mice or for weevils, and for damage caused by flooding from below and things of that nature. With regard to mice, the question is how many mice constitute a plague. The scheme held that there was not a plague last year. The agents contend that the mice last year amounted to a plague. The scheme is responsible for weevil if, through faulty stacking, the roof is not acting properly or has diverted water into the stack and thereby encouraged weevils. But under those circumstances it is a moot point who is responsible for the weevil. If a stack is disarranged by mice, and consequent upon the subsidence of the stack the roof becomes displaced and thereby admits water and conduces to weevil, the agent might say that the mice were responsible. It is therefore almost impossible to say on whom the responsibility lies.

9899. There being such a difficulty in establishing responsibility, in more cases than not I suppose the scheme has to pay?—It seems like that.

9900. With regard to flooding from below, are there any specifications as to the amount of dunnage?—We have always insisted on double dunnage, unless it be in the case of temporary stacks. We provide in the agreement that there must be "sufficient dunnage." We have always contended that double dunnage is necessary, but in the case of temporary stacks many of the agents have used only single dunnage.

9901. Is any scheme being considered to provide permanent stacking places which would impervious to the wet?—At the beginning of last harvest the establishment of central depots was taken into consideration. There is little hope of getting our present wheat away so that space will have to be found for housing the next harvest. As you know, a conference has been held in the East recently. It was called by the Prime Minister for the purpose of considering the housing of the next harvest, and the conference made various recommendations, the principal one being with reference to the erection of ferro-concrete silos. The conference recommended, and I think the Prime Minister has approved, that such silos should be financed by the Commonwealth authorities. The proposition is to build sufficient ferro-concrete silos, each of a capacity of 50,000 bushels, to accommodate one-third of the prospective Commonwealth harvest somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 million bushels. There silos are to be constructed at such places and in such a manner as will make them available ultimately as part of a general scheme of bulk handling. It is estimated in the Eastern States that 1s. per bushel will be about the cost of erecting these silos, but I have no information as to whether this will be the mere cost of erecting the silos, or the cost of equipping them as well with the necessary machinery for filling, emptying, weighing, etc. It is likely, however, that the silos would cost more to construct in this State than in the Eastern States, because in the other States they have the cement and the steel reinforcement at hand. I hear that when the East, which is moving faster than we are doing here, has had its requirements attended to, we will have a poor show of getting the necessary material for building even the small number of silos the scheme will apportion to us. The proposition to accommodate 50 million bushels in silos of 50,000 bushel capacity is considered in the East to be the safest and most economical. That scheme would require 1,000 silos, and the tenderers undertake to have them ready in twelve months. If half of them could be erected in six months, we should be able to accommodate 25 million bushels of wheat. Our proportion of the Commonwealth harvest being about one-tenth would naturally mean that we would be allotted 50 silos before next harvest is on us. That number of silos would hold two and a-half million bushels of wheat, and as we expect to get eleven million bushels of shipable wheat next year, we shall be left with eight and a half million bushels to handle outside the silos. We are unfavourably situated so far as the erection of the ferro-concrete silos is concerned. We might be able to get sufficient cement, but I doubt it; we certainly cannot get the steel reinforcements for silos of standardised size. New South Wales is already dealing with this question itself. Victoria has a Bill before its Parliament to provide for the appropriation of £750,000 for the housing of its wheat. If it were possible for us to get the 50 silos here it would be two months before we could make a move towards erection, and at the utmost rate or speed—taking into consideration the period of erection in the Eastern States—they would not all be ready in time. We must not depend on being able to send away any of the present harvest. The available tonnage allotted to the Commonwealth is not more than 20,000 tons per month, and possibly will not exceed 15,000 tons. We have one-tenth of that, which means 2,000 tons, or perhaps 1,500 tons, per month; that is really nothing. That is the position we are faced with at the present time. I understand that the export of flour is being given precedence over wheat. But the Commonwealth has contracts with the Imperial Government to supply 30,000 tons of flour per month. Therefore, not only would no what go, but only a portion of the flour ordered would be exported. We in this State have 8,000 short tons of flour to send away monthly, and if we can only get space for 4,000 tons, we shall have a like quantity to store, and, by the end of year, we shall probably have between 20,000 and 25,000 tons of flour in stock. Provision will have to be made for that. That question has already received consideration, for at Fremantle the big wheat shed, which has a capacity of 20,000 tons of wheat or flour, is being prepared to receive the flour. That shed has in the past been used for stacking wheat and for the covering of the machinery used in connection with the loading of ships.

9902. Is the present method of handling the harvest the most economical?—No.

9903. Can you suggest something better?—The Commonwealth has adopted a scheme for handling the farmers' wheat for the farmers' advantage. The scheme is trustee for the farmer. Before we had this scheme the ordinary channels of commerce took up the wheat and handled it on the competitive system. To-day there is but one buyer and one seller, namely, the Minister in charge of the scheme. In my opinion, the Minister should handle the whole of the scheme. We would then have the assurance that the only charges debitable against the wheat would be the administrative labour and transport charges. Take, as an instance, Dowerin, where 90,000 bags of wheat arrive in a year. One person should be in charge of that station, whereas at present five agents