acreages, and that although the recent phenomenal fall in wheat prices was in part due to a world wide fall in the value of all primary products it was accentuated by the piling up of stocks brought about by this in creased acreage, and by a bountiful world harvest in 1928. It is. therefore, apparent that the post war period of high prices is now over, and a lower price level has been established, and if we are to continue as a wheat- producing state cost of production must be reduced 

The increased production and exports of Russia have been a contributing factor in depressing prices. The average production by Russia for the five years preceding the war was 758 million bushels, for the five years——1924-28——747 million bushels but production in 1930 was 1,100 million bushels, Russia's area under wheat has increased from 53 million acres in 1924 to 84 million in 1930.

The ruinously low prices at which wheat had to be put on to the overseas market by surplus countries led to deficiency countries protecting their farmers by placing high duties on imported wheat. and it was only because of the demand in China and Japan that Australia found a market for the current season's wheat. it must not be overlooked, in fact, it cannot, be over- emphasised, that the price obtained, approximately 1s. 9d. per bushel net at siding, was not only low to out growers, it was even lower to the Asiatic buyers as included is the amount per bushel our wheat grower benefit from the premium on exchange. This point is stressed because it is more likely that the Asiatic demand for Australian wheat is mainly, if not wholly, due to the low price level, and under other circumstances would, as more or less in the past, be satisfied with low grade Canadian wheat, say, No. 4 or 5, with which we cannot compete.

It is evident that some reduction is world acreage must take place and the country or individual which will not realise that the world for some time to come will not pay what it has in the past for wheat will be forced out of production . No one, after studying Chart NO. 5 could arrive at any other conclusion. it is extremely in the business— on borrowed capital—of producing wheat for sale on the market of the world can continue, overburdened as they are with the high cost of production brought about by our high tariff and handicapped by the low prices and by the partial prohibition of imports in deficiency countries brought about by high tariffs and quota systems, as outlined in statement No.6.

It is generally considered that the high costs of production which have made it impossibly for the wheat-grower to carry on profitably, or indeed at all, are largely the results of the Australian systems protection and arbitration which have been established and designed to foster secondary industries and benefit certain classes of the community.

The foregoing indicates that the commonwealth and the state, dependent as our national life is on primary production, must take such action as will enable the wheat-growers both to reduce their costs of production and ensure for them a greater share in the sale price of their wheat. The following evidence will show how the letter may be, in some measure ,brought about.

WHEAT USE FOR LOCAL CONSUMTION.

In two state of commonwealth, Queensland, and New South Wales ; in New Zealand, south Africa, and practically every European country , the wheat growers receive a price above export parity for wheat used for local consumption. We have full information available in regard both New South Wales and Queensland which attain their end by a flour Acquisition Act, and by a Compulsory Pool respectively. We also have details of the scheme for sales tax on flour submitted by south Australia to the Wheat Conference held at Canberra in November, 1930.

From evidence accumulated it is beyond question that this is the simplest method by which wheat-growers can be given assistance, and provided our State Government has the will to help, there is no apparent reason why our wheat-growers should not receive similar assistance to that extended to those in New South Wales, Queensland, and elsewhere. The Pool's lawyers have considered the whole of the particulars and agree with those opinions.

The working scheme of this nature would be made easier by having a single Acquiring Organisation for the whole wheat in W. A., and under such circumstance the cost of collection would be negligible.

RECEIVING, TRANSPORTING AND DELIVERING at terminals of the whole of the wheat of the state by one organisation, preferably the Pool, would make for efficiency and economy. While the Pool is continuously shading its cost and hope to obtain some additional relief this season through the Arbitration Court, the amount that can be saved under existing conditions is strictly limited. The acquiring of the wheat by a single organisation would not disturb present selling arrangement and would enable saving to be made in receiving cost, in transport cost , discharging cost, and shipping cost, as—

1.The work sidings would be simplified —

(a) Less site would be necessary.

(b) less labour would be required .

(c) Better use would be made of railway wagons.

2. The work of railways would be facilitated by—

(a) less shunting at sidings.

(b) less work throughout as all wheat would be consigned to one authority.

(c)Better use of rolling stock.

3. Shipping would be expedited by.—

(a) less shunting of ,and delays to, trucks.

(b) more effective use of machinery.

(c) more effective loading of ships.

(d) more economical use of wharf space.

4 In the event of it becoming economically advantageous , bulk handing could be introduced and operated.

To enable the Pool to be the sole wheat acquiring organisation it would be necessary for an Act to be passed to provide that for certain period of year all wheat be delivered to the Pool acting on behalf of wheat-growers and wheat merchant. The Pool would then operate very much as it does at present except that its agent, instead of receiving something in excess of 60 per cent. of the marketable harvest, would acquire 100 per cent. and deliver it at terminals. The wheat merchants presumably , would still buy in the country and sell overseas and would merely be relieved of the work they undertake at present at siding s and terminals.

The amount that could be saved would depend on the quantity handled, but with a harvest such as last season's the total cost of handling could probably be reduced by £40,000 to £60,000, and in addition there should , of course , be saving in rail and port charges

EXCESSIVE PORT CHARGES

At first sight it may appear that port charges, since they are paid by the shipowner, do not matter, but this is not the case, as port charges are in effect an export tax borne entirely by the producer, inasmuch as they are recovered by the shipowner in the freight rate. Persona  interviews with leading British shipowner   in London have  convinced me that—

1. Cost at all ports in Australia and elsewhere are known and taken into consideration whenever rate are fixed

2. Any reduction charge is quickly apparent in the rate.

3. The Western Australia port , and particularly Fremantle are considered to be amongst the highest in the world. The average loading cost at Fremantle for wheat vessels is a little over 6s per ton, compared with 2s.2d. to 11d.2s. 11d at Canadian port ,4s, 11d. at Buenos Aires, and 3s,4d.at Capetown.

4. The fact that a considerable Harbour Trust to consolidated revenue is well known by British owners, and is looked upon with suspicion .The surplus earning over working expenses, interest and sinking fund , as shown by the account of the Trust, has been:—

1926/27 1927/28 1928/29 1929/30

£159,857 £143,197 £173,984 £200,529

Attached are letters which were exchanged between the Fremantle Harbour Trust and the wheat shipping firms at the at the commencement of last season, and also an extract from a London shipping journal relating to Australia port cost.

(see Appendix" B" and "C," )

While on the subject of port charges, it is considered advisable to draw the attention of the commission to.