WOOL DISPOSAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 May 1921, Page 8

WOOL DISPOSAL.

AUSTRALIAN SCHEME CRITICISED. ITS DEFECTS SHOWN. By Telagi’apli.—Press Assn.—Copyright London, May 10. The Bradford Observer says: ‘’The bare cabled outline of the Australian wool scheme suggests that it is fairly harmless, but it foreshadows extensive bureaucratic interference with the free play of commerce. The scheme rests upon the fallacy that it is possible for the Australian ’Government to dictate to the world the prices for wool, irrespective of its values in competing markets. Apparently Mr. Hughes’ fear of the consequences of the great accumulation of lower-grade wools very largely influenced the Government in deciding to resort to legislation for the coercion of growers but the Government cannot compel a single user to buy a bale. The users will exercise their preference as before and, if the prices are arbitrary, the consumers will naturally prefer to take the superior wool, making the lower qualities less saleable, especially as there is plenty of free wool of a low quality in other parts of the world, for example in America. There is great probability, therefore, that the sediment of the low wools, instead of diminishing, will tend to grow and Mr. Hughey’ mountain of wool, trembling on the edge of a precipice, will assume more fearsome dimensions The weak point about the control scheme is that it ends at the Australian coast. It is well-intentioned, but will benefit some growers at the expense of others, and it is unfortunate that its distributing influence is exerted just at the moment when there are notable signs throughout the world of the re-awakening of* the wool trade, which, if allowed to* develop, would probably 1 have shown the scheme was unnecessary.”—Aus.-N.Z. Gable Assn. / - ji?

NEW ZEALAND PRODUCERS’ ACTION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, May 11. At 1 a meeting of the Producers’ Committee to-day the following resolution was passed: “That, after full consideration of the proposals submitted by the British and Australian Wool Realisation Association through Mr. A. E. Mabin, the committee is of opinion that the interests of New Zealand producers demand the- retention of a self-reliant scheme whereby, while co-operating with Bawra as regards the fixation of a minimum reserve and the limitation of offerings, full control of all matters concerning the handling of the wool clip must be retained in New Zealand.”