TRANSITIONS IN FARMING

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1922, Page 6

TRANSITIONS IN FARMING

The abundant capacity of farmer M.P.'s to make farming speeches without saying anything of economic value is one of the most depressing features of 'Parliamentary life; therefore it is refreshing to find an exception in the speech delivered in the Address-in-Reply debate by Mr.O. J. Hawken, M.P. for Egmont. In » predicting the extinction of beef-raising, Mr. Hawken was not on new ground, for a recent official publication of the Government states:

At the present time a considerable area of extremely fertile land in New Zealand is devoted to the fattening of cattle and production of beef, but this system of producing beef almost entirely on high-class grass lands must, within a very few years, be almost abandoned, and the land must be devoted to dairying.

The close co-operation between the high country pastoralist and the fattening farmer who cultivates lower and better land, and who takes from the pastoralist the latter's summer surplus of sheep or cattle to " top them off," seems to be under sentence, so far as cattle are concerned. According to the above-mentioned publication, the South Island may be more affected than the North, where this cooperative process of cattle-raising is less developed, and where, on the better class bush country, cattle are raised and ■" topped off" without any artificial feeding whatever. Nevertheless,, the change must mean, in both Islands, a big advance in dairying, and therefore in the better use of the land, which spells closer settlement. Such an economic development is of first-class importance, and Mr. Hawken does a public service in calling Parliament's attention to it. He goes so far as to predict the cessation of beef export within two years.

How is this increase of dairy farming to be facilitated? Mr. Hawken is reported as saying that, in the extending of that class of farming, " the great difficulty has always been the provision of a house and farm buildings." He adds, by way of illustration:

A man may have one hundred acres of land, and he has use for not more than fifty acres. It will cost him £700 to £800 to build on his place what structures he would require if it were to be put on the market. Therefore, he is unable to cut it up. If money were available, as I suggest, hev could buy a herd, and a great many of the bigger landholders, who have been" holding on to their land, would put it on the market or subdivide it. Closer settlement would be achieved at far less cost than has hitherto prevailed.

Mr. Hawken's argument is that, by means of a system of advances through agricultural banks, the 100-acre dairy farmer would be able to make improvements and then sell, so that two 50-acre farms and two families would flourish where one farm and one family existed before (admirable prospect!). We have already dealt in these columns

with agricultural banks, and in tend to say no more at present on that branch of the subject; but we would like to ask Mr. Hawken if he knows of any cases in Taranaki of aggregation of existing dairy farms. If lack of house and dairy farm buildings has prevented some subdivisions, is it not also true that the presence of a house and dairy farm buildings has not prevented reaggregations ? We have no direct evidence as to the position in Taranaki, but we have heard of reaggregations in other dairying localities; and it is common knowledge that, in some sheep districts, empty houses that once were homes, and shrunken school attendances, "bear striking testimony to a reaggregating tendency that has discounted, and in some cases is said to have actually cancelled, the increase in farm-hold-ings that ought to be a normal feature in the progress of any young and developing country devoted to primary production.

If Mr. Hawken's reply is that, whatever the reaggregating tendency of the recent past may have been, the tide is now setting strongly for subdivision, all we can say is that we hope he is correct. Voluntary subdivision by the bigger landholders would certainly be cheaper to the State than Government purchase with bonds at Government valuation (advocated many years ago in these columns) and ever so much cheaper than Government purchase by cash at peak-price over-values that soldier settlers cannot sustain. However ex parte his views may be, Mr. Hawken is a good exponent, because he is candid. ■" There is," he states, " still an enormous amount ,of land in the Taranaki district given over to a few sheep and cattle." When the member for Egmont has become more of a politician and less of a servant of the public, he will be saying that, under a Reform Government, the mis-using or under-using of land is an impossibility, and that leaggregation is a sheer piece of imagination. It is not so long since Ministers used to affect to laugh at the existence of reaggregation; now they don't, but they don't talk much of the sheep-walks either. The candour of Mr. Hawken is infinitely preferable. It is necessary to any fair consideration of the subject. It is a style of argument that will certainly advance the propaganda in favour of agricultural banks.