CROWN SALE OF HEIFERS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25548, 16 July 1948, Page 9

CROWN SALE OF HEIFERS

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE REHABILITATION FARM STOCK (P.A.) WELLINGTON. July 15. A frank admission that some blame lay with the Rehabilitation Department, was made by the Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr .C. F. Skinner) when the loss on heifers bought for a soldier settlement was discussed in the House of Representatives this evening. He said it was an isolated case. The question was raised by Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea), who said that in Hawera the Crown sold by auction to-day a large line of two-year-old dairy heifers which were the worst line of cattle ever offered at the saleyards. The stock was intended for a soldier settlement near Patea to increase the herds of the five men there. The Crown had acquired that stock, but because of gross mismanagement, which required close investigation, the cattle were totally unfit for the purpose. The Crown paid £9 a head for the stock and up to 12 days ago it was intended to unload the stock on the men. That would have been done but for the action of the chairman of the rehabilitation committee in that district. The chairman had been asked to value the cattle and after an inspection of a herd of 140 came to the conclusion that the cattle were in such a condition that if would be hopeless to ask the men to take them over. A sale was arranged and the stock sold for £8 7s 6d a head.

Long-Distance Control Mr Sheat said the affair was a sorry demonstration of what happened when long-distance control of farming was attempted. He and the member for Rangitikei (Mr E. B. Gordon) inspected the stock last Saturday and they were in a sorry condition. He sought an explanation from the Minister as to who had authorised the sale and suggested that an investigation be made into the whole position. No attempt should be made to fasten responsibility on any of the five men on the settlement. Mr Sheat said he had been told one of the men was brought to Wellington and put on the mat and told that if he did not speak in favour of the department concerned he would lose his A grading and would be sacked. “There has been a threat of victimisation here,” said Mr Sheat. Mr Sheat said the position was well known to officers in New Plymouth, but nothing had been done to rectify it until 12 days ago. Replying, Mr Skinner said it was true that the stock which had just been sold realised £8 7s 6d a head and that prices ranged from £7 10s to £l2 10s. It was also true that the same heifers were bought at £9 a head. He was amazed to hear the member for Patea say that one man had been brought to Wellington and put on the mat. He denied that the visit was for that purpose. “No such thing was ever discussed,” he said He had found the man concerned hard working and honest, and he would do everything he could to see that he made a success of his farm. ’The five men last year produced 31,0001 b of butter-fat. ’ The Minister said the heifers were bought in October, 1947. They were not particularly good, but after arrangements were made for grazing by the five men trouble was struck in the herd which necessitated several visits by a veterinary surgeon and later the trouble passed. The next he heard of the situation was when various officials visited the settlement to see if the stock was suitable to be taken over by the soldiers. The officials advised against the men’s taking over the stock and the heifers were then sold. The men were managing their own sections under one of their number, who acted as foreman for the whole block. Minister’a Comment If there had not been trouble with the herd nothing would have happened, continued the Minister. He was not trying to shuffie out of his share of the responsibility or to shield his department, but all concerned had something to do with it. He thought the men were too inexperienced to be left alone, but some blame was attachable to the department in New Plymouth. The Minister, in reply to Mr G. H. Mackley (Opposition, Wairarapa), said he would guarantee it was an isolated case. Mr Gordon said the Minister might be .,*ry in S to infer that some responsibility was attached to the five settlers, but they had realised the cattle were not doing well. Officers of the Lands Department who bought the cattle did not know their job. The settlers were refused the right to grow supplementary teed and, although hay was ready to cut in December and the settlers offered to do the work they were not permitted to and were tola a contractor would do the job. It was not until March that the hay was cut. Results of State muddlement and inefficiency could be seen.