vii.

vided for monetary advances to settlers for the purpose of clearing and cropping, excavating dams, fencing and other improvements, as well as the purchase of seed wheat and manure for the first crop. A vote of £50,000 was made available, Mr. Sutton being entrusted with the administration of the fund. The maximum advance was fixed at £500. A copy of Mr. Sutton's memorandum outlining the scheme will be found in the Appendix. A careful perusal of the evidence leads to the conclusion that is was not competent for Mr. Sutton to direct farming operations in such an isolated district from his Perth office. For the judicious expenditure of such a large vote on the development of lands situated 500 miles from the City, 50 miles from the nearest telegraph office, and where replies to correspondence could not be expected under a fortnight, the first step towards conducting the business on a proper footing should have been to establish a fully staffed office on the spot in charge of a responsible officer vested with a reasonable amount of authority. The officer in charge should have been a practical experienced man, backed by officers in Perth, who could be relied upon to forward material promptly and punctually. It would have been advantageous also to have established storage sheds locally, and given the farmers the benefit of reduced freights, which, no doubt, could have been obtained had seed and super gone forward in one or more large consignments. Mr. Sutton, in evidence stated (vide paragraph 953) that, as a newcomer to the State, he had no means of knowing whether the district was suitable for production of wheat. In accepting control of the scheme he apparently was not sure of his ground, and admits that he was to some extent influenced by the opinion of the Managing Trustee of the Agricultural Bank, who had expressed doubt as to the value of the country from a wheat-producing standpoint. Because of that Mr. Sutton thought the matter ought to be investigated. No doubt Mr. Sutton undertook the work with the best of intentions, but having only recently arrived in Western Australia had, so to speak, to feel his way. We have no hesitation in saying that much of the money advanced was unwisely expended; for example, large areas were cleared, but not maintained, the result being that they have become overgrown with suckers, and are to-day in worse condition than before clearing. When Eastern States' methods of dealing with mallee lands are studied (as set out in the statements to be found in the Appendix from Government officials and representative farmers) it must be confessed that the procedure followed under the scheme foredoomed it to failure. About £11,000, including interest, was expended altogether, and although some of the work still stands, and it is understood a certain amount has been recovered on account of seed and super supplies, a fair percentage may be regarded as wasted. Against this loss it may be stated that for six years ended 30th June, 1916, the land rents paid by settlers in the Esperance district amounted to nearly £15,000 (exclusive of pastoral lease rents). Mr. White, who represented Mr. Sutton locally, stated in evidence that his opinion of the mallee lands had altered, and he now had a better idea than when he first went down how they should be farmed. Admissions such as this indicate that those entrusted with the administration of the scheme were not sufficiently experienced to satisfactorily carry out the task. It is unnecessary to make more than passing reference to the difficulties with which settlers had to contend. It is shown in evidence that supplies of seed and super came forward late, that freight and cartage rates were high, and that farmers lost much time travelling from their holdings for the purpose of ascertaining whether material had arrived. the scheme which was intended to apply only for a season or two pending the construction of a railway, may be written down a failure. The Commission gathers from Mr. Sutton's evidence that it has now been abandoned. Owing to changes of Government there has been practically no continuity of policy regarding the Esperance lands, and it must be conceded that the work of administrative officers has for that reason been attended with great difficulties. Extent of settlement.—In regard to the extent of settlement in the mallee, the report of Mr. Hewby to the Agricultural Bank trustees (dated 28th March, 1916, and published in the Appendix) gives the following details:— Number of settlers actually on holdings .. .. .. .. 34 Number of selectors who have had work done .. .. .. 57 Number of holdings on which clearing is maintained .. .. 41 Area of mallee rolled .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12,258 acres Of this, area cleared and cultivated .. .. .. .. .. 7,687 acres Area of above clearing still maintained .. .. .. .. 5,744 acres

It is difficult to state at this date exactly how many settlers are still on their holdings, but of the 59 selectors who gave evidence, 23 were still on their holdings in the mallee, nine others retain there interests there, and five have decided to forfeit their holdings. In regard to the last mentioned, special attention is called to the evidence of Mr. Jukes, on page 12, and particularly paragraph 177. In addition to the mallee selectors, there were 22 farming in the Esperance district who gave evidence. These witnesses do not constitute the total population of the district, there being many settlers who were not required to give evidence before the Commission. Existing difficulties.—The conditions under which the settlers are working are, to say the least, disheartening, and their ultimate success depends mainly on the provision of facilities for the carriage