SUGAR CONTROL.

Evening Star, Issue 18031, 27 July 1922, Page 4

SUGAR CONTROL.

If consumers are satisfied with the Ministerial statement on the price of sugar, made in Pariiament yesterday, they are very credulous. At the conclusion of his answer to Mr M‘Combs’s question, Mr Lee said that “if members would examine the facts thhy would reach the conclusion that the right thing had been done.” This is a-challenge, and it would be well worth members’ while to take it up. A' real examination of the facts would perhaps put a very different aspect on the matter from that which Mr Lee managed to give it. So specious a case did he make out that it seemed quite logical and fair that he should advise the Government to extend its contract with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company for another six montlis. It appears that the Government under its; contract has become overstocked, and requires time to work off its surplus. This sort of thing might -go on indefinitely, the people of New Zealand in the meantime paying more than a fair market value for the commodity simply because the Go-* vermnent, for a variety of reasons, cannot bring itself to relinquish control. Mr M'Combs was hardly on the right track when he stated that the retention of the duty on sugar was an injustice to the people. It is not the duty which stands in the way of free dealing in sugar. If sugar is imported from any place within the Empire it is admitted free. If it comes from a foreign source it pays l>d per lb duty. Mr M‘Combs suggested that if the duty was removed sugar “ could be landed at the chief centres of the dominion at £25 per ton, as against the present price of £35 per ton for the Government-controlled sugar.” Mr Leo rightly pointed out that a duty of £4 13s 4d per ton should not prevent importation when the range of prices was as quoted. Nevertheless, the amount of foreign sugar imported is negligible. Offers to land sugar from within the Empire at a shade over £26 per ton in New Zealand ports have been made, hut they have not been closed with. This is a matter which requires explanation. Mr Lee gave ; one, but it was the wrong one. He said that the cheaper sugar that could bo bought abroad at certain times was not of tlhc quality that the people of this country liked to use. How does he know? The people are not given the opportunity to test it. Since Canada made a reciprocal trade agreement with the whole of the British West Indian Islands (except Bermuda) she has gone in for refining the raw product derived from that source, and is seeking markets for it, including this dominion. What is the reason for the reluctance of merchants to introduce this sugar here when there is no duty on it and the price is in the vicinity of £26 per ton, as compared with £34 per-ton i'.o.b. Auckland for the Govern-ment-controlled article? Mr Lee declared that no restriction of any kind was imposed by‘the Government on Now Zealand merchants importing sugar.' This is literally correct, yet it is very far from presenting the true position. If there were nothing to. be feared, if trade were absolutely untrammelled, the usual procedure of buying in the cheapest market would follow as a matter of course. ,As a matter of fact, it has been tided, but results were such that no one, called to follow the.lead. The Government has control of sugar from the source on which New Zealand has customarily drawn, and that control involves power to ration supplies, with power to discriminate in their distribution. In most of its incursions into trade the Government has too often displayed expensive departures from elementary business principles, but shows a remarkable aptitude for adopting questionable methods of much greater intricacy. Some of those methods have- been roundly condemned by the Government when practised by others, and have even been legislated against; and there is no consistency .when,.the aegis of the Government is thrown over anything that operates in restraint of trade. N In the days Ijpforo Government control the ■ company with Whom it now has a contract proved quite equal to keeping this market intaot; but that was, done by the recognised method of lowering prices even below £l6 per ton, which was of benefit to the consumer, whereas the present method of retaining the market prevents the consumer from reaping the benefits, of competition, and is stoutly upheld by the Ministry. It is idle Tor the Prime Minister ip quote

the price of £46 per ton charged in Sydney. The Australian sugar industry has been nurtured primarily as a means of promoting tho settlement of tropical areas in tho Commonwealth by a white population, and preventing an Asiatio-in-vasion. The price the Australian consumer pays—and greatly resents paying—is in part an insurance premium on tho preservation of a Australia. No such considerations apply in New Zealand, and the sooner the Government withdraws from participation in the handling of sugar the better.