TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays WEDNESDAY, 31st AUGUST, 1949 IMMIGRATION AND FARMERS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 79, Issue 7101, 31 August 1949, Page 6

TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays WEDNESDAY, 31st AUGUST, 1949 IMMIGRATION AND FARMERS

RECENT discussions affecting the attitude of various sections of Federated Farmers on the question of immigration are decidedly interesting, and give scope for much consideration. Mr • O’Shea’s remarks at the population conference last week, wherein he sensed danger in an extensive immigration scheme, have been countered to some extent by Mr J W. Eari, of Can tei bury, and by Mr W. a. Perry, rhe Dominion president. The varying views and opinions p.ave bearing on vhat is at pi - eat a ruling topic for thougne and attention. Mr O’Shea assumed it would lead to a larger population on a peasant basis—meaning in effect a rural community cn uneconomic and small holdings as a result of so little selective care at the outset as to end in hastily improvised settlement schemes. To that extent his warning was as wise as it was justifiable. We know that under standards of land settlement which conform with the idea of economic .farming in this country suitable or sufficient land is not available for ex-servicemen waiting to go on the land. Whether, however, new areas could be thrown open to incoming land seekers and whether means could be provided so that new settlement could proceed is worthy of consideration, for it is abundantly clear that much potential opportunity is locked away in sparsely settled localities. But the present discussion by Federated Farmer executives reposes largely on what what is meant by a “peasant farmer”, and in this regard Mr Perry offers the view in support of an oft-stated and widely accepted principle that farm units should be big enough to allow a standard of living which this Dominion has recognised. Mr Earl goes further and speaks of “peasants” as independent, prosperous small-holders of the more 1 richly diversified rural economy and the better served, better equipped, better educated, better established ; rural communit : es of a future that New Zealand can inherit, investing

wisdom with money, and when so regarded, immigration can be made part of the investment. That is surely the vision and the incentive that should mark the progress of rural settlement and though it may conflict with some of the policies which have -land development, there is no reason why the pioneering spirit ano the idea of i ural independence should not be fuily regained. Moreover, an entirely changing outlook can be encouraged from the idea that national strength lies in a pre-ponderance-of rut al population. Time was when the urban and rural ratio 60 per cent..on rhe land; to-day a higher standard of security is with an inverse ratio. Mechanisation on the farms, quicker and, improved communication, and better town building in rural centres have broken down the isolation and much of the drudgery of- farm life and* have changed entirely th u.ea of “peasant” faimers. What New Zealand most needs from every standard—domestic security,-•"defence, and the maintenance of all economic standards, is a more diversified settlement -—more of servicing for production and higher development of so many latent opportunities. Selective immigration is a vital phase to be made complete only when there is purposeful and well-directed expansion to advance the development which a future makes so reasonably possible.