PRICES PAID FOR SHEEPSKINS

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23415, 23 August 1941, Page 10

PRICES PAID FOR SHEEPSKINS

“NOT A FAIR DEAL”

MEMBER’S COMPLAINT

(P.R.) WELLINGTON, August 22. Complaints that farmers and butchers were not getting a square deal over the sale of sheepskins were made by Opposition members when the Sundry Products Account was being discussed in the House of Representatives today. It was stated that it paid them to shear the wool off the skin and throw away the pelt. The disparity between the prices paid them and the exporters was also questioned by Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton). He said that although 800,900 more sheepskins were exported in the last year, £275,000 less than in the previous year was paid to farmers. For skins with wool on, 4s 10d was paid, yet the controller paid out only 3s 3d. The butcher was not allowed to get the same price as the exporter and consequently was not prepared to pay the price in the farmers’ yard. . TT The Minister for Marketing (the Hon. J G Barclay) replied that he knew that a lot of complaints were being made about sheepskins throughout the Dominion and that butchers were contending that they were not getting the full value for their skins. The only reason he could see for the difference in price was that the pelts varied from time to time and that the wool on skins was assessed as dead wool. Nobody was getting a “rake-off,” except the licensed dealers.

"No Square Deal”

“It is perfectly obvious to anybody who knows the position that neither the farmer nor the butcher is getting a square deal," said Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). A country butcher had assured him that it was more profitable to install a shearing plant to take the wool off the skin and send it to a store for appraisal, and to throw the pelt away. That must be a definite economic loss. More than 10 per cent, of the wool was also lost. The price being paid for skins was causing grave concern to farmers and butchers. , Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford) said that Mr Barclay’s reply was worthless. Pelts were worthless to farmers. An enormous sum was being spent in marketing accounts and some service was wanted for the expenditure. The Minister: We have no control over pelts. The price was assessed by the Imperial Government. The Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) was explaining the control of wool and skins when Mr Kyle asked if Mr Douglas came into it. Mr Nash: There is an Archie Douglass. He is in. the south. But I do not know him. He has nothing to do with it, as far as I am concerned.

Britain’s Needs

The position was that Britain wanted wool, said Mr Nash. In certain circumstances it wanted skins with wool on them, but there was no demand for pelts. The Government would buy wool taken off the skins at a fixed price. It was anxious to get the maximum for the farmer, but pelts were not marketable. Mr J. N. Massey (Opposition, Franklin) suggested that sheepskins should again be offered at public auction, so that farmers could get a fairer proportion of the pay-out. Mr Barclay said that the appraisers had nothing to gain by victimising certain classes of skin, as they were on a salary. Different classes of skins meant different prices. Mr E, B. E. Gordon (Opposition, Rangitikei) explained that farmers received Is per lb for full wool and 3d per lb when the wool was on damaged pelts. Mr Massey asked why there should be a difference of between 25 and 30 per cent, in the prices for skins taken from farmers and those taken from freezing works.