SATURDAY, 13th JULY, 1918.

(At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (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.

SINCLAIR JAMES McGIBBON, further examined:

2307. WITNESS: With regard to the private minute you read yesterday saying that the Wheat Board had decided that the management of the Scheme should be kept in the hands of the different Governments, it seems peculiar to me inasmuch as Mr. Giles, the representative of the farmers on the Wheat Board, says definitely that no such arrangement was made, and I submit for the Commonwealth Government of 4s. f.o.b. dates back some time prior to April, 1917.

2308. By the CHAIRMAN: This is 4s. 4d.?—That is 4s. at sidings. The guarantee given in the past have never had any stipulation with regard to any such conditions.

2309. I may say that I came early this morning for the express purpose of looking through the minutes to see if I could find any reference to that prior. I find the 4s. guarantee but nothing dealing with the 1918-19 and 1919-20 crop except that?—The guarantees announced we get from the daily papers.

2310. I may for your information state that the conference held in January this year gives certain decisions but not a copy of the minutes. That is not referred to?—This is Mr. Giles' announcement to keep the Farmers & Settlers, and he is the man who keeps the farmers in touch with what is done. On the 29th April, 1918, he wrote from Melbourne to the secretary of the Farmers & Settlers' Associated as follows:—

The Wheat Board met last week, and I am pleased to be able to inform you that it was decided that the Board should meet every month in future——

This is the central board which only met twice in six months during Mr. Giles' representation of the farmers. It goes on to say—

and oftener if required. It was also decided to make the following payments subject to arrangements being made with the banks: On the 1915-16 Pool, 3d. per bushel to the holders of certificates in Victoria and New South Wales, and 1½ d. per bushel to the holders of certificates in South Australia and Western Australia; on the 1916-17 Pool, 3d. per bushel to all holders of certificates; on the 1917-18 Pool, 3d. per bushel to all holders of certificates. It has been recommended that the growers of wheat for the 1918-19 and 1919-20 crops be guaranteed 4s. 4d. per bushel, less rail freight from point of delivery, on all f.a.q. wheat delivered. It was also decided that no arrangement should be made at present with the London Selling Committee for future Pools, and that the applications from the co-operative companies and other shippers of wheat under the Pool to be represented in London should be considered by the Wheat Board.

This is a summary of what took place, I assume, at the meeting. The minute you read is supposed to be a record of what took place. First of all it does not make any stipulation that the Government shall continue the control, and further, in South Australia and Western Australia we were to get 1½d. but we actually got 1¼d.

2311. I read from the minutes last night?—With regard to the right of the Government to retain control of these Pools—and when I say retain control I mean inasmuch as the Minister has the right to nominate to the Cabinet his own Advisory Board, and in this direction it must be known to the Commission Mr. Baxter has approached different people to take Mr. Hammond's place on the Board. Mr. Hammond is regarded by the farming community as an upright, honourable, competent man, and he gave good reasons for his retirement from the board, and those were that they were nonentities, that the board was not considered and he could not continue as the farmers' representative as giving a colourable imitation of being consulted. The fact remains two nominations have been made, the latest Mr. Paynter and Mr. E. W. Cotton, and they have been appointed by Mr. Baxter pure and simple without reference to the Farmers & Settlers' Association or any farmers at all, so that when considering the management of the Pool, and the Advisory Board, it must be seen that these men are not appointed or nominated by their own people, and therefore it does not give satisfaction to the growers. When considering these Pools and the right of the Government to assume complete control of our wheat, it might be as well to take into consideration the financial position of the first two Pools. When in Melbourne in March last the Australian Wheat Board gave me a financial statement up to the 25th February, and this disclosed up to that time the positions of the first two Pools, 1915-16 and 1916-17; the wheat for 1917-18 was only just coming in and could not have been disposed of and therefore did not affect the position. The financial result of the first two Pools was this: They had received up to that date £60,542,000 and had distributed £60,584,000, that gave them £40,000 of a local overdraft. Against that £40,000 they had £2,600,000 in London. It must therefore be apparent to anybody that the farmers' business so far as these two Pools were concerned has been self-supporting, even as regards financing and handling charges. The initial advance was made on the guarantee of the Commonwealth and State Governments by the Commonwealth Bank and the Associated Banks, and in these two Pools they had recouped all the advances and actually had money over. In addition to this, they had on that date 39,216,252 bushels absolutely free of all charges or expenses. This represents nearly three crops from Western Australia, a pretty good security to hold free of all charges. We put up this proposition to Mr. Hughes. We said, "You have made advances in the past, the sales have come in and they have cleared up all this, and yet you hold close on 40,000,000 bushels of wheat free of any encumbrance. Why do you not show some ability in financing, and get a further advance, and distribute it amongst the farmers so that they can get on with their work? If you advance us at the rate of 3s. a bushel it would mean a sum of £5,882,437; add to that amount the money that is in London, £2,600,000, less the £40,000 of local overdraft, and you would have no less than £8,440,437 for present distribution." I want the Commission to get right up against that proposition. We farmers who grow wheat even at 4s. a bushel do not get the cost of production back in many instances. It will be found that in any other class of industry in Australia the people concerned are getting at least the cost of their production straight away. The wool people are getting 1s. 3½d. a lb., which is 45 per cent. advance on pre-war prices, and they get 90 per cent. of this sum within 14 days after appraisement and the wool remains in Australia. The only thing that can be advanced against taking over the wheat is the possible loss or depreciation on the stacks. Yet, for the two Pools, from one of which there is a tremendous number in bushels which have not yet been delivered, we have the fact that through the British