ON LIBERTY.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19451, 26 October 1928, Page 10

ON LIBERTY.

TYRANNY OF TODAY. OFFICIALS AND THE LAW. " CLASS BRIBERY "—A DANGER OF DEMOCRACY. "Our liberty is being more and more curtailed, and the Government of tho country is not really in the hands of its elected representatives, but it is practically in the hands of the Civil Service and tho officials who control the country right through." At last year's annual meeting of the Christchurch Citizens' and Ratepayers' Association the president, Mr H« D. Acland, spoke on the modern craze for regulations and for State and municipal interference with private enterprise. At this year's annual meeting, held last night, Mr Acland extended those remarks. Ho made the statement quoted above in the course of his address. He said that last year the Association started a movement which had extended right through New Zealai 1 . Attention had been called then to a tendency which had been going on not only in New Zealand, but elsewhere — the general regulation and interference with business by State and municipal bodies. It was not realised that this was .happening under democracy, and meant the loss of liberty by the ordinary individual. For several months past it had been held against the Government that it had allowed a great deal of interference, and had assisted by the regulations it had made. That was true, and Mr Coates had been blamed, but to his (the speaker's) mind it was not so much a personal matter, but a. matter that affected democracy as a whole, and was not peculiar to New Zealand. Lecky, the historian, 4n his book on "Democracy and Liberty," published in 1897, >.ad written: "No feature is more characteristic of modern democracy than the tendency'io regulate and arrange by law countless industries which were onco left "to private initiative and arrangement." There was no doubt that there had been a «great growth of bureaucratic regulations and interference, and tho fact was that the liberty of the individual was being more and more curtailed. The Government of the country was' not in the hands of the elected representatives; it was practically in the handß of the Civil Service and the officials who controlled the country right through. ■ He knew that this year certain regulations actually were framed and gazetted, although he believed that the Government had not considered them. These regulations were hurriedly repealed after three or four weeks, during which period »they had all the force of law. He suggested that all regulations .made under any statute during the year should remain law only until the meeting of the next session of Parliament, unless confirmed by both Houseß of Parliament, 'thus giving Parliament all opportunity to consider and approve, or disapprove, of such regulations which were, in reality, additions to the statute law of the country. The greater part of State and municipal trading question was an economic one, as sooner or later those undertakings would have to be paid for. They were carried on under favourable conditions and at the expense of competitors in the same trades. They got a subsidy in the form of absence of income tax or rates. They were talking 9 f levying income tax on .municipal trading concerns. Take the municipal market. Did they mean to tell him that such a monstrosity would be allowed to exist if it had been started by private individuals? . It would not be allowed to exist for a week. (Applause.) What happened when private eriterprise was put out of business was that the pric-e was raised to the .consumers. Both railways and tramways all ove* the world would bo losing propositions. The general taxpayer or ratepayer would have to make up that loss. If -the rail" ways and tramways had been private enterprises when they were dropped (as was the case with canals in England) their cost would have been written*off and tho loss would not fall on the taxpayer or ratepayer. Rates were being levied oyer a multitude of thing's in which the public had no interest, but had to pay them. In Christchurch (as in other places) tho , fundamental principle of taxation—'taxation with representation—was being violated. There was one body of electors and another of ratepayers—One class levying the taxos and the other paying them. As a result, they had the j policy, enunciated some years ago, of, "Damn tho ratepayers!" What would bo the outcome if this was carried oh? They knew What had happened in Italy and Spain, where' the people had got sick of democracy'and had preferred a benevolent despotism so that they could have their liberty. During tho present election campaign there was an amount of class bribery by candidates of all Parties, all over the country. Personal bribery was against the law, but class bribery was not, and was very popular, and, 110 cloubt, would help many to get into the House. The indications were that municipal rates would be piled up, despite the statements that they would not be increased. While the rato itself might not be increased, the same result was attained by increasing the valuation' of properties. That could not go 011 indefinitely. They- could not have their liberty taken away—for after all taxation was a restriction on the liberty of the individual. The less taxation the better it was for the community. The nore they were rated the more they were giving subsidies to overseas traders to come and compete against New Zealand traders and prevent the Dominion from developing Its industries and from developing any sort of foreign trade. (Applause.)