CLOSER SETTLEMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 247, 19 October 1936, Page 6

CLOSER SETTLEMENT

Sir,-As considerable prominence nas recently been given to economic benefits accruing from “Closer Settlement,” let us examine the question not just from “a Wanganui angle - ’ out . rather from the angle of those whose . affairs would be so permanently , settled. Let the question be analysed . from three viewpoints:— 1. The economic prospects of the • proposed settlers, i.e., the economic rewards per hours worked. 2. The class of product resulting from such closer settlement and its relation to our economic life. 3. Whether such schemes for closer settlement are capable of sustained support on economic grounds in a country so singularly placed as New Zealand. Firstly, it may be said that the price of the land would definitely affect the prospects of such a scheme. It would make little or no difference, for other factors would undermine such a scheme were the land (i.e. the unimproved value of such land) given them free. Since neither general Government nor local bodies are ever likely to agree to land having no unimproved value it matters not whether such proposed settlers pay the Government or the private landowner, that unimproved value remains. Covetous eyes are cast on say a thousand-acre holding valued at £4O per acre (£3O unimproved (?) value and £lO improvements). Cut up into 50-acre farms those twenty farms would require a further £lO per acre improvements in 20 houses at £lOOO each. Add to such per acre improvements such matters as necessary farm buildings, further subdivision, water systems for both stock and farmer and another £2O per acre is put on to the improved value. So that the £4O an acre land must become £7O an acre land before farming operations get under way. If pre-sent-day valuations of land are considered excessive what can be said of this illustrative “land cost of £7o’’ as against its present £4O. There is one way and one way only for that £7O an acre land to be farmed—by the unpaid labour of man, wife and children. Of a family doing 16—20 hours' work per day for less than the worker on his 40-hour week basis. The city worker or any worker for that matter, does not bring along his wife and family to speed up his daily output gratis. The prosperity of Hamilton and Palmerston North have been ascribed to closer settlement. Is it any credit to either Hamilton or Palmerston North if their progress is only possible because of the unfair labour of the wives and families of those enjoying such closer .settlement? If the time worked rather than the amount of work done, is the basis of present-day remuneration for same, why not apply it all round. Therefore, let it first be shown that closer settlement offers social and economic justice and not unadorned hypocracy and not the just desire to make a further chopping block of a larger number. Secondly, closer settlement spells butter-fat. Wanganui business houses do not require pounds of butter-fat, but butter-fat converted into money—it bespeaks a purchaser. The London butter market is moderately well over-supplied even now! Why not settle all the land between Welling- ! ton and New Plymouth and cause the closing of every freezing works en route! It all works out so very simply. Thirdly, as keenest factory prices are associated with large factory units, no one in possession of the elements of such matters would suggest that the ideal exporting manufacturer in England would be the oneman factory up some back street. Supplying the world’s markets over the world’s longest trade route, keen New Zealand costs of production are logically associated with these larger production (farm) units. Were we a Belgium, a Holland or even an England, the farmlet might, being alongside an inexhaustible internal market, be a most excellent departure. The New Zealand of small farms so confidently envisaged, has yet to be Droved a possible attainment. It