FRANK WILLIAM BUCK STEVENS, Secretary Fremantle Harbour Trust, sworn and examined:

5483. By the CHAIRMAN: This Commission has been appointed to inquire into the handling of the wheat under Wheat Marketing Act, 1916. Evidence has been given to the effect that the Harbour Trust charges are exorbitant; will you please tell us what they are?—The only source of revenue which the Harbour Trust derives from wheat is from the actual handling from the trucks into ships or from trucks to the stack, as the case may be. In order to carry on the wheat business satisfactorily, and to deal with a larger volume of shipping, the Harbour Trust had to embark on heavy expenditure in connection with machinery, plant and shed and railway accommodation on the wharves, and so forth. We have handled and shipped wheat for a number of years, and our experience is that the charge made for handling from the trucks to the stack, or the ship, does not cover our actual working cost. We have to rely on what we can get for storage to make up for loss on the actual working costs plus all overhead charges in the shape of interest and sinking fund, depreciation and insurance. In that way we have been able to make ends meet. It is costing us now in overhead charges, including administration, interest, sinking fund and depreciation roughly £10,000 a year, and we recoup ourselves to that extent from somewhere. We have kept the actual handling charges down to the bare cost of the labour.

5484. Suppose I send you some wheat, it is taken direct from the truck and put into the ship and a certain rate is charged; that rate includes the use of machinery and will bear all charges?—The ship pays for the use of machinery. We charge a ship the same rate per hour or per day for a wheat gantry as we do for a crane, because that gear, when it is working from the wharf, is taking the place of our own ship's gear, so that the hire of that machinery is a fair charge against the ship.

5485. In taking into consideration for the wheat you charge interest, depreciation etc., on the machinery, buildings and wharves?—Partly, not the whole, because some is applicable to other work; the fixed machinery and sheds that are usable only for wheat. In the grain shed there are fixed elevators.

5486. Take it this year, where most of the wheat is stored in the country, there is no charge there for storage as far as the machinery is concerned?— We have been charging a flat rate to cover our overhead charges. We have to pay the Government interest on the money they have advanced.

5487. Does it not appear that this machinery was put there for certain purpose and had to pay for itself in connection with its use?—It is not an east matter. The shipping seasons have been so varied. One year there has been a lot of shipping another year practically nothing. The working costs are charged against the work and if in the course of a year the machines are not worked a sufficiently number of machine hours to pay for the working costs, there is a loss. You cannot confuse working costs with overhead charges.

5488. You only charge for storage in sheds when used?—You mean general cargo. Since a flat rate of £1,000 per month was fixed matters have developed along lines that no one realised. We have a fixed rate for storage—so much per bag inside and so much per bag outside. When shipping is brisk and there is little storage our loss is greater because we do not get any of the unearned increment. When shipping becomes slacker the wheat remains on our hands a longer time; the charging of a schedule rate was giving us more revenue than we required and we reduced it by one half. That was in the autumn of 1916. The wheat board asked us to consider the matter and to place them on the best terms we could. It was found that we had collected sufficient revenue under the storage to cover overhead charges and if we went on that rate we would have in hand more money than we required. We reduced the amount to a flat rate so that it would pan out level. At the end of that time the Wheat Board asked us if we would consider the matter again. We found that our outgoings came to £10,000 a year and we fixed on a flat rate of £1,000 a month.

5489. You base your charges principally on the amount you have to pay to the Government for interest and depreciation?—That is a proportion of the administrative cost which is not paid to the Government, there is depreciation on various plant, fire insurance; there is interest which, after all said and done, amounts to £4,900 a year and sinking fund and accident insurance. Those are the overhead charges which are not all paid to the Government by any means.

5490. The accident and insurance does not come out of the handling charges?—No.

5491. It means this: The Scheme can store wheat outside the Harbour Trust premises at a less rate than they can store them on the Harbour Trust premises on account of the overhead charges and the charges for plant, etc., of which they do not avail themselves?—I do not know if that is so or not. In the ordinary course of work in normal times that machinery would have been used continuously through the grain season.

5492. Could you expect the Wheat Scheme to pay for these when they do not avail themselves of them?—We expect the trade for which the machinery was installed to pay for them.

5493. At the time they are not using them?—Where is our revenue to come from? It is different in regard to the wheat and certain other exports from Fremantle. In the other states there is a wharfage charge on wheat. In South Australia there is a penny a bag wharfage which is a toll; we have nothing whatever of that; there is no other source which we can repay our outlay.

5494. It will pay the Scheme to store their wheat away from the territory under the Fremantle Harbour Trust, for by doing so they will escape certain charges which they have to pay to-day?—That may be so it may not, I can not say. It is only fair to say the Harbour Trust were asked by a Board, the Wheat Marketing Commission or some Board or Government to be prepared to handle a large tonnage of wheat per month, 40,000 tons or 50,000 tons a month, and in order to prepare for that tremendous amount of work we had to provide the machinery, and got to the expense of making a large lay-out in North Freamntle in railway lines, stacking areas and appliances of all sorts. Then the trade conditions suddenly became such that portions of these plants were not required all the time, but still has to be paid for.

5495. Was made to you since the Pool has been in existence or prior?—I am not sure about that. I do not know when the Pool came into existence.

5496. The latter end of 1915?—I would not like to say without looking it up. At one period, when no one could foresee what would happen to the shipping tonnage, it was thought rapid shipment would be made.

5497. Was that not in 1916?—Probably it was.

5498. What expenditure have you gone to since then, and what alterations on the Fremantle wharves?—Not much alteration.

5499. In railway lines ?—Very large indeed, a lot of levelling has had to be done and extra sidings put in.

5500. Since 1916?—The Railway Commissioner also had to prepare for this large volume of traffic, and a conference took place between the Railway Commissioner and the Harbour Trust and the lay-out of the yard was considered, and it was done in absolute good faith. We did not know what shipping arrangements the Pool was making or anyone was making.

5501. Was not arrangement made for 1915-16 harvest. They were going to store the wheat there?—Which arrangement?

5502. In regard to the various lines laid down when they stored that large quantity of wheat from the west end to the north end of the wharf?—I cannot say exactly when it was done: it was done in view of the certainty of a heavy traffic: it was not put in at random.

5503. As a matter of fact, the machinery and other things were not done for storing the wheat, but prior to the Pool coming into existence?—I could not say without looking the matter up.

5504. I suppose you are aware that there is a good deal of complaint as to the charges in this State and the other States?—I have read certain statements in the Press.

5505. It has been given in evidence?—We hold that our charges do not compare badly to the other States, seeing the facilities we give.

5506. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Those siding and other facilities were put in for the purpose of providing storage?—Very largely , yes. If it were not for other aspects of the case the wheat would still be stacked there to the capacity of the land. I think it is the weevil