Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 71
image 71 of 99

This transcription is complete

1684. That has been brought about since December last?—Yes. There was a three months' break in the meetings of the committee.

1685. That is to say, the Minister was controlling the Scheme with the officers he had for the time being?—Yes. The trouble was this: Mr. Bickford, the third member of the board, was away in the Eastern States, and there were only Mr. Hammond and Mr. Field in this State. They agreed not to have a meeting in October. A meeting was called for a particular date, and Mr. Hammond wired down to say that he and Mr. Field had agreed not to hold the meeting. On the 31st October the new board or committee was formed, Mr. Bickford dropping out and Mr. Sutton and Mr. Pearse coming on. The 31st October was also the day on which Mr. Sibbald's resignation took effect. On the 2nd or 3rd November the Minister and Mr. Sutton went East. In the East they were to deal with the most important matters engaging the Scheme at that time. So there were practically left in this State only Mr. Pearse and Mr. Field. Mr. Hammond had sent down a note declining to accept the position on the new board because it was not an executive board. Immediately upon receipt of that note I took it upon myself to write to Mr. Hammond asking whether he would be willing to meet in Perth should any matter of important crop up whilst the Minister and Mr. Sutton were away. He replied that he would. Nothing of sufficient importance, in my opinion and in that of Mr. Field, whom I consulted, occurred to justify the holding of a meeting until the return of the Minister and Mr. Sutton. That is why there was an apparent hiatus of three months in the meetings of the board.

1686. How did Mr. Bickford drop out?—He simply was not appointed when the new board was formed. I have no official knowledge why Mr. Bickford was dropped.

1687. So far as you know, he did not resign?—No. There was a letter sent to Mr. Bickford thanking him for his services and explaining that it had been decided to amalgamate the Advisory Committee with the old Bulk Handling Advisory Board.

1688. The Minister really thought it is advisable to appoint a new board for the time being?—Yes; to amalgamate it with the bulk storage board. Just at this time there was a lot of talk as to why the Government had not moved in the matter of bulk storage.

1689. Then the only difficulty which occurred as regards the board occurred from the time Mr. Johnson left office up to the 27th December, 1917?—That is 18 months. In what way do you mean difficulty? I do not think I have mentioned anything about any difficulty.

1690. I admit that you did not. Between July of 1916 and December of 1917—the 27th December was the date of the first meeting of the new board—the board were treated differently from the manner in which they had been treated previously?—As regards the period from July, 1916, to December, 1917, I do not know that the board were treated differently so far as the work of the Scheme was concerned. It was not until the 26th December that Mr. Sibbald was appointed general manager.

1691. The Minster did not take any interest in the board after Mr. Johnson left office?—I would not suggest that. All I would say is that the Minister did not attend the meeting in the same way as Mr. Johnson had done.

1692. Then the position was that you had to send your decisions to the Minister and wait for his approval or otherwise?—Oh no! As a fact, the decisions were carried out as soon as they were passed by the board, unless, of course, there was anything very important, and that would be submitted to the Minister in the same way as it would have been had Mr. Johnson been the Minister.

1693. Would Mr. Hammond's statement not be correct that the board found it necessary to send minutes on the Minister and then wait for the Minister to deal with them before the board could finalise?—That refers to the period when Mr. Sibbald became general manager. At least, I think so.

1694. It happened during the period when Mr. Sibbald was manager?—Yes.

1695. Do you think the present system, if followed out, would give satisfaction to the owners of the wheat?—The owners of the wheat are such peculiar individuals, because there are so many of them, and it is very difficult to get a reliable concerted opinion.

1696. We have been told on several occasions that the farmers are the owners of the wheat, and they, according to general opinion, think it is necessary that the board should have greater power and that the farmers should be represented on that board?—I do not think that the farmers really know the full facts. We are all hoping that as the result of this Commission they will know the full facts.

1697. I notice you drew attention to Mr. Hammond's statement regarding office accommodation. Were the officers you occupied suitable for the work which you were carrying on prior to the change?—No; they were most unsuitable.

1698. They met all requirements?—We made them meet all requirements. They were two old underground offices at the Agricultural Department, and portion of the Agricultural Department's staff were in one of the rooms. Our accounts officers were upstairs, so were our record officers, so was the Minister, and so was the chairman.

1699. Those officers were not costing the Scheme anything at that time?—Not in pounds, shillings and pence.

1700. So the change brought about an expenditure of £515 per annum?—Not immediately. The change referred to by Mr. Hammond did not. The amount would be approximately £300 to £350. The increase to £515 has arisen by reason of the extra increase of staff since the present general manager took over. Really we have been paying that amount of £515 only since January.

1701. Is it not a pretty heavy amount for office accommodation when you are doing only a portion of the work?—No. Considering the number of officers accommodated,, and considering that the officers are in the City, it is very cheap. It works out at about 4s. 7d. per officer per week. I do not think you could get accommodation much cheaper than that.

1702. I do not see how you can base a fair comparison on that, because everything depends on the rooms which you occupy?—The rooms which the staff occupy, naturally.

1703. If the work could be carried out without the expenditure of that sum of £515, do you think that, considering the conditions under which the farmers have been labouring, it would be preferable to save this £515 a year?—No. If you have a staff you must be accommodate them.

1704. Do you think it is necessary that this money should be expended?—If not on the present offices, then on others equally or more suitable. These could be improved on.

1705. The change was not brought about merely owing to the change in the housing of the Minister?—No. You are talking about the present Minister?

1706. The present Minister is occupying practically the same offices as the last Minister; in the same building?—The change was not brought about altogether because of the Minister, though to an extent it was. What happened was that when the new general manger came in he found the accounts staff controlled by the accountant of the Agricultural Department. That meant that a portion of the staff were at the Agricultural Department building, and a portion in the A.M.P. building. The general manager made a change, whereby the whole of the accounts were put under an accountant who confined his attention entirely to the Scheme work. That is why Mr. Child was appointed as accountant. The change enabled staff, which had been split before, to be brought together under the one roof in close touch with the administrative officers of the Scheme.

1707. That is, after the change had been made the Agricultural Department had nothing to do with your accounts?—After the accounts officers were all brought up to the A.M.P. building, in January.

1708. Was satisfaction given by the manner in which the accounts were kept previously?—By Mr. Berkeley, yes, I think so. I do not think there was any cause at all for complaint.

1709. There was no need to change on that account?—No.