THROWN OUT

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 58, 10 March 1933, Page 8

THROWN OUT

COUNCIL'S ACTION

RIGHT OF INQUIRY.

A swift fate met the Poultry Amendment Bill when it came up for consideration in the Legislative Council today. Several members took up the attitude that the Council had the right to investigate the reasons for the measure before assenting to its passage, and A on the motion of tho Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Bell the second reading debate was adjourned. This motion was tantamount to killing the Bill for the session. In moving the second reading the Minister of Education (the Hon. R. Masters) said that the measure was desired by the poultry people, who wished to place their industry on a better footing. The BDI followed the lines of the legislation now affecting the dairy, me_tt, and honey industries. There were possibilities of development in the poultry industry, especially in the export trade. Sir Francis Bell: Tell us why the Bill is urgent?. Mr. Masters said that the poultTymen were anxious to organise the industry in order to bring in the greatest return. The Hon. D. Buddo said that the Bill would give an impetus to the poultry industry. ANOTHER BOARD. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said that no reasons had been advanced, for the urgency of the Bill and it was difficult to see why it was being rushed through in the dying hours of the session, especially when the country was being agitated by tremendous problems. It could not be compared with the Bills which had recently been passed, and the Council was justified in asking for time to hear the evidence of interested parties before giving its assent to the measure. The Bill proposed to set up still another board, and this would mean more centralisation and more bureaucratic control. More and more restrictions we're being placed on the people by legislation, and it was a case of "Thou shalt not" rather than a case of what one might do. The passage of the Bill by the lower house did not justify^ its assent by the Council, because if that attitude was taken up the Council would simply become a

registering machine and would fall in the estimation of the people. He was confident that if a referendum were taken the people would express their disapproval of the Bill. There was too great, a tendency for groups to seek sectional legislation, and at a time when only the national interest should be considered they should guard against any attempt to gain sectional advantage. His principal concern was for the small man who kept a few fowls. The Hon. C. J. Carrington said he intended to support the Bill. Similar legislation had proved beneficial in Canada, where the industry had been stimulated and the country had become an exporter instead of an importer of eggs. » COUNCIL'S RIGHT. Sir Francis Bell moved the adjournment of the debate. He said that during his many years in the Council he had never known an instance in which the Council had not had an opportunity of hearing evidence after a committee of the lower house had heard evidence and reported unfavourably on a Bill. The Council should hear evidence from the persons interested before passing judgment on the legislation. He did not wish to vote against the Bill, as he was not in a position to say whether it was advantageous or not. In view of the fact that there was another session of Parliament this year, he considered that the 'Council should delay the passage of the Bill until it had made an inquiry into its merits. Mr. Masters said that the Bill was the. result of an investigation which had been carried out by the poultry people during the. past two years, and if the measure was held up the delay would mean that the industry would have to wait unnecessarily for legislation which would enable it to develop. The _ Minister of Agriculture had investigated the position, and realised the necessity for the Bill. The matter was-an urgent one, as the poultrymen wished to take full advantage of the nest export season. They would be I debarred from doing this if the Bill were delayed, and in view of the low prices that were being received for primary products every assistance should be given to the poultrymen. Sir Francis Bell's motion was carried by 7 votes to 5, the division list being as follows:— For the motion: Bell, Collins, Hanan, Mclntyre, - Snodgrass, Stevenson. Trevithick. - ' Against the motion: Buddo, Carrington, Fagan, Masters, Smith.