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

WUllam Altken,
continued,
8th May 1883.
1466
49522. Do you do an export trade ?-We do nothing in that. .
49523. Ha-ve yon anything further to add?-Nothing but this, that a great deal has been smd about
the different grades in flour and the qualities and nutriment in wheat. Here, in Melbourne, the poorest
people eat the -very best of flour, they will not have two grades of flour, and this patent mac~nery is no use
unless it does make different grades. The present machinery in use makes the one grade, whteh apparently
is suitable to the present wants of the community. In those places or countries where there are different
classes of people, some of whom want -very fine bread, the machinery is no. doubt adapted to them. But
here, where every one is alike, the old machinery we find suits the purpose quite well.
49524. By Jir Walker.-You say that the old machinery is perfectly well adapted to this colony,
but do you do an export trade in flour at all wholly a town trade.
49525. Suppose you did an export trade, would not that patent machinery be very useful to you?­
I cannot say.
49526. You would not contradict the evidence of those millers who do an export trade ?-Decidedly
not.
49527. You say a great deal of the machinery spoken to by the other millers could be made here ;
do yon known that of your own knowledge ?-I do not know the new machir1ery tl:mt has just come out;
but speaking about the purifiers, they are a late introduction into the trade. After they were imported
here they began to be made here equal to the imported.
49528. What is the difference in the price; do yoU: agree >vith the difference stated already ?-No, I
think not. The difference is this. , You could order boots, for instance, from home, two pairs--you might
order one pair worth 15s. and the other £1, and there would be a difference in the manufacture and the
way they are got up.
Ml529. Which is the best-the imported one or the colonial-made ?-I believe the colonial works
equally well with the imported.
49530. You ha-ve no knowledge yourself of that ?-No.
49531. In regard to the duty on wheat, you said that the injury done by taking off the duty 11pon
wheat would be to the farmers ?-To the farmers especittlly.
49532. You said also that it would be a benefit to Melbourne, as it would make Melbourne the
emporium for the distribution of wheat ?-I think so.
49533. You are a Melbourne miller, are you not ?-Yes.
49534. And you give this evidence solely in the interests of the country
49535. And against your own interests ?-And against my own interests.
49536. By .Lltfr. JJiaintyre.-You said that, in your .opinion, if the duty were taken off wheat, it
would act prejudicially to the farmers. You did not explain how-how could it be prejudicial to the
farmers; is not the English market the standarcl for the price of wheat ?-I will tell you.
49537. Do not we produce more wheat than we consume ?-We do.
49538. Are we likely to be falling back in our production ?-I do not know.
49539. Suppose we continue just to produce more than we consume, in what way would the duty
taken off wheat be detrimental to the farming interest ?-In this way ; carriage is cheaper by wnter than
it is by land, and have seen the time in Melbourne here when we could order wheat from from Adelaide,
and get it quicker and cheaper from A.delaide than we could from a distance of 35 miles from Melbourne.
49540. You are!not likely to see those times ugain ?-No; but the principle works the same way.
49541. In that case it would just add to the quantity we should require to produce ?-Here?
49542. Yes ?-Yes. of course.
49543. How could that be detrimental to the farmer ?-If this is made a centre, and there is an
.outlet in other places, naturally the country places would suffer.
49544. But he is always exporting; you cannot consume what he you now. Another thing
that you said-wheat was cheaper now than it was formerly; we all know that, but you surely do not
mean to say that it is cheaper because of the tax being put upon it ?-It is the result of the tax being put
upon it, in my opinion.
4954.5. But does not the London market govern it in the first place '?-Yes ; but you arc not putting
the question so a~ to draw out the answer to it in the right manner. If you put the question right, we
we should never have been exporters but for the duty.
49546. We became large producers by that ?-Yes, by the duty.
49547. Having got that, how would it affect us ?-I do not think it would affect us much ; but the
effect would be that whife labour is cheaper in South ~ustralia, and they can farm in South Australia cheaper
than we c:1n clo they, that, can compete With our farmers here.
49548. How you know that labom is cheaper in South A nstralia? -Because all their harvesting
is done by strippers there, and we cannot use them here.
49.549. But it is done here in a great many places ?-\Vherever they can use them, but there are a
great many places where they cannot use them.
49550. And so there are in Sonth Australia ?-I think there are not many plaees in South
Austr11lia where thcv c11unot llse them.
49551. the Hon. JJ{r. Lo1·inwr.-Do you object to the removal of duty upon machinery ?-Not
at all.
49552. Do you approve of the remova:-would it benefit any one else ?-I do not know ; I do not
give an opinion; I am perfectly indifferent.
49553. You do uot ebject to the removal of the duties ?-Cert11inly not.
49554. If n class of millers advocate the remov11l of the duties, you would appro-ve of it 7-I
would not oppose it.
-19555. Do you think you would import them more extensively if that were done ?-They are only
an experiment here If they turn out a success, of course they will be more imported. ·
4955G. Do you think they me not going to be a success ?-I would not like to make the
experiment yet.
49557. Do you know whether they have been p, success in other parts of the world ?-In
England and America they are very much divided in opinion. Some of them are throwing over the rollers
for the stones, and I think, frqm what I learn by reading, that the two go best together-the rollers and.
the stones.