sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 179
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 179
image 80 of 100
If you need a symbol, fraction or a wider dash please highlight, copy (Ctrl C) and paste (Ctrl V): £ — ¼ ½ ¾ ⅓ ⅔ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ⊚ 🡹 /|\
portion of the work by contract, as a rule at so much per hundred bags. 3870. If the covering had been done by contract at so much per bushel this season, could anything have been saved to the Scheme?—I think half the cost of covering could have been saved. I think the Scheme were absolutely bled by Westralian Farmers,Ltd., as regards the roofing. 3871. How many stacks around the country have you covered?—About 30; that is, not left uncovered now. 3872. Do you know the total cost of covering them?—No. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., rendered a debit note for covering, but they are charging us for covering stacks that never have been covered, and also for covering more wheat in stacks than actually was covered. 3873. That is going to open up a big question, then?—It is going open up an argument between ourselves and the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. 3874. But it involves a good deal of money?—A hundred pounds or £200 or perhaps £300. But the rate which the Scheme paid was too high altogether. 3875. By Hon.R.G. ARDAGH: How many stacks are stacks at sidings are not covered?—I believe there is only part of stack up in Mocardy. That is the only one. There should have no uncovered stacks in the country after the 20th May. Any stacks uncovered after that date were there on account of carelessness of the agents in not getting the wheat away. 3876.Were there not a fair amount of bags in Mocardy?—No. It is only a small siding. 3877. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: How do you mean carelessness of the agents?—In not looking after their stacks and loading them as quickly as they could. Towards the end of April and the middle of May, trucks were available in sufficient numbers to clear up the uncovered stacks. 3878. By Mr. Brown : Did the Westralian Farmers always get their requirements in the shape of roofing when requisitioned by them?—No. The Westralian Farmers asked us to provide roofing in the middle of February last. 3879. And you were unable to supply the requisition?—We did not at that particular time intend to cover any stacks. As it happened, we did not have the material; but that was not our reason for not supplying it. 3880. As a Scheme, you decided not to cover a lot of the stacks put up?—That is so. 3881. What proportion of the whole was it decided not to cover?—We only covered, at the finish, those stacks that we could not get away before the approach of the winter rains. Speaking from memory, we covered 350,000 bags. 3882. And the rest was uncovered?—The rest was always uncovered at the country sidings. 3883. By the CHAIRMAN: This year you are paying 1⅝d.; one penny for stacking, ⅛ d. for weighing, ¼d. for issuing certificates, and ¼d. profit. In addition to that you are paying ½d. for roofs on such stacks as it was decided to roof?—Yes. 3884. You provide the roofing from the Scheme?—Yes. 3885. You have in this statement the item "Providing dunnage and roofing incurred this season, ⅛d. "?—That is the average over the whole. It would amount to about ⅛d. per bushel spread over the total crop handled. I think that figure is a bit on the high side. 3886.That is what an agent who had to provide it himself would charge?—Yes. The first two seasons the agents got ⅛d. per bushel for roofing at Bunbury. That was the only time a charge was specified. 3887. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: That included the providing of material?—Yes. 3888. By the CHAIRMAN : The cost under the contract is 1⅝d. ?—That is the maximum cost. 3889. Does that include the ⅝d. paid to the agents?—Yes. But all my figures in that return are after taking off the amount paid to country sub-agents. That leaves the ⅝d. which the acquiring agent receives. 3890. The 1⅞d. is for work undertaken previously by the agents but not undertaken by them this year?—This year we are doing a certain proportion of the work ourselves. I have estimated certain services which the agents performed last year and which we are now performing. They are set out on that return. 3891. And they amount to 1⅛d. per bushel?—Yes. If you plus one penny paid to country sub-agents on that 1⅛d.,you get the 2⅛d.; but that does not provide for any cost at the depot. The depot work is special work which was not done last year. 3892. But last year the wheat had to be stacked at the ports?—But the cost of that is not included in the amount paid to the agent last year. 3893. But for the 3d. last year the agent had to make the final stack in the port?—No. That was increased cost. 3894.The agent only had to receive the wheat at the siding?—Yes, and send it down to a port. At Fremantle the stacking was done by the Fremantle Harbour Trust at the Scheme's expense; at the other ports the stacking was done by the agents, who were specially paid for it by the Scheme at prices set out in the agreement. This season we have brought all the wheat into depots. 3895. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: What amount per bushel do you estimate for the reduction in charges this year, 3½d., what it is costing this year?—There is one half penny saving on the country sub-agents, ⅞d. on the other portion of the work; a total saving of 1⅜d. The charge for extra service represents a precaution against weevil. When I say we make a saving of 1⅜d., I do not wish you to assume that the sub-agents made so much profit before, because they did not. From the Scheme agents' point of view, the case wears a different complexion. 3896. If the agents did not make it, how was it saved?—In this way, that the Scheme is working with only one agent, instead of five, whose expenses were much heavier. 3897. By Mr. Brown: The Scheme as a whole has saved that amount?—Yes. 3898. By Hon. J. F. Allen: You have saved a certain amount by the elimination of competition?—Yes 3899. By the CHAIRMAN: What is your next point?—Question 1572, the docket system, in Mr Hall's evidence. 3900. It has been rumoured that the dockage which was made this year was made at the request of Westralian Farmers, Ltd. It was fixed by the Board at the request of the Westralian Farmers. Is that so?—Yes; the standardisation of the dockets was fixed at the request of the Westralian Farmers. 3901. Is there any letter about it ?—No. I think Mr. Taylor came along and discussed it with me personally. 3902. In regard to the dockages, was it ever reported to you that bags had been weighed, and additional weight put on the bags to make up for bags that were over weight?—That is the common practice. 3903. It has been done previously?—Yes. 3904. It is not new this year?—No. 3905. By Hon. J. F. Allen: Is it not objectionable?—The point is this: Under the Commonwealth Act we are not allowed to ship bags weighing over 200lbs. If we get a bag weighing 201lbs., to carry out the Act you would have to bleed that bag and add a pound to another bag, so that probably you would mark the 200lb. bag 199lbs., and the next bag which perhaps weighed 187lbs., would be marked 188lbs. 3906. By the CHAIRMAN: I notice at Fremantle they are shipping wheat and weighing the bags before they go on the ship. How would that work out?—The lumpers do not make any objections to bags being a little over weight, and the lumpers only are the persons interested. 3907. But if your men found the bags were weighed wrongly they would make comments?—They would probably know the custom that prevails, and not officially report it. By the time the bag is being weighed you do not know where it was originally weighed. 3908. I suppose there would not be one per cent. over?—No, nothing like that.
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history