1527. But they would not have a higher percentage than any other company?—No, but they did not have the same facility for separating.

1528. Did the other agents do any re-conditioning ?—Yes, at the stacks.

1529. By the CHAIRMAN : From the figures it would appear to an outsider that the Westralian Farmers really returned more wheat than any other of the acquiring agents ?—Yes, their percentage on the figures appears to be higher. I have not worked it out.

1530. So it would appear to one who does not understand wheat that they were the best agents in that year ?—Only apparently so. It would depend on the cost of re-conditioning they have charged to the Scheme.

1531. But it would appear so to a layman ?—Oh yes.

1532. It could be used to support a contention that they returned more wheat than any other company acquiring that year ?—Yes.

1533. In your opinion as secretary, and almost manager of the Scheme over a considerable period— that I do not say—when wheat is held during the whole of the year the surplus is often brought about through not taking sufficient care in re-conditioning ?—Yes.

1534. You are to put in a statement regarding the staff ?—Yes. In putting in this list, I point out that there are 62 officers on the staff, 40 of them being " internal," at the head office, and 22 outside at the mills, wheat depôts, ports, and inspecting. The salaries for the various positions amount to £12,493 14s. per annum. That is not to say that the officers are all on a yearly basis. I have shown on this list the tenure of the various officers. Those that have " yearly " against their names are really officials lent from various departments.

1535. By Mr. HARRISON : Has the number of officers required increased each year ?—Yes.

1536. Does that list show the comparative numbers year by year ?—No, just the present staff.

1537. By the CHAIRMAN : You find it necessary to have a larger staff this year on account of increased work in consequence of new conditions ?—Yes, new conditions and more wheat.

1538. In regard to the executive staff, do you think it would be an improvement if you took charge of the sub-agents as well ?—I think that could be better answered by the general manager. I have had a chat with him, and he thinks we would have to bring in some more experienced wheat men to the head office, more executive officers.

1539. So it would not be a saving by having one executive instead of two as at present ?—Yes. we think it would, in almost every way. However, Mr. Keys would be able to show how. In fact, at their request to the Minister, Mr. Keys is reporting to the Board tomorrow on this very point.

1540. The same manager and the same secretary would apply. and other officers acting in the office as executive, with a clerk or two attached to them, would do the executive work of the office ?—Generally speaking, yes.

1541. What was the average amount per bushel paid to agents for acquiring the 1916-17 wheat from the farmer and delivering it to the care of the Scheme ?—I am not able from Scheme records to answer that, because the commission paid to the agent was a composite one for all services.

1542. Would Mr. Keys be able to give the answer ?—Not as general manager of the Scheme, although perhaps as late manager of one of the agents he might be able to do so.

1543. What is the average amount per bushel being paid to the acquiring agents this year ?—It is impossible to give the average amount.

1544. There are two rates, one for the truck and one for the stack ?—Yes, from one halfpenny to five-eighths pence per bushel for wheat received and railed direct to depot, and one penny per bushel for wheat received, temporarily stacked and subsequently railed to depot.

1545. Can you not give the average amount ?—No, we have not yet all the details of the wheat in.

1546. You have most of it in ?—Yes.

1547. Well, can you not strike an average on that ?—Yes, if you will be satisfied with that. I will procure the information.

1548. What has it cost the Pool per bushel to handle the wheat at the depots ?—At the Midland Junction depot the cost of handling per bag is 1.614d.; at Spencer's Brook 1.534d.; at Narrogin 1.577d.; at Tambellup 2.082d., and at Geraldton 1.7d.

1549. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : Can you state the quantity of wheat in each of these places ?—I have a list here which shows the number of bags that have been received into the respective depots, and the wages paid at these depots up to the 30th June. The wages include supervision, stacking, carrying, sampling, re-conditioning, and re-bagging, curtain hanging, bagging up loose wheat, sewing and repairing bags, etc.

1550. By the CHAIRMAN : I suppose that wheat runs into three bushels to the bag ?—Approximately.

1551. To make a comparison with what it has cost previously it will be necessary to add on the expenses so far as roofing and dunnage are concerned ?—Yes.

1552. And also the responsibility for holding the wheat for twelve months ?—Yes.

1553. By Mr. HARRISON : Will not the acquiring agent require something for his care of the wheat from the 30th April ? I am referring to this year's harvest ?—Some allowance will have to be provided in that case. If the Commission wants a comparison of the two years we can get the information as nearly as possible.

1554. I thought there were matters for which the Scheme was still liable at the various out centres. The care of the wheat by the sub-agents would be one of these ?—The care of the wheat for twelve months, whether at the siding or at the depots.

1555. By the CHAIRMAN : Can you give us a statement as to what the exact cost will be, comparing the handling of the 1915-16 harvest with that of the 1916-17 harvest, the total cost so far as the Government are concerned and the acquiring agents as compared with the previous system ?—Yes.

1556. We desire to ascertain whether the present system is cheaper to the farmer than the old system ?—I will procure the information.

1557. You stated that an independent audit was not required ?—It has been asked for.

1558. But you look on that as a kind of roving commission. Should not all audits be that ?—No. An audit is for the auditing of accounts, and not for the purpose of inquiring into the policy of management. That would not be tolerated in any business concern.

1559. If there was something with regard to the accounts upon which the auditors were not quite clear, would it not be their duty to act as a sort of roving commission in order to inquire into the matter ?— Undoubtedly so far as the accounts are concerned. But that is not what is asked for.

1560. If there a continuous audit at present ?— Yes.

1561. If the statement had been made here that 18 months had elapsed before an audit was made it would be wrong ?— I do not know how long the continuous audit has been in existence. But for six months during the time that Mr. Hammond was on the committee there was an audit being conducted continuously, of which apparently he knew nothing.

1562. What are you paying the Audit Department from the Scheme ?— We have paid £193 so far.

1563. Are you paying per annum ? — No; We are paying according to the period that the officers are actually engaged in auditing.

1564. No set amount is laid down for the auditing of the accounts ? — No. We pay for the time given to the work.

1565. Would it not be advisable to have an annual amount set down ? — Yes, if the annual amount is cheaper than the rates we are paying. It is reported that the amount which has been charged by the Auditor General is very much less than would have been asked for had a private auditor been appointed.

1566. The question of cheapness depends entirely on the quality of the work done ? — Not necessarily so. Possibly this would be so in an ordinary business concern. But there is a certain standard fixed which the Auditor General must attain or be not worth his job.

1567. Do you think the Auditor General 's system of auditing accounts in a business of this kind would be as good as that of a private auditor, who was continually engaged in work of a similar char-