sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 184
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 184
image 85 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 ⊚ 🡹 /|\
THURSDAY, 25th JULY, 1918. (At Perth) Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman). Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C | Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A. | S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. FREDERICK CHARLES KEYS, further examined: 4017. By the CHAIRMAN: You are in the position to know whether the alteration which has taken place during the past twelve months has been beneficial or other wise to the Scheme. You will be able to explain to the Commission the weaknesses of the various systems which has been adopted?—When the Scheme was first inaugurated, the reason for the inauguration was the shortage of freight, and therefore the inability to get the wheat away. It was thought that some farmers would not be able to sell their wheat, and the Government decided to form a Wheat Pool. The four States agreed. The question then was, how was the wheat to be handled. The merchants who had been handling the wheat were called in, and after a consultation the Wheat Pool of 1915-16 was evolved. The rates of commission eventually paid for the handling of that crop were agreed to at a conference of farmers in the East. After that I think the Federal and the Victorian Governments declared that the rates were too high and that they would not pay them. The rates were then slightly reduced; there was a saving made. That price was supposed to be the same in all States; the rates were practically uniform though there were higher charges paid perhaps in the West than in the East. The reasons were that there were higher commissions paid to sub-agents, though as far as the agents were concerned their profit would work out fairly evenly. At the inception of the Pool we experienced great difficulty on account of the Farmers and Settlers' Association adversely criticising the Pool, and advising the farmers not to put wheat into it. If the farmers had carried out the desires of the Association and had stood out against the Pool, many of them in this State would have been out of business by this time. They were absolutely misled by the people who were supposed to be in a position to advise them. In the handling of the Pool the wheat was received and stacked in the country. It was anticipated that it would be got away long before it actually did get away. It was definitely stated that the wheat would be shipped by a certain period, but it was not shipped by that period and it was retained to a much later date. In that respect I notice that the West Australian Government have been criticised on account of having the termination date of their agreement on the 30th September. Probably they thought the wheat would be away by that time. The South Australian termination date was the 30th October, and the termination dates of New South Wales and Victoria were the end of the year. 4018. Would the later dates in the Eastern States be on account of the larger crops there?—As a matter of fact, as far as I know, the Victorian agreement for the 1915-16 crop has never been signed to this date, and probably in the Eastern States the agreements were much longer in the course of preparation, and it was seen before they were finalised that the wheat could not be got away. 4019. Have you heard the complaint that they had greater foresight in the Eastern States than was shown here?—They had no better foresight than had we. In fact the information as to the shipment came from the Eastern States. In that season Mr. Johnson had hopes of getting some very early freight in December, and he asked the agents to try to get the farmers to give early delivery. However, that freight did not materialise, neither did the early wheat. That was in December, 1915. 4020. By Mr. HARRISON: Would it have been any gain to the Pool if the termination of the agreement had been dated much later?—Undoubtedly. After specially trying to get early deliveries, I think the quantity of wheat we had on hand available for shipment at the end of December, 1915, was about 50,000 bags for all agents. As time went on we saw that wheat could not be shipped by the 30th September, and so arrangements were made for a carry on agreement. After this stage the agents were not supposed to be taking a large responsibility, but in this State we had what the agents term a mouse plague, although the Government did not admit that it was a mouse plague. In any case it affected the stability of a lot of the stacks. 4021. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You say there was a mouse plague?—I say the agents said so. If I were to say it now it might be taken that the Government admitted it. 4022. By Mr. HARRISON: There is no definition of a mouse plague?—It could be defined by any ordinary individual. If the ravages by mice were much greater than the average, one would be justified in declaring a mouse plague. 4023. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: The then agents said that there was a mouse plague and the Government said there was not?—The Government thought it advisable not to admit that there was a plague, but they were of opinion that the agents should received consideration for it. 4024. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you think that clause in regard to the mice plague should not have been inserted?—Oh, no. The agents would never haven taken the responsibility at the price. 4025. Would it cost much to protect the stacks against mice?—At that time no protective measures had been adopted. At present with depots we have fairly effective means of combating a mouse plague, but it would have cost a fair amount to protect all the wheat in the country. 4026. You think that clause should be in future agreements?—Yes. If necessary it would be better for the Government to do the work themselves than to ask the individual agents to do it. But to resume my story: the carry-on agreement was arrived at on the 30th September. Under this carry-on agreement the Government had to undertake all responsibility for the wheat, except any loss caused by neglect of the agent. Eventually the wheat was disposed of. Claims were put in by the agents on account of re-bagging through long storage or other causes, less a certain percentage which the agents considered they should bear on the score of the natural depreciation of the bags. Those claims were discussed with the Government and in most cases were paid with an allowance to the Government, claimed on account of neglect by certain sub-agents in the country. The agents, or some of them, adopted a broad view of the matter and met the Government, although it was impossible for the Government to prove neglect. No systematic inspection of the stacks was carried out by
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history