Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, SEPT. 20, 1948 STATE ENTERPRISE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 97, 20 September 1948, Page 4

Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, SEPT. 20, 1948

STATE ENTERPRISE

It is often argued by the supporters of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, that the State, as a monopoly, can handle any business better and more economically than private enterprise. That looks , like logic. But do facts in this country prove it? Take Mr Semple’s railways statement, for instance. With record revenue, this State-control-led monopoly showed a net loss on the year’s working of £640,025. Estimated loss for the year to end next March is £900,000 on an estimated revenue of £18,093,000 compared with the revenue for- the year just past of £17,070,827. Well, this might be efficient management, this might be- economic control, this might be better handled than private enterprise can do it, but it is certainly no advertisement for State control. And few people will be prepared to believe that any private enterprise would run its affairs that way. Not if it intended to survive. Can one imagine the appalling consequences if the whole of the country’s production and distribution were put on the same “economic” basis. One shudders at the thought. But Mr Semple puts up two good excuses for some of the loss

—increases in wages and fuel costs. The latter is worthy of careful examination. Locomotive fuel costs rose by £673,000, due to the increased use of imported coal and fuel. oil. Mr Semple stresses the fuel situation, dwells on the shortage of New Zealand coal, but does not point the finger at the cause. Why? Is it not fact that the industrial unrest Government apologists are always trying to tell us does not exist is a prime cause of the shortage he bemoans? Is it not fact that there has been terrific loss "of coal production due to strikes? And can it be honestly said that mines taken over by the State in recent years are producing as fully and as smoothly as they had done under private management? This is not an attempt to push the barrow of any one political party, It is an attempt to show, on official figures that at least one State enterprise is not being run on lines that would satisfy private shareholders. Whatever might be said against private monopolists (and there is plenty), the efficiency of such monopolies cannot be denied. Any who believe the same can be said of Sta'te monopolies should study the railways statement, and fit it into the whole, disturbing industrial picture of present day New Zealand.