TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 3, 3 July 1926, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Members of Parliament arc prone to give scant attention to 'weighty issues and to conceal their neglect by lengthy discussion of minor matters. It was so yesterday when electoral lair questions were debated in the following order of importance: (1) Expenses;. (2) size of electorates; (3) system of election. The last issue should certainly have been first, but so little was it regarded that practically the only references made were Sir Joseph Ward's plea for reform and the Prime Minister's reply that the Reform Party would not sanction changes upon the lines suggested. The reply was most unsatisfac-' tory, because it was almost wholly negative. The zeal for a better system which the Government at one time professed has been lost—smothered by a big majority. In one respect the reply was not negative, but even in this respect it was equally unsatisfactory. The Prime Minister suggested a return to' the two-party system, and said that the best thing that could happen would be for the Liberals and Nationalists to join with the Government. This counsel comes late in the day. If this course ■■were really considered desirable by the Government, why was not that little extra effort made which would have brought it about before the election? We cannot-see eye to eye with llr. Coates's contention that there should be no representation for a third party. If some people find their point of view better presented by a man who stands between Labour and Eeform that is ho reason for disfranchising them or for continuing a system which has this effect.

Other points raised in the discussion are of minor importance compared with this basic problem of the system; but if the Government will not change the system it can at least endeavour to remove some of the more glaring defects. , The Government does not, however, appear to have a considered policy upon the two points which members chiefly emphasised. The Prime Minister argued against any fixation scheme of constituencies as being surrounded with danger. We agree that there is danger, though not to the extent of creating pocket boroughs unless the population basis of representation is departed from. But fixation j without such departure can be secured only by increasing the number of members, and such an increase would be unpopular. At the same time, it is undesirable that, large electorates should be made still larger. The goneral debate has produced no alternative scheme, but a small Committee of the House might be more successful in suggesting a way out. Upon the third issue of election expenses (which members placed first) there was a general admission of. the need for , some action. We are not aware exactly how expenses are reckoned, but apparently party expenditure is not debited to the candidates of the party. This leaves the way open for expenditure upon literature and other forms of publicity which help the party man, though his name may never be mentioned. The independent candidate and his friends can reply only directly, and the cost of replying must therefore be included in the expenses return. This appears to us to give the machine more power than it is desirable that it should have. In writing this we have no particular party iv mind; but we wish to see the rights of the independent candidate conserved. As the law stands, the poor candidate is protected against the rich; but if the effect of the expense limitation is to place +he independent (rich or poor) at the mercy of the machine, one evil is being avoided at the risk of perpetrating a greater wrong. * * *

Recent methodical observation., of the migratory birds of Great Britain has given renewed life to the movement for

adequate protection. It has been proved there' that man, the disturber and destroyer, has been responsible for much • that is often attributed loosely to "economic changes" or "the march of civilisation.'' If the birds can be sure of freedom from molestation they will often put up with what might be termed domestic inconveniences. For example, "The Times" (London), 'in a'recent article upon security for wild birds, stated:—

One of the most striking features of English bird life at present is the increased range and number of many water and marsh birds which1 find a refuge on, such appurtenauees of urban civilisation as the reservoirs of waterworks, and even sewage farms. ... It is only a few sum-

mers since a pair of bee-eaters— birds scarcely known" in Britain, though familiar to many who served in Macedonia—made an almost successful attempt to rear a brood in a gravel pit near Edinburgh.

Protection given by landowners has resulted in the bittern returning to the Norfolk Broods, and there have been other illustrations of the fact that birds are naturally quite fnendly to man, if man does not declare himself an enemy. "The Times"' writer notes that even marsh birds, expelled by English guns, when they arrive in the breeding season from Holland and Scandinavia, betray an unextinguished readiness to let bygones be bygones. These facts apply also to our New Zealand birds. Though, near the centres of civilisation, there are now only small areas of bush,, these areas could within a few years be restocked with birds if protection of the birds and their food-supplies were assured. It is not the presence of man but his enmity and.that of the cats, rats, and ground vermin who follow him ithat causes the birds to keep to the untracked forest.