SUGAR DUTY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 18 July 1923, Page 2

SUGAR DUTY.

LABOUR MAN'S VIEW

AMOUNT FIXED TOO HIGH

The question of whether the proposed protective duty on refined sugar is fixed at a larger amount than is necessary for the purpose was raised recently by Mr. J. W. Purtell, secretary of the Sugar Workers' Fnion in the course, of an interview on the subject with the Auckland Star. "I am in favour of a small tariff for the protection of the industry," hesaid, "but I certainly think the amount proposed is out of proportion to the protection necessary. The output of the works here ranges from 1200 t© 1500 tons per week, which will more than supply the needs of New Zealand. Ah the present time- they are not doing more than an average of 1100 tons, because the raw sugar supplies have not been coming to hand. On a basis of 1200 tons peV week, and £3 per ton import duty, this would mean £3600 p.»r week to be paid by the public, if ?11 the sugar refined was imported. The Minister stated that one of the reasons for the tariff was the protection of the New Zealand, workers' wag«s. The actual 'wages bill at the works is accessible to the Government, but from my knowledge of tke works. I should say it rould not be' more than £9000 per week, so that I can't see the necessity for a duty to produce £3600 Raw susrav is to come in free, so that it is merely a question of the increased refinery costs, and before any'thine: definite is done, I think there should be more inoniry on this point. I qnito aerr^ with th* Minister tbat the Colonial Sugar Company's refinery should be kept. ope». "So far as the. present shortage is concerned.'' added Mr Pm-tell "that in my opinion, i« directly-due to the Colonial Simar. Refining Co. reducing t*e waoces of the Fiji workers from 8s 6d to Is 6d per day, and the amount r*id for cane-cuttmg from 2s 6d 1* Is 6d per ton I n Queensland 6s 6d per ton is paid for cutting cane. There i« also another aspect of the business t at appears to me to be pertinent to the. question, and that is the amount j>f income tax paid U the Government by the company. I n view of thft fart in ViV e T CTri ny' S resi.teved office is 1" , t I think a question about the asid t ° + V n£™ e *»« paid should be askecl m the Houso '