THE WOOL LEVY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18528, 15 October 1934, Page 2

THE WOOL LEVY

(To tlio Editor of the Herald.) Sir,—-May I reply to Mr. Woollytack’s letter in your Saturday’s issue. Regarding the bill, both as president ol tlio Shecpowners' Federation and as an individual sheepfarmer, I have always qualified my support with the proviso that certain weaknesses already referred to .should be corrected. I have had tie assurances of those responsible tor the original draft that this would be done. There was never any question of giving u “blank cheque” to Parliament. Ihe power of Parliament was confined to granting power to the farmers to set up a fanners' committee to raise funds lrom (iie farmers to spend for the benefit ol their industry. I have not suggested that farmers are competent to direct a research station, ini, they are competent, from thenknowledge cf their own requirements, to indicate llie various directions research should profitably take. They would, of course, employ a competent principal to carry out their wishes. Hitt Mr. Woollyback again makes the incorrect assumption that research would be the solo activity of the farmers’ committee. The question is asked why should the Meat Board not assist the finance of wool research at Massey College t tor thiee 01- four years we liave been pressing the Moat Board to do this, but without success. When the board informed us that the Meat Board Act would not permit ot such 'expendit ure, we asked that they should obtain an “enabling clause,” giving them the necessary power. This they declined to do. In saying that research in wool was almost entirely neglected, I referred, of course, to this Dominion. I am quite aware of the valuable work going on overseas. Wo are content to sit back and do practically nothing vvliile the other fellow pulls, the load. Tour correspondent mentions several scientific discoveries at Tovridon of enormous value to our industry, but these are utilisation problems. There is another distinct set of problems, and they are production problems. These can only be tackled where New Zealand wool is produced, and that is in New Zealand. As to the subsidy to Torridon, the agreement was that New Zeftland sheepfarmers should subscribe £2BOO per annum, provided that other Empire counties would pay their quota. lam informed that other countries will not do so and that, therefore, our contributions will not materialise. Perhaps Mr. Woollyback’s information is more up-to-date.

Certainly the leading scientists of the Umpire are to be found in England, because the money is there to pay for their services. Every year we are losing our most brilliant students because of th«f lack of scope for their ability in this country. The Stock Committee did disclose their reason for recommending that the billl be not proceeded with. Their reason was that the weight of evidence from the industry .was overwhelmingly against the measure. What Mr. Forbes cannot understand is why the evidence was overwhelmingly against the measure. >1 do not propose, Mr. Editor, to trespass any further on your space with this correspondence. If Mr. Woollyback will inform me of his name and address I shall be pleased to furnish him with full information, but it serves no good purpose to argue the matter piecemeal. If he wishes to write again be will have Lite satisfaction of the last word.—Yours, etc.. C. 11. WILLIAMS.