THE WOOL BOARD

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 101, 11 February 1950, Page 4

THE WOOL BOARD

. sir, There are several aspects of the Wool Board’s operations that need 1 investigation and clarification. It s fifth annual report makes no attempt to justify its excessive 5 per cent, levy for 1948-49. Unable to do so, the board shrewdly refrained from making any comment. Although this board, has been in existence for only five years, it has already accumulated assets of nearly £200,000 at the woolgrowers expense. It is maintained that woolgrowers themselves would make better use of their money than the Wool Board. Had my last year’s levy of £IOO been spent on lime for my farm it would have produced results far ahead of anything the Wool Board can achieve. On examining the board’s balance sheet for the year ended June 30, 1949, we find that nearly £4OOO was spent on travelling expenses, whilst its excess of income over expenditure of nearly £50,000 proves conclusively that the 5 per cent, levy was excessive. On June 30, 1949, the Wool Board had £112,200 invested in Government stock, £20,000 at fixed deposit in the Bank of New Zealand at a low rate of interest and actually £62,000 cash lying idle at the bank. In contrast to this, there are thousands of farmers paying up to 6 per cent, for tfieir own financial accommodation, yet they are forced to contribute to these idle and low interest bearing investments. It is up to the Wool Board to bear this in mind when deciding its future levies. The report reads: “The provisional balance sheet to March 31, 1949, shows that during the year the secretariat expended £292,300 of which Australia contributed £181,700, New Zealand £60,200 and South Africa £50,400.” It would seem that New Zealand is relatively paying the greatest share. Why? The Wool Board’s own report confirms the opinion of many woolgrowers that the wool levy should be drastically reduced. _ , Otago Woolgrower.