Please wait. Contacting image service... loading
Hide article pages Show article pages
  1. Page 3
    Page 3 thumbnail
  2. Page 4
    Page 4 thumbnail

Article text

On this Page 3
Government on Business Principles.
Sir George Turner has always prided himself
on the commercial basis of his political administration.
He was called to power six years ago
to " balance the books" of Victoria, and he
balanced them. An "ungrateful, dish^al Parlia- H
ment" turned him out of office as soon as he
had done the work, but " an appreciative public
" has ordered him back. That is Sir George
Turner's idea of the situation. The Opposition
consider that the book balance trick was similar
to that played by Christopher Columbus with

tho egg, which ho made to stand on end by
tho simple process of smashing its apex to provido

a firm base. Parliament was perfectly
nwaro that tho deficit could be wiped out by
reducing salaries, starving public works, cutting
off tho shire subsidies, and levying an income
tax, but they did not want to do these things,
and actually thought that Sir George Turner
could manage to attain the desired end in some
other waj\ In fact, tho IIouso was being periodically

assured that drastic retrenchment and
taxation wero only temporary expedients,
a mero scaffolding to carry out alterations

which would enable revenuo to expand
as fast as expenditure. Everybody now recognises
that the Income Tax has come to stay, and that,
despito official denials, penuriousness had made
the Railways unsafe for traffic, and the State
schools below the normal standard of educational
efficiency. That the reductions of salaries in
the Public Service cut even into the bone, as the
late Sir James Patterson threatened, is evidenced
by the present Postmaster-General, Mr. Gurr,
acknowledging that many employes in that department

are not yet receiving a living wage.

* * *

Paradoxical as it may seem, sound '' business
principlo" is the cause of Sir Georgo Turner
being again entrusted with the administration
of tho Government. Parliament and the people
know what the theorists prefer to ignore.
' namely, that the conduct of tho Public Service

in not a mere affair of controlling machinery—
" touch the button, and we do the rest." Mr.
Shiels may be a better Treasurer, Mr. McLean a
better Premier, but their methods do not suit
so well; and, moro important still, their manner
did not suit the mood of the Bouse. The idea
which the public have of " business principles"
is not precisely that of the famous experts whose
opinions Mr. James Knowles, the editor of the
" Nineteenth Century," recently published. Sir
James BIyth prudently recognises the difference
between private businesses and tho administration

of the affairs of a great country, but still
considers that there aro methods as well as principles

of business which could be grafted from
private to public practice. Virtually. Sir James
BIyth's theory is that to get the best work from
Ministers and their departmental officers payment

should be by results. " Were an augmented
income in prospect, whether it came through
greater departmental efficiency or economy, their
best would become a better best still, and they
would be giving to the State ten times as much
as they would receive." Sir Andrew Fairhairn
agrees that this principle is sound, but recognises
that it is doubtful whether it can be enforced.
No one, from the Premier down to the caretaker
of the office building, can do his work thoroughly
if payment depends on results. The temptation

to evade unprofitable business is too great.

* * *

Tho two other cardinal points of " business
principles " are personal responsibility, and promotion

by merit. Personal responsibility, as Mr.
Henry Birclienough remarks, does not mean that
each individual of a large staff is directly responsible

only to the head of the Government for the
work ho undertakes. It is the fixed responsibility

of a well-organised army, where duties are
defined, and authority apportioned from the commander-in-chief
to the corporal. The main defect

in Government administration is that the
supremo executive, the Ministry, though personally

responsible, has no defined authority.
The most trivial as well as the most important
of administrative acts may be called into question

by Parliament, and tho whole Cabinet may
be forced to resign on what amounts to little
more than the whim of a majority of popularityhunting

legislators. Ministers are always more
prone to govern their departments in the way
which will secure them most political support
than in tho way which will attain the best results.

They are examples of what payment by
results degenerates into when complicated by
other influences than that of mere workmanship.
Sir George Turner tried on jnore than one
occasion to reconcile political with commercial
principles. He threatened to resign rather than
add sixpence a day to the wages of men whose
average earnings barely amounted to 30a.

a week, bocauso tho Department did
not pay; but did not hesitato to incrcaso

tho deficiency by reducing tho freight
on coal, because ho could charge it to general
revenue as an exigency of policy. Yet it subsequently

transpired that the reduced coal freights
could be mado remunerative with suitable trucks
and engines. In. fact, tho more the subject is
inquired into, tho more it becomes apparent that
tho main difficulty of introducing business principles

into Government administration, is tho
astonishing ignorance of the difference between
principle and formulary 011 the pnrt of legislators

and public officers.

$