7271. Yes?—I am wrong. It is 128 tons that has been sent.

7272. The Scheme officials have never drawn your attention to the position?—No. Those accounts go to the Scheme officials, and naturally one would expect that they, as the officials concerned, would call attention to any error, when the matter would have been rectified at once.

7273. If the Scheme officials had drawn attention to the fact that the wheat had previously been consigned to Spencer's Brook for some other siding, the error would have been immediately remedied?—Undoubtedly. Of course you could understand this arrangement set out in the letter. It is simple to read. Ultimately it means that wheat is going to those stacks from sidings all around the vicinity of the different stacks and when the ultimate charges are raised we have to adjust them so that the wheat pays the throughout charge which will vary with every siding to the port plus 2s. 6d.

7274. Have a copy of the instructions issued to your officers at the time?—A minute was sent to the Chief Traffic Manager on the 4th January in which this occurs: "When the time comes for re-consigning the wheat from depot to port the mater of charges can be submitted to the Commissioner." Immediately the wheat was moved from the depots to the port we should have had advice. The few odd trucks I have referred to evidently came down without special notice; they spread over some months. Had the Wheat Scheme drawn our attention to one of them the thing would have been rectified.

7275. Is that the usual system in the Railway Department; could they not have notified the officers at once that such arrangements had been made?—I cannot say it is the usual thing, because this arrangement we are dealing with is altogether out of the usual; it has no precedent. The advice we had was that the wheat would be stacked at the depots for a considerable time. We were aware of the difficulties about shipping and we were aware of the quantity of wheat already at Fremantle and one hardly expected them to send down a few trucks from the country when they already had at the port more than they could handle.

7276. By Mr. BROWN: With regard to the other ports, Albany and Bunbury, will the 2s. 6d. meet the requirements from the stack in the vicinity of those ports?—The 2s. 6d. will apply all round.

7277. Then it will be a through rate form consigning station to port plus 2s. 6d.?—And the amount already paid to the depot will be deducted.

7278. By Mr. HARISON: The railways have not collected the whole of the freight?—Only that portion to the depot. The 2s. 6d. comes in next time it is handled.

(The witness retired.)

ROSS STAPLEY CHILDS, Accountant, Wheat Scheme, further examined:

7279. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGregor when giving evidence the other day pointed out that stacking wheat in the large depots added considerably to the railway freight. When Mr. Keys was here we asked him whether special arrangements had been made with the railways in regard to rates. Mr. Keys informed us that the arrangements made with the Commissioner were that a through freight to the port plus 2s. 6d. a ton would be charged on the wheat, and that the 2s. 6d. would cover the whole expense of having it put into the depots and that the two rates were not charged first from the siding at which the wheat was trucked, to the depot, and the other rate from the depot to the port. Mr. McGregor noticed that statement in the newspaper and he came before us on Friday and pointed out that according to the accounts before him, it was an error. He gave us a list of the wheat which had been trucked from the various depots. There is one here from to Spencer's Brook and from Spencer's Brook to Fremantle. The first charge was 5s. 1d. per ton, the second charge 7s 9d. with 6d. wharf haulage, or a total of 13s. 4d. a ton. If this wheat had been shipped by the railways direct to North Fremantle, the charge would have been 9s. 3d. plus 2s. 6d. or 11s. 9d. altogether. He states this has been charged by the Railways and paid by the Scheme. There was a letter sent by the Secretary for Railways, Mr. Rushton, to the Manager of the Wheat Scheme on the 4th January last pointing out the conditions under which the agreement was arrived at in regard to the 2s. 6d. per ton. Were you aware of that arrangement that had been made?—I became aware of it about two weeks ago.

7280. When those accounts were sent to you to be checked before payment was made, you thought they would be in order?—I think a general statement would best cover these instances, because in any case the method of charging the excess rate over what had already been charged would best be done by a general arrangement in which the individual items would not be taken into account. You can see it would be of advantage to say when the wheat came out of the depots what original siding it had come from. You will realise that when the wheat goes into the depot, it goes into certain bays, but it comes from all kinds of sidings. We can tell while it is in the bays what sidings it has come from, but when it comes out in truck loads we cannot say that it came from a particular siding. To take any individual sidings and work them up is not practically possible. When I got hold of that letter, I went into the best way of arriving at means to fufil the arrangements made. I saw the chief clerk in the Railway Department yesterday. He has been going into the matter lately. I submitted a verbal arrangement which I thought was a practical one and I communicated it to him in writing. It may be accepted, and in that case all these matters will be adjusted. In any case, the individual siding that the trucks come from will not be taken into account. The figures given here, in some cases, are the contrast to what has actually been paid. For example, the Nippering freights were shown here as railage to Tambellup plus railage back from Tambellup to Katanning, and then it is assumed that we would only pay under that arrangement the original railage from Nippering to Katanning plus 2s. 6d. That absolutely ignores the fact that the wheat went originally from Katanning to Tambellup and had to be railed back.

7281. This letter was sent to Mr. Keys on the 4th January. You say it is only two weeks since you were notified of the agreement. Yet all accounts from the Railway Department have to be checked by you?—Yes. We have an arrangement with the Railways under which we pay all accounts rendered, and we check them and we get the rebate afterwards if necessary.

7282. That is rather unbusinesslike?—It is one of those things that may happen in any business. There is no chance of the arrangement not being given effect to finally. Mr. Keys mentioned the matter to me two weeks ago. I said that I was not aware of the arrangement and he then told me that I would find it on the file, which I did.

7283. You attention was not drawn to this until two weeks ago?—That is so.

7284. Is that a proper method of carrying on the business of the Scheme, seeing that you have to check the accounts?—It is an unfortunate instance; but it is one of those things that happen frequently in business. There is not much chance of any damage having been done, because it is unlikely that an arrangement like that would be on the files and not be given effect to.

7285. As it happens it is an arrangement with another Government department. Suppose it had been with private individuals and you had paid the accounts. That would have been the end of it?—All the accounts paid would be covered by very few trucks.

7286. There were those trucks consigned to Spencer's Brook and sent on again immediately. They have never been in any of the bays?—It is quite possible that some of that wheat was taken from other trucks.

7287. Would it be of exactly the same weight if taken from other trucks?—I am not disputing these things, but although the accounts have been paid the rebate due on them will be forthcoming eventually. The arrangement set out in the letter will be given effect to.

7288. Doubtless, now that attention has been drawn to it. The letter received on the 4th January is marked "File K. 17-1-18." Seeing that as accountant you have to check all accounts rendered to the Scheme, should you not have been notified of this immediately?—Yes, it has been overlooked.

7289. It might have meant considerable loss to the Scheme?—No, not under any circumstances whatever,