EXCHANGE POOL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 February 1932, Page 5

EXCHANGE POOL

PROTEST BY CANTERBURY A. AND P. ASSOCIATION CRITICISM OF REGULATIONS BY DRDEIMNCOUNCIL “I feel we must protest against this iniquitous method of running (lie country by Orders-in-Council,” declared Mr .1, 1). Hall during an attack upon the Government’s exchange pool regulations at a meeting of the general committee of the Canterbury A. and P. Association (reports the “Press"). In response to a request from the Farmers’ Union that tile Association should give its support in the general protest of primary producers against the manipulation of exchange, the following motion, proposed by Mr E. Ilay, was carried lyTliat this Association emphatically protests aaginst the Government’s policy of granting a monopoly in (be marketing of London exchange. This exchange is the property of the pri(mary producers and they are entitled to its full market value. The Government’s action lias resulted in a special capital tax on farmers, and it is, in the opinion of this meeting, unjustifiable to impose further disabilities on the basic industry of the Dominion at one of the most difficult periods in its history in order to provide a temporary measure of financial relief to the Government while at the same time making it possible fm' il to continue payment for various Government services at a level justified only during that period when the national income was approximately thirty millions greater than is the case at the present time. THE FARMERS’ DUE

Mr Hall said that before the regulations were passed no one realised that Cabinet had in mind such drastic provisions. The Government was just as much entitled to take all the farmers’ lambs and wool as it was to take their exchange. The position had been explained to the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union by Mr A. C. Davidson, general manager of the Bank of New South Wales, who was confident that if the restrictions were removed the movement of exchange would be favourable to exporters. Whether it was favourable or adverse, the point was that the farmers were entitled to it and wanted it. “Any Order-in-Council enacted in this way is detrimental to the country,” continued Mr Hall. “No Government should bo allowed to interfere with business in this way, and if they can do this by Order-in-Council they can do anything.” “HOPELESS TO BALANCE” The balancing of the Budget had (o ho done by some means, if not by accommodation from the trading banks, then by more drastic economies and taxation. Mr Davidson was also of the opinion that it was hopeless for the Government to think of balancing the Budget this year. “There will be. a hopeless deficit,” said Mr llall, “and I don’t know what the banks arc there for if not to find accommodation in times like these.” Unfortunately the position had gone from tile economic to the political. But putting politics on one side, it was most exceptional to find the manufacturers, the Chambers of Commerce and tho farmers’ organisations all in accord. Mr Hall urged that the position should not bo allowed to remain as it was, and added a final protest against the enforcement of such important regulations by Ordcr-in-CounciL PROPERTY OF THE FARMERS

Mr W. If. Nicholson said that if farmers submitted to having their property taken from them, as it was represented in the difference in value between New Zealand and London money, then there was no reason why the Government should not go'further. To-day it was generally accepted that London was receiving 100 big a proportion of the national income and industry too little. The motion was carried unanimously, without further comment.