SMALL HOLDINGS SCHEME

Taranaki Daily News, 14 May 1932, Page 7

SMALL HOLDINGS SCHEME

UNION THROWS IN WEIGHT SUPPORT FROM NORTH TARANAKI. QUESTIONS ASKED BY FARMERS. ‘7 think that w® shout! ’show tb-ffay that we are prepared to support the scheme to the full extent,” said the president of the North Taranaki branch of the Farmers’ Union, Mr. H. E. Blyde, when the union considered the Government’s scheme for placing unemployed married men on small holdings at its meeting at New Plymouth yesterday. “We have to be prepared to stretch a point and make some sacrifice,” continued Mr. Blyde.. “The scheme gets men out in to the country, puts them on to productive work and makes them self-supporting. It is worthy of our whole-hearted support.” Members of the union decided unanimously to support the scheme as far as possible, both individually and collectively. The working of the scheme was outlined by Messrs. J. M. Smith and F. W. Sutton, of the Department of Agriculture. Afterwards members ,were invited to ask questions. What system of valuation of the sections did the Government propose to follow? asked Mr. H. Hunt (Stratford). There was no definite system of valuation set down, said Mr. Smith. It was a matter for agreement between the department’s officers and the farmer. If no agreement could be made between the farmer and the man. on the ten acres for taking the rent out in labour the Government had guaranteed to pay the farmer his rent in cash. WORKING OUT INTEREST. The man would have to work out the interest on- the property and the stock, said Mr. H. R. Marsh, and it seemed there would be title coming in to Ixim. Say the farmer agreed to base his value of the man’s labour on 12s 6d or* 10s a day, said Mr. Smith. Then if the man had £3OO worth of land the rental would be £2O a year, which would mean that the man would have to give the farmer 40 days’ work a year. That was not a great deal of time out of 365 days. Say the farmer set the man up with five cows valued at £lO each. The man could work out the whole cost of the cows by 100 days’ work. Under . the lease system the department suggested that the lease should be for five years with the right of renewal for another five.. If the economic position changed in the five years and the man decided to leave the farm, then the Government would negotiate for the owner to buy the land back. There was going to ba a period at the beginning when the man would be not producing anything. How was he going to get on during that period? asked Mr. D. Morgan. Until the man got on his feet, say for the first six months, said Mr. .Smith, the Government would pay him £1 a week. In the case where the land was given and the stock given by the farmer, who was going to pay the cost of the transfer? asked Mr. A. Chapman. The Government would stand that even in the case Of sales, leases or gifts, said Mr. Smith. When th® man was placed bn the section and later found himself in a position to purchase the holding would he be given the option of purchase? asked Mr. Hunt. OPTION TO PURCHASE, The Government would ■ like 7 the farmer to give the man the option, said Mr. Smith, but the farmer might not be -able to do that. Naturally the section woiild have to be near the main road and the shack the Government was putting on the place, though. comfortable, would not be an asset perhaps on the front paddock. The farmer mightbe prepared to. sacrifice .the . land for five or 10 years but he might not be prepared to part with it altogether. ' ' If the farmer was prepared to- give a property with a house already on it would the Government consider taking the house as' well ? asked Mr. C. J. Harris. • ;

The Government would consider. any proposition of that kind, said Mr. Smith. Would it be necessary to (have a survey made in each case? asked Mr. J. F. Phillips. The Crown Lands office said it would not be necessary, said Mr, Smith, and arrangements were being made' to cover that aspect in the Bill, if an agreement could be made between farmers and the department by chaining. He understood that under this scheme the farmer would be allowed to choose the man he might wish to come on to his land, said Mr. Blyde. That was so, said Mr. Smith. There was another branch of the scheme under, which a : man might be placed on a twoacre holding in districts, where surrounding farmers were starving for labour. Many of the farmers haff, already single men as unemployed labour on their farms, . said Mr. Blyde. If the farmer could take a married man with his wife and children instead of a single man it would be better on the whole for the country. If the man on the two-acre farm was working' full time for the neighbouring farmers he believed the man’s wife and children, if they were energetic, would be able to work the two acres and perhaps keep fowls and pigs. The question of the valuation of sections in the case where'there was. a mortgage over the property was going to be difficult, said Mr. M. G. Trotter. Properties were so much ovefl-valued with mortgages that the taking over of some of the land by the department would, be the basis of a new valuation in the district. The department would not be able to take over the land at present day valuations and make it pay. Mortgages were going to be a difficult point to settle, said Mr. Smith. The department’s officers had been instructed to take over land that they considered reasonable. If they could not come to a reasonable figure with the farmer they would have to let the offer slide, though they were prepared, to stretch. alt points to meet the farmers. Land offered at £lOO an acre on which only one man could be settled would not ■be as suitable as land offered at £3O an acre on which at the same cost the Government could settle three men. There would be a certain amount of fencing to do and the erection of a cowbail and a fowl-house. The Government would supply the material for these and the man would have to erect them. This would be extra cost and the Government had not unlimited, funds, so they could see that high priced land would not be very suitable. Would the Government consider takover a block of, say, 25 acres as a gift? asked Mr. W. Hardgreaves. The Government would -consider anything as a gift, said Mr. Smith. The settlement of men in outlying districts would depend to some extent on the amount of casual labour the man could