Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 10
image 10 of 99

This transcription is complete

three years, it cannot be remedied. I have not yet been able to get them to issue a statement of receipts and expenditure, which the farmers have a right to. I am amazed that the farmers should submit to such a position and I received a statement 12 months or more ago and straightaway I wired the manager suggesting that it should be published. However, they would not agree to that. i have not heard that the balance sheet is forthcoming, and I suggest that the Commissioners should urge upon the Government that a balance sheet should be produced. Another point which I think should be gone into is that of the wharf charges. The storages I have mentioned amount to £1,000 a month, which is excessive. After paying interest and sinking fund on the grain sheds and railway tracks, it leaves a profit—assuming that the bags are carried 19ft. or 20ft. high—if 2s. 9d. per ton per annum. In Williamstown the charge is 2½d. per ton per annum, as against the profit to the Fremantle Harbour Trust of 2s. 9d. per ton per annum. There are other charges, all of which are higher than in the Eastern States. These charges could be secured of obtained from the secretary to the Committee. The next and most important recommendation I would make is that the wheat should be stored in bulk instead of bags. It was a fatal blunder the Minister made in regard to the skeleton sheds. Not only is it a direct cost against the farmer, but it will have only a breakdown value afterwards. In addition to which the wheat is not protected from weevils. Some are living in false hopes that Professor Lefroy has found a method of destroying the weevil, but I find that the matter is still in the experimental stage. During the last month I have read of experiments being made in New South Wales, of wheat being passed in trays over extreme heat, with the result that a large percentage, but not all, the weevils were destroyed. If Professor Lefroy's system of drying the wheat with lime were effectual, they would not now be experimenting in other directions. Of course the question of bulk storage is a big one in itself. With your permission I would like to read a little extract from a Press interview given in Sydney by Mr Walter Scott, Premier of Saskatchewan. In reply to a question as to the benefits Canadian farmers derive from the system of bulk handling of grain, Mr Scott said:— Why you might as well ask what benefit we receive from the sun, the frost and the snow, they are so manifold. It is the life of our wheat-growing industry, and it would not be possible to handle our harvest without it. No one in Canada would dream of the possibility of transporting grain in bags. It is altogether inexplicable to me that you people here can submit to your present system. The following is an extract from the "West Australian" published on the 27th August, 1917:— Liverpool, 26th August.—The corn trade association has passed a resolution expressing the hope that the Government will soon be successful in providing tonnage for the transport of the large wheat supplies lying in Australia. It has also passed a resolution expressing the hope that New South Wales will carry out the bulk handling of grain. I read that because there is an argument used that importers in Great Britain do not want wheat in bulk. The following is a recommendation from the general meeting of the league for the promotion of industries and post-war projects held in Perth:— This meeting of architects and engineers views with grave apprehension the reported decision of the authorities to abandon the proposal to erect wheat silos in this State, on account of the difficulties in the way of providing for ferro-concrete construction, and is of opinion that storage granaries, using local timbers and materials for bulk storage are preferable to, and more economical then, sheds for bag storage. Timber construction is freely used in other countries, being usual and economical. A matter of the very greatest importance is in connection with the protection of the wheat, which faced us during the preparation of the last harvest. We then realised, from information received from the Eastern States, that we would have to hold that wheat for three years. We know that practically all of last year's wheat was eaten with weevil. To me it seemed criminal to carry on on the same system, when the people of this country were incurring a risk of two million pounds, on what we expected at that time , namely, a 10 million bushel harvest. It appeared to me as most probable that we would lose the whole of the wheat through weevils under the bag system. Certainly there was the expense of storage in silos, but the Federal Government offered a large sum towards that, their offer being between £200,000 and £300,000. Notwithstanding that, however, the country was running an enormous risk, even if it had to carry some of the burden in addition to that which it carried at present. The advantages so far as the farmers are concerned are considerable. There is the cost of reconditioning the wheat in bags and the loss of the natural increase. By the agreement the natural increase was tot he credit of the Pool, but we found in practice that this did not pan out, because where the shipper was behind in his weights, although we know that wheat had been lost through the rotting in certain stacks, still his weights were always up, so that the loss of weight was generally written off by the increase, and in the end the shipper had nothing to make up. We estimated the cost of reconditioning and the loss of the natural increase at about 2d. a bushel. The second point of advantage would be in the reduction of the handling charges, to the extent of about 1½d. to 2d. a bushel on the 1916-17 system. The agents at present are not carrying the same burden as they were during the previous year. In the previous year apart from Fremantle, they had to find the roofing for their wheat, but this year they have not to do that. The third point is in regard to the saving in sacks, which this year will amount to about 4d. per bushel. The advantage to the farmer will, therefore, be approximately 8d. per bushel. With regard to storage in bulk, I have here some photographs taken in Kellerberrin which will show the enormous risks the farmers are running, as well as the country, in the storage of wheat in bags. It will be seen from the photographs that some of the stacks are under water. 85. By Mr BROWN : What amount of filling up would be required there?—The water is about three feet deep and a bank of earth of that depth would be necessary. 86. By Mr HARRISON : How many bags up does the water go?—About two bags, but there was double dunnage under some of the wheat. 87. By Mr BROWN : What quantity of wheat is there in the stacks?—About 40,000 bags. 88. By the CHAIRMAN : You said it was clearly understood that no politics were to be brought in so far as the management of the board was concerned?—That is so. 89. How long did matters continue in that way? Were they ever altered?—I assume that Mr Mitchell's resentment against the general conduct of affairs was based on politics. 90. By Mr HARRISON: Did his resentment first make its appearance in the Press?—I do not know. 91. Did he say anything in the Press that was detrimental to the working of the scheme?—Not that I know of. If there had been anything I would have taken up arms. 92. By the CHAIRMAN : You stated that you had serious opposition from the farmers at the commencement, which prevented you from getting the wheat away in December. You said you had the ships. Were they ships offered by the Commonwealth charterers?—they were diverted when we could not fill them. 93. The Commonwealth charterers got the ships?—yes. 94. the statement has been made in the Press that if the Commonwealth had not interfered in the shipping, the usual brokers could have obtained plenty of ships to take away the first 1915-16 harvest from here. Was anything in regard to this matter brought before your committee?—That is contrary to all the information that we received, and it would have been impossible to have moved the harvest and the farmers would have been ruined. 95. Did you have any offer from the brokers to supply ships for the Western Australian harvest for December and February which meant the taking away of