STATE AS SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 169, 19 July 1945, Page 7

STATE AS SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE

FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUAL MR. MULHOLLAND ADVOCATES CO-OPERATION (P.A.) Wellngton, July 18 It was a fundamental error in thought of vital importance when advocates of State control invariably referred to the State and the people as though they were synonymous terms, said Mr. W. W. Mulholland, Dominion president of the N.Z. Farmers’ Union, in his address' to delegates at the annual conference today.

“The Slate is not the people; it is an institution set up by the people to serve the people,” he added. “As a servant it is capable of immense good. Elevate the State to the position of master and it becomes potent for evil. The great difference between the Nazi ideal and the Briti h ideal is that Nazism regards the individual as of no importance himself and only important as he can serve the State. This idea is fundamentally oppo.ed to Christian teaching. It leads directly to the concentration camp. “Nor is it correct to say that because State control is authorised by a majority of the people that it is not evil. Majority rule is not necessarily freedom. The individual’s rights transcend the rights of the State, even when expressed by virtue of a majority. This conference may by a majority of one, quite properly direct that T do not give this address. The conference may not —even by unanimous decision—direct what book I shaL read in the privacy of my home. Freedom involves the recognition of the rights of the individual and the State has no right to invade that sphere. The State, quite properly, can make general rules for the conduct <?*’ nu; lives, but when it proceeds io direct us as individuals by individual action what we shall do and where we shall go, then it is exceeding its functions and our freedom is in jeopardy. THE SALE OF FREEDOM

“There is considerable advantage in planning for the future from a nat-on-al point of view. As long as national plann.ng concerns itseff with the provision of the general conditions uncie. which industry and enterprise may freely develop in those di. ections which are decided to be de.irabie, it is all to the good. But the objective of many enthusiastic planners is something much different from this. “Unfortunately to-day f.ee-.om seems to be for sale. One is astounded to find trade union orgmisat.or.s supporting the establishment of monopolies under licence by the Government as indicated, for instance, by a reported decision of the Cante-bury Trades Council of the Federal on Oa Labour when it urged the granting of licences for the manufacture of motor car tyres. The trade unions throughout their early history fought a bitter fight for freedom, and now some of their leaders seem to be willing to sell it. For what? I do not think that the rank and tile of the working men of this country are with them in this attitude.

“Operators in commercial transport have been willing to surrender their freedom at the price of being relieved of competition; manufacturers have been willing to surrender thei. freedom for the protection which the Industiial Efficiency Act gives against competition, and farmers (?) have been dangerously toy.ng with the idea of surrendering their freedom for some State-functioned ‘security.’ “The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Roberts was quite frank when he offered the National Dairy Federation Conference the choice of ‘security or insecurity’ following it with the condition that ‘if farmers wanted stability there must be export and impo.t quotas and to make them effective almost certainly some form of pro duction control.’ Mr. Roberts also said: ‘Guaranteed or contract prices and Government regulations could not be used by any producers’ co-opera-tive organisation without the State being in the picture.’ In making that statement Mr. Roberts was outlining what ho called a new conception of co-operation. ‘Certainly this a new conception of c3-cper..t on—co-oporat on married to Stat? control, an J I am afraid—no, I hope—taerc will be an early divorce on the grounds of ‘incompatibility of temperament.’ “Co-operation cannot function in side State control, for Stare control insists on complete control, as Mr. Roberts clearly indicated when speaking of these propo.ed marketing councils on the same occasion. He said that on major matters which involved Government policy or envisaged fundamental changes, the councils were advisory to him.

‘The co-operative movement is a social movement, but not a socialistic movement. It is the banding together of individuals to protect and defend thei- individual interests. These individual accept the privileges and the responsibilities, including that of management in accordance with their interests in the venture. It is very different indeed from State control with its dictation by the State. In my opinion it is the next development, in individual enterprise, and a logical one. It has made individual enterprise so highly successful in the dairying industry, and it will enable the small producer or the small operator in many industries (not necessarily only farming industries) ab’e to carry on successfully. It has not the disadvantage of ordinary largescale enterprise, nor is it monopolistic even when it is supported by statutory powers giving it exclusive rights which may be necessary for some purposes such as export, marketing, for always it has to serve the interests of its members individually, and it. has to serve at least as we'll as any form of enterprise. We must, however. be on guard to see that the form of co-operaiton is not. used to deprive us of our freedom."