THE STATE IN BUSINESS

Taranaki Daily News, 23 July 1929, Page 16

THE STATE IN BUSINESS

UNFAIR COMPETITION.

A BASIS OF SETTLEMENT.

(By “1928” Committee).

In the course of his speech in the Address-in-Reply' debate in the House of •Representatives recently, Mr. H. E. Holland said he had found himself wondering whether when the Government’s promised legislation to restrain State trading came down, it would affect the State Advances Department, the Public Trust Office, the Post Office Sav- ! ings Bank and a number of other I institutions which clashed with the legal | fraternity, the financial institutions and “other profiteering concerns.” Mr. Holland, as a member of Parliament, or, indeed, as a member of the community, had a perfect right to interest himself in the intentions of the Government in regard to the' unfair interference of the State with legitimate private enterprise. No doubt by and by Sir Joseph Ward will be plea'sed to place at his disposal all the information he desires. Meanwhile, however, it is regrettable that the leader of the Labour Party did not wait to see the proposals of the Prime Minister and his colleagues before suggesting, in effect, that the Government was seeking to subordinate the operations of a number of great national institutions to the wishes and interests of “profiteering concerns” which the average observer seems never able to detect, nor Mr. Holland himself to bring to account. EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE. The representatives of legitimate private enterprise are not seeking to deprive the State Advances Department; the Public Trust Office, the Post Office Savings Bank, or any of the other institutions indicated by Mr. Holland, of the functions with which they were entrusted when they were brought into exsitence by the Legislature. What' they are asking for—at least as much in the interests of the public as in the interests of themselves —is that wherever and whenever these institutions enter into competition with private enterprise they shall be subject to the same restrictions, regulations and charges as are imposed upon individuals and companies engaged in the same activities. Surely this is a perfectly legitimate demand. Private enterprise is not looking for any concession or for any privilege. It simply is asking for what the politicians have styled very appropriately, “equality of sacrifice.” If the State engages in business in opposition to private enterprise it should pay the same rates and taxes as the private' trader does, and should be subject to the same rules and regulations and trading obligations as he must observe. Nothing short of this would justify the appearance of the State in business, and its obligations would not end just there. A LEGITIMATE DEMAND. Addressing a conference of the provincial Chambers of Commerce in Auckland the other day, Mr. R. L. Ziman, a leading member of the legal profession who has devoted special attention to this subject, pointed out that it was not only rates and taxes and trading obligations that should be added to the burdens of the State when it entered into competition with private enterprise. The State, he explained, was exempt from much of the industrial legislation which was properly enforced in the case of the private trader. The Factories Act, the Inspection of Machinery Act, the Shops an, 1 Offices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act did not apply to the State. Nor did the stringent provisions of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act, nor the demands of the Harbour Act. Many other enactments of great eonr iercial importance were not binding upon the Crown. Mr. Ziman laid down three principles which, he maintained, must be observed if the State was to enter upon business with any measure of honesty. They were (1) “That State trading activity be carried on under conditions which give it no ; unfair advantage in law over private traders in the same line; (2) that State trading activity be so carried on that its results are capable of accurate comparison with those of private enterprise in the same line; and (3) that State trading activity be carried on in such a form as not to work any hardship upon individuals having no association with it.” Here is a basis on which the Prime Minister very well might proceed in his attempt to shape legislation that will prevent the State encroaching unfairly upon legitimate private trading.