THE WOOL INDUSTRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21987, 23 June 1933, Page 10

THE WOOL INDUSTRY

PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SCHEME FOR IMPROVEMENT (Fee United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 22. About 90 woolgrowers from all parts of the North Island and n few from the South Island attended a meeting of sheep farmers in Wellington to-day, convened to consider a scheme for improving wool production and marketing which was the outcome of a meeting held at Palmerston North on May 26. The scheme, which embodies the imposition of a levy of 3d per bale to meet the cost of putting the machinery of improvement into operation, was. approved and carried by an overwhelming majority. , Uncompromising opposition was aclvanced by representatives of the stock and station companies and brokers to an> compulsion or Government interference in the scheme, and Mr W. J. PoEon MI ~ urged that the powers of the Meat Board should be extended and the scheme undertaken by that board instead of setting up a new organisation. He hinted at opposition in Parliament to the institution ot a A strong protest was made against the shipping charges for wool as against those for other freights. ... . * . j , The functions of the administrative body as outlined provide for the instruction to farmers, the elimination of scrub sires, research work, the preparation of clips for sale, freights on wool, the dissemination of information and contact witn ot 'The Minister of Lands (Mr E. A. Ransom), who presided, said it had been represented in some quarters that the move was an attempt to setup a control board like the Dairy Board. The proposal was to set up a committee or council to investigate matters of interest to wool producers in an endeavour to improve their position and to improve the classification and marketing of their products. It was independent of the sheep bleeders organisations, and while at the moment the movement was in the North Island it was hoped that the South island- would fall into line. The farmers were putting wool on the open market to-day below the cost of production. The producers were facing a buyers’ market instead. ot a sellers’ market, and were realising what it meant. “ I marvel that we have been so patient regarding °ur own ditnculties,” said Mr Ransom. “We should demand our rights and we havenotdone so We have submitted too long to the disadvantages under which we have been labouring and which can be overcome. Mr Ransom dealt with the question of stud stock and the need for certified rams as a step towards improvement in qual ity As a body, he said, they should investigate the opening up of fresh markets and the Scientific and Industrial Research Department would help them in the utilisation of. their products. New Zealand was handicapped by reductions regarding tariffs in other countries. She should pay for the goods she imported from countries other than Britain, in gold but in produce, and, he added. “I hope that produce will be wool. The following motion was proposed by Mr G. Williams (Gisborne) ; ihat to finance a sheep and wool scheme the Government be asked to pass legislation enabling the imposition ot a levy of not more than three pence per bale on all wool grown in the North Island or in the Dominion if the south Island’ wishes to come into the senemt. Further, that the Government be asked, to pass an empowering clause to the Meat Board Act giving the board discretionary power to subsidise any such levy to an extent that may be rendered necessaU by circumstances, and that the total sura accruing be administered v by a committee set up by the sheep farmers. The mover observed that it had been said that the scheme was too indefinite, but it was not possible to say what the council would do before it was elected. Speaking for the. Stock and Station Companies’ Executive Committee, Sir Alexander Roberta said his executive was anxious to support any sound scheme which would help growers to increase their returns, but he was opposed to any scheme which introduced compulsion or Government interference. They maintained that between the producers and the financial houses they were quite able to look alter their own business and the stock and station companies would gladly co-operate with the growers in putting the proposed scheme into' operation. They hoped the proposals, if carried, would go a long way toward bringing together the producer and the financial houses. It was .felt that the scheme would help materially to bring them together for the betterment ° f Mr‘A. E, Mabin (Wellington), representing the woolbrokers of New Zealand, said that' any sound and practical proposals would receive the support of the brokers. What the brokers would not stand for/was any board of control or Government interference with the wool trade at a time when business men were endeavouring to throw off the shackles of too much Government in everything. We are not going to be parties to any false move,” be said. . Mr A. C. Russell (Waipukurau) objected to any proposal which would increase the cost of production. He moved as an amendment —"/That a levy be not entertained.” The amendment was defeated.

Mr Poison (president of the Farmers’ Union) said that his organisation had not considered the question at all. although it agreed that something should be done to improve the quality of wool. It was not desired to antagonise the brokers. The proposal was to set up a new' organisation 1 and impose a levy, whereas speaking personally, he thought they should extend the powers of the existing organisations if they had any confidence in them. To pass the motion would amount to a vote of no-confidence in the Meat Board. Why not reorganise the Meat Board, bringing down legislation and giving it greater powers to handle the matter?

Mr W. Peat (Wanganui) moved a second amendment —“ That this meeting is of the opinion that if sheep breeders require instruction to improve their wool the Massey College should give any instruction necessary, and before any compulsory levy is made on wool a vote should be taken of all New Zealand on the basis of the number of bales for and against.” —This was also defeated. The motion was then put and carried by 52 votes to six.

Further motions were carried that an electoral council be elected with representation on the basis of one representative for every three-quarters of a million sheep, together with the necessary machinery clauses for carrying the motion into effect.

The ejection of the council proceeded and resulted as follows:—Auckland— Messrs A. E. Harding (Dargavillc), F. R. Seddou (Hamilton), H. E. Worsp (Whangarei); and E. H. Nolan (Papatoetoe); Gisborne —Messrs E. R. Black, C. H. WilHams, and H. G. Smith; Hawke’s Bay— Messrs F. N. H. Beamish (Whana Whana), J. E. Hewitt (Mangamaire), H. B. Stuckey (Dannevirke), G. D. Tod (Nuhaka), E. C. Nation (Waipawa); West Coast—Messrs J. Blair (Wanganui), L. Hammond (Marton), A. Hunter (Hawera), A. C. Morton (Rangiwahia). and G. S. Peren (Palmerston North); Wairarapa, Mr Q. Donald (Featherston) and Sir William Perry (Masterton).