MONDAY, 2nd SEPTEMBER, 1918.

( At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. ( Chairman).

Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C.

S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A.

Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C.

T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

THOMAS SYDNEY JOHN HALL, further examined:

6779A. By the CHAIRMAN: Can you tell the Commission what steps have been taken by the officials of the Scheme, the advisory board, or the Minister in the way of making investigations to protect the wheat from weevil?— I would like a little time to prepare a statement on that, because many things have been done.

6780. What has been done; we can find no record of anything?— I thought the subject had been fully gone into by Mr Keys, the General Manager.

6781. Mr Keys only assumed his present position last December; what was done before that?— Between the seasons 1915-16 and 1916-17 and before the wheat of the latter season was stacked, all the old sites were cleaned up, or were supposed to have been cleaned up. These sites were at various ports and at sidings in the country. I understand that what was done was not considered efficient, inasmuch as the weevil got down to as far as six or seven inches below the surface. At Fremantle the earth was turned up, and weevil was found to be as low as seven inches beneath the surface.

6782. Have you read the evidence given by Dr. Hargraves before the South Australian Royal Commission?— No.

6783. I suppose the Board and the Manager have had the evidence given by that gentleman?— Not that I know of. Mr. Keys has had a report sent to him privately by the Scheme in Adelaide, but whether it contains Dr. Hargraves' evidence, I do not know. What we did have was a confidential report, which Dr. Hargraves made to the Adelaide Scheme in connection with the treatment of weevil. That report is on our file.

6784. Has that report been investigated by officers of the Scheme here?— Mr. Pearse looked at the particular machine for the destruction of weevil, invented by Dr. Hargraves, and which is now in use in South Australia.

6785. Was not your attention drawn to the fact that Dr. Hargraves pointed out that if they covered their sites with six inches of sand all the weevil would work the top where the sun would kill them off?— I never saw that.

6786. You had a copy of the report?— Of a report, but whether it is the one you mention I do not know.

6787. You had a copy of the report of the Royal Commission?— We had a copy of the April report, but only for the last four or five weeks.

6788. You say the sites were not satisfactorily cleaned. Who was responsible for that?— When I say not satisfactorily cleaned I mean not to eliminate the weevil altogether. All those who experimented on the sites said they had done their best, and that the only course was for 15 inches or two feet of earth to be shovelled up and dumped into the sea.

6789. Do you think that the Scheme's inspectors have taken every care that the sites should be properly cleaned prior to new wheat being stacked on them?— Are you referring to the 1916-17 wheat?

6790. I refer to any wheat since you have had the weevil?— I think it was only at the ports that weevil developed in the 1915-16 wheat. When the 1916-17 wheat was ready to go on the sites special precautions were taken by the officers of the Scheme at Fremantle under Mr. Sibbald and special dunnage was purchased by the Scheme and laid on the Harbour Trust land where the wheat was to be stacked.

6791. But at country sidings where the wheat has been received, it has been stacked in some instances almost on the sites of previous stacks. For instance, at, say, Doodlakine, the 1917-18 wheat was put on the very spot previously occupied by the 1916-17 wheat?— I do not know of course that at every siding the wheat was stacked on the immediate sites previously occupied.

6792. You do not know whether if the previous site was available, the new wheat was or was not stacked upon it?— Not without inquiries as to the particular site. The instructions to the agents were not to stack wheat on weevily sites.

6793. You may have to use the same sites again, owing to the conditions that prevail with regard to trucks?— That and other things. It may be that the particular part of the yard is the only suitable portion on which the wheat can be handled.

6794. Do you know of any alterations at the siding by the Railway Department for the purpose of stacking wheat for the last harvest?— No.

6795. Have you had any charge made for new lines?— No.

6796. Is not that evidence that the same site must have used again?— It is an indication.

6797. Wheat from the coming harvest will be delivered at the same sidings again, and you will be using the same sites?— If it is temporary stacking, yes.

6798. That means that farmer's wheat will have to be put on dunnage over ground on which wheat has been previously stacked?— The general manager has at present under consideration a scheme for treating all dunnage at the siding, and for taking precautions to have all the sites cleaned up. He says that, from the reports of inspectors, the sites at sidings are very bad. The cleaning up is a question of expense.

6799. You said that wheat had to be stacked there temporarily?— It must be stacked temporarily on certain sites.

6800. Immediately the wheat is so stacked on weevily infested ground, is it not liable to become infected? — Yes, if the ground is infested with weevil. The idea is to see that the wheat is not put on weeviliy infested ground.

6801. The wheat will be there long enough to become infested if the weevil is there? — Yes.

6802. It does not matter, then, so far as the sites are concerned, whether the wheat is put there in a temporary shed or in a permanent shed?— It is a different thing to put wheat into a temporary stack and stacking wheat for two or three years. If the wheat is only there for a few months it is possible to deal with the few bags at the bottom which may become infested and send them to the mills for gristing. If the wheat is left stacked for three years it will be found that the weevil has gone well into the stack.

6803. You can tell by looking at the wheat whether it is weevily or not?— Not necessarily. If the weevil has developed it does not confine itself to the first bags attacked by spreads all over the place.