Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 149
image 50 of 100

This transcription is complete

out for your information that the system of temporary roofing that I have proposed is no new-fangled idea, but is a tried and approved method and in the Eastern States has been in general use for a number of years for stacks that are remaining for only a few months. The nature of the work required is not slipshod, nor is it desirable that it should be done "in a slipshod manner to ensure a cheap job." Its advantages as compared with last year's system are:—1. A tremendous saving in time, thus minimising damage by winter weather. It is curious that at this time they wish to minimise the time— (a.) Because the delay in obtaining wire, timber, etc., is obviated because no wire is required, and the 3 x 2 timber at present at most country sidings and the supply of sleepers handy to the stacks would suffice. (b.) The stacks can be roofed quickly, thus ensuring a saving in labour. 2. It is very economical because it saves cost of wire, fresh timber that would be useless for another season, and freight on material. 3. It is so simple that it is practically food-proof and can be carried out without trouble by workmen who need not necessarily be specially expert. Last year's system is expensive, slow, and not always effectively done, and such work if not done in a workmanlike manner is dangerous to the wheat and practically useless for the purpose for which it is intended. In this connection and in view of your quote to do the roofing on last year's system and your non-acceptance of responsibility for the temporary system proposed by the Scheme, I would point out that in connection with your five last season's stacks, which are at present being railed, our inspector's reports are as follows:—Wyalkatchem, small stack is being railed. Roof has been leaking badly through faulty construction, causing a lot of damage. Trayning: Breaking down in very bad condition through faulty roof and through wheat being wet before roof. Bungulla: Bad condition through faulty roofing; water pockets throughout the stacks from top to bottom. Burgess' Siding: Breaking down of this stack is very bad throughout, owing to faulty roofing. Balkuling: Roofing all right, excepting portion which was evidently too short and the back wall has suffered. You will see, therefore, that even if last season's system were adopted, the Scheme would have no guarantee that the work would be well done by your Company. I am not aware that I stated that stacks would not be screened, if screens are obtainable they would certainly be used on the weather side of the stacks. The stack is built and the timber is laid on the wheat itself. There are no supports to the ground. The timbers are tied with tie wires to prevent them blowing off, and it is all strapped down with wire straps. If the bags burst in the interior of the stacks, of course the stack subsides and pockets are formed. That only occurs in a stack that has been built a considerable time. We wrote on the 17th April:— Although we deprecate the system of roofing you wish us to adopt in connection with certain new season's stacks, we are willing to quote for the carrying out of the work, and if our quote is acceptable to you, we will do our best to perform the work as satisfactorily as the system will permit. In considering the question of the cost to us, we would ask you to bear in mind that many of the stacks are low; and the cost of roofing on the basis of a price per bushel will be relatively higher than it was last year. Further, as practically all stacks have been built square, there will be a large quantity of bags to handle in order to give the necessary slope. Also, as indicated to you in our letter of yesterday, our costs for inspection will be the same for the few stacks you propose roofing as if there was a roofed stack at every siding. In regard to the care of the stacks, we have already pointed out to you that bag patching has already been required at many places through the weather damage, which has taken place, and the work of care will now be more costly than it would have been if protective measures had been taken earlier. As you are doubtless aware, the work done by us in connection with the handling of this season's wheat up to date has been unremunerative. In fact, statements have been submitted by certain agents showing an actual loss in handling. We are, therefore, not prepared to take on any further contracts which will show a loss. We are, however, prepared to do the work specified in the annexation of your letter under acknowledgement for the sum of one halfpenny per bushel on the quantity roofed. This quote is submitted on the understanding that material will be made available on the site, and with the assumption that all wheat is to be moved before the end of the winter. In case your rejoinder to this quote should be that this is the same figure as quoted in our letter of yesterday, we would remind you that our letter of yesterday did not cover the handling of bags on top of stacks to provide the necessary slope. We point out the reason why we quote and Mr Keys says it is too much. I contend that correspondence shows that we at least had more foresight than the Government department, because in September we suggested that although it was intended to remove 10½ million bushels to the depot, there were many things that might occur to prevent it, and that the wheat should not be left unprotected. We wrote many times from February to April begging them to protect the stacks, and I may tell you that throughout the country the blame is cast on the Westralian Farmers for not seeing that the stacks have been properly protected. The farmers say, "You have got a monopoly now and you leave the stacks in the open and the wheat all gets damaged." In view of the correspondence that I have read, can it be said that we in any shape or form neglected to do our work?

3183. By Mr HARRISON: In your opinion the responsibility of stacking and protecting the stacks should have been entered into when the agreement with the acquiring agents was made?—Unquestionably. The big question before us is the question of dual control. If the Government had at the commencement entered into a contract with us or anyone else for the complete handling of the harvest, with the responsibility of doing everything to protect the wheat, and putting on the shoulders of the contractor the responsibility of carrying out the work the Government would have been able to penalise those contractors. Under the present system, because it was the Government handling the wheat, the farmer could not penalise the Government for their neglect. In the building of the bulk depots at Spencer's Brook the work was done in a very absurd manner. The wheat was spread four bags high over the whole area instead of the stack being built in section and roofed, with the result that the wheat was soaked over an enormous area. I notice that in Parliament the Minister for Works made a statement showing how much the wheat in each depot was roofed. He forgot to mention that only a third of the wheat in the State was in the depots, and that two-thirds were at the siding unprotected. Parliament was led to believe that the roofing was put on a certain number of stacks, and a certain proportion of the wheat in the depots was taken as being roofed, whereas a matter of fact only a third of the wheat was there. We say that dual control is utterly wrong. It is an expense to the owner. We say we are prepared to take over the handling of the business as a co-operative organisation. We say that our articles of association provide definitely that our profits are distributed amongst the farmers, consequently if we do make any profit it will go back to the owner of the wheat, whether he is a shareholder or not. I suggest that, if it can be shown that we have in small ways been neglectful—I do not think our head organisation has been neglectful—and if it can be shown that there have been mistakes made by our sub-agents—our co-operative companies, I contend that is no argument whatever against the system which should be adopted of co-operative handling. These mistakes are small and can be rectified. If they are pointed out to us we shall be the hardest on the evil-doer, because we own the