Importers’ Reply

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20719, 1 February 1939, Page 8

Importers’ Reply

MINISTER CRITICISED COMMITTEE’S STATEMENT FAILED TO KEEP PROMISE (By Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON, Wednesday Observations on the policy speech by the Hon. W. Nash to the Dominion conference of importers in Wellington last week were made in a lengthy statement issued by the conference committee to-day. The statement says that the Minister's speech was as complete as could be desired to support the case for the Government in the matter, but’ there were some fundamental points the Minister did not touch on. “Did the Minister deliberately pass over these points because they did not show up in a favourable light in the case he was presenting for the Government or Is the Government blind to the existence of facts which are obvious to the public?” adds the statement. Commenting on the three main factors cited by Mr Nash as causing tne decline in New Zealand’s funds in London the statement says that the Minister did not explain that the removal of the funds from New Zealand, because of the exchange rate consideration, was because the Government failed to keep its preelection promise of 1035 to scale down the rate. Those who held funds in New Zealand, in anticipation of that adjustment, have had a long period over which to withdraw those funds. Efforts Have Failed The Minister must have known such a withdrawal would occur when the Government forsook its undertaking, Indefinitely scaling down the exchange rate. It was an endeavour to keep those funds in the country. It had had ample time to see how its efforts have failed and to shape its course accordingly. Regarding Mr Nash’s reference to the concerted efforts to send money out of the country for better interest rates’, the statement says the Minister would find it hard to justify the use of the word concerted, since, from inquiries, the importers have been unable to learn that persons and/or concerns worked together for the purpose mentioned. f-'* “Making a Political Point” The minister seemed more concerned with making a political point against the political opponents of the Government than with giving a complete presentation of the facts. It was quite correct that over a period of years money had gone out of New Zealand for higher Interest rates but the minister did not mention the very considerable •mount of capital that had taken flight through fear and discouragement resulting from restricted Interest rates on numerous classes of Investment and crushing taxation on the earnings of capital. There had been ample time since 1936 for the Government to see the effect of its policy on the movement Df capital and take appropriate action. Another aspect not touched *n by the minister was the export of capital represented by surplus funds formerly invested in forms of enterprise nowclosed through the Government’s measures. f T Government Bllent Regarding Mr Nash’s contention that one factor had been over-importation, the statement points out that the Government was altogether silent concerning the extent to which the gross overspending by the Government and the huge importations for public works and other purposes had eaten into the Dominion’s sterling funds for a long period thus assisting to a major degree. in bringing about the shortage in New Zealand’s overseas credits. The country was entitled to full Information on this point In order that It might be clearly seen how the Importers and employers, and through them the people, are being made the “chopping block” for the recklessly extravagant policy of the Government. Finally the statement emphasises that the shortage in London funds did not steal on the country overnight. The causes leading to the shortage were not .unavoidable and unalterable. In fact they were themselves a logical sequence, over a long period of events, the Government itself set in motion and regarding which the Government, despite repeated warnings, did nothing. “Was the Inactivity of the Government deliberate order that the way would be paved for It by results arising from Its own policy for the Introduction, In a time of prosperity, of the most drastic scheme of State control of exchange and Imports—a scheme to which no other British country has had to fall.” . V* ..