1738. You have paid amounts to the Australian Wheat Board as West Australia's share of the administration expenses?—Yes.

1739. therefore, you would have paid in 1915-16 the same as you paid in 1916-17?—No, because up to quite recently all the expenses of the central office in Melbourne were defrayed by the London selling agents. Their commission covered the expenses of the central and the London offices. That will all be explained to you by Mr Child.

1740. By Mr BROWN: You succeeded Mr Hill?—Yes.

1741. You are still in the public service and you are loaned to the Scheme?—That is so.

1742. What salary were you receiving in the service and what are you receiving now?—I was receiving £408 and now I am receiving from the Scheme £504.

1743. Mr Child is also loaned from one of the departments?—Yes.

1744. What was he receiving and what is he getting now?—I think he was receiving £280. He receives £320 now.

1745. Is any public intimation made when vacancies are to be filled or new officers appointed?—No.

1746. Everything is done by the manager or yourself?—By the Minister.

1747. Does he receive a recommendation from the board or yourself?—From the general manager or myself.

1748. Did the board find any difficulty in connection with the management of the Scheme immediately prior to the appointment of the manager?—I think not.

1749. the board was not overworked or understaffed so as to require the services of a manager to help them out?—Not at that time.

1750. Was the board ever consulted with regard to the appointment of a manager?—Mr Mitchell said they were consulted individually. I can say they were not consulted as a board.

1751. When Mr Sibbald resigned did the board recommend the appointment of Mr Keys?—No. It was a moribund board, if not actually dead. Mr Sibbald's resignation took effect on the 31st October, and the new board was appointed on the same date.

1752. Was the Minister in Melbourne when Mr Keys was appointed?—he was not in Melbourne when he notified Mr Keys of his appointment. What I have in mind now is the letter Mr Baxter wrote to Mr Keys after returning to the State.

1753. When Mr Keys was appointed was not Mr Robinson in charge of Mr Baxter's office?—Yes.

1754. When Mr Keys reported himself to Mr Robinson, did Mr Robinson know anything about the appointment?—I have noticed in the Press that he said he did not. Mr Baxter informed me that he advised the Premier from Melbourne.

1755. When officer were being sought, was the suitability of offices other than those in the A.M.P. Buildings considered?—Not at the time of the first move. The offices were secured by Mr Mitchell.

1756. What tenancy have you in the A.M.P. Buildings?—I think our lease expires in the middle of next year. It is not a direct lease from the A.M.P. to the Scheme; it is a lease from the A.M.P. to the Agricultural Department. We are sub-tenants.

1757. You are really paying the Agricultural Department £517?—Yes.

1758. they may be paying less or more?—They are only paying what we pay.

1759. I see in your return for 1915-16 that Ockerby & Co. handled 2,268,000 bushels; did they make any explanation as to why there was no surplus?—No.

1760. In your return for 1917-18 you show a total of six million odd bushel; where is the balance of that crop held now?—In stacks or in course of transit tot he various depots or mills.

1761. The present crop to which that report relates consists of from 9½ to ten million bushels?—No. Seven and a quarter million bushels have been acquired.

1762. Practically the whole of the crop, less what the farmers are holding for themselves?—Yes.

1763. Then there is about one million odd bushels knocking about somewhere?—Yes, that is on the basis of the certificates issued.

1764. In regard to the disposal of inferior wheat, including poultry and pig feed, was the system unsatisfactory before Dalgety's were appointed sole agents?—It was so considered by the general manager and the agents concerned. The shipper agents, under their agreements, were responsible for the gross outturn, according to the quantity shown on the certificates issued. Therefore, they had an interest in seeing that the inferior wheat was properly disposed of. It was at their suggestion that the Scheme agreed to the appointment of some one agent. The question was which agent should be the one.

1765. Why were Dalgety's selected?—Because they were considered to be the most suitable by the general manager and the agents concerned—with the exception of the Westralian Farmers, who wanted it for themselves.

1766. Did not a number of the auctioneers complain?—Yes, but they were interested only as middlemen and traders. The other agents were interested as owners jointly with the Scheme.

1767. Do the manager and the Board rely on Dalgety's auctioneer to fix the values of this inferior wheat?—I suggest that question be put to the general manager.

1768. What are the millers paying for the wheat they are milling for local consumption?—Not anything; they are not buying wheat.

1769. Where do they get the wheat for milling for local consumption?—It is all the Scheme's wheat. We supply them with weevilly wheat; that is the reason for the gristing arrangement. Instead of selling the wheat to them at a dock for weevil, we say "It is all ours; you grist it for us and we will pay you so much." That applies to all the mills in the State, except one or two small ones.

1770. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN ; What are they doing?—Gristing for themselves or for the farmers.

1771. By Mr BROWN : You are paying 7d. per bushel to the mills for gristing for Imperial and local flour?—Yes.

1772. In the ingoing to the mills is the wheat weighed by the Scheme?—I prefer that you ask Mr Keys that question.

1773. By Mr HARRISON : Have you read Mr Hammond's evidence?—Yes, but not carefully.

1774. He says that after Mr Johnson's period prompt attention was not given to the recommendations of the Board. Was that so?—Depends on the period. Mr Hammond has not made clear which period he refers to.

1775. This was his strong reason for wanting the Board to be executive?—When Mr Hammond resigned he resigned because it was not an executive board. At that time there were no delays.

1776. Is it correct that Mr Hammond retained a seat on the Board in the hope of securing a remedy?—I am not in a position to deny it.

1777. Mr Hammond said he asked for an explanation of the £12,500 in the accounts under the heading "millers' suspense." Would that be the matter to which the chairman drew attention in regard to Padbury's mill?—No, that was something in connection with Ockerby. But Mr Hammond's statement is not correct, because he was handed the file and saw exactly what the Minister, Mr Mitchell, had decided and his reason for the decision. He might not have been able to obtain the information from me on the spur of the moment at the Board meeting, but I remember distinctly getting the file for him afterwards and showing it to him. Mr Field also asked later on to see the same file.

1778. You mean that the information might not have been available at the time, but was given directly afterwards?—Immediately after the Board meeting, or at the Board meeting if it was held up so that I had an opportunity of seeing the file.

1779. Has the millers' suspense account been increasing since that date?—There was an increase, but I have asked the accountant to reply on all matters in connection with the accounts raised by Mr Hammond. He will make a statement explaining or refuting some of the charges which have been made by Mr Hammond.

1780. What was the reason for the demand made by the Fremantle Trust for their payment to be increased from £500 to £1,000 per month?—the arrangement whereby we should pay £500 a month was