WELLINGTON NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1926, Page 4

WELLINGTON NEWS

WOOL COMMITTEE OR WOOL BOARD? (Special to “ Guardian.”) WELLINGTON*, August (i. There is a section of farmers to whom the word “ control ” has the same consolation as that blessed word “ Mesopotamai ” had lor the old lady. At the conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union last week the question of establishing a Wool Control Board was considered and the following remit was carried: “This conference considers that the time has arrived when a wool board is essential for the Letter marketing of wool.” The mover declared that there was a distinct difference between a wool committee and a wool board. The latter body might be likened to the Meat Board so far as its powers were concerned. He emphasised the necessity of reducing freights on wool. r I he freight oil wool has been reduced both here and in Australia and the shipowners arc not like' ly to disturb their arrangements for a wool board. Mr Grimsdalc Anderson, a, wool grower in a small way, wants absolute control of all primary products. He instanced the wonderful success achieved by “Bawrn,” but omitted to mention that an effort to continue “ Bawra ” was vetoed by the woolgrowers of the Commonwealth as the Australian Meat Council was forced out of existence by the direct vote of the graziers. Another advocate of control gave an estimate of the. cost of production, and said Dominion growers were not getting a remunerative price for the product. Evidently the setting up of a "Wool Control Board would accomplish that. The President of the Union, who during his investigations ns a member of the Rural Credits Commission, discovered the dangerous effects of control as suggested in respect to dairy produce. Mr Poison is against absolute or compulsory control, and the Sheepowners’ Federation was also opposed to “ compulsory ” #olitre], It was stated that the existing Wool Committee did not possess sufficient power. These farmers who discussed this subject and aired their opinions may know a good deal about sheep and woolgrowing but they certainly know very little about wool marketing. The Wool Committee possesses all tlie powers that it needs. Its function is to limit the quantity of wool sold by auction, when tlie bulk of the clip is available. The wool selling season extends from November to -March inclusive, and some 500,000 bales have to lie marketed in the period at eight selling centres. Any offering of more than 25,000 hales would be a difficult matter for the buyers to deal with in the time at their disposal, and

the 'Wool Committee sees to it that the offerings are reasonable. Tt is an onerous duty, for the interests of buyers, sellers and woolbrokers have to be harmonised. It was stated that a better system of grading and marketing of wool was wanted, and one might fairly ask how the marketing can he bettered. Most of the big clips are classed by experienced men, and the smaller clips are classed in the woo] stores at the selling centres hv competent men, and the catalogues clearly indicate when such wool is classified in store for the

names of the brokers who have arranged the classification is given. The system of marketing can scarcely be bettered. The buyers from all the consuming centres' attend the sales, they examine the wool in the stores and place their own value on each lot. They

are independent of one another, that is to say there is no arrangement on the part of the buyer to “bear” the market. Tt is open competition and each lot is sold at the host price on He day of sale. .It would he impossible for the AVool Control Board to make the buyers give more than the wool is worth to tliem, nor would it be possible for

the Board to devise a. better system of marketing. Even a voluntary pooling arrangement would not accomplish anything. Tf growers can pool their interests in the selling of the wool, so can Ho buyers pool their interests in the buying of the wool. No doubt most of the growers would like to see a renetition of tlie inflated values of the 1924-25 season, but sncli prices for wool are not hkc]y to be --seen again for many years. Europe is the principal consumer of wool and Europe cannot afford any fancy prices. After all the fact must be admitted that the prices obtained by growers in the past season were reasonable, and the growers realised this for practically the entire dip was sold at the, sales held in the Dominion. Bradford would resent miv control business and if Bradford called off its buyers the farmers would soon be regretting their circumstances.