THE SUGAR PROBLEM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19257, 22 August 1924, Page 8

THE SUGAR PROBLEM.

CHELSEA WORKS. QUESTION OF PROTECTION. DISCUSSION IX PARLIAMENT, (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON. August 21. An interesting and important discussion on the question of the New Zealand sugar supply is proceeding in the House of Representatives. It arose on (he report of the Industries and Commerce Committee which had considered the problem in all its bearings. Tho committee reported it was of the opinion that in the interests of the dominion that tho Chelsea. Sugar Works should remain open, and it was agreed that some protection for the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company was necessary. The commit too, however, had been unable to arrive at a decision as to the amount of such protection. Mr Harris, tho chairman of the committee, referred to the danger of the closing down of the works, which paid £OO,OOO in wages. If the works were closed 250 men would be thrown out of employment and the allied labour on coastal and other steamers and on the wharf would .suffer. There was also the question of the interests of the consumer. Mr Wilford asked why the committee could not come to a definite conclusion. Mr Harris said it was because tho memibers could not agree as to the amount of protection. There was a considerable difference of opinion in tho committee, and it hod decided to put upon the House the onus of deciding what amount of protection should bo accorded the industry.

Mr WUford expressed regret that tho report of the committee was abortive. Mr Harris said that was not so. Tho committee had come to a unanimous deJiision that tho works should be kept open and that some measure of protection should be granted, Mr Wilford said ho would not speak on the question at present. He would reserve his remarks until such time as the Government brought its policy down. Mr P, .Fraser (Labour) moved as an amendment to the motion: ‘‘That the report lie on the table.’’ Mr Fraser said he did not think a duty was neecssary. With efficient management it. would not be required. Mr Sullivan seconded the amendment. They recognised tho difficulty in coming to a conclusion. On the one hand they did not want the works to dose down and on tho other they did not want the people to be exploited. ■ Mr Massey said he thought that before they went any further they should understand the position. He had not had the advantage of hearing tho evidence given before tho committee, but ho did lenow • something of tbo subject. For a number of years we had been dependent upon the company for our supplies under an arrangement that had been renewed annually. Now they had been informed by the company that it could not carry on without a duty of 5-16(1 in the £, which would mean something about £2 12s a ton. So far as ho was concerned he objected to coercion, but he thought wo should do what wa.s beat for our poeplo and for our own country. That was what was expected from the Government and from Parliament. The company said it could not possibly cany on •without the duty, and from all he could gather he believed there wa.s nothing of bluff in its statement. Either the country had to give a reasonable protection or tho works would close down.

A Labour Member: That may bo bluff. Mr Massey: I don’t think that bluff is bc'ng attempted. During the years of the war New Zealand was particularly fortunate in regard te its sugar supplies. Wo had the cheapest sugar in the world, and there was no attempt to exploit us at any time. I know the company has been accused of dreadful things, but so far as ihia country is concerned wo have bad nothing to complain of. Mr Massey added that the men were well fed and well housed, and that everything in reason was done for them. If the works wore closed down there would be an end to the industry. Ho was not looking at the position from the point of view of Auckland, but from the point of view of the whole country. If the works closed from 350 to 400 men would be thrown out <vf employment. On the other hand they •were told that the machinery in the works ■was Obsolete and that the wharf was greatly in need of repair. The main point, was that wo had to" choose in regard to having sugar from our own country in an enterprise in which the men wore well paid, well fed, and well clothed, or on the other hand, in giving the benefit to an industry in another country. : An Hon. Member : Block labour. Mr Massey: Yea, black labour. Don't let there be any mistake about that, and from labour in Java that is paid only lOd a day. At first I thought that was for an ordinary day, but I found it was for o day of 12 hours. That is what we have to choose between —the supply of sugar from an industry in which the wages are less than a penny an hour or having 350 or 400 of our own men thrown out of work. What, is the Parliament of this country going to choose? Mr Lysnar: That is what the Labour Party want to do A Labour Member. Who told you that? Mr Speaker: Order ! order!

•Mr Massey; No doubt the Labour Party will toll us what they would do. I am merely expressing mv own opinion.

Mr Parry: You are in power. Mr Massey: Fortunately for New Zealand that is so. and Heaven forbid that wo should turn down our . own people and go for black labour in another part of the world.

It might be said, he added, that Indian labour was black labour, but they were our fellow citizens. ,Mr Lee (Labour): What about the Chinese in Samoar Mr Massey: It was necessary to have Chinese there. It was the choice of that or of closing down the plantations. There is no sugar cane there, but I am not so sure that it cannot bo grown there.

Sir Maui Pomare: It grows there now. .Mr Massey said that then' had none of the evils of the indentured system in Samoa now. It was a thing of the past. If the Government were to take on the industry here it would need protection just as much as the company would; in fact, more so, for it was a fact that no Government could carry on as cheaply as private individuals.

Mr Young. Is there anything in the statement that the company got sugar from Java for reffninjrT Mr Massey: I believe that is correci,. There was a shortage of supplies of raw Wtgar las': year, and the company had to get some from Java and refine It. ■Mr Massey repeated that it -was a choice of the two alternatives he had mentioned. A Labour Member: What do you think of ithe amendment?

Mr Massey r I don’t think it will meet file case.

Mr J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said it was not a choice of evils. It meant taking both evils. The amount asked by the company would mean protecting it to the tune of about £IBO,OOO a year, as against a total of £76.000 a year paid in wages to the Workers, exclusive of the highly paid scientists and others. The company was bolding a pistol at the head of Parliament, and saying: “Unless you give us throe times what is,necessary to protect white labour against black wo are going to close down the Chelsea works,” and the proposal, he maintained, was unreasonable. If they gave tho company protection sufficient to cover tho difference in ray between while and black labour, then the superiority of the article produced bore should act. as a further protection as against Java sugar. Tho amendment suggested one of the ways out of trie difficulty. Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said that when protection was recommended by the committee last year it was on tho understanding that the Government should inquire during tho year into other possible sources of supply. The evidence of the general manager before tho committee was, ho stated, distinctly unsatisfactory. Did the company want protection in order to enable it to pay dividends on grossly watered stock, as £2,445,000 of stock had been swollen by watering and otherwise to £6,500,000, "and tho company was the largest dividend-paying company in the whole of Anstralaeiat The manager had not shown that £IBO.OOO of protection was necessary. The whole position was too. obscure for members to vote upon it. The company started with a capital of £IOO,OOO, and in seven years out of profits it got. up to £2,500,000, Was the demand for protection due to the wish of the company to pay dividends on watered stock, or was it absolutely necessary ? It was quite possible that if the whole matter were probed to tho bottom they would find that £2 18s 4d a tan was not necessary. It had been suggested that £1 per ton was ample. That would give the company an additional £60.000 a year. Mt W. J. Girling (Wairau) maintained m- ;he company was not asking too much. Mr W D. Lysnar (Gisborne) supported this viow.

On a division tbo amendment was defeated by 39 rotes to 30. The division list was as follows: For the Amendment (20): Armstrong Masters Atmoro Montoith Barlram Muaro Bnddo Murdoch Corrigan Ngata do la Porrolle O’Brien. Forbes Parry Fraser Poland Holland Ransom Longstone Savage Leo Sit ley 1 M'Combs Smith MTlvride Sullivan M Tv ecu Thomson Macpherson Wilford Against the Amendment (39); Anderson Lysnar Bell M‘Leod Bitehoner Massey Bollard Nash Uoatcs iNosworlhy Hickson, o. M‘o. Parr Dickson, J. S. Pomare Edit. Potter Field Rhodes, Sir 1.1. 11. Girling Rhodes, T. \V. Glenn Rolleston, F. .1. Guthrie Rolleston, J. 0. Hams Stewart Hawken Sykes Hen are Tint Hockly Williams Hudson Witty Hunter Wright Tsitt, Young Linklater

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 21. Mr Nash then moved as an nmodment — “ That, in tho opinion of the House a protective duty of £2 18s 4d should bo imposed on all white sugar of Dutch standard Mo. 2 and over." In support cf this proposal, he read resolutions passed by the Chelsea workmen favouring the imposition of a duty so as to enable them to retain their employment. If tho amendment wore carried tho matter would rest in the hands of the Minister, who could terminate the tariff at any moment. Mr M'Keeu moved as a further amendment —“ TTiat the amount of duty be not £2 18s 4d, but £1 9s 6d,” which, he maintained, would provide the company with its wages fund. Mr M‘Cornbs said it would give the company £SOOO more than the wages fund, and surely white labour at. £SOOO less than nothing was better than coloured labour at any price. Before tho House rose at 5.30 p.m. the Prime Minister suggested (hat as tho matter was on© of great importance the debate should continue at 7.50 p.m., and this was agreed to When tho House resumed the debate was continued by Mr Masters, who said that the Liberal Party would vote consistently with its attitude last year. It would vote against the imposition of any duty on sugar. Whether a duty was imposed or whether it was not would make no difference to tho price of sugar, for the simple reason the price was not controlled within the dominion, but was controlled outside Now Zealand altogether. Mr Potter defended the proposal to impose a duty in order to maintain the sugar refining industry in the dominion. The lion. W. Noaworthy said it had been frequently hinted that the time would come when a bounty would bo necessary for the protection of beet sugar. Assuming that the Chelsea works were wiped out, and we had to depend on beet sugar, it would cost £200,000 to establish a factory to turn out 5000 to 6000 tons of beet sugar. That would give them an idea of what it would cost to produce the 65,000 tons required by New Zealand. Mr Holland said the Prime Minister had spoken pathetically about the sugar produced by coloured labour, but the fact was tho only country in the world where sugar was produced by while labour was Australia. where prices were slightly higher than in New Zealand, but ho thought that rather than have sugar produced by coloured labour Now Zealand consumers would be prepared to pay the additional price. He was not concerned about the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but ho was concerned about the 550 workers who would be thrown out of employment if tho works were closed down. Ho insisted that if tho duty proposed by Mr Nash’s amendment were carried there should be some guarantee that the prices would not be raised to tho people of New Zealand.

The Hon, C. J. Parr said it was not bluff, but it was a real fact that if the company did not get the assistance asked for it would close its works and this would be a serious matter for a great mass of labour in and around Auckland. Auckland generally regarded the prospect with the gravest apprehension, Mr Forbes said the position was that last year the Sugar Company came to the House and said it had had a bad year, and it must have £IBO,OOO by way of duty. This had been a good year, yet the company came again, this time with a threat. The Liberal Party was quite consistent in voting against any duty, as it had done so last year, and the circumstances bad not changed. Unfortunately we were entirely dependent upon this one company for our sugar supplies, and it was to bo regretted that the Government had done nothing to deliver the country from the house of bondage. Mr Leo said the only solution of the problem was that which was first put forward by the Laboru Party, and he would bo very much surprised if the House did not have to return, to that proposal in the course of a few days. The Hon. W. D. Btcwart said that after hearing the evidence the committee was unanimous that some protection to the Sugar -Company was necessary. When it came to the question as to what that protection should lie it was advised by highlyskilled accountants who had charge of the company’s books during the period of Government control, and they were of opinion that it must bo in the neighbourhood of £3 per ton. This was not for the purpose of giving the company profit hut on the advice of the accountants it was necessary to put the company on an equal footing with those who imported from Java. This duty enabled us to get sugar of the highest grade, which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of some of our most important industries.

Mr Hawken indicated that he would not vote to continue the duty on sugar for the benefit of a number of workers. The people of the whole dominion were being asked to pay prices that he considered too high. Ho did not behove the company would sacrifice the Now Zealand market whether the duty was kept on or not. Mr Armstrong said Labour's attitude was that it was not in favour of any duty on sugar. It was in favour of raking over the Chelsea works. They could not take over the works so long as the Reform Government was on the Treasury benches, and they could not put the Government out been,use the Liberals would not assist them. Yet the Liberals accused Labour of being inconsistent. To eject the present Government from office was the real solution of the problem.

At 11.50 Mr M‘Keen’s amendment was put to the House and lost, Mr Nash’s amendment was then put, and on a division it was agreed to by 33 votes to 30. The report as amended was then adopted.

The following is the division list on Mr Nash’s amendment:—

For tho Amendment (55). Anderson Lysnar Bell M‘Leod Kitchener Massey Bollard Nash Coates Nosworthy Dickson, J. M‘C. Parr Dickson, J. S. Pomaro Field Potter Girling Rhodes, Sir R. F Glenn Rollcston, F. J. Guthrie Rollcston, J. (J. Harris Stewart Henare Sykes Ilockly Thomson Hudson lira Hunter Williams. Linklater Against the Amendment (30). Armstrong Macphcrson Atrnore Masters Bartram Monteith Corrigan Mun.ro do la Pcrrelle Murdoch Edie O’Brien Forbes Parry Fraser Poland Hawken Ransom Holland Savage Langstone Sidcy Leo Smith M “Combs Sullivan MMlvrido Wilford M'Keon Wright. The Mouse wont into Committee of Ways and Moans, when the following resolution was agreed to and adopted by the House: “That there shall bo payable on sugar of No. 2 colour or over (Dutch standard), and on invert sugar and invert syrup imported into New Zealand or entered for home consumption on or after tho first day of October, 1924, duties of Customs at the same rates as if such sugar, invert sugar, or invert syrup had been entered for home consumption immediately before that date.