STATE IN BUSINESS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 22 July 1929, Page 8

STATE IN BUSINESS

UNFAIR COMPETITION A BAvSIS OF SETTLEMENT (By Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee) In the course of his speech in the Address-in-Beply debate in the House of Representatives last week, Air 11. E. Holland said lie liad found liimself wondering whether when the Government’s promised legislation to restrain State trading came down, it would affect the State Advances Department, the Public Trust Office, the Post Office Savings Bank and a number of other institutions which clashed with the legal fraternity. the financial institutions ami “other profiteering concerns." Air Holland, as a member of Parliament. or, indeed, as a member of the. community, bad a perfect right to interest himself in the intentions of the Government in regard to the unfair interference of the State with legitimate private enterprise. No doubt by and bv Sir .Joseph Ward will he pleased to place at his disposal all the information lie desires. Meanwhile, however, it is regrettable that the leader of the Labour Party did not wait to see the proposals of the Prime Alinister and his colleagues before suggesting, in effect, that the Government, was seeking to subordinate the operations of a' number of great national institutions to the wishes and interests of “profiteering Coiicerns” which the average observer seems never able to detect, nor Air Holland himself to bring to account. EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE The representatives of legitimate private enterprise are not seeking to deprive the State Advances Department, tile Public Trust Cilice, the Post Office Savings Bank, or any of the other institutions indicated by Air Holland, of the functions with which they were, entrusted when they were brought into existence by the Legislature. What they are asking for —at least as much in the interests of .the public as in the interests of themselves —is that wherever and whenever these institutions enter into competition with private enterprise they shall be subject to the same restrictions, regulations and charges as are imposed upon individuals and companies engaged in the same activities. Surely iliis.is a perfectly legitimate demand. Private enterprise is not looking for any concussion or for any privilege. It simply is asking for wliat the politicians haVe styled very appropriately, “equality of sacrifice.” If t lie ,St ate engages in business in opposition to private enterprise it should pay the same rates' and taxes as the private trader does, and should be subject to the saYno. rules and regulations and trading as he must observe. Nothing .short of this would justify the appearance, of the State in business, and its obligations would not end just there. A LEGITIMATE DEAIANI) Addressing n conference of the provincial Chambers of Commerce in Auckland the other day, Air 1L L. Ziimin, 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 t hat should be added to the burdens of the State when it entered into competition with private enterprise. The State, lie explained, was exempt from much of the industrial legislation which was properly enforced in the case of the private trader. The Factories Act, the Inspection of Machinery Act, the Shops and Offices Act and the Conciliation and 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 Act. Many other enactments of great commercial importance were not binding upon the Crown. Ah Zinian laid down three principles which, he maintained, must be observed if the State was to enter upon business With any measure of honesty. They were (1) “That State trading activity be earned on under conditions which,give it no unfair advantage in law over private'traders .'in the same line; (2) that State trading activity be so carried on that its results are capable of accurate comparison with those of private enterprise in the same line; and (3) that State trading activity be carried on in shell a form as not 'to work any hardship upon individuals having no association with it.” Here is a basis mi which the Prime .Minister very well might proceed ill his attempj/to shape legislation that will prevent, the State encroaching unfairly upon legitimate private trading.