Some Sidelights on Land Settlement

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6837, 19 April 1932, Page 5

Some Sidelights on Land Settlement

Assistant Director of Agriculture Addresses Rotary Club Some aspects on land settlement were given members of the Palmerston North Rotary Club yesterday when Mr. A. K, \ Cockayne (Wellington), assistant- Director. General of Agriculture, delivered a most interesting address. Rotarian Black was in the chair and Rotarian W. Lawson proposed a hearty vote of thanks on behalf of the members. At the outset the speaker made it clear that his views on the subject were not authoritative and that he had dealt with the subject of land settlement because it was one which, ever since New Zealand had found out that the national time-payment borrowing - fountain that had played over the Dominion in the past had dried up, had been stressed by the newspapers, public men, politicians and the general public as the one and only way for the country to “dig itself out of the mire.’’

All Should. Study Subject. Tho fact that land settlement, or rather the turning to the land rather than to the cities, had been “swallowed line, sinker and all,” by all would certainly indicate that the subject under review was one on which all should be acquainted and, therefore, he rather thought that some observations by one who did not profess to know everything about it might be of interest to those who presumably knew all about it.

I arises, however, is when and how ? The most popular answer to ‘where” is on unoccupied Crown and native lands. This sounds an excellent idea but there are two drawbacks; the unoccupied land in New Zealand is neither very great in amount nor is it, on the whole, of a very satisfactory quality and on one point one can bo definite and that is that the costs of production on poor land are higher than on better class land.

“If one views that it is on the dcveloprnent of unimproved land that our future rests I should like to point out that, of the occupied land of New Zealand, 18,000,000 acres is improved or developed; 11,000,000 acres is in tussock incapable by any known methods of any great improvement; and over 10,000,000 acres is wholly undeveloped and is really in the same category as tho undeveloped Crown lands which do not amount to 10,000,000 acres. “The owners of this land, however, show no violent desiro to rnako it productive, they knowing well that with regard to most of it expenditure on it would be a permanent liability rather than a source of profit. It is certainly true that some of tho unoccupied land of New Zealand would be highly profitable to develop, but much of it is sub-marginal even in times of moderate prices for goods, and the principle of developing them in a cycle of falling prices docs not appear to me to be as sound as many of its advocates state. Improved Land Development.

At anyrate, said the visitor, it was a national question. He proposed to take some of tho generalised statements which one was likely to find any day in any newspaper, public or political speech, and to offer some criticisms or givo some facts pertinent to them. The first ono was, he took it, “New Zealand was filmost -wholly dependent on her primary products derived from tho land.” Ninety-five per cent, ox our exports consisted of primary products and ho presumed that tho statement that the Dominion was wholly dependent on her primary products could be held to be correct so long as an export trade remained an essential factor for our well being. “At anyrate,” said Mr. Cockayne, “I am taking the statement as being correct, and from it tho second or tho reiterated statements follow; namely, ‘increased production from tho land is essential. ’ If tho first statement is true the second one appears to be equally so. Therefore, let us take a glance over our land and over our production is it exists to-day. Production Figures To-day. “There are 75,000 holdings of over five acres in New Zealand, comprising some 43,000,000 acres. In 1929, from this arfca, the farmer received about £75,000,000 for tho goods ho produced. To-day, he is receiving under £50,000,000—a drop duo to price fall of onethird.

“Two features appear to me to rather knock the gilt off tho gingerbread of unimproved land development and tho carving out of it happy and prosperous settlers. The first is that the development of such land is not cheap and secondly it often takes many years before any' definite satisfactory return is experienced for tho money and labour put into it. “It would appear as if rapidity in increase in production is the important thing to-day rather than that such production should be delayed by slowly breading in unoccupied land, much of which is necessarily slow to break in on account of it quality not being on the wholo satisfactory. Ono has a feeling, however that tho 15,000,000 acres that is classed as improved has great potentialities for rapid development along tho lines of increased production. “For instance, tho four million odd acres devoted to dairying, producing at present SOlbs of fat to tho aero, could be brought to double that figure, and one is inclined rather to the idea that the slogan of increased settlement should be modified into the slogan ‘increase production on that land most capable of increase,’ for in point of fact increased production and increased settlement aro by most used as sy'nomy'mous terms, but in point of fact increased settlement might not bo followed by increased production on a satisfactory cost basis, and ono feels inclined to think that the advocates of land settlement on a really largo national scale overlook the dangers that* may come by producing on an unprofitable basis owing to high development costs. Is Land Only Half-Farmed?

“There has been no decrease in production but rather tho reverse, production having increased. AVith a production of £75,000,000 everything was all right, with the exception even wnen it reached that figure national borrowing was extensive and not always directed into those channels that particularly help to increase production to-day. tdo that in our ‘palmy days’ we did not pay our way too well. “To-day, with a production bringing in the farmer £50,000,000, and with the ability to borrow lessened everything is all wrong and it is held that the only thing left for us, unless John Bull will pay more for our farm goods, is to produce more of them. It is just here where the blessed word ‘land settlement’ is brought in, wherewith all wounds will be healed. But just what do we mean by land settlement'! Tho answer that is generally given is ‘why put more people on the land?’ or, as is generally stated ‘put more settlers on the land and increase our 75,000 holdings. More Holdings or More Settlers?

“Do we really want moro settlers and do we want more holdings?" asked Mr. Cockayne. “I know you will say ‘yes,’ but let us think it out a bit. If we go back 10 years we will lind that then wo had just about as many holdings. From this it is clear that although a lot has been talked about land settlement—and a lot spent —not much has been accomplished. The wins, as it were, more or less cross out the losses—but in the past 10 years our production has increased very greatly, indicating that some of our occupied land had increased potentialities and one can safely say, still has. “Naturally, one asks why not realise the potentialities of our present holdings rather than increase the number? “In 1929 the average holding had an income of roughly £1000; to-day the average holding has an income of about £O7O. There arc on the 75,000 holdings less than 120,000 men employed, or of actual paid permanent employees about -10,000; a ligure less than that of those receiving unemployment relief and the total population on the land i 3 about 200,000.

“la the past it did not matter so seriously. All prospective settlers had savings tnat they could lose before their settlement became a national liability, but now the prospective settler has no funds and any loss occasioned has to bo paid for over and over again in interest on borrowings. Taking the occupied land of Now Zealand, a statement that is regularly mado is that our land is only half-farmed and the potentialities for increase from it aro great, with which I am inclined to agree, and one has always had the feeling that tho occupied lands of New Zealand could bo used for the absorption of labour at a profitable basis to a greater extent than they are. Tho farmers of New Zealand employ 40,000 permanents. “Their labour bill is not more than £5,000,000, or a little over 2s per acre of occupied land. The ratio between labour expenses and overhead expenses seems to mo to bo all wrong, and no ordinary business would allow itself to be capitalised oa a basis that precludes adequate labour utilisation for its expansion.

Farmer Carrying Burden? “If we go right back and view that tlie produce from the land is everything that keeps New Zealand going then, on the average, each farmer is carrying about 15 people, on his shoulders—he likes to say he is at anyratc—and he docs this by permanently employing some 40,000 people. In addition, of course, there aro the casuals, shearers, harvesters and the like. “When the farmer was producing £75,000,000, both he and tho 15 others were apparently quite all right but drop him a third and naturally the shoulder straps of the swag burst. (Laughter.) “Seventy-five million pounds means about £SO apiece to each person in New Zealand, whilo £50,000,000 means about £34 apiece," added the speaker. “Each holding—apart from itself has to keep about four families going and will have to continue doing so unless tho ratio between the rural and urban population narrows. Where to Put Settlers. “At once you will say this can bo done by putting more people on the land. The question that naturally

“I would like to emphasise here what I consider is tho essential that we should know, namely, to what extent can additional labour on our occupied land be made profitable in the stimulation of production? Every avenue of successful employment of labour should be investigated and it should bo observed as an obligation on all occupied land that labour to the very fullest extent should be employed. “I kuow the farmer will say additional labour will not pay, but if that statement, is truo how much Jess must it pay where heavy initial establishment costs aro necessary as in land settlement? One has a feeling that more than 2s an acre can be spent on labour on tho occupied lands and it is these rather than new lands that should help to remedy the position that can be brought about by increased production on a reasonable cost basis. Increasing The Fanners.

“At the present time farming is not in a good way, but ic Is claimed tnat

the number of farmers must be increased. In ordinary business such a statement would not bo made. If fifty businesses in a town aro doing badly it is rarely suggested that tho solution of tho difficulty is to establish another 50. And yet some of the advocates of land settlement would seem to indicate that such a reasoning was correct. Bather in business would be considered the reconstruction of businesses in existence rather than their increase in numbers. “It is the reconstruction of our ideas of land settlement into directions that will reconstruct our existing 75,000 holdings into greater users of labour than in the past that is wanted and in this the best constructive and expert brains of the community should be directed. “If settlement of land that will slowly become payably productive when the high cost of establishment is taken into account is sound, how much sounder it must be to increase labour absorption on existing holdings not requiring such establishment expenditure, so no matter which way you look at it, it is the occupied rather than the unoccupied land of tho country on which a return to prosperity by increased production seems to depend. And once again I say its full potentialities for labour absorption should be investigated and exploited to the utmost. Small Holders’ Outlook.

“I had intended to say a few words about small holdings but I refrain. The outlook in front of a small holder cannot be better than that of a peasant and one is loath to think that the future of New Zealand must bo modelled on a condition of peasantry. “It may have to be; but surely not

until the real potentialities of superior stock, superior pasture and its superior management on our present to be improved holdings together with labour is found insufficient to carry us along. “There is, however, one point worthy of note. If greatly increased labour absorption can be brought about on our present occupied ground then the small holder who can bo more or tess regularly employed would become a real asset lr» cho State inasmuch as lie on a small, holding with only intermittently paid employment could live well, without any prrid employment lie could only live badly. Once again is emphasised the importance of the established farm as the medium of retrieving our position, rather than any attempt at. wholesale establishment of new ones,’’’ concluded Ur. Cockayne.