15.05.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!