STATE CONTROL

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 168, 18 July 1945, Page 7

STATE CONTROL

TAKING OVER OF BANK

"IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY"

O.C. WELLINGTON, this day , The taking over of the Bank of New Zealand by the Government was not a step on the road," but was ■ designed to be the full implementation of State control of all means of production, distribution and exchange, declared Mr. W. W. Mulhollanci, president of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, in addressing the annual conference of the union today.

The proposal, said Mr. Mulholland involved, the State's right to determine whether an individual should use his own personal credit, and for what pui pose. It aimed to the State the right to pay the exporting farmer m what debased currency it chose, and to determine what he might buy with the proceeds. It would establish State patronage of the few who were allowed to°have exchange or credit as a boon conferred by the almighty State. It represented many milestones on the road towards the control of the individual by the State.

-It is noteworthy," Mr. Holland added, "that the intention stated is not the control of credit policy, which a Government might reasonably aim to do, but to control the credit of the individual—a very different thing. This policy cuts across some of the mam principles of the Atlantic Charter.

'•In this issue, raised most pointedly by the proposed taking over of the Bank of New Zealand, the freedom of the people of New Zealand is involved. State control is the antithesis of personal freedom. You cannot have State control of human activities as is intended in the policy of the State control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—the whole range of human activities—and allow personal freedom.

"Fundamental Error"

Describing as a fundamental error in thought the reference by advocates of State control to the State and the people as though they were synonymous terms, Mr. Mulholland declared that the State was not the people. It was an institution, he said, set up by the people to serve the people. As a servant it was capable of immense good. Elevate the State to the position of master and it became potent for evil. The great difference between the Nazi ideal and the British ideal was that Nazi-ism regarded the individual as of no importance himself, and only important so long as he could serve the State. This idea was fundamentally opposed to Christian teaching. It led directly to the concentration camp.

Referring to the co-operative movement, Mr. Mulholland said this was a social movement, but not a socialistic one. It was very different from State control. In his opinion it was the next development in individual enterprise, and a logical one. "We must, however, be on our guard to see that the form of cooperation is' not used to deprive us of our freedom," he said.