THE POULTRY BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 122, 19 November 1932, Page 15

THE POULTRY BILL

A CHALLENGE ISSUED

REPLY TO CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

. The following reply has been issued by tho New Zealand Poultry Association to tho statement made by the Associated Chambers of CommefCe regarding tho Poultry Amendment Bill:—

The statement.published by the Associated' Chambers of Commerce with reference to the Poultry. Amendment Bill calls for immediate reply, inasmuch as many statements therein are totally misleading and unwarranted.

On what grounds' does the Associated Chambers of Commerce arrogate to thoinsblves authority to affirm that tho Bill is objectionable to a large proportion of poultry-keepers? What stops were taken by them to ascertain tho views of poultry-keepers? The New Zealand Poultry Association by publicity, meetings, and other methods consulted poultry-keepers throughout the Dominion, to the limit of its resources, with the result that the principles of the Bill received overwhelming support. Tho statement that the Bill is objectionable to traders is equally unsupported by fact. To. cite an instance to the contrary and without going outside thiseity, the Wellington Grocers' Association passed a resolution expressing Unanimous approvals of the Bill; Tho statement that the .consuming public Would suffer is dogmatic but unconvincing. One of the objects in view is to onsufe-that the consumer will get a guaranteed article, both in regard to weight and quality, and at a reasonable price. .-... ■ /

The inference that. 154,000 owners of fowls would bo .affected is a misrepresentation. A careful estimate shows that approximately one-half only of the total number would be required to pay fees. To classify registration, fees as a tax is misleading, seeing that the money, loss Cost o£ collection and administration would be paid into a pool for the purpose of organising and developing the poultry industry on similar lines ,to the Orchard Tax Act which has been in operation for sixteen years, to the groat Satisfaction of fruitgrowers. ....".. ,

The Associated Chambers of Commerce meticulously avoid. reference to the fact that a poll within thi'ee years is provided for^ whereby the Act would then expire if a majority Of "paying producers" so elect. 'Was this omission accidental? The public have a right to expect common fairness from any organisation attempting to mould public opinion. ■

Eggs aro being sold to-day throughout the Dominion at less than the oost of production, a condition of affairs that apparently meets with the .entire approval of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, seeing that the efforts of poultry-keepers to place their industry on a More stabilised footing is roundly condemned. Does the Associated Chambers of Commerce- reeonl> mend their business associates to retail goods at less than cost price? Undor present conditions sui'p'lUa eggs are exported in tho flush season to behalf of a small proportion, of poultry-keepers only whoso organisations take all the risk, whilst others profit by tho■ removal of a proportion of the unconsuiiutblo surplus from tho local market. One purpose of the Bill is. to spread tho risk over producers generally by means of a reserve fund to which all producers interested in marketing shall contribute proportionately.-No bonus or guarantee is available in connection with; the export -of eggs,. jjiorhaS such' been tho caso for-the past three years. A Government guarantee was available during two seasons only (1938-29) iv the whole history Of the poultry industry in New Zealand. The remarks of the Associated, Chambers of Commerce in regard to ■ export in its relation to the Bill aro so astounding that it would be charitable to attribute them to dense ignorance of a matter on which they venture' to enlighten thp public. They say that an increase in prices Would reduce production! They deal with the subject from tho individual exporter' 3 point of view. They 'apparently ccc no good in any system of organisation and cooperation, amongst ; poultrykeepers. They snoor at a "useless board." Do thejr. likewise condemn the Meat, Dairy, Fruit, and Honey Boards?

Tho statement that the Bill "seeks to create a, now Government Department, appoint more inspectors to harass poultry keepers, and. impose unwarranted restrictions on marketing" is a misrepresentation of tho provisions. of the Bill that cannot be substantiated. ■ A further statement that the functions and powers of the board "may be intended to embrace actual interference with free and independent marketing" could emanate only from a biased condition of mind. There is nothing in tho Bill to warrant such'a statement.

No attempt has been made.in this brief statement" to adequately deal .with the extraordinary emanation from the Associated. Chambers of Commerce, because, of. limitation of space. In order, howevor, to afford th© Associated Chambers of Commerce ample opportunity to ■ wage its crusade against the Bill, and an open and full discussion being desirable in: the. public interest, the New Zealand Poultry- Association challenges the Associated Chambers of Commerce to discuss the Bill"at a public.' meeting- or meetings, 'whereat the New Zealand Poultry Association will takft the ■' affirmative on the question: "That the provisions of the Poultry Amendment Act would operate in the best interests of the Dominion, of poultry keepers,.retailers, and consumers." Conditions: That for the purposes of siieh debate a public meeting bo convened in a convenient -country or suburban district, or in Wellington city (or in both localities); if held in the country that poultry-keepers be specially invited to attend; if held in tho city that the dato and hour bo inado convenient for the. attendance of members of Parliament to whom a special jinvitation shall be issued. . .

As matters stand a newspaper controversy is out of the question and if resorted to Can bear only one interpretation." " ' - .