THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1930. WOOL SALES DEADLOCK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20495, 21 February 1930, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1930. WOOL SALES DEADLOCK.

The wool sales deadlock has passed from threat to actuality. A sale scheduled to open at Wellington yesterday afternoon was not held for want of buyers. The catalogue offered comprised barely 15,000 bales instead of the minimum 20,000 the buyers demanded at all except final sales. Therefore, they stayed away. As sales cannot be held without buyers, there was none at Wellington yesterday. The circumstances that led up to the complete deadlock can be summarised briefly. The most important phase began with a cable message, published last Saturday, giving a resolution carried at Bradford by the New Zealand section of the British Wool Federation. This body had met to consider a message from the New Zealand Wool Buyers' Association, stating that wool was being withheld, the brokers' catalogues being only about 50 per cent, of the allocation. The following reply was drafted for despatch :—"A fully-attended meeting of the federation reaffirms its previous decision against an extension of the selling season and urges the utmost pressure on the selling brokers to offer not less than 20,000 bales at each sale. Should the brokers' proposals involve an extension of the season beyond April 16, the British Wool Federation desires to register an emphatic protest, and selling brokers must accept full responsibility or take the consequences." The next step was the intimation from the Wool Buyers' Association that its members would not attend sales at which less than the 20,000 bales mentioned by the federation were offered. The selling brokers have denied, officially and categorically, that they have had anything to do with the shrinkage of offerings. It has occurred, they explain, because growers have withdrawn their wool in the hope of better prices later. They cannot force the growers to offer their output, and are therefore helpless. This argument has not affected the buyers, who have now carried their threat to its logical conclusion. The president of the Wool Buyers' Association, in a statement published yesterday, discussed the position from the point of view of himself and Lis associates. One or two points in it demand examination. He continues to suggest that the selling brokers are responsible for the reduced catalogues, in spite of their public denials, and their cabled assurance to the British Wool Federation that they are not. The crux of his argument is contained in the following sentences: "We maintain the right of every grower to dispose of his wool as he wishes, and deprecate the action of the brokers in holding up the whole sales of the Dominion. We also insist upon the right of every buyer to attend sales only if it suits him to do so." These are sound sentiments, but how are they exemplified by the action of the buyers 1 The brokers assure everyone concerned that the small catalogues are the result of withdrawals by growers, that is to say, of the exercise of their conceded right to dispose of their wool as they wish. The buyers signalise their approval by staying away from the sale. Moreover, though there 1s a shortage of 5000 bales compared with the offering the buyers demand, growers owning in the aggregate 15,000 bales offer them for sale, wishing to dispose of them. The buyers respond by refusing to do business. They announced this intention, presumably in the hope of having more wool catalogued. The growers who had withdrawn did not want to sell ; therefore, the presence or absence of the buyers was a matter of indifference to them. The owners of the 15,000 bales, who did want to sell, could not do anything about the situation : they were simply deprived of their right to dispose of their wool as they wished by 'the arbitrary action of the buyers. The right of every buyer to attend sales only if it suits him to do so does not need to be insisted upon. Common sense grants it, but that does not necessarily justify an organised boycott of a sale, not by individual buyers, but by the whole body admittedly acting according to plan. No buyer need attend, no buyer need bid, if it does not suit him. When all the buyers stay away, in fulfilment of a threat, the action goes beyond the exercise of ordinary commercial choice.

It may bo wondered what is fhoughfc in Australia about these New Zealand happenings. A great deal more has been done there in the way of limiting offerings thnn here, and it has been done not by individual action hut as a concerted policy. A combined meeting, representative of woolgrowers and brokers, held at Melbourne on February 6, decided to extend the wool sales to the middle of August instead of terminating them at .Tune 30; to spread offerings as equally as possible over the intervening period; to recommend brokers to take such action with their clients as would ensure that wool would not be sold at less than tho previous week's level of values ; and to invite South Africa and New Zealand to adopt a similar policy in the marketing of their clips. i his policy has been put into action go far as practicable. The decisions were communicated to the Federal Prime Minister, not with any I specific request for State assistance,

but for the information of the Government. There has been the further suggestion of arranging for a heavy carry-over each year, for five years, if necessary, in order to limit the offerings at the sales. All this has been decided upon without any evidence of direct protest by the buyers or their principals. The sales have been proceeding with deliberately limited catalogues, and wool has been quitted freely. This points rather a sharp contrast between the treatment of Australia and New Zealand. In the one country, the buyers are up in arms against what they have been assured is simply the cumulative effect of individual action by growers. In the other, growers and brokers deliberately produce the same effect on a much more extensive scale, do it publicly, and hear no objection. Why the difference in attitude ? These things can merely be noted. It is difficult to see what can be done if the buyers persist in their present intention. But it is wholly unfortunate that as a result of the action already taken at Wellington, growers who are obviously desirous of selling are denied the opportunity of doing so, and are left with the wool on their hands, just as a.re those growers who withdrew from the sale, voluntarily.