Where we have such a long distance to go on the water it is very necessary that the boats should remain here as short a time as possible. 970. How about the length of time that the wheat would be in the ship?—Some years ago we approached the grain trace section of the Chamber of Commerce to know whether we should conduct an experiment in connection with sailing ships. A firm offered me a cargo of wheat loaded in bulk in order to carry out this experiment. The Minister, however, decided that before conducting this experiment we should consult the grain trade section of the Chamber of Commerce. They advised us that it was unnecessary to do this and that the day of the sailing ship was practically over, that so far as other boats were concerned, there seemed to be no reasonable doubt that they would carry wheat in bulk because they had already had two experiences, one with the "Suevic" and the other with the "Persic," one having carried a load to London and the other to Liverpool. The "Persic" loaded 1,100 tons of bulk wheat and a number of tons of bag wheat that was taken to Liverpool and sold, and the report was that the bulk wheat was in perfect order and quite as good as the bagged wheat. The bagged wheat brought in about ¾d. a bushel more than the bulk wheat, but the bags had already cost a good deal more than that. 971. Have you read the report of the Victorian Royal Commission in regard to bulk handling?—Probably. 972. The difficulty there was in regard to shipping. Outside the German firms there were very few ships that would take bulk wheat?—That was written some time ago, when the experiment in regard to the "Persic" had not been carried out. There seems to be no difficulty now. If there is any doubt the Government should settle the question beyond dispute. The value of bulk handling to the farmer is so important that it should be settled. 973. You agree that it should be settled beyond dispute before we go in for the terminal business?—I think it has been found out already. If we did not send a bushel of wheat away in bulk it would pay is to handle it in bulk in the State. 974. In regard to the first trip of the "Kangaroo," was it not intended to send one cargo of bulk wheat in her?—I believe it was. 975. Why was that turned down?—Because we were anxious to get the wheat away from Geraldton. 976. I mean on the first occasion?—I believe that Mr Stevens would have sent it away in bulk but we had no control over that, that was the Australian Wheat Board. We did not know where the wheat was going. There may not have been bulk handling plants at the port of destination, and under war conditions the wheat might have to go to some outside harbour. 977. Under war conditions it would be useless to send the wheat in bulk?—Unless it is going to some place where there are bulk handling appliances. 978. I note that the committee recommended in February last that all orders for steel required in the erection of wheat silos should be placed at the earliest possible moment, as every week's delay would considerably increase the cost. Do you remember that?—That probably appears in the minutes. It is the sort of attitude we would take up. 979. Do you know whether any orders were placed?—I do not know. That is our recommendation to the Minister. From conversations with one of the engineers, Mr Pearse, I know that options were obtained. 980. I also notice that you as a committee sent Mr Pearse to Melbourne, or advised his going to Melbourne, in regard the installation of this system as so important that it was desirable, if it were going to be approved by Parliament, that it should be erected in time for this season's wheat. I believe that in August of the year before the committee recommended that steps should be taken to store some of the coming season's crop in bulk. At that time we were under the impression that we could with advantage use jarrah for the construction. 981. I see from the minutes that the committee did make that recommendation. I observe that the committee seemed a little annoyed when Parliament turned down Metcalf's agreement?—Not annoyed. "Disappointed" would be a better word. 982. They were so disappointed that they urged the Minister to go on without legislative sanction?—Yes. 983. Do you think that is a wise course to adopt?—The committee evidently did. In that connection the committee felt they had a responsibility, which Parliament had not realised, as regard the wheat. 984. Has not Parliament the responsibility on behalf of the people of this State as to realising whether the Scheme is likely to be a financial success and beneficial to the State as a whole?—The committee had that view. 985. Two out of four members of the committee present at that meeting were Government officers. Mr Sutton was in the chair, and there were present Mr Pearse, Mr Paynter and Mr Cotton?—I did not know that Mr Pearse was present. 986. Do you think the board were going entirely outside their jurisdiction in taking up such an attitude?—I do not know. that is how the board felt on that occasion. The board have the responsibility of caring for the wheat, and therefore they felt assured that it was their duty to recommend the Minister to do anything that was necessary in order to safeguard the wheat. 987. I suppose you made yourself acquainted with the provisions of the Wheat Marketing Act?—I do not know that I have. 988. Are you aware that all matter carried out under the Act by the Minister on the advice of the board have to be paid for out of the Pool?—I presume that is obvious. 989. If the Minister had carried out your board's advice in this matter and started constructing those silos, at a cost of about £300,000, the farmers would have had to pay the lot?—Eventually they will have to in any case. 990. But over some considerable period. Of course, that is a matter for argument. I will not argue it now. But if the Minister had carried out the advice of the Committee in this respect, the full cost would have had to be borne by the Pool?—Unless it was financed in some other way. 991. How could that be?—The Commonwealth advances money. 992. But under certain conditions?—Yes, and those conditions were complied with. 993. They were not?—Then I am misinformed. 994. Have you made any inquiries as to what is being done in the Eastern States regarding weevil treatment?—Yes; very complete inquiries. 995. Do you agree with Mr Love that the machines they have in the Eastern States for sterilising are satisfactory?—I am not able to agree or disagree. Mr Love has seen the machines, and I have not. However, I have every confidence that he would not say that if they were not correct. 996. Do you think that Mr Love is thoroughly qualified to say whether the thing is a success or otherwise?—He is a man who would not make such a statement unless he had good grounds for it. But I have not heard that Mr Love made that statement. I understood it was made by Professor Lefroy. 997. Do not you think it is advisable for every member of the advisory committee to peruse the minutes of the Australian Wheat Board, in order to see what is being done?—I cannot see any objection to that. As a fact, we have been in the habit of getting most of the minutes, under the old Scheme. We certainly knew what was going on. 998. But getting minutes and reading minutes are two different things. How can an advisory committee, acting in almost an exclusive capacity, keep in touch with the working of the Scheme as it affects this State and other parts of Australia unless the peruse what has been done at the conferences of the Australian Wheat Board?—I think they have been in the habit of doing that until recently. 999. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH : Did they do so when you were previously on the Board?—Yes. We were always kept au fait with what was being done. I read a copy of confidential minutes, containing Mr Hughes' statement, only this morning. All other members of the committee had just the same information as I had.