THE EXCHANGE QUESTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21598, 19 March 1932, Page 16

THE EXCHANGE QUESTION

• •TO THE EDITOR,

. Slßjp-THe fight; of' ; the primary producers is lost. The right to sell our produceI—the 1 —the product of out expenditure and labour —in the open market of the world' is taken from us, and our undoubted right to. the net l ,value and proceeds of the sale of this produce (essentially our private property) has .been deliberately ' filched, stolen, from us by an Order-in-Council of a Government which masquerades as a farmers’ Government. How the associated bankers and the importing interests must- smile and stick their tongues in their cheeks when • they read, or hear, the words farmers’ Government! The Association of Hankers is empowered to impound the whole; proceeds of the sale of ouy. produce (overseas as the pfice of .their assistance in G'overntoent, finance.. I challenge the Minister of Finance (Mr Downie Stewart) to quote a parallel case to the action of the Government and the Associated Banks. In his answer to the member for Egmont, Mr Stewart ,is reported as having gaid: “In recent times many Governments found it necessary to take control of the exchanges in much the Same way.” Where ; and when? I ask. Where have the ito terests of the primary producers bean deliberately sacrificed to the demands of the banking and city interests by a Coalition or farmers’ Government? Again, I ask,,what is the “rake-off.” of,the Associated -Banks to be from this, free gift of the;handling and,use of'our moneys? The Associated Banks charge interest for the use of paper. What are they paying for the use of the moneys derived from the sale of our produce overseas? Whom will the use of that money enrich, the community or the bank shareholders? I wonder! For pure, undiluted camouflage commend toe to the statement of the Minister of Finance regarding the. : improving conditions in the London money market. He states: “If the present favourable .tendency continues . . .. a reconsideration of the present conditions ~ . :. will be possible, and; the regulations will not be maintained auy longer than is necessary to ensure the requirements of the Government being, met.” The" Minister is simply humbugging the public. He is simply deferring action, knowing full well that in a matter of two or three months practically the whole of the products of the farmers and graziers will—perforce of need for money —have passed from their possession, shorn ■in the passing of from 3s to 4s in the pound, by the action of the Government and the Associated Banks. Then, again, the last' pound’s worth of the farmers’ produce is impounded for the benefit of those queer partners, the farmers’ Government and the Associated Banks, then, and then only, will “ conditions in London ” make a “ reconsideration of conditions ” possible,, and the “ regulations ” unnecessary. The blatant hypocrisy of the whole business must be apparent, even to the simple-minded. One lesson this business should have taught'.the ' farming community; that in time of stress the farmer is looked' upon as fair game for exploitation; that the city dweller and city interests are a thing apart; that the farming community must rely upon, its own efforts and organisation: that there is neither- Tory or Liberal. Reform or Labour in times of stress like this. This exchange question is a town interest v. country interest question. And the remedy? A Country, a Farmers’ Party. In unity is ■ strength. “To your tents, O Israel.” Thu only defence from this exploitation by ■city interests lies in organisation of country interests in a Country Party.—l am, I etc.. W. D. Mason. March 18.