POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18808, 2 December 1932, Page 12

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

THE AMENDMENT BILL. “CONTROL BOGEY" LAID. A pood deal of opposition to the Pouitrv Amendment Bill ba-> ie( based on misrepresentation of the intention and purposes of dausc 10 Hip bill, according to a statement made to the Wellington Dominion Mr J. N. McLean, speaking on behalf of the New Zealand Poultry Associa“There appeared in yesterday s issue of the Dominion the report of a meeting of poultry-keepers neld at r evin. at which a resolution was carried as follows: ‘That this meeting slronglv protests against the inclusion of control in the Poultry Amendment Act.’ , , “Tiie resolution,” Mr McLean states, “is based on a total misconception. T!io Bill tins been drafted on the lines suggested hv (tie New Zealand Poultry Association, to which wide publicity has been given for the last I s months, and it contains no reference In interference with the business of market in£r cerffs in Ihe Dominion, nor the control of export. Tim ho,gey of interference willi marketing and control of export lias been set up by opponents of the bill. It is rather extraordinary that a public meeting of poultry-keepers at Levin some time ago carried a resolution in favour of Hie principles of the present bill, and there is nothing in the Mill outside what was submitted to them on that occasion. Further, the Levin Poultry Keepers’ Association have recorder! their support of tiie principles of the bill in a resolution in the possession of tiie New Zealand Poultry Association, signed by the chairman of I lie recent meeting at Levin (Mr P. Jcnnens). Bogey of Control. “Apparently recent opposition has been flue entirely to the bogey of control. and in order to allay all fears in that respect and to clearly define the position, tiie following'letter was addressed io the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture by the New Zealand Poultry Association:

“ ‘Opposition to the Poultry Amendment Bill is largely based on the contention that section tO of the bill would empower the Poultry Board to control the local marketing of eggs and poultry. “.‘As it was never intended by the New Zealand Poultry Association that the. legislation sought should authorise interference with the business of marketing of eggs locally, nor to control export, would you please advise as early as possible whether the Poultry Amendment Bill was intended lo vest such powers in the Board. If not, whether the provisions of section 10 can reasonably he interpreted as conferring such powers on the Poultry Board.’

“A reply from the Director-General, dalcd November 28, v states:—‘l am rather surprised that opposition should he raised lo what is simply a machinery clause and nothing else, and I can assure you that there is no intention on the part of tho Department or flic Government of passing on to the Board powers in respect to control of the local marketing of eggs (further than as indicated in respect of marketing of eggs if necessary), nor in respect to export.’ ”