SUGAR MONOPOLY. —.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 951, 19 October 1910, Page 4

SUGAR MONOPOLY.

I /COMPLAINTS, IN PARLIAMENT. [;■ EiREMIER SUGAR BEI^T!' y';fi tAROE; SAyiti(jMpßEDicfED. ; |;.;: : .-Thd Agriculture yimittee;was in reporting |','otf the Sugar/Beet.'; Bill yesterday'.- \ It i,stated, through jthe■ chairman,/that in j../view of the /'evidence .'itOppuld not > re-, (i* commend that vtho; Bill.'be'allowed;,to; Lpraceed, but./that it j bo. left' ti>; tlio Idisivcretion" of the;. Government and .that. I'the evidence, '.bo -laid..on ithe; table.//'':/ p:':_vMr.' Poolo, urged that .the/evidence •Ivshould-; be printed', ./and;:/moved / .an; f/amendment- to;-thatJ;effect::AThe.}.prd-|v posal; of \tlie; Gommittee "that. the; ■ evi-; j: ; ;_de;nce.should not;be ■; a " measure ■of ■ : hostility. ■ to, /the l&BaiiK The Bill, he;tiioug.ht, u.eirable ..one calculatfed'feibreak.doiyn. j:'ivmbnopoly;:/.-'/ : :/;;:v') :) v:-;;.::-: : :/: ?/' ; - if, - ;-...■-,■.-...■ , ■ ■■. ;. -"I--;;.; .■■--':..,■■.".-,-."-..■ :■ / ''. -." s:Tv : ':K;'" /'"Most'^Extraordinary."^-, : ;''>;-'i-i ;';.";Mr.-.''Greenslado;- (Waikato), said : ''the ; : 'reconimendaiion. of.the. Committee ; .was i;.one : .of.tlie\most' extraordinary he'■-had; heardijy The';declaration/pf / the : J jgeneral- : manager of the; Colonial; Sugar; ?;.'llefiriing;:Company : contained ;an:; amazg:'- ing the beet sugar, inkdustry;:could: only:;flourish* at: the' cost" £ "of ;ffie;taspayeiis: / : ;Who;;was:if:but. ; the I ■:taxpayer:-ffiat 'enables/the ; company toi f';.rmake.. , ife':.;p^fife:;^;The'-;Legida : ture : 'liad-. !>;;r^oved.:the. ? rtas/oii.; sugar/inSthe"'• iii-r f^restsi;6f ; thVpeople,/but; iti;liad.;proyI -i Therji; had been, man'} , ! experiments' -in p-':Bnga-jr beet growing ■ in : the Waikatb, and !.;.{these-|;had;been more and- more' success- : [.'>. take in'Teferring-this Bill to a..cominit f.rtee.■■-.'.;.The. .interests /involved.':.were;so f : -large'that tho /Bill . should , /: not /be V; damned-by the evidence'of tho disinterjKested/gentlemen;of the Cplonwl'.'Eefinr '-■■.■ ■ > r i'-'-y~. : ; :i--t-v- '^r s#;;Slr.*-Field (Otaki);.' a member' of -.the' Committee,: ;saitt|the;;:sole i;:.Teason;:;:for tile '.recommendation.:/that i'*-the : eyidenceish'Ould.not;be printed was gone::pf .economy.-;; The;- recbm :: ISimended; as:itVdid'because evidence' fe it ■was'-n'ot'' sufficient/to; a: more definite., pronouncement.: pJ?Kiv : :|>;;Premlep;;on, Dear Sugar. //.;;:, B/'The' 'Prime ! Minister;;saidi!/that '''he; i'v,thpught.'that; it. ./was" possible/for .New; g •'Zealand; to go<intp-the' industry : in-'one; f;:.fpm -or;.,'another. - Only .' recently. : a j ;inember : stated ; in'the'v Commonwealth |; JParliament.that ; .iii;Kow,Zealand; where. p;th^jWas- : _ne'-;duty/ : , -wigarj:'vras--'dea'rer-F/.than in.cAustralia,'where'theVdtrty-'.wae'. t;-r£6:;per ton./,.He sayf/agamet /the Sugar;:;.Byefining fjCpmpany'i :;H«;;,was speaking : :.,on-vstrictly[ pimpersonal:lines.?•• ;'A;it>purrtry*]ike -New' RjZealsnd Should not; bs;in '.the : hands of;W in':;thersugar;'';industry,'■-• no gmatter;.;who /ow,hed;'it.; ■:;The'(dnly; alterf: the/sugarrbeet; inddstry was established lj'in>^ ? in. ;/;;differeht^portions■';ibf;:' -,New >:ZeaMd,; fj^e^ecially... of the'.: North /Island, l^adyantageously'Qslin/any:'part: bf^lie 1 ' J'/world. , ■If that' were/the.', -casej/.'why; il'^uld'.the^.^l6^; i^;h|gfer!''pncf' : fi;t;ch'arged: c^nme're;:of;;'siigar- : rand'';they nine-'tenths of the whole : populai was -reasonable?'■■'•■':. No'■":; one blooiild.) gainsay that:tho;:;sugar, ; busiriess/ [yi<rf,; ; the/;world iwas'a smonopbly;/: There f.V.waeSo/competitioh'in l thie country' at L r ; 'Sall.>'->;i.;::-:v: ■': v /.: : ''''. ; -'/ : "*///;- -'kVWi : ; ..- ; ■'.:

;Sir : ; ! . saidi :JNfew; i >:%a]and ;should---proceed';on the' lines' of p^aving:::itt^ ip^er,;to::establish':the;infcdustry. ::lle;tnbught;tlie -matter should' fi-iihad/iiiot been/able rf.[dehcp-^f;;wanted.; iThereforejv-the Bill jv«ught piot; 'averise: to.; the House '■ deciding 1 .thai !J ithe ■ should i'estaHish ':. the" ; Ov«r "iIOOjOOO '■'.worth ■'of , f^ , f, : :.with : theijidea that the consumerswbuldY;_ get.:the.'-'behefit , ;*; The ;statement/which' ¥-he.- had:" quoted,'-'mus<f- I comeVas'--:a'-isuiy- : i:Vprjse; ; ; ;-: ; :;■;•'■ \C:K^4y.^■■■■ifj^-:''.

;of the' , -'policy; 'of.cthe I 'ipauntryViiiweV, would.>go•■straight jbf ;. ; tHe:-beet- j inr : ;;d^ry;: ; ;iind"'lie;;:^cHild Vhis; to j::': ; as6ist niea.ii : r a Ibrge' |] whom.'used: SjugarVsereral times :a'day.'

Sugar Company Defended. Mr. Hardy (Sclwyn) stated that when. JJro duty on sugar woe removed the price' was lowered by storekeepers. He denied" that the Colonial Sugar Company ,- was exploiting ftcw Zealand. Sugar «a.s cheaper m New Zealand than. in Australia, as would bo seen by comparing the prices in the newspapers. The storekeeper was not tied to the Colonial Sugar Company, but could bring sugar from Gerraaav or elsewhere at a low freight. The fact of the matter was that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company wa-s in. a position to give a good article at a reasonable ,price. ~'lho price was. fixed., not in ?|; in ; : Australia;:^He;:had &Jiad ; tran^tion.with'the.Colonial Sugar :■ ;for ■ manjyyears,; land■'.- they , ilhad always .been, fair • and above board, ; &i? :The:■■ Hon.. T. .Mackenzie,: Minister for, p.-,'Agriculture, .said that, the -price ;of >;. .'sugar'had■ been gradually raised■ short,*'.]y Rafter'the dnty was removed.'".He ; .' ; submitted ,ithat storekeepers were -"tied [•;.. to :the. Colonial Sugar Company,>;ia that !:'.,-,ifHhey' discontinued: business" ivith'/the f ; :r companyV they; sacrificed ■con'ces- {:';• eions : tn6y were;otherwise;entitled.to.. 1 :■•>■■■ At • thia J stage the. debate was : intert- rupted by,the ftiWasyiioV:resuined;:. ; V -.■", ; ■'■ l .■'■•■ •■■" :' ; :',:--r