FARMERS’ FINANCE.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 270, 10 January 1929, Page 4

FARMERS’ FINANCE.

CHAMBER’S DISCUSSION. At the last meeting of the Putaruru Chamber of Commerce a keen discussion took place on a suggested reform of land boards and the method of financing farmers, with a view to getting efficiency in the farming industry.

A member suggested that as the chamber was endeavouring to remove the black mark which prevented the free flow of loan money amongst farmers in the district that the chamber amplify their views on this matter. Taking the facts as they stood, the position was that while 95 per cent of the Dominion’s income came from the land, there was no board with sufficient powers to look after our greatest asset and promote its interests. There were road boards, finance boards and boards for most other things, but the greatest industry of all was neglected. In regard to the Auckland Land Board, its powers and use were typified in the Hauraki swamp, which was opened for settlement somewhere about 1912. Having done that, its work was completed, yet the biggest part of the job—to make, this land fully productive—was undone. A visit to the Plains would convince any observer that it-was not producing the merest fraction of what it should do. Similarly, Rural Credit Boards were most inefficiently organised and dominated from Wellington. It was the personal factor which counted most in a loan and Wellington had no hope of judging that. The_ Hon. G. W. Forbes had decided to call the Commissioners of Crown Lands together to discuss a land policy. This had been done 20 years ago by the late Hon. D. Guthrie, and had proved an absolute failure. It was bound to so result in the very nature of things. These men knew nothing of what was wanted unless they were exceptions to the rule.

In view of the importance of the question the speaker thought that the solution lay in elective land boards, whose meetings would be open to the press. Such boards should be responsible for the finance and settlement and development of the lands within their area, and should have sole control so long as they did not infringe on a national policy. Denmark was supposed to be the example of the world in regard to small holdings, yet a recent law further subdivided the land and an excellent provision was that first claims for blocks was given to applicants who could prove that their capital was the result of their own savings.

What was wanted in New Zealand, particularly at the moment, was further development on the lines of small holdings, and especially the local viewpoint in granting loans which should not be handed to applicants, but should be given by way of progress paymfents on approved improvements.

; Mr. Alcorn stated he was thoroughly in accord with the suggestions 1 as a whole, which he thought were excellent. Though saying nothing • against one man one vote, he was not enamoured of boards being elected by popular vote. He held there was far too much red tape and officialdom at present in regard ,to the land and its finance, and so long as this obtained he felt there would not be the development required. Mr. Neal especially emphasised that local opinion was necessary in regard to loans, which he agreed should be arranged on a progress system. He also favoured the addition that loans for improvements should be a .first lien on the land. Mr. Alcorn pointed out that if this came into effect it would stop the flow of first mortgage money to the land which would then have to take second place. It would damage the farmers’ security. Mr. Neal disagreed with this view, holding that under such conditions as were proposed the improvements effected would improve the security. He quoted figures of his own dealings to prove this view. A long and keen discussion on this point followed, Mr. Alcorn suggesting finally that such money for improvements might be regarded as a second mortgage. Mr. Griffiths thought that was impossible, as the community must always come before the private individual, all laws being framed to this end. Mr. Alcorn suggested that the fin- [ ance proposals be adopted and that the portions relating to land development boards be forwarded to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Griffiths urged that the latter aspect of the question be further discussed at the next meeting, when more information regarding the Dan- ]

ish system could be put before the Chamber. Mr. Neal agreed, stating that while the matter was “ hot ” after the visit of the Parliamentary party the proposal should create attention. On the motion of Messrs. Griffiths and Neal, the chamber then formally adopted the proposals that in loans to farmers the local opinion should be paramount and that payment should not be made in cash but in progress payments on the improvements effected and should be a first lien on the land.