Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 29
image 29 of 99

This transcription is complete

594. Who would have been responsible for not having the agreement signed three or four months ago? Who would be responsible for the neglect?—There was no neglect. A contract was entered into by the Perth mill and they wanted to claim the rights of getting the full benefits of the contract. That, I would not agree to. The object I had in view in entering the agreement was to combat the weevil.

595. Do you not think three months a long time?—Yes, it is.

596. If you had stopped the supply for a day or two it would have made all the difference?—But we would have defeated ourselves.

597. In connection with our incoming harvest, do you think the Scheme which we had before Parliament could be put into operation early enough to receive the harvest—I am referring to the Metcalf Scheme?—If a Bill was passed next session—say there was a session in August, I could have provision next year for 1½ to two million bushels ready by January or February.

598. Our aim should be for the farmers to get their wheat to the ports by the end of March at the outside?—Not to the ports.

599. But the cheapest way would be to truck it and send it to the centres for storage?—The silos will be built in the wheat areas.

600. If the committee recommended that the wheat should all go to the ports, would that be a disadvantage to the farmers?—Yes, the cost of construction would mean that there would not be one-half the space at the ports.

601. I am speaking of wooden silos to hold three million bushels at Fremantle?—It would not do to put wooden silos at Fremantle; we have weevil there already.

602. Would new wheat put into wooden silos have a tendency to become weevily?— No, certainly not, but as time went on the wood would shrink and the weevil could get through where the shrinkage occurred.

603. In the minutes they mapped out a suitable scheme for depot sheds. Are those depot sheds like these skeleton sheds?—Yes.

604. So far you have been preparing for a continuance of the skeleton sheds?—Yes.

605. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Mr. Johnson stated that when running the Scheme, the committee he appointed was practically an executive committee?—He used it as an executive committee, I suppose.

606. You do not think it should have been an executive committee?—No, I do not.

607. To whom does the unsold wheat belong in the Pool?—To the farmers.

608. Who should control it?—It belongs to the farmers, but the Government are financially responsible.

609. When the Government advance money on implements, to whom do they belong?—The farmers, but the two things do not run on the same lines. You place an executive board in control of the wheat and the State guarantees 4s. 4d.; the Government are responsible, yet if an executive board is appointed, they hand their responsibility to that board.

610. The Government sees that the stacks are kept in order. What control have you over the farmer and his implements?—There is no great control beyond security of his implements.

611. As a matter of fact, under present arrangements, there is a certain amount of Government expenditure?—Unnecessary expenditure; I do not think so.

612. Your salary is charged to consolidate revenue, yet a considerable amount of time is given to the Pool. I take it the same thing applies to the officers?—Not in that way; the Scheme pays the officers' salaries.

613. Anyhow, you think this Scheme should be controlled by the Minister?—By an advisory board under the control of the Minister.

614. You think the advisory committee should be consulted on all important questions?—Yes. Whenever it is at all possible an advisory board is consulted.

615. Even to the appointment of a manager?—Yes, but with my appointment it was not possible to consult the board. I had first to get Mr. Keys to agree and then, which is the most important point, I had to get Dreyfus to release him from a contract.

616. Could you not have made a tentative agreement?—I wanted a man with technical knowledge. We had the whole of the harvest upon us with very little preparation made by Mr. Sibbald.

617. Was there no one who could have taken charge for a week or so?—They were doing their best.

618. The committee met every fortnight?—Yes.

619. So that there would have been only a fortnight's delay. Could not the committee have been called together to consult with you?—There are a lot of technical matters that none of us were acquainted with.

620. The committee were ignored?—That is the only case of mine where I acted before placing the matter before the Committee.

621. Are you satisfied with the auditing arrangements by the Auditor General? Could the audit arrangements be improved upon?—I do not think so. We have the highest authority in the land auditing the accounts.

622. Do you know when Mr. Keys was appointed?—I think it was on the 3rd December, but I am not sure on that point.

623. As a matter of fact, he was appointed during the period when the committee did not meet for three months?— I do not think it was three months; I think there is something wrong there.

624. There is no record. His first report is at the first meeting of the committee after he was appointed?—Yes.

625. You do not think there would be any advantage in having a continuous audit?—I do not think the expense would be warranted.

626. How do you find the Auditor General dealing with matters; are they promptly dealt with?—Yes. In connection with the 1915-16 harvest I tried to get that out in the latter part of the year. The trouble is in getting the particulars up to date, and although I laid the balance sheet on the Table of both Houses, we have to get some debits before we can finalise the 1915-16 Pool.

627. Do you think the small expense of a continuous audit would be justified to keep the farmer satisfied?—Any farmer can come in and get information at any time. As a matter of fact there is a continuous audit. A trial was made in New South Wales, where a Mr. Barton was engaged at a cost of £600 to audit the 1915-16 Pool. Mr. Barton could do no good except to make one small recommendation. Since then the farmers in New South Wales are content with the ordinary audit carried out there. We have a better system here.

628. By The CHAIRMAN: You are paying £300 a year here?—I would not like to say how much it is.

629. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: The question of cost would not enter into it?—I do not know whether it would be possible to get a firm of auditors outside as sound as the Auditor General's staff.

630. In Canada they have a Grain Standards Act. Have you ever considered that aspect of the question so far as Australia is concerned, that is having an f.a.q. standard for Australia?—I have tried to get the other States to agree to that, but have not been able to induce them to look my way yet.

631. Has this State suffered an injustice through not having the f.a.q. standard?—If you will read my minutes you will see. New South Wales has been docked 4d. a bushel for low quality wheat. This State did suffer in that direction for a little time. The f.a.q. of this State is better than that of the other States. What I asked was that having an f.a.q. standard, if the other States were below that standard, they should be debited accordingly. If our State has a better quality we should receive the benefit of it. I still intend to fight for it at the next conference.

632. Did the old acquiring agents pay anything for their release?—Yes.

633. How was it arrived at?—I do not know. Mr. Hall will be able to tell you. There was an adjustment for the release of their obligations.

634. Was any expense incurred in connection with the bulk handling investigation charged against the Wheat Scheme?—Not up to date.

635. In the event of our having utilised that £391,000 the Federal Government are prepared to advance for the construction of silos, who would have to pay interest?—The Wheat Pool direct.

636. Did you ever hear of any difficulty from a shipping point of view of carrying wheat to distant parts