The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1924. MR LYSNAR AND HIS AMENDMENTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9845, 25 October 1924, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1924. MR LYSNAR AND HIS AMENDMENTS.

.On account of tlie fact that Mr Lysnar got into so muck iiot water by trying to force on the Government certain amendments to the Meat Export Control Amendment Bill it is probably jfie case that wluit was aimed atjrby the member for Gisborne was na|C properly grasped by many electors. His amendments were of a twofold character: one section relaifng to the constitution and method

m election of the Meat Board and uhe other bearing upon the control of freezing works and of the handling and marketing of frozen meat. On this occasion we intend to refer to the last-mentioned section of Mr Lysnar’s proposed amendments. What lie suggested was that where a freezing works is owned by any oversea

company, firm or person the property shall, if possible, be sold within two years to a Hew Zealand company “representing the producers and public of New Zealand in and about the particular district in which such works are situated.” Whatever may bo one’s feelings in regard to oversea operating freezing works in this Dominion, we think that it will be agreed that that particular suggestion, as .framed, could not be entertained by Parliament. In tho-first place, such’ a legislative provision would be grossly unfair in that it would restrict the opportunities of sale. . Furthermore, it would not be accepted tranquilly by British investors who, in the past, have been encouraged to build up industries in this Dominion. But that is not all. It would amount to penalising a section of an industry not because the works in question ‘were not being conducted in the public interest but because they do' not ’ happen to be owned by New Zealanders. In this regard what should not ho overlooked is that under the heading “oversea company” a British Arm or, for that matter, an Australian firm would be placed under just as great a handicap as a foreign firm! Is it any wonder, therefore, that a majority of the members supported Mr Massey’s contention that the amendments should be investigated by a committee? Then, again, Mr Lysnar proposed that, if the works which hs was attacking, remained unsold after two years, they should not bo allowed to carry on business unless they did so solely on “owners’ account.’ This, too, was a proposal that would have led to further criticism in. that it would amount to restricting the methods of business ol ono section of the industry, whilst

permitting the other section a free • hand. When the proposal is more closely studied, it will he found that it might not* he at all agrecalile to j the stock-raisers in the districts that j would be affected, in that it might eliminate competition or bring about a buying combine amongst those permitted to purchase stock on the hoof. A further provision sought to bo inserted by Mr Lysnar was .even more remarkable in that it proposed to bar “for ever”, any oversea firm interested in a New Zealand freezing works or its agents from “owning or acting as an agent for the marketing of any such stock that is killed and treated at the particular freezing works. What Mr 'Lysnar clearly intended was that, say, a subsidiary concern at Homo interested in the retail sale of meat would not be allowed to purchase the meat killed at the works ho had in mind even on Southfield market! Sorely lie must now see that that to go altogether too tmjr The proposed amendments to wUrch we are referring were, undoubtedly, peculiarly suitable for inve«igation by a Parliamentary committee.