request reduced the dockage to 58?—When you say at our request, do you mean the Westralian Farmers?

6358.Yes?—We urged for a long time when they would not give a bonus for wheat above f. a. q. a scale of dockage by the minister was too high, but I do not think the reduction was made at our request at all ; I think it was made by the Minister at the request of Parliamentarians who waited on him. I cannot admit that, because for weeks before the reduction took place we were urging the Minister to reduce the scale of dockages and if it had been done at our request it would have been done long before that.

6359.By Mr HARRISON: you were present at the deputation of the Country party as to dockages ?—Yes.

6360. And the decision for altering came immediately after that deputation ?—Yes. I invited myself to the deputation; .I saw that a deputation was to wait on the Minister and I rang him up and asked if I could be present.

6361. By the CHAIRMAN: Whether rightly or wrongly, for years in Western Australia the f. a. q. standard has been fixed by a committee of the Perth and Fremantle chambers of Commerce ?—Yes.

6362. On the markets of the world that has been the standard fixed on which they were purchasing wheat ?—Yes.

6363. Do you think there would be a possibility when the Minister steps in and alters the standard that in years to come it will affect the sale of the wheat ?—No, because the f. a. q. standard is fixed yearly.

6364. But how are they to know if the Minister steps in and alters it ?—He was not altering the f. a. q. standard of purchase, but only for the purpose of docking, which is a different thing.

6365. If the standard of 60½ is reduced to 58 for the purpose of docking, and the markets were in the ordinary condition and the wheat purchasers , say, in London, were noticed of f. a. q. being 60½, and they find after purchasing that the Minister has reduced it to 58, would that not make a difference ?—No difference because the Minister would not dock the wheat that went into the Pool because it was under 58, because it would come out above 60½. If the buyers purchased it at 60½ in England it would be tested and if not found up to the standard would be condemned.

6366. Would it not be said that those who fixed the standard in Western Australia knew nothing about it ?—I cannot contemplate the people in England taking notice of it.

6367. Do you think the Minister knew anything about it ?—I cannot say, but I stress the point that he is not fixing the f.a.q. standard ; that is fixed by the Chambers of Commerce and goes to the markets of the world at 60½. If it was below that standard when it reached London, it would be condemned. The circular was issuing instructions to agents not to dock the farmers unless the wheat was under 58.

6368. By Mr. HARRISON : Not to dock the monetary value ?—Yes.

6369. By the CHAIRMAN : If you were purchasing wheat and the Chamber of Commerce fixed the standard at 60½ you would see that it was 60½ and dock anything under that ?—Yes

6370. By Mr. HARRISON : it was to get a uniform standard with the Eastern States, was it not, because the wheat is sold as Australian Pool wheat and Western Australia wanted to be uniform in the rate of dockage than what it had been prior to that ?—That is the position. If the Chambers of Commerce fixed, say, 65lbs. for the sake of argument as a standard, and New South Wales fixed 55lbs., it would not penalise our farmers, because when buying wheat in England you would buy it under that standard. When the Prime Minister goes to England and sells three million bushels of wheat it has to be pretty bad before it is rejected. We would be getting docked for wheat that would be sold at the same price as wheat in New South Wales and for which they would not be docked.

6371. By Mr. BROWN : You believe every State should have its own standard ?—Under normal conditions.

6372-3. If the Commonwealth fixed a standard, would not the Westralian Farmers be hurting their reputation by bringing the standard down to that of the Eastern States ?—Not when it is sold as Pool wheat, because it is sold on a flat rate as Australian wheat. So much is taken from here and so much from New South Wales and the wheat is sold at the same price.

6474. Our farmers are getting no improvement ?—No, it is impossible for London people to say where the wheat comes from.

6375. Do you know if Western Australian wheat has been under 59 or so since we started growing ?—I do not think it has, but I could not say definitely. The f.a.q. standard is never fixed at 58 or 59. That was the basis put on by the Minister from which we should dock.

6376. By the CHAIRMAN : You told us in your evidence that the profit made by your company is given by way of bonus shares ?—Yes, or bonus debentures.

6377. But no money was paid by your company to the farmers ?—They were paid their seven per cent. interest and they are asked to invest at seven per cent. in the company.

6378. It is not compulsory to take shares ?—They can take it in shares or debentures. The individual farmer cannot pay cash for it.

6379. There is a paragraph here which was sent to the Prime Minister which is as follows:—

Last week some 4,000 farmers found amongst their mail an ordinary-looking brown envelope, but on opening it they were astonished to find cheques representing bonuses varying in amounts from a few shillings to some £70 or £80. They were astonished because they did not realise before that their company, the Westralia Farmers, Limited, was and is out to help the farmers, and that the profit the company made belongs to those who helped the company to make it. No matter whether a shareholder or not, if the farmer had placed his business through the Westralian Farmers, Limited, during the year, so he received a bonus on that business. The amount so returned to the farmers was no less a sum than £8,000 odd. If you got none of this remember you must have given your business to some other firm than the Westralian Farmers, and the profits were kept by the firm with whom you did business. Send your business to your local co-operative company, who are the agents of the Westralian Farmers, Limited, and any information that may be desired will be supplied by the local manager in York. Mr. E. T. Hick is the manager. — Is that letter signed ?

6380. It is signed by Mr. Griffiths ?—But who sent the letter?.

6381. This paragraph appeared in a newspaper and a letter was sent to Premier in which this paragraph was enclosed ?—Yes. Where we have distributed cash, excepting the seven per cent. interest which is paid in cash, it has been cash earned by the local co-operative companies by trading with us.

6382. Therefore, the cheques distributed were distributed by the local co-operative companies ?—I should think the gentleman who wrote that paragraph was inaccurate.

6383. If that paragraph was correct, something was done contrary to your constitution ?—There is just that little paragraph relating to non-shareholders. The writer says that the money was distributed to non- shareholders. As a fact, that particular bonus was not distributed to non-shareholders, because the articles of association, although altered to include benefits to non-shareholders, were altered in August of 1917, and that distribution of bonus was for profit earned to the 30th May, 1917. Our solicitors would not allow us to distribute bonus except to shareholders, because the articles of association were not altered until after that date. There will be next month a further distribution of bonus, and that will be to shareholders and non-shareholders alike, in accordance with the business they have transacted with the organisation.

6384. I observe that in answering Question 3043 you maintained that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are absolutely non-political. Do you still maintain that ?—I say our organisation is absolutely non-political.

6385. By Mr. BROWN : Did the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., permit their sub-agents to contract with outsiders for loading wheat into trucks ?—Last year they permitted, provided the contract was sent down to us, contracting for the labour of loading wheat.

6386. Do you think the acquiring agents for next season's crop should be prohibited from sub-letting?—