Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 138
image 39 of 100

This transcription is complete

tributing house in Sydney," and I said "and they get their cut." His reply again was, "You need not worry about that." This article comes from America. It is made in America and probably handled by at least one selling broker. It is landed in Sydney and handled by agents there, and we were to get 33 1/3 per cent. There must be a great difference in the price as manufactured in the factory and the price the farmers are paying for it. We had the stuff analysed and the analyst told me what ought to be the proper lick and we found the raw materials were cheaper to buy in Western Australia than in America and that there was a very little difficulty in manufacturing it. We can make that article and put it up at about 2¼d. while these people are selling it for 2s. 1d. That is not the only example, but I do not say that any agent is making undue profit. There are so many people all practically living on the article. The farmer does not object to pay 2s. 1d. because he does not know it is an excessive cost, but he does not buy nearly as much of it. If it was 6d. he would buy more and the Government inspector will tell you that if the farmer was to buy more his stock would be much better for it. The Westralian Farmers' scheme of organisation has done almost an impossibility; it has organised the farmers. The local co-operative companies have all their shareholders and there are 5,000 individual farmers shareholders, heads of families, in this co-operation. 3079. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: How many are wheat producers of the 5,000?—At least 4,250 would be wheat producers and 750 Bridgetown and Donnybrook fruitgrowers. 3080. By Mr. BROWN: How many wheatgrowers are there besides?—I do not know the statistics, but I notice that you asked Mr. Brewis how many were members of the local co-operative; you picked one of the few places where a proportion have not joined. I can take you to Cunderdin where every farmer is a member of the co-operation. I can take you to Doodlakine where practically every farmer is a member of the co-operation, and when we say to the Premier that this organisation represents over 5,000, that is a truthful and proper statement. 3081. By Mr. HARRISON: The cheaper the commodity the greater the consumption?—Certainly. 3082. That is the natural sequence?—I would not say that about some things. I want to emphasise that this company is organised on truly co-operative lines; it is non-political, and its chief scheme of organisation will undoubtedly develop so that it will be of immense benefit to the farmer and the community. I wish to refer to the Mercantile Union but I do not wish to say the slightest thing against them. Had they claimed to come into the Wheat Scheme as ordinary handling merchants, I would not say they had the right, but I want to point out that their company is not co-operative in any sense. Their shareholders own in some instances £1,000 shares and that shareholder's brother owns 1,000 shares and his wife owns 1,000 shares. In their share register, which I have examined, I have seen the names of individual farmers and in the column where application money should be entered is entered nothing. In the column where the allotment money should be entered is nothing. They have never paid a stiver, and across the column is written, "Treat this man as a shareholder for business purposes only." 3083. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: Dummy shares?—Absolutely. I contend that company which has no semblance of co-operation should not be treated in the same way as the Westralian Farmers. 3084. By the CHAIRMAN: Were you not in the same position prior to October of last year?—Never. I will place our register on the table you will see that every shareholder is a genuine farmer. I do not know if you want evidence as to why the Westralian Farmers were given the whole acquiring agency. Does that business come within the scope of the inquiry? 3085. Yes, it has either to uphold or condemn?—On the 23rd August, 1917, which is the first letter between the Scheme and ourselves, I believe, we received this letter from the Scheme. I am going to refer to this letter many times in my evidence, because there are several other matters on which we come back to this famous letter of the 23rd August, 1917, signed by Mr. Sibbald:— Handling 1917/18 harvest. Further to the recent interview that I personally had with you a few days ago, at which I asked you to be good enough to submit your company's quotes for certain services in connection with the handling of next season's crop on behalf of the Scheme, I now understand that you did not take a definite note of the particulars required and that, therefore, you would be glad to receive a letter setting out the Scheme's requirements. The services to be rendered are as follows:—A. Receiving wheat direct from farmers and trucking direct to depots or ports. B. Receiving wheat from farmers, putting into stack, and taking ex stack and trucking to depots or ports. Checking sample and weights inward at depots. C. Your overhead expenses for issuing certificates, etc. D. The profits required. In connection with the above, it might save further correspondence if I indicated details of the particulars that might be assumed when arriving at your estimates. These are as follows:—(a) Not more than one agent would operate at a station or siding. (b) The station and sidings would be allocated to the different firms based on the handlings of each firm during the past two seasons. (c) No fresh firms to those operating this season would be allotted for next year. (d) Wheat to pass into the care of the Board's officers on arrival at depots or ports. (e) Any dockage on account of quality to be agreed on there, and agent's responsibility in respect to such wheat then to cease. (f) The quality of the wheat to be judged on a running bulk sample. The Chamber of Commerce f.a.q. sample to be the standard when ascertained. (g) Provision to be made for three arbitrators, one being nominated by the Board, one by the agents, and these two arbitrators to nominate a third to act as umpire if necessary. The arbitrators will decide any dispute between the Board's officers and the agents as to dockage to be imposed on account of quality. (h) Agent to be responsible for quality (barley, smut, oats, drake) and the aggregate certificate weight but will not accept liability beyond the amount of their profits. Any deductions made by agents from certificates are to be credited against any deductions made by the Pool for quality and weight. Marked weights to be accepted or, failing agreement to this, weights to be taken as per mutual equitable arrangement. (i) The Scheme to provide or pay cost of all stacking sites, the question of supplying dunnage to be arranged. (j) As far as sub-agents' renumeration is concerned, it could be assumed that all the wheat received would be away from stations and sidings by the end of April and the agent would not have to provide for cover or protection of stack either as regards the supply of material or placing of same on or around stack. (k) The Board to pay for the hire of any covering material from agents at ¼d. per bushel up to the 31st October, 1918. (l) Each agent to ship wheat in proportion to the quantity received by him on terms to be arranged. I shall be glad if you will let me have your quotations for the services mentioned in paragraph 1 not later than 10 a.m. on Monday, 27th instant. I can assure you it would not surprise me not to find this letter on your file. 3086. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: It is there?—Prior to the writing of that letter we had been discussing the matter verbally with Mr. Sibbald. In accordance with the practice which had operated in past years, I had been summoned to attend a meeting of the then acquiring merchants. Present at that meeting were Mr. Keys (in the chair), Mr. Evans of Bell & Co., Mr. McCallum of Dalgety & Co., and Mr. Robinson of Darling & Sons. The question of the operations for the year was discussed, and it was then announced at the meeting that Mr. Sibbald had verbally told members that it was the intention of the Government to divide the State into certain zones, and that in each of those zones only one firm would operate, and that the area of the zone of each company would be in accordance with the handling of each firm during the past two years. At that meeting I objected strenuously to any quotation going in on the zone system, because it meant to my company an absolute death blow. My company were at that time hard at work organising the local co-opera