Minister Holds Back Nassella Subsidies

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29270, 30 July 1960, Page 4

Minister Holds Back Nassella Subsidies

The' Minister of Agriculture (Mr Skinner) is holding back approval of subsidies to the North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board for the coming year’s operations until the board guarantees that at least half of the cost of grubbing is recovered from landowners.

Recoveries last year did not quite amount to 50 per cent, of the wages bill of the grubbing gang and the question of maximum recoveries has been the subject of several letters to the board from the Minister in the last year. A letter from the Minister, read at a meeting of the hoard, said: “I appreciate that the amount short of the 50 per cent., stipulated is a small sum, but I am not prepared to ask the Government to approve of subsidies for this year on the present basis unless the board gives me an assurance that recoveries for grubbing will be ob-. tained from landowners for at least 50 per cent, of the cost of this work in the future. ' “This is the Government's minimum requirement. In my opinion, a higher proportion of recoveries is fully justifiable, except in special circumstances. In any event, it appears to me that more than half of the grubbing costs must be obtained to allow for wet weather and unproductive time.” The Minister also drew the board’s attention to the recovery of only some £6OO towards the cost of £5325 for fencing, oversowing, topdressing and access tracks. “It seems to be a poor response from the owners who must surely derive valuable benefits from this work,” he said. “The Big Stick” “That’s the big stick, gentlemen,” was the comment of the chairman (Mr T. G. Maxwell). The secretary-manager (Mr F. J. Foley) said the Minister’s requirement related to the wages paid to the grubbing gangs against the recoveries. This did not include the cost of vehicles taking the men to and from their work or the loss the board sustained on accommodation. The cost to the board for the men worked out at 12s 2d an hour and the landowner was charged 5s an hour for actual time spent on the job, excluding wet weather, holidays and travelling. One property on which nearly 3000 man hours of grubbing had been carried out was unable to pay for anything like its total share of the work and was making payments spread over some years. This represented one of

the reasons for low, recoveries. "The other farmers can’t be expected to make up the balance,” he said. Members discussed a proposal that the grubbing charge be increased to 6s an hour, which was likely to be recommended in the report on future policy to be discussed at next month’s meeting, but there was no decision. Mr A. A. Macfarlane suggested that a letter be written to the Minister saying that increased recoveries could be made if charges were increased, leaving the matter to his decision. “Put it back on his plate,” Mr Macfarlane said. A letter is to be sent to the Minister setting out the various reasons why recoveries have not been higher, including the cost to the board of grubbing over sprayed nucleus areas.