POLITICAL TALKS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 648, 27 April 1929, Page 20

POLITICAL TALKS

SETTLING THE LAND SIDELIGHTS ON DENMARK (Written (or THE SUN by D. JONES t M.P.). XII. Away back in the early days of Bible history we read that a dispute arose between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot about land. "And the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together.” That appears to have been the beginning of the land problem, and it has been with us ever since. One of the comic papers once had a picture of a man struggling in the sea. An onlooker seeing him being beaten by the waves, rushed up and down the beach, crying out: “Get on the land, young man!” That is the attitude of most political parties when the country is in a difficult position. Right in the forefront of their policy, in large letters, is: “Bold and progressive land settlement policy to be vigorously pushed forward.” Like the cry of cheap bread, it appeals to the masses and is looked upon as a good vote-catcher. Land settlement, like every other business venture, can only be assured of success provided that it is carried out on business-like lines. X am an enthusiastic supporter of land settlement. Ours is a wonderful little country, with a climate that enables us to take full advantage of the soil. There is much room for intelligent subdivision, and unquestionably the land will carry a greatly increased population in future. Our land policy, however, must take into consideration all the difficulties: the number of trained farmers available: the most profitable class of land to purchase; the methods of purchase, and man}' other vital matters. A LAND REFORMER A British Commission came to the Dominion some years ago to study these questions, and it had an immigration policy in view. One of the members of that commission was the late Rider Haggard, the novelist, and ail enthusiastic supporter of very close subdivision and settlement. I was asked to give evidence before the commissio*, and spoke from farming experience and knowledge of New Zealand conditions. Rider Haggard made the mistake of thinking he could transplant the system of Denmark right here and settle the Dominion in 10, 20 and 30-acre farms. I had my facts with me, and had no difficulty in proving to the commission how erroneous were his views when applied to New Zealand. I have since had the satisfaction of noting that Rider Haggard’s views on land settlement changed, and before his death about four years ago he condemned close subdivision. Doubtless his trip through the Empire opened his eyes and broadened his vision. I have visited Denmark, and found that conditions are far from what we have been led to believe. Most writers, probably wanting a good background to show up the great work that has been accomplished by the Danish farmers, say the land is poor and lacking in fertility. I do not want to suggest that I saw all Denmark, but I saw enough to realise that they have very considerable areas of good land, growing first-class crops of grain, grass and roots, including large areas of sugar beet. In fact.it is a desirable country, apart from the climate. Intensive farming is carried out, partly forced by a large population, but perhaps more by the necessity of growing sufficient roots and other cattle foods to last through a six months’ winter, with all the stock housed. In spite of their rigorous climate, they supply England with butter all the year round, and farmers will realise that a small farm would provide work for many men under these conditions. Compare this with the North Island dairyfarmer, with practically no ’.Vinter and little winter feed. Three men can manage a large farm. PROFIT IN THE PIG Pigs in Denmark are almost as important as the cows, and they are a tremendous aid to close land settlement. Compulsory dairy boards do not bother the Danes; they voluntarily enter into signed contracts with their co-operative associations for a period of years to deliver to them every pig fattened. I was through one of these factories killing 4,000 pigs a week and putting the bacon right on to the retail counters all over Britain direct from the factory, through their own travellers. So valuable is the grazing that cows are not turned loose on the pasture; they are all tethered by pegs and shifted on to another patch when the one they are on is grazed down, thus taking the paddock in a face. With the millions of people of the Continent and Britain at their doors, there is a ready market for everything they grow, thus eliminating all waste. In New Zealand we burn thousands of wheat straw stacks after harvest every year because we cannot profitably use them. The Dane would faint at the very thought of such a thing or refuse to believe that such a waste was possible. Wages of farm labour are less than half what the Dominion farmer pays, which gives the employer a big measure of relief. The Danes are very frugal people. They have to be. Their standard of living and expenditure bear no comparison to ours. This is also seen in their methods of doing business. They cannot afford to pay anyone to come between the producer and the consumer; therefore, Denmark is now recognised as the home of co-operation, and the farmer who stayed out of their pools would be looked upon almost as a black-leg. I have not written the above to discourage land subdivision, but to illustrate the fallacy of endeavouring to mould a New Zealand policy patterned on old-established countries with low wages and a lower standard of living, in the centre of European civilisation. 1 saw similar conditions in France, but 1 have spoken of Denmark because that country is usually chosen for reference when these matters are discussed. In a future issue I hope to deal with our own land problem and discuss the cost, and possibility of the land absorbing our unemployed, or failing that, wherein lies the remedy.