SUGAR IN POLITICS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 95, 19 October 1910, Page 3

SUGAR IN POLITICS.

THE BEET BILL DISCUSSED. A PECULIAR RECOMMENDATION. COLONIAL SUGAR COMPANY A& A CRITIC. An unusual recommendation was offored to the House of Representatives yesterday by the Agricultural, Stock, and Pastoral Committee, to which the S^gar Beet Bill had been referred. The chairman (Mr. F. La.wry) said that, after taking the evidence of four witnesses and receiving a written statement and statutory declaration made by the chaivmaix of the Colonial Sugar Company, the committee did not feel justified in making a definite a'ecommendation, and left to the discretion of the Government the matter ci proceeding with the Bill. He moved to lay the evidence on the table. The Prime Minister said he would like to ha,ve the evidence printed ; the House should know ail about the matter. He had a great deal of evidence, and he would like to compare note 3 with the committee. ■Mr. La-wry replied that the committee had . been unaiistmou&ly of opinion that the evidence should not be printed. It should be placed on record, to be available for any future reference. CANE-SUGAR VERSUS BEET. Mr. Poole moved as an amendment that the evidence should be printed. The price of sugar had been lowered, lately. Mr. Greenelade ': ' "Because of this Bill." Mr. Poole then read the statutory declaration made by Mr. E. W. Knox, of Sydney, general manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Compa.ny, Sydney, who fcrwardisd a swean statement, in which he stated that in his opinion beet sugar could not be produced aaid sold on equal I terms against sugar made from cane. grown within the tropics. At least two i years would be required for obtaining records and making experiments before a fair opiaiion • cc-uld be formed as to the chances of success of >such a venture, and even then the risk of failure would be so gire&t, and so much would depend on the willingness of a certain number of farmers to grow the crop, that no firm of expco-ier.ee could be expected to enter on a speculation of the kind if the factories euectcd were subject to resumption ss proposed in the Bill. The- absence of duty on sugaa- secured ,to the people of New Zealand a- supply of a necessary of life on the most favourable terms, and wholly prohibited the establishment of any monopoly in connection 'with its distribution. The Colonial Company had secured the market by underselling all other companies, and could only hold it by maintaining the same princiole when every distributor could secure his supplies f.rom any country in the world. In support of this statement, he declared that. Tate's grauulated-r-equal to the Colonial Company's lA, was now sclliaig in Lo-ndo.ii at £20 10s per ton, the duty being £1 16s Bd. In Auckland the price was £17 10s per ton, off which price there was an allowance of ten shillings per ton. The advantages to the New Zeala-nd distributor were obvious. Mr. Poole said he was satisfied there was a measure of hostility to the Government's proposed policy of a beet T sugar industry, which would be a benefit to New Zealand. A VOICE FOR WAIKATO. In seconding the amendment, Mr. 1 Greenslade said that the committee's motion was one of the most amazing ones ever proposed in. Parliament. New Zealand was in danger of losing an opportunity of getting a large amount of capital introduced for investment and breaking down a monopoly. This sugar trust was existing at the cost of the masses of the country. The duty was taken off sugar for the "free breakfast table," but the remission merely benefitted the manufacturers. Mr. Greenslade quoted authorities favouring the Waikato as a suitable region for the successful culture of the sugar-beet for commercial purposes. New Zealand consumed about 55,000 tons of sugar annually, at a' cost of £1,000,000. To produce that quantity of sugar 600,000 tons of beet would be required. This crop could be raised on 40,000 acres, and on the four-course system the necessary area would be 160,000 acres. The plant, with a capacity of 6000 tons of beet a day, would cost £1,000,000. Mr.- W. H. Field said the witnesses that came before the committee were carefully examined, and the bulk of the testimony was in favour of the sugar-beet industry being established in this country. THE PRIME MINISTER'S OPINION. Sir Joseph Ward said he was of opinion that New Zealand should go in for the sugar beet industry. He had nothing to say against the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but he was convinced that a country like New Zealand should not be in the hands of a sugar monopoly. There were lands in parts of the North Island where sugar beet could be grown as well as in any part of the world. At present no one could gainsay the fact that the sugar industry of the world was a monopoly. 'Ihe whole of the people of New Zealand were in the hands of a monopoly. He did not say that it was badly conducted, because he had not sufficient information by him, but the sooner it was realised that this country should carry out the beet sugar industry on proper lines the better it would be for the people as a whole. He was not prepared to let the matter rest, and thought the Bill should be gone on with. Customs concessions on sugar had been made in the past with a view to benefiting the consumers, but the results were the strongest argument possible for establishing the beet sugar industry here. New Zealand gave away upwards of £200.000 per annum in sugar duty. After that duty had been taken off the price of sugar in Australia, where there was a duty of £6 10s per ton, was less than was the case in New Zealand, where there was no duty at all. If the cheapening of sugar could be brought about New Zealand would be warranted in establishing the sugar beet industry. So far as he was concerned, he would do his level best to see it established, because by so doing he believed that most of the people would get sugar at a reasonable price. It was the duty of the Government to approach the question in a sensible way and on practical business lines. Mr. C. A. C. Hardy said the Colonial Sugar Company had not exploited New Zealand. As a matter of fact, sugar was sold cheaper to New Zealand to-day than was the case in Australia. New Zealand was not tied to one company. We could get sugar from Germany or America. At the same time he would be glr.d to see the beet sugar indnstry established in Now Zealand. The Hon. T. Mackenzie claimed that the industry was worthy of investigation. At this stage the debate was abruptly ended by the 5.30 adjournment, and was not resumed.

VotßtonohM Cough* Ulc« Worito' Gnut