation of the properties and plant, etc., as they would stand if prohibition without compensation had been carried. Boes the alliance suggest that we should provide an inventory ? No. 6: The original question was: “Is it not true that during that ten years the trade is guaranteed a dividend of 10 per cent, on a greatly inflated capital?” The answer was that there was no guarantee whatever. It was so plain that a child could understand it. It is believed that the profits will permit of considerable sums being handed to the State for public purposes, but there is no guarantee whatever that the shareholders will receive 10 per cent. It is possible that the profits available for distribution will not permit of 10 per cent, being paid. The dividends distributed and the amounts available after this distribution for public purposes will depend entirely on the results of the business as a trading concern. The only guarantee connected with the corporate control proposal is that the State cannot lose, Fnd will in all probability derive considerable sums for devotion to various public purposes. , . No. 7: That the shares will be marketable merely means that they will bo open for sale or purchase at their value, whatever that may be. The term “trade” is misused in an extraordinary manner by the prohibitionists. If any of them, as individuals, purchased brewery shares to-day, or shares in the corporate control corporation, if and when it comes into effect, they would become a part of the “trade” immediately. Does the New Zealand Alliance not realise that tho shareholders in the various businesses of- the “trade” aro human beings like themselves? Does it not realise that these- shareholders are just as keen to have their money well invested as their fellows, and that the value of those shares is governed by all the circumstances that go to govern the value of any shares in any business in the country. No. 8: We have stated that there is no suggestion that compensation shbuld bo paid to the corporation should prohibition be subsequently carried. It is childish for the New Zealand Alliance to endeavour to cast doubt upon the bona tides of this statement. As the Act is framed to-day, and as no doubt it will be framed in the future, the issue submitted to the electors on the ballotpaper is as governed by section 56 of the Licensing Amendment A..t. 1918, sub-section (1), clause (B), “That no compensation shall bo paid to any owners of property, or to licensees, or to any persons engaged or employed in the trade in alcoholic liquor.” Once again we repeat that in providing (or the submission of the corporate control issue it will be tho duty of Parliament to ..safeguard the public interests in all matters. No. 9 is not dealt with by the New Zealand Alliance. It was certainly a ridiculous question in the first place, and’ no doubt the alliance desires to forget it. The concluding paragraph of the alliance letter can best bo described as “bosh." It has boon made perfectly clear to the public and to the alliance that corporate control does not "involve State purchase.” The retailers will be tenants of tho corporation, and their business will bo governed by regulations ensuring a proper service to the public. The Licensing Reform Association asks that corporate control be submitted to the electors on the ballot paper, because it believes that it will prove to bo the most effective measure in the interests of true temperance ever attempted in any country. May wo hone for an end to the New Zealand Alliance’s misrepresentations in your correspondence columns? —I am, etc., R. A. ARMSTRONG. Dominion Secretary, N.Z. Licensing Reform Association. Wellington, October 10.