RURAL CREDITS DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 8 February 1928, Page 9

RURAL CREDITS DISPUTE

CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE CHARGES LAID BY MR. W. POLSON. CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE REPLIES By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. “All the evidence tendered before the Rural Intermediate Credit Bill Committee on the incidence of the provisions of the Bill was reported by accredited committee reporters,” states Mr. D. Jones, in reply to Mr. W. J. Polson’s recent criticism regarding the evidence ’taken by the Parliamentary committee. “Mr. Polson, inter alia, declared that when the type-written copy was returned to me to sign everything I said in regard to the proposals to lend to the individual instead of the group was cut out. “This is not so,” said Mr. Jones. "The manuscript forwarded to Mr. Polson was a correct transcript of the reporter’s note. In the covering letter forwarded with the evidence for the perusal and signature of witness, the following appears: ‘Verbal corrections are allowed to be made in red ink, but alterations to substance must be effected by reexamination.’ If the report did not adequately convey Mr. Polson’s remarks, he should have requested to be heard de novo. He did not do bo, but signed the manuscript and, in returning it, commented that the report was somewhat condensed. The report and the shorthand note were then checked, and found to be correct. “When Mr. Polson gave 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 under consideration a proposal to make an addition to the Bill whereby a farmer may deal direct with the board, provided he can get a guarantor for at least 20 per cent, of the advance. The present advance made by the Advances to Settlers branch of the State Advances Office, with a maximum loan of £5OO, 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 throughout the 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, we are of opinion that it would prove valuable in connection with land setlement. The committee woulld 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,” continued Mr. Jones, “and he was requested to either attend personally and address the committee on October 14 or, alternatively, to forward his w’ritten comment thereon. To this request the chairman received the following telegram: ‘Regret unable to attend committee this morning. Think part three of Bill and proposal to give control to independent board fatal to success. Calling my executive together Wednesday to consider position. Polson.’

"As a result a further letter was addressed to Mr. Polson at Wellington, a copy of which was also sent to Fordell, intimating that the committee would be glad to hear witness on part II A of the Bill on Tuesday, October 18, and also stating that under S.O. No. 237 the amendment, W’hich had 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 the House. “At the subsequent committee meeting the chairman explained that Colonel Pow had advised that Mr. Polson, being ill, was not expected at Welling, ton until October 20. The committee received no further communication from Mr. Polson. Its deliberations were definitely protracted that his views on the individual scheme might be obtained. The proposal w’as communicated to him on October 11, while the report was not tabled until the 24th idem. Ample opportunity was afforded the president of the Farmers’ Union to have his views on this aspect of the Rural Intermediate Credit Bill recorded. That he did not take such an opportunity does not justify his uncalled for remarks concerning the probity of Parliament, its methods, or its committee clerks.”