2876. You cannot say whether there was a special inspection to assess the liability of the acquiring agents?---No. 2877. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you think it would be far better, in the case of sub-agents at the stations, that they should carry the responsibility the same as under a private agent?---I do not see it would be to any advantage of the Scheme; we have used the utmost care. 2878. Take, for instance, the Kondinin stack, where there must have been rain to blacken the bags: if you had had the responsibility you would have seen that the stack was covered?---We had no control over the roofing. 2879. I asked you, would it not have been better?---At Kondinin, Geetarning, Harrismith and Kulin, I would of had the material there for roofing the stack before I received a bag of wheat. I would build in sections, and as each section was built I would put it under roof. A great many of the farmers have finished seeding now, and it is customary for farmers in a big way to save 50 or 60 bags more than they require for seeding, and when seeding is finished they deliver any surplus they have at the sidings. I have received during the last five or six weeks wheat from two farmers. In the case of one farmer, the bags were as good as the day the wheat was put in them, for the reason that the wheat was put in the bags and placed in a barn. The wheat was beautiful and the bags sound and firm. The other man came in with 105 bags of seed wheat and I absolutely refused to accept it on behalf of the Scheme. The bags were mouldy and rotten, and many bags were patched, and they had to be handled very carefully. I had to patch a few of them myself, and where the bags had burst the mould was about an inch to an inch and a-half deep in the bags. That man was careless. He carted the seed wheat into the field and it was left there without protection. Both the lots of wheat were harvested at the same time and one was in perfect condition and the bags were in perfect condition; the other, the bags were rotten and the seed was rotten. 2880. You think the sub-agents should have the right of covering if necessary?---Yes, I would not accept the responsibility of wheat at sidings if another person had the right to say if they should be covered or not. 2881. Dual control is against the Scheme?---I maintain it is.

                                                       (The witness retired.)

HENRY OSBORNE, Farmer, Bruce Rock, sworn and examined: 2882. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to place some information before the Commission about the handling of the Wheat Scheme. You have volunteered to come here to give evidence of what has come under your notice?---I saw some evidence in the paper by a Mr. Paton and I thought I would give evidence of what I know as to wheat handling. I believe the idea is to ascertain as to whether the present system of wheat handling is the cheapest. 2883. Not altogether?---As time has progressed, apparently the cost of handling has been reduced from time to time until last season, I think I may say, the cost by individual agents, or the Westralian Farmers, has been reduced to a minimum. This year the cost was considerably less than the year before last. Then, again, there is a good deal of difference of opinion whether there should be a monopoly in the handling of wheat. Undoubtedly , if the farmers are in a position to handle their own product, we say there is no reason why we should not be allowed to handle it, thereby gaining any increased value that may be attached to the grain. As you know, although the price of wheat may have advanced a little, it has not been in proportion to the advance in the cost of living or anything we use, while the cost of implements has gone up in some cases to more than 100 per cent., whereas the value of the grain practically remains the same. You know we are supposed to be getting something like 4s. 9d., at any rate last year, for our wheat; in that connection my experience has been, with the present Board and administration we do not know how our accounts stood. it is most unsatisfactory. For myself I have yet no idea what credits have been passed for my 1915-16 wheat. 2884. By Mr. HARRISON: You are speaking now of the Industries Assistance Board?---The Industries Assistance Board which is part of the Scheme. 2885. By the CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with it?---We do not know what we are getting for our wheat. Our wheat to-day is not returning much, or very little more than before the war, and against that we have enormous expenses in increased cost of fertiliser and everything we handle. Therefore, we are not getting more for our wheat to-day, and we claim to minimise that to handle our wheat we must minimise the case. This, I claim, we have done to the satisfaction of all concerned. There have been some complaints as to the handling of wheat this year, on account of the delay in moving certain stacks from certain sidings. That has been altogether the fault of the administration of the Scheme, or of the Railways, in not keeping up to their promises. We have been told, after applying for trucks time and time again, that the Railways would make them available to us, and certain hauling power, so as to facilitate the removal of the wheat. That is erroneous, for time and again we have applied for the trucks and no such arrangements have been made. There have been complaints that the wheat has already deteriorated by stacks becoming wet. The Government inspectors, when they visit any district from time to time, have had brought under their notice the advisability of temporarily roofing the stacks, so that we could build in sections and roof it as we have done in previous years. This they refused to do because they said they were going to move the wheat. Altogether the Board have dislocated the organisation of labour altogether---the Board or the Railway Department. Where we could have had the wheat all railed by the end of April, we only finished on Saturday last. That wheat should have gone away, according to arrangements, by the end of April, and the Railway Department or the Board would not allow us to roof our wheat and would not provide the roofing for the protection of the wheat. There were three inches of rain in two days, which meant a considerable loss to the Pool. While it is argued that the individual farmer does not lose, it is only common sense that he does. If the handling of the wheat was placed entirely in the hands of the farmers they would not allow such a state of affairs to exist. They would have provided for temporary roofing, knowing that it was absolutely necessary, and would have thus saved a considerable amount of loss and damage to wheat, such as have occurred this season. We say we are entitled to handle our wheat, that the Government are not the owners of it but only the mortgagees, and that, under Government supervision, we have the right to deal with it, and should not be hampered by any restrictions in the way of making our arrangements as has been the case in the past. Our experience this year has been that under the system of dual control the matter has not been satisfactory. First, we submitted samples to the Scheme, and they docked, and on that we docked. The docking is not satisfactory. Apart from that, the Scheme seem to take control just at the most critical moment, and alter the arrangements and organisations of the farmers, which in turn disorganises labour. 2886. From what source did you get that information?---From the instructions issued from the office. The Scheme alter their orders and this disorganises our arrangements. We were railing wheat at a certain time. We ordered our trucks to come along so many per day or per week. We then arranged with our man accordingly. We had just commenced loading these trucks when the Scheme ordered a discontinuance of the loading, because they wanted those trucks to be loaded from some other stacks, either their own or the old stacks. Our arrangements, therefore, had to cease immediately, while those trucks were hauled away to another stack on behalf of the Scheme. Until the Scheme stacks had been re-