WEDNESDAY, 21ST AUGUST, 1918.

(At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin. M.L.A. (Chairman).

Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C.

S. McC. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

BASIL LATHROP MURRAY, Managing Director, Westralian Farmers, Ltd., further examined:

6296. By the CHAIRMAN : In the course of your evidence you stated that you thought the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., should carry on the whole of the work of the Wheat Scheme in this State, without the building up of an additional staff as has been done by the Government. Do you think that if that were done it would be necessary for you to increase considerably your staff?—Since I made that statement I have noticed evidence was given that there is a considerable amount of return work, outside our work, which return work is sent across to the Australian Wheat Board. It would probably be necessary to increase the staff by a few clerks, anyhow, to make those necessary returns. But my point is that there is a great deal of time wasted between the two organisations, our organisation advising the Government department of matters which they in their turn, by their methods, advise to the central Wheat Board, and enter up in their own records.

6297. That is always done between a contractor and a principal?—Yes; but if it can be avoided it should be avoided. Really, the contractor in this case is the Australian Wheat Board; that is to say, the State Wheat Marketing Committee are merely reporting to them. If it were merely a matter of contractor and principal, the principal would get the information as a final channel. There is an enormous amount of information prepared by us goes to the State Wheat Board to be sent over to the central Wheat Board.

6298. But are not the Australian Wheat Board and the State Wheat Board partners in this concern?—Certainly. But the information which is prepared in the offices of the State Wheat Boards is prepared, I believe, largely to be sent over to the partners; and I consider that that work could be done without the interchange of information between us and the State Wheat Board.

6299. Your company now keep no record of payments made to certificate holders?—Off-hand, I cannot reply to that.

6300. the accountant to the Scheme stated that in the three Pools there were 60,000 certificates in circulation. Would not those certificates necessitate a considerable staff for the recording of transactions?—Certainly it would require some staff.

6301. Therefore, in all probability, if you had those transactions to record, you would need an increased staff for the purpose?—Probably yes, but I should not think to anything like the extent of the Government staff.

6302. Again, there is the matter of payments made to the banks to be recorded and adjusted?—Quite so.

6303. For that purpose also it would be necessary to increase your staff?—Yes.

6304. I observe your claim that the individual farmers are the owners of the wheat?—I will stick to that. They are the owners of the wheat.

6305. is not the wheat sold to the Pool on the condition that so much shall be paid down on delivery, and that the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat, after necessary expenditure, shall be equally divided pro rata amongst the farmers in the Pool?—I say that is not a sale by any manner of means. The wheat is handed to the Pool for the Pool to act as agents in selling the wheat, the Government guaranteeing the farmer a certain price for, I consider, national purposes.

6306. Can you show me any section of the Act constituting the Pool an agent?—I have not sufficiently studied the Act to know whether the term "agent" is used, but undoubtedly the whole method of transaction is that the Scheme become agents for the handling of the wheat, with the one additional condition—a very essential one, the importance and gravity of which I fully recognise—that the Government are guaranteeing a price and advancing portion of the price.

6307. By the Act the Government have compelled the farmer to put his wheat into the Pool?—No; hardly. The farmer can keep the wheat on his own farm, if he likes, feed it to his pigs. But if he wants to sell it, he must sell it through the one channel.

6308. Any taking of wheat by the Government from the farmer under the Wheat Marketing Act is a matter of compulsion?—No; the wheat is not taken by compulsion. The only compulsion placed on the farmer is that he is prohibited from selling his wheat elsewhere.

6309. Is not that placing the farmer in a position almost similar to that in which you were placed, according to your evidence, of being compelled to sign the agreement?—In a sense, yes. Many farmers must have their money, although, I submit, there are farmers who have kept back a good deal of their wheat to feed their own stock, preferring to sell their wheat on four feet rather than in bags. They feed pigs, for instance, and sell the pigs, because they consider that will be more profitable. I, personally, have done that.

6310. I will put it personally. You are in this position, that if you want to sell any wheat that wheat must go through the Pool?—Yes.

6311. Except, of course, by permission of the Minister?—Quite so.

6312. therefore, the Government compel that farmer who must have money to put his wheat into the Pool?—yes.

6313. So the Government are made responsible for the proper care of the wheat?—Morally, yes. There is no legal responsibility.

6314. The wheat which has been put into the Pool has been placed there under certain guarantees of the Australian Governments?—Yes.

6315. the Australian Governments have undertaken, as compulsory acquiring agents, to find a market for that wheat?—Yes.

6316. Seeing that the Governments of Australia have on one or two occasions been warned that there would be considerable difficulty in disposing of the wheat, if it is ever disposed of, do you think they have exercised extreme care in fixing the amount they have guaranteed to the farmer?—That is a very difficult question to answer. I would agree with you in this way, that if it were an ordinary lending transaction—that is to say, a financial concern lending money on a security because they considered they would see the money back again with interest—I would say the Governments have taken more than the ordinary commercial risk; unquestionably more.

6317. Do you agree that from an ordinary financial point of view the Governments have guaranteed too much?—No, I will not say that. I say they have done more than they would have done if their only object had been to get their money back, lending in the same way as an ordinary financial institution would lend.

6318. Suppose you were a member of the Australian Wheat Board, and you received certain advice from the