SALE OF WOOL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1927, Page 10

SALE OF WOOL

POWERS OF COMMITTEE

EDITORIAL CRITICISM

(By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evenino Post.")

AUCKLAND, This Day. In the course of a lengthy editorial to-day' B "New Zealand Herald" says: "The operations of the New Zealand Wool Committee afford a complete illustration of. the dangers of granting unlimited powers of legislation by Orders in Council under the Board of Trade Act. Sweeping provisions were invoked m 1921 to make regulations governing the sale of wool and to place in the hands of a' committee, appointed by the Government, .drastic powers of control over the sale of wool by public auction or private treaty, while licensed auctioneers were compelled by the threat of heavy penalties to obey the committee's orders.

Three years ago, when conditions had become normal, attention was directed to the regulations in existence by _ public protests from Wanganui against the limit placed on a sale in that centre. A plausible case was made out for the continuance of the regulations. Some concession was made to the Wanganui agitation, and the committee continued to act under the old regulations.. Then in January, 1925, ■when there was less excuse than ever for such interference, a new Order in Council was issued and the committee was reconstituted.

"The woolgrowers have never had an opportunity to express their wishes. The industry has indeed plainly rejected the proposals for a control similar to that of the dairy and meat boards. They do not elect their own representatives. They have no remedy against the actions of the committee, no matter how unsatisfactory they may be. Yet this body, owing no responsibility to those whose interests have been placed at its disposal, has power to forbid the woolgrowers to offer their wool at public auction, and consequently to involve them in expense and embarrassment through delay in realisation, and to suffer all risks of loss if the market should move unfavourably before the wool can be sold.

"The only escape from this interference is to endeavour to sell by private treaty, or to consign their clips to London, the solution that -may presently be widely adopted, thus wrecking all progress that has been made in the .establishing of local sales as the market for the bulk of the country's production. The. whole conception of this control scheme is unsound. . There was no need for it before the war. Woolgrowers have never Banctioned.it, and there is no need for it now.

"Those who imagine it strengthens the market delude themselves, for the buying interests are fully informed of th,e actual quantities produced and make their calculations accordingly. Even if it had the slightest right of compensation, all these control schemes upon which New Zealand has unfortunately embarked involve a risk of Joss through deterioration of produce in storage, through the expense of holding commodities off the markets and of obtaining financial accommodation, and through the ' perils of mass speculation upon course ■of prices. Experience alone will convince the producers of their mistake in sanctioning such dangerous experiments, but the control of wool sales, having been set up without the approval of woolgrowers, should be abolished before it does worse harm than it has already caused."