Wheat (2)

Image 45
image 45 of 52

This transcription is complete

TUEDAY, 19th NOVEMBER, 1918 (At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman). Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. | Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. | T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

GEORGE LOWE SUTTON, Agricultural Commissioner for Wheat Belt, recalled:

8461. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you have some further evidence to place before the Commission?—Yes. In felt in view of the Press notice which appeared that in the interests of the public, the Department, and myself, it was desirable I should place before this Commission some facts which apparently were not known to the members of it. I wish first to deal with the latest evidence given by the departmental entomologist Mr. Newman. I have had an opportunity of reading his unrevised evidence, and have also seen the Press notice in the "West Australian" of 7th November. It would appear from these sources that the Commission could only come to the conclusion that there had been a lack of earnestness on the part of the departmental officers and others concerned in dealing with Mr. Newman's proposal. As a good deal of the facts were quite contrary to this, and as they were not all disclosed on the departmental files, which do not contain everything, I have prepared a statement in connection with that particular proposal.

8462. You have files dealing with the matter?—Yes. The file is No. 4681/17. Some of the facts and actions taken are not recorded on the file. On Monday afternoon, 23rd September, Mr. Newman was consulted by Messrs. Lord, Pearse, and myself on the question of destroying weevils infesting railway trucks. On that afternoon, he stated that he had what he regarded as a suitable insecticide for the purpose, which he had obtained from Mr. Rowley. He also said he had formulated a plan by which the spray which was to be used could be used in an economic way. He said he had not tested the material but intended to do so. I immediately asked him to expedite his trial as there was to be a committee meeting of the Wheat Marketing Scheme on the Thursday, and I was leaving for the country on that afternoon, and wished to finalise the matter before I left. He promised to do this. Mr. Lord raised the question that there might be special difficulty in connection with the "V" covered trucks. To settle that matter I asked Mr. Lord if he could make available for Mr. Newman some of these trucks for his inspection. He promised to do this. On that afternoon we arranged with Mr. Newman to see one of the trucks the next morning at ten o'clock. On the following day Mr. Newman advised me that he had conducted the trial and that it was successful. He also promised to let me have a sketch relating to his proposal by Thursday morning in time for the committee meeting of the Wheat Marketing Scheme. On the Thursday morning I communicated with Mr. Newman, who said he would have the sketch ready and send it through the Officer-in-Charge of Fruit Industries. I did not receive the sketch before I went to the committee meeting, but whilst at the meeting I informed the members what was being done. I then 'phoned to the department asking Mr. Newman to send me the plans if he had them. I believe this was done and that they were laid on the table and referred to Mr. A. F. Pearse of the Public Works Department for report as to the cost of installation. The member of the committee favoured the scheme and every facility was given for a trial. I believe the papers were left there. I felt confident when I left the committee meeting that afternoon that everything was in train for a trial of Mr. Newman's proposal. On looking up the files since these notices have appeared, I find it is indicated that the papers were not sent to the Public Works Department before the 10th October. I left on the 26th September for the country, going to Wagin, Ke`lerberrin, Merredin, and other places, and did not return to Perth until 7th October. The matter was still in my mind, because immediately after my return I called at the Wheat Scheme office and asked the general manager how the trial with Mr. Newman's insecticide had fared. He replied that it had been tried and had proved no more successful than the previous methods. Consequently I did not pay much more attention to the matter. On the 2nd November, I sent down to Mr. Newman to see if he had discovered any other insecticide, but from his reply on the 4th November, I learnt that the previous one had not been tried. I at once telephoned him and told him what I had heard. He said that was another insecticide and not the one he had recommended. I then got into touch with Mr. Pearse, and found that he had the plans, and that his estimate of the cost of trying this insecticide was about £40. On 5th November I put a proposal to the Minister for Agriculture recommending that this trial should be conducted at once, and that though there might be some dispute as to which department should bear the cost, that in the meantime the Agricultural Department should find the money so that the trial should be gone on with. A meeting of the Wheat Scheme was held on the following day. I advised members as to the change in the position and told them what I had done. I also told the general manager that he had been misinformed with regard to the trial. He was insistent that he had not been misinformed, and that Inspector Pearse and Mr. Newman, who had obtained the insecticide from Mr. Rowley, had tried it with little success. I then telephoned Mr. Newman from the Wheat Scheme office, and asked him what was the reason for the mistake. He said that Mr. Keys was quite right, inasmuch as the raw materials had been obtained from Mr. Rowley through the Westra company, and that that was the material which had been tried.

8463. Do you know who the Westra Company are?—I do not. I had never heard of the company before. It seemed peculiar to me that, as I had, between the 8th October, the date of my return, and the 2nd November, seen Mr. Newman on at least two other occasions, and that as Mr. Newman knew how urgent I had been with regard to the trial, he had not drawn my attention to what he regarded as the delay. He states that during the first fortnight I was away and he could not see me; which of course is the position. He says that when I happened to be in town he happened to be out of town. Summing it up, the position is that immediately we heard of an insecticide likely to be useful we took the matter up sympathetically, and that within 72 hours afterwards we had sketches prepared and trials arranged for; that within less than a week after it was believed that a trial had been conducted with this identical material. However, it turned out to be some other insecticide which Mr. Newman had brought under notice and which did not prove successful. On the second occasion, when we learned the true facts of the case, within less than 24 hours of those facts being known to me, a definite proposition was placed before the Minister involving the expenditure of sufficient money to conduct a trial. That, I think, indicates that there has been no lack of earnestness in connection with this particular proposal. Now I should like to deal with what has been done generally regarding the combating of the weevil pest in railway trucks. At the outset let me say that this is not a new question at all, but a question which had been engaging attention for some considerable time before it was raised by Mr. Robinson, the member for Albany. On the 31st November, 1917, Mr. Newman was asked whether he could suggest any simple method by which weevils in railway trucks could be exterminated. He then made a suggestion similar to his recent proposal of the 26th September last, and stated that the only method known to him of destroying weevils in trucks was to wash out the infested truck with solutions to destroy the weevils by contact. He instanced two solutions which he considered