Western Star And WALLACE COUNTY GAZETTE. Published FRIDAY, AUGUST 22 1925. WHAT THE DAIRYMEN’S UNION ASKED.

Western Star, 22 August 1924, Page 2

Western Star And WALLACE COUNTY GAZETTE. Published FRIDAY, AUGUST 22 1925. WHAT THE DAIRYMEN’S UNION ASKED.

A meeting was held recently at Master-ton, North Island, when the | beef export trade was discussed, also ; the effect or Argentine competition on the primary products of New Zealand. Alter reading a report of the proceedings, a Wellington dairy produce merchant and exporter informed a New Zealand Times reporter that it would | be worth the farmer's while to lookj into the question of the moratorium j for he said, ivthout a doubt the land is too high in New Zealand, brought (about by farmer-cum-speculator, and as the moratorium must he lifted, sooneror later, why not at once, and thus throw out the farmer who speculated for lie must go eventually, as we are almost down to pre-war prices with a 'tendency downwards, while otnoi (countries are producing again. Not so very long ago a deputation of dairy ! farmers waited on the Prime MinEtei (respecting this question, and “ Advance/’ the official organ of the Dairy (Farmers’ Union, lias, the following to Isay in its leading columns:— One .of t-lie most important ;as well las moat ■ednijpr'ehensive statements 'made by the Prime Minister, was his reply given to the deputation >of the Dominion Dairy .Farmers’ l;niton a j few days ago. Not only did Mr Massey jtouoh on ©very one of the important (questions affecting the dairy .fndusy. (try, but his statements would, lead (one to believe that lie'fully appreciates jtjie disadvantages and hardships of (the primary producers and is anxious 'to give them every assistance',. The Prime Minister was no doubt impressed by the manner in which the deputation placed before him the requirements of jthe industry and the modesty and j practicability; of thqir requests have

been, folly rewarded by tbe spontaneous, sincerity of the Prime Minister’s reply. In urging a gradual extinction of the Moratorium, the Dominion President no doubt made out an excellent case. He clearly pu.nted out the risks and dangers of allowing live years mortgages to fall due on one day without previously making adequate finaniciai provisions. He further iniormecl Mr Massey that he d,id not like the safeguards provided in the proposed Mortgage Final Extension Bill, as they appeared to be unworkable and impractical and from a legal aspect would certainly be very unpopular to the farming community. Although the Prime Minister did not think that it was possible to better the arrangements proposed in the -Mortgagors iiual Extension Bill—that the mortgagor would have the right to appeal to a Judge ot the Supreme Court —ho wanted to hear the proposal in the .Bill discussed, and if they could be improved he was quite willing that that should be done. Tins reply must certainly be very sa-tislac-tory to the deputation, as it seems indicate that the Mortgage i< inal Extension Bill will either not be made a I party question, or the Government is | prepared to meet the House as lar as j it is reasonably possible. We greatly l regret, however, that Mr Massey did j not accept the suggestion of the W-d, Daily Farmers’ Union deputation and appoint a Commission to take evi-j deuce with a view of ascertaining the; real effects as caused by the -'fora- j torium. We arc convinced that it n--' | not so much a lack of sympathy winch causes the Government- to be ovei optimistic in their judgment. The Prime iMinister has stated it would be macl- | ness to attempt to borrow any large | sums al the present time. If that i> the case, there is only one alternative and that-is a gradual extinction. The proposed Mortgage Final Extension Bill would be ideal in every respect, provided that one year’s Moratorium mortgages only were allowed to Lib due in any one year, instead of the five years’ accumulation on one day. Speaking on State Advances, and Agricultural Banking, Mr Massey made it quite clear that although he could not approve of the Banking scheme brought down by Mr Widford last year he was not opposed to the principle of Agricultural Banking. No doubt Mr Poison’s Banking scheme could be materially improved and the producers, are waiting for the Government to bring down such an improved scheme. The 1922 .Rural Credit Act not worthy of its name, and the Ad- j vances to Bottlers Office has not hop strides made by the primary industries. In a purely agricultural country such as New Zealand, an Agricultural Bank is not only desirable, but is an absolute necessity. And whatthis country requires, are not mini a turn credit societies such as have been quoted by Mr Massey and as we find in Denmark, Germany and Austria, advancing anything up to a few hundred pounds, but a Land Mortgage Bank which advances money on long-term mortgages at a reasonable rate of interest. The’Bank would be financed by : land-bonds or notes backed by the Government, and we cannot agree wiGi the Prime Minister when lie that ho cannot see where the security is to come from. The security would consist of first mortgages and woual be just as sound as the securities accepted by the Advances Office. The great advantage would be that where the Adv ances Office has to find the capital in actual cash, the Agricultural Bank would issue State-guaranteed bends. It- p a well-known and a remarkable fact that I the Advances Office has never made a i loss, and an Agricultural Bank making advances on similar securities with the same margin of safety" would no I doubt find itself in an equally sound position. It is principally for this reason that when formally discussing Mr j Poison’s Banking scheme in these eoilumns, we did not approve of that portion of the said scheme which deals, with I ordinary Bank,mg business, deposits, etc and small short-dated loans on various securities, for, as we pointed out, it I has been found invariably that short and long-dated advances will not work together harmoniously and profitablyMi- Massey -stated in his reply that he would agree to the etab-ishment ot an Agricultural Bank, provided the limit of individual advances did not exceed £2OOO. This amount, however, is far. too small. Even with the limited scope of the Advances to Settlers Office it wa.s found that advances had to be increased to £3500, and an Agricultural Bank as suggested above, must have a much wider scope if it is to become a useful institution and if any real benefit is to be derived therefrom.