Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 86
image 86 of 99

This transcription is complete

the West Australian Bank and Ockerby & Co. in connection with getting that amount. We had been in a considerably worse position and by paying that £12,500 we were more favourably placed. I cannot tell you the extent of the negotiations without looking up the file.

1958. You pointed out that all sales of wheat were pooled after July last?—Only those sales of overseas wheat or flour outside the Australian Wheat Board contracts.

1959. Each State is allotted a proportion according to the quantity of wheat they hold of all the wheat shipped?—What is done is that in connection with all overseas sales the total proceeds are take into account less all the overseas expenditure as from the time the ships leave the shore, and the net results are divided between the different States on the basis of the quantity of wheat they have shipped.

.1960. In the earlier period Western Australia sent away a far larger proportion of their wheat than did the other States; consequently we had bigger interest to pay?—But a correspondingly small amount on the local overdraft.

1961. Suppose there was a million bushels sent from New South Wales and Victoria jointly, when a portion of that ought to have been sent from Western Australia, and in the interests of shipping space it was considered advisable to send it from the other States, would not a portion of that total be credited to Western Australia?—The money did not follow the shipments in all cases. Where undrawn documents were going forward with the boats the moneys had nothing to do with the shipments. The moneys were allotted to the various States from loans received by the Australia Wheat Board from the Imperial Government. No State was ever allowed to get into a credit balance.

1962. Some of the accounts for moneys due for wheat shipped were paid by the Commonwealth Bank; that is to say, you discounted the documents?—Yes.

1963. What did you pay for that convenience/—Only the current rate of exchange on documents between England and here, and according to whether we negotiated at sight or at thirty or at sixty days.

1964. You paid some £4,000 to the Treasury by way of interest?—Yes, they provided is with money on the 1915-16 crop to liquidate some accounts, for which we had not sufficient money of our own. The amount deducted when certificates were paid was really only sufficient to cover railages. We had to pay all expenses out of that amount. Certain settlers, particularly the Industries Assistance Board, did not present their certificates for payment at all smartly, and consequently there was not sufficient money in our expense account at the time, and a loan was secured from the Treasury.

1965. the certificates of the I.A.B. farmers were handed over to the I.A.B.?—Yes.

1966. So the delay was really on the part of the I.A.B.?—It was not a delay, it was intentional; all certificates not presented were earning interest.

1967. And was the interest they received the same as you were paying?—I think it was four per cent. in the first year.

1968. But the farmer was paying six per cent. Were the certificates credited to the farmer?—I cannot say, for I was not connected with the I.A.B. To me they were just the same as an ordinary settler.

1969. What rate of interest were you paying the Treasury?—Five per cent.

1970. If the certificates were not immediately credited to the farmer, the farmer was losing one per cent.?—I believe the practice with the I.A.B. was to credit the farmer's account the day they got the certificates.

1971. You said it would be some considerable time before accounts in regard to the 1916-17 and the 1917-18 harvests could be dealt with?—Yes, because the wheat here is unsold, and consequently all the advances we make are against the wheat.

1972. Apparently the West Australian interest is considerably higher than in any other State?—No, all the interest is on the same basis throughout the States.

1973. But Western Australia pays a higher proportion?—No, unless we had our shipment and advances earlier than the other States.

1974. Here is a report by the general manager, dated 21st March, which gives the interest debited against the various States as follows:—Victoria .391 pence, New South Wales .538 pence, South Australia .762 pence, Western Australia 1.049 pence?—I do not know if those figures apply to the whole of the interest. There are two phases of interest. There is the interest on the overdraft locally, and the interest on loans from the Imperial Government. The interest locally will depend upon our own local operations, or rather the interest on the local overdraft depends partly on our own local operations, but the overseas interest is apportioned according to the proportion of wheat each State ships. And, as I explained in that long report, to put each State on a fair basis a due date statement is prepared showing on what date each State received payment for the whole of its exportable surplus. The average due date for payments to all pools is ascertained, and if there be any difference, the State which has received payment prior to the proper date has to equalise it by paying interest to the central Pool, which pays it out to those States which have received payment on their overseas shipment later than the due date.

1975. there is a possibility of the interest being rectified at a late date when the wheat is disposed of?—Yes.

1976. And all the amounts in the balance sheet up to December, 1917, were paid in this State by way of interest, namely, £111,000 odd?—These figures do not represent payment but only book entries. I gave the exact figures in my statement so far as they could be ascertained. The total overseas interest to this State on its exportable surplus would be approximately £29,000, but this State received its proportion from the Imperial Government and shipments earlier than any other State did. Consequently, there would be a further amount to add to that £29,000. My estimate of that further amount is from £10,000 to £12,000 making our total net payment of interest for 1915-16, on account of overseas interest, approximately £40,000. None of these amounts in connection with interest are paid, but are shown in the sundry debtors' and creditors' items in the statements.

1977. I see an amount for sundry administration expenses, estimated at £750?—That is to cover the cost of administration, such as closing of the Pool, the wages of clerks, rent, and so on, from this date until the time when the Pool is eventually closed up. That is only an estimated amount.

1978. It is for local expenses only?—Yes.

1979. Would it not have been better to have shown the item as being estimated expenditure to meet probable additional payments?—The heading of the item is "sundry administration expenses, estimated from 1st January, 1918." Your figures should read 1918, and not 1917. The amount is from the date of this balance sheet to the closing of the Pool. That is a reasonable approximate estimate.

1980. Has any amount been drawn for travelling expenses from the Scheme for payment to Ministers?—I believe not. There are one or two items upon which there is now some discussion. I do not think that there has been any direct payments to Ministers from the Scheme.

1981. You think there are one or two items under discussion?—Mr Baxter's items are still under discussion, as to who shall make the payments.


1982. You mean that the expenses incurred by Ministers in going to the Eastern States to attend the board meetings are under discussion as to whether they should be charged to the Scheme or not?—Yes. In many cases, the majority of cases, Ministers travelling to the Eastern States have also done work in connection with their own department, generally the Department of Agriculture.

1983. And all charges are made upon the State except those at present under consideration?—I believe that is the case, but I will ascertain what the position really is.

1984. Have you been to the Eastern States in connection with the Wheat Scheme?—Yes, I was away for 22 days from the time I left till the time I returned.

1985. That is since Mr Berkeley's visit?—Yes. The impression is that these trips are picnics. I would point out that we are really a branch of one of the largest concerns in the State. The thing is too big for any one person to grasp the whole of, and it is consequently necessary that the heads of the different branches should confer one with the other. It would have been better for the whole of the State schemes at the outset to have had the various accountants confer and lay down a definite