WOOL RESEARCH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21921, 3 October 1934, Page 13

WOOL RESEARCH

BILL TO BE DROPPED EFFECT OF ADVERSE REPORT MR. FORBES DISAPPOINTED AN OPPORTUNITY LOST [BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday In face of the unfavourable finding of the Agricultural Committee, I do not intend to proceed with this bill,-" said the Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes, in the House of Representatives today, when discussing the committee's report on the Scientific and Industrial Research Amendment Bill, which sought to provide funds for wool research and marketing by a levy of up to 4d a bale. Mr. Forbes expressed his keen disappointment at the result of the eonimitte's investigations, and said the wool-growing industry would be the loser. In its report, presented to the House on September 27, the committee recommended that tho bill be not allowed to proceed until a poll of wool producers had been taken. The report of the committee was not tabled that day owing to tho adjournment interrupting tho debate. 1 A Grievous Disappointment 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 woolgrowers had not shown a desire to seize this opportunity of improving their conditions. The Agricultural Committee was a very representative one. It included the Leader of tho Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, and the president of the Farmers' Union, Mr. W. J. Poison, and the Government must certainly take some notice of what the committee had to say. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Independent— Eden): Was the finding unanimous? Mr. Forbes: I take it that it was. Continuing, Mr. Forbes quoted the representative of one of tho biggest British wool-buying concerns, who had said that New Zealand wool wag. becoming worse and worse. Mr. Forbes could not believe that a levy of 4d a halo was responsible for the unpopularity of the bill. Mr. Poison: It has nothing to do with the levy. Mr. Forbes: The amount is so small that it could be laughed but on that account alone. i Evidence* Probably Strong Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent— Thames): Might it not be a protest against the number of boards which are being set up? Mr. Forbes: It is only businesslike for an industry to have someone to look after its interests. The suggestion that the farmer can do his business individually and that it is a mistake to supply him with a working organisation can come only from those who do not want the farmers to get together. Mr. Stallworthy: But the committee's report doesn't stop the bill? Mr. Forbes: When such a committee can bring in such a report, the evidence before it must have been very strongly against the bill. "It seems to me we have witnessed a remarkable happening," said Mr. Savage. "Here we find a bill introduced by the Prime Minister himself being reported against in no indefinite way by a committee on which the Government has a majority. We have come to a pretty pass. The Prune Minister can't 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 in him passed by the Agricultural Committee." Support and Opposition Mr..-Savage said he agreed with a good deal of what the Prime Minister had said. It seemed extraordinary that a small sum of money should stand in the way of development in wool. He had discussed the proposals with a number of sheep farmers, and they all seemed to be enthusiastic, but on the other hand, he had received letters from others who were equally strong in opposition to the scheme. Frankly, he could not understand the viewpoint of the latter group. In his opinion, New; Zealand must pay more attention to science. It could not afford to blunder along for all,time. He quite believed that the committee reported in accordance with the evidence placed before it, but he hoped that the Government would continue the investigation itself. It was stated by the Hon. E. A. Ransom, Minister of Lands, that an improvement of Id per lb. in the price of wool would mean £1,000,000 to»the Dominion. He was convinced of the necessity for something being done to improve the quality of New Zealand wool. He was very sorry that tho Agricultural Committee should regard the matter as of so little importance as to report in the way it had. Regret that the Standing Orders prevented him moving a resolution to refer the report back to the committee was expressed by Mr. Ransom. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle, chairman of the committee, was replving when the hour of the afternoon adjournment arrived. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CUSTOMS BILL DEBATE SAFEGUARDING OF MARKETS [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday The debate on the second reading of the Custom!s Acts Amendment Bill was continued in the Legislative Council today. The Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland) suggested that there might be an interchange of Ministers between New Zealand and the United Kingdom for the purpose of investigating the problems of both countries. Tho tariff policy of the Dominion was dependent on whether New Zealand wished to become an Imperial farm or a nation. Tho old issue between free trade and protection was dead, and it was now a problem of regulating trade. New Zealand had no monopoly of the goods sho produced and her aim should he toward developing internal trade with a view to raising the standard oi living to such an extent that more people would migrate to the Dominion. Tho Hon, J. Trevethick (Auckland) said it was absolutely imperative that every effort should be made to safeguard New Zealand's market in the United Kingdom, where a move was being made to gain an advantage for Argentine meat. The forthcoming conference which was being held in London would be of such vital importance that New, Zealand should be represented by tho Minister of Finance and tho Minister of Industries and Commerce. If New Zealand lost the privilege of the British market she might be forced into the position of being unable to meet her debt obligations. The Hon. E. R. Davis (Auckland) said nothing should be done to antagonise tho authorities in the United Kingdom, as it was imperative that tho Dominion should not lose the goodwill of her best customer. There was no reason why the Dominion should not have a greater share of the British market. The debate was adjourned. „ ,