STATE IN BUSINESS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1929, Page 8

STATE IN BUSINESS

UNFAIR COMPETITION

A 13 A SIS OE SETTLEMENT

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee.)

Jn the course of his speech in the Address-in-lteply debate in the House of .Representatives last week, Mr IT. A. Holland said no had found liimself wondering whether when the Govein,cent's promised legislation to restiain State trading came down, it would affect the State Advances Department the Public Trust Office, the Post Office the legal fraternity, the financial .nstitutions and “other profited ing concerns.” Mr Holland, as a member of Parliament, or, indeed, as a mein,er o'l the community, had a period right to interest himself in the intentoils of the Government in regard to .no unfair interference of the State .vith legitimate private enterprise. No loubt by and by Sir Joseph Ward will. ,e pleased to place at his disposal all he information lie desires. Meanwhile, however, it is regrettable that tiie leader of the Labour party did not wait to see the proposals, df the Liime Minister and his colleagues before suggesting, in effect, that the Government :vns seeking to subordinate the pporitions of a number of great national nstitutions to the wishes and intei>sts of “profiteering concerns” which the average observer seems never able to detect, nor Mr Holland himself to bring to account. EQUALITY OE SACRIFICE. The representatives of legitimate private enterprise are not seeking to deprive the State Advances Department, the Public Trust Office, the Post Office Savings Bank, or any of the othei in■titutions indicated by Mr Holland, ol olie functions with which they were entrusted when they were brought into • existence by the Legislature. Wlint •they are asking for —at least as much in the interests of the public as in flic interests of themselves—is that wherever and whenever these institutons enter into competition with private enterprise they shall be subject to the same restrictions ,regulations and charges as are imposefl upon individuals and companies engaged in the same activities. Surely this is i perfently legitimate demand. 11 ivate enterprise is not looking for any concession or for a.iiy privilege. It limply is asking for what the politicians have , styled very appropriately, “ equality of sacrifice.” If the State manges in business in opposition to Private enterprise, it should pay the same rates and taxes as the private trader does, and should he subject to 'he same rules and regulations and trading obligations as lie must observe Nothing short if this would justify 'lie appearance of the State in business, and its obligations would not ml just there. A LEGITIMATE DEMAND. Addressing a conference of the provincial Chambers of Commerce ! in Auckland the other day, Mr R. L. Ziman, a leading member of the legal profession who has devoted special attention to this subject, pointed out that it was .not only rates and taxes and trading obligations that should be added to the burdens of the State when it entered into competitoin with private enterprise. The State, he explained .was exempt from much of the mdustrial legislation which was properly enforced in the case of the pi*ivate trader. The Factories Act, tlie Inspection of Machinery Act, the Shop •uul Offices Act, and the Conciliation •ind Arbitration Act did not apply to the State. Nor did the stringent provisions of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act, nor the demands of- the Harbour \ct. Many other enactments of great commercial importance were not binding upon the Crown. Air Ziman laid down three principles which, ho maintained, must be observed if the .State was to enter upon business with any measure of honesty. They were (I) “That State trading activity be carried on under conditions which give it no unfair advantage in law over pri-

vate traders in the same line; (‘2) that State trading activity can be so carried on that its results are capable of accurate comparison with those of private enterprise in the same line; and 93) that State trading activity he carried on in such a form as not to work any hardship upon individuals having no association with it.” Here is a basis on which the Prime Minister very well might proceed in his attempt to shape legislation that will prevent the State encroaching unfairly upon legitimate private tading.