1650. Does that not show the necessity for making the advisory board executive, so that these matters would be reported?—Not necessarily; if a responsible officer is present when the Minister receives a deputation it is quite sufficient.

1651. But in this case there is no evidence that a responsible officer was present?—I would not like to suggest that the only alternative is the creation of an executive board.

1652. But if the board were made executive it would preclude the possibility of the private interviews?—Not necessarily, because it would be at the discretion of the executive board as to how much should be put on record.

1653. But there would be a record?—Ordinarily, yes. The secretary would be there.

1654. In this instance there is no record at all?—In connection with all our operations, as a Scheme we have not aimed at getting everything on record; our aim has been to get the work done.

1655. Mr. Hammond complains that the minutes have not been so full of late?—They have recorded only decisions. It is for the board or whoever is in control to determine how much or how little the minutes shall disclose. My own conception of minutes is that it is sufficient if they record decisions, so long as the secretary is present at the discussion.

1656. It is necessary that all actions taken at board meetings should be recorded?—All decisions of the board, but not the individual opinions of members.

1657. If there had been an executive board when the change was made in 1917 and the monopoly handed over to one firm, the decision of the board would have been recorded?—Yes.

1658. Under present conditions, with the Board advisory, the owners of the wheat have no knowledge as to how the decisions are arrived at?—No, nor would they necessarily have under any other circumstances.

1659. They would have a record?—But not of how the decisions were arrived at.

1660. But generally the minutes give reasons why such and such a decision was determined upon?—It has been my aim to make the minutes self-explanatory.

1661. The executive officers worked in harmony with the first board to be formed, and as far as you know the members of the Board worked in harmony together?—Yes, they were a very happy family.

1662. There was no complaint by any member of that Board as to the conduct of the Scheme?—No.

1663. Each member was made aware of what was taking place?—Yes.

1664. That Board worked really as an executive board?—If you mean a board formulating a policy and getting executive officers to carry it out, yes.

1665. Has there since been any improvement made in the system of working?—There is no doubt the present arrangement is an improvement on anything that has ever previously been done in the Scheme. But that depends on circumstances; it depends on very many things. We could not now go back to the arrangement we had in the first instance, with the magnitude of the work we are now carrying out. We want decisions to-day at 11 o'clock and we require them carried out before 12 o'clock. We could do that sort of thing under the old regime.

1666. That is owing to the appointment of the executive staff?—Exactly. We have now an executive staff and an expert staff.

1667. Take the position in respect of an ordinary company. The directors do not meet every day; they meet perhaps once a week and they rely on the general manager to carry out the work. Quite so. But the old advisory board practically determined on every detail of the working of the Scheme.

1668. There was no manager then?—No.

1669. You were only regulating the handling of the wheat?—Yes, for practically the whole of the work of protecting the wheat was done by the expert agents who were appointed by the Scheme.

1670. Could that not be done under an executive committee equally as well as by two managers as at present?—You mean that the wheat could be handled by one manager instead of two.

1671. Yes?—I should say it is possible.

1672. I am not dealing with the agents now. Let us suppose that the other manager is the Minister. The Board now decides that certain action shall be taken, and this is merely accepted as advice. That goes to the manager if he is not present at the Board meeting, and the manager is supposed to go to the Minister. As the Minister has not the expert knowledge that the manager possesses, and as there are two managers in existence now, the Minister and the general manager of the Scheme, the one over-rides the other. Could not the work be carried out more beneficially by an executive board, which could give instructions, and discuss the matter with the manager independent of the Minister?—If your statement with regard to the present procedure were correct, it would be more beneficial, but that is not the case. What happens now is that there is an Advisory Board, at which the Minister is invariably present, as well as the general manager. Recommendations are made to the Board by the general manager, and either approved or disapproved at the meeting. The Minister is there. Things are almost exactly the same as when Mr. Johnson met his Advisory Board in the first year. What happens now is that most of the technical work is done before the Advisory Board knows it is done, but it is reported at the next meeting of the Board.

1673. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You mean the Committee and not the Board?—It is a Board now. It is provided in the Act that it shall be an Advisory Committee. This Advisory Committee has been amalgamated with the Bulk Handling Advisory Board. The whole thing is under the Wheat Marketing and Bulk Handling Advisory Board, so that we call it the Board.

1674. That which the Act provides for does not exist?—The Board is the Committee and the Committee the Board.

1675. The new body taking the place of the advisory committee is not provided for by legislation?—I would not suggest that. It is only a question of terms. The gentlemen who have been appointed are members of the Advisory Committee know as the Wheat Marketing and Bulk Handling Advisory Board.

1676. The Act provides that the Governor may, if he thinks fit, appoint a committee of not exceeding five persons to advise in regard to the administration of the Act?—That body consists of five members who advise the Minister.

1677. The Act provides for a Committee?—Yes, but is called by another name. In my last reply to the Chairman I was referring particularly to the actions necessary in the handling of the wheat, and the technical part of the work, when I said that the work was practically done before the Board were advised of it. Matters of policy are left at the discretion of the secretary and the general manager, to be referred to the board. Nothing of magnitude is decided before it goes to the board and the Minister. With regard to the question of whether the Board should be executive or not. I should say that whilst there is a proper general manager, there is no necessity for an executive board. Such a man could guide any board and know more about the business of wheat handling than any board that could be appointed.

1678. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Instead of an advisory board we have an advised board?—Yes, you have an advisory board.

1679. The Minister has created an advised board to take the place of an advisory board?—No. You are drawing that deduction from the opinion I expressed previously to the Chairman, and not from the remark I made that the board decides matters of policy. It is only on technical matters that the Board is, as you describe it, an advised board.

1680. You said that the business was done by the general manager who reported to the board that it had been done?—On technical matters in connection with the wheat business.

1681. By the CHAIRMAN: In your opinion, the position as regards the Advisory Board and the Minister cannot be improved upon as you are carrying on to-day?—Yes, as being conducted to-day. I am of course assuming the present general manager to be in charge of the executive staff.

1682. You agree with Mr. Sutton that by reason of the increase of work and in consequence of the technical knowledge required the Scheme could not do without a general manager to-day?—That is so.

1683. Apart from technical knowledge, there is no difference between the information put before the Advisory Board to-day and what was the case in Mr. Johnson's time?—That is so.