DRIVEN OFF THE LAND

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 123, 26 May 1928, Page 17

DRIVEN OFF THE LAND

LABOUR PARTY'S CHARGE Tho ■ Welfare League writes:— Xv his presidential'address at the annual conference of the New Zealand Labour Party, Mr. I\. Semple laid' this charge against the Government:—' ' Within the last five years over thirteen thousand (13,000) people have been ' driven off the land through inflated land values and high interest charges. This in itself is conclusive proof that the Government had miserably failed to .settle people on the land. To the.contrary they have driven the people off the land into the cities, -to compete for employment -with the already unemployed. ...'■•■ The party's secretary, in his report, made a calculation that in the five years named "at least- 21,000. had' been driven" off." Mr. W. Bromley, a member of the party, at the National Industrial Conference said, with reference to the five years, "there was a total of 150,000 men who had been pushed off the land into tho cities." Mr. Semple again, in a statement to "The Evening Post," -Wellington, on 18th May, .1928, said: "In view of the fact-that over fifteen thousand have been driven oil' the land within the last five years." As it Is evident that this indictment is : likely to bo made ; . iv varying form, many times over, and probably all over the Dominion, we propose to examine' the ground on which it is butted. First of all,"it would bo a waste of time to question' the exactness of the party's figures, as they are given as 13,000, 15,000, over 15,000, and at least 21,000: Clearly these cannot all be correct, and tip till- now they appear to be undecided as to .which is''the exact number. Leaving'that matter in ' abey^ auce, the question . for consideration is from whence .does the party draw its conclusion that many thousands have "eft the land, ■ or, as they put it, been "driven off" ? '■■••. We find it is the Statistical Report of 3920-27, on agricultural and pastoral production, thoy have used to make up their case. The. figures in that report are no doubt correct, but the.party's description and manner of quoting the figures is undoubtedly misleading. To commence with the words ""driven j off the land" will convey an.impression to tho average person's mind that.it ,is the number.of farmers or land-holders that the party is dealing with. This, however, is not so. They are not presenting figures.cither of the number of farmers or of the number of holdings. What they have done is to take a table which appears on page 5 of the report, which" sets out "the number of hands ordinarily employed on holdings of one acre or over in the Do- j minion." . . -'■ ■ j This table'is for ten years, 191718 to 1910-27, inclusive. In order to prove, the ease they desire to make, these party ■; advocates do not take the whole ten years ■'. which the table deals .with,'.but confine themselves to the last five years. By contrasting 1923 with 1927 they are, able to show 13,581 fewer employed in the latter year. ' Had they taken the first year of the table, 1918, in comparison with 1927 it would show' 13,224 more employed in 1927. So the table is not presented in its. entirety,l but'is manipulated to suit the party's ends. Taking the table as a .whole, what it shows is that, the. first five years indicate an increase: of •-15,810,..and."the second a. decrease of 13,081,. in. the. number of those "ordinarily employed.".'. . . DRIFT TO THE CITY. The increase of 15,840 in the five years after the war was to be expected. Farms had been depleted of sons, daughters, and other employees during the war. The Government did notysend. these 15,840. on to the farms, but circumstances did. It is just as^siire that-the -Government is not responsible' for the :general tendency to drift-to-the towns and cities. I_' Such flow to the centres of population I is a serious problem which various conn- j tries are troubled over. To charge the New.Zealand Government with being the j cause of a phenomena attending the move- j ment of population, which is common all over the world, is as ridiculous as it would j be to charge it with upsetting the weather j jor other natural laws. i The social and cultural attractions of i city life, the greater variety of opportunities and other'factors, which no Government can control, aye operating constantly in creating this drift to the cities. The fact of this tendency is not questioned,.! and the best any Government can do is to provide some degree of check- on the movement. - I In addition to the attractions indicated, there are the economic factors that, with"! improved machinery and methods, not so many are required on the farms in proportion to the work to be done. It is_ a mistaken idea, however, to even infer from the statistical report that those classed as "ordinarily employed on holdings" are like hands employed in a factory or other industrial works. A farmer with three or. four sons or daughters on the farm'will have them all enumerated as "ordinarily employed" there, although the lads may for a good part of their time be off studying or doing other work, and similarly with the daiigh- I tern. The officials who. compiled the statistics would not discredit their own reputations by asserting that "ordinarily employed" means regularly employed. In reality tho figures relied upon by the Labour Party are no sure indication of the numbers on the land. That there are 13.581 j fewer classed us ordinarily employed docs not mean that such number have gone to tho cities. Many will have taken up farms of their own. Many will have niavned and become the wives of farmers. This reminds us thnt of the 13,581 nearly 8000 are set down as females, yet Mr. Bromley calls them all men. A much surer test of the drift city-ward is to take tho holdings of land and the growth of. J