THURSDAY, 1ST AUGUST, 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.

JOHN HENRY PROWSE, Insurance Manager and Farmer, sworn and examined:

4935. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to place some evidence before us?—Yes. I with my brother have been farming in this State for 14 years. If it were not that a good section of the community has what Mr. Mitchell calls a love for the land there would be very few people on the land, because it is clear that the financial inducements are not for this generation of farmers. That is borne out in the experience of my brother and myself. We were brought up on the land from our youth, and for 14 years we have been farming in this State, chiefly growing wheat. I have read some of the evidence given before the Commission. It seems to me the view-point of certain witnesses is not the right one. For instance, Mr. Keys comparing his old firm with the Westralian Farmers likened the two propositions to an elephant and a fly. I regard Mr. Keys as being as straight as any man in similar circumstance could be expected to be. His occupancy of his present position is not in the interests of the farmer. The relationship between members of Parliament, mayors and town councillors and their electors is regulated by law. The Municipal Institutions Act precludes a mayor or town councillor from entering into municipal contracts in his private capacity. The Act saves these men from finding themselves in a dual position because no man can serve two masters. Mr. Keys himself admits that he is liable to return to his old firm and his place him in very much the same relationship as that provided against in the case of members of Parliament and councillors, and so we as wheat growers feel that we have a right to entertain doubts in connection with his appointment. Certain things that have transpired are not calculated to help us to grow wheat at a profit. I think it is quite impossible for the Government to solely handle our wheat with satisfaction; that is, without crippling the farming industry. In 1915-16 the acquiring agents had certain sites for the delivery of wheat. Then in 1916-17 the Railway Department decided to appoint men to select sites for the various agents. As usual a start was made too late in the season. At Doodlakine it was intimated that on the 1st. January wheat would be received at the depot. Until then we could not bring our wheat into the stack. It had to remain in the field. We thought that was awful, because we could in fact have started delivering three weeks before then. However, we waited patiently and said nothing. I arranged the insurances of our crops and wheat stripped which were standing in the blazing summer weather with all attendant risks up to the first January for certain parts, and then others to extend in accordance with the time we would deliver. I went up myself to Doodlakine and was there on the 1st January. On the 2nd January we went in either two or three loads of wheat. But not even a site had been selected. We were told that it would be selected the next day. We waited till the next day, and it was not selected. Naturally, my interests as a farmer, the State's interest, the Nation's interests were meantime in the field uninsured. This refers to 1916-17. I felt like you gentlemen would feel in such circumstances. For a wretched technicality of people who have no interest in the wheat or who do not feel a sufficient interest in it. The stationmaster said the wheat could not be put here and could not be put there. I gave the stationmaster notice that 20 odd men would be there next morning to seize a site and deliver my wheat; and I asked him to report that to Mr. Short. I suppose he did telephone through, and we were told the site was there. We had to push the matter to that extent. My livelihood, my all, was liable to be roasted in a moment through that delay. What was everybody's business was nobody's business. I was paying attention to the matter because it was my business. The other people were not properly seized of the seriousness of the situation, and it took that drastic attempt to do something in order to secure what we were entitled to. There were our wagons standing with wheat; the men and horses had to return; we were paying wages; all that as though the farmer is not bled enough without having to go through such a useless performance. What I have described is what actually occurred, and it can be confirmed by the people in Doodlakine. I do not know what occurred in other places, but, at any rate, the site that was given to us then was situated at the back of Messrs. Dreyfus & Co.'s site and extended back into the swap. Bell's had a site further down. After all said and done, the sites are most badly selected. Bell & Co.'s stack was three feet in water before two months had passed, and other stacks had to be bolstered up to a terrific extent in order to get them out of the water level. Fine dry sites which were reserved there which could have been utilised to store the wheat, had reasonable thought been taken. I feel that for the Government to try to assume the actual responsibility, in its various details of working, would be fatal to the farmer's interests. Last year it was thought that if the zone system had been adopted the various agents could have secured the services of the various co-operative societies. They may or may not have done so, but it must be admitted that it is hardly fair for those outside to receive the benefit of those who in co-operation are helping themselves, and are helping this State. This State has felt it necessary to establish what is known as the Industries Assistance Board and various other forms of help in order to keep the man on the land. If the man on the land is now organised for the purpose of keeping himself on the land, and making the job he loves more attractive and more remunerative, so that he can remain on the land, is it fair to suggest that he should hand himself over to, say, Dalgety & Co. or Bell & Co. to render his services to them as agents when he has his own concern that can do it? I have received the following notice from the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.:—

I have pleasure in advising you that the total amount of profit made by the company for the year ending 31st May 1917 has been allocated. Interest at the rate of 7 per cent. on the paid-up capital has already been paid to shareholders; and, in addition, you are entitled to a bonus amounting to £74 9s.

I submit that I have not been buying or selling at a disadvantage in order to secure that bonus. Had I been buying and selling in other quarters, it would have been, to say the best of it, on the same terms as I have received from the Westralian Farmers Ltd., and I would have been minus the £74. Had we been trading in this way for the past 14 years on similar lines, receiving bonuses, I would have had at least £1,000 bearing 7 per cent. interest, and then we, as farmers in Western Australia, could have borne the brunt of bad seasons and other things. That is the position which self-help brings about amongst our farmers. Self-help is encouraged in every part of the world. Our Governor-General, who is acquainted with other parts of the world, has given us the most encouraging accounts and advice of how the farmers elsewhere have, by co-operation in the pro-