SUGAR DUTY

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 22 August 1924, Page 5

SUGAR DUTY

TO BE RETAINED. A CLOSE VOTE. AN INTERESTING DIVISION. (UY 1 KLEGIIAJ’H: —VRKSS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 21. A discussion on the question of retaining the duty on sugar and thus keeping the Chelsea works open arose in the House to-day, when Mr A. Harris (Waitemata) brought down the report of the Industries and Commerce Committee, which stated that the committee was of opinion that, in the interests of the Dominion, the Chelsea sugar works should remain open, and, further, the committee was agreed that some protection to the Sugar Company was necessary. The committee had, however, been unable to arrive at a decision as to the amount of such protection. Mr Harris said the only other source su pply was Java. They had to consider that white labour was employed in New Zealand at a minimum wage of 14s per day of eight hours, while black labour in Java was paid at lOd per day of 12 hours. The conditions in the Dominion had changed since pre-war times, when the company could refine sugar here at a profit,' the reason being that the cost of materials, etc., had increased. The Dominion consumed 60,000 tons of sugar annually. The matter involved the possible closing down of the Chelsea works, and the evidence led the committee to believe that unless a protective duty of £2 18s 4d, or 5-16 d per pound, was imposed the works would close down. That would mean that 350 men would be immediately thrown out of work, and also the seamen who carried the sugar. The committee had not stipuated what duty should lie imposed, because they preferred to leave the onus on the House to say whether or not protection should be continued, and, if so, to what extent. The question was what was best for the consuming public. Should they close down the works and depend on importations from outside, or continue the works in New Zealand? There was, he thought, no justification in the accusation that the company was exploiting the public of the Dominion. They had not made huge profits here. The net return on their capital in New Zealand was 2.7 per cent, and they were prepared to continue on that basis. Such a small margin was possible only with a large turnover. A table had been prepared by the Department of Industries and showing the competitive disabilities under which the Colonial Sugar Company refined and distributed sugar. At present raw Java sugar cost £2O per ton, freight and landing charges £1 13s lid, refining £3, loss in refining equal to £1 3s lOd oer ton, depreciation, interest and office expenses £1 3s 2d, one-third coastal freight 8s Bd, making a total of £27 eoi in Takin S J ava white sugar at £2l 10s, the actual cost to the company under similar conditions to those x«n ra | ;iD ii* n l^ e ' v Zealand would be i-i- lowing a competitive disability in the case of the New Zealand lennery of £3 4s lOd, and the company asked for a pi’otective duty of £2 18s 4d.

m the Opposition (Mr 1. M. Wljford) said he regretted that toe committee was unable to give the House a lead and that the result of the committee’s work had been abortive.

Mr Harris: We have said some protection is necessary. Mr Wilford said‘the Liberal Party’s attitude was that it would be able to go thoroughly into the .matter when, the Government decided as to the question of duty, and he would reserve his remarks until the Government brought down its policy. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said that superior to any tariff or fiscal method would be. a proposal for the Government to go into the control of the sugar required for the Dominion. He moved an amendment that the report be referred hack to the committee, with a recommendation that it should immediately confer with the Colonial. Sugar Refining Company with a view to considering the question of the Government resuming control of the sugar supply of the Dominion and the price that should lie paid to the company for (a) refining sugar at the Chelsea, works by the process at present in operation, (b) as an allowance tor capital invested in the said works, such allowance to ensure a reasonable return on the said capital, depreciation, etc., (c) distributing sugar throughout the Dominion, any proposed arrangement to .contain' a umiviso giving the New Zealand Government the right to purchase supplies of raw sugar and the Colonial Sugar ReiCompany shall refine such sugar at Chelsea and distribute it at a "reed upon rates as per (a), (b), aiuf (e). this scheme would prevent the House having the tariff dictated to thenj by the company. He objected to a pistol being held at their heads bv this or any other combination.

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) seconded the amendment.

The Premier Mr W. F. Massey) said they must, remember that for' many yeais Neiv Zealand was dependent upon rhe Sugar Company for supplies. They now came to the Government and said they could not carry on without the assistance ol a duty. He did not believe this was bluff. Jf a duty was not agreed to the works would be closed down, and we would have to go to some other country for supplies. We should also remember that during the war New Zealand had the cheapest sugar in the world.

It the works were closed down between three and four hundred workmen would be thrown out of work, and to the Auckland Harbour Board there would be a probable loss of £13,000. Ihey bad now to choose between having our sugar refined in our own country and a fine industry kept going on m the Dominion and giving the benefit of that industry to some other country coloured labour was employed. New Zealand was considered the most British country in the Empire, and Heaven forbid that it should go out to the world that we turned down our own people and preferred getting our sugar grown by black labour at -jjd per hour. It might be said that Indian labour emploj’ed in Fiji was black labour, but- he could not look at it in that light, for we must remember that Indians were of our own Empire and were our fellow-citizens.

The time was when the Government exercised control over the sugar supply, with the result that there were complaints coming in day after day to the effect that the Government was interfering with the trade and industry ol the countrj'. Personally, he thought it was necessary interference at the time. He did not want to go back to that system, but if they did the State would require protection jusfc as much as the company. Further, he was advised that Java sugar was no good for jam-making, so what- was to be done

for jam-making if we were compelled to get sugar from outside. Personally, lie thought there might be a choice of two evils, and lie advised the House to select the lesser. The amendment was defeated by 39 votes to 30. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) then moved as an amendment that in the opinion of the House a protective duty of £2 18s 4d should be imposed on .all white sugar and Dutch standard No. 22 and over. Mr R. MeKoen (Wellington South) moved as a further amendment that the amount of the duty be not £2 18s 4d, but £1 9s 2d, which, he maintained, would provide the company with their wages fund. Mr R. Masters (Stratford) said the Liberal Party would vote consistently with, their conduct last year, viz., they would vote against the imposition of any duty on sugar. Whether the duty was imposed or whether it was not imposed it would make no difference to the price of sugar, for the simple reason that , the price was not controlled outside New Zealand altogether. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said he thought that rather than have- sugar produced by coloured labour New Zealand consumers would be prepared to pay an additional price. He was not concerned about the Coloijial Sugar Company, but he was concerned about the 350 workers who would be thrown out of employment if the works were closed. He . insisted that if the duty proposed by Mr Nash’s amendment was carried there should be some guarantee that prices would not be raised to the. people of New Zealand. At 11.30 p.m. Mr McKeen’s amendment was put to the House and b>st by 3a votes to 30. • Mr Nash’s amendment was then put, and on a division was agreed to by 33 votes to 30, and the report as amended was adopted. Following is the division lifet on Mr Nash’s amendment:— For the amendment (33) —Anderson, Bell, Bitchener, Bollard, Coates, Dickson (2), Field, Girling, Glenn, Guthrie, Harris, Henare, Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Linldater, Lysnar, McLeod, Massey, Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare. Potter, Sir R. Rhodes, Rolleston (2), Stewart, Sykes, Thomson, Uru, Williams. Against the amendment (30). —Armstrong, Atmore, Bartram, Corrigan, Perelle, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Hawken, Holland, Langstone, Lee, McCombs,. Mollvride, MeKeen, MacPherson, Masters, Monteith, Munro, Murdoch, O'Brien, Parry, Poland, Ransom, Savage, Sidev, Smith, Sullivan, Wilford, Wright. The House went into Committee of Ways and Means, when the following resolutoin was agreed to and adopted by the House: “That there shall .be payable on sugar of No. 22 colour or over (Dutch standard) and on invert sugar and invert syrup imported into New Zealand or entered fo'r home consumption on or after the first day of October, 1924, duties of customs ; t the same rates as if such sugar, invert sugar or invert syrup had been entered for home consumption immediately before that date.” j MESSRS CORRIGAN AND HAWKEN OPPOSE DUTY. (By Telegraph.—Special to Star). WELLINGTON, Aug. 22. In the division on the proposal that a protective duty oh sugar he imposed to the extent of £2 18s 4d, Mr Hawken (Egmont) did not vote with his Government colleagues. He had declared, in the course of the debate:, that he was opposed to the duty, believing that sugar would be just as cheap without it, and that the Colonial Sugar Company would not leave the New Zealand market. The member followed out his opinion by, voting with the minority, tha proposal being adopted by 33 votes to 30.

Mr Corrigan also voted against the duty.