SMALL HOLDING SCHEME

Taranaki Daily News, 1 February 1933, Page 6

SMALL HOLDING SCHEME

OPERATIONS IN TARANAKI FARMLETS AND SHAREMILKING. SUCCESSES ON LARGER AREAS. “Anticipations have been fully realised,” said Mr. J. M. Smith, of the Department of Agriculture, when asked yesterday to comment on the operation of the small farm and sharemilking plans for the relief of unemployment. Mr. Smith was referring to the plans as they applied to the North Taranaki district, extending from Mokau to Opunake and inland to Inglewood. The few men fortunate enough to have been placed on larger holdings, from 25 to 30 acres, had done so well that they were now practically self-supporting and independent of casual work in their immediate locality. As an example, Mr. Smith mentioned a section of 27 acres in the Pungarehu district. Until a few* months ago this was covered with gorse and blackberry and was carrying practically no stock. Now it was subdivided' and drained and was carrying 10 milking cows. “And in another 12 months the herd will probably be increased to 15 cows,” said Mr. F. W. Sutton, inspector of stock, who was also present at the interview. “Is the occupier a farmer?” asked the reporter. “He was a farm-hand before he became unemployed,” said. Mr. Sutton. “Practically all the men placed on the sections were either farmers or farm hands before the slump.” Another promising farmlet is situated at the back of Inglewood, on land that Was covered with bracken fem and was producing nothing. The occupier, who has obtained the place on reasonable terms, took possession only a few weeks ago, but he has already made some progress towards making it productive. “Considering the terms upon which the property has been obtained, there is no doubt this man will be • able to earn a living from it,” observed Mr. Sutton. “Generally speaking, we have done quite as well as expected,” said Mr. Smith. He explained that since the plan was started in June 54 unemployed married men had been placed. „Ten of them were on “small farms” averaging perhaps 10 acres in area, while the remainder had entered share-milking agreements under the arrangement by which the Government erected a cottage, so that accommodation could be provided. Most of the men appeared to appreciate what had been done for them and to make the best of the chance offered them, especially the few men fortunate enough to have been placed on the larger sections. / . Mr. Sutton said, that if more of the larger sections could be obtained the plan would become more successful still, for the occupiers could make themselves practically independent of State aid. He pointed out ' that the bigger areas so far brought; into the scheme had previously been practically non-pro-ductive. Nearly all of the men placed had families up to six children, while one. had eight. Men with families were given preference.

EXCESS OF MEN. \ . j ’ - It was explained that there were 50 or 60 applications from unemployed married men in excess of the farmlets available. Nearly all of the men placed had been nominated by farmers, who had offered land subject to that privilege being granted to them. Provided the nominee was qualified to take the property, the department has always accepted his nomination.

• Alternative plans for the relief of unemployment, such as the “over the fence” scheme, are believed to have had an adverse effect on the opration of the “small farm” plan proper. One of the complements to the plan was that the men placed on the smaller sections of from five to 15 or 20 acres should supplement their earnings from the property by casual work with neighbouring farmers. Unfortunately, however, work or this kind has not been available in the quantity hoped for; it is thought prob able that other relief schemes have been at least partly responsible, for they have meant that other men have been doing the work the small-holders should have been doing. The small-holders so affected have been drawing sustenance payments, the custom being for the returns from their properties to be reviewed periodically in order that the amount of sustenance payable may be fixed. “The small-farm plan is still operating as far. as the farmers are concerned,” said Mr. Smith, in reply to further ■questions. “Offers from farmers are not coming in very freely just now, , but no doubt with the approach of the new milking season further subdivisions of herds and farms will be made, so that it will be possible to place more men as

sharemilkers and small-holders. Legis-

lation is now before the House to acquire larger areas and so make the smallholders self-supporting.” It was pointed out that as the scheme was only started in June farmers had had .little time to which to do fencing and work necessary for participation in the plan. However, a number .of farmers had signified their intention of assisting the scheme this season. : .

Sharemilking agreements had been more popular with the farmers than the provision of small holdings, said Mr. Sutton. One should not forget, he said, that sharemilking was just as effective as small holdings for the settlement of unemployed married men. Other points in favour of sharemilking were that it helped to increase production generally and that it was made effective without costing the State more than administrative expenses.