New Wool Board Concept

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32303, 22 May 1970, Page 8

New Wool Board Concept

The repeal of the Acts setting up the Wool Board and the Wool Commission and the establishment of an organisation with all the present responsibility of the board and commission but with additional powers to co-ordinate all phases of the wool industry in New Zealand were suggested by Mr B. H. Palmer, the chairman of the wool committee of North Canterbury Federated Farmers, when he took part in the wool marketing symposium at the Land and Industry Exhibition at Wanganui last week.

Mr Palmer said that the Wool Board, which should have the image of New Zealand’s wool authority, had its position obscured by the wool - owning commission and an audacious International Wool Secretariat. Like James Busby, the “man of war without guns,” the appearance of the board was of an organisation without teeth and if ever an industry required a group with an authoritative image it was this one. This was not a criticism of present members but one of an outmoded concept. Producers had paid a great deal of money for scientific research into all phases of the wool process. The secretariat’s technical centre at Ilkley and the Wool Research Organisation at Lincoln had placed technical advances in the hands of the trade, which had not been thought possible 10 years ago. Unco-ordinated marketing could be jeopardising the full potential of these developments. At the raw fibre end the schedule of “N.Z. national wool standards” had been produced. This went a long way to eliminating the subjective specification of wool. With this weapon in the hands of the industry much mystique was removed and it was possible to go to the manufacturer and guarantee specification, provided of course the broker was capable of classing to the required standards and many could do this.

It was reported that the computer could be programmed to plan yarns but no mechanical device was effective unless fed with the objective detail. The wool fibre could now be made available with specifications as precise as for any man-made fibre. It now rested with the Wool Board to see that this and other scientific accomplishments were made use of and not lost in the maze of barter and ; deal which isolated producer and manufacturer in the present obscure marketing system. A new concept Woolj Board, said Mr Palmer,

must have a marketing division with cells to maintain standards of wool specification and to make contact and observe at the manufacturing end. People adequately trained were available to carry out this intricate task. This group would indicate to the standards committee modifications that were necessary in an ever-changing technological world.'

To achieve even greater efficiency stocks of wool should be readily available. "this could be achieved in two ways—(l) improved efficiency in the existing system co-ordinated to meet the requirements that he had previously discussed (marketing flexibility, New Zealand standard ■ typing, etc.) and the licensing of all exporters of the raw product; and (2) a large, powerful wool-owning producer co-operative such as the cotton co-operatives in the U.S.A, which handled 96 per cent of production. Within either of these propositions large producers could market their product while retaining their own identity provided they met the required specification standards. Mr Palmer said he preferred the first because it allowed greater scope for initiative and an incentive for the contributing areas of the industry. But it had to be accepted that there must be co-ordina-tion and control for the benefit of the product. Mr Palmer said that he felt that his alternative plan would ensure farmer involvement and yet allow free rein for modern marketing principles. “As wool loses its priority as an overseas exchange earner, national sympathy and finances are more and more directed towards other enterprises,” said Mr Palmer. “The responsibility for the wool industry should now return to where it rightly belongs —at the door of the producer. It is encumbent upon us to involve ourselves in al) facets of the industry. To blame the present debacle on brokers, buyers or the Government is weak and unjustified. We have evaded our responsibility because of confusion and the apparent complexity of the trade. Technological advances have rectified this and producers must move into the field of marketing to make full use of the work of our scientists and economists and other expertise available to us.”