PARLIAMENTARY METHODS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20322, 2 February 1928, Page 10

PARLIAMENTARY METHODS.

RURAL CREDITS LEGISLATION. STRONG CRITICISM BY MR POISON. “THE WHOLE THING A BLOT.” (Special to Dailt Times.) WELLINGTON, February 1. Parliamentary methods were strongly criticised by the president (Mr M. JPoison) at to-day’s meeting of the JJo minion Executive of the New /calami Farmers' Union when referring to the rural credits legislation. He alleged ■ that por-' tions of his evidence before the larliamentary Committee had been cut e , spite his protest, and that it did not appear in the circulated report m the form in which it, was given. Ho also aUcged that the Minister of Finance (Mr U. U. Stewart) had misled the House during the second meeting of the Credits Bill. t want to enter an emphatic protest, said Mr Poison, “ against the Intermediate Credits Legislation. It is no credit to the Government. The Prime Minister had given a pledge that if the commission brought down unanimous recommendations they would be put into effect. In fact Mr Coates has overlooked the unanimous recommendations based on sound lines as the best result of world-wide investigations by the commission and introduced something that the commission was expressly warned against. Mr Coates has brought down something that destroyed the commission's findings, findings thatweie the outcome of experiences of nations that had studied the question fiom e eiy aspect We were told everywhere that lt P was necessary to build up on sound lines of co-operation and thrift. It «as made clear to us that unless the scheme were built up on co-operation it could not succeed. There is no scheme m the woild on the lines of the New Zealand legislation in spite ( of Mr Coates s statement to th Mr°Polson said that when Colonel Esson and himself gave evidence (the other member of the commission died in the. uiteum) they both emphasised the “eed of ing the co-operative groups and the dan S dealing with the individuals In the House o£ Representatives Mr Coates had suggested that Colonel Esson had diverged from his own views on the matter. Colonel Esson had stood square for the ccramission’s report and Mr Poison readL ® h j 3 from Colonel Esson’s evidence to prove his contention. The Government,,. h .°™ r > , h .“? decided to deal with the individual, which would mean the practical destruction of the co-operative principle which was so necessary. The provision which enabled stock and station firms and others to gqarantce 20 per. cent, of the loan and push their clients on to the board was. unsound. Either they would do unsound business and diminish the value of their bonds or else such safe business as to be valueless to the farmer. The oversight of one another by members of the cooperative groups was essential and beneficial and enabled a higher amount to be safely lent than by any other method. rther method would only encourage Government patronage and extravagance The whole success of the thing depended on the over sight of a man’s neighbours, who would be in the group with him. The State was not behind tjie bonds in any way. It was stated by Mr Poison that the second reading of the Bill was befoie the House the Minister of Finance (Mi W. 1). Stewart) had said that he bad received by mail from America that day a letter from Mr Thompson (president of the Farm Loan Bank at Springfield, Massachusetts), who had decried the cooperative groups in a report to his shareholders. “it «o happens, said Mr t olson, “ that Mr Thomson is a personal friend of mine, and, I spent a coxisiderable time with him wheu in America as n member of the commission. Mr Thompson wrote out a statement for me dealing with the whole question, which i. in my possession now. Mr Thompson nevei made such a statement as attributed to him by Mr Stewart. What he did say was that long-term advances were not functioning as they should, and on Mr Thompson’s advice the commission had cut out the long-term proposals for groups from their report, but the short-term groups were, of course, essential, and Mr Thompson had emphasised the fact. The House w-as misled, whether intentionally or not Mr Poison was unable to say, when Mr Stewart quoted Mr Thompson, and he was certain a great mistake had been made, and that the real object of the report had been lost sight ot. Reference to the form in which his evidence had been recorded in the official proceedings before the Parliamentary Committee was also made by Mr Poison. I gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee,” he said, “ and when the typewritten copy was returned to me to sign everything I said in regard to the proposals to lend to the individual instead of to the group was cut out. 1 pointed this out in returning my evidence to the clerk of the committee, but my evidence was printed and circulated with the deletions made, and without my protest. All I can say is that if those are parliamentary methods, they are little to be proud of. The whole thing is a blot, and does not redound to the credit of the country. Something has been done that is going to be prejudicial to the country.”