COERCING THE WOOLGROWERS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 74, 22 February 1930, Page 8

COERCING THE WOOLGROWERS.

It is unfortunate that the Wellington wool sale had to be called off on Thursday on account of the concerted action of the members of the New Zealand Wool Buyers’ Association in refusing to attend, the sale unless a minimum of 20,009 bales was catalogued. The Bradford merchants are said to have been responsible for this in the first instance, as their representatives had received instructions not to attend any sale where a minimum of 20,000 bales is not submitted. Woolgrowers have been very much dissatisfied with the current market rates, and many of their number either did not send in, or withdrew their wool from the sale, so that, while buyers were demanding a minimum catalogue of 20,000 bales, only about 15,000 w’ere listed and a deadlock thus eventuated, much tp the disappointment of those who were preparing to offer their wool and to the brokers, who were prepared to undertake the selling. Curiously enough the suggestion has been made that the

brokers are to blame for not submitting a fuller catalogue, but it is not shown how they could have increased the offerings when the growers failed to send in their wool. The latter complain that, at current rates, wool was selling under the cost of production, and they were consequently holding for a better market. With something less than 15,900 bales catalogued, a rise in the market rates might possibly have been looked for, had the sale been proceeded with, and it is to be presumed that was what Bradford was desirous of averting, as the market there is dull. With a fuller offering, prices might have declined still further. The question arises whether the buyers acted either wisely or fairly towards those growers who sent their wool in, by declining to attend the sale. The growers could not be expected to force their neighbours to sell, any more than their neighbours could have forced them to do so, had the position been reversed, and the growers who attended at what was to have been the fourth sales of the Wellington season have a right to feel aggrieved at the scant consideration shown them by the buyers. The growers who have held back their wool are, of course, well within their right in doing so. But have the buyers an equal right to determine when and to what extent the growers shall market their wool? It would seem that they are assuming- that they have that right in the compulsion they are bringing to bear upon the growers, when they say in effect: “If you do not send '20,000 bales to the Wellington, Wanganui and Napier sales we will not attend as buyers.” The Wellington catalogue of 14,901) bales was not an inconsiderable offering. The calling off of the sale occasions inconvenience loss to the growers, who were prepared to accept the prices offering, as also to the selling brokers. It must also react unfavourably upon shipping and restrict, to a cer tain extent, the flow of money whioh always follows the disposal* of the produce. And, back of the buyers’ action, is the covert threat that, if the growers elect to ship their produce Home for sale on their own account, the buyers will take other action. The position is sufficiently serious to warrant the protest which was carried at. the meeting held in Wellington, following- the calling off of the sale, on the motion of Mr W. H. Field, against the action taken by the Woolbuyers’ Association in absenting themselves from the sale, “thus punishing the growers who were willing to sell and thus meet the market,” and asserting“the right of growers to market their wool in such manner as they may consider most advantageous to themselves.” It may be pointed out that the growers, are not by any means dependent upon the New Zealand buyers, as they can ship and market their wool abroad, and, in Wellington, it is stated the banks and financial institutions would willingly assist them in this direction.