Scheme in regard to trucks of wheat ex old stacks arriving at the mills containing burst bags, and also in regard to trucks of inferior wheat being sent forward.

5072. By the CHAIRMAN: As regards the Dumbleyung stack, your agent did not uniform us that there was any complaint from the Government inspector inspecting the condition of this old stack. Did you notify your agent that you had a complaint from the Government inspector?—I cannot recall that. What I can particularly recall is the negotiations regarding price, and the discussion which the Government inspector had with our lumpers on that job.

5073. Did not your agent himself say that your stack, because it was the last one to be unloaded, was in a worse condition than the other stacks?—I do not know that he did.

5074. Would you be surprised to learn that he told the Commission so?—I did not see it in his evidence. One has no time to go carefully through all the evidence; you have so much given you. But a stack is bound to go off every day in these times.

5075. At the close of his evidence, when we cross-questioned him on the matter, your agent pointed out that it was a better stack than the others?—I have no information on that point.

5076. Another matter in this connection. If I took a job from you to do, plus ten per cent. for supervision, do not you think I should consider that that meant the supervision of the whole work until handed over?—Yes. But we regarded our Dumbleyung folk as the men doing the work. It is mentioned here that the lumper gets 10s. 6d. and the co-operative company 2s. We would regard the 2s. as a legitimate charge.

5077. What inspection could you give?—Our inspectors are in frequent attendance at these places, and they watch the breaking down of the stacks. If the work is not going satisfactorily, if the stack breaking down badly, the lumpers, if on contract, get very much dissatisfied. There is no profit in it for them then, and they are apt to slum it if the price is very low..

5078. You have referred to the employment of an architect in connection with the building of a house. If you place the building of a house in, say, Mr. Allen's hands, and he charges a certain amount for supervision, you would expect him to supervise for that amount?—Yes.

5079. Would not the same thing apply in the case of wheat?—I would expect Mr. Allen, though, to charge us for the services of an overseer on the spot, a sort of working foreman. That is practically the capacity of Dumbleyung folk.

5080. If Mr. Allen let the work to a contractor, and the contractor did it for less than Mr. Allen thought it could be done for, that money should go into your pocket, and not Mr. Allen's; he would have only his supervision fee just the same?—We regarded any expenses at Dumbleyung as the cost of shifting, and for 2s. we had good service rendered by the Dumbleyung folk. Our supervision was in Perth. We had a certain service to perform in connection with that wheat. Our inspectors saw that the work was properly done each time they visited the centres. When the old stacks are being broken down, the inspectors concentrate on those places.

5081. Do not you think it would be far better, in connection with these arrangements, to add to the ten per cent. for supervision if ten per cent. was not sufficient to meet the supervision?—Do you mean it would be better to give a bigger price for the job in the first place?

5082. Once the price is fixed, you have the work, plus so much for supervision. If the price paid for supervision is not sufficient, would it not be better to arrange to pay a higher rate for supervision than to make the extra cost of the supervision out of the sub-letting?—I have to put you right in that matter. We are not making anything extra out of that job by paying the Dumbleyung Co-operative Company for the services they have rendered. In connection with that job they performed certain definite services, for which they received 2s. per 100 bags. That had nothing to do with our part of the job. Our supervision was something entirely beyond that. No man receiving 1½d. per bag for sampler to stand by and see that inferior wheat does not get through to the mills. Would it not be better for the Scheme to pay, say, one-eighth of a penny per bag for efficient sampling rather than incur cost of £1 for reconsigning a truck containing 120 bags, or perhaps cost of rehandling contents of a few trucks containing partly millable wheat and partly inferior? Further, a man has keep going to earn a crust at 1½d. per bag, and a bag which would carry with a few patches gets tipped into a fresh bag to save time. But the Scheme and indirectly the farmer has to pay 8d for that fresh bag. Would it not be a good business for the Government to allow the sub-agent an extra half penny or an extra penny and patch the original bag, and save the cost of the new one? Further, at the present time we are responsible for labour only in connection with old stacks, the Scheme supplies bags, twine, etc. We have hardly a single co-operative society or contractor working for us who has not been hung up waiting for Scheme supplies. In a great many instances men have had to knock off work and go round to neighbouring farmers picking up what old bags they could in vain attempt to keep going, and people in the country blame us for the mismanagement! Why, in previous years when we supplied bags and twine ourselves we did not have any of this humbug! Here is on a letter dated 2nd July, 1918, received by us from one of our contractors and which we passed on to the Scheme:— I have to advise that the cornsacks, despatch of which you advised me on the 5th ultimo, and which if they had been railed by the Wheat Scheme on the 8th ultimo as promised, would have arrived here on the 11th ultimo, are only to hand to-day. In the meantime myself and two other men have been practically unemployed. On the 11th ultimo there were 2,466 bags in stack, and having no bags to do rebagging, I had to beg, borrow or steal wherever I could procure. On one occasion I had to drive 14 miles in an attempt to endeavour to keep going. I could not dispense with my men as I was anticipating the promised supply of bags coming to hand any day, and kept them in the hope that the cornsacks would arrive. The siding is an unattended one, and the men could not get other work, and if I had let them go there would have been no one to help me with the loading up and rebagging of the bottom layer, which as you know, one man cannot undertake himself. I therefore contend that some consideration is due to me by the Wheat Scheme, and I herewith claim the sum of £19 12s. 3d. as undernoted:—From 11th June to 2nd July, 18 days for self and man at 16s. per day, £28 16s.; less wheat loaded during that period (purchased bags, etc.) 1,802 bags at 1½d., £11 5s. 3d. (£17 10s. 9d.) Extra cost of rebagging 50 per cent. of the 664 bags left on site three weeks during wet weather—332 at 1½d., £2 1s. 6d. (£19 12s. 3d.) You will notice in the above claim I have only claimed for the wages of one man and myself. I kept on the other man, but suppose I should have dispensed with his services, and will have to stand the loss myself. The above statement is, however, submitted without prejudice, and if you cannot see you way to make prompt settlement on this basis, I reserve the right to claim for two men's wages in addition to my own. Will you please, therefore, let have advice by return? The Scheme have not answered that. The truth is they forget to send the bags.

5083. Where was that?—The place is not mentioned, but I think it was Aldersyde. I will verify that. I had a complaint there myself from the lumpers towards the middle of the year. They had a good case; they had not been treated well. When they had received our explanation they exonerated us, and they placed the blame where it belonged, on the Wheat Scheme. We had no trouble of this nature when we were cleaning up our stacks ourselves, unhampered by such restrictions as the Scheme have this season imposed upon us. It has been suggested that we are at fault in connection with these matters, but I emphatically deny that we are at all at fault. The Scheme force us to operate on that basis, and we have simply been doing the best we can with the Scheme "Guillotine" over our heads in the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves, patiently awaiting better days, and I don't mind telling the Commission that these better days have got to come. No other firm would have looked at the business under the conditions forced upon us, nor would Mr. Keys himself have done as well under the circumstances had I been in his position and he under my heel. I reiterate that