the cost of handling its own wheat. The selling price, I believe, is averaged.

298. All export wheat and flour, principally flour, according to the minutes, is pooled?—I think that all sales are pooled. The averaged price is the Australian average, but the responsibility for the care of the wheat and the cost of handling is a State matter.

299. If there were a certain amount of inferior wheat sent away from, say, New South Wales, would that mean a loss in connection with the West Australian wheat?—Certainly not, if it was not f.a.q. wheat. Of course special sales have to be adjusted. The New South Wales standard was a low one. If the New South Wales wheat you speak of had been accepted as f.a.q., the average would be common to Australia. We fixed a high f.a.q. value, and if the New South Wales f.a.q. value was fixed at a lower standard than ours, it would mean some little detriment to us in the selling value.

300. If inferior wheat from New South Wales did not realise a certain price, New South Wales would stand that loss on its own?—Yes, if it were classed as wheat below f.a.q. standard, but not if it was classed as f.a.q.

301. That depends on how the standard is fixed?—That is so, but that may be a weakness. We fixed ours a little too high here and this was acknowledged and altered.

302. Do you not think there should be a uniform f.a.q. standard for Australia?—It is very desirable that there should be a general average, but I suppose in effect the thing has worked out all right, because I never heard of any considerable rejection of wheat.

303. Do you think it is fair that farmers who put their wheat into the 1915-16 Pool should not receive any payment for their wheat when their money is standing to the credit of the banks in Australia?—Certainly I think they should receive payment.

304. Then you do not agree with the action of the Australian Wheat Board in paying the 1916-17 advance out of the 1915-16 money?—I thought Mr. Watt explained this morning that that is not the case. It would be unfair. But you must realise that the 1915-16 wheat is not cleaned up in Australia.

305. I realise that, but is it not all paid for?—Yes, of course, by the Imperial Government. In this State our farmers have had threepence more than the Eastern State's farmers; so that there will not be very much more to come.

306. The British Government advanced to the Australian wheat buyers so much money for wheat before that wheat was received?—The British Government paid for it. They did not advance.

307. So far as you are aware, was that money used exclusively for the wheat?—I should think it could not be used for anything else.

308. You have never heard that it has been used also for payment for wool?—No. It could not well be. The accounts are separate.

309. The wheat board never took into consideration any step in that direction?—Not to my knowledge. I see Mr. Watt says to-day that £11,000,000 are owing by the wheat scheme. That is comparatively a small sum, considering the quantity of wheat on hand. The sales must have been fairly satisfactory up to date.

310. By Mr. BROWN: When did you take charge of the Wheat Scheme?—About the 29th July, 1916.

311. And Mr. Sibbald was appointed manager on the 4th January, 1917?—Yes.

312. Did it take you six months to discover that the management was not according to your desires?—Oh no! In point of fact, I always thought there ought to be a manager for a big thing like this. But it took me some time to get Mr. Sibbald, whom I thought the one man available in this State to do the work.

313. You were negotiating a good deal before the appointment of Mr. Sibbald?—Yes.

314. Was he engaged for any specific term?—I think it was merely a yearly appointment.

315. At so much per year?—At the rate of £1,000 per year.

316. So that if he did not stay a year he would really be entitled to £1,000?—No. He was paid at the rate of £1,000 per year; he was paid monthly.

317. You referred to the purchase of machinery for re-conditioning wheat. Was that matter left entirely to Mr. Sibbald's own judgment?—So far as it happened during my time it certainly would be done on his recommendation.

318. The millers say that Mr. Sibbald bought the machinery from Robinson & Son, Sydney, and that it has never been used. It was landed in Fremantle nearly twelve months ago, and it is still not erected?—I have been away from the Scheme for twelve months now, and I do not know anything about that. I know I approved of the purchase of some machinery for re-conditioning wheat, but only at a moderate cost.

319. As regards the wheat acquiring agents, do you think a monopoly such as we have to-day is equal to the competitive system?—There are only two points to consider, the question of cost, and the quality of the work done. As regards cost, I do not see that there is anything gained by restricting the work to one agent. Of course, it is more convenient for the office to have one acquiring agent.

320. To have a monopoly?—It can hardly be called a monopoly, because the agent merely acquires and sends to the Government to stack. I suppose one could really have the wheat sent in by the farmers themselves to be stacked. The Government do most of the work.

321. Seeing that the Government are responsible for 4s. per bushel as regards the incoming season's wheat, which therefore will be practically Government wheat, do you think the management for the incoming season should be on the same lines as the present management?—It is all a matter of cost. I found that everybody who wanted to do anything for the Scheme was anxious to get everything he possibly could out of it. Unless a Government department, with a large staff, is to be set up, I think the present a very good system.

322. Do you think a manager like the Commissioner of Railways, free from any political interference, would be better than the present scheme?—I should think a manager with the powers of the Commissioner of Railways, subject to a certain extent to Ministerial control, would be ideal. Of course, politics might come into the management of the Scheme. Here we have the Westralian Farmers, Limited, who are handling the Scheme, who are the servants of the Scheme——

323. For this year only?—Of course. They are a co-operative body of farmers, but they are a political body too.

324. Do you admit that they are a political body?—Naturally they are. They say so. The Farmers and Settlers' Association is much the same thing. It would be better to have the Scheme removed from politics as far as possible.

325. You spoke of storage at country stations. Would it not be better, seeing that 95 per cent. of our wheat is to be exported, to have the storage all at the various ports? I am thinking of this factor, that we may have railway transport difficulties?—Yes; but the hotter ports are not good stacking grounds for wheat. Albany is the safest wheat port. But these other ports breed weevil very quickly.

326. But let us say if the wheat was stored in wooden silos?—I think it would be better to have the silos in the country, at the bigger railway stations. Of course, the drier the climate the better the stacking possibilities for wheat. What would be the object in bringing all the wheat down to the ports in two months?

327. It would be once on the railway, and the railway expense in handling the wheat would be very little at Fremantle and Geraldton, and so on?—Of course I would not take the wheat off the trucks for country storage.

328. All trucked stuff really should go to the ports for storage?—Certainly.

329. It would be utterly impossible for us to do anything as regards bulk handling for the incoming harvest?—In six months something might be done, but it would be a very difficult thing. Material is very hard to get. However, if we do not start building these bins pretty soon we shall not be ready with them for the following year.

330. That is the point?—I think the sooner we get the bins built the better.