PRODUCE EXCHANGE

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1932, Page 8

PRODUCE EXCHANGE

POSITION OF PRODUCERS

DEPUTATION TO PREMIER

WELLINGTON, April 29

A deputation from the Meat Control Board, tire Dairy Produce Control Board and the Mercantile Interests waited on Messrs Forbes amt Stewart to-day in .reference to the exchange question, which, it- was urged, was pressing heavily on primary produce.

Mr 'Stewart said that he was as keen as anybody to see the exchange freed at the earliest possible moment. He had said so repeatedly. The 'Government, however, had to t|ake the view not only of the farmers, but or the whole Dominion. He explained why the Government had had to constitute the pool, and when it was done, the Government had immediately set out to find ways and means of cancelling the pool at the earliest possible moment, because of the position of the farming community. He did not argue that it was significant that Austraia had not been able to go 'on the London money market, but New' Zealand had not only been able to fund £4,000,000 of its Treasury bills hut had been able to get something extra. The only reason the. pool was still in existence was that the Government’s obligations had not yet been met in London and would not be met as far as he could see, until the end of June. He did not say that the whole of the Government’s obligations would be met by them, but they would be substantially met. Mr Stewart said that if the producers could not wait till the end ot June and the Government was prepared to cancel the pool immeuiuLjy, and to--gamble on the chance of oe.m. able to. meet its obligations nbronu, .ie would not stand in the way bin he- would ask that he be freed from all responsibility. He added :h.n any breaches of the legu.atmns wiimu the next two months might mi../ Uu freeing of the pool. Mr To roes sa-d that he mognbvu ~he difficulty of the primary prouueers but the action that had ueeu la-cm

o ,11st as much in the. interests of the ’farmers as in those of otner scc- ( .ons ot tine community. Tue Oauks; had ’informed the Government Unit .hoy iouiu find the money needed ii. London only if they had control <>j the exchange, and the- position was tnu, if jthis • were not ■ granted, the b«mm> \n. ght not have bem able to finance them. Furthermore, had the suggMu,.u for a nigh exchange rate Dam adopted.the Consolidated Fund woa.'J ii-av-e had to find another £3,500,01.0. in normal (times this might lia\e been raised by extra taxation, but he '.a.-, of the opinion that the limit of taxation bad been reached. Ho bad been assured by the banks that if the poo. was observed, it could be lifted by the end of June, and" there would be r.« i ucerfeience. in regard to next season s exports.

.nr Stewart said tliafc the experts maintained that the exchange was at present {higher than was warranted, and that if: would be lower if it had been left free. The restriction wai not for the purpose of controlling tin: rate but for the purpose of seeing thathere was sufficient money .in London for the Government to meet its overseas commitments.