WOOL MARKETING

Southland Times, Issue 22076, 25 July 1933, Page 2

WOOL MARKETING

METHOD OF PRESENTATION. STANDARD CLASSIFICATION. In an interview with reporters of the Dominion and the Evening Post Mr L. Whittingham Bagley, author of the recent booklet “Efficient Wool Marketing” made the following comments of the published statement of the New Zealand Wool Brokers’ Association and the reply of the Wool Improvement Committee:— Mr Bagley stated that he found himself in agreement with some of the principles outlined in the wool brokers’ statement to the Press. For example, his objection was not to the present system of selling wool by auction, but in regard to the method of presentation under that system. The auction system of disposing of clips in New Zealand and Australia was undoubtedly the best in the world to date. The method of presentation, he added, did not compare favourably with others such as that in the Argentine, where the wool was sold to the same overseas buyers, as New Zealanders did, but with the wool classified to the buyers’ known requirements on a guaranteed clean yield basis. “Argentina has made buying easier,” he said, “but the growers do not get the benefits under their system. The local dealers who buy unclassed and unskirted wool and get it ready for overseas buyers, reap most of the benefit, whereas under New Zealand’s superior auction system, by making buying as easy as it is in Argentina, our growers will get all the benefit. The way to do this is to apply a national standard of classing, in the first instance to wool from flocks of under 1000 sheep each, and offer this wool under that standard and on at least an appraised clean yield basis.” He considered the question of standard classification so important that in his booklet “Efficient Wool Marketing” seven chapters were devoted to this aspect of the subject. There had been so much proof of its practicability in the wool world that it became small supporting evidence that the present practice of 32 New Zealand wool broking firms was to class the wool, each firm to its own idea, of a standard. All that was proposed was that these 32 different ideas of standards should be brought to one national standard acceptable to the buyers; and with proper organization it was not a difficult job.

He was in accord with the brokers in that Government interference through a control board was undesirable. His proposals of organization showed, however, that he realized the necessity of a New Zealand Wool Council comprising all sections of the industry but without Government nominees It was essential to have a nationally recognized authority comprised of growers, brokers, buyers and bankers, such as a council which would introduce and maintain the goodwill of a standard of classing and assist the growers and brokers in getting down costs between shed and ship, or improving the presentation to the buyers. There was no necessity to make binning compulsory and it would be an unjust practice. The small grower who considered that his wool because of its character, uniformity and breeding held a recognized goodwill exceeding that of the binned wools, should be allowed to sell his wool classed to the national standard, but under his own brand and not pooled or binned. As the binning of wools, under the same standard ultimately proved a more payable practice and carried a higher goodwill, small or large growers could be expected to make voluntarily any changes which were to their individual advantage. The objects of the Wool Improvement Committee were very desirable and necessary and a levy for this purpose was undoubtedly justified. However, marketing reforms were more urgent nationally and were capable of reaping for the growers more, immediate financial benefits.

One fully realizing this truth deplores the fact that the main marketing clauses were eliminated for the second meeting of the committee in Wellington. Mr W. J. Polson, M.P., noticed and referred to this feature. “One of the most serious difficulties,” he said, “was not in regard to the wool itself, but in regard to the costly system of marketing. It seemed to him that in abandoning the proposal to assist in the marketing of the wool, which could be done by working in with the growers, the meeting had abandoned one of the most important arguments in favour of the general scheme.” Mr Bagley added that it was also very unfortunate that without any attempt to investigate his proposals the Wool Improvement Committee saw fit to rush into print before its Wellington meeting with comments on the wool brokers’ statement. Now that Mr Bagley’s proposals were defined and published the members of both organizations, the Wool Brokers’ Association and the Wool Improvement Committee, would be realizing that they were really under a misapprehension in regard to his scheme and proposals. In fact when the national welfare of New Zealand was placed first, as was the case with these proposals which aim at getting greater benefits to our wool growers by use of modern methods, it was generally found that such progressive proposals could be made harmonious to all concerned, once the parties were willing to allow for each other’s viewpoint.