DOMINION WOOL CLIP

Southland Times, Issue 25505, 27 October 1944, Page 3

DOMINION WOOL CLIP

WARTIME AGREEMENT WITH BRITAIN “When the war broke out Britain agreed to take the whole of the wool clip of New Zealand at an average price of 121 d P er pound throughout tne whole of tire war period and for one year after the end of the war. in spite of the fact that there is now a surplus of wool Britain will keep to that agreement, but it would be a mistake to hold her to the agreement without trying to find some way out of the trouble, because at the end of the period of the agreement prices may slump as they did in 1920-21 when in some cases wool went as low as 2d per lb. Britain will disciiss with New Zealand the best means of dealing with the situation.” These remarks were made by the Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, in an address at the Empire Theatre, Riverton, last night. Mr Nash said that in addition to buying wool from New Zealand Britain had bought wool from Australia, South Africa and other countries with the result that at present she had 2,000,000 bales on hand, or two years supply. If the war lasted two years, and he thought it would, though the war in Europe would no doubt be over before then, Britain would probably have a surplus of between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 bales of wool at the end of the war. BUTTER AND MEAT

Referring to the agreements made with Britain for the purchase of New Zealand butter and cheese and meat over a period of four years, Mr Nash said that one of the objects was' to keep prices on an even keel and tide the Dominion over the difficult period that was likely to follow the war. Some people asked why New Zealand did not get from Britain as much as possible for her products as Britain must have these products to feed her people. But apart from the fact that most New Zealanders would not wish to take advantage of Britain’s necessity, this would be a short-sighted policy because a big rise in the price of our primary products would result in a dangerous rise in land values as had happened in the last war. Apart from other considerations it would be grossly unfair to the returned servicemen to allow land values to soar as they did during the. last war. To be fair to them the returned men should be settled on the land at prices 'which would enable them to get a decent living. That was why the Government was trying to keep the prices of primary products on an even keel. At the conclusion of his address Mr Nash answered a number of questions. A motion of thanks and appreciation moved by Mr T. Molloy and seconded by Mr E. J. Shaw was carried by acclamation.

The Mayor of Riverton, Mr H. E. Philp, presided at the meeting, which was well attended.

DAIRY PRODUCE PRICES

REPLY TO NATIONALIST MEMBER

“Everybody knows that poets are allowed a generous licence in expression, but it is questionable whether youthful, ambitious politicians should be given the same indulgence,” said Mr A. G. Osborne, Parliamentary Undersecretary, in an address last night at Hawthorndale, where he was associated with Mr Leo S. O’Sullivan, the official Labour candidate in the Awarua byelection. ■

There could scarcely be a more glaring exercise of political licence than the speech made by Mr K. J. Holyoake, M.P. for Pahiatua, at West Plains,- continued Mr Osborne. The Southland Times reported him as having said during his address that the Government’s policy of the guaranteed price for butterfat had not proved a panacea for the ills that beset the dairy industry and also that the muddlement of the Government had resulted in a serious decline in the production of butterfat at a crucial time —-when the United Kingdom was calling for foodstuffs.

“Such a statement is a barefaced distortion of the true position,” said Mr Osborne. “It thrusts into a blackout the acute circumstances of the period and the vital requirements of war. Dare Mr Holyoake, or any other Nationalist, urge the dairy farmer to demand the abolition of the guaranteed price because it has not proved a panacea for the ills that beset the dairy industry? If he were bold enough to advocate the immediate withdrawal of the best form of economic stability and security the dairy farmer has ever experienced in New Zealand, his constituents would throw him out of Parliament neck and crop.” MANPOWER QUESTION Discussing the accusation that the Government was responsible for the alleged manpower muddle and the actual fertilizer shortage, Mr Osborne said that from the outset of the war manpower had been mobilized without stint in the years of Britain’s greatest need for armed support. “It is difficult to understand the political mentality of a member of Parliament who now objects to the extensive mobilization of manpower for service overseas when Britain was menaced by a possible German amphibious invasion of its shores, where during the Battle of Britain tire 2nd Echelon was placed in the vanguard of defence, also when Rommel’s Africa Corps was driving hard towards the Suez Canal, and later when this country was faced by the ugly threat of Japanese invasion. No Nationalist with a spark of patriotism in the embers of old Toryism would accuse the Government of muddlement in the discharge of its plain duty. As a matter of fact Mr Holyoake and his Parliamentary colleagues during the most crucial period for the British Empire accused the Labour Government of not having done enough. As for the shortage of fertilizers, the Government was in no way responsible for it, Mr Osborne said. Responsibility lay with Japan, whose marauding hordes cut off the sources of supply in the Pacific islands. Since then the Government had done everything possible to arrange an equitable distribution of available supplies. A vote of thanks to the speaker and confidence in the Labour candidate was carried.