wheat . There is that incentive . The Government should have such control over us as handlers of the wheat as to protect the Government, who are advancing the money. I admit that the Government must see that the wheat is properly handled and protected . They are, however, purely mortgagees, and the wheat is not their property. If the wheat is sold tomorrow at a larger amount then the advance or guarantee, that excess goes to the farmer and not to the Government.

3184. By the CHAIRMAN : And if less is realised ? —Then the Government will lose on the guarantee.

3185. This is a perishable article? — That is why I say the Government should exercise particular supervision over the acquiring agents. The idea that this supervision should extend to the formation of a great Government department, with a staff of over 60 clerks doing nothing but checking and making out returns, which work is being done by our own staff and for which we are paid, and to the appointment of a manager at £1,000 a year, a staff of inspectors, an advisory board and a secretary, for the purpose of merely supervising a contract is ridiculous.

3186. By Mr. HARRISON : How many men should be sufficient ? — There could be a couple of inspectors, a board — I do not care whether it is executive or advisory, but would prefer an executive board — with some sense of responsibility, a secretary, and a couple of auditors to audit the books of the company. I suggested to Mr. Baxter that he should close his department and that we would find proper accommodation for a reasonable staff to overlook our work in our own building, where all our work could be done, and where our instructions could be received from these people on the spot. Instead of agreeing to that, they have gone on from day to day increasing the size of this great Government department. In my opinion the Government are, of all people, the slowest. They have an immense number of clerks doing practically nothing, whose services must sooner or later be dispensed with. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. What can be the reason for the formation of a great Government department to supervise work which we are paid to do? The property is ours. We will not neglect it, and if we are neglectful in small ways, let the Government pull us up and have an agreement that we have to make good the damage due to our neglect. This is the sort of thing we are getting at present on the question of control —

In February, 1918, we urged the Scheme to arrange for roofing at certain sidings, and to concentrate all trucks on unroofed stacks, but they appeared to deem this course unnecessary. Corrigin Co-operative Company advised that about 4th April Inspector Sabine instructed them to truck up to a certain section but no further. After the inspector left, how ever, it was apparently found that there was no section at the part indicated by him, as the stack had been bound right through. On the following day, 5th April, our inspector arrived and naturally instructed the co-operative secretary to keep on trucking. Up to this date the negotiations with the Scheme re roofing had not been re-opened. On the 12th April we wrote Corrigin Co-operative among others advising that the Government was again considering the advisability of roofing, requesting them in the meantime to load up any broken sections or lean- to's, but not to break further into the main stack until further advised by us. We also urged that no costs be incurred in case the Scheme might again change their mind. On negotiations with the Scheme being finalised it was arranged with them on the 23rd April to roof, among others, Corrigin and Kunjin stacks. On 30th April the scheme requested us to arrange for the roofing material ex old stacks at Pingelly to be consigned to Corrigin. In the meantime Government Inspector Sabine arranged for the roofing of the stack at Pingelly, which had previously been excluded from the roofing arrangements entered into with the Scheme and instructed our representative not to rail the material to Corrigin. Inspector Sabine apparently did not make other arrangements to fill Corrigin requirements in material to Corrigin. Inspector Sabine apparently did not make other arrangements to fill Corrigin requirements in material, and we were not advised of his action till later. On the 23rd May we received the following wire from Corrigin : " Received orders shift Kunjin and Corrigin stacks. Please arrange specials to supply Kunjin with trucks for thousand bags per day." At this stage Kunjin stack was almost completely roofed, and Corrigin stack was partially roofed, with all the material our inspector had been able to get sent along ex Wickepin, in view of the Government inspectors countermanding of the Pingelly material. On receipt of the above wire we immediately telephoned the Scheme, who indicated that they had not authorised the trucking of these stacks, that Kunjin stack could be railed but Corrigin roofing was to be completed. We therefore wired the Corrigin Co-operative, " Scheme agree rail Kunjin . Order trucks; if any difficulty getting supplies wire us. Complete roofing Corrigin when stack dry. Who gave orders shift Corrigin? " to which they replied on the 24th May, " Inspector Sabine ordered Corrigin stack to be shifted. Witnessed requisition for trucks. Men shifting now. " To which we replied on the same day, " Complete roofing Corrigin as advised yesterday. Rail Kunjin only. Please carry out our instructions immediately. Refer Sabine to us. " Note. — The above is only a paragraph in the chapter of our experiences of dual control. The result is an account for £20 1s. 6d. claimed by the Corrigin Co-operative against the Scheme in respect of unnecessary rebuilding of stacks and rehandling of bags.

3187. By Mr. HARRISON : If your proposal is carried into effect it would mean the elimination of many counter orders in regard to roofing , etc ? - Yes .

3188. And would make for prompt attention in any difficult position ? - Yes.

3189. By the CHAIRMAN : That would apply in any case if there was not dual control? — Yes. I contend that it is either controlled by the Government or by the co-operative companies. If it is controlled by the Government they are responsible to no one. If they are neglectful on the question of roofing they cannot be come on by the farmer who is the owner of the wheat, but if the Government contract with us we can be come on. I do not say that as any tilt at anyone connected with the Government. Our experience is that when a thing is controlled by a Government department it is unsatisfactory to the public.

3190. By Mr. HARRISON : Is it not usual with these local co-operative societies, which are the sub agents to build their stacks from the railway line in sections to facilitate in the trucking arrangements?— This year all their instructions were to be build their stacks so that they could be trucked. When the wheat is all coming in to be put into temporary stack and trucked, the wheat is taken simultaneously, and there is no necessity to build in sections. You shift from the depot and wipe out the whole thing. It is not suggested that only portion of the Corrigin stacks would be trucked and the other portion roofed.

3191. Our local co-operative society showed some foresight then? — Unfortunately they had no trucks at all, and had to stack their wheat for a long time.

3192. It was all roofed in sections in such a way as not to destroy the roof? — That was done because we were trying to arrange at the time that stacks on bad stacking ground should be removed first, and unfortunately we picked on Doodlakine as the place where they could stack their wheat.

3193. It interfered with their results? — Yes. I now come to the question of the Beverley yards. My file reveals the following letter dated 23rd January to the Wheat Marketing Scheme:— We are in receipt of information to the effect that Beverley yard is infested with weevil, so much so that it would be criminal to stack wheat there. We have arranged with our agents to handle, through the producers shed, we paying them the temporary stacking rate, and conditional upon your allowing them 30s per week for the period the shed is being used. This is cheaper than going to the expense of trying to disinfect the site with doubtful results. The only stacking site at Beverley was the site which had been cleaned out by the Government, and if we had stacked there it would have been on the top of weevily, putrid wheat left from the previous year. When we were instructed to truck from Beverley on the 3rd Jan-