THE FARM SCHEME

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 296, 9 August 1932, Page 4

THE FARM SCHEME

I - | The cancellation of the 4A farm unemployment scheme will | not come as a surprise to those |who have been watching the trend of events. Receptly a number of significant statements have been maae, which indicated the extent to which the scheme was being abused, and in view of the condition of affairs which i was revealed, it is not surprising ! that the Unemployment Board has been forced to take drastic action. The weakness of the scheme was the opportunity which it provided for farmers to obtain cheap labour at the cxpense of the regular farm workers, and times being what they are, it was more or less to be expected that the present position would develop. Nevertheless the fault does not lie entirely at the door of the farmers. In their enthusiasm for the "over-the-fence" catch cry, Mr. Coates and the Unemployment Board failed to recognise the necessity for controlling the scheme within strictly circumscribed limits. Too much was left to the supervision of local committees, and where these were either unable to ensure proper administration or failed to do so, trouble was the result. The idea at the back | of the 4A scheme is sound ; and j it is to be regretted that the I Unemployment Board hafc not i been able to exercise a sufficient- ! ly strict supervision to carry it | out successfully. There can be i no doubt that the farming comj munity requires all the assistance which can be given it, and labour is not the least of these. A scheme which would enable a farmer to secure unemployment i labour for developmental purposes was eminently sound ; and it should still be possible for the board to re-organise the scheme | in order to make this possible. The great failing of the scheme has been that the unemployed men have been used for regular farm work which would otherwise have employed regu--|lar farm workers. As the board has pointed out, this was never intended as its purpose, and the result has obviously been to increase unemployment among farm workers outside the relief classification. This state of affairs could not be allowed to continue, but it is to be hoped that the board will not content itself merely with cancelling the scheme. It should be possible to fulfil its purpose by drastically tightening the regulations and providing proper supervision to ensure that they are observed. There is no doubt .that the scheme, in its conception, offers the farming community exceptional opportunities of carrying out developmental work at a low. cost, and it should not be beyond the powers of the Unemployment Board to ensure that this work is developmental and not merely taking from Peter to pay Paul.