NZ First leader Winston Peters (centre) is the kingmaker after the final election result ensured National's Christopher Luxon (right) and Act's David Seymour needed support to form the next Government.
OPINION
There seems to be a widespread view that a National-lead Government will be better for “business”.
Many in the media turn to business sector advocates who beat a similar drum. How does a political party get to be widely accepted as a party which is representative of “business”?
Mostly, it seems, by repeatedly claiming the role.
But is there any real truth to it?
I think it is at best doubtful, partial, and misleading.
Let’s consider some aspects of it for the many different types of business we have.
Is “business” a single entity ? No it is not. There is not a lot of commonality between the interests of a large bank, a transnational corporation or monopoly of some sort, and those of the small firms or start-ups which characterise most of our business sector. In fact there are often strong dependencies and inequities between the two groups.
At the human level, the life experience of a senior executive from the first group and that of an owner or manager of the second is quite unlike, from power to rewards to daily pressures and incentives.
Some small business owners may aspire to be a big business in time. Lets take those in that category: often a major barrier to the aspiration will be a large business looking to handicap that aspiration by some form of anti-competitive behaviour. There is no automatic alignment of interest.
Or take the many who simply aspire to make a living for their whānau from business rather than from a wage or salary. Most quickly find that any expectation of freedom, flexibility or financial advantage is illusory. Many are simply deeply indebted members of a precariat. It is very hard to discern any natural alignment with big business.
We all need businesses which are sound. For those who invest in them, lend to them, manage them, work in them, buy from them or sell to them. This need is a common one. It does not mean that all will succeed - economics is remorseless, as are errors of judgement and action. So many will fail. Nor does it mean that whatever a business or their advocates seeks should be granted. In their nature many, most or all will seek various forms of advantage over others. Competition will limit some of that, human decency may even contribute, but fair and efficient regulation will often be required. This in turn is a common interest.
“Sound business” is holistic, that is, sound for all interests involved. What we should seek is a set of markets and behaviours which promote that. This will often not suit big business which has attained its size by leveraging “unsound” aspects of the past. Those interests are not aligned with those of people trying to operate or establish business which have not attained that power.
This does not mean that big business is worse or better than small. The economics of some activities favour scale. There are things to be gained from this for all of us. The points are that:
* All business activities are subject to a right to operate which aligns them with social interests and with that right comes obligations. Business comes neither first nor second as it were part of a pecking order. It is a part of, not apart from, the whole community;
* Each business activity is about people, in all of their relationships and cultures. In a certain form of organisation and funding the needs of capital take over. The people start working for the interests of the money not the other way round.
We often get confused about this, from all points on the political spectrum. Of course there are some major, sometimes obscenely so, beneficiaries of working for the money. But that is far from all those who manage, work in or even own businesses. Most people share far more interests than divide them - safety, security, sufficiency, sustainability, sociability. It is only when we grant power and recognition to the narrow interests of those who do not share these wider interests, when we succumb to aligning interests with them which are not truly aligned, that this becomes confused.
So we should be careful of lazily accepting that any political party which claims to support “business”really supports our interests just because we are part of a business.
Let’s take an example from among the many Māori businesses, established and start-up. Privately and iwi-owned. Where should they look to for their interests? Many of course look to Te Pāti Māori, and rightly so.
Or businesses with strong environmental purpose. Many look to and support the Green Party and rightly so.
Pacific people running a business for purpose and/or profit will not automatically identify with major business organisations and nor need they do so. Similarly for new migrants setting up or running an established business where all manner of safety, security, sufficiency, sustainability and sociability issues will not suggest to them that a major business body is on their team.
Or speaking for them.
Rob Campbell is a professional director and investor. He is chancellor at AUT, chairman of Ara Ake, chairman of NZ Rural Land, and an adviser for Dave Letele’s BBM charity. He is also the former chairman of Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand.
Dr Maia Hetaraka: 'Cultural competence' should evolve into genuine cultural understanding.