FARMERS' PROTEST

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 11, 14 January 1932, Page 12

FARMERS' PROTEST

mmm, credit pool

imt EXCHANGE WANTED

iMISfRALIAN EXAMPLE

APPEAL TO CABINET

A deputation representing the primary producing industries of New Zealand waited upon members of Cabinet yesterday afternoon and asked for the removal of the restrictions upon exchange rales. It was ■urged by the speakers that the present position was having serious and detrimental results on the farmers', interests, and .therefore on the interests, of., the Dominion. The. exchange rates, it was contended., should be allowed to find their own level. If the exchange rate were freed, the opinion was expressed,that it would rise, as in Australia * to perhaps 3Q per cent, instead of remaining at 10 per cent., and the farmers would thus get a higher return for their produce. The Prime Minister promised to give serious consideration to the representations of the.'deputation.!- • ' ' ■■

Mi". David Jones, a member or the >'ew .Zealand Meat Producers' Board, saidj.the' deputation, had coino. to re-. present to the Government some of ■the difficulties in •which the farmers were plaeedto-day, and to suggest,some remedies. The conference of the representatives of. the producing industries,' •which, had been -sitting in "Wellington, desired him to congratulate the Government, oa its return to power with the full endorsement, of tlie people at the General -Election.; "When the Government went to the country it asserted that it was' essential that the "cost "of production should be reduced to enable the,produce of New Zealand to '.eoin(Pete.in; the markets of the world. The Government Statistician's'figure of the producingl cost was 1500,- whereas the selling figure was 787. Until those figures.;were brought fairly close ■ together it; was quite impossible for. the farmers of .New Zealand to produce and .livtt in competition with the world. ,'.;■.:,.' ;,-,-• •■• '■-'■■ POSITION SERIOUS. X The conference desired him to say ■fliat .they .were, whole-heartedly with the. Government in connection with its determination to reduce costs,. aiid bring, them within the reach of the primary .producer. In that respect the Government would have beliind them #he support of..the farming -community *5: .gjying them, that.measure of protection.; He need not emphasise "the serious' position of. the farmers; the Government .was familiar with that ifact. He would, like to emphasise, however, that the position of the farmers was^ more serious to-day than it ;was last year,'because last year a large' number of the farmers had a certainreserve". of • capital which they coulo. trade upon, but .that reserve had now JgOne. / .- , ;;_ '; ■;'•;' ''''. '' ./ . Ihe conference was^■unanimously of .' opinion/that unless something: is done ,to leUeve-or improve the position of; . the farmers by some .means we are . not very far away in New Zealand ■ from a-very serious collapse as far •ap the financial position of the' farming community is; concerned. '.' Mr. Jones said that one to use "'such strong language, but" the." conference desired him particularly to emphasise that point in connection with the serious position, of the fanners. The, .conference .felt that:.the farmers <ra.really r nrst-elaSs, land, .whoso liability was'not too great, would probably get through all rightj that the farmer on second-class, land, if'ie'-was-' thoroughly expert, would be able to pay his way,-but that was questionable in some *ases.. As fax- as the,farmer on thirdclass land was concerned—and this point-was of special interest to the Government in'connection with "its own land—-it was felt that he-had not a ehanee of getting through. ' When they spoke of third-class land, they were of opinion that over ten million sheep in Hew' Zealand to.-day were beX ing farmed at a loss to the, owner. That was a' statement that the Government could prove from their own figures in connection, with the high country.' The Msnts were not coming in to-day from high country sheep land. the ; oaDEB-nr-couNcir.. The Order-in-Oouneil which had been published in connection with 'exchange 'was one of the main factors considered by the conference that morning. The conference emphasised the fact that a • marked increase; in production was'es-: sential to New Zealand and the Govern-ment.-if ...we were to "get. through" satisfactorily. ' That point was-one of the" most important facts in connection with the ; Order-in-Couneil. .; Any policy that had a tendency to.decrease production was not only against tlie interests of the.farming community, but was also: against the; interests of the wlioie of the people of New.Zealand. The conference did not desire to embarrass the Government';' on' the contrary, if there was anything/ tlie. producers' organisations could do to co-operate with the •Government they would be pleased to assist. . ? The recent Order-in-Council: in.connection with exchange, showed that the Governments-finance was'difficult. The Government had to find sufficient money to meet its obligation^ in the near'future., • The conference supported the Government in its deter-l .xnination v to pay its way., ."■ Default'/ .-was., not: a word : that shciuld be- used; The" effect of the Orcler-in-Couneil was "to stop competition for the export exchange, and thus hindered exchange • from finding its.own love]. That point might be/open,.to argument, but the conference had considered the matter very, carefully,, and its. opinion ; was that the Government and the banks controlled ,the exchange in New Zealand—rand there was no -competition worth' discussing—tho .Ordcr-in-Couneil controlled the rate. of exchange and fixed it; and in the opinion of the conference that was against thoipublie interest. The conference' suggested that if the rate" of exchange was not allowed to find its own - level by open competition, the farmer's of New Zealand, in addition, to the difficulties under which they were labouring to-day; would have really to dispose of their •produce at a rate below its market value. The producers' representatives did not think that was; the intention of the .'Government. The fixing of the Tate of exchange would militate against the interests of the farmers. The New Zealand- farmers were in. competition with farmers of other countries who Sad freedom of exchange and who obtained the full benefit of that exchange to-day... ■■'■■ '■■-■. ' . •'■ ATJSTEAUAH EXAMPLE. The position with which New Zealand was.faced to-day, said Sir. Jones!, ■was not a new position so far as the world was concerned. Australia had "been in a more difficult position, and 'Australia decided to leave the exchange market free. They had to find very •. largß sums of money ah. London. "What had been the result of their pplicy? JEte.-*ttttf£Mßseg jthgught that Australia,

had pursued a sound policy, and the result was that her producers to-day wore in a sounder positioa than the producers in New Zealand. He did not know of a- leading* politician in Australia to-day who supported any alteration in the rate of cxekango as far as lowering it was concerned. Mr. Seullin and Mr. Lyons held similar views in that respect. Their leading economists also agreed that Australia was pursuing a sound policy. The conference held the opinion that if the farmer were given the full value of the exchange by means. of a free market, it would mean setting freo a large amount of money, which would mean increased employment and more production. It would also mean increased revenue to the Government. '' THE LONG VIEW.'' The conference maintained unanimously that in their recommendation they were talcing the long view—really the oijly view—that it was impossible to carry on farming in New Zealand successfully unless the farmers got the bonus which they would receive from the higher exchange rate. It would also be an advantage to the country. . Our opinion is that the embargo should be lifted and we should be free, as Australia is, and as Great Britain and other countries are. FARMERS' UNDUE BURDEN. It was strongly held by the conference, said Mr. Jones, that if the burden was placed almost entirely on the shoul: ders of the farmers it meant that a very disastrous position would arise before long so i'nr as the farmers were concorned. "" ■ ■ The.question, then arose:'-was there any other alternative? The conference contended that the farmer should be given what his exchange would bring in the open market. The success of that'system'had boon proved in Australia. Such a policy, if adopted, would ultimately benefit New Zealand; otherwise,-the outlook would be dark indeed. The matter was one of urgency, because this was our .export mouth. . LIVING HAND-TO-MOUTH. Mr. -7SV. A. Idrns, chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Epai-cl, i-eniarked that that board was unanimously in favour of what had'been advocated^ by the .chairman of the. Meat Producers' Board. Notwithstanding the increased production, the dairy farmers were in a worse position to-day than they were last year. There had been a decreased butter-fat production per' cow because many, of the farmers had been unable to 'purchase the necessary fertilisers for the land. In many instances the dairy farmer to-day was only living from hand-to-mouth. If prices did not improve it would meaii absolute ruin to many farmers: He endorsed the view that the New Zealand farmers should be given similar benefits as wqre given to Australian /.farmers in. regard to the exchange rate. ■ .".' ' -Mr. -H. D. Acland, member of the Meat Producers' -Board and. representing the New Zealand Sheep Owners' Federation, referred to the Govern-, ment commitments in London, and said that 98 per,, cent, of the money .was provided by the primary producers of New Zealand. The position as he saw it /was this: that so far as New Zealand was. concerned, the edifice rested upon the foundation of the primary producers; the Treasury was the top floor. If the foundation was weakened, the edifice would tumble down. If the producers did;:nqt get the rear value of the ex-change-rate,- there must be wholesale, bankruptcy and default by the farming community. What was asked was: that economic law -be. allowed to operate on. the basis of exchange value. Mr.,T. O.rßrash, New Zealand Fruit Growers' Federation, spoke iii; support of the decision arrived at by the conference -of producers.. Mr. Grounds, oh behalf ,of the. dairy industry, endorsed the;proposal. ~^>',..'.•'■•-.. ' '::. /- V . ■■'■ BANK AND ECONOMIST. Mr. W-. D. Hunt, commercial representative, Dairy Produce Board, agreed with what had been said by other speakers in'regard to the effect of the action taken by the Government in regard ;to the'rate of exchange. He quoted a statement; made by Professor Copland, of Melbourne, in regard to the.systemadopted, by Australia in regard to' the rate of. exehango. Ho also read an extract from a cii'cular, issued by the Bank of New South "Wales! The latter statement was on the lines' of the resolution come to at the conference of New Zealand primary products'- producers^ which asked for a free exchange market. All that'the New Zealand farmers asked, was that they should get the market value of their produce. Until we got the two index figures of cost and production closer our primary industries would be in a bad way.

The Prime Minister, in. his reply (reported in auothiSr column), stated the position that led to the pooling of overseas credits, and said that the representatives of the deputation would receive the serious consideration of the Government. '