GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3889, 25 September 1928, Page 9

GOVERNMENT IN BUSINESS.

POLITICAL LABOUR’S APPROVAL. WOULD-BE BEDFELLOWS. Contributed by the 1928 Committee. An unfortunate feature of party government in New Zealand is its tendency, to magnify personal achievement above public service. A Prime Minister comes back from a hotly-contested election witn a majority of 10 or 12, obtained on one single issue—licensing, electoral reform, land tenure, or some other burning question of the moment —and for the next three years the affairs of the country remain practically in his hands. Such cases are not common, it is true, ' but they have occurred, and they will occur again. A Prime Minister allows his pledged supporters to vote as they please on non-essential issues; but when the policy or the existence of the Government is challenged the private membei has yno alternative. This code is not peculiar to the party in office. It is, as a rule, just as punctiliously observed by the “outs ” as it is by the “ ins.'’ The present Labour Party, however, imagines that it has found a bond of sympathy between itself and the Reform Party.. Ignoring Mr Coates’s slogan, “ Less government in business and more business in government ” the Leader of the Labour Opposition and his followers are pluming themselves upon having induced the Prime Minister to withhold his hand in this respect. That Mr Coates will be so easilydiverted from the principle implied by his slogan no one acquainted with the man and his career will believe. In any case, there is’a large section of the community still to be heard on this subject. Business interests have been inadequately represented in Parliament for many years past. It is easy to say that this is the fault of the business men themselves, and in a measure the retort is justified. But business men of the type that would be of great value to the constituencies and to the Dominion in the House of Representatives literally cannot afford to spend four or five months away from their homes and their’ offices. There may be a man here and there who, owing to exceptional circumstances or extraordinary zeal, might be induced to make such a sacrifice; but, even so, what chance, under the existing system of election, would a man of this type, unacquainted with the arts of self-advertising and popularityhunting, have of winning a seat, say, against any of the Labour members? The first-class business man, to put it bluntly, is not available for parliamentary service unless he is obsessed by an impelling sense of duty. A few months ago, however, it occurred to a number of professional and commercial men that, without obtruding upon the domain of the politicians, and withput siding with this political party or that, it might be possible for them to render some service to the community by examining frankly and fairly the problems created by what has been called “ Government interference with business.” The idea caught on quickly, was endorsed by numbers of business and professional men, and in due course was taken in hand by what is now styled “ The 1928 Committee.” The declaration with which the committee announced itself was as follows:—“ That Government activities and func tiong should be limited and restricted to those matters only which cannot be undertaken by individuals or groups of individuals; and that .the greatest possible scope should be given to the free working of the natural law of supply and demand and to the development of individual initiative and ability; and, therefore, that existing State institutions and public bodies, the functions of which are in _ conflict with the spirit of the above principle, should be so dealt with as to conform thereto by a process of gradual adjustment.” -

This may be regarded as the committee s charter.

Speaking in the House of Representatives last week, Mr Holland and other members of the Labour Party roundly denounced . the promoters of the 1928 Committee as a pack of • profiteers ” and a menace to the welfare of the community. Particularly they took the committee to task for having m&ligned the Public Trust Office, the Public Trustee, and all their works, and for having suggested that private enterprise could manage such an institution much better than the State had done. All that was lacking in this indictment was the element of truth. Of this there was never a, shred. The committee so tar has . made no comment upon the t u t. Office and its management. It has obtained reports, and it has been supplied with information. It has realised the great value of the institution, and it may suggest some change in its administration. Meanwhile the Labour Party s “ intelligent anticipation ” of what the committee is going to sails excelled only by the zeal of the party’s official newspaper is contradicting all the unspoken strictures of the committee. It remains merely to suggest that Mr Holland and his • colleagues should 'look into the “machinations” and “conspiracies of the 1928 committee for themselves. . All that, the members of the committee know about their, own undertaking is available to any accredited representative of the Labour Party.