the wheat for December and January, 1915?—Made in Western Australia?

823. Yes?—I never heard of it.

824. The first price you fixed for freights I believe was 90s. a ton, was it not?—I am not sure about that.

825. It was fairly high?—It was not fixed by the Australian Wheat Scheme, but the Commonwealth Charterers.

826. You are not sure about the rate?—No.

827. Would you be surprised if I showed you a letter on the file written by Mr. Barker, a shipping broker in Perth, to the late Minister, Mr. Mitchell, that he had offered to secure steamers at about 70s., or sailers at 60s., to take the 1915-16 harvest for December and January?—I would be surprised because I never heard of it, but I should be more surprised if Mr. Barker or any other person at that time could have carried out such a contract in view of what I knew.

828. You are not aware that Mr. Barker handed to your Minister certain cables he had in regard to this matter when leaving for the East?—You mean Mr. Johnson?

829. Yes?—I am not.

830. From information you gathered at the conference, are you satisfied that shipping was not available at that time at these low rates, that is 70s. and 60s.?—Yes, if the rate fixed was 90s.

831. I fancy it was?—I know some ships had been secured at low rates, but the whole of it was being pooled so as to fix a common rate for the Commonwealth—90s. or whatever it was. I am satisfied, from the information disclosed at the first conference, that the rate fixed through the Commonwealth charterers was a reasonable one. It involved the pooling of freight by the Commonwealth steamers or the other boats which the Admiralty had control of, at lower rates. I do not think that at this time the Commonwealth had purchased their line of steamers. That was in 1915. Mr. Hughes was at the conference ; he purchased the steamers when in Great Britain later.

832. The shipping question was discussed freely at the first conference?—Yes, but the actual details were not. That matter was entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth charterers.

833. Are you aware that other parts of the world, River Plate for instance, were paying 10s. a ton more for shipping from that place than the Commonwealth were offering ?—I am not aware of it, but it is likely they were.

834. Do you think, under such conditions, that it was in the best interests of the farmers to make offers below market rates, and so fail to obtain ships to take away the wheat?—My opinion would not be very valuable, but I had confidence in the men who were engaged as Commonwealth charterers and was convinced that they knew more about the business than I did. I had confidence in their judgement. There were Elder, Smith, & Co., and Gibbs, Bright, & Co., as charterers, and these firms had made a study of the question, and I believe, that what they did was the best that could be done at the time.

835. Did they have a free hand?—Yes.

836.I will read you an extract from a letter which came from H. G. Barker & Co.'s London correspondent which is on the file:— Wheat chartering is still conspicuous by its absence. The French Government has chartered a couple of French sailers for wheat (bought f.o.b.) at 125s., Australia/Atlantic coast—France—no doubt much to the annoyance of the Commonwealth chartering brokers who still vainly bid 75s. to British ships for U.K. and 80s. Cont. We suppose the Australian wheat will simply be left to deteriorate. It seems ridiculous. We should hardly think the Government brokers have chartered twenty steamers and sailers during the past 6 months, outside boats given them by the Government. That letter was dated 20th July, 1916. Would you expect ships to be sent to Australia for 75s. when it was possible to get 125s. from other countries?—You have there a statement by Mr. Barker's representative and you have heard the statement which I have read made by Mr. Hughes. It is obvious that Mr. Barker's representative could not have known what Mr. Hughes knew. I am convinced that we could not have got ships at the time.

837. You are aware that comments have been made frequently in the Press that ships could be obtained?—I am aware of that, and so were the Commonwealth charterers.

838. Does not that lend some colour to the assumption that while the French Government could get ships for Australia by paying 125s., that the low price offered by the Commonwealth brokers was blocking the Commonwealth from getting ships?—The impression that I have is that the Commonwealth brokers knew their businesses, and I prefer to rely on their judgement. They were likely to make fewer mistakes than other people. In view of the statement made by Mr. Hughes, I do not think anything else would have mattered.

839. I will read you a letter received by Mr. Mitchell on the 22nd September, 1916, from H. G. Barker & Co. :— Referring to the writer's call on you recently, when he directed your attention to the apparent failure of the Commonwealth Government's efforts to secure sufficient tonnage to remove the exportable surplus of last season's wheat crop from Australia and requested you to use your influence with the Wheat Committee to get them to authorise the reversion of chartering to the channels through which this business was done prior to the war, we have the honour to enclose herewith for your information copies of cables exchanged between us and our London correspondents early in July of last year, from which you will note that, had we been allowed to operate on the freight market then, we could have secured steamers at about 70s. per ton and sailers at 60s. per ton, to load wheat at Fremantle during December and January last. We have no doubt whatever that we could have fixed at these rates during July and August last year sufficient tonnage to lift all the wheat that was likely to be available for export from Fremantle, Geraldton, and Albany during December and January last. These are the months during which, as you know, the bulk of the surplus of the Western Australian wheat crop is generally shipped. What remained in the State after January would doubt-less have had to pay higher rates of freight, but it would surely have been better to ship at these than to have held the wheat, as has been done, for rates bellow the current market rate, thus allowing deterioration from weather, weevil, and mice to set in. On 9th July of last year we wrote to the Hon. W. D. Johnson, the then Minister for Agriculture, who was on the point of leaving for Melbourne to attend the first wheat conference under the presidency of Mr. Hughes, the then Federal Attorney General, pointing out that we had of recent years been doing the bulk of the chartering for West Australian wheat shipping firms and offering to secure tonnage at about 70s. for steam and about 60s. for sail for the Western Australian Government if, as then seemed not unlikely, they decided to take the export of wheat in war time into their own hands We handed him, as he was leaving Fremantle by steamer, copy of our London correspondent's cablegram to us of the day before, quoting the rates mentioned above. Mr. Johnson said nothing could be done then pending the meeting in Melbourne of the wheat conference, when it might be decided that the Federal Government should control the shipment of all wheat from the Commonwealth during the war, and if this came about he thought they would be able to get tonnage at about 50s. In fact, he did not see how the Western Australia Government could afford to pay more if there was to be any margin of profit left to them on what they had then advanced. As you are aware, after numerous conferences in Melbourne, pending the holding of which all chartering by private firms was prohibited, the Federal Government took control of the export of wheat and with a view to "regulating freights" appointed about the end of August, 1915, two Eastern States firms as joint Commonwealth chartering brokers, though whom alone vessels could be fixed to load wheat at Australian ports. How this arrangement has worked is a matter almost of notoriety. The result of the policy pursued by the Federal Government in entering the freight market too late and then refusing to pay the market rates for tonnage