iness men handling the wheat wanted to know if there was a scale of dockages and what it was.

5029. By the CHAIRMAN: The evidence we have had from Mr. Keys is to the effect that the Wheat Scheme was responsible for the standard which was fixed, but that it was fixed at the request of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—That is not in accordance with the statement made by the Minister through Mr. Hall. Having from Mr. Hall the statement that the Westralian Farmers had inquired about the dockages, I proceeded to point that out to the Westralian Farmers so that they might protect themselves. A few weeks later Mr. Baxter went to Kellerberrin to address a meeting, ostensibly for the purpose of clearing away misunderstandings on the subject of the Wheat Pool. I suggested that Mr. Baxter should either run a special train to Kellerberrin to enable all the farmers of the State to go up there to hear him, or that he should take a special reporter with him so that his remarks might subsequently appear in print. Neither of the suggestions were adopted, and Mr. Baxter's clearing away of misunderstandings at Kellerberrin consisted mainly of an attack upon Mr. McGibbon and upon the "Primary Producer" newspaper. He also said there that when Mr. Stirling Taylor approached him and asked for a statement with regard to dockages he (Mr. Baxter) warned Mr. Taylor that the dockages would return like a boomerang. That put the onus of the wheat dockages again upon Mr. Taylor, and that was after Mr. Hall had told the newspaper that the Westralian Farmers had nothing to do with it.

5030. With regard to the dockages, you claim that the Scheme fixed them without being requested to do so by the Westralian Farmers?—That is my information.

5031. So far as my memory serves me, Mr. Keys said in evidence that he wanted it to be clearly understood that he Westralian Farmers did not fix the dockages, but that they were fixed at their request, and that at the time he was asked to do so by Mr. Taylor, he asked Mr. Taylor to not have them fixed pending their being fixed by the Board?—I have no doubt that when Mr. Taylor gives evidence he will be able to satisfy you more than I can. We all know that there must be dockages in wheat, and when the Scheme on the one hand, and the Westralian Farmers on the other, are entering into a business proposition, one to handle and the other to receive it is only natural that the firm handling wheat should know what he dockages are going to be. My impression is that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., in approaching the Wheat Scheme, merely wanted to know what the dockages were. I understand that Mr. Keys feels sore about the Primary Producer," because that newspaper objected to the appointment of Mr. Keys to the position he fills. The "Primary Producer" knew that Mr Keys had been in the employment of Dreyfus & Co, and it new what the arrangement was that Mr. Keys should not dissociate himself from Dreyfus & Co., one of the wheat firms, should take charge of a department of this kind, and the newspaper put it in this way: We asked the question whether the "Primary Producer" Newspaper Co. would ever dream of allowing Mr. McCallum Smith of the "Sunday Times" to assume the management of the "Primary Producer" for a period of 12 months on the understanding that at the end of that period he should return to the "Sunday Times." I would also like to refer to the wheat strike at Spencer's Brook. Here was another case where we found fault with the administration of the Honorary Minister, Mr. Baxter. The strike occurred at Spencer's Brook, amongst other places, in connection with the handling of wheat, and the Farmers and Settlers' Association were asked to assist in breaking the strike. The Association undertook to make an appeal to farmers who would be willing to come along and fill the trucks and carry on the work which had been vacated by the lumpers. The "Primary Producer" and the Association received complaints from farmers who had volunteered. These complaints came within a few days, and they were to the effect that there was broken time. One of the secretaries of a branch at Jennapullin, Mr. McPherson, undertook to bring five workers to Spencer's Brook at his own expense, a distance of 21 miles. He did so only to find that those who were running the Scheme were not prepared to put the men on. Mr. McPherson had to take the men back and return with them the next day. The strike could never have been broken in that fashion, because the Scheme were mismanaging it. The "Primary Producer," as the official organ of the Association, made appeals for farmers to come forward and fill the trucks. The farmers, say, at Northampton and at other place said, "If we are expected to go to Spencer's Brook we naturally want our fares paid there and back." I was one of a deputation of three, the others being Mr. Greig, M.L.C., and Mr. Monger, who waited on Mr. Baxter refused the request. The farmers who were on the spot discovered that he conditions of working were anything satisfactory. There was great deal of broken time. I have three or four letters in my office from farmers who expressed the opinion that the strike was justified, and two men at least volunteered the information to me that they would decline to blackleg on men who had been treated as the labourers at Spencer's Brook had been treated by the Wheat Marketing Scheme.

5032. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Did they give any reason for the broken time?—They could not, of course. After we had waited on Mr. Baxter, Mr. Keys promised he would give the Association information from day to day as to how many men were at Spencer's Brook and how many would be required. For a week that information did not come forward, and the Association indicated to the Scheme that it wanted to know why. Mr. Baxter said himself signed a letter to the Association deploring the fact that the Association had gone back on him, and he pointed out that if he had known that the Association could not supply this labour he would have made arrangements elsewhere. It occurs to me as a member of this period then—the Minsiter for Agriculture of this country, when the Empire requires every acre to be put under cultivation, can make arrangements for labour elsewhere, and expects farmers to go lumping wheat instead of tilling the soil, he is an extraordinary sort of individual. The Governor-General's conference was convened at about that time, and the Spencer's Brook strike, amongst others in Australia, was tided over.

5033. By the CHAIRMAN: You took some interest in this matter at that time as editor of the "Primary Producer." Do you agree with Mr. Murray when he says that if the farmers had been aware of the position at Spencer's Brook before the strike took place the Scheme would have had some difficulty in getting the farmers to work there?—I do entirely. I do not think any farmer would have volunteered if he had know what the conditions were.

5034. Do you think the Scheme was really responsible for what took place?—I do. I think it was a hopeless bungle that the Minister made. If there had been a tactful Minister the strike would never have taken place.

5035. If I mistake not, Mr. Murray expressed the opinion that if the wheat could have been sent forward as they were asked to do there would not have been a demand for an increase in wages?—I agree with that too. I think the Honorary Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme, who was in charge of the Grain Elevator Bill, could have introduced bulk handling or bulk storage without resorting to a measure that was overridden by the Wheat Storage Act of the Commonwealth. The whole thing was impracticable; it was not a business proposition.

5036. You mean that the Commonwealth Act was not a business proposition?—It over-rode the Grain Elevators Bill, which was subject to the Commonwealth lending the money.

5037. No, it merely entered into an agreement with Metcalf subject to the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth legislation?—That is right. I do not consider the Grain Elevators Bill was in itself obnoxious, but coming as it did under the Wheat Storage Act of the Commonwealth it was impossible.