DEFINITION OF FARMER

Taranaki Daily News, 10 February 1933, Page 9

DEFINITION OF FARMER

RELIEF WORK ON OWN LAND BOARD EXPLAINS CONDITIONS. PRODUCTION, NOT AREA, COUNTS. SECURITY OF TENURE IMPORTANT. Committees had raised the question as to the number of acres a worker or his wife might own to be termed a farmer, in regard to previous circulars, remarked Mr. G. C. Godfrey, Commissioner of Unemployment, in a circular letter to local relief committees which was before the Ohura County Council on Wednesday. It was difficult to determine that, he added, unless the circumstances of each man’s case were, known, as the quality of the land and the uses to which it was put materially affected the consideration. The guiding factor should be whether the property when fully developed, would maintain the farmer or whether the farm was so favourably situated that casual work was easily obtainable and the income derived therefrom, together with that from the farm when fully developed, would enable the farmer to carry on without further assistance from the unemployment fund. If the property was already fully developed and the income derived from it had been insufficient to provide for the worker > without outside employment or lc was considered that an undeveloped property, even if brought into full use, Would not support the worker apart from relief, then it should not be treated as a small farm, but in granting relief to workers who had such land from which some assistance could be obtained, it should be taken into consideration when determining the amount of relief to be given, which should be under scheme 5 and not scheme 4a. Before any cases were definitely approved for employment on their own properties there would have to be an assurance that the farmer’s tenure of the property was reasonably secure; otherwise a man might be turned off the property immediately after, he had brought the land into full production.. For instance,. a farmer renting a place on a weekly or monthly basis should not be considered. All workers placed on their own properties must realise that their employment was full-time and in no case must assistance, in the first instance, be approved for a period exceeding thirteen weeks, when the circumstances could be reviewed. The commissioner asked’ that the No. 5 scheme cases in the district be reviewed in the light of the foregoing and if it was considered that they should continue under that scheme it might be possible to reduce the scale of relief on account of their being able to produce something from their properties. The object of the proposal was to reduce the cost to the unemployment fund and at the same time improve the position of the worker by the development of his property and consequent increase in production thereon. It was stated that those instructions referred specifically to workers who were employed under the No. 5 scheme and were or would be put off from that scheme as a result of a previous circular. In cases where applications were received for assistance from farmers who had not previously been in receipt of relief under the relief schemes, full particulars should be referred to the Unemployment Board’s office, when an inspection would be arranged. The chairman (Mr. G. Deniston) said that apparently as long as they were satisfied that if the property was improved the owner would be able to make a living off it with the assistance of casual labour, it could be brought under the Scheme even if it were only five acres. In reply to the council’s letter asking that the allocation for relief workers in the Qngarue district be increased, the Unemployment Commissioner, advised that the allocations were based on the latest number of eligible unemployed received from the certifying officers and the sum thus granted represented the maximum amounts the board’s funds would allow.