Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 20
image 20 of 99

This transcription is complete

331. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: When you took over the Wheat Scheme as controlling Minister on the 29th July, 1916, there was no legislation controlling it existing in this State?—I think not. I introduced the Bill.

332. Mr. Johnson in his evidence says that at the time he relinquished, the Wheat Marketing Committee in this State were practically an executive body. In the Bill which you introduced, and which was assented to in December of 1916, some six months afterwards, the committee were simply suggested to be an advisory committee?—That is so.

333. Who was responsible for that proposal, you or your predecessor in office?—I am certainly responsible for having submitted the Bill to Parliament, but I believe my predecessor left the Bill drafted. I would not like to say that definitely though.

334. Did you examine into the question of similar legislation existing in any other part of Australia before you introduce that Bill, seeing that the Pool was to be an Australian Pool?—I doubt if any legislation existed elsewhere. The marginal notes would show whether our Bill was taken from other legislation.

335. The only other Australian legislation constituting a committee that I can find is the New South Wales Act of 1914. Under that Act the committee have full power. I was wondering whether you could inform the Commission why the same system was not adopted in this State?—Have they a board in New South Wales?

336. Yes. There is no legislation providing for a board in the other States that I can find?—I object to a board of officials.

337. It does not say officials?—No, I say I should object to a board of officials. A board of independent men, independent of the Minister, who would have the right to criticise the Minister without any danger to themselves, is a safer thing.

338. The question of honorary does not come in. Why was the question of an executive board not included in the Bill instead of an advisory committee? Were you responsible for that, or did you take up the suggestion of your predecessor?—I probably took it up, but I agreed with it.

339. Whom does the wheat in the Pool belong to, the farmers who have an equity in it or the Government who make an advance against it?—It undoubtedly belongs to the farmers, but the Government have a claim on it.

340. The same as they have on anything they advance money against, such as a farm?—Certainly not in the same position.

341. But it is an advance such as on a farm or on implements?—No, it is different. If the Government advances on a farm the farmer must repay the advance, but where a guarantee is made by the Government of a minimum payment for wheat, the Government could not call on the farmer for the repayment of any portion of that.

342. Why should not the Committee controlling the Scheme have executive powers rather than advisory powers?—The question involves the management by a board or management under the present system by a manager.

343. By the Minister?—Who acts on the advice of the manager.

344. In that Act as it stands the Minister has absolute control?—Just as a Minister is in control of every Government department, but he is not expected to do all the work.

345. In the Act the power is vested in the Minister with the advice of a committee. I want to know why you were of that opinion when the asset was the property of the farmer and the Government only made an advance against it, why the advisory committee was not an executive body?—If you had an advisory committee, an executive body, it would have to be a highly paid body of men controlling that work.

346. It does not follow?—I think it would. I carried on the Scheme as I found it, but if I had had to set it up I should have done so as it was.

347. Mr. Johnson says so?—If I was a member of the Committee I should not have claimed to have administered the business in detail.

348. You say your carried on as your predecessor appointed it. He says it was an executive committee and as there was no legislation the committee was whatever the Minister made it, and he says it was an executive body?—I did not regard the committee as responsible for the management of the Scheme.

349. For advice?—They are unpaid men. It was not thought then that the Scheme would have lasted for any length of time. I doubt if you could have got a better method of handling the business unless you appointed a manager with greater powers.

350. You are of opinion that it should be controlled by the Minister with an advisory committee?—I would believe in giving the manager wider powers; that is worthy of consideration.

351. By the CHAIRMAN: Have you seen the balance sheet for the two years that was laid on the Table of the House?—No, I did not see it.

352. I noticed that there was a sum of £81,228 as interest on an Imperial Government loan?—That could not be right, that would be greater than the loan.

353. It is not wrong?—I thought you were referring to millions. I suppose that would be in connection with early payments.

354. You stated just now the British Government paid for their wheat; they did not advance money?—You were referring to the sale of wheat in 1917. They bought on certain terms.

355. Did the British Government, prior to that, advance money to the Australian wheat board to finance their pool?—It is more than likely they did.

356. You think they did?—It is more than likely. I think there was an advance, but it is impossible to remember all these details.

357. The British Government advance the money for carrying on the wheat Scheme and not the Commonwealth Government as we supposed, but they did so at the request of the Commonwealth Government while the States paid the expenses or guaranteed the expenses?—I do not think it matters to the farmers much where the money comes to. The question of finance between two Governments is often a question of convenience. For instance, it is quite possible that the money was paid by the Imperial Government as was done in New Zealand, because of the difficulty of getting the money out and transferring satisfactorily. It is quite possible, in fact, I think it was announced that the surplus in New Zealand of five millions was loaned by the British Government because the Imperial Government could not get their money out. It may have been a matter between the Imperial Government and the Commonwealth Government.

358. I notice that the interest paid was £111,000?—It is a large amount.

359. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: The first advance to the farmers under the Pool system was that money raised by the Federal Government from the Imperial Government?—In 1915-16 I think it was.

360. By the CHAIRMAN: In that case would the interest be charged to the various Pools of the different States?—It is possible.

361. This advance may have been in that nature?—The interest has to be paid in the same way.

362. This is only for two years?—It is a tremendous amount.

363. It is for Western Australia only, £111,426?—It seems a very large amount.

364. I also notice an item, travelling expenses to officers; what does it mean?—Would it be much?

365. It is £226?—It is of the officials.

366. My reason for asking the question is that it appears to me that the officials of a lot of them have a picnic out of the Pool?—During my time the only officers who went to Melbourne were Mr. Sutton who accompanied me, and Mr. Sibbald who was sent over by request.

367. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: In addition to the Ministers there have been Mr. Sutton on several occasions, Mr. Sibbald, Mr. Berkely, Mr. Keys, Mr. Pearse, and Mr. Hall. They have all had a turn?—I cannot say anything about the travelling since I left office. Mr. Pearse is a member of the wheat board now.

368. Wheat and bulk handling board?—I do not know why his expenses should be charged up to the wheat scheme.

369. Mr. Hall and Mr. Sutton would be au fait with this matter?—The accountant is the official.