Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 129
image 30 of 100

This transcription is complete

Farmers, Ltd.?—I do not know. I know the local agent is not carrying the same responsibility. 2910. And as regards the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—I do not know what their responsibilities are under their particular agreement. 2911. You are aware that the Government provide all roofing and dunnage necessary?—Quite so. 2912. And that the agents had to provide those things previously?—Yes. They are not put to the same expense this year as previously. 2913. You must admit that owing to not carrying the same responsibility there will be less cost for handling?—No. No less cost in the handling. 2914. But less money paid to the agents and the Westralian Farmers on account of their not providing either roofing or dunnage?—Less money paid by the Scheme to the acquiring agents, yes. 2915. Have not the roofing and the dunnage to be paid for all the same?—Yes. 2916. Are you taking that into consideration?—Dunnage should not cost the Scheme much; but, of course, if the matter was entirely under the control of the farmers they would have to pay for dunnage; and certainly the dunnage is of value, and so is the roofing. But, having been paid for once, it remains the property of the people who pay for it, and does not require paying for every year. 2917. But the position is that this thing is likely to stand for some years, and that the dunnage cannot be used every year?—Certainly it can. Of course it cannot be used again unless the stack is removed. 2918. By Mr. HARRISON: Did you use sleeper dunnage at your centre?—We were supposed to, but at the eleventh hour we had to buzz round and provide ordinary dunnage, the same as in other years, on account of the Scheme not being able to supply the sleepers. 2919. By the CHAIRMAN: You are paid additional for providing dunnage?—No. The Scheme provided it. We were only acting for the Scheme, procuring for the Scheme. 2920. But they pay you for that?—Yes. 2921. Then you were paid additional for providing dunnage?—Yes. 2922. By Mr. HARRISON: The dunnage supplied by the Railway Department was merely on hire?—I do not know. The Scheme provided those railway sleepers. 2923. By the CHAIRMAN: But you were paid extra for the rough dunnage you provided on the instructions of the Scheme?—Yes. 2924. What did they pay you?—To tell what it did cost is hard, because in many instances the Scheme took over the old dunnage belonging to the original agents and paid for the hire of that, while in other cases they purchased it. So that I certainly could not tell what it cost the Scheme. 2925. I am not asking that. I am asking what did they pay you for the dunnage you provided?—We did not provide dunnage. We arranged for the provision of it on behalf of the Scheme as agents for the Scheme. But we did have to pay for some dunnage, and we have not yet been recouped that. When lumpers are waiting for dunnage and teamsters are in the yard, one must sometimes see that dunnage is provided quickly; and we had instructions that we were not to purchase any new dunnage until we had submitted the matter to the Board and had received their instructions to obtain the dunnage. That position was impossible, because we did not know from day to day how much wheat was to be removed; and in one case we were completely stuck. We at once arranged with the person in the yard to get 500 gimlet poles, for which we paid 30s. per hundred, being the recognised current price. 2926. You say that once dunnage is paid for it should not be paid for a second time. How is it possible for this dunnage to be transferred from one place to another, if those who act as agents at some of the stations where there is no dunnage think it is impossible to allow time for the transfer? You said it was impossible to wait?—If I said it was impossible, that is not the correct word. Nothing is impossible. But it is not customary to delay all one's operations while one is providing something else. That is not business. 2927. But you said that the dunnage should be used over again?—So it can be, from year to year. 2928. Has not that caused some delay this year, by reason of the Scheme officers sending dunnage from one siding to another?—Not to my knowledge. 2929. You said that if farmers were in a position to handle their own product there is no reason why they should not do so. Whom do you mean by "farmers"?—I mean the farmer's organisation for co-operation, through existing companies and future companies. 2930. You mean that some of the farmers should have the right to handle all farm products, whether the other farmers desire it or not?—Yes, if prepared to handle it. 2931. If I were a farmer and you were a farmer, and if I was not connected with an association you were connected with, would you compel me to put my product through that organisation?—Yes; on exactly the same principle that other associations compel people to join them. I certainly agree with the principle that if there is a majority, and a very great majority, of farmers agree to form an association of the sort, and can do it as well as anybody else, there is no reason why the other farmer, who wishes to stand out and take no responsibility, should not have to put his wheat through that particular channel. 2932. Can you give me one association which has legislative power to do that?—Legislative power? 2933. Yes. This is compulsion. Can you give me one association that does it, irrespective of legislative power?—I take it the trades union have done it. 2934. I have never known of it?—I have known of it. Is not in every case the non-unionist called a blackleg or a scab for not belonging to a union? I maintain there is a great deal of sympathy to be extended to unions, not for making use of those terms, but for trying to make those other men support the movement which has been endeavouring for years to improve the general condition. 2935. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: This is a political organisation we are speaking of now, covered by an Act of Parliament, the Farmers and Settler's Association?—It has nothing to do with the Farmers' and Settlers' Association. 2936. The Act compels every farmer to send his produce through certain agents, so that it is compulsory on the farmer. Do you approve of that compulsory principle?—If the Government choose to make it compulsory, well and good, but as an individual I do not advocate that Parliament should compel men to do anything of the kind. If a farmer can find another method of disposing of his produce, well and good. 2937. By the CHAIRMAN: You have used the word "we" several times. What do you mean by it?—I generally use that word in preference to "I," because I consider myself part and parcel of a community of people engaged on the land. 2938. Do you mean part of an organisation?—I am alluding to the co-operative companies. 2939. You have complained that the Scheme officers sent you instructions which altered your organisation?—The organisation of our particular agency in respect of its labour. 2940. What do you mean when you say "our organisation"?—I was speaking of the executive officers of the company in conjunction with myself in arranging with labourers to do certain work and then being instructed to do something different. 2941. Of what organisation are you an officer?—I am not an officer; I am a member and managing director of the Bruck Rock District Farmers' Co-operative Co., Ltd. 2942. Are you speaking on behalf of that Bruce Rock Society in conjunction with Westralian Farmers?—There may be some connection between the two. 2943. We have had evidence of the existence of another farmer's company called the Farmer's Mercantile Union. They have 1,100 shareholders and with the exception of two or three all are farmers. Do you believe that those 1,100 men should be forced to send their products to the society with which they are connected?—There is a difference between that company and ours, as you are well aware. One is a proprietary company, which divides its profits amongst the shareholders, and the other is limited company of shareholders, which divides the profits amongst every individual.