MORE STATE INTERFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 20 May 1929, Page 3

MORE STATE INTERFERENCE

HIGH COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee.) In discussing the question of State interference with private enterprise ii should lie borne in mind that no par ticular Governhient is specially respm sible for the growth of this evil. It i the product of many years in wliic'politicians holding widely differen views in regard to economics and otlie. subjects have sought to promote, t the best of their ability, what the deemed to he the best interests of tin mass of the people. Their efforts to wards this end no doubt were inspired by an honest desire to be of service t the community at a time when tin country was not so well equipped as if is at the present day or when it was passing through such grave crises a; that of the Great War. The 'Government's first entrance upon business, in a more intimate sense than, was the case in the institution of post and telegraph and railway services, was the establishment of tin State Life Insurance Office in 1839 This was followed by the Public Trust Office in 1872 and the State Fire Insurance Office in 1903, It may interest people who wish to blame the politicians responsible for the creation of institutions of this kind to be reminded that Sir William Fox was Premier in 18(59 and 1872 and that the High! Hon. It. J. Seddon was Prime Minis ter in 1903. Within the Iwunds o r their original charters, however, the Public Trust Office and the Insurance Offices have been accepted by the pub lie, and the encroachments of the former need not he discussed j’'.st now. For the present it must suffice to indicate one or two directions in which State interference with private omoi prise operates unfairly. I ho Dominioi is represented in London by a II ig •Commissioner, whose business it is >< look after the affairs of this cuuutr;. ~t the heart of the Empire and to promote its trade and commerce by. every legitimate means. Naturally the Government and the local bodies knovhir that this gentleman lias special facilities for buying and shipping, take advantage of his services whenever ]>os sible." The Fligh Commissioner is in a much better position to drive a hard bargain than any private buyer or shipper could hope to be. It is not suggested that in doing this the Gov-

enunont’s i*e])i*<?soiit:itivc is guilty of any impropriety.. He simply is attending to iiis job. But whether or not it is quite lair that the High Commissioner, whoso services and establishment are charges upon the New Zealand taxpayers, should he employed in buying and shipping for State Departments and local bodies is another question. The private importers in New Zealand have to pay rates, taxes, and numerous overhead charges at the other, while the State is''- exempt from rates and taxes and enjoys many advantages in which the private importer cannot participate. Do whatever he may he cannot escape from Customs duties, wharfage, and other charges from which the State is freed. 'The High Coinmismissioner is so much master of the situation that he has given notice to the suppliers at Home that unless they place the New Zealand Government on lie footing of the most favoured wholesale purchasers he will not deal with them a second time. The agency activities of the High "nm miss inner in l.ondon are not, ol course, the most flagrant examples of the Government’s intrusion upon pri•ate enterprise; but they go some way towards being the most insidious. Though the New Zealand taxpayers ultimately pay for the Commissioner’s excursions into business, there are not a great many traders directly prejudiced ?by these operations. The 'fad, that the direct suppliers arc comparatively few, however, does not lessen the impropriety of the State ousting private enterprise ifrom its legitimate sphere at the expense of a public Jmt obtains no advantage at all from its activities. Kor some years past there has-been a tendency towards an increase in this kind of Government t rad ing and it behoves the authorities to see that it does not continue to expand at the expense of the taxpayers.