WOOL MARKETING REPORT PRAISED

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31662, 24 April 1968, Page 18

WOOL MARKETING REPORT PRAISED

Wool marketing in New Zealand could get to the same position as dairy marketing if the wool marketing study group’s report was implemented, Professor B. P. Philpott, of Lincoln College, said in Christchurch last evening. He regarded the Dairy Board as the finest agricultural marketing organisation in the world. Professor Philpott was one of a panel of four speakers who discussed the report at a meeting of the Canterbury branch of the Economic Society of Australia and New Zealand.

Professor Philpott said he supported the report because he did not regard the proposals as “smacking of socialism or Sovietism” as some critics had labelled them.

“The same things were said about the Dairy Board’s involvement in marketing in the 1930 s as those of us who are old enough will remember. or those of us who are interested in New Zealand’s welfare will choose to remember." he said. “I support the proposals because I have seen no valid scientific criticisms so far. There is no revolutionary change. It is what some farmers want,” he said. “I support them as a theorist, an intellectual and an economist or any other emotive label people care to use in their attack. I support them as an economist infiltrating the wool industry and j in my view there should bei more.” Professor Philpott, said. FARMERS’ VIEW Mr B. H. Palmer, a farmer, said that other fibres, espe-j cially man-made fibres, were) produced and marketed V vl

; sophisticated, efficient organI isations each with specialty (divisions geared to effect a I particular responsibility. “Those in control of wool fibre were nearly too late in creating a similar modern organisation,” he said. The most efficient of specialty departments in wool was the manufacturing division, the farms. “Until 15 years ago wool had a virtual monopoly: users came to us for supplies. This commercial paradise is over with a vengeance," he said. Until a marketing division existed it could not be said that the wool industry was I mature in the modern concept. , „ Finance for a marketing authority at an additional cost of $90,000 over the Wool Commission’s present expenses, and a stabilisation fund of $27 million, was well within the capability of farmers to find from their stockpile. He said the Wool Commission’s actions had saved wool farmers from disastrous financial predicaments. The auction system could be retained initially as the system of disposing of wool. Fluctuations of wool prices at auction were one of the prime causes of increased costs of production.

Mr Palmer said that farmers had built up a suspicion of the appraiser. Those who produced the highest grade wool were the most vocal because they had reaped financial gain through a personal name for the production of quality fibre. He said an intelligence service bent on improving the existing system for a more accurate appraisal, finding out about availability of quantities, of type, quality, number and grade and the activities of competitive fibre organisations was needed. He suggested that all highgrade New Zealand wools be standard typed; that all standard typed wools be objectively measured; the replacement of the Wool Commission by a marketing authority; creation of a market intelligence organisation; liquidation of the commission’s stockpile and an accumulation of finance from that; appraisal of all wools; and, if necessary, acquisition of the total clip to achieve the types retaining their position in the textile trade and to stimulate use of those wools. WOOL BUYER Mr B. P. Hill, representing the Wool Buyers’ Association, said the auction system was the best method of disposal. “We have seen the effect of the Wool Commission's purchase of wool and the uncertainty of the market because of its presence. Whether the appraisal of wool could be managed with the money available is open to doubt.” The cost to the farmers would be about $1.50 a bale. He said that there was no doubt that a wool marketing authority would tend to have only minor control over marketing and for this it would need very great powers. “It is this which produces some considerable concern in our minds. Any form of bureaucratic control is not desirable in wool marketing,” he said.

“The acquisition of stocks would tend to reduce the normal user demand and this would lead to the acquisition of additional stocks by the authority which would mean additional government finance.

“I believe we would see overseas groups banding together to undermine the price pattern. ■ ‘The free auction market is the only way to sell at the best price and any interference would only lead to disaster.

“Many of the objects of the report are highly desirable but not by the methods they set out,” he said.