WOOL PUBLICITY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18900, 30 December 1935, Page 12

WOOL PUBLICITY

SUGGESTED MACHINERY LORD BARNEY’S VIEWS SYDNEY, December, 13. Lord Barnby, one of Britain’s leading wool experts, addressing, in Sydney, a meeting representative of all the main interests of the wool industry, stated that he was an enthusiastic advocate of wool publicity. He recognised, however, it- had many aspects and there were many difficulties. It was entirely! a matter for Australian woolgrowers to say whether they would join in a campaign witjr the woolgrowers of New Zealand and South Africa and the manufacturers of Great Britain.

Mr. J. P, Abbott, president of the Graziers’ Association of New South Wales, who presided, stated that be was strongly in favor of a world-wide wool publicity campaign. Lord Barnby stated that on his recent visit to New Zealand he was very interested to see the progress being made in the mental attitude of the New Zealanders towards wool publicity. The sheepowners there were now apparently “steamed-up,” and determined that something should be done.

The suggested idea.i|fef wool publicity was not surprising when the contemporary experience in regard to other commodities was considered.

It had been suggested by some that publicity for wool was not worth the expenditure. He was not so sure of it. When one realised that there had been a drop in the Australian wool cheque of £20,000,000 sterling in one year, one felt that the expenditure of some limited amount on publicity might have been of some comparative value. As regards the urge for it, justification might be found in the experiences of the United States of America, where a wool campaign had achieved splendid results. Lord Barnby said that with regard to funds he had come to the conclusion thatthey should be contributory and simultaneous by all wool-producing countries within the Empire. Contributions should be on an equitable basis, as would those from the wool-manufacturing industry of Great Britain. Thex’e was a good reason why New Zealand and Australia should exert an enterprising interest in the matter. STATUTORY CONTRIBUTIONS Lord Barnby suggested that the fund should be central, with machinery for statutory contributory and simultaneous by all wool-dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (where such a fund already existed). Canada could not be included as it was in a peculiar position. Whatever money was raised should be statutory and should be controlled by those interests contributing the money; obviously, in Australia and New Zealand, by the sheep-owning interests. In Britain it was hoped that, with the advent of the new Parliament, they would be able to secure the passage through Parliament of a measure that would provide machinery to supersede the voluntary and tentative organisation for researcli of which he was chairman.

He issued a warning to those who would oppose statutory measures because they were afraid of letting the Government into it. The answer to those critics was that, in putting the machinery on a statutory basis, they were doing the best to keep the 'Government out of it. Because an industry did not have a fund and machinery for the purposes suggested was no guarantee that it would be free from the stigma of inefficiency, nor any guarantee that an extremely active Government would not introduce legislation calculated by it to serve the purpose. As to what would be a reasonable contributory basis, Lord Barnby said that lie would not presume to suggest. In South Africa a provision was made for a contribution of up to Is a bale. That might be done in Australia, but, whatever the maximum provided in the legislation might be, it could be made clear that it would be the maximum, and that (he full .amount would not be necessary to start the machinery in motion. There would be nominated delegates to the central body in London. The High Commissioner’s office might provide the short cut to this.