Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 101
image 2 of 100

This transcription is complete

tical affairs.The Scheme will have to be carried on for years to come, possibly at the least for a year or two after the termination of the war until conditions have settled down. We have been met with an objection from Mr. Baxter on the ground that the Australian Wheat Board will not permit it. I have been over to three conferences of farmers in the Eastern States and I have seen Senator Russell on one occasion and Mr. Hughes on two occasions, and as I was the principal spokesman for the farmers on those occasions, I know what I am talking about. Mr. Hughes told us that the management and the care of the wheat in the States was purely a State concern, and when we have brought under his notice, from time to time, mistakes and errors of judgement he has put us off with the same answer, that so far as they are concerned they are only dealing with the financing and the shipping. Before ever the suggested amendments were moved by Mr. Greig in the Legislative Council, to introduce an executive board, the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments in conjunction had guaranteed for this next year 4s. per bushel f.o.b. and nothing was ever said with regard to the necessity for keeping this a Government controlled department. When Mr. Baxter made that announcement on his return from Melbourne , our Association got into touch at once with the acting Prime Minister. Just before that, however, we received a letter from Mr. Colebatch who was acting Premier at the time. It is dated 15th May, 1918, and reads:—

I have the honour to inform you with reference to the principal claim of your deputation, that an executive board be set up in place of the present advisory board, under Ministerial control, it now seems impossible for Cabinet to take this into consideration, for the reason that the guarantees on the 1918-19 and the 1919-20 seasons wheat are being made by the State and Commonwealth Governments conditionally on the States retaining full responsibility and control of the wheat. Note.— This was decided as you have probably observed in the Public Press at the recent conference of the Wheat Commission in Melbourne. I regret therefore it seems to me out of the power of the Government to take into consideration the case you have presented under this heading.

Our Association then wired to the acting Prime Minister on the date of the public announcement made by Mr. Baxter—

Re Australian Wheat Pool—Reported here that Australian Wheat Board Ministers at recent meeting, Melbourne, decided that State Governments, if desiring to remain in Pool and receive benefits, must retain complete control of Wheat Scheme in their respective States. Please advise what authority this board has for its decision, which conflicts with Mr. Hughes' statements from time to time that each State only is concerned in the handling and preservation of their harvest and Australian Wheat Board is not responsible in any manner regarding details. In Western Australia the farmers are demanding proper representation on an executive board. Wool board matters in this State are under growers' representatives' control.

An early answer will oblige.

Under date, 23rd May, the secretary to the Prime Minister replied as follows:—

Your telegram 14th, resolution referred to and conditions under which it is proposed that growers should be given guarantees in respect of 1918-19 and 1919-20 harvests, and it cannot be regarded as in any way conflicting with the statements made by the Prime Minister.

That is a non-committal message. To make doubly sure of the position, we wired our kindred associations, that is to say, the Farmers and Settlers' Association of New South Wales, the Farmers' Society of South Australia, and the Victorian Farmers' Union, as follows:—

Have dispatched the following wire to Acting Prime Minister re Australian Wheat Board.

And we followed with the wire as set out to him, and we asked them to make inquiries. We also wired to Mr. Murray and to Mr. Stirling Taylor, who were in Melbourne at a co-operative conference, not that they are in any way connected with our association, but they are interested in a co-operative company which is handling the whole of the Western Australian wheat at the present time. Under date 16th May, Mr Hall, the secretary to the Victorian Farmers' Union, wired as follows:—

Australian Wheat Board will not interfere local management. Still function of State Governments decide local management, including handling. No obligations make handling State monopoly. Giles confirms.

Mr. Giles is the farmers' representative on the central Wheat Board. Mr. Murray wired amongst other things as follows:—

We saw Hall and Giles. Both say no truth in rumour.

We then wrote to Mr. Colebatch under date 17th May, giving him particulars of those wires. We received another wire from Mr. Campbell of the Farmers and Settlers' Association of New South Wales under date 24th May, as follows:—

Our Minister for Agriculture states definitely no move by Australian Wheat Board interfere with State operations in connection their wheat control. Co-operative representatives called today and suggested I wire you advising our Minster's statement.

We recognise that if this guarantee was given by the Commonwealth or the States Governments subject to the Government retaining control, we would be practically out of court in asking that an executive board be established, instead of a Minister and an advisory board which is never consulted. But we submit that if your Commission takes evidence on that point they will find that the guarantee was given without any stipulation at all as to where the management was.

2305. Before you proceed further, let me read you this confidential minute recording the resolution carried at the conference held in April last (Minute accordingly read)?— But the guarantees were announced earlier than that and no conditions were made.

2306. I merely interrupted you to show that Mr. Colebatch's letter was correct? — Yes.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.