FARMERS' UNION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 30, 4 August 1926, Page 10

FARMERS' UNION

DOMINION CONFERENCE

WOOL BOARD ADVOCATED

Tho annual conference of tho Now Zealand Farmers' Union was continued this morning, Mr. W. J. Poison (president) iv the chair. About eighty dologates from all parts of tho Dominion attended tho conference. Committees which had been appointed to arrange and report on tho various remits brought up their recommendations. A report on organisation was considered in committee. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Colonel Pow (Dominion secretary) for tho valuable work he had done for J'\o Farmers' Union. Tho motion was moved by Mr. A. A. Eoss (Te Kauwhata), seconded by Mr. J. M'Cort (South Canterbury), and was supported in the warmest terms by members of the conference. The report of the Produce Committee was submittod by Mr. W. W. Mulhollaud (Dar/iold). Most of tho remits dealing with wool and Meat Board matters woro referred to the conference for consideration without any recommendation. The first remit, from the combined conference, was as follows:— This conference considers that tho time has arrived when a wool board is essential for the better marketing of our wool. Mr. Lilburn, representative of tho Farmers' Union on the Wool Committee, briefly addressed the conference, and outlined the work of the committoo. Mi\ L. T. Daniell (Wairarapa), in moving tho remit, explained that there was a distinct difference between a wool committee and a wool board. Tho latter body might bo likened to the Meat Board so far as its powers wore concerned. The necessity for reducing freights on wool was emphasised. Mr. Grimsdale Anderson (Pelorus) strongly advocated absolute control, which, ho maintained, was essential to success in dealing with ourprimary products. Wool Control meant that tho pro- | ducors would have a body of the best men who would bo in a position to speak authoritatively for all tho wool growers in tho Dominion. Ho instanced the wonderful success achioved by the Australian Wool Board. The foasibility of wool, control had been proved boyond all doubt. Mr. J. 11. Joll (Havclock North) pointed to the unsatisfactory jiosition in connection with the sale of wool during the last season. It had been asserted that as wool was not a perishable commodity, it waa not necessary to have a control board. He denied the force of such a contention, and maintained that if the unsatisfactory position of last season were continued, the result would bo bad for sheep farmers. ; STRONG SUPPORT FOR WOOL CONTROL. Mr. F. Bowon (Poverty Bay) said that unless they were organised and protected themselves, it would be impossible to keep on growing wool in tho Dominion. Such protection could only come irtm themselves by the constitution of a control board. If Now Zealand had had a control board like the Australian Board (Bawra) it would have meant many more millions to tho credit of New Zealand. Ho gave an estimate of the cost of production, and I said Dominion growers wero not getting a requisite price for the product. Mr. W. H. Allen (Auckland) assorted that the only guarantee for the success of the industry was to set up a board. The proposal was strongly supported by Messrs. P. J. Eoberts (Poverty Bay) and M. T. Trafford (Poverty Bay). Mr. E. Bowmar (Southland) opposed the motion. "We had to produce our wool at a price which would compete with the wool of other countries." He thought that Dominion growers had received a reasonable price in view of the competition, and all tho circumstances. Further evidence would have to bo submitted in favour of the proposal before he could support it. The president (Mr, W. J. Poison) alluded to the unsuccessful attempts to control the coffee and rubber markets. New Zealand, he was informed, produced about a fifteenth (possibly much less) of tho world's wool sxipply. Wo wanted a better system of grading and marketing of wool. If a wool board were established for these purposes he would support .the proposal. Mr. Bo wen: "That is all we ask for." The president remarked that if growers endeavoured to hold up the price of wool until it reached what growers considered a payable figure; he maintained that it was impossible to do that. Support of the remit was given by Captain F. Colbeck (Auckland), J. Livingston (Dannevirke), O. O. Wilkinson (Nelson), and other delegates. Mr. G. L. Marshall (Morton) pointed out that the Sheep Owners' Federation were opposed to "compulsory" control, and there would be no chance of the appointment of a board which could exercise compulsion. He supported pooling, but said that until the sheep farmers were fairly unanimous for a control board the proposal could not be carried out. Mr. A. E. Harding (Auckland) pointed to the success of the existing control boards, and said ho was heart and soul with the proposal for a certain amount of control for the whole of the output of wool.' Mr. J. D. Hall (North Canterbury) asked what the powers of the board would be. Mr. L. T. Danioll (Wairarapa) replied that they would be similar to those possessed by tho Meat Board. Several speakers expressed the opinion that the existing Wool Committee does not possess sufficient power. In his reply, Mr. L. T. Daniell (Wairarapa) agreed to alter the name to the "Wool' Organisation Board." The motion, as amended, was carried by 45 votes to 12.

(Proceeding.)