CONTROL OF WOOL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19844, 19 May 1927, Page 11

CONTROL OF WOOL

FARMERS IN FAVOUR HOSTILE REMIT REJECTED LEVIN CONFERENCE DISCUSSION (Special to “Chronicle.”) PALMERSTON N, May 18. “That this conference is against the formation of a Wool Control Board,” was a remit presented to the Farmers Union inter-provincial conference at Levin to-day, and it evoked a great deal of discussion. The remit was moved by Mr W. D. Carson (Palmerston North), on behalf of the Wellington Central branch. This question was a burning one at the last conference held in Wanganui, when a remit was carried in favour of the formation of such a Control Board. Mr Carson stated that the Wellington executive, however, had since gone more fully into the matter and had come to the conclusion that a Control Board would not be in the best interests of wool growers. At the present time, the majority of the wool was sold in New Zealand and there was good competition. The speculation in woola few years ago had proved beneficial to farmers, and he failed to see how speculation in any case could be prevented by the Control Board.

Mr J. R. Franklin (Wanganui) seconded the remit stating that, in the control of raw material of any sort, growers would have to have their fingers on supplies all over the world, or control would work in favour of the countries that continued free marketing. It was ridiculous to think that New Zealand could control the world’s prices.

Mr C. C. Jackson (Masterton) suggested that the remit be withdrawn as it was a misnomer. There had been no intention to form a Wool Control Board, but a woolgrowers’ Association. Mr Franklin interjected that that was a different thing. Mr Jackson added that control at the present time had not got a good name.

Mr Carson refused to withdraw the remit, stating that the farmers should take this opportunity to state emphatically that they did not want control of wool.

Mr Jackson stated that his object in asking for withdrawal was to save division on a most important question. “If we carry this remit, it vfrill be a good indication to other Control Boards that we have had enough of control,” remarked Mr A. L. Eismlie (Waverley). There was no suggestion to control prices, stated Mr K. AV. Dalrymple (Eangitikei). The idea was to control supplies only. The formation of such a board was advised last year, but now opinion was going in the other direction. He pointed out that wool was not a perishable article like butter and cheese, consequently it would be a difficult matter to control woo] where farmers held clips back for years, as in some cases. They could, however, control wool as it came on the market.

“Wc individually control our own wool,” stated Mr A. Robinson (Wanganui. “The mischief of the past has been the endeavour to control prices, but to assert there is no posiisbility of gain from the control of supplies is absurd. The American fruit growers proved that- ’ ’ Mr W. Colman (Martinborough): [“What we need most is some super- [ vision over the materials we use in conInection with the industry.”

The remit was lost, thus leaving a majority of opinion in favour of control.