Marginal Lands Board

Press, 2 June 1982, Page 24

Marginal Lands Board

The abolishing of the Marginal Lands Board as part of the Government’s effort to save money probably makes sense. This is not to say that, the board and its staff have not done useful work in the three decades of the board’s life. Specialised staff were equipped to evaluate proposals to bring marginal land into higher production, and the board has helped to ensure that .this small part of the country’s investment in agriculture has been made to. the best possible effect. .■. The administrative savings that should result from transferring the role of “lender of last resort”; for marginal land development to a section of the Rural Bank will probably be large enough to offset any risk that investment in such projects will be less closely scrutinised, or not made to the best possible effect. The risk is there only because the Rural Bank has very many responsibilities. In Canterbury, for example, the. bank >is largely preoccupied at present with administering drought relief. Since the bank is already accustomed to lending farmers money for what are, in effect, projects to bring marginal land into higher .production,. its staff should be able to develop any necessary additional skills or expertise quickly. The Government has decided to make

savings in this area not just on administrative costs, by abolishing the board as a separate body, but also by reducing the amount available for lending to farmers. The Minister of Lands, Mr Elworthy, has said clearly that the transfer of the Marginal Lands Board’s activities to the Rural Bank will mean a reduction in the total., lending to the farming community. This may seem strange at a time when the Government is being advised from many quarters not to neglect farm investment in order to have large sums available for investing in major industrial projects. A reduction in the amount available for lending to farmers developing marginal land is likely to have less severe effects in Canterbury than in areas such as the West Coast, where there is greater room for agricultural expansion. Nationally, and for some regions, a reduction in the amount available for lending for marginal land development may be unwise. Any reduction in the amount of money for rural lending may mean that attention is given only to the most productive proposals. It is to be hoped that the bank will declare a policy, or be required by legislation, to continue the board’s function until it is clearly shown that the development of so-called marginal lands is unwarranted.