GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 9 August 1928, Page 8

GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS

LABOUR REPORTS

EXAMPLE I'OR NEW ZEALAND

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight < oinmittcc.)

The admission of the Queensland Labour Covetnmeut that its attempt to nationalise the industries of the State lias proved a failure is of world wide importance and interest. Mr .McCormack, the Premier of the State, who made this confession on behalf of his colleagues and himself at the May Convention of the 'Labour Party in Brisbane, is entitled to much credit for his candour. He still maintained that there would be nothing wrong with the trading plank in the party’s platform, if the workers were ready to give adequate social service to the community ; but lie admitted that this social service had not been forthcoming. The Government, lie told the Convention, had been absolutely compelled lo close down the Stale's business enterprises because it, could not get the service, necessary to render them sufficiently profitable to justify their continuance. tie quoted 'specific instances in which State enterprises launched mainly for the ( weH'ave of the workers had been wrecked by inefficient, service. These experiences, lie explained, were among tho reasons that had turned him front nationalisation towards ownership by (he people in the industry. New Zealand lias not yet gone the lengths Queensland did in this respect, but it has been coquetting for many years,, Jong before the advent of the present Government, with various business undertakings which over and over again have been shown to be incompatible with the legitimate functions of the State. SOME INSTANCES Take, for instance, tho case of the electrical supply traders. When the Electric Power Boards Act was placed upon the Statute Book -in 1918 it certainly never was intended that these traders were to be driven out of business by subsidised State trading. It was assumed that the supply authorities, save in exceptional circumstances, would confine their operations to distributing current, but no sooner were they firmly established than many of them began competing with the private ■traders in practically every branch of their activities. Supplied with cheap capital, freed from taxation, exempt From loegl rates, and with the goodwill of a benignant Government behind them, they started out with enormous advantages over their rivals. Yet tho Public Works Statement of last year lecordcd that eleven of these , boards had made Kisses on their trading operations aiid implied that others had failed to produce, balance-sheets giving any intelligible, idea of their transactions. Then there is the case of the privatelyowned gas companies in competition with municipal and State concerns of the same character. The Wellington iGas Company during the last six years lias paid on an average £17,000 a year, in land and income taxes, local rates, annual licenses and other charges, while the Auckland Gas Company during the same period lias paid an. average of £33,793 a year. Both these companies are in active competition with municipal concerns that are exempt from these heavy charges, and the fact that they hold * their own under such conditions suggests that the State and Municipal .'enterprises in New Zealand sadly require the same close investigation as Mr ‘McCormack has applied to those in •Queensland. THE PLAIN PATH Cases of Government and Municipal intrusion ppon private business in this country could be quoted in dozens. The experiences of the electrical traders and the gas companies are only examples of funfair interference by the State with enterprises that are constantly under the observation of the public without more than fraction of the public realising the difficulties with which they are contending. The sawmillers and nurserymen, thanks largely to their iteration and reiteration of protests against unfair competition from the State,, appear to have made some progress towards obtaining < a measure of justice;' but their relief as yet is only on the ihorizon, so- to speak, and they still have some distance to go before reaching the goal of their aspirations. They are fortunate, however, compared with those. engaged in many other industries. The remaining list of grievances to be removed is so formidable, indeed, that the Government may be excused some hesitancy in approaching its task. But the public, which is every bit as much concerned in this matter as are the individuals immediately affected by unfair State trading, has a right to‘expect that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industries and Commerce will be as prompt and courageous in dealing with the problem as the Labour Premier of Queensland was in dealing with a similar problem in his own country.