GOVERNMENT AND SECURITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23648, 4 November 1938, Page 10

GOVERNMENT AND SECURITY

In his presidential address to the annual conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, Mr A. G. Lunn, of Auckland put forward some particularly thoughtful ideas on the relations that might be expected to exist between Government and industry, and from that start-ing-point went on to discuss a few of the more striking implications of the Government’s proposals to provide social security for the people of this Dominion. While Mr Lunn broke no new ground in his consideration of these matters, what he had to say was of interest because of the authorities whose opinions he took occasion to cite. Mr Lunn began by quoting the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Mr Chamberlain, in these terms: “ Broadly speaking, it seems to me the proper function of Government in relation to industries is not to cramp or to suppress individual initiative; it is rather to try to create the conditions under which the activities of trade and commerce can most successfully be carried out.” The Government in New Zealand does not seem to take the same enlightened view of its responsibility for the encouragement of industrial development. And it is precisely because of the clash of ideas thus indicated that businessmen throughout the country find it impossible to anticipate the industrial future with feelings other than those of concern, despite the fact that they realise that their duty, whatever the political circumstances, is to co-operate with all State-directed effort to the limits of their capacity. Industry is justified in feeling that it is being unduly embarrassed by State interference in a sphere where it has traditionally enjoyed reasonable freedom of judgment and of action. The State is itself, on an everincreasing scale, entering the competitive field formerly reserved to private enterprise. More than that, it is seeking, to a disturbing extent, itself to direct productive effort, to control distribution, and to dictate such conditions of employment as it believes to be in the best interests of the mass of the people. But, as Mr Lunn shows very clearly, industry must continue, regardless of contrary theory, to offer the main opportunities for permanent employment for a majority of the people, as well as to produce the far greater part of the wealth upon which the national revenues and national stability must rely. Mr Lunn insists that the urgent need of the moment is for farsightedness in the administration of the national finances, and this implies the restoration of industrial confidence and the revitalising of industry as a whole by the granting of relief from the onerous burden of taxation and the reduction of bureaucratic control to a minimum. Industry cannot be expected to play its part in the maintenance of a sound internal economy if it is to be subjected to continual restrictive interference, if its plans for expansion are to be frustrated by a virtual confiscation of profits, and if it is to be prevented from attracting the State’s workless units into permanent and fruitful channels of production. This problem of the restoration of a proper balance in the national economy bears a very definite relation to that arising out of the Government’s plans for the operation of its social security legislation. Mr Lunn leans upon a distinguished American authority on political economy, Dr T. N. Carver, of Harvard University, for support of the contention that the only practical method of ensuring security for the mass of the people is to expand industry to the point of providing every competent worker with a productive job. “It is only in an atmosphere of freedom,” Dr Carver has said, “ that creative work of the highest order is ever done. We still recognise this in every field except business. We insist on freedom of speech and of the press, freedom in religion, in scientific investigation, in education. It is equally important, if we could only see it, that there shall be freedom in productive work. ..It is important that money raised to provide social security shall not be raised in such a way as to create social insecurity. If it is raised in such a way as to repress industries, to cause the closing down of industries or prevent new ones from starting, you will increase unemployment. That will destroy one kind of security while trying to create another kind.” These comments were made apropos of American conditions. but it is impossible to dispute their relevance to existing condh tions in this country, where industry labours so largely under the threat of crippling restraints in one form or another. There is no wisdom discoverable in a policy of extravagant State spending while other factors operate to block the very sources on which the State is compelled to rely for its spending power.