RISE IN PRICE OF SUGAR

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28314, 27 June 1957, Page 14

RISE IN PRICE OF SUGAR

Criticism By Opposition

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 26. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company was selling sugar on the British market at well below the New Zealand retail price of lid per lb. said Mr J. G. Edwards (Opposition, Napier) in the House of Representatives this afternoon. He was speaking to a written reply by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr E. H. Halstead), who had earlier been asked by Mr J. M. Deas (Opposition. Otahuhu) whether, in view of the company’s record profits, he would immediately review the recent price increase. In his written reply, Mr Halstead said the record net profit of the company related to its widespread activities, of which the supply of sugar to New Zealand was only a small part. Sugar was subject to price fixation by the New* Zealand Price Tribunal, and the over-all profit allowed the company was under regular review. The increase in the price to the public did not result in an increased profit to the company. Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn) said the negotiated price for sugar in Britain was 4|d per lb. In New Zealand the price had eone up 100 per cent, since the Government came to power. The Government had blamed a drought .in Cuba and dearer shipping freights, but New Zealand’s sugar came from Fiji and Australia.

Earlier in May, before the company announced an increase of IJd per lb. there was a sharp fall in the world price of sugar, said Mr R. Boord (Opposition, Rotorua). The company took advantage of the impending fall to load the price. It would cost the country £1.922.000 a year, and the cost of many lines would be increased.

Mr Edwards said that grocers were provided with lists which showed not only what the last increase was but also what the next price increase was to be. The company was being allowed to make increased profits. Minister Replies

In reply, Mr Halstead said the Government was most concerned about the increase and was aware of the consequences for a number of commodities. The price was. however, fixed by an independent authority, and not by the Government The new price yielded the company exactly the same profit as before.

The company bought from 9000 independent growers in Queensland and 11,500 in Fiji. Of 34 mills it owned only seven. It had to compete with 63 other companies and pay the world price Only 6.3 per cent, of its turnover was represented by the sales of refined sugar in New Zealand. Mr Halstead said that in Britain the housewife subsidised the manufacturer. It was fantastic to say that just because sugar came from Fiji and Australia, New Zealand was not affected by world events. . . The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) said a conference in London had negotiated prices for 1957 much below the New Zealand price. . „ , Mr Halstead: That is for only half of Britain’s sugar. Mr Nash said that the company had more than £15.000,000 in reserves, including £5,800,000 set aside in the last five years. In addition it had paid profits of more than £1,000,000 a year, and now it was issuing one share free as a bonus to shareholders.