The Dominion FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1917. THE WAY TO EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3153, 3 August 1917, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1917. THE WAY TO EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

The inquiries made . during ■ the courses /of the, debate on the Loan Bill in tho House of Representatives last evening on the subject of waste and extravagance in connection \yibh war expenditure are timely. They are closely linked with tho kindred questions of organisation and national efficiency which are occupying public attention, just now, fyid which deserve tho fullest possible publicity. Up to the present, occupying a relatively favoured position among the countries affect: ed by the war, we have been content to pursue in many directions a policy whioh takes a great deal for granted. Our war expenditure, for instance, is accepted very much as a matter of necessity, and is passed over without any' close scrutiny. Our l'emai'kablo prosperity, based upon highly productive primary, industries, has stood us'in good stead, but it is probably within the facts to say that if *as little had .been dono in Great Britain as has been dono in New Zealand to organise the national resources and fo eliminate .waste and inefficiency Britain to-day i WoUjld bo, losing instead cif winning tho war.. We are in effect making our prosperity an excuse for- neglecting'the strenuous efforts in tho inI tcrcste of national efficiency which ! loss fortunate countries have found j imperatively -necessary, to enablo .them to meet the heavy demands of the war. Our present policy as it bears upon industry and to some 'extent upon the administration of public affairs, including tho conduct of the business side of our sharoin the war, leaves much to be hoped for. Any steps we havo taken in the direction of minimising the effect upon vital industries. of' tho withdrawal of men , for military service have, been at, most, tentative. Wo have been in fact to a large extent drifting, /and in spii» of our wonderfully buoyant revenue and other evidences of national prosperity, our record of civil policy during\t{io war period stands in certain respects in somewhat inglorious contrast to tho. record of our soldiers in the field.Tho lately published report of tho National Efficiency Board may do something to concentrate public attention upon the existing state of affairs and tho dangers which it holds, but, apart from the fact that tho report raises some contentious issues, it would bo optimistic to suggest that there is any immediate likelihood of its recommendations, being carried out on a comprehensive scale. Tho report nevertheless "is of great value, and has the force of an indictment in showing how far wo are from having oven prepared for tho possibility of i tho national industrial service which will undoubtedly becomo rieoessary in some forni or other if the war lasts much longer. . Admitting that , comprehensive organisation of tho national resources is ioi* ,tho time an un attainable ideal, there are a number ol directions in which immediate reform should bo possible. This is a matter in which a very plain "duty devolves upon the Government. It rests, with the Government to second and ffivo effect to sucli attempts flt organisation as a!ro now. being made in tho primary industries and . by tho medical profession. > The pinch of war is likely, to bo felt in a number of industries in both town and country before many months havo passed, and Parliament should bo given an early opportunity of making tho necessary legislative piovi sion. If the Government is to give any real lead in promoting national efficiency and economy, >owover, it must begin by overhauling its own organisation, and whero possiblo substituting business methods for its existing procedure. In this jnattei wo are entirely m agreement with the view expressed by Mb. von Haast in a letter which appears m our correspondence columns to-aay, that tho Government would be taking a step making in the highest dcK ree for efficiency if it called to its assistance men of high , business standing in connection with the administration of tho'business side oi military sercicc. It inußt be acknowledged that the Ministor of Munitions, has tho benefit of advico from outside business experts on certain matters, but for P purposes the business side of u.n administration in, this country is very largely under the control of soldiers, and tho arrangement ob\ 1ously docs not make for efficiency or economy. The position w London, where heavy purchases .are made. Is also apparently solely imdei military control. The soldier, who as an expert in his own profession, .cannot at tho samo timo be a business expert, and a:definite reform, .would bo accomplished if the military and business aspects of oigan isation were ■ divorced. Those uno come into touch with the ms.ncss side of our war administration aie constantly commenting on tho unbusinesslike and costlv method, pursued in matters of detail and tnc waste involved. Many of the statements made may be cxagg o " l^ o ' y bub with tho enormous -ox^ndit u. . now Viiiintr incurred it must bi. obw

ous that there is-room for htavy waste, and extravagance unless tnere is close supervision by men of special business training and organising ability. The advantages that would result from utilising the services ol business experts are not, of course, only to bo realised in the domain ol Defoncc organisation. For clear evidence of tho benefits that are to be obtained in this way wo need only turn to the example of Great Britain. The brilliant success of the Lloyd George Government is very largely due to the fact that it has freely,enlisted tho. aid of competent business men. Somo, at least, of I our leading politicians in this country arc inclined to resent any suggestion' that they should delegate the smallest fraction of their powers. No such reluctanw is displayed by tho present British Govern-> ment. It has called to its assistance a great company of business men and entrusted them,with practically unrestricted powers. The result, as i an English writer stated recently, is that it is getting from the macliiue of State an output and an efficiency which are staggering ,to those ; acquainted with the old, slow, slack, easy-going methods. This is not an exaggerated statement.. With business men in control, and the business side of war organisation cut definitely apart-from the expert control of the fighting services, Britain is achieving marvels. Having. raised, six million men for war service and with three million men and women engaged in the production of munitions she is yet carrying out an enormous expansim of agricultural industry, entailing the cultn'ationof three million additional * acres of land next year, and is developing a shipbuilding programme under which twice as much inereantilo shipping will be constructed next year as in a record year of peace. This country does not offer as wide and varied a field' for expert business management as Great Britain, but there is not the slightest doubt that in the scope afforded tho substitution of business methods for political routine or military inexperience would make equally for economy and efficiency, and would lay tho foundations of the national organisation wo havo hitherto so largely neglected.