FARMING AFFAIRS

Lake County Mail, Issue 47, 28 April 1948, Page 6

FARMING AFFAIRS

This column is supplied, weekly by Federated Fanners of New Zealand]. The information given is official but any views expressed are those of the federation and are not necessarily those of this newspaper.

Servicemen’s Settlement

While members of Federated Farmers fully realise their responsibility in rehabilitating returned servicemen, they have for some time been concerned that the acquisition of land for settlement has not operated equitably. The recent conference of provincial presidents was concerned, therefore, for discussion of the whole subject of servicemen’s settlement.

After a thorough examination of the problem a deputation from the conference met the Minister of Rehabilitation and put before him the federation’s views. The spokesman told the Minister that they believed, rightly or wrongly, that there was considerable inequity in the acquisition of land. Moreover, a penalty attached to a good farmer who had taken originally undeveloped land and built up the carrying capacity to such an extent that the farm would be divided into two economic units. That was a penalty on husbandry and not in the best interests of the nation.

The deputation also argued before the Minister that the . maintenance of the price of land at the 1942 level was unfair as costs had increased and subsidies had been withdrawn. In no other business, except the sale of land, did such a condition apply. There was also the unsettling effect on the minds of farmers created by the acquisition of land which had not yet been settled they were inclined to question the purchase of more land. Large areas of Maori land were not, of course, being farmed at all and it seemed to the federation that such areas should be used for the settlement of Maori ex-servicemen at least.

It was stated that in the opinion of the federation there was an interference with production which in many cases was not justified by results. Farming by the Government, where land was held for sub-division, was unlikely in many cases to be as efficient as it was under the joriginal owner. In certain cases quoted, the land had been leased back to the original owner. A major reason for withholding sale of land was the final economic position of the vendor. For a farmer and his wife to retire on an income equivalent to that of a couple living on- the maximum social security benefit would require a cash sale of £15,000. A couple on social security could own a free house and have a total income of £1 a week from other sources, thus giving them the equivalent of £390 per annum. A farmer who retired with £15,000 obtained from the sale of his farm (outside the bounds of possibility in the case of most single unit farms) could get £450 a year, invested in Government stock at 3 per cent. From that gross income he had taxes to meet to the extent of £56 a year, leaving him with only £394 from which he had to pay rent.

The deputation discussed these and many other points fully and frankly with the Minister and suggested that a joint committee of Government and federation representatives should further examine the position with a view to finding a solution to the problem. That suggestion was received favourably and further developments are soon likely to occur.