Part 6

Page 432
image 95 of 98

This transcription is complete

7901. Do you think you could make a success of farming here?—Not on the lines we are going upon now. If we do not go in for mixed farming, and work 300 acres a year, crop, fallow and run in grass, that is 900 acres, and run cattle, pigs and sheep, then it would be payable. Wheat farming alone is not payable. If a man could get on his feet he would succeed here. Our back debts amount to about £1,000 to different firms. The district has had very irregular seasons, in fact, I have not seen two of them alike.

7902. Looking at it from the Government point of view, what could the Government do to help the farmer?—I think the Government should have more stock for distribution, or even a couple of cows and a few pigs. Cattle do excellently here.

7903. By Mr VENN: If a butter factory was established do you think the farmers would support it?—I do not think the milk is rich enough for that. There is one month in the year that a cow can go on the crop. However, mixed farming is my idea of the way to run this country. We are using a wheat that we got over from the Eastern States two years ago. We sow 80lbs to the acre. It is called College Eclipse. We got three bags from the 80lbs. This year we put in 70 acres and got 290 bags. It looks somewhat like Federation but has a smaller grain and crops heavily. In Pinnaroo, where there is a 7in rainfall, it stripped 21 bushels. We are going to put in 300 acres this year on the jam country.

7904. Do you sow many South Australian wheats?—We have been sowing six or seven different kinds but the College Eclipse and Federation we think will pay best. It does not shake out; it cuts good hay.

FRANK HEYWOOD, Shackleton, Farmer, sworn and examined:

7905. By the CHAIRMAN: How long have you been in this district?—For six years. I have practivally no previous experience of farming. I hold 2,000 acres, of which I farm 1,000. I am 2½ miles from the railway. 800 acres is first class, the balance is lake and scrub; the price is 7s an acres and it was taken up in the early days. It is all fenced and 350 acres are cleared. The water supply is provided by the scheme for which 4d and acre and 6s per thousand is paid annually. When the water scheme was mooted it was a case of any port in a storm. The majority of the farmers were spending their time carting water and could do nothing on their holdings, so we signed the guarantees and got the water. We realised that the cost would be excessive, but the officials said that we should not raise any points at the time, but to get the pipe down and go for a reduction of price afterwards. To water your sheep at 6s is an impossibility. I have had correspondence with Mr Mitchell, and Mr Paterson and Mr O'Brien were here about four weeks ago. The Government took the position that they were losing money. Mr O'Brien said in his evidence that they had lost £400 on the extensions. If the Department is collecting off every farmer £22 or £23 per thousand acres, it seems impossible that they keep losing money.

7906. Do you understand that the rate includes sinking fund and interest on a 20-year basis?—When we go over our limit we are still charged the same price.

7907. The department does not provide above your limit. In order to proved cheap water they use the smallest pipe to convey the quantity which the Department contracts to supply and if you wanted more they could not supply it?—No one uses anything like the quantity for which they pay. Some of the water costs £5 a thousand. There are men here who pay £45 a year and do not use a drop but they were forced into the scheme by being in the one-third minority. With sheep, however, it is an impossible proposition.

7908-11. If you put down your own dam, the engineering evidence is that a tank of 1,500 yards will supply you sufficient water at a cost of about £200. A 2,500 yard dam with pipe would cost about £300?—But that might be on the corner of your holding and if you have stock you must water all your paddocks. I would say go on with the scheme because that would cost £15 for interest. My view is the water is being wasted at Mundaring. It is pumped three times after it leaves Kellerberrin. On the goldfields the cost is 2s 6d a thousand.

7912-13. By the CHAIRMAN: No, 7s?—That is for household purposes, but for sluicing it would probably be 1s 6d. Government control is altogether too expensive. For instance, there were four pegs that had to be put in at the wheat stacks the other day, a job that would take an hour. However, there was a motor car, an engineer, his assistant, and a man to drive the pegs in. It is the same with the water scheme, and I consider the £400 alleged loss is a mere flea bite.

7914. The £400 loss does not represent the position. The State gets nothing for the water, the extensions, or the head work expenses. All that you pay for is the actual extension. The cost of running the main is 6s per thousand on a 20 years' life, so the State is losing the interest and head work expenses which are paid by the Kalgoorlie people. Sluicing on the goldfields can only possibly pay 1s 6d. The cost of pumping that extra bit of water is 1s a thousand, and they actually make 6d on that. If your mains were bigger and you were using 10 millions a week it would then cost little more to pump that extra quantity?—Take my own case. I paid the Government last March £47 6s 11d., and a few weeks ago I received a letter demanding £23 2s 4d., and failing payment the water would be cut off. I wrote in reply and told them to take the farm as the thing was an impossibility. It is better for me to run 300 sheep and use water than do as I am doing now and make a loss.

7915. If a reduction is made the State has to face a continuous loss for ever?—Unless the State makes concessions until the industry is on a good basis. The industry wants assistance, not the individual. If the Government is going to make profit on everything they do for us the result will be that the industry must go.

7916-8. When you get away from the Goldfields Scheme the settlers are providing their own water at their own expense. Therefore does it not seem reasonable that if the pipe system is to be a continuous tax for ever it would be better to replace it with another system. Would it not be better for the