MONEY FOR FARMERS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 28 August 1926, Page 10

MONEY FOR FARMERS

COMMISSION’S REPORT

CRITICISED BY MEMBERS

(by telegraph —press association.) WELLINGTON. Aug. 27. In the House of Representatives Mr D. Jones' (Ellesmere) read the report of the eommtitee set up to consider the rural credit proposals of the Royal Commission and of the Bank or .New Zealand, and moved that the report be referred to the Government for consideration. He described the report of the Royal Commission as a, very valuable document. , „ Mr M. .J. Savage (Auckland Central) said, that if it Was *• valuable document it cost £6149 to get it, and then no one was told anything tliey could not have found out in any public library. There was a chance of the farmers getting something out ot the Bank of New Zealand’s proposals, but there was not a million to one chance of their getting anything out of the report of the Royal Commission. lie predicted that until the State took m hand the hanking quetaon for its own requirements it will never solve the problems by which it is faced. the committee had done the best it coulc! with the material to' hand, but it wanted more time. He would! welcome anv scheme hv any bank, hut he was not going from liis contention that it was the bounden duty of the State to do its own banking. Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said the reason- why the Public Accounts Committee had brought down this hurried report was that there were thousands’ of people in New Zealand cryin- out for money, and there was need for legislation this session. lhey could not wait for the establishment of a State Bank. It took Australia from eiaht to ten years to establish its State Bank, and they could not Wait w > long. He was in favour of a State. Bank if the State purchased the Bank of New. Zealand at a fair price and cut it adrift from politics and governed it on hanking lines. Complaint had been made as to the cost of the Rova Commission, but its value was that three men had gone over the world seeiim various system for themselves, and came back and told us that oui State Advances Department was the best svstem thev had seen. He thought highly of the Bank of New Zealand • scheme, and every other bank should have- an opportunity to establish a similar scheme. Sir Joseph quoted a statement by Mr Bucldeton general manager of the Bank of New Zealandthat the bank did not desire any special concession as compared' with other hanks. -Forty millions- of fresh captial would be required during the next few vears to help the producers and others, and this bank proposal provided an instalment- to begin- with. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) protested against the bank proposal being included”in the commission’s reportas it was not mentioned 1 in- the order op rcfoFcnco* . Mr Tjvsnnr con clottiitocl the limit placed by the commission on the amount to he advanced on long term loans to men on: the laud. In no other country, he .said, was such a restricted limitation: imposed; Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said the commission cost £6OOO. and the members could have got- books costing a few shillings that would have provided more and better information on the subject the commission, investigated. The smalt farmer with a mortgage on his property was practically ruled out under the ‘proposed credits scheme. What chance had the farmer of got-t-iiHE money at 5-J per cent ay lien tlie local bodies were" paying 6 per cent? Mr McCombs agreed that the Bank ol New Zealand’s proposal was a. good one. . It was better than anything the Government did. hut still did not- go far enough. He condemned 1 the recent raisin a: of interest, "by the State Advances Department. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hnrnmu) doubted if the Bank of New Zealand would have formulated its scheme but for the imitation for an agricultural bank. Tlie whole question should be, referred to a, committee to prepare a comprehensive measure for tlve application of the recommendations of the commission next session. The Hon. A. D. McLeod said the hone of contention ever since he entered Parliament was that the State Advances Department was not liberal enough. The commission’s report was inotified if it- satisfied farmers that the \dvanees Department would! meet the farmers’ needs more reasonably than anv system working in other countries. ‘ Tn most States of the United States the advances ranged, from 42 to oo per cent of the appraised 1 value, while in New Zealand advances were made up to 75 per cent of the Gov--eminent- value. It- would be instructive to know the relation between the American “appraised” values and our “Government” value, but Mr McLeod felt assured that the Dominion svstem would be found much ahead, of the American. The Minister quoted figures relating to advances to settlers, soldiers and others totalling £50.000,000 in, recent yea ,- s at- rates of interest, far more favourable than to be found in anv other countries. Therefore it was pointless to say that the Government bad not been doing anything for the benefit of the producers. The interest on local bodies’ loans could not be rigidly restricted, as at times urgent public works must be proceeded 1 with, and monev therefore could: not- bo seen red at the restricted interest rate. \t. 12.20 a.m. Mr -Tones replied, and the paper was laid on the table.