CROWN TENANTS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 301, 17 September 1934, Page 10

CROWN TENANTS

Farming Year Reviewed DEPARTMENT’S POLICY Land Development Work Settlement of Crown and settlement lands on all tenures during the year ended March 31 last totalled 285,166 acres. The annual report of the Lands and Survey Department, tabled in the House of Representatives last week, stated that at March 31 the tenants on the books of the department numbered 37,758, occupying a total area of over 19,000,000 acres. Pastoral runs accounted for nearly 9,000,000 acres, while 1,876,658 acres of purchased estates were held under lease under the provisions of the Land for Settlements Act.

“During the past year,” the report continues, “most districts were favoured with climatic conditions suitable for those engaged In farming pursuits. Following a comparatively mild winter, early spring conditions were good, and there was every promise of a substantial increase in production. However, in certain localities the early part of the summer was unusually dry, and this had the effect of checking the output to a certain extent. There was a good lambing, and dairy returns were well maintained. The yield from agricultural properties was, however, not so good, and a considerable amount of damaged grain was in evidence. “The most striking feature during the year was the sharn rise in the price of wool. The returns from fat lambs, and other classes of sheep, also showed a marked increase, the result being that the outlook for the sheepfarmer was considerably brightened. The demand vaamrdu mfhmmhmhhm The enhanced value of sheep products was reflected in a substantial improvement in the rental and other payments during the period under review. Stress of Depression. “Unfortunately, those engaged in have continued to feel the stress of economic conditions, and the prices received for cheese and butter have been most disappointing. It has, therefore, been found necessary to continue to grant concessions to numbers of settlers to enable them to carry on, and sympathetic treatment has been accorded to all tenants who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to meet their obligations. At the same time, the interests of the general taxpayer have not been overlooked, and steps have been taken to ensure that the settlers give due consideration to their commitments to the Crown. “The aim of the department has been to kedb deserving tenants on their holdings, and, at the same time, steady progress has been made with the development of suitable land with a view to making new areas available for selection.” The report states the Lands Development Board ha'd not authorised developmental work on any new blocks of land during the year, operations being confined to areas on which work had already been commenced. The receipts for the year from all sources (excluding, of course, Discharged Soldiers Settlement Account receipts) totalled £1.020.198, an increase of £277,378 on last year’s figures. The sum of £226,444 was derived from ordinary Crown lands, £499.982 from land held under the Land for Settlements Act (including Hutt Valley Settlement and Cheviot Estate), £134.249 from the national endowment, and £112.393 from the education endowment. The receipts for the last five years have been as follow: Year ending March 31, 1930, £1.275,106; 1931. £1,005,700; 1932, £776,489; 1933. £742,820; and 1934, £1,020.198. Rents, the payment of which remained postponed at March 31, amounted to £222.164. Arrears of rent at March 31 (Including arrears in respect of the current half-yearly charge) totalled £1,090.350, while remissions for the year totalled £206,847, Small Farms Scheme. Discussing the small farms scheme, the report said that at March 31, 1934, the Small Farms Board had not been in operation for a full year, and, while the results might be regarded as satisfactory, the board had not been able to see the full results in numbers settled, of its policy of taking in hand the development of virgin and largely unproductive land. As soon as the administrative machinery began to function smoothly, the board decided that it should combine the actual settlement of unemployed with the provision of work for as many more men as was possible. To carry out this policy it was necessary that properties should be acquired which called for a large amount of development work of a manual nature—e.g.. bushfelling, scrubcutting, clearing generally, fencing, reading, etc. Crown land capable of economic development was not available in many districts, and private lands had to be purchased or leased. Difficulty was met with immediately in regard to prices asked, and this difficulty was still being experienced. I Productive Capacity. Notwithstanding falling prices of produce, owners were reluctant to accept prices in keeping with productive capacity. Several properties were acquired, howeycr, and work commenced. Some of these were now reaching the stage when they could be settled, and the policy followed was to select the most suitable men from those engaged in the work of development and to allot the subdivisions to them. At March 31, 1934, there were some 570 men engaged on development blocks, totalling 37,451' acres, which are estimated to provide 347 separate farms. Parallel with its activities in development work, the board had considered applications for individual properties, the offering of which for the purposes of the scheme bad in most cases been arranged by the applicants themselves, and a total of 229 applications had been approved, covering an area of 11,507 acres.

Xvith regard to the type of farming carried on. the principal line had been dairying, because of the necessity for obtaining immediate returns, and because of the small outlay on stock'as compared, for example, with sheep, The board had endeavoured to keep the establishment cost per settler below £l2OO, as for a going concern, and it would not have been possible to pul men into sheep-farming on a selfsupporting scale for this sum. Dairying had • therefore been the basis of calculation in the subdivision of land for small farms, but no actual restriction has been put upon the settlers themselves, who had been free to develop side-lines according to their Inclinations and the suitability of their properties. The board had on several occasions