Mr. J. M. Craig, continued.

300. Not on that account only, but the price?—Cheaper in the State?

301. Have you any idea of the number of sheep that come into Perth?—Yes.

302. Are there 300,000?—I should think so.

303. And if those 300,000 stock did not come into the market you think it would not alter the price of meat at all?—It might. It depends on this; If the importers increased, it would bring down the price of meat. Even though there were not one produced in the State, it would depend upon that. If there were a dozen men importing instead of a couple as now, the price of meat would be brought down. Those who deal in meat make a reduced profit on it, and the local meat is not sold any cheaper.

304. Have you any knowledge of the mass of sheep in Queensland?—Yes. I say assuming we could get all our supplies from other States, it would not affect the price of meat much. The price of meat is regulated by the importers.

305. The price of meat is very high now?—It is.

306. What is the cause of that?—I could not say.

307. Is that scarcity in the other States?—I do not think so. I say assuming you could get full supplies from the other States, if a larger number of men went into this business, and we had public abattoirs, the price would come down tremendously.

308. You think that if a number of men were to deal in meat, they could do it cheaper than the men who import it now?—No; they could sell it cheaper.

309. I am speaking about the importers' price which rules the price of the local stock?—Yes. If you got in ten sheep more than you wanted and than there was consumption for, down would come the price immediately.

310. That is a strange argument. I should say up would go the price?—No; if you brought in from the other States more meat than you consume, the price would go down.

311. By Mr. Richardson: Is it not equally true that if you did not grow a bushel of wheat in Western Australia, it would not affect the price of wheat?—The price of wheat is regulated by what you can import it at.

312. Is it not equally true that if they did not grow a bushel of wheat in the State, wheat would be very little cheaper or dearer?—If you could get it cheaper from India. The price is regulated by the country that exports. I do not deny that it would be far better for the country to produce.

313. By Hon. R. G. Burges: You told us if we could produce our meat here it would be cheaper?—If we could.

314. Surely to goodness, if we could produce our own meat, you cannot say it would not be cheaper?—I am convinced that if we could supply all our requirements, we should do it much cheaper; but as we know we cannot we are regulated by the supplies in the other States and the people who import.

315. HON. R. G. BURGES: You say, Mr. Craig, that you do not know anything about this meat at all, and if all our pasturage went away altogether it would not affect the country?

316. By the Chairman: It would not affect the price of meat?—It would affect the country seriously, but I do not think it would affect the price of meat. While the trade is in the hands of three or four people they will take good care that the price is not too low.

317. Are you aware that even though we have people living here who produce lambs, shipping them is a profitable investment?—Yes.

318. In South Australia they are short of meat. Do you know that two years ago they exported 4,000 lambs?—And they export them much cheaper than they sell them locally for. They are exporting in South Australia, but still the price of meat is high there too.

319. By Mr. Richardson: You would not argue that it was not a disastrous thing that any community or State in the country could not produce their own meat supplies?—Of course I know it would be a very disastrous thing, but as far as affecting the price of meat, I do not think it would; that is my opinion.

320. I do not see it in that light at all?—I think this goes a considerable way in proving it; Kimberley people sell their bullocks to the people in the port for £5 a head, and they come down here and are sold alongside cattle of the same weight from the Eastern colonies at the same price.

321. By Mr. Wittenoom: What does it cost to get them down?—About 50s. or £3 at the most.

322. By Mr. D. Forrest: What about food?—£3 to bring them down to Perth on the vessel, and everything else.

323. By Mr. Richardson: Is it not a fact, Mr. Craig, that while bullocks can come from the Kimberley district the Eastern trade is stopped for the time being?—Yes; but we are talking about prices being affect; not whether it increases the supply or demand.

324. But if the price was the same, would they not still continue to import from the Eastern States?—No; because those in the trade do not want them from the other States. They prefer to take the local cattle, because they get more on them.

325. By Mr. Wittenoom: You say Kimberley cattle are sold at £5 a head, and it only costs £3 to bring them, which is about £8, and they are jumped up in price to be equal with the other side?—No. The matter is entirely in the hands of the importer, who sells at such a price as he can make it pay at.

326. It raises the local stock up to meet the price of the imported stock?—It may be the other way about. If he went to the other States and got cattle at £4 per head and he could get £16 for them here, he is not going to sell them for £6, so it does not affect the price of meat in my opinion a bit.