WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 March 1922, Page 2

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

LAND SETTLEMENT,

AN UNSATISFACTORY POSITION.

special tU gu a kill An

WELLINGTON; March 20.

No private member of Parliament is doing more useful spade-work at the present time than is -Mr George Mitchell, the representative of Wellington South. The report on land settlement just issued b.y the Central Progress League bears unmistakably the impress of Mr Mitchell's hand, and shows by eloquent facts and figures that while New Zealand has been pluming itself upon what it has done in this inspect for returned soldiers it has been sadly neglecting the promotion of civilian settlement. The report points out that of a total increase of 4,530 rural holdings since 1916 no fewer than 3,941 have been created by the sub-division of purchased estates and Crown Lands for soldier settlement, and that the net increase of ordinary settlement during the five years for the whole of the Dominion amounted to no more than 519 •holdings. The ordinary settlement iti the Auckland land district in this period amounted to 1,142 holdings, so that in all the other districts put together there was a decline of 542 holdings. In the Wellington district, where there arc several million acres crying aloud for closer occupation, the loss, apart from soldier settlement, was 237- holdings.

WHAT IS HAPPENINO. Referring specifically to the Wellington district, tlid report speculates its to what has become of the missing holdings. “Take,” it says, “a rich district like Wairarapa South, which ill 1916 had 480 holdings, reduced to 4p5 in 1920, and has only 469 to-day, in spite of the fact that numbers of soldiers have been settled on sub-divided estates within the county. Where have these holdings gone? Replying to its own question, the report observes that “ where the number of holdings decreases and the average area of those remaining increases,” there can he only one answer, and then proceeds to give particulars of what it regards a.i a flagrant case (if fcaggregatibn. Its words of commendation are reserved for the Auckland province, where, it Says, it is realised that “ stagnation and decay can be the only possible future for o province allowing the aggregator and the squatter to rest undisturbed, course so far as the Government is concerned exactly the same conditions prevail in Wellington as prevail in Auckland, but the extremely unsatisfactory results obtained in the southern provinces certainly call for some exolanation from the Lands Department. ELECTORAL REFORM. The active advocates of proportional representation arc distributing the proportional Representation altd Effective Voting Hid prepared by Mr •4. McCombs last session as the basis: of the electoral reform they want to see brought about in New Zealand. The Bill does away with the “country quota ” which provides, in effect, that 28 per cent fewer people shall he required to constitute a rural electorate than shall be required to constitute an urban electorate, and it simplifies the

method of . trailsfeiring surplus votes. The elector is left free to mark ns many preferences as Ire pleases or as few. Mr McCombs proposes larger electorates tliail Mr Fowlds suggested in his Bill

of tell or twelve years ago. He would have nine in the North Island and five in the South, each returning the same number of members as the number of electorates amalgamated. The main Auckland constituency would embrace nine of the present electorates and the main Canterbury constituency the same number, but while the Auckland group would consist wholly of urban districts the Canterbury group would include Huruimi, Kainpoi and Ellesmere wi'! Christchurch City. The proposals have been submitted to the Prime Minister, but so far be lias not communicated with tbe promoters of the movement. BUSINESS BRAINS. The “ Evening Post.” by suggesting a little while back that business brains were wanted in Parliament, lias brought upon itself quite a flood of correspond-

ence on the subject. Most of'the writers applaud the suggestion, with mou or less enthusiasm, but some ot then: resent the idea that- Ah’ Massey and his colleagues are lacking iii business ability while others have no faith in financial and commercial experts as politicians. The weight of opinion among them, however, seems to be that the difficult problems confronting Parliament just now require for their solution more knowledge and experience of affairs than the rank and file of any of the parties possess. But the business men themselves, speaking generally, appear to he giving very little attention to the appeal. They are the loudest in complaining of the futility of, the parliamentary machine, 1 and yet nqt one in a

hundred of them will take any personal trouble to render it more effective. This is the complaint of many of the correspondents, and the indictment ientains unanswered. Apparently busin/ess brains are not drawn towards politics.