most of the 1915-16 harvest?—No. They told the Minister they could move the wheat to just the extent that they had tonnage available, and would then shut down.

96. There is on the file a letter from a broker written on the 22nd September, 1916, offering to supply ships for December and February, steamers at 70s. per ton and sailers at 60s. per ton?—That did not come before the committee. It is the first I have heard of it. The letter making that offer should be somewhere but it did not come before us.

97. The file also shows that on the 9th July of the previous year these people wrote to the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Johnson, who was on the point of leaving for Melbourne to attend the first wheat conference under the presidency of Mr. Hughes, putting forward the same offer?—I did not hear of it.

98. So far as you know, it was impossible to get ships outside of Commonwealth charters?—Yes.

99. You referred to the general neglect on the part of agents. Was there anything done at the end of the year to make the agents compensate the Pool for that neglect?—That was not finalised when I left, and the settling up for the 1915-16 harvest had not been completed. They put in claims both for mouse plague and reconditioning, but they were not paid up to the time I left.

100. When Mr. Mitchell took office, was that the first time you had any difficulty so far as the board was concerned?—Yes. There was perfect harmony on the board before he was appointed.

101. Prior to that you were acting as an executive body?—Yes.

102. I notice in your evidence that you state that for the future the board could be an executive body and not an advisory one. What action would you take in regard to the financial point of view, in guaranteeing the Government?—We would be in a similar position to that of the Harbour Trust at Fremantle.

103. At present the Government are the guarantors to the banks?—Yes.

104. You were really purely an executive body in Mr. Johnson's time with the exception of the financial aspect?—Yes.

105. Your idea is that the board should have executive powers, subject to financial arrangements with the Government?—Yes.

106. And that the board should not take the whole matter on their shoulders?—I never thought of interfering in any way in regard to the financial aspect with the Government.

107. The main question that you have to deal with is in regard to the finances?—Yes. Apart from that there could be much more promptness in arriving at decisions and in carrying out decisions.

108. There would have been more promptness if the Minister who followed Mr. Johnson had attended the meeting of the committee in the same way as Mr. Johnson did?—In that case I daresay there would never have been such a complaint.

109. How did the committee manage when you had no general manager?—With the secretary and Mr. Sutton available, and certainly Mr. Field always available—we could get advice from him at any time—it was quite unnecessary to have a general manager.

110. Do you think the £1,000 a year paid for a general manager was waste?—Waste. We did not get it back.

111. I notice from the minutes that Mr. Mitchell was of opinion that the manager would save his salary three or four times over?—We have lost it three or four times over.

112. Under the conditions prevailing there was no necessity for a manager at all?—That is so.

113. As regards the duties of the general manager, according to the minutes the following was decided at a conference which was held: the committee would fix the policy of the work by advising on matters submitted to them by the Minister or the general manager, and on all matters concerning the proper administration of the Act the general manager would carry out the policy as recommended by the committee and approved by the Minister, and would have full control of the staff. The committee were to have full discretion as to what matters under the Act they would advise on, and were entitled to full information with regard to everything appertaining to the scheme, and in this connection the general manager would be present at all meeting of the committee. Those were the duties laid down by the conference for the committee and the general manager?—I asked the Minister to define the manager's position, and that was the reply. But that was not carried out.

114. Do not you think that rather accounts for the meeting which you were called to attend and at which there was no business?—I do not know. I regarded that just as an insult to the committee.

115. Really, it developed from this that the manager was in entire control?—Yes.

116. In other words, the committee were useless?—Yes. Under that system the committee were a non entity, just a waste of time.

117. The millers failed also to carry out their agreement, and as regards this you had a great deal of difficulty, according to the minutes, and the Minister allowed one miller a credit of £15,000. Who was that?—Ockerby.

118. And that is the man you had all the trouble with?—Yes. There was a good deal of trouble also with the Perth Mills.

119. Can you give any reason why the millers were paid on their equity over a year before the final result of the Pool was available?—I strenuously opposed that, but the secretary said the Minister allowed it; and what could we do?

120. On what basis were the credits allowed?—There were various credits to which I took exception, but the answer that the Minister had allowed them meant that we just had to grin and bear it.

121. A lot of the business, I suppose, did not appear on the minutes, on account of the shorthand typist being removed?—I think it was not convenient to put it in.

122. You said that in one instance you found £12,500 in suspense and could get no information about it, but that you afterwards found that this amount had been advanced to a miller, and you further stated that since you left the board you had been told that the advance had been increased?—I said that the suspense account had been increased.

123. What was the name of the miller?—Ockerby. The suspense account increased afterwards, but whether it was to the same miller or not I cannot say. It got up to £17,000 afterwards. I cannot say to what millers it was.

124. You drew attention repeatedly to the carelessness of the manager in not seeing that proper provision was made to protect the wheat from weevils. Was the attention of the Minister ever drawn to that?—I suppose the Minister would read the minutes. I never drew his attention to it. It was not likely I would go to the Minister when there was no sympathy between him and the committee.

125. As regards the stack at Quairading, was that the 1915-16 or the 1916-17 crop?—It was 1916-17, because the stacks of the previous year were covered.

126. You are certainly of opinion that the accountant's branch should be removed from Government control?—Yes.

127. When you were on the committee was not the accountant acting directly under you?—Yes, in a way, just according to the advisory power that we had. We had no authority over the accountant. The Minister said the accountant was a very able man.

128. As regards audit, did the Government auditory follow the usual practice of auditing once in twelve months or once in six months?—The accounts had not been audited at the time I left.

129. Therefore there was no check at all?—No check.

130. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: For what period would that be?—From the inception of the scheme.

131. By Mr. BROWN: When did you leave the committee?—The last meeting I attended was, I think, in September of last year.

132. By the CHAIRMAN: In your opinion there should be continuous audit?—Yes.

133. In your opinion, which is preferable, a Government audit, or an outside audit?—I would have an outside auditor.

134. You also mentioned that you learnt a miller was receiving f.a.q. wheat at 4s. 6d. instead of 4s. 9d., but you said you were not too sure whether it was