The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, June 30, 1942. THE WOOL QUESTION.

Grey River Argus, 30 June 1942, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, June 30, 1942. THE WOOL QUESTION.

The warning yesterday given that selfishness in industry will not be countenanced in Australia is a reminder that in New Zealand such a tendency is not en-

tirely absent. The primary producers deserve every ■consideration. and this they obtain, but some of them are disposed to drive rather hard bargains. They

mostly enjoy a state guarantee for minimum prices, and marketing during the war period has not been for them a matter of much anxiety. ' Comparing the steady absorption .of produce, muck of lit into reserves at.the risk of the State, earlier in the war, the.position to-day is much more secure for the farming industry than had appeared at all likely at the end ’of 1939?«. If the consumer is apt Jito blame the retailer for price ,Varioti.ons, the reason is that the ! consumer reckons the producer is , assured qf uniform prices, and \that it’ds on that b f asis the Price Tribun aUftxes prices.. l Recently v-the- have obtained ‘from‘ the British Government •• ' .t - *

an advance of hfteejj per- cent. f v which is not onliy. p n account of /Increased prpdu’effon costs, but is also an inducehient.-.to maintain the‘output at la’ maximum. The proportion of pur wool, exported is about nine-tenths, or more than; 700,000 while 80,000 bales is used within the Dominion. The growers have insisted upon being paid in cash, the whole of the advance made on British account, • whereas the Government had sug- >. gested that they tiake out the ex- ! tra 15 per cent, in three per cent- ! war bonds, so as to avoid infla- 1 tioh, and forego a demand for a- ! 15 per cent, increase also upon 1 the wool used in New Zealand. The wool-growers at to conferference rejected a proposal that j from the 5 per cent, retention money per cent, be deducted j so as to keep the price of wool ; used by Dominion ’ mills at the. level fixed at the outbreak of war. The growers argue that this would amount ’ to a subsidy from their industry, for the main; tenance of the present price of > wool for. manuflacture within the i country. Mr. Jas S. Jessep, ‘ East Coast (Nil.) Commissioner and Manager for Native properties running over 150,000 sheep, does not at all agree with the official attitude of the sheep owners, farmers, and meat producers organisations in this matter, and states some impressive reasons for his attitude. He admits that in this island sheep owners in high country on Crown land, who'depend almost wholely on wool have had difficulties, including la labour shortage, but quotes figures’ to show that, taken generally, the wool-growers have been doing exceedingly well. He considers that few sheep farmers would refuse to take war bonds-for the British Government advance in price, or would insist on a similar (advance in the' price of wool required within the Dominion. He recalls the manner in which the Government last year paid for the carcases ■’ of sheep Avhen their shipment was. a matter; of the utmost doubt, and remarks that this guarantee was one in'favour of wool-growers for , the m ! ost part, as the sheep-own-ers are almost equally as interested in mutton and lamb as they are in wool. Had not the meat wouks been cleared as they have so luckily been cleared, the rest of the 'community, the taxpayers' generally, would have 1 had to shoulder a burden of many millions for . meat which is paid to_the sheep farmers. However, there is a further point of equal importance. In September . 1939, the price of wool was fixed- at a price 33 1-3 ■ per cont. above -the ruling (price for.' the., 1938-39 season, and; as-.that, increase has-not bcen-'.subject to brokerage or other charges, the; actual advance was 361 per cent. Now that 15 per cent, is being I added the increase above the pre I war price is over fifty per cent. Seeing that it affects 720,000 ’of the 800,000 bales .produced, it is rather 100 hard a war-time bargain for the sheep-farmers to drive when they demand an addition of £200,000 lo the cheque ! payable to them on the wool used I within the country. ■ One ■ leading grower who opposed the exaction of a 15 per cent, increase all round in cash was criticised; but .he doubtless recognised that the sheep-owners have not had to make the -same’ sacrifices as other sections of the ’community, as also that sheep-farmers benefit to. the extent of a quarter of a million annually by State manure subsidy, and even on the wool they sell for New Zealand mills their:price is 364 per cent, above the pre-war price. Taking ' everything into account, therefore tlie Government ivould appear to have a good ciase if it asked tlie sheep-owners to forego an increase on the wool for local use. and to. invest the increase from exports in war bonds.