1417. You have approximately at your siding 100,000 bushels of wheat?—Yes.

1418. About one-third of that will be provided for under the proposed bulk handling and storage system. What saving is it to the other persons who own the other two-thirds of the wheat?—You claim that as the best accommodation that can be provided for the coming crop?

1419. That is the Bill which was thrown out the other day?—I took it you had skeleton sheds at various depots, and that the Government would utilise those for other operations.

1420. The other operations would be in the position that they are in to-day?—That is a matter for the Government. They know the quantity of wheat we shall produce. It is not a matter for the farmers what accommodation they shall provide.

1421. You realise it is impossible to put up sufficient storage for the whole of the wheat?—I admit that.

1422. Will you put it in this way, that owing to the present abnormal conditions you want to avail yourself of the system of bulk handling?—That would not be fair. I have not sprung into farming by the abnormal conditions. The position is this: the farmer is eager to effect economics where he can, because he is up against a tough problem.

1423. You want to be satisfied with the economy if it can be established?—Yes. You cannot convince any fair-thinking man that any stable method of storage would not be more economical than the wasteful system of bags.

1424. It has been stated that wheat will have to be stored probably for three years based on the average yield in Western Australia, which is 15 million bushels; in three years that is 45 million bushels, and you only provide wheat storage for five million bushels?—That is immediately.

1425. That is all that is required?—Canada faced the same problem as Western Australia is facing today, and she built silos and found that when she had modern bulk handling the bins that had been erected were of great service.

1426. I suppose you know that Canada only provided for one-third of the harvest?—With the method of bulk handling, but there is separate storage accommodation, wooden structures.

1427. They provide wooden silos?—They did provide a number of wooden structures, bins or silos, and they utilised them for storing the wheat, and when bulk handling became established, these bins or silos were of great advantage.

1428. Do you understand that the experts have turned timber silos down?—They may to-day. These silos would be found of great advantage when bulk handling was carried out. If we had to build additional silos we have in Western Australia the timber that is fitted for the work, and these additional silos, if built, would not be a loss or a burden on the State.

1429. You as a farmer and chairman of a co-operative company, are of opinion that instead of spending a lot of money in concrete silos, we should spend the money in erecting wooden silos and more of them?—Yes.

1430. You referred to co-operative societies erecting the silos. Would they guarantee the Government for the expenditure if the Government provided the money?—Yes.

1431. Do you think these small co-operative societies with a capital of £1,000 or £2,000 are in a position to stand the strain?—The position is in regard to the responsibility the farmer is called on to provide. Take it for argument that there was a debit of 3d. per bushel until the silo was paid for. I would come along with my wheat into a bin, and in a few days I come back again with the same bag full of wheat. I would be purchasing the silo with a bag that would be wasted in three months.

1432. It would be necessary to ascertain whether there were any means of taking the wheat away from our shores first?—That is the difficulty, but the darkest side may have the sun on it to-morrow.

1433. You said there were several agents at the sidings competing one with the other, and when a co-operative society turned down wheat as not being up to f.a.q. the farmer could go to another agent who would accept it. Are you aware of the fact that the Australian Wheat Board this year decided that there was only to be one agent at every siding up to 50,000 bushels on account of the increased cost and increased competition?—I am aware of the fact.

1434. If it was not handed over to one firm there would be only one agent?—It would not be workable unless he was presentable. Take a centre where there are 20 farmers owning a co-operative company, a piece of machinery that transacts their business. If the acquiring agent had no connection with them and was in no way sympathetic or was an opponent to the company, it would be a hard thing to get those men to hand their wheat to that agent.

1435. In other words, the farmers want to handle their own wheat?—I believe so.

1436. And want the Government to stand the responsibility?—I will not add that.

1437. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Do you see any reason why your local society should not be operating under the Wheat Board as well as through the medium of the Westralian Farmers Ltd.?—My company may not be able to offer the security.

1438. They offer the same security as you are doing to-day?—Do the Westralian Farmers give a guarantee?

1439. Substituting the board for the Westralian Farmers, would there be difficulty in operating?—By operating through the Westralian Farmers there is a medium by which we get better financial assistance more direct and more immediate than through other sources.

1440. In what way?—The resources of the co-operative companies are somewhat slender, and we have to make urgent appeals for funds.

1441. But do they not make you progressive payments?—Yes. Certainly, that is all we would get from them over that particular deal.

1442. In that case, you see no difficulty in dealing directly with the board?—I would not offer any objection to it.

1443. By Mr. HARRISON: Following up Mr. Allen's suggestion, if you could eliminate a portion of the process that makes the handling of the wheat more costly to the grower, by the wheat being handled direct to the Scheme, do you think that could be done by the local companies?—Personally I do not feel disposed to commit the company on that. It is a matter which has never come before them in any way. However, it appears to me that the Westralian Farmers' Ltd., standing as a medium, have been responsible for getting a better and closer organisation.

1444. Then your smaller companies do not want to take the greater responsibility?—I fear they do not. Their resources are too limited.

1445. But where is the responsibility?—The Chairman a little while ago outlined the responsibility fairly clearly; as regards the dockage, for instance.

1446. But would you not have to suffer that from your parent company?—Yes, I take it so. I do not know the agreement between the Westralian Farmers' Ltd. and the Scheme.

1447. With the farmers operating the whole of their harvest after the war, do you think that organised as they are in the country centres, and operating through a central body the same as now, they would not be able to finance the business the same as the acquiring agents were able to finance it prior to the Scheme?—I have no doubt in the world but they would be able to do it.

1448. The value of the asset would be exactly the same in both instances?—Certainly.

1449. The value of the wheat would not be altered?—Not one iota.

1450. By the CHAIRMAN: If you could save the farmer an extra amount on the handling, would not your company be prepared to do so by working directly under the Pool scheme?—Yes. We are organised to effect economy.

1451. Therefore, you do not take the Westralian Farmers' into consideration at all, but the individual farmer?—I have never seriously considered that matter. As regards securing harmony amongst the various co-operative companies, the Westralian Farmers' into consideration at all, but the individual farmer?—I have never seriously considered that matter. As regards securing harmony amongst the various co-operative companies, the Westralian Farmers', I feel have been a great asset.

1452. For organisation purposes you approve of the farmer paying extra for the handling of his wheat?—The matter is worthy of consideration from every stand point.