BUSINESS AND POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 67, 20 March 1931, Page 6

BUSINESS AND POLITICS

The cry for more business men in Parliament was condemned by the Minister of Education last night as "about the most foolish that could be raised." There was a clear line of demarcation, he said, between the methods adopted by business men and those adopted by Parliament To illustrate his point, he claimed that the object of business was to make money, and in ordinary commercial concerns slump conditions were met by the dismissal of employees. Certainly, if one accepts this as an accurate statement of the aims and methods of business there is and should be a difference in Government alms and methods. But we do not agree that the statement is truly applicable to business as a whole. The business man who hopes to maintain a successful enterprise recognises that he must n^erit that success by giving service, and at times he will forego profit in order to attain this object." Nor is it the general business practice to dismiss employees when a slump comes. We believe that many businesses have retained their employees at a loss to themselves until they could do so no longer, and have recognised their responsibility to the people they employed.

, Where there is greater divergence between business and Government methods, we believe, is in the Government failure to show foresight when incurring liabilities.. The business which loads itself with, obligations in time of prosperity will find itself borne down by the weight Avhen adversity comes. This is exactly what has happened with our own Government. As Sir Apirana Ngata and others (among them Sir Joseph Ward, whom Mr. Atmore cited as successful in both business and poli' tics) ,have pointed out, our national Budget has been so managed that it is difficult to find ways of reducing expenditure. So much of the revenue is required to meet fixed charges that there is little room for, saving. When it appeared easy to do so we increased pensions, established new social services, and incurred greater debts. This was not merely free spending for the time, but it committed us to free spending for years ahead. Business prudence would have dictated greater caution. Ad!mittedly, all business men are not so icautious; but if the history of any long-established business is studied it will be found that it has been maintained by mixing enterprise with a large portion of prudence, by seeing that there-are reserves, by not distributing everything in dividends, and by resisting the temptation to ask shareholders for more capital just because the shareholders have it. The present Government trouble arises from the usual"Government practice of distributing everything in dividends and even advancing dividends on the assumption that the years lo come would yield sufficient revenue to pay them. Though Mr. Atmore may be cynical, we should like to see the effect of a greater infusion of business methods in politics. It would at least be a novelty.