London committee; I regret I cannot give you the reasons for the advice, but this is it— In view of the advice received from the London committee on the question of reducing our wheat areas in favour of stock and pig raising, it was decided that the matter of advising farmers be left to the Governments of the individual States to give whatever advice they think fit.

Would not you take that as a warning from the London committee that in all probability there would be difficulty in the sale of a large quantity of wheat?—I would, and I say without the slightest hesitation that it is a great shame, if the Governments had that information, that the information was not given to the farmers.

6319. I noticed that Mr. Hughes, speaking in November last, referring to what they were going to do with the wheat, stated that he did not know how we were going to get on, whether there was a prospect of selling the wheat, and he added that apparently there was a prospect, but not a very good one. He stated that Great Britain had 2½ million bushels which she had not yet shifted, and that next year she would grow enough for her own requirements, and he concluded by saying that the position did not look very promising, but that if Britain bought our wheat, of course our troubles would be much lighter. Does that not show that the information which is at the disposal of the Prime Minister was such as to make him entertain great doubts in regard to the disposal of the wheat?—I should think so from those remarks.

6320. I find that a deputation waited on the Wheat Board, introduced by Mr. Gregory, at which it was stated that Mr. Hoover, Food Controller in America, had notified the Board that if peace was proclaimed this year America would have 400 million bushels to export. Seeing that this information was available, and that Parliament had no knowledge of it, do you not think it would have been wise, on behalf of the Australian Wheat Pool, to have notified the farmers and pointed out to them the difficulties that might accrue with regard to the disposal of the wheat?—I say without hesitation that information should have been given to the farmers, and I go further and say that if they had done that, there would not have been as much wheat grown as we find has been the case; the farmers would have gone in more for stock and other means of getting a livelihood.

6321. You think, then, that the Wheat Board, in dealing with this matter, instead of protecting the farmer, have run the risk of doing him an injury?—Yes, if they had that evidence.

6322. Is this the first you have heard of it?—Yes.

6323. Then you cannot assist the Commission in regard to the matter?—No. A definite statement was made at the Farmers and Settlers' Conference that the British Government did not want to buy any more wheat, but Mr. Giles gave that a denial. He is a member of the Wheat Board and he said that he had never heard of such a thing.

6324. Mr. Giles was present when Mr. Hughes made the statement I have quoted?—The statement Mr. Giles made at the conference the other day was that he was surprised to hear Mr. Baxter say that the British Government did not want any more of our wheat, because as a member of the Wheat Board, he had not heard such a thing.

6325. Did not Mr. Giles also say that he thought Great Britain would buy our wheat because they were indebted to us?—I only heard a portion of Mr. Giles' speech.

6326. I questioned Mr. McGibbon with regard to bulk handling and silos when he was here. Mr. Taylor kindly placed at our disposal certain pamphlets which he received from Canada. From these I found that two or three large co-operative companies there have lately amalgamated for the purpose of trading and handling wheat. The companies there have entered into an arrangement with the States whereby they provide 15 per cent. of the capital to construct silos and elevators, while the States provide 85 per cent. at 5 per cent. interest, the principal to be repaid in 20 years, and for the first two years no interest was to be paid. The co-operative societies have full control with regard to the erection and working of the silos, giving the Government the option to send their auditors at any time to examine the books. Would it be possible for the co-operative societies to follow a similar course here?—It would.

6327. If that were done, would it not be better than for the Government to build silos?—Unquestionably. I would like to add that in Canada the Government have not only the privilege of inspecting the books, but the Grain Act protects the farmers who stand out of any co-operative organisation. Many months ago I put before the Treasurer a definite suggestion that such a scheme should be entertained here, but I was told, as I have always been told, that the great difficulty is that the Commonwealth Government— and this is always held up to us—are providing the money and that they will only do so on condition that the State controls the whole thing. The importance of the control of the silos to the co-operative organisations is not actually the fact of them controlling the silos, but I could bring you indisputable evidence of the fact that the people who control the silos have, in the end, control of the marketing, and I say without hesitation that the farmers' organisations themselves must have the marketing of their own product. That is why we make a very important point of the fact that the silos should be under the control of the farmers' organisation, provided they can carry them out satisfactorily.

6328. Did you put that before the Government in writing?—Yes.

6328a. With regard to the present idea of erecting silos, the money which has been advanced by the Commonwealth has been advanced on different lines from any money previously lent to the State?—Is that so? The one thing that I could see was that the farmer was to be charged interest and sinking fund and that the silos would not belong to him.

6329. Do you think, as business men, it would be wise for the State to accept money under conditions such as those proposed?—I do not.

6330. Do you think, if the State went in for bulk handling, that they should raise the money in a manner similar to that adopted in connection with loans for other matters?—There is no shadow of doubt about that.

6331. We have had some difficulty in getting evidence to support the system of building silos for storage. So far as we can gather there is only one officer in the Government who knows anything about bulk handling, and that is the Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Thompson, who investigated the system in Canada. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson has not been consulted. Mr. Pearse, of the Works Department, who has been in consultation with Metcalf & Co., made their office in Melbourne his home, and he has told us that the building of large silos will control weevil. Mr. Piesse, of Katanning, who has silos erected adjoining his mill, told us in evidence that there can be very little control over weevil in silos. Weevils have been found in the bottom of those silos and also in large numbers in the centre. Under such conditions, and seeing the considerable expenditure which would be involved, would you embark on the building of silos for storage?—It is a very awkward question to answer, put in that way. When one is asked if one will do a thing, one's answer is largely dependent upon whether, if one did not do that what else would one do? A man sometimes gets into a position when he is forced to do something, whereas if he had various options open to him he would not do that thing. If building silos is the only way in which wheat can be stored properly at present, then I say we have to provide ourselves with them. The only objection I have to embarking upon silos is this: In normal times a silo is built to handle a third of one year's crop. If more than that is done we should be putting in unnecessary capital expenditure. If we are building these silos for all time we would naturally build them in such a way that they would be suitable for many years to come. All the evidence points to silos only being erected to hold a third of one year's crop because the crop is handled three times in the year through these silos. If enough silos are built to handle all the wheat for one year together, then when normal times return there will be a greater capital expenditure involved than would be warranted by the amount of business transacted. That is the objection I have to building silos for storage under present conditions. If the co-operative companies took the business over I would not want to