MOVE MADE BY BANKS

Southland Times, Issue 23828, 27 May 1939, Page 8

MOVE MADE BY BANKS

CLOSER SURVEILLANCE ON REMITTANCES AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT WANTED (Special to The Times) AUCKLAND, May 26. As an outcome of the report made by Mr E. L. Faber at a meeting of the Auckland Importers’ Association on restrictions placed on remittances affecting London funds a statement was subsequently made by the president, Mr Hugh Thomson. “The action of one of the banks reported by Mr Faber reveals a serious state of affairs for the importing community,” said Mr Thomson. “For the past week or so there have been indications that stricter surveillance was being exercised by the trading banks on the remittance of funds overseas. All applications must now be referred to the head offices of the trading banks and this naturally causes delays that are an impediment to business.”

Mr Thomson expressed the opinion that the recent action by the banks in reducing the letter-of-credit terms which had generally been 90 days, causing importers to remit earlier, may have been a factor in contributing to the present difficulties. He said that in January last an endeavour was made at the Dominion conference of importers in Wellington to obtain from the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) an assurance that finance would be provided for all licences issued. The Minister’s reply was non-committal and the importers, lulled into a false sense of security by the possession of licences, had purchased goods overseas. They now found themselves in a position where they might be deprived of the means of financing their transactions at the due dates.

In view of the disturbing position affecting telegraphic transfers, sight drafts, letters-of-credit and other means of financing overseas transactions, Mr Thomson suggested the need for an authoritative statement by the responsible authorities without delay.

PRECEDENT QUOTED BY MR SAVAGE EXPRESSING INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 26. The contention that legislation was introduced every session of Parliament to amend laws that had been found not to express correctly the intention of the Government of the day was advanced by the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) when his attention was called this evening to the resolution passed by Auckland importers protesting against the administration of the import regulations when they had been declared by the Supreme Court to be ultra vires.

All the Court was asked to do, said Mr Savage, was to say whether the administrative policy that was being carried out was in keeping with the law. Everybody knew what the policy of the Government was and if it were found that there had been any omission or weakness in the drafting of the lbw or regulations the position would have to be made good. That had been done every session he had been in Parliament because it had been found that the administration of the statute giving effect to the Government’s intentions was not in strict keeping with the law. “I don’t suppose there is any Act of Parliament that has not been amended at some time or other because the intentions of the Government have not been properly expressed in the statute,” said Mr Savage. “Every Finance Bill introduced into Parliament contains clauses similar to the clause that will be necessary to put this position right. It is generally found that men looking on think they see most of the game but very often they are talking about something they know nothing of.” Asked if he had received any official advice that the British Board of Trade was investigating the system of deferred payment as mentioned in the message from Auckland, Mr Savage said that one of the objects of the visit to London by the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) was to see what could be done to make better arrangements than at present.

DICTATION OPPOSED BY MR LANGSTONE

(Received May 26, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 25.

When he was asked whether he thought the Federation of British Industries had a case when it condemned the import restrictions,, the New

Zealand Minister of Lands (the Hon. F. Langstone) said that though one section of the federation might be affected, others might benefit. New Zealand manufacturers would not attempt to tell Britain what she should or should not do, so there was no reason why the federation should attempt to tell New Zealand.