WOOL MARKETING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18203, 26 September 1933, Page 3

WOOL MARKETING

RECENT CONTROVERSY MR. BAG LEY’S VIEWS “The recent joint statement of the New Zealand Woolbrokers’ Association and the vNow Zealand .SheepownersFederation cannot be allowed to go unchallenged,” said Mr. L. 3Vliittingluuii Bagley, outlior of the booklet “Efficient Wool Marketing,” in a statement issued to the press of the Dominion. “Most people will agree that the auction system has proved satisfactory m the past, and that, with safeguards, there is no reason to make any change in that system. But he is indeed a hold mail who will state that the method of presentation of 1 lie wool at onr auction sales could not be improved upon with benefit alike to both the grower, the broker, and the buyers. 1' may be that the obstacles which apparently are envisaged by the two organisations above mentioned appear at the moment to he insurmountable, but that is only because they > have not so far been willing either to seriously consider the proposals put forward by me showing how these difficulties can be eliminated, or else having considered them, have decided to ignore them. In cither case the matter cannot be allovv•id to rest there. It could hardly lie imagined that, they would refuse to entertain and put into immediate operation a scheme for better handling arid better marketing if it can be shown,

as it undoubtedly has been shown, that it can be economically done. “The methods previously outlined can and will, if adopted, prove of immense benefit to the growers, enabling a very material benefit to accrue from two dilferent angles. Firstly, in considerably reducing the actual costs of handling, and secondly, in securing a higher price from the buyers for the wool, by reason of the fact that they will have confidence in what is being submitted for auc--1 tioii, and not, as is so often the case at present, having to allow a margin on their buying price for the ever present possibility that it will .not turn out as : expected. However, so that the public generally and those directly interested in the wool trade in particular can sec that t-ho Woolbrokers’ Association and 1 the Sheepowners’ Federation are wrong in the altitude they are adopting, 1 1 will answer the points raised in their statement categorically. In passing, though, 1 must point out that the New Zealand Sheepowners’ Federation is representative almost entirely oi the large grower. Yet the small wool growers owning under 2600 sheep, account 1 for 28,000 out of 30.500 growers and 70 per cent, of the average wool sold in Now Zealand. NATIONAL STANDARD “(A) Criticism has been levelled at tho practicability of a national standard of classing because of regional peculiarities of the wool duo to the geographical and climatic influences.—There are no insurmountable practical difficulties in j the way of the introduction of a suitable national standard of classing) ini New Zealand, and the greatest advantage arises from the fact that, after allowing for seasonal climatic influences, | ■

tho types would lie the same year after year, and would become known by the buyers as reliable. They would not necessarily accept as their own the standard of classification, but they would know that a certain type, according to the standard, agreed with that required by a particular manufacturer, ami therefore the purchase of that manufacturer’s requirements would be made easier. No suggestion has been made to alter tho auction system ot selling or to eliminate the need for inspection of sample bales of wool by the buyers as under the existing system ; although iu the Argentine, grading to standard qualities and guaranteeing the yield makes possible purchase without inspection. MARKETING CONDITIONS “(B) The bare facts arising from a simple analysis of marketing conditions and statistics shows the advantage the Argentine is onjoving over New Zealand. •—The fact that the Argentine lias made buying easier is reflected in rite statistics of the Empire Marketing Board’s! Wool Survey, showing that because of their standardised grading and guaranteed yield, Argentine is supplanting! New Zealand’s position in the quantity of raw. wool imported into the United Kingdom.! A letter from Messrs. H. Dawson and Sons and Company, woolbrokers. of London, written to Mr. 11. .1. Wernham, supports this view. | “(C) No form of compulsion is necessary in regard to binning wool by the growers, though at present they voluntarily reclass or bin 36 per cent, of the average wool sold in the Dominion. —

The status of the classers and their work in New Zealand is capable of an improvement. “(D) and (E). The owners have been sufficiently genuine in promoting l| ie smaller woolgrowers' welfare tu offer to suitably representative, and therefore unbiassed wool council any benefits arising) from the New Zealand rights ou a small royalty basis. —The New Zealand Brokers’ Association and the New Zealand Sheepowners’ Federation are not in a position to pass any considered opinion on the improved method and equipment- for the very simple reason that neither body nor their executives have fully investigated the proposals. “(F) The fostering or developing of overseas markets for wool would ho greatly hampered by present selling conditions.—By establishing in _ New Zealand a national standard of classing, even with the wool at present reclassed iu brokers’ stores, it would enable not only growers’ representatives but the buyers to foster further business with foreign markets. I “I would remind these organisations that I have spent five years in a very thorough business research into wool marketing. However, mv present offer to woolgrowers in New Zealand will ietnain national in scope for a limited lime, and I will define such an offer to our present Parliament for action as it deems wise. The smaller wool-growers are entitled to the full value of their wool, and ai’e going to get it if it lies in my power to arouse them from their npatl'iy. At the same time the value to the Dominion as a whole must not b« lost sight of.”