NATIVE AFFAIRS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19801, 17 May 1934, Page 10

NATIVE AFFAIRS

PURCHASES OF LAND SUPERVISOR’S CRITICISM By Telegraph—Press Association ROTORUA, May 16 When the Native Affairs Commission resumed hearing evidence this morning, Willitim James Scott, farm supervisor, gave evidence regarding various development blocks in the district. He considered that the Peka block would cost £l6 an acre by the time it was brought in, and even with butterfat £t lOd, it would take good men all their time to make it pay. He would not take up that class of country himself. He thought the purchase of Brent’s farm for £2760 was justified. He had valued it at £3689 himself, although the Government valuation was £2OOO. It was a good change block for bush-sick stock although he would not have considered its purchase had another block adjacent been available. He considered that the Okere and Taheke blocks of 1500 acres had a good prospect of yielding their value, but

they should be run lor four or five years as a grazing proposition to eliminate ragwort. Witness mentioned a number of other small blocks, which he considered were reasonable purchases. Dealing with Maketu, witness said that this should carry a cow to an acre and a half, when fully developed. There was a short winter at Maketu, and the block should support a lot of people. This also was a sound purchase. He criticised the purchase of the Tokaanu block, however, stating that he considered it worth only £6OOO of the £13,000 so far spent on it. There would have to be a substantial writing down here. In reply to Mr Nelson, witness agreed that transportation costs of 4/- a head on 3000 ewes brought from Hicks Bay to the Ruatahuna block were too high 2/- a head being sufficient. He thought there would also have to be a considerable writing down in regard to the Tihiotunga block on which £41,000 so far had been spent. He agreed that the purchase of a farm from a man named lies for £SOOO was not justified. It had been bought as a change block for bush-sick sheep, but other blocks were available for this. The purchase had been made before his time. A Complaint. Michael C. Burgess, of Ongarue, brought a complaint before the Commission that he had beeu unable on behalf of his wife, to obtain from the Waikato-Maniapoto Native Land Board the sum of £559 held by it on behalf of Mrs Burgess as the final instalment of payments due to her from the alienation of native lands. Burgess said that over a period of years he had made frequent representations and had interviewed the Native Minister but without success, except that he had been told that the money would be made available if Mrs Burgess placed her land under the control of the Native Department. The chief clerk of the department, George Patrick Shepherd, said the position was that the Board had not the funds available to make the payi :nt at present. The Minister had minuted the correspondence, indicating his opinion that Mrs Lurgess would be paid when funds were available. Mrs Burgess had already received £3635 from the Board, the proceeds of alienation, and it had been suggested that the department should exercise supervision over her property in order I to ensure that the final instalment of the money would not be squandered. George Orr. one time supervisor of the Bay of Plenty schemes, said he had inspected the Horohoro and Tikitere schemes near Rotorua. He considered 1 that Tikitere was fair ]-,nd with reasonable prospects of being successfully farmed provided care was exercised in management, but he did not think the Horohoro country was suitable for dairying in anv circumstances. Evidence that an improved system with regard to stock returns had been [ introduced was given by Arthur Me- | Intyre who was recently transferred from head office to Rotorua. When the Commission adjourned I Leslie Brown, farm supervisor, was giving evidence in regard to the various schemes.