sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 185
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 185
image 86 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 ⊚ 🡹 /|\
the Government during the first year. They trusted the agents to do the work, and , generally speaking, I think the agents carried out that work fairly well. One of the acquiring firms, the Westralian farmers, had not much experience, and perhaps their work was not too satisfactory. A large number of their stacks were covered with hessian instead of iron on top and heavy damage to the wheat resulted. 4027. By Hon. J.F.ALLEN : That is the only firm which showed experience in the handling of the wheat?-Yes, broadly speaking. 4028. By Mr. HARRISON : It was not that they could not obtain iron?-No. 4029. Has this been proved by experience since in breaking down those stacks?-Yes. 4030. By the CHAIRMAN : One of the inspectors reported that the percentage of the Westralian Farmers was not the lowest?-I have not seen that report. I am speaking of this from outside knowledge and not from the knowledge of the Scheme. 4031. One of the private agents showed a smaller percentage than that of the Westralian Farmers?-Are you not confusing the two seasons? In 1915-16 there was no systematic inspection of the stacks and I hardly think the Government could have got out a comparative report on the stacks in that season. 4032. I think this report was dealing with stacks left under the carry-on agreement?-To resume the story: that leads up to the end of 1915-16 season. The negotiations were then in train with Mr. Mitchell for the handling of the 1915-16 season. The agreement was finalised much on the same lines as the previous one, except that the rates of commission were made slightly higher and a clause was inserted to the effect that all stacks had to be passed by the Government inspector. The reason for the increased rate of commission was that higher commissions were being paid to country sub-agents. I fancy there was another main point which I cannot recall. 4033. By. Mr. HARRISON : Was any increased obligation cast on the acquiring agents?-I do not think so. Speaking as representative of Dreyfus & Co., I think the work of the 1916-17 season was carried out in a fairly satisfactory manner. This refers to all the agents. Probably neglect was evidenced in some odd stacks. This wheat, or the bulk of it, was held by the acquiring agents until the end of December, 1917, about which time I left the service of Dreyfus & Co. and transferred to the Government. 4034. By the CHAIRMAN : You left, or were you only lent?-I am with the Government for as long as they require me and there is no actual guarantee that I will return to Dreyfus. 4035. You have heard the rumours to that effect?-There are 99 chances out of a hundred that I will return to Dreyfus & Co. when I leave the Government. 4036. By Mr. BROWN : You left with the understanding that the Government would keep you as long as they wanted you?-Yes. 4037. What was the date of your appointment by the Government?-The 3rd December last. To continue, the majority of the acquiring agents were not acting for the Government this season, and the question was as to what should be done with the wheat which was being held. It would not pay them to look after that particular portion of the work and carry out their agreement as they were not handling this seasons harvest, except as a higher rate of remuneration. The Minister, therefore, decided, on my advice, that the best course to pursue would be to clean up the agents altogether, take over their wheat, pay them the amount due to them and finish with them for the time being so far as that crop was concerned. We therefore arranged to clean up the 1916-17 agreement on a set basis. 4038. But that freed the agents from all liability to the Scheme?-Yes, except in regards to such stacks over which there was dispute. It was impossible to prove neglect with the stacks and the matter did not amount to very much. 4039. All the bonds given by the various acquiring agents would be due to return?-Yes, on whatever date it was that we finalised our arrangement. It would be sometime this year. 4040. By the CHAIRMAN : Who will take charge of the old stacks now?-The Westralian Farmers, Ltd. 4041. What are they paid for that?-One halfpenny per bushel for caretaking from the 15th April last to the 30th September next. 4042. By Mr. HARRISON : What would that caretaking involve?-Practically everything except replacing the entire roof. It covers repairing of any bursts bags, repairing of screens, hanging on new screens if required, picking up of loose wheat from the ground, keeping the drains about the stacks clean, tidy and open, so that the water can run, making any adjustment to the roof which may be necessary, and doing anything that is required about the wheat stacks. 4043. That would not include new bags?-It includes no material at all. 4044. By the CHAIRMAN: I notice that under the first agreement you had to keep the stacks in good order until the 30th September at 3d. a bushel?-Yes. 4045. Would there be greater difficulty in caretaking the old stacks taken over by the Westralian Farmers on the 15th April than would have been the case under the 1915-16 agreement?-It is rather a difficult matter to answer. Ordinarily speaking, I should answer in the affirmative, because the stacks remain for a much longer period. The 1916-17 stacks have not been ravished by mice to the extent that the previous years stacks have been ravished, and therefore the 1916-17 stacks were in a better condition than those of the previous year. 4046. The one would in all probability equalise the other?-I still think that the 1915-16 stacks on the 30th September would be in a worse condition than the 1916-17 stacks on the 30th April of this year. 4047. Therefore, the halfpenny per bushel during that period could be added on as a charge for responsibility in caretaking to the present rate which you are paying if the Westralian Farmers had to take that responsibility this year under their agreement?-That is a charge on the 1916-17 wheat. 4048. I admit that, but you stated that you are paying ½d. per bushel for caretaking these stacks. You believe it is necessary to pay the ½d. per bushel?-Yes, on stacks which are 15 months old/ 4049. If the Westralian Farmers had to take care of their stacks up to the 30th September, as you did previously, they would need ½d. per bushel more for so doing?-Not in the case of new stacks were almost in as good a condition as the first years stacks?-As they were on the 30th September after standing for nine months. This year the wheat is only about six months old. 4051. You mentioned ⅛d. as being the cost of caretaking?-That is for our caretaking at the depots, it is cheaper to care-take at the depots, where there is a large quantity of wheat in one spot, than to caretake on 50 small stacks about the country, where the wheat is perhaps badly stacked on bush timber, and with the roof lying on top of the stacks, and perhaps with the curtains fixed in an unsatisfactory manner. 4052. The private agents took the wheat in December. They are responsible for the caretaking of it until the 30th September in the following year?-Yes. 4053. They must have charged something for doing that work?-There would be an amount included in the 3d. which they were paid. So far as the agents would be concerned that amount included in the inspectors work, with perhaps a small charge for material supplied. 4054. And for caretaking , and the remuneration for this was fixed. 4055. That was 1½d.? -No, that was on the 1916-17 wheat. On the 1915-16 wheat the country sub-agents only got 1¼d. 4056. They were paid an extra amount on account of their extra responsibility?-And extra work. In 1915-16 the country sub-agents had to put a roof on the stacks and hang the screens, whereas this year they had not to do that. They also had to caretake the wheat until the end of September. 4057. That would have to be added to the cost od the Westralian Farmers' sub-agents in their handling this year?-It would have to be added to the cost if you want to get the cost of keeping the wheat in.
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history