Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 97
image 97 of 99

This transcription is complete

2237. Do you not think that the money the Westralian Farmers now get would be more beneficial to you instead of your society receiving less than they are getting?—I am not looking at the matter in that light. I look at the trouble which almost always occurs with Government departments. This is a very complicated department. It would be unsatisfactory for agents of any description scattered all over the State to conduct matters by means of telegrams and letters, which are always passing in profusion, and to have to wait for replies from the department and for general instructions. 2238. We were told that 64 co-operative societies are associated with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. I was wondering whether those co-operative societies could not, from an economical point of view, deal direct with the Scheme?—I do not think you understand the formation of a company, or you would not suggest that. Everything has a head and the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are only the head of our particular societies, and they have had very light remuneration for their work. They have provided inspectors to see that work is done in the outside districts. Regrettably, the Government department have also sent inspectors out for the same purpose. 2239. Is your co-operative society absolutely on its own and controlled by its members ?—Positively controlled by the shareholders. 2240. Then you are not in any shape or form dependent on the Westralian Farmers' Ltd.; you are only associated with them ?—That is so. We hold shares in the Westralian Farmers. It is not compulsory, but optional, to hold shares. 2241. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : What position do you hold in your local co-operative society ?—Chairman of directors. 2242. You say your society holds shares in the Westralian Farmers' Ltd. Do you understand the constitution of the body ?—Reasonably well. 2243. Is there anything in the constitution of that body to prevent any person not interested in farming operations from taking shares ?—No. But he must be a primary producer. 2244. But not necessarily a wheat farmer ?—A producer of wool, or wheat, or, I believe, of coal. 2245. So it is possible for that company to be controlled by directors not immediately interested in wheat production, if the directors are selected from among the shareholders who are not wheat producers ?—That is so. But it is not probable. 2246. So that the control of the whole wheat business might fall into the hands of those who are not producing wheat, fall into their hands as directors of that company ?—I say it is not possible. In the first place, the maximum number of votes any shareholder can have in that company is three, the minimum being one, and any person can hold one share. Directors are elected at shareholders' meetings, and the wheat growers and fruit growers generally elect those directors. Therefore such a thing could not happen. 2247. You mean that it could happen under the constitution ; I do not say whether it is probable or not ?—It could not happen without specially packed meetings. 2248. But, still, other interests might predominate amongst the shareholders ?—But they do not predominate. 2249. But they could do so under the constitution ?—The constitution lays it down that every shareholder must be a bona-fide primary producer. 2250. Assuming that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., ultimately became controlled by interests outside the wheat producing, as is possible under the constitution, then that body would not be the best body to handle the wheat in the interests of the farmer ?—That company is purely co-operative. 2251. But it is not a co-operative company; it is a limited company ?—The Westralian Farmers' Ltd., is truly co-operative, and it welcomes as a shareholder every man who is a bona-fide primary producer. I would rather not answer your question. I do not know how to answer it. 2252. By Mr. HARRISON: With regard to your co-operative movement, are there any means by which those putting business through the company participate in the interests of the company ?—Yes. For instance, the Westralian Farmers have what is known as a bonus shareholder debenture scheme, which repays to all men who do business with them the portion of profits accruing from that business, after allowing interest on the shareholders' capital, naturally. 2253. When was that scheme first inaugurated ?—It was finalised at a shareholders' meeting held in Perth during Show week last year ; during October. 2254. So that now, automatically, by the business put through the company, such people become shareholders ?—Yes. 2255. Are you directly connected with the receiving of wheat, or is that done by one of your subordinates ?—I hold an honorary position as chairman of directors, and am not at all directly connected with the receiving of wheat. 2256. Do you know the f.a.q. basis of your secretary's operations ?—Yes. 2257. What is the number of pounds per bushel ?—I believe it was 58 lbs. last year. 2258. How in the sampling of your wheat do you arrive at a conclusion that it is up to the standard fixed or above it or below it ?—We have a sample weighing machine, consisting of a small vessel made very carefully to scale, and a set of scales similar to, if not exactly like, those used for gold weighing. The measure holds a quantity of wheat which is supposed to represent exactly a bushel. In any case where wheat was subject to doubt the vessel was filled with wheat, and was levelled off with a pen when filled ; and then the wheat was weighed carefully, and if it contained foreign matter that foreign matter was blown out it after the weighing had been done, and each was weighed again separately. So what we knew exactly what foreign matter was in the wheat, and what was the net weight. 2259. Then it was not a matter of human approximation, or of guessing, or of sampling by the hand ; it was done with instruments ?—It was done in a scientific way with instruments. There was no guessing whatever where there was a doubt about a sample. 2260. Your description of the method goes to support your former statement that others who were not shareholders would be treated in a like manner to your directors ?—That is so. Every man delivering a load of wheat was welcome to put his sample over that machine. 2261. Was it usual to sample each farmer's wheat ?—Particularly so. It was one of our most stringent instructions to our secretary, to be very careful about sampling, because we knew last year that we had a mixed lot of samples to deal with. 2262. You did not take wheat on its face value, without testing ?—On no occasion. 2263. Was there any delay about farmers not getting their wagons unloaded at your centre —I do not think any such thing happened. We had a body of lumpers who were sufficient in numbers to handle a fair season. At the commencement of the season we put on more than was required. 2264. Then there was no valid reason for complaining about delay in unloading ?—I do not think there was. 2265. Had you more than one group of men stacking ?—Yes, frequently in the Dowerin yard we had two groups of men stacking and one trucking. Not always, however, because the circumstances did not always warrant this. 2266. Did you get much of your wheat from either of the three places you were operating at delayed for want of trucks, or was it all temporarily stacked ?—Some of it was going all the time. We did work at times three sets of lumpers, two stacking and one trucking. 2267. Was much of your wheat damaged in transit for want of covering ?—If there was, it was only a small quantity. 2268. By the chairman : You referred to the Wheat Scheme as a Government department. Is it not really only a semi-department for the purpose of handling wheat only ?—I suppose that is right. I only referred to it as a Government department in reply to some of your questions. 2269. You stated that as a rule the Government departments are negligent in replying to correspondence, and that in a scheme of the description, where it is necessary for correspondence to be attended to immediately, there was a possibility of delays occurring if matters were not attended to promptly ?—Yes.