FREE N.Z. EXCHANGE

Grey River Argus, 30 April 1932, Page 5

FREE N.Z. EXCHANGE

REQUEST OF EXPORTERS Ministers’ Promise TO COMPLY AFTER JUNE. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, April 29. A deputation from the Meat Control Board, the Dairy Produce Control Board and the Mercantile Interests waited on Messrs Forbes and Stew art to-day in reference to the exehange question, which, it was urged, was pressing heavily on primary produce.

Mr Stewart said that he wag as keen as anybody to see the exchange freed at the earliest possible moment. He had said so repeatedly. The Government, however, had to take the view not only of the farmers, but of the whole Dominion. He explained wliy the Government had had to constitute the pool, and when it was done, the Government bad immediately set out to find ways and means of cancelling the pool at Ihe earliest possible moment, because of the position of the farming community. He did not argils that it was significant that had not been able to go on the London money market, but New Zealand had not only been ablo to fund £4,000,000 of its Treasury bills but had been able to get something extra. The only reason the pool was still in existence was that the Gov eminent : 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 whole of the Government’s obligations would be met by then, but they would bo substantially met. Mr Stewart said "that if the producers could not wait till the end 01 June, and the Government was prepared to cancel the pool immediately, and to gamble on the chance of being able to meet its obligations abroad, he would not stand in the way but he would ask that he be freed from all responsibility. He added that any breaches of the regulations within the next two months might delav the freeing of the pool. Mr Forbes said that he recognised the difficulty of the primary producers but the action that had been taken was just .4s much in the interests or the farmers as in'those of other sections of the community. The banks had informed the Government that they could find the money needed in London only if they had control of the exchange, and the position was that, if this were not granted, the banks might not have been able to finance them. Furthermore, had the suggestion for a high exchange rate been adopted the* Consolidated Fund would have had to find another £3,500,000. In normal timers this might have been raised by extra taxation, but he was of the opinion that the limit of taxation had been reached. He had been assured by the banks that if the pool was observed, it could be lifted by the | end of June, and there would be no interference in regard to next season s exports. Mr Stewart said that the experts maintained that the exchange was at present higher than was Warranted, and that it would be lower if it had been left free. The restriction was not for the purpose of controlling the rate but for the purpose of seeing that there was sufficient money in London for the Government to meet its overseas commitments.