STOCK FOODS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 39, 14 August 1930, Page 6

STOCK FOODS

-AMENDMENT LOST

The Committee went--on to deal first •with, the' First Schedule oS the Bill, r^S^Hiig certain duties.

The Leader of the Opposition moved in such a way as to permit anixnjil foods, including cattlecake, to come in free of "fluty. !

jfi.i: 11. G. E. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs): "Are there any local products protected at present?" Mi1. Coates said lie believed thero were. Cattle foods were badly wanted in the Dominion. , „ ;

The Primo Minister said that there wag a large factory hi Auckland making animal foods. They had had sub-, xtantial protection. /

Mr. "W. J. Jordan (Labour:, Manulcau) said that before duties were removed from" stock foods the opinions of those firms which "were manufacturing stock i'oods in the Dominion should be sought. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egniont) said the amendment appeared to be a cheap gesturo on tlio paTt of the Leader of the Opposition, who, apparently, was anxious to show the farmers, that ho was anxidu3 thoy should have duty-free stock foods. ' Tho Minister of Health (the lion. A. ,T. StaJlwortliy) said the House would be S&kiiig iv very serious step if it adopted

tho amendment, as a very severe blowwould be struck at a local industry. '

-Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) drew the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Coates had himself put the duty on, and one wondered why he was now so anxious to remove it.

Mr. P. Waite (Reform, Clutha) said Mr. Oriates was making a genuine effort to overeoine .a real difficulty,'and all sorts of trivialities were being raised by his opponents. Mr. W. ,J. ' Poison (Independent, Stratford) hoped the attempt by Mr. Coates was a genuine ono. If it was, then Mr. Coates would include fowl wheat and wheat for the use of stock. It would not be an honest thing to remove the protection on a local industry overnight. ■ , Mr. F. Lye (United, Waikato) said he was 'anxious to see stock foods brought in free of duty, but' he looked with suspicion on the amendment moved by tho Leader of the1 Opposition. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform, Thames) said he could not understand the paradoxical reasoning of some'of the members who were supposed to represent farming communities. They were apparently opposing tho amendment because they did not like the "party on the Opposition benches. The amendment was defeated by 45 votes to 24. ;

Mr. Poison then moved with the object of removing the duty from wheat for animal food, but on finding that he could not draft an amendment which would not remove the wholo of the wheat duties, which, he said, he did not wish to do, he withdrew his motion, amidst laughter. ■.-.'/