Conference looks at future rural life

Press, 7 September 1976, Page 10

Conference looks at future rural life

Must all agriculture be viable ? Has farm subdivision gone too far? Are urban people necessary in rural areas? Are country problems appreciated by city folk? These were some of the prospects that drew qualified answers from studygroups at the rural development conference at Lincoln College on Friday and Saturday. - “The answer is yes, but it is not necessarily a precondition,” said Mr J. M. Hercus, of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, reporting for a group that had been asked whether buoyant and dynamic agriculture was a critical precondition for a flourishing rural community. The group was one of five that looked at various aspects of rural life, after the conference had heard reports on the present state of the rural community and on research — present and future — about its problems. While it was accepted that for a flourishing community businesses must be viable said Mr Hercus, on its own this was not enough. A rural community could not flourish in isola-

tion from other communties, and there could be places where relatively inefficient agriculture could exist in a flourishing community — where there was a demand for a wilderness area, or where there were tourist ranches and noxious animals were allowed to spread to encourage tourism. Reporting for a group that examined land tenure, settlement and use, Mr G. Robertson said that security of tenure was vital, and freehold must be the basis of land ownership. But there had to be room for other options also. Land settlement had a high priority, he said. Farming needed to renew itself constantly, with 2000 new farmers needed each year. The Lands and Survey Department should be settling more of the land it held, and replacing this by run-down properties, which could be redeveloped for settlement. Although the number of farm properties must not decline much further, there was opportunity for subdivision of properties through the techniques such as irrigation. The group also called for a national land use plan, and consideration of the need for a mixing of urban and rural people in the countryside. If the 10

acre block did not satisfy this, then a suggestion was the inclusion of, say, two one-acre sections per 500 acres. However, Professor S. H. Franklin, professor of geography at Victoria University, disagreed with the national land use proposal, saying that formal land use planning was a cul-de-sac. Still another group, led by Mr R. Burnside, looked at the loss of farm-work-ers. The turn-over of workers in farming was higher than in other industries and while some of this mobility was necessary, it was too high, said Mr Bumside. The group recognised the need for off-farm housing. Such housing should be in areas where there was an equity factor, and in such areas there should be a spread of age and social strata. Housing Corporation support for such housing and the concept of a “notional” house for farm workers, were suggested, along with State housing in rural townships. The terms of employment of farm workers should be clearly defined, it was emphasised. Greater mutual understanding between town and country, was the subject of another study.

Mr S. H. Hinton said a member of this group had said that studies on rural and urban life should be introduced' early into the school curriculum. Field trips into the country should be extended to training college and university students going into teaching. Likewise, said Mr Hinton, another member of his group had emphasised that courses in city universities must contain a rural content. The closer association of city and rural organisations, including women’s organisations, and the possibility of city people and groups taking an interest in rural youth adjusting to city life, were mooted. More television coverage of news items from small towns and of rural events was wanted and greater use made of reporting ability to project the rural community to city people. Another group looked into whether complete equality of social services was a realistic and reasonable objective. There seemed to be some feeling that if it was possible to persuade others to understand the rural community, they would get over their problems, said Mr N. D. Crew, senior lecturer in continuing education at the Uni-

versity of New England, New South Wales, talking near the end of the conference. But it was rather a matter of explaining to farmers the forces and pressures that operated in the world, and applied both to city people and to themselves. Change was going to occur and would apply to everyone, not just farmers. Professor W. F. Musgrave, professor of agricultural economics at the

same university, told the conference that the Killogg Foundation had made available to his university just under SIM — to promote greater understanding and knowledge within the rural community and also between the rural community and the urban community in Australia. Some of these funds were to be channelled into New Zealand, and his visit was on this subject.