TUESDAY, 17th SEPTEMBER, 1918.

(At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W.C. Angwin, M.L.A., Chairman.

Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C.

Hon. R.G. Ardagh, M.L.C.

S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A.

T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A

WILLIAM HERBERT HOPE, Chief Clerk, Railway Department, sworn and examined:

7262. By the CHAIRMAN: You are aware that this Royal commission has been appointed to make inquiries into the wheat marketing scheme. We have had evidence dealing with charges for the railway haulage. First, Mr. McGregor pointed out the increase in railage arising from the depôt system. Later, Mr. Keys, the Wheat Scheme manager, gave evidence that Mr. McGregor was in error, and that a special rate had been made by the Railway Department, providing for the direct charge from the siding at which the wheat was lifted by the Railway Department to the terminal station, plus 2s. 6d. per ton if stored in a depôt. We asked for the file dealing with the matter, and we find that on 4th January, 1918, the following letter was written by Mr. Rushton, as Secretary for Railways, to the manager of the Wheat Scheme:—

It has been agreed that the wheat shall be sent to the various depôts as arranged, and that the Railway Department shall charge in the first instance the ordinary local rate for the distance hauled and accounts shall be made out and submitted to you at regular periods for payment. As, however, the Scheme has to issue certificates to the farmers for wheat delivered by them, and requires to show on such certificates the amount deducted for railage to the port, it has been agreed that the Scheme shall deduct the railage from sending station to the port plus 2s. 6d., including 6d. shunting charges at port, and that when the Railway Department subsequently hauls the wheat from the depot to the port the charges shall not exceed the throughout rate plus the 2s. 6d. above mentioned; so that the Scheme shall not be required to pay any freight beyond that deducted from the certificates in the first instance. So far as this department is concerned, the invoice from the sending station to the depôt will represent one complete transaction, and when the wheat is subsequently sent to the port for shipment charges will be raised, but not to exceed the difference in freight between the amount already paid in the first instance, and the throughout rate plus 2s. 6d.

Evidence was given to us on Friday, with definite instances, which if correct shows that the letter has not been adhered to. Here is one instance: Truck GC 6901 on 20th May, 1918, Kwollyin-Spencer's Brook, 9 tons 4cwt. 1 quarter, at 5s. 1d., £2 6s. 10d. Ditto, 25th May, 1918, Spencer's Brook-North Fremantle, 9 tons 4 cwt. 1 quarter, at 7s. 9d., £3 11s. 5d; wharf haulage 4s. 7d. It is stated in evidence that these amounts have been charged by the Railway Department and paid by the Wheat Scheme. If consigned direct from Kwollyin to North Fremantle, 9 tons 4 cwt. 1 qr., at 9s.3d., would amount to £4 5s. 3d. ; wharf haulage 4s. 7d. But is not the wharf haulage in the 2s. 6d.?-Yes; but apparently in that second charge the 2s. 6d. has not been taken into account. I take it that the rate quoted in that evidence is the bare rate, without the half-crown.

7263. The total with the wharfage is £4 9s. 10d., and the difference is £1 13s.?-Yes.

7264. The rate on that truck should have been 9s. 3d., plus 2s. 6d.?-Yes. Evidently the two local rates have been charged.

7265. Instead of 9s. 3d., 13s. 4d. has been charged?-I take it that that is an odd instance.

7266. No. Here is another similar instance: Truck G.C. 8583 on 26th May, 1918, from Morowa to Spencer's Brook, 9 tons 18 cwt. 3qrs., at 12s. 5d., £ 6 3s. 5d. Ditto, on 1st June, 1918, Spencer's Brook to North Fremantle, 9 tons 18 cwt. 3 qrs., at 7s. 9d., £ 3 17s.; and 4s. 11d. wharf haulage, charged by the Railway Department and paid by the Scheme, total £10 5s. 4d. If consigned direct from Morowa to North Fremantle at 16s. 1d. the charge would have been £7 19s. 10d., plus wharf haulage 4s. 11d., total £8 4s. 9d. These are trucks which have been consigned and paid for by the Scheme. We have also here a further list of trucks which have been consigned to a mill. Whether the arrangement applied to wheat consigned to mills I am not sure, but the differences between the amounts are considerable. Eleven trucks consigned on various dates from Nippering to Tambellup, total 127 tons 4 cwt. 3 qrs. at 8s. 1d. per ton, would be £51 8s. 6d. The wheat was consigned again from Tambellup to Katanning mill, and the Railway Departments charge was £29 13s. 9d. Total charged by the Railways and paid by the Scheme, £81 2s. 6d. If this wheat has been consigned direct from Nippering to Katanning, the rate would have been 6s. 7d. per ton, and the total charge of your department £41 17s. 8d.?-There is an obvious mistake in that. Between Nippering and Tambellup the wheat has been carried past Katanning. Certainly, if it has been in the first instance consigned to Katanning, the rate stated would doubtless be correct. But, in fact, the wheat was hauled to Tambellup and then hauled back to Katanning, and the rate, omitting the 2s. 6d., would have to be on the actual mileage hauled. In that statement no account has been taken of the fact that the wheat had gone past its ultimate destination. As regards the rate to the mills, I wish to explain that the only arrangement made with the Commissioner of Railways is the arrangement which is set out in the minute you read just now. No mention was made of the arrangement applying to anything but the wheat for shipment at the ports. I have a copy of the minute which you read, and in the minute the words "from the sending station to the port," are underlined. So far as I know, no application has ever been made to the Railway Department to apply the same conditions to wheat going to the mills.

7267. Then it does not apply to wheat consigned to mills?— Not so far. As no application has been made, naturally it has not been refused; but, of course, I am not in position to say that if application is made the same principle would apply.

7268. But were your officers aware of the arrangement?—Yes. The only thing was that on the day instructions were issued to the traffic branch, the branch were told that when the time came for re-consigning the wheat from the depôt to the port they would be instructed by the Commissioner how to charge. I have got out a few particulars. The movement of the wheat to the port have so far been just two or three trucks, which have been sent down without any word.

7269. Immediately this letter was sent to Mr. Keys, was not a copy transmitted to the officer in charge of the accounts?—Yes; he was notified of the contents. But at that time the whole arrangement was as to wheat going to the depôts. I think the total tonnage sent to ports so far amounts to only about ten tons.

7270. I have about 20 tons here in two instances?—To the port?