Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 72
image 72 of 99

This transcription is complete

1710. Do you know anything about a statement made by Mr Hammond where Mr Padbury was charged less than for f.a.q. wheat?— I do not quite know what Mr Hammond had in his mind but I have brought up a file here which if I read extracts from may be of assistance to the Commission. I am reading from précis W.M.S file No. 79/17.

  In May, 1917, a sale of 2,030,00 bags of weevilly wheat ex-North Fremantle stacks of J. Bell & Co., Louis Dreyfus & Co., and the Westralian Farmers' was arranged at the rate of 4s. 9d. f.o.b. less a dockage of 3d. for inferiority, for wheat for flour for the Imperial order, and for wheat for private export flour at price ruling at time of shipment for wheat for flour export at the port of discharge less a similar dock 3d. per bushel. Where weevilly wheat was separated from the sound and the weevilly wheat only sent to the mill a rebate of 6d. was to be allowed. The first parcel from Bell's stack also to be at a dock of 6d per bushel. In the early part of June, 1917, a dispute arose between the mill and Messrs. Darling & Dreyfus as to the difference in weights of wheat as at Fremantle and East Guildford. It was arranged at this time that in future all wheat going from North Fremantle to the mill would be weighed at the port and the weight marked on the bags. The mill had an interview with Mr Sibbald on 21st June and applied for a rebate on bags owing to their bad condition. Mr Sibbald arranged that they should be allowed 9d. per bag on 90 per cent, of all wheat forwarded subject to the mill agreeing as to the agents' weights of wheat then dispute.
 I think possibly that 9d. per bag allowance for bad bags was the 3d. per bushel that Mr Hammond may have had in his mind when he said that 4s. 9d. wheat was sold at 4s 6d., but as a fact that 9d. per bag allowance has never been made because we could never agree as to the weights. It said " subject to the mill then in dispute." It has not been paid to this date. That is the only thing I can account for.

1711. The matter has not been settled yet? — It is settled so far as the Scheme is concerned. We are not going to pay Padbury unless he takes the weights, and we know he will not take the weights.

1712. Are there any other claims at the present time from agents which have not been finalised?— Reconditioning 1915-16?

1713. Any claims at all?— There are 1915-16 reconditioning claims by Ockerby, Dreyfus, and Westralian Farmers which have not been absolutely finalised, and the reconditioning claims at the Kumminin dumps by Bell & Co., although substantial amount have been paid on account.

1714. That is 1915-16 wheat?— Yes.

1715. Are there any claims for the 1916-17?— Yes, there are certain claims in connection with the winding up of the 1916-17 Pool. The basis of the claims has been settled; it is only a question of getting at the details, quantity of timber, iron, dunnage, etc.

1716. How were you able to find out, as far as the wheat was taken over in December, 1917, that the quantities were there?— That is a matter arranged by Mr Key's, the manager. They have taken the weights of the stacks as railed away— taken the railway weights.

1717. Any damaged stuff there you had to pay for; the agents were not ; liable for any loss?— Subject to an allowance on the basis of three per cent.

1718. You prefer that we should ask Mr Keys?— I would. The details are on the file.

1719. As to silos, we should refer to Mr Pearse?— As to the nature of construction and what has been done, yes.

1720. When the agreement was being fixed up with Metcalf & Co. was it done on the advice of the board or merely by the Minister outside the board?— It was on the advice of the special committee appointed by the Minister, comprising Mr Sutton, Mr Pearse, and Mr Hammond, the Engineer-in-Chief— there were quite a lot.

1721. Can you tell us whether any expenditure was entered into prior to the agreement being signed as to the silos?— I do not quite understand you.

1722. Any expenditure in connection with the Scheme before the agreement was signed; any work ordered to be done?— By Metcalf? Mr Pearse's visit to the east was before the agreement was actually signed. He was there at the time the agreement was signed.

1723. I noticed the board passed a resolution saying it was advisable to buy some material, especially steel and cement. Was anything done in the direction?— Only authority was given to Mr Pearse to make inquiries whilst he was in the east getting options, but no money was concerned.

1724. No money expenditure was incurred at all?— No.

1725. Was Metcalf ordered to do any work?— None at all.

1726. They did no work prior to the signing of the agreement?— I would not say that; they did do work which they were not paid for and they have not asked for payment; it was work done in their office while Mr Pearse was there. They assisted Mr Pearce in quite a number of ways in regard to bulk storage.

1727. I notice here a letter from Mr Carter, Chief Engineer for Metcalf & Co., written 3rd January, 1918, dealing with the agreement, in which he states—

  Clause 2, you will recall, was to have had a qualifying clause with regard to payment for plans made at the Government's request before Parliamentary ratification was obtained. We quote herewith from our memo to you dated 29th November, which was forwarded with the draft agreement: Page 2, Para. 2.— We are quite agreeable to the agreement being subject to parliamentary ratification, but there must be some qualifying clause providing that our company be paid in full for all work undertaken on the Minister's instructions prior to the date of such formal parliamentary approval.?— That is quite right; no Ministerial instruction was given.

1728. No work was done?— As I say, there was advice given but no actual work was done for which we are liable to pay. that will be disclosed later on on that file where, after the legislative Assembly had made certain alterations, Metcalf wired over for instructions to proceed with certain preliminary work.

1729. You mentioned that no order was given by the Government for any work to be done so far as Metcalf & Co. were concerned?— That is so.

1730. Therefore they have no claim on the Government?— None at all unless it is a moral claim for the assistance which they gave to Mr Pearse while he was in Melbourne.

1731. Can you tell us whether any other firms have made claims for consideration in connection with the bulk handling Scheme?— There is some correspondence on the file from Porter & Co., or Symons. But Mr Pearse will be able to tell you all about that.

1732. Are you aware that Mr Sibbald sent a wire as manager of the Scheme and pointed out that Mr Porter, whom he could not see as he was in Sydney, represented a firm named Spencer & Co. who, in his opinion, were preferable to Metcalf & Co.?— I do not remember him saying that they were preferable unless he was referring to the machinery.

1733. The telegram which is on the file states " Prefer them to Metcalf"?— I remember that. Mr Sibbald brought back certain pamphlets in connection with Spencer's machinery. Spencer's is purely a machinery firm and any specifications which might have been submitted would have been with the object of suiting their particular machines.

1734. Did you ever see a report which was sent out by Mr Connolly, the Agent General, with reference to Metcalf's?— I heard it referred to in the house, but did not see it.

1735. He said that Metcalf's were principally machinery people?— I am not aware of that.

1736. If that is so, both firms would be on an equal footing?— I am not in a position to express an opinion.

1737. I noticed in the balance sheet there is an item, sundry administration expenses £750. Does that include the amount you paid to the Australian Wheat Board as your share of the general expenses?— I do not think so. This refers to 1915-16. I do not think there were any amounts paid by the local Scheme to the Australian Wheat Board in that season. If they were they would be shown separately.