Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria

1505
50807. Is that what you want to add to the evidence of previous witnesses ?-I will answer any
question that is put to me. I do not want malting in bond. ·
50808. So far I understand you ?-I understand malting in bond thoroughly welL I. did not hear
~U the evidence given. I only came in when Mr. Galbraith was being examined. I am agamst malting in
bond, and I am against oats going out on drawback. I am a farmer since I was born, and to say that we
cannot grow oats fit to make meal is an absurdity.
50809. By 1.Wr. Woods.-Are you aware that bonded goods go from Melbourne to Echuca ?-Yes,
and are sent over the border there.
50810. And they go iu bond ?-I believe so.
50811. How do they go ?-I do not know-is there a Customs officer watching them?
50812. Do they go along with any other goods ?-I do not know; I suppose they go in the train.
50813. Do they go in the same trucks with any other goods? -I could not say of my own
knowledge.
. 50814. You are not aware that those goods that go through the colony to go across the Border are
m a separate truck, locked up and sealed ?-No, I am not. .
50815. Exactly the same principle applies to malting in bond, the goods never mu at all ?-When
we had malting in bond we did not get the full price for our barley. .
50816 . . BY. ~Wr. J1fwnro.-You are in favour of the duty remaining as it is ?-Mo~t decidedly I a~;
I am a protectwmst.
them.
Why cannot these men go and live in New Zealand, and take their malt-houses w1th
[The witness produced samples of grain gro·wn by him.]
The witness withdrew.
John Hurst, Esq., J.P., sworn and examined.
50817. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A farmer.
50818. How many acres do you have in your holding ?-Two thousand.
50819. How many do you cultivate ?-Only 40 last year.
50820. You graze the rest ?-Y Eos.
50821. You heard the evidence of the previous witness ?-Yes.
50822. Will you state to the Commission what you wish to add to that evidence, please ?-Yes, I
think I had better begin with the dairying, which is the principal industry that I follow. I object to the
~uty remaining on butter and cheese, I think it is very injurious to the trade, because on the du~y being
Imposed on butter and cheese comin"' into this country. I think it caused duties to be placed on m other
countries, and so impeded trade. Se~eral of the colonies have put on exactly the same duty as we have
ourselves.
50823. By JJir. Longmore.-Had they their duties on before we had ?-No, we were the first to
impose the duties, and after we imposed the duties they imposed the duties upon us. At the time we
imposed the duty of 2d. a lb., we were exporters of only 26,000 lbs. of butter per annum, and in 1881 we
exported something like 2,000,000 lbs. within a very small fraction. I can O'ive you the exact returns from
5
the Customs if you desire it.
. 50824. What harm does the butter from the other colonies do you as a manufacturer of the article?­
In this way. If but,te; sent to o~her colonies is 8d. a lb. in Sydney or Adelaide before the butter I seml
:from here cap. enter their markets, It would be 10c1., consequently I am a loser of that 2d. a lb.
50825. No ?-Yes, decidedly; if I could send my butter direct without that extra 2d. being paid at
Sydney or Adelaide, that 2d. or a great portion of it, if not the whole of it would come to me.
. 50826. You :nean to say that the Sydney people do not pay the 2d. '?-Certainly; I say I have t? pay
It because I export 1t. I am well aware ofthis in the same light as you see it; I am w~ll aware that If the
Sydney people pay 8cl. a lb. I have to sell mine at 6cl. here to go into their market, but If they had not the
2d. a lb. I should get 8d.
50827. They would tell you the very opposite in Sydney; they would say if we had not the 2cl. a lb.
we should only pay 6d. ?-No, I think not.
50828. B,y llir. Longmore.-What power would you have over them ?-By doing my utmost to get
intercolonial free-trade.
50829: By t!te Chairman.-Anytbing else 7-With regard to agricultural imp1em.ents, I am in favour
of. all duty bemg. rem~ved from them. I cannot see how we can be expected to compete m the same market
with other colomes w1th the produce from ours while they get their implements free and we have to pay a
heavy duty.
50830. Do you think you would get implements for any less if there were no duty ?-If not, what is
the use of the duty?
50831. Do not you see you are arguing just the reverse upon the implements that you do upon the
b~tter. You say if there were no duty in Sydney you would get the 2d. a pound ?-The two cases are
different, one is export and the other is import.
50832. It is export to you, but it is import to them ?-Yes.
. 50833. If you. say that the r~moval of the duty upon implements coming into Melbourne w~ll ~ake
Implements cheaper m Melbourne, It would follow that the removal of the cluty from butter gomg mto
Sydney mus~ make butter cheaper in Sydney, consequently you would get no bett~r price ,in Sydney for
your butter 1f the duty were removed ?-The English machine makers sending then· machmes here have
that cluty to pay here, and it must necessarily be added to the price het'C,
, 50834. ~s not it t~e same with the butter in Sydney ?-No; it works exactly the same ~ith them
as It works w1th me ; It causes them to send less it diminishes their export and an extra pnce for the
article has to be obtained here. ' '
50835. And you get an extra price for your butter iu Sydney, because of the duty? -No; it does not
come to me, the lower price comes to me certainlv. .
50836. By JJ11·. Longmore.-May I ask you whether agricultural implements. are clearer now than
they W';_l'e before the du~y was put on ?-I ~nswer that by saying that the times are.d1fferent. .
o0837. At the tn:ne you speak of, Implement factories were not common 1n :Melbourne, with the,
exception of very rude implements, which were made at the time, and that is the reason.
T..rniFF.
9 E
Robert :BI111.ey,
Esq., J.P.,
con#nueil,
12th :May lSB3...
JohnHntst,;.
Esq.,J.P.,
12th llfny 18$?,.