Removal of Drafts on Wool

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 45, 16 November 1937, Page 3

Removal of Drafts on Wool

•Press Association.)

BILL COMMENDED Similar Legislation Exists in Australia MINISTER EXPLAINS.

(By Telegraph--

WELLINGTON, Last Night. ' In the Housa to-night the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Lee Martin), raoving the second reading of tho Sale of Wool Bill, said the measure was introduced to abolish the draft on the sale of wool which was introduced some hundreds of years ago, when weighing machines were not as accurate as they were today. Wooldfrowers for some years now had been endeavouring to have these reduetions eliminated. Intention to remove drafts had been well advertised throughout the Dominion and no protests had been made by any of the buying organisatioas in New Zealand, although it was known these bodies were not altogether favourable to the measure. The measure affected 'only the sale of wool in New Zealand and Would not affect the commodity sent to the United Kingdom and other oversca cduntries, where the draft allow* ance had not been abolished. If the draft allowance had been abolished last geason the additional return to growers would have been approximately as follows: — Total saies in New Zealand, 686,994 bales, or 2,112,450 cwt.; draft allowance, Teduction of Ub per cwt., 2,112,450 lbs.; Dominion average price per lb, 15.71d; value of draft allowance, £138,274 9s Id. The Minister stated jfchat South Africa and some Australian States had now passed similar legislation and the remaining States of the Commonwealth were proposing to 'make similar enactments. The Bill under consideration followed largely the Australian legislation. The New Zealand "Government and the Union of South Africa did not want the legislation to become operative antil such time as New. Zealand, South Africa and Australia conld make it operative simultaneously. If the Bill were passed the nest step would be to. eome to some arrangements with South Africa and Australia to fix a common date for the enforcement of the legislation. July, 1938, was the date suggested. Sir Alfred Eansom (Opp. — Pahiatua) congratulated the ■ Government on the introduction of the measure, but ex* pressed regret that the legislation would not be made effective sufficiently soon to enable growers to reap the beneflt of it for the present wool sehson." Ho assured ■ the Minister he would moet with no oppositioa to the "measure from his side of the House. Mr H.4M. Christio (Govt.— Waipawa) supporting the Bill, said draftago was at present quite unnecessary and was also definitely unjust. Mr. H. Sr S* Kyle (Riccarton— Opposition) said the present. wps a most opportune time to abolish the . iniquitous tax on wool which the drafts constituted, and he would support the Bill. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Patea — Opposi* tion) said it would be very diflicult to discover any actual beneflt which would accrue to woolgrowers as" a result of the removal of the draftg. However, he considered the measure was a move in the right direction and that the removal of drafts would result in a hene- , to the grower. Mr, T. D. Burnett (Temuka — Opposition)' said he was glad to see a move tvas being made to improve the outlook of the woolgrower. He drew attention to the fact that in the grain trade an allowance was made for sacks but the woolgrower was not allowed a single copper'for his woolpack and he hoped the Minister would investigate tKo possibility of something being done in this direction. Mr. E. L. Cullen (Waikato — Govt.) advocated the.unification of woolpacks throughout the Dopiinion. The leader of the Opposition , (Hon. A. Hamilton) said that whether the Bill would result in the grower benefittag to the full extent of the £138,000 mentioned by the Minister was a mat;er of doubt because a buyer in future inight deduct the amount of the draft [rom tKe price he ofEered for the wool. 5e pointed out that last year the exjort of wool had been xesponsible for a return of £18,000,000. Then we had our .ocal market for the commodity. He did not know of any other system of marketing our produce which was as efficient'as our local marketing of wool. Hon. Lee Martin: Some of the growers think it can' be improved. Mr. Hamilton: They would have to put up a mighty good schemo to better it. He continued that it would be definitely advantageous if we couid market our butter, cheese and meat .on the same lines as our local saies of wool to whish buyers come from all paris oi the world. The Bill was also supported by Messrs. C. H. Burnett (Tauranga — Government) and J. A. M.' Roy (Clutha). Mr. Lee Martin thanked members for their support of the Bill and said it was quite pleasing to see such unanimity in support of at Least one section of the Government Js legislation. He mentioned that the committee on which his department was represented was at present investigating the qiiestion oi Woolpacks. The Bill was read a sbcond time.