TAX ON POULTRY

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 63, 7 March 1933, Page 6

TAX ON POULTRY

ATTEMPT AT FORCE OBJECTIONS TO BILL Not content -with the adverse report of a Parliamentary committee, Cabinet is determined to harry owners of poultry throughout the country by forcing them to come under a scheme of registration and graded taxation, as provided by the Poultry Amendment Bill, which is to be further considered (says a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce). As the chairman of the committee concerned rightly pointed out to the House last wook, if was not the producers in the poultry industry hut a few people who had banded together who were asking for the Bill, and th* measure was undemocratic in principle. Although the New Zealand Poultry Association has (as it claims) | a membership of 2000, there aie 154,000 owners of flocks of fowls alone in Non- Zealand, and an attempt is being made to coerce the great majority to the will of the minority. The Bill seeks to flout private rights, tax all egg producers for the purpose of paying a bonus to dissatisfied exporters, increase artificially the price of eggs on the local market, and set up expensive and unnecessary machinery by way of a paid board and. a hand of inspectors. Voluntary Organisation. The Minister of Agriculture has said that the Associated Chambers gave evidence against the Bill under the misapprehension that, the Bill proposed to give powers for the control of the marketing and export of eggs. It is true that the Minister, in committee, gave the assurance that neither he nor the Government would ever grant such control, but he overlooks the fact that his assurance does not ’bind a subsequent Government. Further, he allows the clause under which control might, be introduced to remain in the Bill. Consequently, although the assurance of the Minister is readily acceptable, he has not removed the danger of control. feared by the general community.

The objections of the Associated Chambers to the Bill, however, are by no moans confined to the possible control of marketing and export. They are made against the undemocratic nature of the Bill, on behalf of many thousands of unorganised citizens who aro threatened with the loss of their rights. The Minister has endeavoured to show that the oppositionists to the Bill are merely a few fanciers, but he must bo aware of the much wider resistance offered the Bill by large commercial producers and others when it was before the committee.

No one will deny the right of the poultry industry to organise, hut it already has that right without any legislation at all. The difference is between voluntary and compulsory organising. Voluntary concerns for the improvement of the industry and for the marketing of eggs, are already operating in the country, and they could be extended without causing harm to anybody, and without compulsory legislation. Furthermore, until it is proved by a prior poll or ballot —not one subsequent to the passing of the Bill that the majority of producers want the Bill at all, the measure has not a leg to stand on. To pass it merely on the agitation of a minor body such as the Poultry Association would be a. rank injustice to many thousands of people.