RURAL INTERMEDIATE CREDIT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 111, 8 February 1928, Page 10

RURAL INTERMEDIATE CREDIT

LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS

MR. W. J. POLSON’S EVIDENCE

REPLY 7 BY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

That ample opportunity was afforded the president of the New Zealand Farmers' Union to record his views on the individual loan scheme embodied in the Hural Intermediate Credit Act, and that the evidence he gave touching that aspect was not deleted, are claimed by Mr, D. Jones, M.P., chairman of the Parliamentary Committee which heard evidence on the Bill, in the course of a statement to “The Dominion” yesterday.

“All evidence tendered before the Rural Intermediate Credit Bill Committee on the incidence of the provisions of the Bill was reported by accredited committee reporters,” said Mr. Jones. “In his statement in The Dominion of February 2, Mr. W. J. Polson, inter alia, declares that ‘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 the group was cut out.’ This is not so; the manuscript forwarded to Mr. Polson was a correct transcript of the reporter’s note. In the covering letter forwarding 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 re-examination.’ If the report did not adequately convey Mr. Polson’s remarks, 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 note were then checked and found to be correct. The Individual Scheme.

“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 have had 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 advances made by the

Advances to Settlers Branch of the State' Advances Office, with a maximum loan of £5OO, is a similar scheme, but without 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 are 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 settlement. The committee would be glad to have your opinion on the suggested prooosal. ...” “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 14, 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 3 of Bill and proposal to give control to independent board fatal to success. Calling my executive together Wednesday to consider position.—Polson.’ '•Ample Opportunity.’ "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 lIA of the Bill on Tuesday, October 18, and also stating that under S.O. No. 237 the amendment which had been forwarded for his personal consideration was confidential and could not theremore 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 in Wellington until October 20. “The comittee received no further communication from Mr. Polson; its deliberations were definitely protracted that his views on the individual scheme might be obtained. The proposal was communicated to him 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 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.”