sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 187
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 187
image 88 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 ⊚ 🡹 /|\
doing nothing. In that connection I may point out that after the first stack had been shifted, we asked for quotations for shifting a second stack, whereupon the local co-operative company asked for increased rates. In the meantime the contractor doing the work wrote to the Scheme saying that what he was receiving was not sufficient, and he pointed out that he was getting 10s. 6d. per hundred bags. I wrote back to the contractor and told him what the Scheme were paying, and said we considered it quite sufficient—namely, 1½d. per bag. Then apparently the contractor got in touch with the co-operative company, and the company was willing to take on the contract for the new stack at the old rates. In the first instance the company was simply trying to bump us up so that the company could pay the contractor a reasonable amount. If the contractor had been getting the full amount which the Scheme paid, 12s. 6d., he would have been quite satisfied; but the 10s. 6d. hardly paid him. 4092. What check have you on bags used at each siding when re-conditioning?—Practically none at all. 4093. In going through the files I noticed that the Scheme officers commented on cases where large quantities of bags had been sent forward to various places and those places were still asking for bags?—We are entirely in the hands of the contractors. If the contractor re-conditioning any particular stack likes to rob the Scheme of 200 or 300 bags we cannot stop him. 4094. There is no check at all so far as bags are concerned?—None whatever. 4095. By Mr. HARRISON: In a case similar to Dumbleyung, would not there be some check if the Scheme had a man acting as local inspector?—I should say the check on the bags would not warrant 2s. per hundred. 4096. But the local inspector would earn portion of the amount?—Yes; some of it. But if a man wanted to seal bags he would steal them under any circumstances. 4097. So what really you do not know whether the large quantity of bags sent forward for re-conditioning were used for that purpose?—We assume that they have been. We cannot swear that they have been. 4098. Have you any idea how many bags were used in the case just finished, Nangeenan?—I cannot say. 4099. Would you be surprised to learn that there were 1,000 bags used at Nangeenan; I do not know the size of the stack?—Speaking from memory, the size of the stack would be 13,000 or 14,000 bags. 4100. What percentage of bags was used there for re-conditioning?—About seven per cent. 4101. When I heard of it, I thought it was excessive?—It seems rather heavy for that particular stack. But the mice are rather bad at some of the country sidings now. I do not know of any mice at Nangeenan. I do not know if there are any mice at Nangeenan now. 4102. There was no inspection at that period?—Yes. 4103. You have not his report?—He would not know what quantity of bags was being used. 4104. By the CHAIRMAN: I now have that report regarding wheat stacks; it is dated 16/10/17; it was the 1916-17 agency and it provides— Under the 1916-17 shipper agency agreement all wheat received by the 15th April at permanent stacking stations and sidings was to be covered and screened by the 30th April. As soon as the Scheme was notified by agents that the stacks were complete and ready for inspection, they were to be examined by an inspector nominated by the shippers' agents and the Government inspector acting together. This joint inspection was recently made and some 169 stacks inspected. The result of the examination is as follows:— Agent. - Stacks inspected. - Percentage of stacks passed. - Percentage of conditional passes. - Percentage of damaged and neglected stacks. Dreyfus - 37 - 51¼ - 43¼ - 5½ Dalgety & Co. - 20 - 30 - 50 - 20 Darling & Son - 27 - 18½ - 63 - 18½ W. Farmers, Ltd. - 56 - 14 - 57 - 29 Bell & Co. - 29 - 10½ - 51½ - 38 So you see the best was Dreyfus, and the worst Bell, which is a very high percentage of neglected or damaged stacks?—Yes, slightly more than one-third of them. 4105. So the Westralian Farmers would not be the worst?—No. 4106. In regard to the 1915-16 harvest, you saw Mr. McGibbon's evidence?—Yes. 4107. You notice he refers to a stack at Greenhills, Bell & Co's. This stack was supposed to be neglected and a claim was made for £144 6s. 10d. The letter was dated 8th August, 1914, and while this was a stack badly neglected, according to Mr. McGibbon, the only dockage was £14 6s. 10d.?—I noticed that in the evidence and I mentioned it to the secretary. The latter said it was never sent to the agents and it was confidential. I do not know how Mr. McGibbon got it. 4108. That was the letter dealt with?—That was one of the letters. It was quite confidential. It was brought up at a board meeting but never sent out. I do not know how Mr. McGibbon got copies of confidential correspondence. 4109. Has that stack been settled for yet?—Yes. 4110. What was the basis of dockage?—I do not know. 4111. Will you get that information for us?—Yes. 4112. This was a letter of the 8th August, 1914, Bell & Co., Greenhills, stack, £144 6s. 10d., deduct £14 6s. 10d. of that amount. The next letter was Dreyfus & Co., Badjaling. This stack was also very neglected. The claim made was £357 14s. 3d. The Scheme offered in settlement £320. Do you know anything of that one?—The Scheme never made that offer to Dreyfus & Co.; I was with them then. 4113. Will you look it up and get us the information?—Yes. 4114. He also referred to the Quairading stack, Dalgety's, which stood there with no cover and there was 14 inches of rain on it. This was dealt with on the 2nd August, 1917. I would like to know if the dockages were made?—In connection with that, Dalgety asked for permission to ship it. 4115. There was no loss to the Scheme on the stack?—No, therefore the Scheme made no claim. 4116. By Mr. HARRISON: All the shipped wheat would have to be f.a.q. quality?—It is supposed to be. 4117. By the CHAIRMAN: That is all the stacks he referred to which he asked the Commission to look into?—I will get the particulars of those stacks for you. I had got up to the point of the 1916-17 harvest, the squaring up of the agents. You were going to look up the question of the settlement to the agents. Some remarks were made as to the amounts paid to the agents. 4118. These were the only remarks. Some settlements were made?—Those were 1915-16 stacks. 4119. Have any full settlements been made with the agents?—I think one or two are close up to full settlement. Darling and Dreyfus are practically settled. 4120. Bell would be the only one outside?—Bell, Dalgety, and Ockerby. 4121. They were millers?—Ockerby's were shippers in 1915-16. Ockerby had some claims. 4122. Are those claims shown on the files?—They should be. 4123. We can get all the information with regard to that so far as the file is concerned?—Yes. Then the question comes in, the handling for this season. We went into that yesterday. This season the Government have adopted a different policy in giving the handling to one agent. Personally I think that a wise proceeding. It is much better to have one agent doing the whole of the work with only one sub-agent at each siding. It ensures the cost being kept down and more satisfactory work being done. This season, with the appointment of one agent, we have had a few difficulties. We have had, unfortunately, a number of the best country agents not handling wheat this year. In view of the formation of the co-operative societies they have given the handling of the wheat, in most cases, not to the most satisfactory people. The work has been done by some officers, such as a secretary, who absolutely has had no experience in the handling of wheat, and he has had control of it. At some sidings men have been doing nothing who have been handling wheat all their lives. 4124. By Mr. HARRISON: Would it be an advantage to get the best men available?—They will not pay the salaries and there are many reasons why the best men available would not take on the agencies from the co-operative companies. He may deal in other lines
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history