The Star. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18630, 6 December 1928, Page 8

The Star. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER it is a bad look-out for the patient. It is rather disquieting, for instance, to find that professors of economics in different parts of New Zealand take strangely different views on matters affecting the prosperity of the Dominion. Recently there was a very sharp difference of opinion between Canterbury and Auckland on the subject of arbitration, and now we have Professor Fisher of Otago putting forward views on the drift to cities that do not square with universal experience. It is a truism that this Dominion is but half developed, and Mr J. E. Strachan is undoubtedly in the right when he says that “if more people could be diverted to raising wheat and butter and wool we would go further towards paying our debts.” The present problem for New Zealand is to effect an increase in the proportion of primary products, and this can only be done through a “ back to the land ” policy such as that put forward in Sir Joseph Ward’s land settlement scheme. The persistence of unemployment in our cities is ample evidence that there is a serious disproportion in the balance of population. Were this a manufacturing country, the parallel between progress and centralisation might be more justified; but at our present stage of development it cannot be overemphasised that the drift to the towns should be a matter of grave concern.

ELATION in England over the first test triumph will be tempered by a feeling of regret that the winners at one stage unnecessarily exploited stonewalling methods. With a lead of 399 runs on the first innings two of the English batsmen, Mead and Jardine, actually played as if defeat were staring them in the face. Mead, for instance, took 161 minutes to make 50 runs. Even a London newspaper feels constrained to say: —“The scratching about against an almost beaten team, minus two of its best bowlers, may have detracted to some extent from England’s moral ascendancy.” It is evident that cricket cannot long hold its high place as a popular spectacle if this sort of thing is going to irritate spectators by the thousand every time a big match is in progress. The effect must be shown in time by the reduced number of young enthusiasts desirous of taking up cricket as a pastime and winning their way to state and international honours. To-day Australia is hard put to it to replace withdrawals from her test eleven. The heavy defeat at Brisbane is not the only problem worrying the selectors. Where, they ask, are the brilliant colls we used to have in time of need? The answer, possibly, is that the likely colts have been scared out of the game by fear of physical stagnation. What cricket needs is a time factor, some rule that will limit a man’s stay at the crease to a definite period and provide him with an incentive to get busy while he is there.

EVENTS took an interesting turn in the House yesterday when Sir Joseph Ward indicated that, unless an opportunity was given him in the present session to pass Acts which he regarded as urgent in the interests of the Dominion, it would be necessary to call Parliament together in February or early in March. Strictly speaking, his announcement was not in conflict with the Speech from the Throne which, although indicating that no legislative measures would be submitted for consideration in the short session, could be regarded only as a decision of the Coates Government on that point. Sir Joseph Ward has other views. He requires authority for expenditure on a Public Works programme that will relieve the unemployment situation without waiting until the winter is half over before making a start. Whatever Reform critics may say about an unholy alliance between Liberals and Labourites for the purpose of dealing firmly and finally with this urgent matter, it is quite clear that the country as a whole desires the utmost expedition, and that no member of Parliament, moreover, can raise, or is likely to raise an effective or sincere protest against the course that Sir Joseph Ward lays down. Indeed, it is likely enough that Sir Joseph Ward has exchanged opinions with the leaders of the other two parties as to the necessity for avoiding legislative delay in regard to this important question, and if that is so there are signs already that Parliament is anxious to settle down to useful work, with the avoidance of party recriminations.