Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 253
image 54 of 100

This transcription is complete

Alleged criticism of Scheme.—Under Question No. 4189/90 Mr. Keys refers to our having rung the Scheme on the telephone with a view of inquiring the price paid for the Badjaling flood-water damaged wheat. It appears that Mr. Solomon had received this information from Mr. Baxter himself but omitted to recollect whether it was £175 or £275. Mr. Solomon happened to be in our office and asked us to ring up and make sure as he was going up that day to give evidence before the Royal Commission. Mr. Keys cites this as an instance of our going out of our way to bring criticism on the Scheme. Nothing was further from our minds. It was natural that Mr. Solomon should desire to be sure of his facts before going up to give evidence. We did not know anything about that matter. We had not been interested in it. It referred to inferior wheat from a stack of Dreyfus's, railed before we took over care of old stacks. Mr. Keys also finds fault with some of our directors having criticised the Scheme at country co-operative society meetings. I have already given you a few instances of bungling and mismanagement. Mr. Keys expects our farmer directors to see waste and unnecessary loss to their assets as represented in their wheat accruing everywhere and misrepresentation rife throughout the country, but to let it pass without comment—he expects too much. Co-operative Bulk Handling.—I notice Mr. Keys refers to the operation of country elevators, and minimises and questions the possibility of co-operative controlled elevators being satisfactory. You cannot get away from the fact, and there is no doubt whatsoever that co-operative elevators in Canada are pronounced success. The farmer gets no favouritism, and there is undoubted security to the buyer. The Agent General—The Hon, Mr. Connolly—recently inquired into the matter in Canada. The Commission will agree that Mr. Connolly is a fair-minded judge, and that he is not in any way biassed in favour of co-operation. Mr. Connolly reports most favourably on co-operative elevators. I have mislaid my newspaper cutting, but will try to get it for you. State Handling.—I find on perusal of the evidence that Mr. Key has submitted to the Commission a scheme for Government handling, which he claims would effect an immense saving. The saving would probably be found to be more apparent than real, if indeed it did not disappear altogether. He also says that if we took over the duties at present being undertaken by the Scheme we would have to take over their staff, whereas if the Scheme took over the duties we are at present doing the work could be done with his existing staff. If his staff can undertake the work that we are doing at present, then it is high time he got rid of some of them, because the bulk of them must be unemployed at the present time. The Commission can satisfy themselves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the old firms in former years made contracts with men for handling in preference to paying day wages, but although the managers of the firms did this they would not have dreamt of going behind the backs of their agents and employing lumpers or casual hands, their records would have got into a hopeless muddle, and they would have no security whatever. Apparently, it does not matter about the Wheat Pool having no security. I would further draw the Commission's attention to the fact that handling by a State Department would mean access to Government funds, which would be a sink of indeterminable depth?—The farmer would never know what his costs actually were. If, for example, re-bagging and re-conditioning had to be done, or the work was faulty, and losses and costs entailed, the items would be debited to the Pool Account, and no one would be any the wiser. The same argument applies to the system of dual control, which was in vogue last year. Our service was practically "No Liability" service. Re-bagging and re-conditioning, roofing, supply of cornsacks and twine, supply of screens, wire, etc., all these were extras either ours or by the Government. At depots screening, re-conditioning and care are undertaken by the Scheme. Would it not be a very much better proposition to get a firm offer for the whole job, with liability and responsibility clearly definitely laid down, before a bag of wheat is handled. Surely it is incontrovertible that any business firm would operate on any other basis. Yet Mr. Keys proposes to the Commission that the Government should give him a blank cheque. Our experiences which you have before you on the files gives evidence of the Scheme's bungling of the dunnage question; of their refusing to allow us to roof, although we reiterated the necessity of this; of their interfering with the trucking arrangements; the strikes; and the damage that was caused thereby, etc., etc. The sooner the Wheat Pool rids itself of red tape methods the better. The Scheme cannot possibly undertake the head office records of farmers' deliveries and the issue of certificates with their present staff. Further, at the present time, the Government do no checking of tallies at depots. We do that in this office, and Mr. Keys under his Government Scheme cannot check a tally of 2½ million bags for nothing. No matter who are employed as Government agents at the siding they would require to know how their outturn weights were panning out, and how the dockages against them at the depots stood from time to time. Under last season's arrangements this is part of our duty. The Government would require additional staff for this. Further, the financing of workmen at 307 sidings, and the correspondence in connection therewith, is not by any means a trifle. Mr. Keys seems to have lost all sight of these points completely, but assuming for the sake of argument that his contention is correct, the position is that the farmers by uniting have brought into being the organisation which it is admitted has had the effect of reducing costs. Suppose the south-west timber hewers or the Fremantle workmen united to form a trading organisation for the betterment of their conditions, and after a considerable time they achieved a striking success, would it then be a paternal act on the part of a benign Government to take over the show for the benefit of the general taxpayer. Most progressive countries recognise the uncalculative value of co-operative movement to the primary producer and to the worker. Many Governments of the world make direct cash subsidies to co-operative institutions. This State is behind the times in that respect, but although we have never asked, and do not intend to ask for any subsidy, we look at least for no interference from the State with the good work we are doing. The Government surely know the attempts that have been made on all hands by large commercial institutions to squash us. If State handling were introduced we know whom to blame. I submit that the control by the Government should be such as is exercised by a mortgagee, as the wheat is merely held in trust by them. I also claim that the growers of the wheat, who are the virtual owners, should have the right to say how their wheat is to be handled, the Government taking such precautions through its auditors as their interests require. I have dealt with all Mr. Keys' statements, and now I would like to briefly set forth the objects for which the organisation stands. The farmer is endeavouring to work out his own economic salvation. His effort is necessarily a battle against those interests that have so long served him, at a profitable remuneration. The trouble was, not that there was no profit in his work, but that little of it remained for him after the share taken by those who did little or nothing to earn it. I speak of the merchants and agents who specialise on agriculture. These people for a long period had a good time, and as their business was profitable so their numbers increased. Their increasing competition led to the formation of associations to maintain prices. This expedient served them for a long time, but it hurt the farming industry, and would, without doubt, have ruined it, but for the movement by the farmers themselves. Their action was one of defence, and necessity compelled it. With the awakening of the farmer came the realisation that the various interests, mostly parasitical, were of his own creation, or the result of his own indifference and neglect. He had accepted the estimate of his own business capacity from those whose role it was to humbug—so that they might exploit him. They were smart business men, he was only an ignorant farmer. I have in mind particularly at this moment the wheat merchants, and as our farmer undervalued his own capacity, so he overvalued theirs, and gave them almost obsequious respect. But the