NO WOOL LEVY

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21285, 3 October 1934, Page 12

NO WOOL LEVY

BILL WITHDRAWN BY MR FORBES COMMITTEE'S ADVERSE REPORT RESEARCH I'LAN ABANDONED I From Our Parliamentary Reporter.J WELLINGTON. Oe'obcr 2. "In face of the unfavourable finding of the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee. T do not int'.nd 1o proceed with this bill," declared the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon G. W. Forbes) in the House of Representatives to-day. when diseussira t.ho committee's report en the Scientific and Industrial Research Amend ment Bill, which sought to provide funds for wv<l research and marketing by a levy of 4d a bale. M." Forbes expressed 'ds k ( ' on disappointment at the result of the committee's investigations, and said that the wool-growing industry would b" the loser. Mr D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborr.c). a member of (he committee explained that although h"> himself was not in agreement w'th the finding, "that the bill should not be proceeded with." he must admit that no other finding could have been brought down, in view of the ividence heard. The farmers themselves had been in a majority o'.' ear.es against the prep-sal. and Mr Coleman believed that the siuui-bfing-bleck had been the 4d a bah; levy! The farmers were shortsighted, for 11v\y stood to receive benefits far and away in i xess of their payments. One wool-buyer who appeared belVre Hie c mmiilej had staled very definitely that New Zealand wool was stoadi'y deteriorating, and others had claimed with every reason that thm-e was a very I wide field for rescarih.

Mr Forbes Disappointed

Mr Forbes said he would not criticise the finding of the committee, as he believed it must have been based on overwhelming evidence against the bill: but he felt grievously disappointed that the woolI growers had not shown a desire to | seize this opportunity of improving j their conditions. He ske'ehed some ! of the ways in which the funds pro- ! vided by the levy would have been I used in wool and stock research, in 'marketing, in fighting wool substitutes, and in finding other uses for wool, and said he was i sorry the industry as a whole 'did not see eye to eye with i him and mam- ethers on the sub--1 j-ct. The Agricultural and Pastoral ; Committee was a very representative one—it included the leader of the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage) land the presid"iit of the New Zealand Farmers' Union (Mr W. J. Polson)—and Hie Gove- nment must ! certainly take rune in dice of wha'. ', the ommi't'C had to saw Mr A. J. Stallwor'hv Mud.. Eden): Was. tlv finding unan'mous? Mr Forbes: 1 take it that it. was.

Continuum. Mi' Forbes quoted a represent:!'ivc "I one of Ihe biggesl British woo'-buying cnnvciT,:-'. win had said Ih;it New Zealand woo 1 was becoming worse r»nd worse Mr Forbes could not boliov • that Hie levy of 4rl a bale was responsible for the unpopularity of the bill. Mr Poison: Tt lias noihing to do with the levy. Mr Forbes: Th" amount is so small thai it could be laughed (Hit on that account alone Mr A. M. Samuel (I'd.. Thames) Might it not bo a p-etet rgainst the number of boards which arc being set up? Fi'raers' F uteres's Mr Forbes: It is orly bAisines..lii.e for an i ahe rv to ji,.\o someone to look after its mteo ;Is. The suggestion that the (armor can do his business individual! .-. and tha' it is a mistake to supply h in with a working organisation, can come only from tlio.se who do not want the farmers to get together. Mr Stalivorlhy: I);:! iiie committee's reporl does.n't .slop Die bill? Mi - Forbes: When such a committee can brine; in such a report the evidence before il must have been very strongly against the bill. The industry must have said fairly definitely. "Leave the business alone" Thus. I do not intend to proceed. T acted originally on the recommendation of a representative number of wool growers; but apparently these men were not speaking for the industrv. Mr Slallworthy: Is the Government committed to a fj.2oo'l contribution lo the research station at Torridon? Mr Forbes: We have promised our contribution, and we shall have to pav. Mr Forbes eoncluded by saying that the commilloe's finding was a most unusual one. in view of the circumstances. The result of the enquiry wotdd be a vitv great discouragement to progressive wool

growers. "We have witnessed something remarkable." said, the leader of the Opposition. Mr M. J. Savage. "Here we find a bill introduced by the Prime Minister himself being reoorted against in no indefinite? Wav by a committee on which the Government has a majority. We have come to a pretty pass. The Prime Minister cannot blame me for that, as I was not able to attend: but I might have been able to help him through if I had been there. I trust the Prime Minister won't blame me for the vote of no-confidence m him nassed by the agricultural commit-

Advice to Government Mr Savage said ho agreed with a good deal of what the Prime Minister had said. It seemed extraot'dinrirv that a small sum of money : should stand in the way of dcvelop- ; mont. in wool. lie had discussed the ', proposals with a number of sheep | fanners, find they all seemed to I o | cnthusiastie: but on the oilier hand he had received letters from others who were equally strong in opposition to the scheme. He hoped the Government would continue the investigation itself. The cost was not great—it was just as little to the Government as it was to the wool growers. ! Mr Forbes: But the monev must • come out of the pocket of the taxI paver I Mr Savage: When the Govern- ! merit wants to spend money it very I often spends it in a worse way than i this, i The Hon. K. A. Hansom. Minister

I for Lands, said he was convinced | something must bo done for the im- ; orovement of Now Zealand's wool. | He was afraid the evidence given ! before the commitloe was giv.m by j those who were self-satisfied about S our wool and objected to the levy. He agreed that research should be undertaken in. the interests of the whole country." Each grower should be able to carry out his own research work, but that would take several years. It could be done much more effectively under the | direction of Massey 'College or'n I similar college. | Mr Poison said the chief nbjecjtion from the shocp growers was | that if they were levied to improve j their own industry other industries I should be levied whore research ; was institined in their interests. 1 The debate was interrupted.