STATE IN BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 56, 9 March 1929, Page 8

STATE IN BUSINESS

A SOCIALIST'S VIEW

1 (By the Nineteen' Twenty-Eight

Committee.)

It is gratifying to find so ardent a Socialist as Mr. E. J. Howard, the Labour member for Christchurc'h South;" leaning so far towards sano democracy as to admit that when the State goes into business it should be subject to the same charges and obligations as are imposed upon private enterprise in similar circumstances. His confession 'of faith is so frank and logical that it cannot bo presented more happily than in his own language. "I find myself in accord with some of the ideas atout State trading,'' he writes in a Christchurch newspaper. "For instance, if Mr. Private Enterprise opens up a quarry to supply stone, he immediately comes under certain Acts of Parliament that compel him to do certain things to protect his workmen. .He, must insure them under tho Workers' Compensation for Accident Act. If an accident happens he is liablo for compensation at once. But the State, which is the largest quarry owner and employs more men in quarry and tunnel work than all the private employers put together, is exempt from that Act. Why? Of course, there arc not many cases where the State has refused to pay compensation for accident, but it' can refuse,' There are a thousand and one such cases that could be cited where the State does not come under the same penalties as private employers."

Mr. Howard goes on to emphasise the fact that if an employer neglects >to protect his machinery and a worker is killed or injured the private employer can be sued under common law for damages. The State, however, is exempt from any action of such a nature. Everything done, by the State is done in tl>o name of the King, and tho King can do no wrong. Having relieved himself of this confession of faith, Mr. Howard, as if by way, of propitiating his old Socialistic creed, declares'that "to a very large extent this parrot-cry of interference .with business .is pure bunkum." This is just about'as far'as the arguments of the average Socialist go. But Mr. Howard having divested himself of party bias and party prejudice tells us that the cases of ' unfair trading he has quoted are typical of '' a thousand and one such cases which might be cited where tho State does not come under the same penalties as private enterprise." . - Surely with such, evidence as this before him, Mr. Howard should have been among the first to enrol tinder the slogan of ".More business in Government and less Government' in business." Ho knows full well that private employers of labour areno;fc required, merely to make monetary provision for the relief of their workers in,case of accident. There, are a number of other ■ obliga-tions—interest-on .capital, taxes, rates, insurance,, licenses, and so'forth—they must meet before, (begin to reap any reward fqr themselves. Surely so frank a critic as'the member for Christchurch South has shown himself to be, will not allow these thousand and one cases of injustice to continue without, joining in the effort' to secure their removal.