SMALL FARM SCHEME

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 24 May 1932, Page 8

SMALL FARM SCHEME

ORGANISER OUTLINES PLAN ADDRESS TO OTAKEHO FARMERS APPEAL FOR CO-OPERATION The recently introduced small, iarm scheme for the settlement of married unemployed was outlined by Air H. It. Denize, district organiser, in. an address to the Otakeho branch of the Farmers’ Union last evening. Mr Denize described the plan as a system of mutually advantageous barter of goods, labour and services, and said that by setting aside a portion, of liis land for the occupation and use of a suitable man and his family a fanner would be assured of a constant, convenient and efficient labour supply and would be afforded the opportunity of increasing the productivity of his land, with consequent benefits to himself, us well as making a valuable contribution towards a solution of the unemployment problem. The small farm scheme as operating to-day was not an application of the old village settlement scheme, and it was not proposed to subdivide whole farms into five or ten acres for holdings, stated Mr Denize. Instead of bringing about the creation of groups of small holdings it was planned to have individual holdings at some distance from one another and judiciously located so that each small farm settlor would, if competent, be able to obtain a reasonable amount of labour throughout the year from neighbouring farmers. It was recognised that in occasional special circumstances: a group of small farm settlers might be desirable, but as a rule it was felt that such groups would lead to a glutting of the farm labour market in restricted districts, while fanners a.t a distance from the glutted districts would continue to have the labour difficulties they had previously experienced. There was no general expectation that settlers on the small farms would generally make their living wholly from the holdings. It was held, however, that tiie production of the small holdings would be extremely useful in supplementing the earnings on neighbou!mg farms, and that in consequence of the returns from both sources the small farm settler would foe much better off than the casual workers in the towns were likely to be for some years.

It was possible, of course, that some of the settlers on the small farms might, by suitable specialisation such as seed raising, poultry. breeding or branches of horticulture, be able to earn a. comfortable living wholly from their properties, but the general success of the plan was not based on that possibility. EXCHANGE OF LABOUR In handing over a portion of his property for the purpose of the scheme a farmer did not necessarily undertake the responsibility of providing the settler with employment. Ordinarily the settler would count on obtaining labour from several farmers in liis neighbourhood, although in certain cases one neighbouring farmer might be in a position to provide him with all the labour he wished to undertake off his small holding. Farmers also were not expected to lend indiscriminately implements, horses, etc., to small holders in their neighbourhood. It was, however, considered that in many cases implement work on the small farms would be done by farmers in exchange for labour, and that it would foe possible to manipulate an exchange of such services in a mutually advantageous manner.

The scheme had net been launched •on the assumption that farmers would donate portions of their farms for small farm settlement purposes, but if farmers offered the use of their land free of charge the offers would be gladly accepted. It was proposed, as far as possible, to lease the required land with a reasonable security of tenure and the right of purchase could be arranged. To qualify as a settler it was not sufficient merely to be registered as a married unemployed worker. The greatest possible care would be taken to select as settlers men of good character and whose industry and ability in farming work bad been demonstrated. It was felt that the scheme would fail if the settlers were npt competent and willing to give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. As far as possible the men most directly interested in any particular small holding would participate in the selection of the worker who was to occupy it. Fear had been expressed by some farmers that an endeavour would be made to secure land for the scheme on an unduly low valuation, based on present low prices of farm produce. -Actually the local advisory committees of farmers which were being formed would be consulted in respect to valuations, and the work of such committee's should lead to the avoidance equally of too low or too high values. The Department of Agriculture freely welcomed constructive criticism and any views submitted to the department would be given every consideration. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS Asked whether local men would he. given preference under the scheme, Air Denize said that a local unemployed, It qualified, should have first consideration.

in reply to Air H. Cork ill, Mr Denize said that in the ease of mortgaged lands the mortgagee would be approached by the department to give the mortgagor the right to lease the necessary portion. There would perhaps be difficulties, but if the right attitude were adopted by' the mortgagee those difficulties would be overcome. Tile minimum lease was five years, but a ten year term was preferred, said Air Denize in answer to Air H. Bayiiss. In the event of the scheme outliving its usefulness the farmer on whose property the buildings were erected would naturally have the right of refusal of purchase.

Questioned by Air Grindlay, the speaxer said that the land would be left in the state it was at the time the lease commenced and the department would contract to that effect in the lease. It would he understood that the farmer would be dealing with the department and not the smallholder. It did not matter whether the land was wholly or partly improved, said Mr Genixe, providing that a sufficient area was available for the man to make a ivui.g from the outset. Fencing would lie erected by the Government and the owner of the property would not bo -ost " I>OU to pay any share of the “Most of these smallholders use the Eng paddock,’” said Mr Bay] is.s' yo-i would have to fix that aspect ~ le I, anger.” (Laughter.) 1 he man is there at the pleasure of •lie Government, and if he proves unsuitable in any way his lease would be terminated. However, the method of •election will reduce undesirables to a minimum,” said Air Denize in reply to a further query. J

It was the intention of the Unemployment Board to nay the smallholders £1 per week until they were receiving an income from their properties, said the speaker. The smallholders would be under the supervision of the department both in regard to live stock and agriculture. It was not anticipated that any more cost in administration would be entailed. Replying to Mr C. A. Bourke, Mr Denize said the scheme had already been plat into operation |m North Auckland. It was estimated that the cost of establishment of a holding would not exceed £SOO, and that was the maximum under the scheme. The Public Works Department had stated that a comfortable four-roomed cottage could be erected for £I6Q. “I don’t think that such a cottage will be worth much after 10 years,” said Mr Bourke. “The residence will be quite satisfactory,” replied Mr Denize. “With massed production and the cottages built in sections the costs can be very considerably reduced.” r he type of man who would be anxious to acquire more laud after Ids lease had expired is the type desired,” said Mr Denize. “Some of our best farmers have commenced on very small holdings.” Reference was made by members of the union to areas of native land in the district which was lying idle and unproductive. Mr Denize said that the land was beyond the general scope of the scheme, but the local committees could make reco m mendations. There would he no difficulty for the smallholder in getting his milk to the factory, said Mr Denize, but the cooperation and assistance of neighbouring fanners would be of very material assistance in that direction. “If a. man is found worthy he will find plenty to help him. What I appeal for is the co-operation of the farmers.” “Don’t you think it is up to the farmers to help these men?” asked Mr Leslie.

“That, is the spirit we hope for,” salid Mr Denize. “Cb-operation and barter of labour are essentials in the success of the scheme.”

“If a man could bp found permanent employment by a neighbouring farmer it wo uJ d ojreatly assist the scheme and no doubt in many cases such employment will be offered,” said Mr Denize.

Mr Leslie said that it could be arranged by a number of farmers in the locality to give a smallholder work practically ail the year round. That would be an extremely satisfactory arrangement, said Mr Denize. If suggestion were generally adopted the success of the scheme would be p raetical 1 y ass ured.

“Summed up and briefly to the point the slogan of the scheme is : Progressive development, increased production and a. contented people,” said Mr Denize.

On the motion of Mr E. Putt the speaker was accorded a vote of thanks by acclamation.