POULTRY BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 March 1933, Page 11

POULTRY BILL

THROWN OUT BY COUNCIL RIGHT OF INVESTIGATION (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter). WELLINGTON. 10th March A swift fate met the Poultry Amendment Rill when it came up for consideration in the Legislative Council to-day. 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 on the motion of the Rt. lion. Sir Francis Bell the second reading debate was adjourntd. 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 Bill followed the lines of the legislation now affecting the dairy, meat, and honey industries. There were possibilities of development in the poultry industry, especially in the export trade. Sir" Francis Boll: “Tell us why the Bill is urgent.” Mr Masters said that the poultrymen 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 lion. J. A. ITanan 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 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 were being placed on the people by legislation, and it was a case of “Thou slialt not” rather than a case of what one might do. The passage of the Bill by tlie 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 tlie estimation of the people. He was confident that if a referendum were taken tlie 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 lliey 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 lie intended to support the Bill. Similar legislation had proved beneficial in Canada, where the industry had Leon stimulated and the country had become an exporter instead of an importer of eggs. COUNCIL’S .RIGHT

Si)• Francis Bell moved the adjournment of the debate l , lie said that during 1 1 is many years i.n 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. Tn view oi the fact tiial there was another session of Parliament this year, he considered that the Council should delay the passage of (lie 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 pa si two' years, and. if the measure was held up tiie 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 15ill. The matter was an urgent one, ns (he poultrvinnn wished to take full adva id litre of tho next export _ season. They would be debarred from doing this if the Bill wore delayed, and in view of the low prices that were being received foi primary products every assistance should he given to the poultrymon. Sir Francis Bell’s motion was carried by 7 votes to 5. the division list being as follows :—- For flic motion: Bell, Collins, Hamm, Mclntyre, Snodgrass, Stevenson, Trevithick. Against the motion: Buddo, Carrington Fagan. Masters, Smith.