JAM AND SUGAR

Otago Witness, Issue 3518, 16 August 1921, Page 24

JAM AND SUGAR

THE AUSTRALIAN IMPORTATION QUESTION. WELLINGTON, August 9. Mr W. G. M'Donald, chairman of the Board of Trade, with the authority of the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Acting Minister of Industries and Commerce, to-day made an important statement with reference to the Order-in-Council prohibiting the importation of Australian jam and preserves. “Certain newspaper critics,” said Mr M‘Donald, “have not given adequate thought to the facts necessitating prompt Government action to safeguard the dominion’s fruitgrowing and jam industries against the disastrous effects of unrestricted Australian dumping. The order was not aimed against cheapness of jam, but against the unfair competition of bounty-fed imports. Australian jam makers pay about the same price for sugar as New Zealand manufacturers do, but to enable Australian makers to develop an external trade the common wealth is controlling the sugar trade, and recently gi-anted a refund of £2O per ton on sugar used in exported jam. This reduction gives the Australain jam maker a very large margin to undersell New Zealand manufacturers. The New Zealand Government had not statutory power to impose a duty offsetting the bounty or to grant an equal bounty to dominion makers. The only practicable course, therefore, was that which had been taken; otherwise the Australian jam industry would have benefited at the expense of the New Zealand fruitgrowing industry, which is just now recovering after tho difficult war years. It had been shown that the British sugar refining industry was almost totally annihilated by the unrestricted competition of bounty-fed German and other Continental sugar. As Australia’s £2O rebate applied only to sugar used for export jam, the New Zealand Government was obliged to take an

effective action against the scheme to help the Australian industry in a measure proportionate to the injury Inflicted on a similar industry in the dominion.”