GRAZING SCHEME

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 55, Issue 32706, 29 April 1946, Page 6

GRAZING SCHEME

NOT FOR SMALL MAN OPINION OF SOME FARMERS OTHERS SPEAK IN PRAISE At the quarterly conference of the Northern Thames sub-prov-incial executive of the N.Z. Farmers’ Union held at Thames recently la remit from Paeroa was discussed that that branch was of the opinion that the cow saving scheme, as inaugurated by the Thames District Primary Production Council was of no benefit to the man who has been hard hit financially by the drought. In most cases he would find it extremely difficult to meet the deposit of £1 per head for sufficient number of stock to relieve his grazing position which, was required under the scheme.

ly la remit from Paeroa was discussed that that branch was of the opinion that the cow saving scheme, as inaugurated by the Thames District Primary Production Council was of no benefit to the man who has been hard hit financially by the drought. In most cases he would find it extremely difficult to meet the deposit of £1 per head for sufficient number of stock to relieve his grazing position which was required under the scheme. Mr C. G. Jackson, of Paeroa, said he did not think the scheme was one the little man .could take advantage of. Ee had had a number of people protest to him. He objected to the advance payment required and the way in which applications were called in time of disaster. Advance Out of Order

Mr R. L. Wilson,of Matatoki, said that an advance payment for grazing was entirely out of order.

The chairman, Mr. S. E. Hall (formerly chairman of the Thames Primary Production Council) said the scheme had been inaugurated in time of emergency and some SOO cows' were being grazed with advantage. When application' were called, over 1000 had required/ grazing. The committee therefore had to select those hardest hit. Mr Hall congratulated members of the council from the Hauraki Plains for the work they had put in. Mr W. Buchanan, of Mangatarata,. who was closely associated with th 6 organisation of the scheme outlined the organisation. Not one man had tHHiiiitiuiiiißiiiiiiiiiiiiuiniiHiiiiiiiiiiiJiii'aiiiJHiiJifiiJiiJtiiiiiitiirimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiniF

wißinHnHiiiiniiHiHiißiiiHiiiHiiwriiiiniHriHHiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinKHiHHiiiiiiiiniffliHiiiii been turned down 'because of lack of finance. A survey had been carried out and those most needing assistance had been granted it. He thought those criticising the scheme were misinformed on the subject. Should Have Been Free Mr J-. iSilcock, of Paeroa, said the drought was a .national calamity and the Government should have made the grazing free or on extended credit terms. The Paeroa branch was not criticising the Thames Primary Production Council, but the Government and the attitude of ,the Land Department who dictated the terms of the grazing. Mr C. W. Schultz, of Ngatea, said the Lands Department had been very liberal and helpful in organising the scheme. The Lands Department were only getting lOd. per head, per week, of the grazing. The Hauraki Plains County Council had asked for more land to organise a further scheme on the same basis. Mr G. Grey, of Mangatarata, said that he had been an organiser in his district for the scheme and not one farmer had complained at the terms. The Lands Department had been very helpful indeed. Heard No Complaints Mrs W. H. Cheale, of Netherton, said he Was at Ngatea when the scheme was organised and he had not heard one complaint about the price of the grazing. After several others had spoken on the subject Mr C. G. Jackson said Paeroa delegates were not saying the grazing was too dear. Their criticism was against the payment in advance when the farmer was hard hit. The remit was lost by six votes to 12, many not voting.