MOOTED UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEME.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 1933, Page 2

MOOTED UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEME.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In connection with the mooted scheme of assisting fanners on the roads leading to Mount Egmont to stunip and clear for the plough the land in that locality, and to take certain areas for payment for this service, I would Ifice to mention that instead of spending money on improving roads, etc., aS has been done, it would have been more to the benefit of the country (if increased production these days can be called a benefit) if concentration had been made on the land-clearing idea from the very start. There are many holders of land on all the roads mentioned in the recent article appearing in your columns who badly need assisting, yet are debarred from such on account of transport not being available and several other regulations imposed by the scheme. Men. who could afford to pay good wages for clearing work in other ' parts have received first consideration because of their ability to meet transport charges; yet in inany instances (and the State holds the mortgage) no help can be obtained for the reason mentioned. Land has been improved for the benefit of the private lender, yet the security of the State goes wanting! There should be-a committee or commission of experienced men appointed to inspect, areas on which unemployed funds are to be used in clearing heavily-timbered land, and the claims of those to receive help to meet the regulations could be studied individually. The land mentioned in your article, in addition to being heavily timbered is in the rain zone-of Egmont and needs draining in order to combat the rainfall. Given proper stumping and drainage, it makes the finest dairying country, which can be proved by the fact that when the level land of the plains and the coastal strip are suffering from shortage of feed on account of dry weather splendid succulent feed is to be obtained on the country mentioned. It is a pity more attention has not been given to this subject from the point of view mentioned, for there is a huge area ■which will take more than two men’s lifetime under ~the present style before it will be turned into good grass paddocks. The drawback occasioned through the rainfall in stumping the ground is a serious check to increased production at the present time, and has. had a seriously disheartening effect on many of the earlier selectors of the land. ■ The hardship caused by bad bums in the early days, which necessitated very hard work to counteract, is not understood or recognised by the younger settlers; yet explanation by those who have stuck to their original selections will reveal a tale of struggle which the land seekers of to-day. would carefully fight shy of. In many cases men have, after a good many years, given up all and got out of it. and this should not be. It. was mentioned in your article that the land under notice did not and does, not appeal to the moneylender; yet had the earlier settler been backed to a proper extent in the main work of felling his bush in one lump, and in clearing a decent-sized acreage, a different aspect would be viewed to-day. In regard to the suggestion to take off a certain area as payment for the work done there may be many sections which would lend themselves to that object. But what about the areas that would not? What about those areas of land in some favoured localities that have been greatly improved under the unemployed scheme for the benefit of the mortgagee alone —land which would lend itself to closer settlement much more easily than that of the area under notice? Then, again, there are very many cases where, settlers have acquired sections contiguous to their main farm, and it can be shown where one man has three sections in his name—sections which, put . under a closer settlement method, would considerably increase in production and enable several extra families to obtain decent living. Sections .of 300 acres or thereabouts close to rail, factory and town should be acquired, , cut .up and allotted to suitable people. Never mind troubling about making them freehold. There are many farmers on education leases (reserves) who pay an annual rent and can weather the effects of the depressed times even if 6d. per lb. for butterfat is reached, and if the Government took suitable areas and arranged for settlers on the same lines I fancy much benefit would at once be felt. To pay fancy prices for suitable land, as has been done, and expect new men ‘to pay the charges entailed in addition to th» requirements of paddocking and suitable buildings, and also top-dressing manure and stock, is of no use to the average unemployed man with growing family and no cash. But initiate a scheme whereby land and stock can be provided and make suitable men sharemilkers for the State, and we would see an'-import-ant change. The closer the attention a man gave his work and proved his ability as a farmer the better for himself and all else. We already have in the Agricultural Department experts who could supervise or advise the occupier in all things, and I cannot see why this radical suggestion I make should not be put into effect. Reverting to the mooted scheme of clearing the land around Mount Egmont, it is to be hoped serious attention will be given the matter, and by appointing a committee of. commission to investigate as I suggest, I am certain information which would open the eyes of the public, and which would be of interest to all, could be obtained. — I am, etc., COWSPANKER.