Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 26
image 26 of 99

This transcription is complete

visitor you have referred to spoke of our system of stacking. He said the policy should be to protect all the wheat we can in silos. We are of the same opinion. We only intend to erect silos to hold a third of the normal harvest.

496. That method of storage will have to be applied to a large proportion of the wheat, no matter if you do erect silos? — That is so.

497. I notice the advisory committee consider it regrettable that you did not carry on the work in defiance of the wishes of Parliament? — I was in the East, but I did not read it that way.

498. You are aware that Parliament said they would not enter into the negotiations with Metcalf & Co.?—Yes.

499. Did you read this in any other way:—" The board expresses regret at the Government's disinclination to go on with bulk storage without local authority." Then also, "The board recommends the Minister to make further representations to Cabinet for calling tenders to construct silos, the contractors to supply their own plans. " How would you read that?—I take it to mean that they wish to convey that the Government should call for tenders to provide for bulk storage.

500. Were not the board aware of the fact that under the Commonwealth Act the money was not available except under certain conditions?—It would be available under those conditions.

501. The Federal Government appointed a commission and that commission consists of one representative from each State and one from the Commonwealth, and if the Commonwealth are not satisfied they can veto the whole thing?—The Commonwealth have not yet shown any dissatisfaction in connection with what has been done by the States.

502. There has been a good deal of criticism with regard to your action in connection with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. I find on looking through the file that a letter was sent out in August, 1917, asking the various wheat agents, including the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., whether they were prepared to continue, and also to submit quotations for the 1917-18 harvest. It was the intention then, I believe, that all the agents should be included?—That was the intention.

503. I also note here that the Minister and the Advisory Committee agreed to adopt a zone system, the reason for adopting it being for the purpose of saving expense and duplication of agents at the various sidings?—I never agreed to the zone system.

504. The letter was sent out by Mr. Sibbald and he stated that you were favourable to the proposal of adopting the zone system?—That letter was probably sent out by the general manager in order to get a quote. I never agreed to the zone system.

505. Then that statement was incorrect?—The general manager might have been searching for information. It was a most difficult matter to deal with. But the statement about the zone system, so far as I was concerned, was not correct.

506. I might add that you were not present at the meeting at which this was agreed to?—No. At two meetings I told the Committee I would not agree to the zone system.

507. The meeting was held on the 2nd August. A letter was sent by Mr. Taylor, of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., objecting to the zone system?—I do not remember.

508. I notice that they asked for an interview with you?—They asked for a number, but they did not get many.

509. You fixed an interview for them for the 27th August?—Yes.

510. Is it not customary that notes should be taken of the proceedings at an interview of this character?—Yes, notes would have been taken.

511. There is nothing further on the file?—Then I could not have met them or there would have been a record of the interview.

512. Did you have any interview during this period with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., in regard to the application of the zone system?—No.

513. Did they approach you in opposition to the zone system?—I do not remember. If I was so approached there should be a record of it.

514. There is here a long minute sent to you by Mr. Sibbald in regard to offers made by the co-operative societies affecting the handling of the wheat for 1917-18. As is quite usual, there are comments by the manager on the various offers made, comments for the information of the Minister. Apparently you resented the action of the manager in laying this matter before you in the way he did?—What did I resent?

515. Let me read your remarks, as follows:—I have carefully perused your minutes referring to the handling of next season's crop by agents. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government policy is to allow the co-operative societies which have been formed at various country stations and sidings, you still keep on the one subject of eliminating this and working on the zone system. Mr reading of your minutes is that you are offering every opposition to these societies. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I am administering the Wheat Scheme and you, as manager, should work in the direction of carrying out the policy as enumerated by me. I must ask you therefore to go into the matter of arriving at a scheme to allow the co-operative societies and the agents to handle next season's crop and let me have your recommendations. I also want to draw your attention to a matter contained in one of your minutes which by the way, is undated:—" The Westralian Farmers' rates compare favourably with mercantile agents' rates if we accept merely their face value. But it can reasonably be suspected from the close correspondence and slight differences that the Westralian Farmers had knowledge of mercantile quotes before making theirs." This certainly appears to me to be a reflection upon some member of the staff or myself and I must ask you to state on what grounds you make such an extraordinary and strong accusation. I think that is your minute?—That is quite right.

516. It appears to me you resented the tone of Mr Sibbald's comments on the offers of the co-operative society?—No, the feeling I had was that I had not Mr Sibbald's loyalty. Mr Sibbald had previously had definite instructions from me that the co-operative societies should not be eliminated. We discussed this matter. in committee before Mr Sibbald, and I told them all definitely that we could not eliminate the co-operative societies and work on the zone system, notwithstanding which Mr. Sibbald brought up this other minute. That is why I wrote so strongly to him. On the last point I have since had information that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., got their information from the Eastern States, but if you read Mr Sibbald's minute it looks like an accusation against some of the officers or myself.

517. You say the matter was discussed. According to the minutes the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Committee held three days after your display of resentment?—But they were told previous to that.

518. On the 28th September, I find this: "The Honorary Minister made it clear to the Committee that the Government could not agree to any zone system that would prevent the acquisition of wheat by the Farmers' Co-operative Societies"?—But Mr. Sibbald had definite instructions before that not to work on the zone system. That is why I wrote that minute.

519. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Were those instructions verbal or written?—They may have been verbal. He simply ignored my direction.

520. By the CHAIRMAN: You were very anxious to carry out the decisions arrived at by the Australian Wheat Marketing Board in regard to shipping, oversea sales, and handling?—They had no right to interfere with handling.

521. They tried to reduce the charges for the agents handling the wheat?—Then they met with poor success in the Eastern States.

522. You are aware that they attempted to do so?—No. As a matter of fact I think you are referring to the Committee.

523. No, I am referring to the Australian Wheat Board when they were discussing with the agents the advisability of cutting out sub-agents and allowing one sub-agent to handle up to 50,000 bushels with a view of reducing the charges?—That is not an Australian Wheat Board matter.