3406. And how much per bushel was the cost of it?—It runs out at 2s. 7d.

3407. So an official statement of 3s. 6d. would be inaccurate?—Not necessarily; it all depends. When that estimate was given, probably they had not allowed for the increased storage.

3408. But those figures were published a month ago?—If you tack the heavy cost of the handling house on to that it bumps it up, whereas if you spread it over the six million bushels you get the cost per bushel down.

3409. It was originally three millions and they raised it to five millions?—They have raised it to six now.

3410. Would you say those figures are inaccurate?—I have the figures of the Commonwealth engineer.

3411. That includes everything they are spending on them?—Yes, except supervision. I do not know what the departmental charges will be.

3412. That does not include Metcalf's fees?—No.

3413. Are the contractors supplying everything?—In New South Wales they supply cement and sand, and sand machinery, while the Government find the steel.

3414. What are they paying per ton for that steel?—From £24 to £25.

3415. My statement says £28?—But I have the actual contract.

3416. Do you know what the cement is costing?—About 11s. 6d.

3417. Not 13s.?—No; when I called for tenders I got 11s. 8d. in Sydney.

3418. By Mr. BROWN: How long ago was that?—On the 30th May.

3419. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: That is cement made in New South Wales?—The prices I got were Sydney 11s. 8d., Victoria 12s. 6d., Adelaide 12s. 11d. The curious thing is that when I added the freight from each of those places they all ran out at 16s. 8d. in Perth. When Victoria called for tenders she got 12s. 6d. from the Sydney people.

3420. Can you tell us the difference in cost of steel between Sydney and Perth?—It was very awkward over there. If we gave the B.H.P.—we argued this a lot—the whole of our order of 2,000 tons they would let us have it for £25 per ton at the works. I have offers of freight at £2 per ton.

3421. Then that is as cheap as New South Wales people would have to pay for it?—Yes. In connection with these bins, if we used rounds, ten per cent. in length would have to be allowed for hooking or fishing. With the indented bar that is not necessary. Hoskins offered to let me have that at £27 1s. It would have paid us to take this offer and pay £26 for the flats and £28 for the structural steel from the B.H.P., notwithstanding that it was cheaper for us to accept the £27 1s.

3422. Are the New South Wales bins using Hoskins' indented bars all through?—Yes. The steel is very fine.

3423. By the CHAIRMAN: What did you pay for the steel in normal times?—I suppose about £17 or £18 a ton over here.

3424. Were you not buying a lot for £13 or £14 before the war?—Not this particular class of stuff.

3425. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What would steel at £27 is at Hoskins cost here?—That was f.o.b. Sydney.

3426. It would cost another £2 to get it to Fremantle?—Yes.

3427. By the CHAIRMAN: The steel work will run into approximately £11 a ton additional cost over pre-war rates?—Yes.

3428. And cement into about 4s. a cask more?—Yes. It used to hover between 11s. and 12s. before the war.

3429. If these storage bins were erected under present conditions it would be a heavy burden in regard to payment for several years to come owing to increased cost?—It is a question whether it pays us to do that or not. I am of opinion that it is the only safe way to store wheat. It is for the other people today whether they will allow these other things to continue. 3430. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You are looking at things from the Wheat Scheme storage point of view?—Yes. In placing these bins I would consider the question of the Government later on deciding to go in for bulk handling, so that these things could be worked in. We suggested putting four bins at Wickepin. In normal times it would not pay us to do that. We suggested cutting down as much as possible the single bins and going in for double bins and so arranging our bin locations that with the introduction of bulk handling the whole crop would be turned over three times.

3431. When things become normal the Victorian system will be preferable?—Not necessarily so. After consultation with the Railway Department we ascertained what particular bins would suit them in the working of their railways.

3432. You suggest that if we went in for bulk storage the difference between the normal cost and the war cost will be a charge against the Scheme?—The financial part of the question is a very awkward one. We are living in extraordinary times and will have extraordinary expenditure. All this additional expenditure must be regarded as a sort or war risk. Bulk storage cannot ultimately pay. The government must be prepared to write off a certain amount.

3433. Who is to pay that?—It must be looked upon as a war insurance.

3434. As a charge upon the State or against the Scheme?—To put up a storage capacity for 6,000,000 bushels would be to do something which is really more than we should do in normal times. Within a few years it is hoped that production will be so increased in the State that we shall have worked up to 18,000,000 bushels and more. The storage would then pay for itself.

3435. By the CHAIRMAN: That is by using the accommodation two or three times in a year?—Yes.

3436. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: After the war is over and conditions become normal the wheat industry of the State will have to compete with Canada?—Yes. It does so now.

3437. Any capital charges on our bulk handling system would have to be comparable with Canadian charges or else we would be at a disadvantage?—We have to pay freight now. The extra storage would be a handicap on the wheat.

3438. You would increase the handicap on our own bulk handling system to an extent that it would not be comparable with the cost incurred in Canada for all time?—For a time only, until the production came up to a proper ratio of the production to the storage.

3439. There would be considerable difference between the capital cost between then and now in the matter of cement?—That is only on a small portion of the work.

3440. Labour costs more to-day than it did?—Yes. The point is whether the Government are prepared to go on making the present losses, or to put up these structures and save a certain sum.

3441. You are speaking from the point of view of the Scheme?—Yes. I am only giving my own opinion.

3442. The taxpayer should not have to pay for what you term the war insurance?—He is going to lose a bit. Take a 4,000,000 storage capacity. The sheds, roughly speaking, allowing for Metcalf & Company's fees and supervision charges, will probably cost £280,000. That would be at £5 3s. per cent. For the 4,000,000 bushels you would not have to construct sheds, and would save that expenditure, together with the stacking in the sheds would run into £62,500. In addition to that you would lose about five per cent. of the wheat. That would be another £40,000, or a total of about £100,000.

3443. You say five per cent. of the wheat would be lost? —Yes, after a certain period. That is what is generally lost.

3444. That is on the total crop of the State and not on the amount stored in the bins?—The wheat stored in the bins would be altogether saved. In my opinion if that 4,000,000 bushels were not stored in the bins there would be a loss of five per cent. on it. If concrete silos were built at a cost of £280,000 the £100,000 I speak of would be saved, as the wheat would be intact.

3445. You have sheds in existence?—They are all full up.

3446. If you had concrete silos you would have them ready for next year's harvest?—If Parliament had agreed to the proposal, we would by next March have had storage capacity ready for about 2½ millions.

3447. For how long have the bins been in course of construction in New South Wales?—They are working on a storage for 11,000,000 bushels in 12 months. That is the contract.

3448. They have not yet been completed?—Some of the bins are completed and have wheat in them.

3449. Are the builders up to contract time generally?—Yes.

3450. By the CHAIRMAN: You are satisfied that the only way now, for the safety of the wheat, is to construct bulk storage?—Yes, and also for safety as regards reducing the pest which has now got hold of the State. The conviction has really forced itself