Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
c, w. Derbam,<br />
contmued,<br />
8th May 1883.<br />
Ronu.Jd Robb,<br />
lltb May 1883,<br />
1474<br />
49829. By Jlfr. Lobb.-Do I understand you to say that the <strong>Victoria</strong>n climate is not suited to the<br />
growth <strong>of</strong> oats ?-Of course I am only repeating what I have heard. 1 have heard it, not from any one<br />
person in particular, but from several persons.<br />
·19830. I say that we can grow as good oats as any country in the world ?-In some parts no doubt<br />
it eau be done.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Ronald Robb sworn aud examined.<br />
49831. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A trader.<br />
49832. And importer <strong>of</strong> grain ?-Not particularly; I am more particul::wly in trade, buying and<br />
selling ; occasionally I import.<br />
49833. You are a dealer in grain?-Yes.<br />
49834. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-Flinders-street.<br />
49835. How long have you been in the business ?-About seventeen years in Melbourne ancl<br />
suburbs.<br />
49836. You have hea-rd the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness in relation to the duty upon the various<br />
grains-do you desire to add :1nything to tha.t evidence, or to contradict it in any way ?-There is nothing<br />
I can contradict so far. I perfectly agree with his evidence so far that the duties ought to be entirely<br />
removed from all grain and bags. ·<br />
49837. You used the words "so far ''-clo you go farther than he does ?-In reply to a question<br />
from the Hon. Mr. Lorimer, he said he would approve <strong>of</strong> the duty being reduced upon oats ; now I<br />
think that the duty upon all grain ought to be entirely removed in this country.<br />
49838. He said so too; he said if we cannot take it <strong>of</strong>f entirely, a reduction would be advantageous?<br />
-Yes, I agree with that.<br />
49839. Have you anything to add to his evidence that he omitted to state ?-I have had a great<br />
deal <strong>of</strong> experience in the trade, and I know the working <strong>of</strong> it. I know that the duty upon oats is<br />
hampering the Melbourne trade entirely. :For instance, Queensland buyers go now to the Sydney<br />
market. Oats are sent direct from New Zealand now in large quantities to Sydney, instead <strong>of</strong> coming<br />
to Melbourne. The Queensland buyers go there and buy, because in sending oats from New Zealand to<br />
Sydney the consignor knows that he has not to pay the duties. If he cannot sell the oats for transhipment<br />
in Sydney, he can sell them in Syclney without having to pay duty. Therefore the consumer in<br />
Sydney gets oats at a much less price than the consmner in Melbourne does, and, >ts a representative<br />
<strong>of</strong> the consumer, I say it is taking it out <strong>of</strong> his pocket and putting it into the pocket <strong>of</strong> some one<br />
else.<br />
49840. Now, not speaking as a representative <strong>of</strong> the consumers, but simply as a dealer, will you<br />
explain to the Commission what injury is done to Melbourne and :Melbourne dealers by this business being<br />
done in Sydney instead <strong>of</strong> Melbourne ?-We do not get the handling <strong>of</strong> it here; the ships are laid on direct<br />
to Sydnfly. and it does not come here.<br />
49841. Are the ships Melbourne or Sydney ships ?-They may be either, it makes no difference; a<br />
ship will go wherever the trade is.<br />
49842. But is the trade carried on in Sydney ships or Melbourne ships ?-The "Union Steamship<br />
Company has now gone to New Zealand; it will eventually leave Melbourne altogether, I think.<br />
49843. Then it is a New Zealand company that carries it ?~It was a Melbourne firm, the firm<br />
<strong>of</strong> McMeckan, Blackwood, and Company; but on account <strong>of</strong> these duties and one thing and another, it has<br />
entirely taken it out <strong>of</strong> the hands <strong>of</strong> the Melbourne shipowners.<br />
49844. The Melbourne port loses the duties ?-The Melbourne port loses the duties, and the<br />
Melbourne dealer loses the pr<strong>of</strong>its.<br />
49845. And the Melboi1rne workman loses the wages <strong>of</strong> handling ?-Yes. I may state a fact that<br />
happened this week. A gentleman from Brisbane asked me the price <strong>of</strong> oats; I gave him a quotation for ·<br />
oats in bond. He told me he could buy them cheaper in Sydney; therefore he saves the freight from here<br />
to Sydney, and buys a penny cheaper in Sydney than here; and I used to trade with him, but Sydney has<br />
cut me entirely out <strong>of</strong> the market.<br />
'<br />
49846. Have you anything to add ?-I think the duty upon bags is entirely unnecessary.<br />
49847. There is the same duty upon bags in Sydney; that does not affect you as to the Sydney<br />
market; so if the duty upon bags were removed, it would give you a pull against Sydney, would it not, in<br />
that item ?-I do not see that it would make much difference.<br />
49848. If it makes a difference against you when the cluty is on, it must make the same difference .<br />
in your favour if it is <strong>of</strong>f ?~I think there ought to be a rebate or refund <strong>of</strong> the duty upon bags when<br />
exported with the grain. Upon the other goods there is a drawback ; why should there not be upon the<br />
bags when they are tilled? In that case it would benefit the farmers and every one. The only one who<br />
has to pay through the nose for it is the <strong>Victoria</strong>n consumer; he pays clearer.<br />
49849. Have you anything further to say ?-No.<br />
498.50. By l'rb-. Lobb.-Are you in favour <strong>of</strong> a Custom-house ?-If it could be clone without, certainly<br />
uot.<br />
49851. I understood you to say that all the protection <strong>of</strong> the farmers, the duty, should be taken <strong>of</strong>f?<br />
-Yes, if bags and implements were free.<br />
49852. Would you not go a little further and do away with the Custom-house altogether ?-If<br />
possible, I would. I may state that I deal a great deal with the farmers, and I think the general feeling<br />
amongst them is that, if the duties upon agricultural machinery and other things were removed, they would<br />
be quite satisfied to concede the question <strong>of</strong> grain. It is merely because they feel that they are handicapped<br />
so heavily with other duties. And there was another question with regard to South Australia, and the<br />
reason why South Australia can or did produce cheaper was because the agricultural machinery can be<br />
bol1ght at a mucille8s price than ours. It is not altogether a question <strong>of</strong> cost, for I think that labour in<br />
South Australia and hero is about equal, while the reason tl1at produce is a less price is that they can<br />
buy agricultural implements for a less price.<br />
49853. By tile Cltairman.-In making that statement, are you speaking from your own knowledge,<br />
or just giving t\5 the experienc