WEDNESDAY, 3rd JULY, 1918.

(At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.L. (Chairman).

Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C.

S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

CHARLES FARQUHARSON BAXTER, M.L.C., Honorary Minister, sworn and examined:

388. By The CHAIRMAN: It is the intention of the Commission to get the opinions in regard to the Scheme of the various Ministers who have been in control of it. We examined Mr. Mitchell yesterday. Previously Mr. Hammond, as an old member of the advisory committee, was communicated with, and through a misunderstanding he came down to the City last Friday. To save the expense of bringing him down again we took his evidence straightaway. Consequently Mr. Hammond, as a witness, came in between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson, whom we had previously examined. We think that if we can get the evidence of the several Ministers concerned, it will serve to lay the best foundation for the information we are collecting. We should like from you a statement regarding the policy of carrying out the Scheme, which you think is the best policy?— I think the one in vogue now.

389. We have had statements from the other Ministers?— I do not think there is anything fresh to disclose. The same policy has obtained throughout.

390. Mr. Johnson told us when the Scheme was started he had no legislation to guide or assist him. He appointed a committee, which though regarded as advisory merely, was really an executive committee; and that all matters dealing with the Scheme were placed before that committee, of which he was Chairman, and were finalised by the committee, minutes being kept of the proceedings at the meeting; and the Scheme was carried on entirely under the direction of that committee as an executive committee. According to Mr. Mitchell, an alteration has since been made in that policy, Mr. Mitchell having been of opinion that the committee was purely an advisory committee and that it was wrong for the Minister to sit with the committee. Mr. Mitchell held that it was the duty of the committee to stand between the Minister and the farmers, and if necessary to criticise the Minister; therefore he held it to be wrong for the Minister to attend the meetings of the committee and officiate as Chairman.He did not attend the meetings, but on many occasions conferences were held. Mr. Mitchell also said that he invariably acted on the advice tendered to him by that committee. I understand that you have taken up a similar attitude in regard to the committee?— No. For the first few months I did not attend the meetings of the committee because I wanted to get a good grip of the business first. From the time that I felt I had the necessary knowledge, I have attended all the meetings I possibly could. It is true that the committee is advisory, but at the same time, it has been of invaluable assistance. I do not know that I have turned down any of the committee's recommendations.

391. Are all matters submitted to the committee for recommendation as previously; do you throw everything on the table, so to speak?— Yes. Complaints were made by a member of the committee that the committee were not receiving full information. I inquired into this, and although I could not find any direct evidence of it I gave instructions that the committee were to be supplied with all information. The member referred to said that matters of a confidential nature would not be supplied to the committee. Of course, if that was so, I do not think it was a right thing at all.

392. As far as you were concerned, nothing was kept back from the committee?— If so, it was unknown to me . 393. Mr. Hammond tells us that just after you took office misleading statements were made in the Press to satisfy the farmers, it being said that things were all right when they were not so. Do you know anything about that?— I do not know what statements are referred to. I have never given any matter to the Press which has not been straight and truthful. I do not think any officer of the Scheme would dare to do that even if he felt inclined, and I do not think any officer would feel inclined. I have told those concerned through the Press on all occasions that they could at any time come to both the officers and myself, and that we would give them any information they desired in connection with any part of the working Scheme.

394. Then everything was given correctly to the Press and things were not carried out as in the manner stated by Mr. Hammond?— I would not have allowed anything like that to exist. I do not think that officers of the class we have would dream of doing this., They are above that.

395. He said that committee was nothing more or less than a nonentity, and that only in trivial matters it consulted, while on matters of importance the Minister decided?— That has not been so during my time.

396. This is supposed to have occurred during your time?— Then it is not correct.

397. Mr. Hammond also complained about the changes that were made affecting the accountancy. He pointed out that Mr. Child was in charge of the mill accounts and was carrying out the work ably, though he had some difficulty in doing it, and went on to say that you effected a change with the respect to Mr. Child?— The position in regard to the accountancy was never very satisfactory. When I came to understand the business fairly well I realised that the accountancy as carried out in the Agricultural Department by the Agricultural accountant did not tend to bring about good work, that it was unsatisfactory inasmuch as we were all behind. I did not see how a man exercising dual control of the Wheat Scheme accountancy, could keep it all up to date. In addition it is necessary to have the whole Scheme under one roof. I brought about an alteration and put Mr. Child in charge, and the change has made a material difference.

398. The accountant before Mr. Child was Mr. Berkeley?— Yes.

399. Did you send Mr. Berkeley to the Eastern States?— Yes, for the purpose of going into accountancy matters with the Australian Wheat Board, and to make general inquiries in regard to our accountancy methods here.

400. Was this done at the expense of the Wheat Pool?— Yes.

401. Why was it necessary for a change to be made after the expense of sending Mr. Berkeley to make these inquiries in the Eastern States had been incurred?— I realised from the information that he brought back that we must have a separate accountancy system, clear of the Agricultural Department, and under the control of the Wheat Scheme.