question that has induced the stacking in the country.

5507. By the CHAIRMAN: We have it in evidence that your charges are excessive and leave a profit of 2s. 9d. per ton per annum, whereas in Williamstown the charge is only 2½d. per ton per annum?—That is absolutely wrong. There is no profit to the Harbour Trust. Our overhead charges on that total lay-out cost £10,000 per annum, and we have no source in that trade from which we can recoup ourselves the outlay. As for the storage at Williamstown, it is all waste land, with one line of railway running through it. Not a tap of work has been done there to prepare it, and every bag stored there has to be re-loaded on a truck to be taken to the ship. Here we can stack wheat for a mile along the wharf in such a position that it can be handled in one operation.

5508. Then the information given us is not correct?—As regards the profits of the Harbour Trust, no.

5509. You say that your overhead charges represent £10,000 while you charge £12,000?—Yes.

5510. So there is £2,000 a year profit there?—On that computation, yes; but if the Harbour Trust found that they were making £2,000 a year more than was required, they adjust the rates accordingly. Our whole anxiety is to keep down the charges to the bare bone, and simply recoup ourselves the actual outlay on the handling of wheat. In 1914 we were landed with a gross loss of £3,300 and, roughly, in 1916 and 1917 our losses aggregated £6,300.

5511. Owing to the lack of shipping?—Yes.

5512. You cannot hold the Wheat Scheme responsible for the making up those charges?—We are not asking the Scheme for a penny of it. We are merely asking them to recoup us the overhead charges on the plant put in for the handling of wheat and flour.

5513. Under normal conditions what was your charge per bag for loading from the truck into shed or stack?—The complete charge from truck to stack and subsequently into ship is 1⅞d.

5514. We have been told that for stacking the wheat down there and subsequently loading it into a waggon, to go off to a mill the charge is 4d. per bag. Is that correct?—Yes. It means four handlings. The sheds are designed for the shipping of wheat and not for the storage wheat an ultimate re-loading into waggons. The whole of that charge is taken up in wages.

5515. And we are told that for wheat put into stack and afterwards taken out and put into truck for shipment, the charge is 3⅞d.?—I make it 3⅛d. It is all taken up in wages. There is no profit in it.

5516. And we were told that when it was necessary to pass wheat on to the re-conditioning shed, the total charges on that wheat represented 4⅜d. Is that correct?—I cannot say, but if those people will so order their work as to incur a lot of charges, the cost must mount up. In this case it would mean six or seven handlings.

5517. Is it correct that you charge 1d. per bag for handling, even if you merely shift the bag to one side?—That is our charge for handling. It is a confusing and incorrect statement for a man to say that we charge 1d. for picking up a bag and standing it on one side. Our men frequently have to stand up to their middles in broken wheat, trying to sort out bags that are fit to go into the ship's sling. Someone then says, This bag must be moved over here and so on, and the men have to drag themselves out of the loose wheat and transfer those bags on to a separate stack. This being the case, it will be seen that the 1d. charge is well earned. The pace of the work altogether to slow. We endeavour, as far as possible, to work in unanimity with those who are governing this business, but their methods are often such as to cause our work to be very costly.

5518. You claim that there is no charge for shifting a bag to one side?—I do not say that. Such a thing does not happen. If a bag is found to be in bad order, and the men are instructed to put this to one side, no charge is made for doing so. Where we are asked to remove a proportion of a stack to some other stack, then the 1d. is charged.

5519. It is stated in evidence that, where a lumper has to move a bag in order to reach another, a charge of 1d. is made?—That is not charged for. It would cost us the 1d. to keep a tally of the thing. Hundreds of bags are found to have holes in them and others to be unfit to ship. These are put on one side without any charge being made.

5520. You claim that the charges you make for handling are merely those necessary to pay for supervision and labour under the Arbitration Court award?—For working costs. That includes consumable stores, ordinary shed costs, the services of electricians, carpenters, sail makers, and men to keep the machinery oiled and cleaned.

(The witness retired.)

GEORGE WILLIAM SIMPSON, Public Service Commissioner, sworn and examined:

5521. By the CHAIRMAN: One or two witnesses before the Commission have stated that in their opinion the State is paying too high an amount for that gristing of wheat and that the amount is much more than that which ruled at the time the Control of Trade Commission, of which you were Chairman, was sitting. We thought you might be able to give us some information which would help us in the direction of making further inquiries?—In March, 1915, the Royal Commission on Control of Trade, of which I was the Chairman, had reason to make investigations into the cost of gristing, in view of the fact that at that time it had under consideration the advisability or otherwise of importing wheat on behalf of the Government, owing to the shortage in the crop in that season. With this object in view the Commission made a recommendation to the Government that alternative tenders should be called for the gristing of wheat which the Government proposed to import and for the purchasing outright of the wheat after it was landed at Fremantle. Tenders were invited from all the millers in the State, but none responded to the invitation for the straight out purchase of the wheat. Four millers, however, put in a combined tender in connection with the gristing proposal. These firms were Thomas & Co., of Northam, the peerless Flour Mills, of Guildford, the Perth Roller Flour Mills, and Ockerby & Co. This combination tendered to grist the wheat for the sum of 8d. per bushel of 60lbs. The price tendered was not acceptable to the Commission, and the proposal from the four millers referred to was therefore rejected. Negotiations were then opened with Ockerby & Co. and the Perth Roller Flour Mills with a view to obtaining a more satisfactory arrangement. These firms made a proposal to the Commission which included an alternative for gristing wheat at the rate of 7d. per bushel. I might also state that a further officer was received from the Victoria District Co-operative Flour Mills who undertook to manufacture at £2 2s. 6d. per ton of wheat delivered. This sum included a charge of 25s. for gristing per ton of 2,240lbs., which equals 8-1/28d. per bushel. The Commission at the time, after going fully into the matter, were satisfied that 7d. was a reasonable charge, this sum to include millers' profits upon the transaction. The 7d. per bushel was not accepted owing to a more satisfactory arrangement being arrived at by which the two firms referred to were to pay right out for the wheat as they took delivery and sell the resultant product at a price to be fixed by the Commission. I have gone carefully into this matter since receiving your request to give evidence, and from the figures which the Commission obtained at that time , and making allowance for the increased cost of material as compared with the pre-war figures which the Commission worked on at the time, I am of the opinion that 7d. per bushel to include millers' profits would be approximately a reasonable price under the existing conditions.

5522. That 7d. in your opinion should include everything?—Not bags.

5523. Under the agreement the Scheme allows millers 7s. 6d. for bags for every ton of flour in addition to the 7d.?—I think the rate allowed for bags should not be more than 50 per cent. of the market value for them, as about half of the wheat sacks received from farmers are usable for flour.