The Dominion MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929. BOYS FOR THE LAND

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 135, 4 March 1929, Page 10

The Dominion MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929. BOYS FOR THE LAND

> . . ■ 4— ■ In spite of the fact that much ink and oratory have been expended on the difficult problem of inducing young New Zealanders in the urban centres to take up rural pursuits, progress towards a solution has been delayed Jor the very simple reason that no one has had a practical scheme to put forward. ; ' As was pointed out in these columns recently, it is little use ursine- that boys should be encouraged to take up farming careers iust- because the primary industries are the backbone of the country - ttle use pretending that if the right, bias/is given to their education a t?school they will & inspired with a desire for rural life unless a definite proposition is presented. What is wanted are practica schemes that boys and their parents can study, the advantages of which can be evaluated and contrasted with the attractions offered o, For telson on, welcomes os an Interesting and suggestive contribution to the discussion the scheme submitted by the Undersecretary of the Labour Department and the Secretary of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union and remitted to the provincial executives of the Union for their Consideration. It is worthy of serious attention not only by those immediately concerned, the farmers; themselves, but by sociologists and others interested in t g ’“'I 0 to establish a system of farming apprenticeships, safeguarded in the interests of .the employers and th? apprentices by certain clauses in general use in other .avocations, but with special provisions designed to further the ambitions of the bovs to possess farms of their own m the future. . p n _L’ ' For example, the apprenticeship contract, suggests the Repot , “may provide that the apprentice shall agree that a P ort ‘™ ° f M wages say, a half, shall be deposited with a Government official and invested to the credit of the apprentice.. This would provide the apprentice with part of the amount required if he should desire to acquire a small farm of his own, and also ensure compliance with terms of his apprenticeship.” The term of apprenticeship SUgg X i S s th, end of that time? II he has consented • to the insertion of a thrift clause in his contract he will come out of his apprenticeship with a little capital.. It will not be enoug;i to eiiable him to pay a small deposit on a farm, but even if it were, he would be unwise to make such a venture while still- immature in years and experience. He could obtain employment at good wages as a farm worker, but unless habits of. thrift had been strongly developed during his apprenticeship he would find the P roc( ;SS of saving the necessary sum very slow, and might even be tempted m dissipate his small capital, . . This point has not been overlooked m the Report. The scheme, it is stated, contemplates the ultimate absorption of these boys by a system of group settlement. They would be placed on a suitab e block of land, under an experienced supervisor, and work the block until it became self-supporting. It would then be subdivided ano made available for purchase by those who had worked it, under the 36.years’ mortgage system, at a reasonable price. During develop-. . ment period they would be paid forty shillings weekly, half of whica would be banked, and when they finally took up their allotments would be assisted under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement system to put up fencing and purchase stock. Oh the face of.it, the scheme looks workable. There are strong, and compelling reasons for giving it, or something like it, a trial' on a 1 modest scale to begin with. “It is apparent, says the Report, , “that some such concessions as. are outlined above will have to -be offered to entice our boys from the cities.” Not only to entice them, it should be added, but to build up a strong, independent, andprogressive rural citizenship.