cheapness is not the sole point. It will be necessary to select certain sites throughout the country, as we suggested last year to the Scheme, but which they turned down until they found they were obliged to agree to it.

3238. That is instead of depots?—I would still have the depots. Knowing, as I do, that most of the damage is done to the wheat is due to the wet, as well as to the weevil—for experience shows that if it can be kept dry it is less liable to weevil than if it is allowed to become wet—I would continue the depot scheme. At suitable stacking places throughout the country, I would select sites where they could stack the whole of the incoming wheat of the district, and stack it in such a manner form the start that it would be efficiently roofed and screened. I do not advocate taking a little wheat from here and a little from there, and all that is left being roofed, for that is a stupid arrangement. If we could have an idea in ample time as to when the wheat will be dealt with, it can be removed to the depot, or roofed and screened at definite stations throughout the country. If we fix these depots, as was the case last year, the Railway Department cannot lift it between the time of harvesting and the time when it should be under protection. A good deal more wheat should have been in depots than is the case. It will be better, therefore, to concentrate energy on a certain number of sidings, get them cleaned up, and leave the rest on good stacking sites, well built, well roofed and well screened. This scheme should be gone on with immediately. There should be no mean cheeseparing about the business. It should be carried out with the idea of definite efficiency for the protection of that great asset. We cannot at present be paid for wheat because people who are wanting to buy it know that it is not an asset kept indefinitely. Wheat must have the utmost care in its protection, and this fact justifies the expenditure of our money—it is, after all, the money of the owners of the wheat—in order to provide adequate and efficient protection, for this asset. There should be no slipshod method used in the matter. We should have a definite plan and a definite scheme, well recognised and known from the commencement. In addition, the whole of the work of carrying out that scheme should be let under contract to reputable people, and the contract should embrace a liability on the part of the contractor for carrying out the whole of his responsibilities. There should be no duplication, if possible; but the Government, who are the custodians of the money which is lent on the wheat, should have ample supervision over such contractors, to see that they carry out their contract efficiently and properly; and the Government should exact penalties if penalties are due. I say that would be a much more businesslike method than the present system of half Government control and half private control. As to who should have the control, I contend the Government should not undertake it by departmental service. In the first place, they have not the responsibility; they cannot be fined or punished for negligence; they have not the personal interest in the wheat; and, generally, the experience has been that departmental control of that sort of business is not satisfactory to the people who own it. Secondly, I contend that if the work is to be let by contract, then, if we can establish the fact, as I have attempted to do, that this co-operative organisation is a genuine and honest co-operative organisation which is and can be made of benefit to the producing community of this country, they should be handed this work to carry out on contract provided they give the necessary security. If the community values the co-operative movement which is going on as that movement should be valued, the community should recognise in this wheat handling a means of keeping co-operative enterprise in full and proper existence. Whatever our detractors may say, we contend that we have been quite honest in this movement. Many of us have put into it the very best we have got. The "Sunday Times" suggests that ours is an organisation run merely for the making of fat billets for a few. Although the organisation thoroughly approves of paying for efficient management in a fitting way, I wish to inform the Commission that so far as I am concerned, at whom that hit was made, I am not receiving remuneration to the same extend as I received in the position from which I resigned. I may mention, also, that for some years many of us connected with this organisation have worked in an honorary capacity. We put our best into the thing because we believe it to be the way out for the farmer. This is a solid movement of self-help, which can become of great assistance to the farming industry.

3239. By the CHAIRMAN: We shall recall you on your return from Melbourne. However, as regards protection for this year, do you suggest the erection of sheds or stacks with ample protection?—We should build the stacks first of all with more dunnage than was used in some places; secondly, the roof should be much more secure and of better construction than previously, even to the extent of perhaps putting up uprights. One great trouble with the roofing has been that after 18 months or so the ravages of mice, and wheat moving and shifting, and bags bursting in the centre, caused pockets, and then the timbers on the top naturally pocket themselves, and the water gets in.

3240. You may have noticed in the Press reports that evidence has been given that at those depots where there were large quantities of wheat some weevily wheat has been put in. Is not that liable to infect the whole of the wheat?—Undoubtedly. But experience shows that wheat will not be infected at anything like the same rate if it is kept dry from the inception. I also think that the greater number of sidings and receiving stations where we can build economically a definite protection is better than concentrating wheat at a centre, because of that question of weevil.

3241. That was the next question I was going to ask you?—I think we shall do better with the weevil at those smaller depots. At the same time, there are some sidings at which we cannot stack wheat; and as regards all those sidings the wheat should be taken to certain depots which should be constructed. Otherwise, the quick and thorough building immediately the stuff comes in and its protection, are in my opinion the necessary matters.

3242. By Mr. HARRISON: The main protection of this wheat, whether you had it at a depot or at a centre as you suggest, would be covering from rain and also loss from damp?—Absolutely.

3243. That would entail a solid floor from the bottom?—I would even suggest exactly as is done in South Australia, in a cheap method, put mice-proof shields around the wheat.

3244. You could do that with a solid floor?—In South Australia they have the dunnage floor, but round the stack, about 18 inches deep and 18 inches above the ground, galvanised iron is let in. We have not had mice plague yet, but that is no reason why we should not provide protection in case that plague should come.

3245. The cost of that protection would be more than met in the first year, without the break-down value of the iron?—Yes.

(The witness retired.)

The Hon. JOSEPH DUFFELL, M.L.C., sworn and examined:

3246. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you purchased a quantity of damaged wheat for fowls from Dalgety & Co.?—I did.

3247. Who invoiced you for that wheat?—The first purchase I made was the result of information I received that Dalgety & Co. were agents for the sale of wheat below f.a.q. I gave an order for five bags to the agent for Dalgety's, Mr. Seymour. I received those five bags, and also an invoice, together with a covering note, from Dalgety's, requesting prompt payment as they were merely selling the wheat on commission. The wheat was not of as good quality as I might desire; so when ordering the next lot from Mr. Seymour I complained that the quality was not as good as I would like to give to my birds. He said, "We have some better stuff, but it will cost you 3s. 6d. per bushel." I said, "All right; you can send five bags." He said, ":You had better make it 10." I said, "No; I will take the five bags, and if that is satisfactory I will get a further five bags." The give bags came to hand, and also an invoice from the firm of Hatch Bros. I received the invoice at my business premises on King-street, and send a cheque by return mail, not having seen the wheat at this time. A few days afterwards,