SALE OF WOOL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23350, 16 November 1937, Page 10

SALE OF WOOL

THE DRAFT ALLOWANCE INJUSTICE TO GROWERS ; LEGISLATION FOR REMOVAL <From Our Parliamentary Reporter* WELLINGTON, Nov. 15. “ The Government does not want this legislation to become operative until such time as simultaneous action can be taken by New 2Healand, South Africa and Australia,” said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Lee Martin) in moving the second reading of the Sale of Wool Bill in the House of Representatives tonight. ' i. The Bill, which provides for the abolition of the draft allowance in M favour of the purchaser on wool sold in New Zealand, received the support of the Opposition. The Minister said that for many years—in fact, for centuries —it had ' been the practice for buyers to deduct 11b weight for every hundredweight of wool bought, ‘or approximately 3£lb per bale. The purpose of the Bill was to disallow this deduction in future. Woolgrov/ers in all Empire countries had for some years sought to have the practice ■ stopped, but hitherto it had not been possible to bring about the necessary concerted action. Buyers had always maintained that the draft allowance was taken into consideration when the wool was bought, and that its elimination would not result in any great return to the grower One could be pardoned for suggesting that that was not always the case. Woolgrowers felt that the deduction should be stopped, and they were prepared to take the risk , as far as the lower price was concerned. His own view was that on if a rising market there would be no risk, although it might operate on a falling market. Had the draft allowance been abolished last season the additional return to the woolgrowers for that season would have ' been approximately £138,279 9s Id. “ The State Governments in Australia and the Union Government of South Africa,” the Minister continued, “ have for some years been considering the passing of legislation prohibiting the imposition of ' the draft on wool sold in those countries. South Africa and some of -■ the Australian States have now passed such, legislation, but have not yet made it effective. The remaining States of the Australian Commonwealth are proposing to enact similar legislation, and the present .Bill follows largely the Australian (legislation. The New Zealand Government and the Union of South Africa do not want the legislation to be operative until such time as New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia -can make it operative simultaneously. If this Bill is passed the next step will be to come to some . arrangements with South Africa and Australia to fix a common date for the enforcement of the legislation in each country. July of next year has been suggested.” “ It is rather pleasing for the Opposition to find itself in complete agreement with the measure introduced by the Government,” said Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Pahiatua). It seemed rather incredible, he added, that it should be necessary for the Minister to bring in • such a Bill. It was a pity that brokers had not seen fit to abolish the draft of their own accord. ■ Disappointment was expressed by -■Sir Alfred that the Bill applied only to wool sold in New Zealand. A great deal of v/00l was sold over-i-seas, and, while he realised that it was somewhat difficult to make an arrangement to abolish the draft In those countries where wool was -sold, the difficulty should not be insurmountable. Another disappointing feature was that the Bill was fmot to operate until such time as arrangements had been completed with South Africa and Australia. That meant that growers wipuld receive no benefit from the legislation so far as this season’s clip was concerned. Mr H. M. Christie (Govt., Waipawa), supporting the Bill, said were variations in the amount of impurities in wool, but buyers to-day were able to calculate cleanscoured wool to a very fine point. The abolition of the draft meant that the seller of wool in New Zealand would get what he was entitled ■to on the market. The Bill would meet . with the support of the grower, and he felt that there would not be any real opposition from 'buyers. Mr H. S, S. Kyle (Opposition, i Riccarton) recalled that nine or ten years ago he had given notice of a question to the House asking the •/then Government to remove the . draft. The New Zealand Sheepowners’ Union had been working in conjunction with the Graziers’ Asso''elation of Australia for the abolition of the draft The proposal certainly was a move to lessen an injustice to the woolgrowers. Mr H. G. Dickie (Opposition, Patea) said he hoped the producers would get the benefit of the removal of what was apparently an old trade ’usage 40 years ago. The late Mr Seddon had urged the abolition of the draft, he said. Complete support for the Bill was expressed by Mr T. D. Burnett (Opposition, Temuka), who said that the abolition of the draft levy (represented an initial step in a highly necessary reorganisation of the wool industry. The fact that ' such an improvement was necessary had been forced home by the fear i engendered by the inroad of artificial fabrics into the wool market “ There are various other irn; provements which could be made,'’ Mr Burnett continued “At present the woolgrower does not get the penny allowed him for his woolpacks, and the Minister should look into that matter. A further important point is that we are turning into a nation of small flockmasters with all the contingent dangers arising from small flocks. We are not breeding to type and keeping up uniformity of supply to the extent ' that is possible with large flocks. Reclassing is overcoming some of the difficulties in this respect, but in all probability serious consideration will have to be given to the necessity of -.breeding to one uniform type in particular districts." i‘ Mr E. L. Cullen (Govt., Hawke's Bay) said he hoped the Government 'would give consideration to the in_ troduction of a uniform type of woolpack throughout New Zealand. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr A. Hamilton) said it remained to be seen whether the Bill would result in a saving of £ 138,000 a year to growers, as claimed by the Minister. The buyers might even deduct from their prices for wool something more than the draft. Two other points that required consideration tvere an allowance for tare and the fact that the farmer received

nothing for the bale in which his wool was packed, and which cost him from 3s to 4s. Nevertheless, he thought that the present system of marketing wool with the bulk of the produce bought and sold actually within the Dominion was better than any other system operating in the case of other primary products. The Bill was read a second time without a division.