NATIONALISATION FAILS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16610, 6 December 1919, Page 8

NATIONALISATION FAILS.

LABOUR BEHIND THE TIMES. A TELLING SPEECH. In a recent speech in Dunedin Mr. Dowme Stewart made some interesting remarks on nationalisation. He said that, his opponent (Air. Brown) stated that the Labour Party had for its main purpose to crush out monopolies, and he proceeded to spend the rest of his speech in advocating a whole series of monopolios, including a State monopoly of coal mining, the nationalisation of the food supplies, and bo on. In advocating a State bank, he said it concerned not merely the comfort and happiness, but oven the morality of their fellow citizens. Well, he (Mr. Stewart) had not noticed any marked change in the morality of thq Australians since they established a Stqto bank. (Laughter.) In their daily walk and conversation they seemed to him much the same as they were before the State Bank was established. If -Mr. Brown referred to their commercial morality, one had only to examine .the shocking disclosures in the financial administration of the Defence and other departments during the was, and compare it with New Zealand, where a Royal Commission could find no trace of corruption or mal-adrninis-tration. These enterprises which thq Labour Party wished to turn into State monopolies, were not monopolies at the present time. It was true that tho powers of the State should bo freely used to suppress or take over private monopolies where tho public interest required it, but why wo should proceed to create a large number of now State monopolies without some definite proof that the public would benefit he could not see. Everyone was agreed that what wore known ns natural monopolies should bo ovrned by the State; that was in undertakings whero it was impossible to maintain competition. Experience had shown that in certain undertakings, however many companies might be established, they sooner or later camo to an agreement, and fixed prices without any necessary regard for the public interest. In this category came railways, tramways, gasworks, and similar businesses, and in such cases it had been found necessary for either tho State or municipality to take them over. But in matters of banking, coal-mining, etc., if there was any suspicion that the public was not getting lair play, it was far better for the State to compete with tho existing industries and tho public could then judge which yielded the best result. For example, the State Fire Insurance Office demonstrated that rates eolild bo lowered considerably and yet bo run on a business footing. Again, tho recent inquiry by tho Board of Trade on tho coal question laid bare tho whole operations of tho State coal mines and tho private mines. Each furnished a tost of the other, and it was shown that tho State could not produce coal any more cheaply than a private company. On the other hand, if the State had a monopoly, there was no standard by which to test whether the Government enterprise was efficient-' or inefficient. OUT-OF-DATE SCHEMES. In point of fact the Labour Party, in advocating wholesale nationalisation, was ten years behind tho leaders of radical and progressive thought elsewhere. Vnndervelde, tho groat Belgian Socialist, had shown in a recent book that tho more you nationalised industries the more strongly you entrenched tho present capitalistic system and the present distribution of wealth, and tho more permanently you tied tho bauds of tho wage-earner to tho present industrial system. He said, in clfoct, that those people grossly deceived themselves who supposed that nationalisation was a step towards true Socialism. 'Hu fact, you got further and further away from truo Socialism, which the Labour Party declared as its objective. Many Radical writers had pointed out that if you nationalised an industry, you must buy out the shareholders who wore thereafter guaranteed a fixed income in perpetuity in tho shape of interest on Government debentures. They have no longer to take tho risk of tho enterprise; so that from that point of view nothing was done towards altering tho distribution of wealth.' How did the matter stand from the point of view of the workers engaged in tho industry? Did it .give them any greater freedom, or any more self-control? On tho contrary, their freedom was curtailed, for if the State had a monopoly and they quarrelled with tho State, there was no other employer to whom they could offer their services. If they struck, they had to contend against the whole organised power of the State, which they could only do successfully if they happened to have a strong public opinion on their side. Moreover, their political rights wero curtailed, and they were not allowed to take an active part in politics. Nor did nationalisation by itself make any real progress towards democracy, for it tended to develop a largo body of officials who became autocratic through tho habit of power. All thoughtful writers wore agreed "that the power of officials was a great and growing danger in modem States. In his view, therefore, it was bettor to use tho State power merely for controlling and testing the results of private enterprise and not to crush out all competition, leaving us with the dead uniformity of a State service. Nationalisation was a popular catch’ cry and, so far as he could see, the only people who had kept their heads on this question wore the press, who wished to examine the evidence on the question on its merits. The question hero was on a different footing from what it was in England, where the chief complaint was that huge royalties went into the pocket of private owners; but in New Zealand most of the important coal seams were owned by the Government and when the State sold land it reserved all coal and minerals that mWit bo found. Large sums were paid'ffiv uay of royalties to the Government every year, all of which would be lost to tho general revenue if the mines were nationalised.