Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 14689, 5 October 1911, Page 4

Mil G. M. Thomson's contribution to the Financial Debate v.-as of Afforestation, an unusual and somewhat original kind. Eschewing controversial aims and even strictly political topic;;, the, member for Duncdin North adopted the severe, dis- I passionate style of the scientific specialist— i ret without once digressing from the subject-matter of the Budget. "In a way." remarked the next speaker (Mr Reed), ''he has quite lifted us beyond the " region of everyday politics, but [ am " afraid that I am tco practical to be able " to follow him in his sphere, and must "come- down again into the hurly-burly of " party politics.'' We are not prepared to admit that Mr Thomson's speech was lacking in practical value ; and certainly his criticism of certain Government Departments was all tho more effective because it was avowedly friendly. It was the kind of criticism which has an encouraging and stimulative as well as a correctivo f orc e—the kind of criticism in which more prominent. membeis of the Opposition (Mr ilaesey and Mr Allen, for instance) hardly over indulge. Mr Thomson's chief subjects wore irrigation, afforestation, mining, agriculture, and education. To-day we. shall only direct attention to bis treatment of the second of these topics—mainly for tho purpose of endorsing an important recommendation. We have just bean reading—as Mr Thomson had —tho annual report on State Afforestation in Now Zealand. It is an interesting publication {not forbiddingly technical), containing a, number of excellent illustrations, and does credit to the Under-Secretary (Mr Kensington), whoso name it bears. But Mr Kensington is not an expert, and there is reason to believe that the Government would not seriously challenge- Mr Thomson's statement that tho State forest-work ia not carried out on adequately scientific principles. Here is the specific recommendation : What 1 would like to see is tho appointment of a properly-trained scientific expert in forestry. Tho country would not be paying too much if it imported 6Uch a man and gave him a salary of £I,OOO a year for nve years, letting him spend the first two or three years in travelling about and acquainting himself with the conditions of tho country. We have to recognise that our forests are disappearing. The timelimit of the existence of our forests has been stated to be 30 years, and I doubt whether 30 years hence will ace much of our forest left, except the reserves. Mr Thomson complained (and prohably it is 6afe to take his word in the matter) that som© serious mistakes had been made by the Department, to gay nothing of sins of omission—mistakes which, would have boen avoided if a finst-class expert had had control of tho enterprise. Stress was also laid on the connection between this subject and the project of irrigation in

Central Otago, and one passage may lso quoted: I think an important feature in connection with tho irrigatiori of Central Otago and other regions is suitable afforestation, or the> planting \of tho head-waters of all streams paissing through these districts. It is recognised that tree-planting does not after tho total rainfall of any• country. Ido not think it makes any "difference from year to year in tho actual amount of rain that falls; but it does make a groat differ - enco in trie humidity of the climate and in the retention of the water ; and therefore if in out afforestation schemes we take special note of thcee areas which are likely to supply water to lower areas for irrigation purposes, and take care to plant those areas, we are doing something that will tend to make those lower lands more fertile than they are at present.

Mr Thomson's speech ('Hansard.' No. 15) is likely to interest many people who do not usually devote much time to the study of the Now Zealand " Pink 'Un."