THE SUGAR BEET COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14507, 22 October 1910, Page 5

THE SUGAR BEET COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Sir, — notice that the report of the com- j mittee appointed by tho louse to inquire | into the advisability or otherwise* of estab- | lishing this important industry was strictly I non-committal, tho chairman stating that tho committee hail 110 recommendation lo make, but would leave, it with the (Govern- I ment to take any action they thought lit. j In the discussion that followed. .Mr. (Ireeushidc, representing the Waikato, a district j that, would benefit immensely by the estab- j lishment of the sugar iieef. industry, must, us usual, to please a section of his constituents, have a tilt at the C.B. Company, by affirming that the removal of tlx* tax, instead of benefiting the (consumers, had helped a monopoly instead. This gentleman does not seem to understand that with freo trado in sugar, if sugar could lx- obtained cheaper elsewhere, our merchants would soon got it. from the cheaper market. That they do not do so is a proof that the prices charged are fair. 11l this connection 1 wish to say that, this unfair bias against, men of enterprise* will only hayo but one effect, and that is to kill enterprise,, and so react on labour, and pur it out of work. As every one knows, the late Mr. Seddon removed tlio duty on sugar in furtherance of what lie termed "cheapening" the necessaries of life, or making a. " free breakfast table" a free trado illusion. The proposal was popular; but it. sounded tlio death knell to our ever establishing a local sugar beet, industry. Now, hail Mr. Keddon been a statesman, lie would have planned to establish the sugar industry rather than to destroy any prospect of doing so. In Australia, with suitable soil and climatic conditions, and with a high tariff of £5 per ton on raw sugar, and £6 15s 4d per ion on refined sugar, imposed in tlio tirst instance as a revenue tax, it took over 100 years to win tlio sugar industry. Prior to the local production of sugar in Australia, the consumers, which some politicians like Mr. Green si ado and others always seem so anxious about, could not get white suger under Sid per lb. Since the Sugar Company fame to the assistance of the canegrowers sugar has fallen to 2d per lb, yet here in New Zealand to-day we hear the inconsequential chatter about the hugo sugar monopoly which, from a labour standpoint, as well as a. national one, is one of tho grandest industries in Australia. The Prime Minister seems to. see something; that is, he sees something like £1,000,000 going out for raw sugar, and a coloured labour product at that. If coloured labour in our shipping business is bad, and I think if. is, why should protected trades unionists bo veiling under their tongues as a sweet morsel cheap coloured labour-produced sugar. If we want sugar, we should produce it; if not ablo to grow cane, then from beet. All our existing industries are more or less protected ones, then why not add another, a very important one, to the list. If we put on a similar tariff to that which won the industry for Australia, we also shall win the sugar beet industry. Tho Sugar Company that- came to the aid of the canegrowers of Australia will in all probability place its knowledge and experience at tho disposal of the beet producers, with similar profitable results. The industry once established, its good results will lie felt by all other sections of tho community, none more so than our artisans and labourers. For the Government to attempt to manage such a business would bo a huge mistake. Their experience in handling coal miners should be a lesson to them. A sugar industry oneo established would exceed in valuo our justly celebrated Waihi gold mine. Public Welfare.