Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 240
image 41 of 100

This transcription is complete

wheat may have been kept apart in the truck, or it may have been sold to buyers for the pick of it. The 1916-17 stacks, I may say, have now been standing nineteen months. Mr. Keys makes allegations against us (No. 4089) in regard to a stack at Kellerberrin. On the 23rd July we received the following letter from him, viz.:—

"1916/17 stack at Kellerberrin.—I regret to have again to write you regarding the carelessness and neglect shown in the loading up of the old wheat. This time your company's old stack at Kellerberrin is affected. A recent report discloses it to have been in a disgraceful state, with loose wheat lying about everywhere not cleaned up, and with no attempt having been made to prevent the wheat from running out over the ground when being loaded up. There were numerous water-pockets in the stack, three of these being very bad, whilst there were as many as nine in the first section. These pockets go right through the stack and cause a lot of trouble, particularly as damaged grain is allowed to run down amongst the good wheat, making a lot of it fit only for pig feed. Further, despite repeated instructions to the contrary, far too large a portion of the stack had been uncovered at the one time, and a quantity of iron was loose and likely to blow off, being in such a condition as to permit rain to run off the iron into the stack. I feel I cannot too strongly protest against such carelessness and lack of interest in the handling of this stack, particularly when, on complaints being lodged by my inspector with the secretary of the local co-operative society it was clearly indicated that instruction had been issued by your company to sub-agents that no notice was to be taken of any instructions given by Scheme inspectors in the caretaking of stacks. My inspector, however, was so concerned at the state of the Kellerberrin wheat that, not content with reporting to the secretary and to this office, he took the precaution of bringing the matter under the notice of Mr. Jas. Mather, one of your company's directors living at Kellerberrin, in order to solicit his help in case of rain in endeavouring to in some measure protect the farmers' interests and have the wheat dealt with in a workmanlike manner, and thus prevent further unnecessary damage and loss."

We communicated with Mr. Mather, and the following is our reply to the Scheme:— 1916/17 Season—Kellerberrin.—We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 22nd inst. We have to advise that we have communicated with Mr. Mather, our director, who advises that the occasion referred to in your letter is of more than a month's standing, and it is unfortunate that you did not advise us as to your inspector's views earlier. Mr. Mather states that on receiving your inspector's complaint he immediately investigated same, and has inspected the progress of the work on three or four occasions since then. Mr. Mather contends that your inspector had no occasion whatever for his complaint as the work was being carried out properly. There was no more loose wheat showing up than was unavoidable. He indicates that the condition of the stack was not as bad as your letter suggests, and that the tone of your letter is unjustifiable."

I wish to stress the point that the Scheme's letter to us was written over a month after occasion referred to. We only received the letter a day before Mr. Keys' evidence. Why the delay of over a month? And why just write us that letter the day before he came to give his evidence? It is apparent that this supposed complaint was resuscitated (if not in fact invented) and put in the form of a letter to us, in order that Mr. Keys might come and tell Commission about it. Many of our country agents have from time to time suggested that the Scheme inspector's criticism was unfair. I have never stressed this view to Mr. Keys, but on this site the first occasion of one of our directors being approached by a Government inspector, and having regard to his assertion that there was no ground whatsoever for the Government inspector's complaint, it seems to lend colour to the impression of country agents in regard to bias of the Scheme's officials. We prefer to take Mather's word in regard to that. He told us that of it soon after the Scheme's inspector mentioned the condition of the Kellerberrin stack to him. The fault was only a trifling one and the complaint was trifling, and Mr. Mather says that even then there was no justification for making it.

5068. Yet he got to work straight away?—The work was in progress at the time. They are constantly patching the stack, and Mr. Mather used to go along and look at the work.

5069. By Mr. HARRISON: Was this matter of broken bags near the roof and damaged grain leaking down on to better grain?—I do not know. The cause is not stated.

5070. Have you any means of preventing damaged grain from gravitating down to better quality grain?—Yes, when breaking down a stack they endeavour to get the damaged stuff away first.

5071. They are your instructions to the sub-agent?—Yes. Mr. Keys find fault (3833) also with the Dumbleyung Co-operative Company, who were receiving 12s. 6d. per 100 bags for loading up an old stack, because they sublet their contract at 10s. 6d., and he suggest that our 10 per cent. allowance should cover supervision at siding. Between the 1st January and 31st March we have paid out approximately £4,000 in connection with the railing of old stacks on behalf of the Scheme. Ten per cent. on this amounts to £400, which was our gross income under this heading. For some months half the correspondence of our Wheat Department has been in connection with 1916/17 wheat. After allowing for the staff employed in this work, also for stationery, telegrams, and inspectors' supervision, the business shows us a dead loss without allowing anything for sub-agents' supervision. It was never suggested that the 10 per cent. should cover the latter item. The 2s. per 100 earned by the Dumbleyung Co-operative is a mere pittance. The Secretary (Mr. Brewis) has, I think, quoted figures to Commission showing the amount his company had earned (about £5 gross income it was, I believe, on the railing of our old stack at that siding). In former years no agent for any of the old firms would have entertained this speculative class of business at such an infinitesimal margin. One of the features of co-operation is the elimination of the middleman, and in this I contend we have been in measure successful, but there is a limit beyond which this principle cannot be carried. It has been suggested by Mr. Keys that he Scheme could advantageously treat direct with contractors for this of work. I cite as an illustration that of two men who propose building a suburban home. One employs an architect who makes contracts with the different tradesmen; the other casts a jealous eye on the profit made by the architect, the builder, the carpenter, and the plasterer, and undertaking the work himself thinks he will effect a slight saving as against the costs entailed by the other party, but he gets jerry built slummed job and increased costs for extras through inefficient specifications. The same applies to the case in point in connection with the railing of old stacks. I contend that the security offered by the local co-operative company undertaking the contract is worth very much more than the Scheme have been paying. I know of one instance where two old stack had to be railed from a siding. First Dalgety's stack had to go. The local co-operative company undertook the work at 1½. per bag and the secretary, in order to obviate his company incurring a loss in the work, has had to start lumping the wheat himself at 6 o'clock in the morning. On the completion of Dalgety's stack, our own 1916/17 stack had be railed, and in view of the local company's unfortunate experience, narrowly escaping disaster through the secretary being a hard-working practical type, they asked for 2¼d. per bag. It was inferred by an officer of the Scheme, however, that the increased price was owing to our stack being in worse condition than Dalgety's. The consensus of local opinion and reports received by us from our inspector give an emphatic denial to that suggestion. We have had some complaints from the