DRAFT ALLOWANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23529, 18 June 1938, Page 13

DRAFT ALLOWANCE

CONCERN IN WOOL INDUSTRY (From Oub Own Correspondent) SYDNEY, June 9. The report that British wool buyers will attempt to impose an embargo on wool from Australia and New Zealand, if the industry and the Government persevere in the decision to withdraw the draft allowance of 11b a cwt, is not being taken seriously in Canberra. The draft allowance was granted in

old day, 3, when inaccuracies of scales might lead to under-weight for the buyer, but growers say that modern scales are so accurate that bales of wool can be weighed to the exact ounce.

The Acting Minister of Commerce (Mr Cameron) said that the Minister of Commerce (Sir Earle Page), who was in close touch with Australia’s market in London, had not referred to Canberra any serious threat to the Australian wool industry. The matter was one for the States, all of which had passed legislation cancelling the allowance from July 1. The Commonwealth had no power to intervene. Nevertheless, an embargo

would be impracticable, because the manufacturing industry would be unable to obtain sufficient wool for its requirements if it refused to buy from Australia or New Zealand. Representative Australian woolgrowers said that they regarded the threats as a “bluff.” Woolgrowers will, it is asserted, adhere to their decision to abolish the allowance, which amounts to about 31b a bale. “ There seems exceedingly little likelihood that anything approaching 80 per cent, of the members of the British Wool Federation will vote in favour of the boycott," said Mr J. F. Hollaway, acting president of the Graziers’ Association of New South Wales. “ See-

ing that South Africa is a party to the abolition, and that Australia and South Africa produce an overwhelming proportion of the worlds good merino wool, such a boycott would mean that the wool buyers of Great Britain would have to go practically without merino wool. It requires a great stretch of the imagination to believe they would go so far. Buyers have suggested that, if the draft is abolished, they will adjust their prices accordingly, and pay a little less. It the adjustment can be so easily made in their favour, it is difficult to see why a section of them should suggest resorting to the desperate expedient of a boycott."

The representative of the Wool Council of the New South Wales Farmers and Settlers’ Association (Mr Nock, M.H.R.) said that 50 years ago the draft allowance was justified to cover the “ swing of beam,” but woolgrowers had been fighting a long time for the removal of the draft allowance, which robbed them of 11b per cwt, and gave it as “bunce” to the buyers. Woolgrowers asked that buyers pay only for the weight of the wool delivered. Buyers knew there was no justice in the impost, and should remember that no strike ever succeeded on an unjust cause, and that there would be no back-pedalling.

' A woolbroker said that the time was not opportune to fight the buyers oa the question. He suggested that abolition of the allowance should be post* poned. “If the world was wool* hungry it would be a different matter,'! he pointed out. “I don’t think th®. growers will benefit in the long run by its abolition. With wool averaging Is a lb, the ‘ loss ’ to the grower by the old custom of draft allowance is' less than 3s in a bale sold for £ls. On the whole of Australia’s clip the allowance means a ‘ gift ’ of about £450,000 by the growers to the buyers: The custom has been in operation so many years that the buyers will not give It up without some fight.