DISPUTE OVER EVIDENCE

Northern Advocate, 8 February 1928, Page 3

DISPUTE OVER EVIDENCE

REPLY TO MR POLSON. FAITHFUL REPORT. REGARDING INTERMEDIATE CREDITS. I I WELLINGTON, This Day. All evidence tendered before the Rural Intermediate Credits Bill ‘committee on tire incidence of the provisions of the Bill was reported by accredited committee reporters, states Air D. Jones, ALP. (chairman of the committee), in a statement in reply to Air AY. J. Poison’s criticism. Air Poison, inter alia, declares that •‘when the typewritten copy was returned to me to sign, everything I had said in regard to the proposals to lend to the individual, instead of the group, was cut out.” ‘‘This is not so,” says Air Jones. “The manuscript forwarded to Air Poison was a correct transcript of the reporter’s notes. In the covering letter, forwarding the evidence for the perusal and signature of the witness, the following appears: ‘Verbal corrections are allowed to bo made in red ink, but alterations to substance must be effected by rc-oxamination. ’ If the report did not adequately convey Air Poison’s remarks, the witness should have requested to be heard de novo. He did not, but signed the manuscript, and in returning it, commented that the report was somewhat condensed. The report and the shorthand notes wore then checked and found to be correct. “When Air Poison gave his evidence, the committee had not before it the individual scheme, as the following letter, which was addressed to him by the chairman of the committee on October 11, clearly indicates: ‘Since taking your, evidence on the 23rd ultimo, the committee has had under consideration a proposal to make an addition to the Bill, whereby a farmer may deal direct wdth the board, provided he can get a guarantee for at least 20 per cent of the advance. The present advances made by the Advances to Settlers branch of the State Advances Office, with a maximum loan of £SOO, is a similar scheme, but without the guarantee. This, however, has not been much availed of, because it was found difficult to operate without adequate supervision and administration in the various districts of the Dominion,

“The proposal that the committee is considering is to deal direct with individuals who provide these guarantees, and in addition to chattel security. AVe are of opinion that it would prove valuable in connection with land settlement. The committee would be glad to have your opinion on the suggested proposal.’ “A draft of the proposed amendment was forwarded for the consideration of the president of the Farmers’ Union, and he was requested either to' attend personally and address the committee on October 11, or alternatively, to forward his written comment thereon. To this request, the chairman received the following telegram; ‘Regret unable to attend committee this morning. Think part three of the Bill and proposal to give control to an independent board fatal to success. Calling my executive together Wednesday to consider position. (Signed) Poison.’ “As a result, a further letter was addressed to Air Poison at Welling-

ton, a copy of which was also sent to Fovdell, intimating that the committee would be glad to bear the witness on part ITa of the Bill on Tuesday, October 18, and also stating that, under S.O. No. 237, the section which And been forwarded for his personal consideration was confidential and could not therefore be divulged to his executive until such time as the committee had reported to tbe House.

“At the subsequent committee meeting, the chairman explained that Colonel Pow - had advised that, Air Poison being ill, he was not expected in Wellington until October 20. The committee received no further communication from Air Poison, though its deliberations wore definitely protracted that Ms views on the individual scheme might be obtained. The proposal was communicated on October 11, while the report was not tabled until the 24th idem. Ample opportunity was afforded the president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union to have his views on this as-

| pedt of the Rural Tntermediate ; Credits Bill recorded. That he did j not take sueh an opportunity does not i justify his uncalled-for remarks coni’ corning the probity of Parliament, I its methods, or its committee clerks,”