1620. The Australian Wheat Scheme, as far as I can gather, were anxious to avoid anything being made public in case of a slump that would be detrimental to them in selling their stocks?—Yes, or in making diplomatic arrangements, we will say, with the Imperial or Allied Governments.

1621. That is in the buying and selling of the wheat?—In disposing of the wheat. The question of shipping at present is such an acute one from an Empire point of view.

1622. There is a good deal done there that would be beneficial to the community if published outside these matters?—You mean just as a matter of interest, or information, or enabling them to do business deals?

1623. Information to the public?—Of general interest?

1624. Yes?—A good deal of it.

1625. You would not call it confidential where a Minister met a deputation and told the deputation that in case of peace being proclaimed there was a possibility of wheat being considerably reduced or stocks being considerably over what is required?—I think that is more a matter of policy. You do not want to alarm people or unduly buoy up people. It is a fine point, and the Minister, in his own discretion, should determine.

1626. A matter that affects the public as a whole such as guarantees?—The question is not clear to me.

1627. The State has guaranteed to the Commonwealth the payment as far as the farmers are concerned. If the State makes that amount much higher, which is likely to show a possible loss, is it of interest to the public and should they not be notified if there is a possibility of that taking place? It is a matter of policy, perhaps, but I am asking your opinion?—You mean if the Government has guaranteed to pay, say, 1½d., and afterwards finds on going into the records it would not be safe to pay more than 1d., it should make that fact known to the general public?

1628. I do not think you would get any Government to do that?—I want to get what you mean; what is in your mind?

1629. When the Australian Wheat Board has gathered information that in all probability there will be a reduction in the price of wheat, when peace is proclaimed, owing to the world's markets being overstocked, do you no think that it is of interest to the public to know that?—We do not know what arrangements Governments may be able to make to ensure that there shall be no loss to us.

1630. You will notice in question 529 that reference is made to a telegram sent to Mr. Gregory in Melbourne with regard to the zone system?—Yes, or some such district system.

1631. You are aware that the Australian Wheat Board decided that there should be only one agent at each siding which had up to 50,000 bushels?—I believe that was the suggestion made to the Australian Wheat Board by the Advisory Committee consisting of the principal representatives of Messrs. John Darling & Co., L. Dreyfus & Co., James Bell & Co., and Dalgety's. I am not quite clear whether is was discussed. If it was discussed our Minister was not present.

1632. Mr. Gregory was present?—I believe that on the Friday they did come to some such arrangement, but on receipt of our wire they adjourned the consideration of the matter to the next day, and then said that Western Australia should make its own arrangements. Quite properly too, because the Australian Wheat Board has no control over the handling of the wheat in a particular State.

1633. You are aware that Mr. Gregory sent a reply stating that the matter had been settled before he got the wire?—He had the question re-opened. The question of the zone system, I believe, had also been discussed with the board here, but I do not think it was approved of, Mr. Baxter was not present at the meeting, and I suggested to the board that it was about time we got under weigh for the coming season, and we had better ask the agents to quote for services for the coming year. I informed the board that the Minister was favourable to the suggestion that we should write asking the agents to submit quotes on the assumption for the time being that they would be on the basis of some district or zone system. As a result we wrote our famous letter in August to all the agents.

1634. Then you maintain that Mr. Sibbald was wrong when he said that the Advisory Board and the Minister approved of the zone system?—Yes, at that time.

1635. Why should you as a board send a letter to the agents stating that such a decision had been arrived at when there was no intention of carrying it out?—We did not say that to the agents.

1636. Mr. Sibbald did in the letter. He said "the board and the Minister" had decided?—No: he said that the Minister, supported by the Advisory Board, was favourable to the proposal. The whole thing depended on whether they would be prepared to operate in particular zones. I said the Minister appeared to be favourable to some such system.

1637. So favourable that you marked out the zones. You must have been satisfied that the Minister and the board were favourable to the zone system?—I had it in my mind that that was how we were going to save in the handling of the next season's crop, by having some district system as would preclude the inordinate competition at the sidings.

1638. Therefore, Mr. Sibbald could be correct if he said that is was the intention of the board at that time?—I think so.

1639. To such an extent that you told the Westralian Farmers Ltd. that if they did not quote you would take it they did not intend to go into the Scheme?—I know there was some such letter, but I do not know whether it applied at that particular time. It was on the 31st August that Mr. Sibbald wrote to the Westralian Farmers Ltd. stating that in the absence of a definite communication being promptly received the Committee would regard the company as being unwilling to negotiate.

1640. You had written to the Westralian Farmers asking for a quote under certain conditions. You then wrote again telling them that if they did not quote by a certain date they would be considered unwilling to negotiate?—Yes.

1641. You were then of opinion that the Westralian Farmers should have sent you a quote or done something in that direction?—I think they did do something in that direction by their deputation to the board to discuss the whole policy of handling.

1642. There is no report on the file of a deputation?—Yes, page 17.

1643. Did you have any communication with those co-operative societies previously?—No.

1644. So no action was taken so far as the acquiring agents were concerned?—Not so far as the Westralian Farmers parent body was concerned, but as I understood it they were sending some of their daughter societies along.

1645. Did they not write to the Minister, who arranged to receive a deputation on the 27th August?—Yes, they wrote to the Minister as follows:—

  It has come to our knowledge that other Government wheat acquiring agents acting together intend to urge the Wheat Scheme to adopt some zone system such as was proposed a few weeks ago. Mr directors would like to discuss the question with you and shall be obliged if you will give them an opportunity of doing so.

The Minister replied fixing the 27th August for the interview, and, so far as I know, some representatives of the Westralian Farmers did wait on the Minister.

1646. So there was no deputation from the acquiring agents; other persons from outside came to interview the Minister?—No; the arrangement was for the directors of the company.

1647. But you stated yesterday that that interview did not take place?—I do not think I said that.

1648. That there was no record of it?—There is no record of it, but I can remember seeing Mr. Stirling Taylor in the corridor opposite the Minister's room at about that date. All these negotiations were pretty well fixed in my mind.

1649. Do you not think a report of such an interview should have been prepared?—That is entirely at the discretion of the Minister. Of course it would be nice for us as Scheme to have everything on record, but different Ministers have different ideas.