GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1929, Page 8

GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS

A .SOCIALIST}* (Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee). Jt is gratifying to find so ardent a socialist as Mr E. J. Howard, the Labour member for Christchurch South, leaning so far towards sane democracy as to admit that when the State goes into business it should be subject to the same charges and obligations as are imposed upon private enterprise in similar circumstances. Hs confession of faith is so frank and logical that it cannot be presented tpore happily than in ids own language. “I find myself in accord with some of the ideas about State trading,” he writes in a Christchurch paper. ‘Tor instance, if Mr Private Enterprise opens up a quarry to supply stone He immediately comes under ■certain Acts of Parliament that compel him to do certain things to protect his workmen. He must insure them under the "Workers Compensation for Accident Act. If an accident happens he is liable for compensation at once. I3ut the State, which is the largest quarry owner and employs more men in quarry and tunnel work than all the private employers put together, is exempt from that Act. Why Of course, there are not many cases where the State has refused to pay compensation for accident, but it can refuse. There are a thousand and one such cases that could be cited where the State does not come under the same jienalties as private employes.” Mr Howard goes on to emphasise the fact that if an employer neglects to protect his machinery and a worker is killed or injured the private employer can he sued under Common (.aw for damages. The State, however, is exempt from any action of such a nature. Everything done by the vState is done in the name of the King, and the King can do no wrong. Having relieved himself of this confession of faith, Mr Howard, as if by way of propitiating his old socialistic creed, declares that ‘‘to a very large extent this parrot cry of interference with business is pure bunkum.” This is just about as far as the arguments of the average socialist go.' But Ml Howard, having divested himself of party bias party prejudice, tells, us that the eases of unfair trading he has quoted are typical of “a thousand and one such cases which might he cited where the State does not come under the same penalties as privat enterprise.”

Surely with such evidence as this before him, Mr Howard should have been among tlie first to enrol under tbe slogan of “More business in Government and less Government > ; i business.”

He knows full well that private employers of labour are not merely to make monetary provision for the relief of their workers in case of accident. There are a number oi other obligations—interest on capital, taxes, rates, insurance, licenses, and so forth—they must meet before they begin to reap any reward for themselves. Surely so frank a critic as the member for Christchurch Sou eh has shown himself to he will not allov these thousand and one cases of injutice to continue without joining in the effort to secure their removal.