DUTY ON SUGAR.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 September 1924, Page 5

DUTY ON SUGAR.

HOUSE PASSES THE BILL ORIGINAL AMOUNT REDUCED. FIXED AT £2 6s 8d PER TON. By Telegraph—-Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Customs Duties Amendment Bill was introduced in the House tonight by Governor’s message. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) inquired whether the Bill had to do with the sugar duty. The Premier replied that it had and claimed “urgency” for the passage of the measure. Mr. Wilford asked why “urgency” was necessary. “Because,” said Mr. Massey, “we are being pressed for this legislation from al! over New Zealand at the present time.” Mr. Wilford replied that the Bill should pass through the usual stages, and on the question being put that “urgency” be accorded the Bill he called for a division, which resulted in the House agreeing to the Premier’s motion by 38 votes to 26. In moving the second reading of the Bill, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart said that while the Government proposals already submitted to the House had been well received he had delayed introducing the Bill until now, because he desired to give greater consideration to the wholo question. He thereupon entered into further negotiations with the company, and as a result of these negotiations the company had agreed to reduce the duty agreed upon (£2 18s 4d) to £2 12s 6d. He was later on in a position to make still further representations to the company in the direction of a probable reduction to them in land and income tax, and as a result they had agreed to a duty of $d per lb., or £2 6s 8d per ton, which he thought was quite reasonable. This would, save to the Dominion one of its most important industries, and that was surely worth while. IF CHELSEA CLOSED. The Minister said the Bill followed the resolution recently passed by the House, but in committee he would move an amendment fixing the duty at id per lb. It was not a fact that in asking for a higher duty the company had put a pistol to the Government’s head. The Government had not been influenced in the least by the attitude |of the company, but what they had considered was the effect that the closing of the Chelsea works would have on many of our other industries. The motion that the Bill be read a second time was challenged by Mr. Wilford, and the Bill was read a second time by 37 votes to 27. In committee, the Minister moved to strike out clause two and insert the following:—2 (I) There shall be payable on sugar of number 22 colour or over (Dutch standard), and on invert sugar and invert syrup imported into New Zealand or entered -for home consumption, on or after the first day of October, 1924, duties of customs computed at the rate of one farthing for every pound of such sugar, invert sugar or invert syrup as the case may be. (2) part 11. of the schedule to the Customs Amendment Act, 1923, is hereby consequently amended by omitting from the reference to sugar, invert sugar and invert syrup as specified in the last preceding subsection the word “free” in each of the columns numbered 1,2 and 3, and in each case substituting the following: ‘4d per lb.” The decision on the question of inserting the new clause resulted in the clause being agreed to by 38 votes to 26. OPPOSITION TO BILL. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) moved that the duty be still further re. duced to £1 19s 2d per ton, but the chairman of committees ruled that his amendment could not be acoepted after the clause had been added to the Bill. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. IL Holland) moved the following new clause: “There shall be no increase in the price of sugar, and adequate supplies of sugar shall be maintained.” The chairman of committees ruled that the new clause was not relevant to the Bill and could not be moved, and the Bill was then reported from committee. Mr. Fraser moved to recommit the Bill for the purpose of reducing the duty to £1 19s 2d per ton. Mr. Wilford said he did not believe in any duty being placed on sugar, but if there must be a duty he preferred id per lb to jd per lb. He would therefore support Mr. Fraser’s amendment, and if that faded he would challenge the Bill on its third reading. On a division Mr. Fraser’s amendment was lost by 37 votes to 27. On the question that the Bill be read a third time another division was called for, when the result was 38 votes to 26, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.