TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 110, 5 November 1937, Page 8

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

STATE INTERVENTION

PRINCIPLE OPPOSED

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

TIMARU, November 4,

"That as the true function of a Government is to govern, this conference considers there should be less public intervention in and control of industry, trade, and commerce. It is recognised that legislation may be required for the curbing of private activities that would be harmful or contrary to the general interests of the community, but interference beyond that point is destructive to initiative, enterprise, and self-reliance." This remit, moved by Mr. A. R. Hislop, Wellington, and seconded by Mr. R. H. Nimmo, Wellington, was adopted by the conference oil the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand today. Mr. Hislop said many vital inroads had been made in the past in the inherent prerogatives of the great taxpaying commercial community, with attendant usurpation, under Socialistic doctrines, of business privileges and functions. That big section of the trading public must continue to view a continuation of these principles with serious thought and alarm. There was almost no department of social life into which Government direction was not entering, and, by a rigid and unbending influence, bringing about a state of upset and disintegration. He hoped the remit would be accepted as a wellmeant, healthy, and constructive truism. INITIATIVE WEAKENED. In seconding the remit Mr. Nimmo said Mr. Hislop had suggested a return to the old well-proven principles' of freedom of individual thought, initiative, enterprise, courage, and self-reliance, which, in effect, meant individualism. "It was these traits in the character of our race that built up the British Empire asf exemplified in the colonisation of this country, the centennial of which we are, with pride, shortly to celebrate. The great danger to which democracy is subject, is that as governments tend more and more to give assistance to industry and to the people as a whole, their own capacity for self-help and initiative beI comes progressively weakened. It is !the struggle for existence that brings out the finest traits in human character and builds up the power and prestige of a nation. You have only to look at the achievement of the pioneers of this country, to appreciate this. They had no help from any Government. They hewed out the native bush and put up with all sorts of inconveniences and hardships. As a result of their energy and initiative, we have inherited a country that is a credit to their Pioneering .efforts and a credit to the British Empire. J would suggest that the chief duty of £c Government is to administer justice, and suggest that they do so with as W interference to the liberty of the people as possible. While it is appreciated that there are many apparLt advantages to be obtained by Government regulations and other interferences in trade and commerce, 1 but it to you that-these advantages, in nTost Uses, are not real for the reason I that the price paid in loss of Jiberty StwSSis any temporary , advantage gSd It is a truism that as he llloS^^ind^ fntefinto contracts for the purchase °rMr atep! £M OcL?an (GreymouM said they should not be harKS^Jjy Government regulations, which were killVS?* carried unanimously. UNFULFILLED PROMISES. In moving a remit, "That the conference views vrtth/oncemthe^ ernment's announced policy of single ownership of the transport industry^! New Zealand," Mr. F. Freeman (Canterbury) hoped the Government would abSi itsWnt policy or viej toe position with an open mind.. He saia" it was quite easy to run a public businessifV public purse was^ available at all times and the Budget mampulated in their favour. When the present Minister took office all thought a fairy wand would be waved over industry, but the promises -hadl not been fulfilled. The ultimate effect of the policy would be that no industry would be permitted to use its own vehicles for the carriage of its own goods if they would come in competition with the railways. A monopoly for the railways would result in exploitation, which usually led to m--6 Mr^A^W. Welsted, representing the Railway Department, said he had no knowledge of any policy the part of the Government of single ownership of the transport industry. Replying to criticism of the transport system, Mr. Welsted said the objective of the Railway Department was to equalise rates as far as possible and to eliminate the cut-throat competition which had prevailed in the last ten years. He contended that the Department had greatly improved the services which had been taken over. The remit was amended to read: "That this conference, views with concern the Government's increasing acquirement of private land transport undertakings in New Zealand, and this was carried.