sign-in
Home
/
Wheat (1) - Part 2
/
Image 190
Wheat (1) - Part 2
Image 190
image 91 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 ⊚ 🡹 /|\
4174. Is that in your agreement or any similar clause?—I think we have made provision for that. Mr. Solomon also made some other remark in regard to Quairading. The handling by the co-operative company there is very unsatisfactory. The stack there is a fairly large one, and has been in course of removal for some time. It is not being shifted at a satisfactory rate. When this stack was first built, and when a commencement was made to truck the wheat down, instead of the work being started at one end, the stack was broken down in five separate places. There were 23,000 bags of wheat in the stack, and it just looked like a heap of wheat dumped on the ground. I wanted to get it roofed, in view of the fact that they were taking such a long time to get the wheat railed, but my inspector reported that it was impossible to do this. After a discussion the Westralian Farmers sent a gang of men which flung the bags about and got it into some shape or other for the purpose of putting a roof on. I understand the stack is in a bad condition from the stacking point of view. Mr. Baxter informed me that he was there a week or so ago and that he saw a bag of old wheat alongside the stack of new wheat. He examined the old bag and found that it was alive with weevils. This old bag was touching the new wheat and the weevils were crawling fro the old wheat to the new. Here was a stack which was being looked after by a co-operative society. This shows that these people do not take any more interest in their work than the average agent does. Some of the co-operative societies have good secretaries or managers, who take a great interest in their work. Doodlakine is fortunate in possessing a good man. At many of the sidings the wheat is badly handled. 4175. By Mr. HARRISON: My line from Doodlakine to Meckering is in a good condition compared with other parts of the State?—Yes. At Woolandra I believe they sublet the work this year. In connection with next season's agreement, we have to put in a clause in regard to the relations between the agents and the Minister. This year the Scheme has been hindered in its operations by the violent criticism of the Westralian Farmers. Instead of trying to help the work along, they have been going round the country trying to create ill-felling against the Scheme. At various times they have written letters which one would hardly have expected to come from an agent to his principal, but might have been expected to come from an employer to his employee. This gives one the impression that if they had not been politically backed they would not have done this. We also found they were giving confidential information to the public. The editor of the Primary Producer has come to the office and wanted a statement on certain matters concerning which we knew nothing about ourselves. In regard to the amount of dockages, at some time during the season the Westralian Farmers got out a list of the dockages—not at our request—and supplied them to the Primary Producer. The editor wanted to know if we would make a statement. In view of these circumstances we had to put a special clause in our agreement to provide against these contingencies. No mercantile firm of any standing would do such a thing. It is outside the code of mercantile morality. It is reported by Mr. McGibbon that the inspectors employed by the Scheme are ex-employees of Dreyfus & Co. If I had considered that Dreyfus & Co.'s inspectors were the best men available, they would have been employed. It so happens that only one of the four inspectors employed by the Scheme was one of Dreyfus's employees. Another inspector is from Darling & Son, another from Bell, and another from the Northam mill. 4176. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murray gives that information?—Mr. McGibbon had previously stated that these were Dreyfus's men. 4177. By Mr. BROWN: Were these men appointed by you as manager?—Three of them were. The man from Northam mill was employed by the Scheme when I took charge. We have had trouble this season in getting out stack sites properly cleaned up. In many cases a small percentage of loose wheat—probably useless—and the dunnage has been left on the stacking sites. 4178. That is in connection with the 1917-18 harvest?—Yes. It is tidy finish which counts on work of that sort. A first class agent would take just as much pride in cleaning up his stacking site as he would do in handling the wheat itself. In regard to the forthcoming year we have decided to put penalties into the draft agreement. We find that it is practically impossible to estreat the bond, and have decided that we cannot prove damages in any direction. We have, therefore, put a penalty clause in with regard to infringements of the agreement. 4179. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: A sort of cash fine?—It is not so much the amount, but it is a matter of principle. If an agent is fined by his principal for not doing the work he should do, it reacts against him. 4180. By Mr. BROWN: Would that fine have a tendency to cause these acquiring agents to refuse to render?—No. We also had a lot of trouble in regard to direct trucking, and trucking ex stack. It became apparent from inspectors' reports that some of the agents in preference to trucking direct from farmers' wagons, preferred to take the wheat from their stacks and get the extra commission. I instructed the Westralian Farmers that, until otherwise ordered, all the wheat sent along had to be trucked ex farmers' wagons. At that time the wheat that was being delivered was more than ample for our requirements. There would, therefore, be no delay to the Railway Department or the Scheme in the matter. Mr. Murray gives this as the cause of the strike at Spencer's Brook. This is a big fight of imagination. At the time we had wheat on demurrage at Spencer's Brook, and there was plenty of wheat at the depots. 4181. By Mr. HARRISON: Was it not about a fortnight before the strike that they were short at Spencer's Brook and Midland Junction?—That was getting into the beginning of January, before the wheat began to go into the depots. We found that some of the agents, in making up their returns, showed everything as being ex stack, wheat which undoubtedly had been trucked direct. We know of one or two cases in which agents fraudulently compiled their returns, and we refused to pay the full commission claimed. 4182. Is it not a fact that all, the receipt notes of the farmers' number of bags have stated on them whether the wheat came direct into the truck or was put into a temporary stack?—That is a custom I have never heard of. Our agents never stated in their interim receipts whether the wheat was trucked direct or ex stack. If it has been done in the case of Dreyfus & Co. it has not been done at our request. 4183. It has been done at Doodlakine?—They might be doing it this season at the request of the Westralian Farmers. 4184. By. Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Would it not be of assistance to the Scheme to know this?—Yes. It would make the agents cautious. When a man delivers his wheat a cart-note is issued. Perhaps, after he has delivered half-a-dozen loads, he has exchanged them for interim receipts. There might be six loads in all, if the farmer had, say, 400 bags. Of the six loads four might be trucked direct and two might go into the stack. If the agent had to transfer all that information to the interim receipt, he would be kept pretty busy. 4185. And the cart-note which the farmer gets, and on which he might mark this, is never seen by us, and is never seen by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., unless something goes wrong. That is to say, it is never seen by the Westralian Farmers unless they are operating a different system. 4186. Still, in case of a dispute you could look up the cart-note?—Yes. It would be a very good thing to insist upon. As regards this particular question of working direct, in the sub-agents' agreement on which the other agents used to work, there was a clause which provided that once a sub-agent had put wheat into the stack he was not to remove that wheat unless he had written instructions from his principals to do so. That is a custom which has existed for years. This year, in the preparation of the sub-agents' agreement, that portion of that clause was struck out. It was struck out although there was no harm in having it in the agreement as a safeguard. 4187. By Mr. HARRISON: Travelling through the country it has seemed to me that it would be better
Save edits
prev
|
next
|
all images
|
history