SUGAR MONOPOLY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 144, 19 June 1915, Page 10

SUGAR MONOPOLY

THE AUSTRALIAN POSITION.

Discussing the Australian sugar shortage and the attitude of the Federal Attorney-General, Mr W. M. Hughes, to the Colonial Sugar Company, the Sydney Daily Telegraph says: "Mr Hughes talks about the Colonial Sugar Company being a monopoly There are two kinds of monopolies, the monopoly in fact, and the monopoly as it finds expression in politicians' speeches. Actually the CS.R. is not a monopoly, though in operation it ■ comes close to being one. But the extent of the monopoly which it exercises is due to the Labour Government, which gives it £6 a ton protection. Of course the argument has been that this is the price which Australia pays for its White Australia policy. But it could have the White Australia without having to pay for it in that way, or to anything like the same extent. Indeed the duty is imposed to secure the votes of the sugar interests in Queensland, though for platform purposes, and for the purposes of speeches in Parliament, it sounds better, and has a, more stirring ring of patriotism about it, to declare that the genuine underlying motive is the maintenance of Australia as a country for_ the white races. The motives of politicians don't, however, matter The duty is there, and under its beneficent influence the CS.R. has grown fat, and paid great dividends. If it is now most of a monopoly, Mr. Hughes helped to make it one And whenever he has had the chance he has never proposed to take the duty off. Not because he would not hurt the Sugar Company, but because he fears that in striking at that giant corporation he would drop some heavy blows on the heads of many Labour party supporters."