FARMERS' DWELLINGS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 669, 22 May 1929, Page 6

FARMERS' DWELLINGS

ADVANCES ASKED FOR RAISING SECURITY RATE The question of advances to farmers for the erection of dwellings occupied the attention of the conference yesterday afternoon for some time. Two remits connected with the subject were brought forward, and provoked a good deal of discussion. Both were carried, REMIT came from the Marohemo branch asking that the incoming executive he recommended to take steps for the provision of the erection of farmers’ homes on Crown settlement lands, and on any other lands where security was acceptable on terms similar to those available under the Workers’ Homes Act. This was carried. A remit from Waikato asked that the proportion of State advances to urban and suburban securities should be placed on the same level, as appli- ‘ cable to rural securities. The present rates of advances were 75 per cent, rural and 95 per cent, urban and suburban. Mr. Feisst said that under the Act, advances up to 75 per cent, were made on- rural security and up to 95 per cent, on urban and suburban. ECONOMIC VIEW There could be no economic justification for these rates when* it was considered that the farmers were producing agents. Preference should not be shown under these circumstances. One of the pledges of the present Government was to make more money available. Yet since it got into power, more money had been advanced for building than for land production. The farmers had no quarrel with the workers, but the vital point was that the system was attracting money away from the centres of rural production. And on rural production the prosperity of the towns depended. “The crime is that this system is taking money away from producing factors in the country to comparatively non-producing factors,” Mr. Feisst said. “It is a bad system on the part of the Government. We have every justification in asking for 95 per ; cent, in advances. “If it is a safe margin to lend up to ; 95 per cent, on workers’ security,” concluded Mr. Feisst, “it is safe enough 1 to advance up to 150 per cent, on rural security.” (Applause.) Mr. Watkins (Cambridge) supported Mr. Feisst. i VALUATION NOT EXACT Captain Rushworth said that valua- \ tion, as practised in the Dominion, was s not an exact science. (Laughter.) In no country was it exact. Another 1 point was that land was the base of all 1 securities set up. ; “Here we have the open, un- 1 ashamed declaration that town pro- 1 perty is on better security than the land,” said Captain Rushworth. “Arti- ] fioally, the town property security has been made more sound than the rural ] security, and this strikes me as being an extremely important point.” I * Mr. Harding said that the conference should not agree with the “alleged principle” of 95 per cent. Much < money would go out on building which ; would not return to the Treasury. The conference should not ask for the ] same principle of 95 per cent. ] Mr. A. E. Robinson said that there was no suggestion of asking for an 1 advance of 95 per cent, for every - dwelling, but that advances should be ; up to 95 per cent. Mr. Feisst said he was not making any stipulation in the remit as to what « terms the advances should be on—it i was simplv a question of proportion. Mr. Cookson moved an amendment ] that rural advances should be on the , same level as urban and suburban ] securities. The amendment was lost, and the - remit was carried.