PARLIAMENT Farmers’ Needs Discussed In House Debate

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1949, Page 8

PARLIAMENT Farmers’ Needs Discussed In House Debate

WELLINGTON, August 16 (P.A.) —lt would not be proper for him to state the Government’s views on the Sheep Industry Commission’s report until producer boards had had an opportunity to express their opinions, said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr E. L. Cullen) replying to the debate on the report in the House of Representatives- yesterday. The House carried on the voices the formal motion that the report be referred to the Government for consideration.

"What is the use of increasing production if the labour force is not available to handle it,?” asked Mr W. H. Gillespie, (Opposition, Hurunui) when the discussion on the report was continued today. In 1916 one Labour unit in the sheep industry represented 666 sheep; on the average one man looked after that many sheep. By 1945, because of the loss of farm labour, one labour unit represented no fewer than 1000 sheep. Mr Gillespie said a reversal of Government policy was needed if marginal land was to be used to better advantage. Young men would have to be persuaded to take on and develop such land. There were cases now where old men who had develop their farms were now restricting production to fit their own needs and capabilities—and who could blame them? Mr J. N. Massey (Opposition, Franklin) said that the Government had extracted from New Zealand’s foundation industry £100,000,000 in the last few years and had invested portions of that sum at a 1 per cent rate, yet when it came to the question of building rural houses the Government said fanners could not have the use of their own money at 1 per cent, but could have it at 3 or 31 or 4«. The. Government could net hope for increased farm production unless there was an adequate labour force on farms and a comprehensive rural housing programme to check the drift to the towns and cities.

Reward For Good Farming Mr C. G. Harker (Opposition, Hawke’s Bay) said he approved the commission’s suggestion that there be some form of reward for good farming. This was even more important than the suggestion that those not farming land efficiently might have the land taken from them for reasonable compensation. ’ Mr Cullen, replying to the discussion, said he had been reproached for not giving the Governments’ attitude to the commission’s recommendations, but there were producer boards concerned with the report, and, until they had the opportunity to express their opinion, he did not think it proper to state- the Government’s attitude. . Mr Culleri said the Department ol Agriculture was experimenting with various types Of earthworms to determinate their effect on soil fertility; and was shifting worms from one type of soil to. another to note the results. . . . - , Mr Cullen said it was difficult to. see what could be done for some high-country farms. ~ Opposition speakers' had implied that'th£?td Was

virtually no housing available to farm workers, but that was a misrepresentation, although more houses were admittedly needed. Cost Of Fencing Mr Cullen said the figure of £5OO a mile for new fencing quoted by the commission, was not typical of all parts of New Zealand. He said recent fencing jobs on marginal land had been done at £3lO a mile and £260 a mile. In his own experience recently a mile of fencing cost £4ll. The commission’s report had not put this matter in true perspective. Mr Cullen said he thought there were few farms not producing up to their capacity. Farmers could not afford not to make the most of their pastures.