WOOL BOYCOTT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23053, 2 June 1938, Page 15

WOOL BOYCOTT

BRADFORD THREAT THE DRAFT ALLOWANCE VIEWS OF LOCAL BROKERS DOUBTS ABOUT ABOLITION Doubts that anything would come of the proposed boycott of the Australian and New Zealand wool sales of 1938-39, which has been suggested by the British Wool Federation owing to its resentment of the possibility of the abolition of the draft allowance, were expressed by leading brokers in Auckland yesterday. "It is doubtful if Bradford buyers can afford to take up such a drastic attitude," said one broker. "After all, Bradford is only one buying centre, and •Japan is not likely to take similar action. The boycott has been made contingent upon 80 per cent of the members of the federation agreeing, and this itself would be difficult. There is also the Continent and America to be considered. Personally, I do not think that the draft allowance will be altered." The Political Aspect Brokers in Auckland generally agree with the contention expressed in Bradford that politicians had magnified the issue out of its real importance. The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Lee Martin, had contended that, had the draft allowance been abolished last season, the additional return to the woolgrower would have been approximately £138,279. This was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. A. Hamilton, who pointed out that buyers might even deduct something more than the draft from their prices for wool. This opinion is shared by local brokers, who contend that buyers would make allowance for the absence of the draft allowance, in the same way in which exchange is now being taken into account. Overseas buyers had been very reasonable in the past, and they did not claim for any loss on a bale unless the shortage was more than 101b. On the other hand, buyers deducted about 3Jlb. for every bale of wool sold, but it was very seldom that a bale was over-weight to any marked extent. Position of the Growers In the opinion of brokers, the present agreement was all in favour of growers, and it would bo to their disadvantage to alter it. Further, if the growers insisted on abolishing the allowance, it was only reasonable to expect that buyers would considerably stiffen their claims, and the present amicable agreement would be lost. The view that farmers would bo worse off than ever by the proposed abolition was expressed by Mr. B. J Marquet, chairman of the Auckland Woolbrokers' Association, last night He also agreed that it was extremely doubtful if any action would be taken in the face of opposition from wool buyers. History of the Concession The draft allowance is lib. in every 1121b. of wool purchased, and is a concession dating' back tQ the days of faulty weighing apparatus. The 'question of abolition has been most strongly pressed by Australia, but the Sale «>f Wool Bill, providing for the abolition in New Zealand, was passed at the end of last year. Similar legislation was passed in all the States of Australia, with the exception of New South Wales and Tasmania. The New Zealand Act, however, will not come into force until legislation now being completed in Australia and South Africa is made effective. The suggested date was July 1. This legislation will apply only to sales in New Zealand. In the meantime, brokers and growers in New Zealand are adopting a policy of wait and see, and it is obvious that no action will be taken until definite assurances of similar action have been received from Australia and South Africa. The general opinion appears to be that if the buyers continue their threats of retaliation the proposed abolition will not be proceeded with. OPINIONS IN AUSTRALIA GROWERS NOT CONCERNED PREPARED TO CALL BLUFF (.Received June 1, 8.30 p.m.) SIDNEY, June 1 According to the Sun, woolgrowers in Australia are not concerned over the threat of the British Wool Federation to boycott the Dominion sales if the draft allowance is abolished. Prominent graziers contend that the federation is either bluffing or is extremely anxious to retain full domination over the Australian auctions. Australian growers, it is added, aTe prepared to "call their bluff." The matter is to be discussed next Monday at a meeting of the National Council of Woolselling Brokers in Melbourne. Some brokers argue in favour of continuance of the draft allowance and declare the time is not opportune to fight the federation. It is recalled that the Commonwealth Wool Federa- ' tion in 1932 recommended the abolition of the allowance because of the irritation to growers. Mr. J. F. Hollowav, acting-president of the Graziers' Association, said it was most unlikely that the graziers would budge from their demand for abolition of the'draft allowance and it was also extremely unlikely that the British wool buyers would enforce their boycott. A leading wool authority, on the contrary, pointed out that buyers who already took into consideration the draft allowance when bidding would continue to adjust their prices accordingly and pay a little less for their wool, which would defeat the object at which the graziers aimed.