TUESDAY, 2nd JULY, 1918 (at Perth.)

Present:

Hen. W.C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman). Hon. J. F. M.L.C. Hon. R. G. Ardagh. M.L.C. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

Hon. JAMES MITCHELL, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia. sworn and examined:

196. By the CHAIRMAN: The Commission thought it advisable to take evidence from the three Ministers who were controlling the Wheat Scheme before any further evidence was taken. A misunderstanding occurred in connection with Mr. Hammond, a member of the Wheat Board, because the decision of the Commission was only arrived at after Mr. Hammond was communicated with by telephone asking him to be present, and a telegram requesting him to stand over until the end of the week did not reach him until after he left for Perth. Consequently, we took his evidence contrary to the decision which had been arrived at on Friday last. Our idea is to hear what the policy of each Minister was in connection with the carrying on of the Wheat Scheme, and to find out whether that policy was continued or altered by each successive Minister. We should be glad if you would make a statement in the matter to enable us to probe to the bottom to the satisfaction of the State the question of the condition of the Scheme?---I should be glad to assist the Commission in any way. It must always be remembered in dealing with the matter that as time goes on troubles in connection with the Pool and the management must accumulate. In this State the 1915-16 wheat has been shipped so that the trouble in that connection is merely a matter of accountancy. It will be noticed in this morning's paper that in the Eastern States there are still 2,000,000 bags of old wheat to be dealt with. As the months go by the trouble becomes greater in connection with the wheat because of the weevil and mice and other difficulties, and the bags deteriorate the longer they are kept, especially if exposed in any way to the sun or to rain. I continued the policy of my predecessors with very slight alteration. When my predecessor left office i think the scheme had been going for eight or nine months, and the wheat in the bags was fresh. I found that the scheme could not run without a manager. When we passed the Act here the Committee which was provided for was purely an advisory body, the full responsibility resting with the Minister, particularly in connection with the appointment of officials. When I took office the Committee consisted of Mr. Sutton, a Government official, Mr. Field, Mr. Bickford, and Mr. Hammond. It was thought advisable that Mr. Sutton should return to the work for which he was engaged by the State, and for which he is eminently suitable. At the time i took over the control of the scheme the Minister had a seat on the Committee. That did not seem to be right. I thought the Committee ought to be absolutely free, and that the members of it held the balance between the Minister and the farmer, and should be free to criticise the Minister, the management, and any details they thought fit. I thought it wrong that i should sit there and probably influence them in their judgement when discussing, as they had a perfect right to do, everything that happened. The responsibility rested with the Minister, and his acts would be those which they would naturally criticise. The Committee then consisted of Mr. Field (the chairman), Mr. Bickford, and Mr. Hammond. In my opinion they did splendid work. So far as I can remember I never once did other than carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Mr. Field and Mr. Bickford were experienced in regard to shipping matters and in some extent in regard to the handling of wheat. Otherwise, I take it, no member of the Committee, either as it existed after the passing of the Act or as it existed before, had handling of wheat. I see that Mr. Hammond said in his evidence that I had treated the Committee and the Scheme with distrust. That is absolutely wrong. I had the greatest confidence in the Committee and think they did good work. I frequently consulted members of the Committee, whose advice I might have thought necessary on matters as between the State and the Committee. It must be recognised that the Committee, meeting as they did once a fortnight or at stated periods, could not possibly, in connection with a vast business such as the handling of the wheat of this State, its shipping, stacking, and other details connected with it, be executive. They could not reasonably be more than advisory, and I doubt if it would be right to ask any body of men to act in an honorary capacity other than as an advisory committee. In my opinion the Minister should not sit with the Committee. Apart from the questions submitted to the Committee it was perfectly understood that they had the right to advise on any matter that might occur to them. It is quite reasonable to suppose that some information in connection with the management of the business, or details with regards to the care or shipping of wheat, would come to their knowledge, that would not be within the knowledge of the management or the Minister. I noticed that Mr. Hammond stated that the information was not available. So far as I know all information was available. It was my express wish that the Committee should always have the right to get any information they wished. As regards the management, I found that Mr. Sutton was virtually manager of the Scheme, although not employed definitely on that work. He was expected to attend to some extent to his ordinary work, and really to manage the Scheme. He attended meetings in Melbourne, and that sort thing. I found it necessary to appoint a manager, and, as you know, I selected Mr. Sibbald for that position with the approval of Cabinet. Mr. Sibbald possessed a very considerable knowledge of the business, and had had considerable experience in the handling and management of wheat and in milling, both of which, of course, are highly necessary. Particularly is it necessary for any man in control of that Scheme to have a perfect knowledge of milling. It is impossible to say what a manager can save the Scheme, but when one is handling millions of pounds worth of wheat it seems to me that one ought not to adopt the slipshod method which apparently some people think should have been applied. It seemed to me that the interests of the farmer could not be properly protected except through a capable manager. Personally, I know nothing at all of the handling of the milling of wheat, and i think it would be impossible to get a committee together who had a perfect knowledge of both. I think that would be quite impossible in this State. It will be remembered that there were 18 million bushels of wheat for the 1915-16 harvest, and 16 millions for the 1916-17, while about 12 millions is estimated for 1917-18. The first agreement with the millers was a very costly agreement to the State. In my opinion its cost would be something like £40,000. I think that amount is likely to be