SALES OF WOOL

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 119, 16 November 1937, Page 5

SALES OF WOOL

HOUSE IN AGREEMENT

ABOLITION OF ALLOWANCE

SECOND READING OF

BILL

I The Sale of Wool Bill, which provides |; for the abolition of what is known as | ths draft allowance on all wool sold in New Zealand, was read a second time in the House of Representatives last evening, both sides of the House endorsing the principle involved. In moving the second reading of the Bill, ths Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. W. Lee Martin) said for centuries it had been the practice of buyfirs to deduct one pound weight for every hundredweight of wool bought, nr approximately SJlb per bale. Wool growers in all the Empire countries had sought for some' years to have the practice discontinued, but hithertn it had not been possible to bring about the necessary concerted action. "Buyers have always maintained that thp. draft allowance is taken into consideration when wool is bought and that its elimination would not result in any greater return to the grower," said the Minister. , "One may be pardoned for suggesting that this is not always the case. However, wool growers feel that the deduction should and thsy are prepared, to take the risk as far as a lower price is concerned. Personally, my opinion is that on a rising market there will- be no risk, but it may operate on a falling market."' . NO PROTESTS RECEIVED. . The Minister said^that the intention to abolish the allowance had been well known throughout the Dominion for several months, but no protests had been received. It was known from Press reports that a resolution unfavourable to the legislation had been passed last year by Bradford buyers, but no protest had come to hand. The operation of the legislation would extend only to sales of wool made in New Zealand. Sales in the United Kingdom and elsewhere where the draft allowance had not been abolished would presumably be subject to the customary deduction. If the allowance had been abolished last season the additional return to the growers, on the basis of the total sales and the Dominion average price,-would have been about £138,279, the Minister said. South Africa «nd some Australian States had passed legislation abolishing , the allowance in those counties, but had not yet made it effective. The remaining Australian States were proposing to take similar action. It was £?sired to make the legislation operative simultaneously in New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia, and July, 1938,.was suggested as the time. The Hon. Sir A. Ransom (National, Pahiatua) said it was pleasing that the Opposition could support the Bill, but it was rather regrettable that it should have, been necessary to bring down such a measure. The old objection of inaccurate weighing apparatus no longer existed, and he thought the brokers could easily have dealt with the matter. Again, the difficulty of abolishing the allowance on all New Zealand wool sold, whether in the Dorninioh *or elsewhere, should not have been insurmountable. LIMITS OF BUYERS. Mr. H. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa) said Ke: believed that at; one time the allowance -was greater than at present. Buyers' limits were often very elastic and he-had met prominent buyers who had told him that their limit was 3d above the actual price realised. He was sure that the Bill would meet with the approval of wool growers generally throughout New Zealand. The bwyers themselves could raise no valid objection to it. Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) remarked that over forty years ago Mr. Seddon had tried to have, the .allowance abolished. His own experience was that wool buyers in New Zealand had fairly rigid limits. Mr. T. D. Burnett (National, Temuka) suggested that, the Minister should seriously consider providing for reimbursement of the wool growers for their outlay on woolpacks, as in the case of sacks in the grain industry. Mr. E. L. Cullen (Government, Hawke's Bay) expressed the hope that uniformity of woolpacks would be kept in mind. He thought that the farmers who would benefit most from the legislation would be those who had improved their flocks by careful breeding. . A POSSIBLE RESULT. ' Ths Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. A. Hamilton), while supporting the Bill, pointed out that the buyers of wool might decide to deduct from the price at least the amount of the draft allowance. He believed that the wool marketing system in New Zealand was the best of the methods adopted for selling the country's primary products. They must be care- j ful not to disturb the buyer of New Zealand products by changing oldestablished customs without good cause. Mr. C. H. Burnett (Government, Tauranga) said conditions had changed in the wool industry in New Zealand. In the early days much of the wool came from bush country and contained impurities that made a draft allowance necessary. Now that the wool was of better quality and buyers could inspect it before buying, the allowance should not be made. .

Mr. J. A. McL, Roy (National, Clutha) stressed the need for better stock so that the quality of the wool would improve and be in a better position to meet the competition of wool substitutes.

The Minister expressed appreciation of the cordial reception given to the B,ill, and the second reading was carried.