ON THE LAND

Taranaki Daily News, 11 June 1932, Page 20 (Supplement)

ON THE LAND

SMALL HOLDING SCHEME

MAN, NOT LAND SETTLEMENT “DIMINISHING STATE LIABILITY" EXPLANATION BY MR. COCKAYNE. ‘‘Not land settlement, but man settlement,” was the description of the email holding scheme given by Mr. A. H. Cockayne, assistant director-general of agriculture, during an address to farmers at the winter show at New Plymouth yesterday afternoon. The scheme of settling unemployed men with families on small holdings should not be dignified by the name of land. settlement, he said. The idea was to withdraw them as soon as possible from the condition ■ of being a liability on the State and to enable them to j’ecovei a position in the productive part of the community, with benefit both to themselves and the Dominion as a whole. So far as the farmers were concerned, Mr. Cockayne emphasised that the scheme could only succeed if it had the support, sympathy and advice of the settlers in the neighbourhood. “Unless we get that neither the Government nor the small holder will be successful,” he said, “but from my experience during the past week or two I am sure, that support will be given unanimously. Some might say, he continued, that the plan was all right, but could not be successfully carried out by a Government department. He could assure them, however, that the State department would have very little to do with the essential features of the scheme. Committees of farmers had been established in the various districts and the members of those committees were being called upon to give their knowledge and experience to make the scheme a success. Wherever a committee said there was a suitable locality for X small holder it was the duty of the department to supply a suitable married man. But it was the duty of the farmers’ committees to say where and when, and afterwards to act as guide, philosopher and friend to the smallholder. “We don’t say it will be a com- • plete solvent of the unemployment problem,” he observed, “but we do say it will at least be . a stepping stone to something better, provided the men lucky enough to be selected are of the type that will be content to - become owners and with the ambition and ability to work towards something better.” “LEAD TO NATIONAL STABILITY.”

Continuing his address, Mr. Cockayne said: “I want particularly to stress three points: (1) General conditions cannot bo viewed as good; iu fact.it looks to me that August 4, 1014, is .with us again, but with an essential difference. Then the issue was definite and we were rich, now the issue is indefinite and We are poor. What we would like to do and what we can do are two vastly different things. (2) The plan I intend to try to explain and discuss with you. I do not dignify by the name of land settlement, but rather as an appeal for the recovery of as many men as possible from remaining a total liability to the State to a position of at least partial self dependance at An early •date. I want you to think of the plan from this standpoint and not As a panacea for all the problems of land settlement. (3) I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that it is the land of New Zealand and labour devoted to winning production from the land that represents the only possible main

avenue that will lead to national ity“This is the fundamental idea, underlying the plan. If it is possible to place registered unemployed families on small holdings in New Zealand so that they may become a diminishing rather than an increasing liability on the State then such families should be so placed. Accepting that such a, view is sound, it is essential that the whole of New Zealand should be explored so that an answer may be given as fapidly as possible to the questions, How many 1 How and where? —followed immediately by the execution of the plan rather than talking about it. “The Government has not unlimited funds and it is essential that the expenditure in converting a family from ■ a liability + o an asset must be as small as possible. The individual prospect must be economically sound otherwise the plan is useless. In other words, the establishment costs of our small holders must be individually as low as possible, and their aggregate numbers as high as possible. THE METHOD OF THE PLAN. ''The method proposed is for the Government wherever possible, to lease with a. right of purchase 5 to 10 acres, or perhaps more, from which, even from the very start, with cows, pigs, poultry and hoine-grown foods the settler will at least reduce his cost of living. In addition, as selection of holders is to be strict and wherever possible in the hands of the farmer, each holder will represent a. man capable of giving a fair return either for money or kind for whatever outside work may be available from time to time in his neighbourhood. “In the beginning it is recognised that the two sources of supply for his living, namely what he can make by working on his holding and by working off his holding, will be insufficient to enable him to get a reasonable start and these sources of livelihood will have to be supplemented by a sustenance allowance up to say £1 per week, such sustenance payments being reviewed from time to time. I want you particularly to bear in mind that it is not held that the small holding will provide all his wants, but be will he better off both with regard to himself and with regard to the State by being put in a position of becoming partly self-supporting right from the start, with a fair prospect of becoming wholly so. “Every settler we can so place is a lessening of the unemployment liability and anything tending in this direction, must by all right thinking men, be viewed as progressive and not retrograde. In viewing the whole plan in an impartial manner I think we must agree that it represents a. something that is constructive rather than the reverse and I have the feeling that unless constructive plans within the scope of our purse are devised and carried out, the outlook must become progressively darker. Again I want to emphasise that finance is the limiting factor in any movement from towns to the country, the only logical future development of New Zealand, and it does look to me that the small farm plan represents a practical if not an ideal way that at least a trickle iu this direction can be started, and personally I consider that once «

trickle has been started a stream ( can be made to flow rapidly. “On each holding that is secured, a small cottage is to be erected and ie prospective settler is to be provided with the necessary material in the way of fencing, live and dead stock to make him partly self-supporting right fiom the jump. The cost of the cottage and other capital goods will be in the vicin ity of £250, and allowing say a rental of £lO per-year and interest charges for establishment of say, another £lO to £l5 per year, it should be possible to set up our small .holder at a cost calculated as rent, of 10s per week. This is at least what is to be aimed, at and if it can be done cheaper in certain cases so much the better. I think you will agree that when viewed m this way there are very considerable possibilities of converting large numbers of at present unproductive units into production, with a lessening of State liability. MODERATE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY “Now let us consider the holdings themselves. It is essential that they should consist of land capable ot moderate production from the outset and I am confident that given the, right type of holder, a quite considerable production can be secured— production that will steadily increase. A small holding that has the sympathy, support and advice of the neighbourhood can easily be made acre for acre more productive than a large one. A small holding offers more diversity in producing small things that may be highly important and rank larger to the holder than can a large one. There is no need to specify here the diversification capabilities of a small holding, These of necessity, vary in every part of New Zealand, but I think you will agree that the small holder has a greater scope for having his production eggs in a variety of baskets than does the larger holder, under present conditions. ‘“Small holdings as self-supporting units have been made •an agricultural pastime in many countries far less naturally endowed with soil and climate than is New'Zealand! Why should the tendency to development fail here? I don’t by any means go so far as do many theoretical small holding advocates, but I ani convinced that small holdings can provide a fair return and improve the living conditions of many of our. unemployed. ‘You want to develop the peasantry system of such countries as Denmark,’ is what is constantly thrown up againt me, and my answer is direct enough: ‘Better the peasantry conditions of Denmark than a bare subsistence in the cities at the State’s expense.’ On a small holding in the country if one has any grit ho need not starve, but unemployed he has to in the towns if he is going to buy and not steal his subsistence. “The second source of incoriie or, source of living, is represented by earnings either in cash or kind from neighbouring land other than the holdings. This would essentially be of a seasonal, casual or intermittent nature and I claim that there is far more to be got than is generally realised. Our land cries aloud for labour in aiding production and particularly for special jobs at special seasons of the year. There is no provision in New Zealand for this type of labour at the present time. Our cities are surfeited with labour of which productive use cannot be made, and much has to be paid for by the State. Surely this is a position that the small farm plan can help to modify even if only in a modest manner to commence with? MOfcE LABOUR FOR PRODUCING. “If one views the agricultural development of the last decade or so one must be struck by the fact that the great forward move made in aiding production has been along the line of a more generous use of bought materials

that in themselves, often ' reduce the costs of production. But at the same time, there has been a distinct tendency to restrict labour more and more to dealing with production after it has been produced. This is far too much a one-sided way of development, and more labour as ..n actual means of producing goods must be brought into play. "One is confident that there are many avenues of seasonal and intermittent work that are payable, and provided the right type of 'man is available and is conveniently located, he should have little difficulty in picking up all such available labour to be paid for sometimes in money and sometimes in other ways that will be to the small holder, even more valuable than money. One knows that there is a lot of such labour to be picked up and the small farm plan is going to pick it up with resultant benefit both to farmer and small holder. Wherever there appears to be a. reasonable labour demand it will go to a small holder. “Another point on which I wish to particularise, is that in the selection of land it is desirable, wherever possible that an option over an area greater than that leased should be secured. It does not matter whether such extra land actually adjoins the holding, nor does it matter whether it is improved. .The main object of a small holding is that it should be self-supporting and one realises that except under specialised conditions, 10 acres is not sufficient. It is held, however, that the first move is to get the man on the land and on an area not greater than he can handle, and get him to perform useful work both on and off his holding,. “A STEPPING STONE.”' “This can be viewed as the stepping stone to a self-supporting unit, and in many cases, to a contented ownership. Keeping on as we are looks like a stepping stone to disaster and the small farm plan should take its rightful place so far as ever it can as one of the methods whereby disaster nifty be avoided. You are all going to help. First and foremost we, want your own goodwill, secondly your realisation that small holders will be in many cases advantageous to you, and thirdly by your active assistance and advice both to us in securing land in favourable locations under - favourable terms and to the small holders when established, by going to them and receiving from them fair treatment that will turn them into permanent assets rather than permanent liabilities.” Referring to difficulties that might possibly arise during the further development of the scheme, Mr, Cockayne said he was confident that if they ail—department, farmers and. smallholders—unitedly put their shoulders to the wheel any obstacle would be overcome, j He was confident the plan in operation , would relieve the general unemployment problem to a great extent, besides enabling the individual concerned to become self-supporting instead of remaining a liability on the State. The idea of the scheme was to withdraw unproductive units from unemployed relief labour. Already in many parts of New Zealand the response from farmers had been most gratifying, and he had no hesitation in saying that before many

weeks had passed houses would have been built to accorhmodate those families who, rather than remain a liability on the State, would thus be given a. fair, fighting chance to become j contented owners of their little holdings. Mr. H. C. Sampson, president of the Taranaki Metropolitan Agricultural Society, who introduced Mr. Cockayne, proposed a vote of thanks at the conclusion of the address. He described the scheme as a stepping-stone and expressed the opinion that in the future they would see a great many of the small holders as permanent farmers. He considered this scheme was the best the Ministry of Unemployment had produced to date.