A BUSINESS VIEW,

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 103, 4 May 1931, Page 6

A BUSINESS VIEW,

The executive of the Associated Chambers of Commerce has a charming plan for reducing our legislative bill of costs by the method of dividing the number of members of Parliament by two, and, incidentally, doing away with Maori members altogether. The naive simplicity of the remedy for too much talk and too many salaries has appealed strongly to many of those who have no intention of standing for Parliament themselves. It it> such an easy way of cutting down obvious expenses and also that mysterious cost-maker known in business circles as "overhead," which covers so many things. But the feature of the reform proposal which specially interests one at the moment is the cool proposal to disfranchise the Maori population. That is virtually the effect of the suggested abolition of native members, for it is idle to argue that Maoris should be contented to have pakehas as their representatives in Parliament. And it seems rather ungrateful of these commercial gentlemen, who forget the fact that the Maori Ls a good spender; he is no cash-hoarding Chinaman or Hindu. The Maori's "sales resistance" is probably less strong than that of any other member of the community, as the people who buy cheaply and sell dearly have rejoiced to find when land-sale cheques were many and large. The Commerce executive also seems to forget, or not to know, that the native population is on the increase, as revealed by every census, and that the race "is becoming a large producer of wealth from the land. However, the Maori is not likely to sit down tamely under thie unkind cut from the people who make their money out of him. He has a nimble wit, and I can well imagine the caustic remarks which the C. of C. suggestion will arouse among the Young Maori party. It is quite in order now for the Y.M.P. to get busy with resolutions, among which we need not be surprised to find one proposing that members of chambers of commerce be debarred from standing for Parliament, and another urging that pakeha communities should preferably bo represented by Maori members on account of their (the Maoris') superior intelligence in matters legislative. Quite logically it could be argued that the interests of the beautiful oity of So-and-so would be at least as safe in the hands of Sir Apirana Ngata as in those of Mr. Blank and Mr. Blinkcty. So many obvious retorts courteous but cutting present themselves to Hone and Company that presently the officially commercial section of the community may be wishing it had left that Maori M.P. business alone. —J.C.