Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 20 October 1931

To Comptroller-General - 23rd September. Above letters show clearly that the " Stamp " plant is not suitable for producing fishmeal (I have definite advices to that effect from overseas) and that even if it was, there is no necessity for a duty, for plant of that type of Australian manufacture is only about half as costly as that of a British made " Continuous " plant. I have submitted many quotations for fishmeal plants to persons or firms who contemplate operating a fishmeal business as their main object - not as a byproduct - and especially to two large companies in the course of formation - one in Sydney and the other in Melbourne - who have made independent inquiries overseas, and have learned that the " Continuous " type of plant is essential for producing a satisfactory fishmeal.

That shows that my statement of the 30th September was absolutely correct, and that the Minister's reply was, to some extent, misleading. The Minister suggested in his reply that the plant which he said had been ordered in Melbourne was of a similar type to that to which I had referred, whereas the two machines have nothing in common. One might as well try to compare a coster's barrow with a motor car. Moreover, according to the letter I have read, even the machine referred to by the Minister has not yet been ordered.







Suggest corrections