Group Fanning

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 80, 25 June 1927, Page 26

Group Fanning

Country Party's Proposal

Australian Experience

VARIOUS schemes have been tried in Australia to boost the farming industry and one of the latest projects of the Western Australian Government was the system of group settlement. The new Country Party, conceived by Auckland Provincial District of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, is reported to be considering the incorporation of a similar scheme in its new platform. In the light of such an event, therefore, a review of the results which followed the intro', duction of the scheme into Australia would not be amiss.

Group settlement was launched in Western Australia in 1921 in an endeavour to economically settle the kauri and jarrah forest areas. To date it has cost that State £2,391,229. One hundred and thirty-three groups have been established, holding 2,23!$ settlers and a total population of 9,262 persons.

The result of the experiment has been to show that the cost of breaking in the land under the communal system is up to three times as great as that found possible when the land was first thrown open for settlement, and individual settlers were aided by the Agricultural Bank. The group system tends to foster inefficiency, especially where the settlers are paid a sustenance wage by the Government, and initiative and energy are to a great extent stifled.

Since the inception of the group settlement scheme up to April 24, 1925, the relative percentage of those who had left their holdings were: Migrants, 31 per cent.; Australians, 41 per cent. THE SCHEME EXPLAINED

Briefly the scheme provides for Government paying the settlers to bring the land into a state fit for profitable occupation before it is portioned out to the permanent settlers. The land is divided into groups of 20 sections, and

20 intending settlers, under a foreman, are paid a sustenance wage not exceeding 10s a day by the Government to clear and improve the land to a state which will allow the incoming tenant to be self-supporting right from the start. A certain portion of each section is cleared each year and the house and outbuildings erected prior to occupation. Cost of materials, etc., is all borne by the Government. When the sections are considered fit for occupation, members of the groups have the preference in a ballot, and the amount already paid out by the State in wages, materials. interest and supervision are loaded as a capital charge against the block. DISADVANTAGES OF SCHEME While the scheme, on paper, appears quite feasible, in practice it has been found to possess many disadvantages. As in all Government or communityoperated schemes, the tendency always is for the members of the group to adopt a uniform stroke, and always there will be found the “slacker,” whose labour is charged up at the same rate as the others against the ultimate capital cost of the block. There is, in fact, under such circumstances little inducement for individual effort, and efficiency suffers. This has been proved to be the case in Australia. In September, 1924; a Royal Commission was set up to inquire into all questions affecting the group settlement scheme in Western Australia, and found that the “group settlement of farms had been wasteful to a critical degree. The sustenance wage provis-

ions of the scheme have a demoral effect on the settler, and have been chief cause of the high cost of groiin work. The group settler is denied th right for the start to select his land and is paid at a standard sustenuiv rate whether his work is satisfa tarJ or only partially so. He has no od portunity of exercising initiative--! everything is planned for him. He is only human and apt to set his pact b>that of his neighbours, realising tha only one-twentieth of any extra effor directly benefits him. He is trying oir the land at the risk of others, and* should he find the work uncongenii’ may leave the group at any time wia only trifling loss to himself.”

Thus, the financial responsibility rests entirely with the State, and cer tainly, any loss, whether it be dlie tl lack of effort on the part of the stoub settlers, or any other factor, inevitably falls back to the same source. J

At first it was expected that the group system as it was operating Western Australia would have to be disbanded. The money already spent -however, stands in the way of" thi*T The original agreement on the deb* chargeable for the clearing and other wise preparing a 160-acre block fr occupation, was limited to £I,OOO. Thy plan was that the settler, when his section was allotted him, should give I

mortgage to the Agricultural Bank for the first £I,OOO, and for such subsequent advances made to him as aa individual to develop his farm to its full production. The sustenance wage charge alone against each section, however, wai found to range from £4OO to £650. Summing up, the Royal Commission found in Western Australia that it was obvious that the farms were not worth what it had cost to prepare them, anl that it would be a mistake to carry the full debt forward in the hoj>e that the value would be established at a later date. POSSIBILITIES IN NEW ZEALAND With a striking example so close at hand, the chances for the success of such a scheme’ in New Zealand take little weighing up. Operated on the lines of the Australian scheme, it would be most impracticable and lead only to disaster. It must be remembered that shortly after the present Reform Party came into power, it placed on the Statute Book legislation whereby small groups of settlers, by entering into a joint and several guarantee, could apply to the Government for holdings, and even compel improved blocks to be cut up. So little, however, has the spirit of brotherhood been imbued into mankind that as yet the legislation has not been operate! upon. No, if the Country Party desires to bring forward legislatioh which will be a factor in developing this country, it must be such that will encourage individual effort and return to the settler the full reward for his labours. —R.C.