power free from political influence with a good business man at the head, would be the most effectual solution of the problem.

4968.The Government would have to undertake a certain control on account of the finances?—Let that be done for the sake of the guarantee which the Government may not be called on to pay; but do not strangle the industry because the Government have made a small guarantee.

4969. Will you agree that the farmers are not the only people who have interests in the wheat?—I think I made myself clear. I said this is a national, it is a State, it is a farmer's question.

4970. It is necessary with controlling the wheat that it should be controlled in the interests in the State as a whole?—Yes, that would accomplish all interests, better I submit on the lines I have suggested.

4971. You told us if the Scheme was dealt by the Government or a Board, which means the Government, you could not expect the co-operative societies to be used for the purpose?—To my mind, the co-operative societies would not do it with the same taste. You would not work with the same zeal for me as for yourself.

4972. Are they not working for themselves when they are working for the Scheme?—Not for the Government. Under the usual Government control methods, with the expenditure, it would be heart breaking to the farmers when they realise that every penny comes out of their pockets. They have the right to look into matters.

4973. It is supposition?—Deducted from experience.

4974. I think it is more a parrot cry than actual fact?—The Government could have the oversight, and should have, but if they had a Board and had a say with the farmers, not all the say, I do not see why they should. You were personal just now. Do you mind me being personal. Would you like me to fix your wages.

4975. I have to put up with it?—And you like to buck and you like to feel there is that sympathy and give and take on both sides. The farmer feels that when there is an appointment to handle his life's interest, his hard earned stuff, he likes to have a little say. There is too much Hall and Keys coming into the question. When we are told, I am the principal you are the servant, it is too much. I am no servant of Mr. Keys; I am a co-partner with the Government, and the farmer in this co-operative head has the right to have some say in the farmers' interests.

4976. The position is that the farmer was powerless so far as the wheat was concerned after the war broke out?—Not a bit more powerless than was the State.

4977. I will put it another way. It was necessary that the State should come in to the assistance of the farmer to enable him to get anything like a price for his wheat?—For the sake of the State it is absolutely necessary that should be done, and what did the help the State gave cost it? Nothing. It might be interesting to the Commission, and it may not be relevant for me to say, that in 1914 we had the worst of all the years in this State for 50 or 60 years as farmers. I had 1,600 acres of crop in and I took off 690 bags of wheat. I needed 500 bags for next year's seeding, and I had 190 bags for sale. I was fortunate compared with some. The Government developed a compassion for the farmers who had no seed, and they fixed a price on those who had seed. They made me hand over the 190 bags at 8s. 4d., less certain charges which they had not earned. They bought Argentine rotten wheat and mine was the best in the world, as Australian wheat is; they bought from Argentine muck, pollard and stuff, and gave us what? My 190 bags of wheat off the 1,600 acres of crop cost me £3 10s. per bushel. The Government fixed the price for us at 8s. 4d., and bought from Argentine nearer at 11s. The State thinks it came to assist the farmer. But again I say, what did it cost the State? Nothing. Originally I got 1s. less roughly than London parity, because we had to ship the wheat there and when the wheat has to be shipped from somewhere else here, we ought to get the benefit. It ought to be the other way about, but the Seaddan Government did not give us that.

4978. By the CHAIRMAN: I hope no other Government will?—That 190 bags, my sole product off that great expenditure on which I lost £2,000, was taken by the Government to give food to the people and give seed to the man who had it not, so as to put his crop in next year for the benefit of the State, and he takes it out at a less price than he could import it, from the man who has made a loss. I have made a loss, yet the Government make me a sacrifice for the other fellow, and then said it was helping the farmer. The loss of distribution should have been borne by the whole community.

4979. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Does not co-operation presuppose a distribution of losses as well as of profits?—The State should have paid commercial value; not cost to me; the State should have contributed; not the farmer who happened to have it. In the case of prosperity everyone shares.

4980. In case of profits to the farmer, yes; but am I entitled to benefit in the profits as well as to share in the loss?—The 190 bags is distinctly an asset to the State; it is no asset to me. I make a distinct loss and we have been called on to pass it on to others at a price we could have exceeded; the Government do not act in any connection like that. If there were a commodity held in the city by any firm which was necessary for the people, it is seized at cost with possibly 5 per cent. profit, but never less than cost but at less than the parity value, the commercial value. So you see what the Government has done for the farmer. When the I.A.B. came in and the people ask who is to bear the office expenditure, Mr. Seaddan said "The farmer will pay every penny of it."

4981. The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter we could discuss, but it has nothing to do with the Scheme.

4982. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: You said your wheat cost you £3 10s. per bushel, that is for the 190 bags; what price did you put on the 500 bags which you kept?—It came out about 7s. per bushel.

4983. By the CHAIRMAN: You have stated that you consider it is necessary to carry on the Pool after the war is over?—I do not think there is anything finer than the Pool.

4984. And that Parliament should be asked to afford some protection?—The Pool should be properly constituted and the Government should have representation on it. It should be legally constituted.

4985. Would you still make it compulsory for a farmer to put his wheat into the Pool whether he liked it or not?—Absolutely. He should not sell it outside.

4986. You think he should be compelled to dispose of his produce in normal times in a manner that he said might not like to do?—The farmers have already said they want it. This is one good thing that the war has done, and we as wise people should now continue to avail ourselves of it. If the Pool is to be effective, it must be all in, the wheat must be handled as now, and anyone wanting to buy wheat from Australia should not do it in such a way as to exploit the individual farmer. We feel that Australia as a whole, and the farmers collectively, will benefit greatly by such protection.

4987. Do you think that if the Government legislated in the direction that you suggest, those in control of the Pool should also do the whole of the handling of the wheat?—Exactly. I do say that the Government should step in and protect local consumption. I am advocating the continuation of the Pool under slightly different control.

4988. Do you not think it would be better for the farmers through co-operation, to take the whole of the responsibility?—Yes, if you would agree to that. We thought possibly the Government would insist on certain conditions. They could put those conditions in and then stay home.

4989. You do not think it could be done without an Act of Parliament?—There are those who would default or blackleg. There is nothing finer than that the wheat should be thrown into a pool so as to avoid exploiting.

4990. You think it is necessary to provide for compulsion so as to prevent any person blacklegging?—Yes, in this respect.

4991. In the silos suggested you might build, did you intend to build them merely to provide for the storage of your own wheat?—The storage would be made subject to the approval of the Government. The storage I had in my mind was an elevated wooden floor. My wool shed is built to carry wheat, but I am not suggesting that I should put the wheat there. Shearing with me takes place over one month, and if I had not provided for that shed to carry other produce, it would have meant a valuable shed in use