WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 March 1922, Page 5

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

LAND SETTLEMENT. AN UNSATISFACTORY POSITION. (Special Correspondent.) Wellington, March 20. I No private member of Parliament is doing more useful spade-work at the present time than is Mt. George Mitchell, the representative of Wellington South. The report on land settlement just issued by 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 has done in this respect 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 599 holdings. The ordinary settlement in 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 are several million acres crying aloud for closer occupation, the loss, apart from soldier settlement, was 287 holdings.

WHAT IS HAPPENING. Referring specifically to the Wellington district the report speculates as to what nas become of the missing holdings. •‘Take,” it says, “a rieh district like Wairarapa South, which, in 1916 had 480 holdings, reduced to 455 in 1920, and has only 469 to-day, in spite of the fact that lumbers 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 decereases and the average area of those remaining increases,” there can be only one answer, and then proceeds to give particulars of what it regards as a flagrant case of reaggregation. 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 a province allowing the aggregator and the squatter to rest undisturbed.” Of course, as fap? as the Government is concerned exactly the same conditions prevail in Wellington as prevail in Auckland, but the extremely unsatisfactory results obtained in the south&rn provinces certainly call for some explanation from the Lands Department. ELECTORAL REFORM. The active advocates of proportional representation are distributing the Proportional Representation and Effective Voting Bill prepared by Mr. J. 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 be required to constitute a rural electorate than shall -be required to constitute an urban electorate, and it simplifies the method of transferring surplus votes. The elector is left free to mark as many as preferences as he pleases, or as few. Mr. McCombs proposes larger electorates than Mr. Fowlds suggested in his Bill of ten 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 Huruni, Kaiapoi and Ellesmere with Christchurch City. The proposals have been submitted to the Prime Minister, but so far he has not communicated with the' promoters of the movement. BUSINESS BRAINS. The Evening Post, by suggesting a little while back that business brains were wanted in Parliament, has brought upon itself quite a flood of correspondence on the subject. Most of the writers applaud the suggestion, With more or less enthusiasm, but some of them resent the idea that Mr. Massey and his colleagues are lacking in 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 be giving very little attention to the appeal. They are the loudest an complaining of the futility of the Parliamentary machine, and. yet not one in a hundred of them will take any personal trouble to render it more effective. This is the indictment of many of the correspondents and the indictment remains unanswered. Apparently business, brainare not drawn towards poii ties.