|

|

|

At every port in the Commonwealth where wheat is | being shipped the air reeks with the stench of | rotting grain. In certain ports low tide reveals | great banks of decayed wheat.

A portion of | this rotting sea-covered harvest has percolated | through holes in the wharves inadvertently. Experts | say it is unavoidable owing to the use of faulty | bags and the ravages of mice prior to the grain | reaching port.

|

But vast quantities have been wantonly dumped | into the sea because the grain had so | deteriorated - either as the result of | weather or vermin - as to be not worth | the price fixed by the Pool.

|

Refusing to reduce the price there has been no | alternative but to push it into the ocean. How much | has gone to the fathomless depths in this way will | never be known. As far back as two years ago W J | McWilliams, Federal member for Franklin, saw a whole | stack at Fremantle riddled by weevil. From that day | to this the stacks have never been free from the | pest.

|

To-day poultry-raisers cannot buy cheap grain. | The bosses of the Commonwealth are busy winning the | war by dumping vast quantities of fodder.

|

But the tides that ebb and flow do not entirely | cover up the iniquity that is being practised.

|

Here is what W J McWilliams had to say to the | Federal Parliament the other day:~~

|

|

|

Despite all denials that have been made it is | established beyond doubt that millions of bushels of | wheat have been destroyed. The NSW Railway | Department prepared a report on the question some | time back. Among other things the report says:~~ | |

|

At Williamstown vast quantities of rotting grain | have been literally thrown over the side of the | wharves. However much interested agencies may | suppress the facts, they are no longer capable of | denial. We are, however, more concerned with | Fremantle than with Eastern ports. Accusations have | been made, other than those referred to in the | speech of W J McWilliams.

|

Here is an example of the methods employed by the | Wheat Board:~~ Barque - came in and | unloaded kerosene at J Shed. The barque then laid | over in Victoria Quay for fully a week of fine | weather ready for loading wheat before she was taken | across to the North Wharf for that purpose. This | means a week of valuable time was wasted by the | Wheat Board, a body whose object we understand is to | win the war by shipping grain away with the utmost | expediency. To take the empty barque over a parcel | of new wheat was brought from North Wharf to where | she was lying at Victoria Quay to stiffen the boat | in order that she could be sailed to the former | place.

|

The barque was then loaded with old wheat. | Government inspectors on sampling found the stack | weevily and should have left it alone and gone to a | good stack. Instead of doing this they commenced | sampling on the weevily stack here and there, taking | a little good wheat wherever available, but left the | whole stack exposed to the weather. The result was | the stack got damaged through rain and was not | touched again for shipment on the barque.

|

Out of the damaged stack about 150 tons were sent | to E Shed to be reconditioned and sold locally. | This lot was in a very bad state, and had to be | screened, washed and put through other processes to | make it saleable, and even after this extra handling | it may yet have to be dumped. After taking the 150 | tons to E Shed, the rest of the stack (which was | also in bad condition) was rebagged to be sold in | small lots.

|

Take another instance:~~ On June 7, when the men | arrived for work there were 134 trucks waiting. The | majority were not covered, and it was raining. Next | day the trucks numbered 194; it was again raining, | and the trucks were not sheeted. On June 9 the | trucks totalled 249, and the same conditions | prevailed. Two-thirds of these trucks had to be | unloaded into the wheat shed on account of becoming | wet. Some had to be re-stacked and re-bagged. This | caused the merchants and the Railway Department to | blame each other for negligence in allowing the | stuff to be exposed. Some of the wheat went into | the Government Stores Shed, and the remainder was | taken to Victoria Quay. That portion taken into the | shed was afterwards found to be growing, and touched | with blue mould. Fifty tons of wheat were put into | trucks and dumped into North Mole. This was wheat | damaged through leaky and bad bags, mice, rats and | weather.

|

Instances of gross mismanagement are numerous. | Here is another:~~ An I truck arrived on April 20 at | North Wharf from the country. On April 27 (a lapse | of seven days) it was consigned to Cottesloe; on the | 305h after lying there three days, it was sent from | Cottesloe back to Fremantle. The agents refused to | take delivery, and it was delivered to the Wheat | Board on May 8. The wheat was then in such a bad | condition that it had to be placed in trucks and | dumped into the North Mole.

|

This case was a clear example of gross | negligence. If ordinary care had been taken to see | that the trucks were sheeted and protected from the | weather the wheat need not have been thrown into the | sea.

|

A further example is furnished with another | consignment. On May 26 39 trucks come in, on the | 28th 38, and on June 12, 37 trucks arrived. All of | this wheat was intended for a ship at berth; but on | account of it being unsheeted during the wet weather | most of the trucks had to be unloaded into the grain | shed to be stood on end to dry.

|

It has to be remembered that management of this | kind contributed greatly to the prolonging of | loading operations. A barque commenced loading on | May 18 and finished June 14. She used both gantry | and crane; and stowed approximately 10,000 bags. | Usually the crane puts up 2500 bags in 8 hours and | the gantry 3000. The loading ought to have taken | about 8 days. But the stack was so damaged with | weevil that portions had to be selected here and | there. After taking out the good grain the rest had | to be rebagged with a view to its sale as second and | third quality.

|

A remarkable circumstance in respect to the | operations of the Wheat Board is that wheat for | South Africa has to be sampled and weighed before | leaving Fremantle. Rejection often happens. This | does not apply to wheat loaded for the Imperial | Government which is never sampled and goes weevily | or otherwise. Wheat for South Africa must be prime, | but England need not be.

|

In this connection a boat loading at the grain | sheds was taking a part parcel for Durban. The | wheat was sampled by two inspectors, loaded into | trucks, then weighed and sent alongside the ship. A | third inspector came along and condemned a great | number of bags lying at the ship's side. This | condemned wheat had to be put back into the stack at | a cost of 1d per bag. It may yet reach the Imperial | Government.

|

The whole proceeding in connection with the wheat | export demands immediate review. The agents have | done well out of it. They get a cut at both ends. | All the losses are against the farmers. The fool- | public has a bill to foot also.

|

When a demand is made that bread should be | cheaper the cry goes up that Labor seeks to rob the | producer. Our answer is that the accusation is | false. We insist he is being robbed openly as it | is. His grain is exposed to weather, it is infested | with vermin. The proper course would be to increase | the Australian consumption by reducing the price. | But the win-the-warrers will not have it that | way.

|

They prefer to allow the stacks deteriorate, dump | them into the sea, and keep the price up on the | general public. This is done ostensibly to give the | growers a return. But the best return the farmers | could secure would be a larger turnover in the | Commonwealth. It does not profit them to dump grain | in the sea.

|

|