RURAL POPULATION

Hokitika Guardian, 20 February 1932, Page 2

RURAL POPULATION

MORE' MALE WORKERS

STEADY UPWARD TREND

AUCKLAND, Feb. 19.

In spite of the assertion frequently made that the number of farm workers m New Zealand lias uetreused dining recent years, the official figures compiled by the Government Statistician, Mr Malcolm Eraser, and puoilsued m the Year Rook, give conclusive proof that this is not the case, states the "New Zealand Herald.” In 1928 it was stated by an Auckland Labour member of Parliament that the Government’s land policy was so bad that hundreds had walked oil' their farms without a penny. He asked the Government to explain how it was that there were 13,581, fewer workers on the land in 1927-27 than in 192223. He said that in 1922-23 there were 146,380 farm workers and that by 1926-27 the total had decreased to 132,799.

INACCURATE CLASSIFICATION The figures quoted, however, give tin altogether false impression as' they included both males and females resident on farms. Consequently, in addition to those solely engaged in rural pursuits there were taken into account farmers’ wives and daughters, who. although they spent part of their time on the work of the farm, should really have come under the classification of domestic workers.

Jn compiling the latest official fig. ures no attempt has been made to ,in» elude the great army of temporary workers who are employed on farms during the harvest, the aim being rather to account for those who obtain their living by regular and consistent following of rural pursuits, whether as employer or employee. Of the 1922-23 total of 146,380 farm workers, 107,950 were males and 38,430 were females. Jn 1926-27 the number of male workers had decreased by 5615, and the females by 7966, the former beinng only 5 per cent. Since 1927 the number of male workers had increased by nearly 17,000, the total in the lasD official return, that for the year 1929-30, being given as 119,321. Female workers, on the other hand, halve considerably declined in numbers, there being only 18,800 in 1929-30, as against 30,464 three years earlier, a reduction of 11,664.

RELIABILITY OF NEW FIGURES

The great decrease jn the number of females may be accounted for to a large extent by the fact that/ in the past years many women engaged almost wholly in purely domestic duties were wrongly returned as farm workers. The 1932 Year Book states that a final effort was made in the 1929-30 collection to put the question of persons engaged in farm work on an accurate and uniform basis, and it is believed that the figures obtained us the result of the carefully-worded and amplified questionnaire are as reliable as it is possible to get, Regarding male workers, the Year Book says the upward trend has continued in spite of the growing quantity of farm machinery and laboursaving devices in use. Of the total of 138,121 persons returned as employed on holdings in 1929-39, no fewer than 105,210 (87,894 males and 17,316 females) were occupiers or members of their families, leaving 31,427 males and .1484 females as employees who were not members of occupiers’ families.

It is interesting to consider persons engaged in farm work in relation to farm population. The figures show that of a total farm population of 345,770 the number engaged in farm work was 133,121, or 40 per centConsidering the sexes separately, the proportion of working males to male population was 63 per cent, (occupiers and their families, 46 per cent,, and other employees, 17 per cent.) Similar figures in respect of females show that 12 per cent, of the latter sex residing on holdings were engaged in farm work apart from domestic duties (occupiers and their families, 11 per cent.; other employees, 1 per cent.)