Labour against wide nationalisation

Press, 11 June 1977, Page 2

Labour against wide nationalisation

PA Palmerston North i ! The Labour Party was not; (interested in a widespread; .programme of national-] 'isation, said the Leader of] (the Opposition (Mr Rowling); yesterday. I’ Direct'State control of in-; jdustry was not wanted by' I New Zealanders nor would; it result in gains to society,] |he said in an address pre-] I pared for delivery to a busi-j jness studies lecture pro-; !gramme at Massey Univer-1 , sity. I Mr Rowling said that m i industry today, organisational power was mostly held by management and not ]the owners. Swapping the public bureaucrat for a pri-, vate bureaucrat would not. therefore, make a great deal of difference. "What is much more im-] portant is whether the or-; ganisation concerned is man-, aged in the country's inter-' est and whether New Zealanders are in control,” he] isaid. . i Mr Rowling said he be-i lieved the State already had; ample power to ensure that! 'the private sector’s activities] Iwere conducted in the' ! nation’s interest.

if In terms of ownership [there was already a reasonable balance between the 11 public and private sectors. ; “What a Labour Governr intent would do is to ensure 'j that existing powers were [exercised in a positive and ’[constructive manner and ini [[the best interests of the h community,” Mr Rowling [said. i Labour would again use' [[the Development Finance ['Corporation to develop highrisk but potentially profitable industries which [ New Zealand required. • The activities of overseast owned concerns would also > be subjected to the closest .[scrutiny, he said. Mr Rowling outlined I [moves such as wage and price control which National ■[Governments had taken but I which should be “anathema• [to a private-enterprise Gov-1 [ernment.” National Governments hadi i increasingly become pre-; I pared to accept State inter-1 •■vention on a large scale, he lisaid. ! It was. therefore, para[doxical that in a country as flsocialist as New Zealand thei meaning of socialism should :

:be so misunderstood, Mr! (Rowling said. ( Many people apparently! (equated socialism with com-1 (munism — but the two (could not be further apart. I Mr Rowling said that al-! (though Labour had been in! (power 14 years, its progress' I along the path towards State' (ownership had not run. [Significantly ahead of publicj [demand or acceptance, and! (very few of its decisions had: ibeen vastly altered.