The Southland Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1941. State Control in Peace Time

Southland Times, Issue 24597, 20 November 1941, Page 4

The Southland Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1941. State Control in Peace Time

THE MINISTER of Industries and 4- Commerce had something to say about the extension of Government control when he addressed the conference of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation on Tuesday. Regulations which have been introduced as necessary war-time measures will be removed “as soon as it is expedient” after the return of peace. But Mr Sullivan explained, not without relish, that other methods of control have nothing to do with the war, and that these will be retained. He suggested fairly plainly, indeed, that control is to be tightened and widened in the Dominion’s post-war economy. “There are individuals and groups of individuals both here and in other lands who have firmly fixed their faith to what they call freedom,” he said. “What is that freedom? Is it not freedom to exploit, to cut or unduly raise prices, to create uneconomic competition and redundancy? Actually it is not freedom; it is licence.” The context of these comments made it clear that the Minister was thinking mainly of industrial and trade matters; but his choice of words was at least unfortunate. “Freedom” is not a word to be treated lightly at the present time. It is the watchword of enslaved peoples who hope some day' to be free once more to govern theiiown countries and adopt theii - own ways of life. Those who are fighting to help such peoples are willingly' surrendering many of their rights and liberties so that the war can be fought with a greater power and efficiency. But they understand, and have been told often enough by their leaders, that their liberties will be restored to them; and by liberties they mean a great deal more than the basic privilege of electing their own Governments.

Freedom and Security

Mr Sullivan spoke as if “freedom” and “licence” were interchangeable terms, and in failing to define a genuine freedom he seemed to imply that it is somehow dependent on State control. The fallacy here is the belief, much too widely' held in all the democracies, that freedom is synonymous with economic security. It is true that freedom can be precarious and somewhat barren without security; it is equally true that a security purchased by the surrender of rights and liberties is not much better than a voluntary en- | slavement. If the question is confined to economic life it can still be shown that Mr Sullivan’s opinion of Government control is highly debatable. A complete freedom in trade and industry may mean competitive methods and prices, even exploitation: it would be foolish to deny that private enterprise has been free from abuse and -weaknesses. But can it be said that Government control miraculously removes the weaknesses without disclosing some of its own? If it makes an end of uneconomic competition, it harnesses enterprise in a network of restrictions, often invented by civil servants with no practical experience in business life. Traders and manufacturers are confronted by a bureaucracy which inevitably aims at the extension of its own powers. Instead of dishonest traders there may be dishonest or ignorant officials. The danger of exploitation is replaced by the danger of corruption; and although New Zealand has been happily free of venality in high places it cannot expect to remain free indefinitely if it accepts the political system under which authoritarian evils have flourished in other lands. There is also the position of the consumer. So far the extension of State control has not brought him many notable benefits. Fruit is generally dear, and there have been too many occasions when indispensable lines have been unprocurable. Fish is probably dearer than it has ever been before. Import control is admittedly necessary in war time; but women who have had to scramble in the shops for silk stockings may not enjoy this particular type of freedom.

The True Objective

No doubt experience, and the protests of an angry public, will bring reforms in the present system of administration. But there is just as i 1 much need, probably a greater’ need, to protect civil liberties from politicians and officials as there was to protect them from unscrupulous tradesmen and employers. Mr Sullivan spoke as if State control would be extended as a matter of course. It did not seem to occur to him that after the war there might be a strong public reaction against authoritarian methods. A nation that has had to endure irksome and frequently petty restrictions for several years may experience a revulsion of feeling when the danger is past. Thousands of young men, returning from the close discipline of army life, may be in no mood to tolerate a wider authority at home. The war has aroused in the people a new and stronger - faith in the liberties for which their sons have been fighting, When all the facts of war-time administration come up for discussion it may be discovered that control and efficiency do not always go together. There cannot, in the nature of things, be a return to laissez-faire. Some measure of control is necessary in an age of technical development. But the Government will have to realize that control of any kind is intolerable unless it is accompanied by an adequate protection of civil liberties. Economic security is only a beginning. There must also be security from injustice, sectional privilege and bad government. The major political and social objective of the post-war years should be, not to establish a wider control, but to find ways of making control and democracy compatible. Otherwise democracy will perish.