View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
23 November 1911

4^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
PAPERS.
QUESTION
- MILITARY OFFICERS
QUESTION
- PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER SURVEY
QUESTION
- METEOROLOGICAL MAP
QUESTION
- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WEST COAST MAP
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION OF RUSSIANS
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- EXPORT TRADE
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- PACIFIC CABLE
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL
- Second Reading
ALLAN G. PENDLETON
- My Dear Sir,

The President took, the chair at 2.30- p.m., and read prayers. ‘

page 3058

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Assent, reported.

page 3058

PAPERS.

Senator PEARCE laid upon the table, the following papers : -

Meteorology Act 1906 - Regulations relating to, the sale of Meteorological Publications.- Statutory Rules 1911, No. 193.

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

A scheme of wireless telegraphyfor the Commonwealth, including the sites for stations, is now under consideration, and the PostmasterGeneral hopes to be able to make a definite statement on the subject in about ten days’ time.

page 3059

QUESTION

EXPORT TRADE

Senator READY:

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has the Minister received a reply to his cable to the High Commissioner in reference to the trial shipment of 50 carcasses of Tasmanian pork to London?
If so, will he explain how matters injuriously affecting the export trade of Australia found their way into the press before official information reached him?

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

Yes.
The High Commissioner’s cable reached here on the18th instant - the same day as the news appeared in the local press.

page 3060

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator CHATAWAY:
for Senator Millen

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Has the estimate of Revenue and Expenditure promised in Mr. Deane’s last report on the proposed Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta railway been received ?
If so, will he lay the same upon the Table of the House?
If not, will he intimate when he expects it to be available?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Estimates of revenue and expenditure are being prepared, and will be available next Wednesday.

page 3060

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has the Government yet taken any steps to secure reasonable freights and fares for residents of the Northern Territory?
If so, with what result?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

and 2. Yes. The agreement which has been in force for the last few years has been renewed for a further twelve months. The increases in fares and freights recently announced will not be made, but it has not been found possible to secure reductions.

page 3060

QUESTION

PACIFIC CABLE

Senator CHATAWAY:

asked the Min ister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the press rates by tne Pacific Cable Service, after the rst January proximo, will be reduced from is. to 4½d. per word?
What loss, if any, is it expected that this reduction will cause, and what amount of such loss will Australia have to make good?
Under the circumstances, does the Government propose to ask the Independent Cable Service, which is subsidized by the Commonwealth -
1. To reduce its charges to the country newspapers ; or
2. To increase the number of words it re ceives each week ; or
3. To accept a lower subsidy in order to recoup the above Commonwealth loss?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

A proposal has been put forward, and concurred in by the Commonwealth Government, for a reduction from9d. to 4½d. per word on press telegrams with the United Kingdom, subject to a delay of twelve hours.
The direct loss toAustralia by the reduction of its terminal rate is estimated at £770 per annum if, say, 50 per cent, of the business were affected by the arrangement.
No.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I should like to ask him to give a distinct reply to my first question. I do not think that the departmental answer touches the point. I asked whether it is a fact that press rates from 1st January next will be reduced from9d. to 4½d. per word.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I think the answer is clear. It is that a proposal has been put forward, and concurred in by the Commonwealth Government, for a reduction from9d. to 4½d. on press cable messages from the United Kingdom, subject to a delay of twelve hours.

page 3060

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 22nd November, vide page 3003) :

Clause 43-

After section two hundred and eight of the principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 208A. Prosecutions for offences against this Act or the regulations may, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence.”

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– It must be evident to honorable senators that the time within which prosecutions for offences under this measure must be commenced is either considerably too short or considerably too long. The Minister may be aware of the fact that lapse of time is no bar to a prosecution for an indictable offence. Speaking generally, unless there is some express provision to the contrary effect in the measure itself, the offences provided for are indictable. But I draw attention to another aspect of the case. The clause says that a prosecution may be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence. But I ask the Committee to note how trifling in many respects the offences are. Some of them merely affect portions of the administrative machinery. Instances have been mentioned during the debate. Yet the Government propose to extend the time within which prosecutions may be commenced to three years. I admit that some grievous offences against society may be committed in connexion with the electoral law. Yet the time for commencing prosecutions in such serious cases may be the same as that prescribed for an infringement of a pe”tty regulation. It may be said to be almost an invariable rule in legislation to make the time not longer than six months. I believe that is the case in regard to larceny and similar offences. After six months no prosecution can be commenced. We must take it that the Government have had some reason for extending the time, but I should like to know what that reason is. Considering the variety of offences that may be committed, and how widely they differ in character, I am justified in saying that the time is either too long or too short. I ask the Minister to consent to recast this provision, or else to give some reasons for it.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– The honorable senator says that the time limit proposed is either too short or too long, and he asserts that the Government must have some motive for the insertion of such a provision. Certainly they have. It is inserted because we are making a radical alteration in the manner of compiling the rolls, and are giving many additional facilities to voters to exercise their votes. No one will contend that a person who has been guilty of dishonesty or fraudulent practices should escape punishment.

Senator- St. Ledger. - This will apply to breaches of the regulations as well as of the Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– For the reason that absent voting and other matters are left by the Bill to regulations. Australia is a place of considerable distances, and it may take some time for the votes to reach the proper authorities. There may, therefore, be some lapse of time before the authorities are cognisant of the fact that a breach of the law has been committed.

Senator Walker:

– Twelve months should suffice.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is not Lie slightest danger in permitting prosecutions within three years from the committal of the offence in the case of persons who have been guilty of dishonesty or fraudulent practices. This will not in any way affect the candidates, and it will safeguard the provisions of the Bill, particularly those to give effect to absent voting. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will not ask for any alteration of the period of three years, which has been referred to. A man may be enrolled to-day under our card system, and an election may not take place for nearly three years. It might thus be impossible to find out that a fraud had been committed in connexion with the enrolment until an election was held.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– The Minister can scarcely expect us to regard his statement as an explanation. In the clause which we have just passed we have provided for a penalty of £20 for the making of a false statement to an officer. The statement may be made quite inadvertently or negligently, and yet. the person making it will be liable to a prosecution at any time within three years of the date of the committal of the offence. The same period is applied indifferently to the gravest and most trivial offences, to bribery and corruption as well as to the making of an untrue statement to an officer. I repeat what I have already said to the effect that this Bill with all the offences created by it and its cast-iron provisions constitutes a veritable electoral Draconian code. If a newspaper proprietor inserts electoral matter for which he is to be paid, and some compositor, whether wilfully or only negligently, fails to head it with the proper type, the proprietor of the newspaper is made liable under this Bill to the enormous penalty of .£500. This would appear to be regarded by the Government as the gravest electoral offence that can be committed under this Act. It is regarded as a graver offence than bribery and corruption which strike at the foundation of the purity of our political representation. In the case of almost every simple offence dealt with by the lower courts of the States, if a prosecution is not instituted within six months none will lie. Yet the Government propose in this Bill that the possibility >f a prosecution shall be held over a man’s head for three years if he has negligently made an untrue statement. I hope the Committee will not discredit - I had almost said disgrace - itself by permitting such an unjust, stupid and tyrannical clause to pass. In order to test the feeling of honorable senators on the matter, I move -

That the words “ three yeaTs” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof “ six months.”

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– - I am not disposed to accept any amendment of proposed new section 208. Senator Millen has asked me to point to some specific cases that justify the proposed extension of the period during which a prosecution for an electoral offence may be launched. He has declared that he would place no time limit upon prosecutions for indictable offences, but that in regard to other offences he would impose a limit. We believe that a period of three years will meet the case of all offences if they ais grouped together I would further point out that the Bill does not say that a prosecution “ shall “ be initiated, but that it “may” be initiated. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition desires that any person who has violated the provisions ‘ of the Act should escape punishment. If the provision is carried it will enable the Government, if it so wills, to prosecute within three years persons who have committed either indictable or minor offences against the Act. The Committee ought not to forget that, although no similar provision is contained in the Act, this Bill makes some radical alterations. It grants facilities to persons to exercise their votes in a manner in which they were not able to do before. In order to prevent the possibility of persons who have been guilty of fraudulent practices under the Act from escaping the punishment which they merit, we desire to have the opportunity of initiating prosecutions against them at any time within three years. A card may be filled in and duly witnessed. Three years hence an election may take place, and then it may be proved that a fraud has been committed. Will any one say that because a period of three years has elapsed no punishment should be inflicted ? The period is fixed at three years because a general election is usually held every three years.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- The Minister has stated that as a general election usually takes place every three years, it will be after an election that an offence against the Act may be discovered ; but I would point out to him that the discovery may not take place until a week or a month after the expiration of three years from the date of the offence. I do not desire to screen any person who commits an offence against the Act, but I submit that it is not right or proper to hold a man liable for three years to a prosecution for offending against a regulation which may have been abolished or altered in the meantime. Suppose, for instance, that an honorable senator is living a couple of “hundred miles from a large town at the date of an alleged offence. If he is prosecuted at the time, he will be able to show that he should not be punished. But during a period of three years, he may leave South Australia, and go to Queensland, or vice versa. If a charge is brought against him then, how can he be expected to defend himself? When he returns to the district where the offence is alleged to have taken place, he may find that the persons on whose evidence he expected to rely are located in some other part of Australia. In the case of a serious offence, I would not object to a period of three years, or longer; but in the case of offences against the regulations, the prosecutions ought to be launched within six months, because within that period a man would very likely be able to find his witnesses. In my opinion, the Government ought to be compelled to proceed with the prosecution within six, or, at the outside, twelve months for a breach of the regulations. The commission of an indictable offence may not be discovered until a week after the expiration of three years. I do not think that if an action were taken against a man for committing a breach “of an ordinary regulation the Government would find a Bench which would punish him very severely. The only difficulty I see in such a case is that the accused person may not be able to procure his witnesses. Take the case of a man who has come from Tasmania to Charters Towers, or Croydon, or Gympie. At the general election, he does something which is said to be wrong, and afterwards he leaves the district for Tasmania. If, after the expiration of eighteen months, he is arrested in Tasmania, how is he to get his witnesses to prove that he did not commit the offence? It is quite likely that, in the meantime, they may have left the district, where it took place. The liability to be prosecuted for committing a breach of the regulation should not be allowed to hang over a man for more than twelve months. If it is going to take three years to find out whether a man is legally or illegally on the roll, I have not much faith in the card system. I did think at first that it would do a certain amount of good, and I still think that it may operate beneficially, but if the system is going to be workable at all, the Department will have to find out long before the expiration of three years whether men are legally or illegally on the roll. It will not do to wait until after a general election has been held to ascertain that. The Minister has taken credit to the Commonwealth for the great facilities which they give under the new system to electors to record their votes, but he does not say a word about the great facilities which they have taken away. The system which is being repealed was in more demand than the system which is being introduced is likely to be. It is like offering a stone to persons when they ask for bread. The Government have not yet proved that there has been any great demand for the changes which they have introduced in this measure, but I think it has been fairly proved that what they take away was badly wanted-. I believe that if a short period were substituted for the term of three years in this Bill, it would meet the case. I certainly hope the Government will see their way not to allow the possibility of being prosecuted for a trivial crime to hang over a man for three years. If a man were to get information that he is likely to be proceeded against for a breach of the regulations, his life would be a misery for that term. But, thank God, there are benches of magistrates, both honorary and paid, all over the country, who, I believe, would, if the Government attempted to put this provision in force, after the lapse of a long period, inflict a slight fine, if they did not dismiss the case with costs. I hope that, in the case of indictable offences, the Government will leave the offenders liable to prosecution within a period of three years, or more. We do not even yet know the regulations for a breach of which a man may be prosecuted under this provision, and perhaps when we do see them we shall try to repeal them. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail, and that the Government will accept an amendment.

– But the bitterness may be revived by another election. If we pass this with our eyes open, no one can say that we were not warned about it. We have enough irritation at elections already, without affording fresh incitement to litigation. I would suggest that we should alter the clause to read - “ Prosecutions for offences against this Act or the regulations which are indictable offences shall be commenced within three years - and prosecutions for offences punishable on summary conviction within six months.”

Do not let us give an opportunity to disorderlyminded people to bring about litigation when there is no occasion for it. We might say that prosecutions for offences “within the meaning of section 190 “ may be commenced at any time within three years after the committal of the offences. We should then draw a distinction between the two classes of offences, and might make prosecutions for offences punishable on summary conviction commenceable within six months.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– - The amendment suggested by Senator Symon would vitiate the clause altogether. It has been purposely drafted to enable the Electoral

Office to follow up cases of fraud on the part of any elector in the Commonwealth up to a period of three years. All the offences contemplated are not indictable. They are not all provided for in the existing table of electoral offences, for the reason that in the principal Act no provision is made for the card system of enrolment, and no provision or regulation for the manner in which votes may be recorded by electors who may happen to be outside the divisions in which they are enrolled.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Will the Minister mention any offences for fraud under this Act which are not indictable?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Improperlyor falsely witnessing an application for enrolment is one. That is not provided for in the principal Act, because the system was not in operation when that Act was passed. It is proposed to have a different system of compilation, with different forms. It is mainly for the purpose of enabling the office to trace cases of fraud or illegal practice that we require the period of three years. I feel sure that honorable senators opposite are extremely anxious to make this Bill as workable as possible, and to prevent illegal practices. With a view to doing what the Government consider right in the interests of candidates, and the community generally, they wish to have the opportunity of prosecuting persons guilty of the practices I have mentioned within a period of not less than three years.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I submitted my amendment very hastily, with a view to raising the question, and I have admitted that it is probably liable to as many objections as is the clause itself. I hope that Senator Symon will press his amendment in the form in which he has presented it to the Committee, as I do not think a better amendment could be devised to give effect to what I believe is the intention of every member of the Committee. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.47]. - I accept Senator Findley’s very fair expression of belief that honorable senators on both sides desire that every effort should be made to make the Bill thoroughly workable. The honorable senator might have added that we are all desirous of preventing, by every means possible, impropriety of conduct, fraud, and the graver offences against the electoral law. But we are here really considering only a question of a fair limitation of the period within which a prosecution may lie. The offences referred to ire clause 42 - signing a name as a witness on a blank electoral paper ; or on any electoral paper which has been wholly or partly filled up, unless it has been signed by the person intended to sign it; or on any electoral paper unless he has seen the person whose signature he purports to witness sign it - do not necessarily involve fraud. All these things may be done without any intention to commit an offence. It has frequently come under my observation that people are quite ready to witness a signature which they recognise, though they may not have seen it written. Why should a prosecution for such a matter be held over a man’s head for three years ?

Senator McGregor:

– In the majority of cases a prosecution will be instituted as soon as it is known that an offence has been committed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– If such minor offences as I have referred to are not discovered within six months or twelve months they should not be the subject of any prosecution. When a prosecution is unduly delayed it may be most difficult for a defendant to attend in Court, or to get his witnesses together, and frequent miscarriages of justice may result. I think that if the Department is unable to discover the commission of trivial offences, or offences punishable by summary conviction, within six months, they ought not to be raked up at all. I move -

That the word “ indictable “ be inserted before the word “ offences,” line 3.

If that amendment be carried I shall propose the addition to the proposed new section of the words - “and prosecutions for offences punishableon summary conviction may be instituted within six months.”

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I cannot accept the amendment in the form suggested. The Government prefer the provision as it stands in the Bill. We believe that the amendment would weaken it, and would not give the officers intrusted with the administration of the law the time considered necessary in order to trace offenders guilty of serious infringements of the Act.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Could the honorable senator suggest any modification of the amendment ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No, I prefer the clause as it stands.

Question - That the word proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 15

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment ( by Senator St. Ledger) proposed -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Except that for offences punishable on summary conviction prosecutions shall be commenced within six months.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I propose to accept the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Amendment of schedule).

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I regret that I missed the opportunity just now to point out that there is a discrepancy - which I suggest that the Minister should set right - between clause 44 and section149 of the principal Act.

Senator Pearce:

– The discrepancy has been observed.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause17 -

Section one hundred and thirty-nine of the Principal Act is repealed, and the following sections inserted in its stead : - “139. - (1.) An elector who has reason to believe that he will not on polling day be within any Commonwealth Electoral Division may, subject to the regulations, be permitted to vote at any time after the issue of the writ and before polling day, if he attends before any prescribed Commonwealth Electoral Registrar and makes a declaration in accordance with the prescribed form. “139A. (1) On polling day, an elector shall be entitled to vote at the polling place for which he is enrolled or at any prescribed polling place for the subdivision for which he is enrolled, or he shall be permitted to vote at any other polling place within the Commonwealth under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting.”

An elector whose religious beliefs debar him from voting on Saturday shall be permitted to vote on the day before polling day if he attends before any prescribed electoral officer and makes a declaration in accordance with the prescribed form.

For the present, I move -

That after the word “ elector “ in sub-clause 1 of proposed new section139 the following words be inserted, “ whose religious beliefs debar him from voting on Saturday.”

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Iamglad that Senator Millen has submitted this amendment, and hope that the Government will accept it. The subject has already been dealt with at length.

Senator Pearce:

– The Government announced last week what they intended to do about the matter.

Senator WALKER:

– I understood that the clause was postponed to leave an opportunity for making an amendment to this effect.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 18

Majority … …12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That after the word “ Commonwealth “ in proposed new section139A the following words be inserted : -“ at which a polling booth is open.”

I have already explained that, unless these words are inserted, it might be claimed by an elector in connexion with a by-election that he was entitled to vote at any booth in the Commonwealth.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted after sub-clause 2 in proposed new section 139a : - “ (2A.) Absent voters’ ballot-papers containing votes and enclosed in any prescribed envelope may, if so provided by the regulations, be placed in any ballot-box in use at the polling booth at which the votes were cast, but notwithstanding anything contained in this Act a prescribed envelope containing an absent voter’s ballot-paper shall (unless the regulations otherwise provide) only be opened andthe ballotpaper dealt with, as regards the scrutiny thereof and the counting of the votes thereon, by the Divisional Returning Officer for the division for which the voter claims to be enrolled.”

This amendment makes a slight departure from the principal Act, under which it is possible for an assistant returning officer to do what is here provided. We desire to limit the power to a divisional returning officer.

Senator Walker:

– Will this amendment preserve the secrecy of the ballot in regard to the individual voter?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is pretty well the sole object of the amendment.

Senator Walker:

– How is the name of “the voter to be known ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The ballot-papers will be in envelopes, which will be sealed. No one will see them except the elector and 4he divisional returning officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 3071

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th October (vide page 1681), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

Chief Secretary’s Office,

Adelaide, 1st Feb., 1900.

Sir,

Following our conversation as to the possible blocking of the construction of a railway line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta by the Federal Authority, by South Australia refusing consent rendered necessary by section 34 of clause 51 of the Commonwealth Bill, to the construction of the line through her territory, I regard the withholding of consent as a most improbable tiling, in fact, quite out of the question.

To assure you of our attitude in the matter, I will undertake as soon as the Federation is established (West and South Australia both being Stales of the Commonwealth) to introduce a Bill formally giving the assent of this Province to the construction of the line by the Federal Authority, and to pass it stage by stage simultaneously with the passage of a similar Bill in your Parliament.

I have, &c,

W. Holder.

That is the guarantee which we are told was given to Western Australia to induce her to come into the Federation. Mr. Holder had no power to give any guarantee on the part of the Commonwealth. He was simply the Premier of the State of South Australia, and that was all that he could do. The following letter was ad dressed to the Prime Minister of Australia by Mr. J. G. Jenkins, Premier of South Australia : -

Premier’s Office,

Adelaide, 31st July, 1901.

Sir,

In reply to your letter of tlie 23rd instant, I have the honour to inform you that prior to the submission of the Commonwealth Constitution Act for the approval of the people of Western Australia, namely, on rst February, 1900, the Hon. F. W. Holder (then Premier of South Australia) wrote to the Premier of Western Australia (copy of letter herewith) undertaking on specified conditions to introduce a Bill formally giving the assent of this State to the construction of a line of railway to Western Australian border.

On 11th June I telegraphed to the Western Australian Premier as follows : - ” Re Kalgoorlie railway. A Bill will be introduced into our Parliament as agreed by Mr. Holder, rst February, 1900, but we strongly insist upon line joining your State forty to sixty miles north of Eucla.”

The Bill has not yet been introduced. 1 have, &c,

G. Jenkins,

Premier.

– No. I am looking at the matter from the broadest aspect. The railways which are being constructed are running into the danger zone of Australia, much more so than will the line which we are considering. They will run away to the nearest point of danger which the continent has at present. We have to consider that any decision given on this proposal will be irrevocable, and that if we make a mistake the consequences will be very serious indeed. As regards the adoption of the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge, it is right that we should know who is to blame for that economic blunder in order that we may do justice in the matter of unification. How this particular gauge first came in no one seems to know. It has no special virtue. It is a good gauge, and has done good service ; but it is not better than other gauges. What we have to consider is, Is this the best gauge for Australia, and how did it come to be adopted here? We know that railway construction in Australia was first mooted in Sydney in 1846. An application was made to the Home Government as to which gauge they would recommend, and the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge was the one used in England. Just about that time New South Wales had received a Legislature, although with very limited authority, be cause she had no power to appoint public servants. Her leading officials were all appointed by the Crown, and, therefore, their sympathies were with England, and English customs. In 1850, the Australian Colonies Government Act was passed, and in due course Victoria was created a separate Colony, with a Legislature. On the first reference of the matter to the Home Government in 1846, the adoption of the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge was recommended. It was going to be taken up, but the engineer of the Sydney Railway Company, Mr. Shields, very strongly recommended the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. He went thoroughly into the matter, and his representations had such effect that the company wrote to Sir Charles Fitzroy, the Governor, asking if it might be allowed to adopt that gauge, and this it was allowed to do. The company, through the Government, communicated with Victoria and South Australia . and asked that, in order that there might be no break of gauge in the future, those two Colonies should fall into line, and construct their railways on the same gauge as New South Wales was adopting. Just at this time the question of gauge was exciting a great deal of attention throughout the world, India was going into the matter very fully, and after long deliberation and close examination she finally adopted for her trunk lines the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge. New South Wales, as I said, adopted the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, and passed an extremely stringent Act, with very harsh penalties provided. I refer to an Act for regulating the gauge of railways which was assented to on 27th July, 1852, and which reads as follows -

Whereas it is expedient to define the Gauge on which Railways shall be constructed within the Colony of New South Wales Be it enacted by His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof as follows : -

It shall not be lawful to construct any Railway for the conveyance of passengers on any Gauge other than a Gauge of five feet three inches.

And if any Railway used for the conveyance of passengers shall be constructed or altered contrary to the provisions of this Act the company or person authorized to construct the Railway or in the case of any demise or lease of such Railway the company or person for the time being having the control of the works of such Railway shall forfeit ten pounds for every mile of such Railway which shall be so unlawfully constructed or altered during every day that the same shall continue so unlawfully constructed or altered and in estimating the amount of any such penalty any distance less than one mile shall be estimated as a mile.

And over and above the penalty hereby provided if any Railway used for the conveyance of passengers shall be constructed or altered contrary to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for the Surveyor-General of the Colony or other officer or person authorized by the Governor of the Colony in that behalf to abate and remove the same or any part thereof so constructed or altered contrary to the provisions of this Act and to restore the site thereof to its former condition.

All penalties under this Act may be recovered from the company or persons liable to pay or make good the same by or in the name of Her Majesty’s Attorney or Solicitor-General for the said Colony and shall be paid to Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors to be applied to the public uses of the said Colony and in support of the Government thereof in such manner as may be directed by any Act or Acts to be passed by the Governor and Legislative Council.

There could not be any stronger provisions passed in regard to the construction of a line, and, therefore, Victoria and South Australia, when representations were made that they should fall into line with that gauge, naturally thought that that gauge, having been deliberately adopted and carried on under such provisions as I have quoted, there would not have been the least chance of it ever being altered. Therefore we found Victoria adopting that gauge, and South Australia following suit. Victoria constructed the Melbourne and Hobson’s Bay line, and began the construction of the Melbourne and Geelong line, on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. I believe that 40 miles of the Mr Alexander railway had already been commenced. South Australia had passed an Act adopting the same gauge, and began the construction of the Adelaide to Port Adelaide line. When Mr. Shields, the engineer, left the service of the Sydney Railway Company, his place was taken by an English engineer, Mr. N. S. W. Wallace. He had been connected in England with some of the large engineering firms, and naturally came out with proclivities in favour of the 4-ft- 81/2-in. gauge. He began to work for the adoption of that gauge in New South Wales; and so great was the influence whichhe was able to bring to bear that in August,1855, the Act of1852 was repealed, and the 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge was adopted without any reference to Victoria, and without saying, “By your leave” to that Colony, or to South Australia, with which an arrangement had been made. I say that that breach of faith, deliberately made on the part of New South Wales, ought to be remembered now, when we have to build Commonwealth railways, because it is not the fault of either South

– That would be going too far. At the time to which I have been referring, India was looking into the question of gauges. The English engineers naturally desired to adopt the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge; but Mr. Sims, then consulting engineer for India, reported as follows : -

The wider gauge of 5 ft. 6 in., which I would recommend for adoption, will give 94 inches more space for the arrangement of the several parts of the working gear of the several parts of the locomotive engines; and this, additional space will be more needed in India than in Europe, not only on account of the machinery itself, but it would lower the centre of gravity of both the engines and carriages, the result of which would be to lesson their lateral oscillation, and render the motion more easy and pleasant, and at the same time diminish the wear and tear.

The lowering of the centre of gravity, consequent on the adoption of the wider gauge, appears to me of great importance for another reason, namely, the fearful storms of wind so frequent at certain seasons of the year, and I think it very probable that in one severe nor’wester, not to mention such hurricanes as that of 1842, the additional 94 inches of width might make all the difference between the safety and destruction of the trains; and one such accident, attended, as it doubtless would be, with great loss of life, would probably retard the progress of the railway system in this country very considerably.

India adopted the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge, and when this report refers to “ the gauge to be adopted “ that is what is meant. Lord Dalhousie, then Governor-General of India, dealt with the subject at length. He wrote -

At one time this question was much before me ; and although I should not myself attempt to offer an opinion on so vexed a question, yet I may venture to form one on the recorded views of men competent in every way to judge. The evidence which has been given before the Gauge Commissioners in 1846, and evidence which has been given from time to time before the Committees of Parliament, backed, as it has been by very high authority abroad, is, I venture to think, sufficient to show that the narrow gauge of 4 ft. 8£ in. (a measurement adopted originally at haphazard, and from the accident of local circumstances), is not the best gauge for the general purposes of a railway, and that something intermediate between the narrow gauge of 4 ft. 84 in., and the broad gauge of 7 feet, will give greater advantages than belong to the former, and will substantially command all the benefits which are secured by the latter.

There is a great deal more on the same subject, all of which strengthens the claim for the wider gauge. India adopted the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge deliberately, after due investigation of the experience of other countries. Of course, I am aware that India also has some 3-ft. 6-in. lines, but they are feeder lines, chiefly in mountainous country, where a 5-ft. 6-in. railway would, of course, be very much more expensive than is the case on more level ground. After the refusal of New South Wales to adhere to the arrangement as to the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, the subject came before the Legislative Council of Victoria. A Commission was appointed which took evidence from Mr. C. Pasley, colonial engineer ; Mr. C. Swyer, civil engineer; Mr. W. S. Chauncey, Mr. F. C. Christy, and Mr. A. Thomson. The result of a very careful inquiry, carried on over two or three years, was as follows : -

The Select Committee appointed on the 29th September, r8s3, “ to take evidence and report upon the best gauge for railways in this colony,” have the honour to report to your Honorable House : -

That in commencing their investigation into the important subject intrusted to them, your Committee addressed themselves to the correspondence with reference to the gauge of railways, laid on the Council table, on the 31st August last, by the Honorable the Colonial Secretary, and which was referred by your Honorable House to the consideration of your Committee.

From these and other documents it appears that the Government of New South Wales passed an Act establishing the medium gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. as the standard for that colony, and Earl Grey, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, addressed the Governments of the adjoining colonies, recommending the adoption of the same. This was accordingly done with respect to the Colony of Victoria, during the last session of the Legislative Council ; and two of the Railway Companies now actually carrying on their works have already forwarded extensive orders for rolling-stock,’ and other materials, upon the faith of this decision.

It appears, however, that without due inquiry into the views and intentions of this colony, the Government of New South Wales have rescinded their former decision and determined upon the ‘ adoption of . the narrow gauge of 4 ft. 84 in.

After an attentive perusal of the various letters included in that correspondence, your Committee are unanimously of opinion that the Government of New South Wales was not warranted in abruptly changing the gauge from the uniform width of 5 ft. 3 in. (which had been generally adopted throughout the Australian colonies) to the narrow gauge of 4 ft. 84 in., without first having obtained the concurrence of the Government of the adjoining colony to a measure fraught with so much importance to the general interests of the whole of them.

Your Committee therefore suggests to your Honorable House the propriety of presenting an address to His Excellency the LieutenantGovernor, praying his Excellency to call the attention pf the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the enactment passed by the Legislature of New South Wales for altering the gauge of railways from 5 ft. 3 in. to 4 ft. 8£ in., and to respectfully request that the Royal assent may be withheld from that Act.

Your Committee, in the exercise of their discretion, have called before them competent persons to give evidence on the relative merits of the various gauges, from whose united testimony it appears to your Committee that a medium gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. is the most suitable gauge for the general purposes of railway transit that can possibly be adopted; that there will be no difficulty in procuring the necessary stock and machinery, as compared with that adapted for the narrow gauge ; that the expense will be no more, and that the safety, at equal rates of speed, will be much greater.

Your Committee, therefore, taking into consideration that the gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. had already been agreed to by the Governments of the Australian colonies ; that it had received the sanction of the Home Government, and the railways in course of construction in this colony are of that gauge, and that the balance of the evidence given before your Committee greatly preponderates in favour of the adoption of a uniform gauge of 5 ft. 3 in., your Committee feel no hesitation in recommending to your Honorable House that in all future enactments authorizing the construction of lines of railway in this colony a strict adherence to the gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. should in every case be insisted on.

Your Committee, bearing ‘ in mind that the best railway gauge for the Australian colonies had previously been decided to be 5 ft. 3 in., and that that gauge would not be departed from, except in deference to the opinion of the Government of New South Wales, or unless it could be shown to be inferior to the gauge of 4 ft. 8£ in., did not feel it necessary to prolong their sittings for the purpose of hearing other witnesses than those whose evidence is appended to this report, and which, in the opinion of your Committee, is sufficiently conclusive in favour of an adherence to the gauge already adopted in these colonies.

In closing their report, your Committee feel that they cannot too strongly deprecate the making of railways with various gauges, when the Governments of these colonies, by a unanimity of action, might establish and perpetuate a uniformity of gauge, and thereby entirely obviate the numerous evils incident to a want of uniformity in the railway communications of a country. (Sgd.) JOHN HODGSON,

Chairman.

Thursday, 20th October 1853.

It is just as well to put these facts into Hansard, because it should be recorded for all time to come how this break of gauge in Australia came about. Of course, every one knows what the gauge of a railway is. It is simply the distance between the tops of the rails on which the wheels of the trains run. Ireland, after careful consideration, adopted the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. She did not adopt the English gauge, because, being an island, she had no railway communication with other countries. Russia adopted a 5-ft. gauge. At that time England was he home of manufactures, and especially of mechanical industries. Other nations went to her for rolling-stock, and, naturally, adopted her gauge. In those countries of Europe which were contiguous it was necessary that the gauge should be uniform, in order that trains might run from one country to another. But it is now a matter of regret to many countries that the 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge was adopted. There is no doubt that standardization must come in Australia some day; and I believe that it is practically upon us now that the Commonwealth is about to build railways. But it seems to me that the whole of the merits of the respective gauges should be inquired into. Practically only two gauges are in question, the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge and the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge. A country like Australia, with its low altitude, its lack of very great mountain barriers, of these two. gauges the broader is very much the better. The train rate and length are determined by the width of gauge and the permanent structures. We know that in America to-day, and in Great Britain too, the train rate and length have over-reached their economic limit, and that is determined by the gauge and grade. In America the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge would not now be recommended. We are not too far committed to that gauge. We can call a halt, and adopt another gauge if, after due inquiry, it is found desirable to do so. What I am asking now is not that we should adopt any particular gauge for this line, but that there should be an inquiry by the best modern engineering experts to guide us In the matter.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator favours the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge?

Senator McCOLL:

– As a layman, I do. But I am not bigoted in the matter, and I desire that the question should be referred to the best men available. They should visit countries in which broad and narrow gauges are used, find out their experience, and whether those that have a narrow gauge would, if starting railway construction over again, retain the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge, or adopt a wider gauge. I have had a good deal to do with the authorization of lines in the past twenty-six years in Victoria’, and I can say that the main consideration has been to get lines constructed as cheaply as possible. They have been constructed with borrowed money on which interest has had to be paid, and the idea has been to get as many miles as possible constructed for as little money as possible. Considerations of grade have not in the circumstances received the attention they deserved. A very slight difference in grade makes a very great difference in the pull of an engine, and the economic working of a line. In Victoria and New South Wales many lines have had to be regraded in order to meet the increasing volume of traffic. In America hundreds of millions sterling have been spent in strengthening lines and bridges, and rectifying errors of the past due to the adoption of a narrower gauge than would be adopted in that country at the present time. Compared with older countries of the world we may be said only to be beginning railway construction. We have yet time to rectify the errors of the past, if there have been errors. So far as my reading goes power and efficiency depend upon a wide gauge and a level road, because it has been said that the law of gravitation is immutable, and it is a ruling factor in regard to railways. As we had to buy our experience in irrigation and other matters, so we have to buy our experience in railways, and we should take stock now that we have the chance, and before it is too late. I have already mentioned that in Canada and America the railway construction question was solved by the associationof railways with land. The companies gotland given to them, and as the railways did not pay they made a profit from the settlement of the land. Here our population has not been increased in the same way. We have constructed lines of railway throughout this great country, but have not taken similar steps to bring people here. If we are going to make our railways, and especially this line, pay, the Commonwealth will have to adopt a vigorous system of immigration, otherwise this line will be a loss to us for all time. I wish now to refer to the Conference of Railways Commissioners which was held in Melbourne in1897, and at which the 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge was recommended. As I have said, the report of this Conference was really the basis on which all the later recommendations rest. They do not rest upon close inquiry by experts, but because the Railways Commissioners, who were not, I think, engineers, recom mended that gauge. I have here the minutes of that Conference, and they are very interesting reading -

Minutes of a meeting of the Railways Commissioners of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, held in Melbourne on Monday and Tuesday, 23rd and 24th August,1897, to consider and report on the unification of the railway gauges as desired by the Right Honorables the Premiers of their respective colonies, at Adelaide, on 8th April,1897.

Present :

Mr. John Mathieson (Victoria), in the chair,

Mr. Charles Oliver (New South Wales),

Mr. Allan G. Pendleton (South Australia).

The memorandum of the Right Honorables the Premiers was read as follows : - “The question of a uniform gauge for Australia was discussed, and as it was agreed that it wasdesirable, looking at the annually increasing intercourse of the people, and the exchange of goods, that the adoption of a uniform gauge should be carefully considered, it was resolved that the Railways Commissioners of the three Colonies be requested to meet as early as practicable, and submit their recommendation : -

In regard to the alteration of the existing lines in the three Colonies with a view to obtaining uniformity.
The probable cost of carrying out the change.
In what proportions they recommend the cost of the change shall be borne by the respective Colonies.
The number of years the cost of the change should be spread over; and the amount of money to be set aside each year as a sinking fund.
The date on which the commencement of the change of gauge might, with economy, be arranged ; and the probable length of time it would take to complete the work. “1. In regard to the alteration of the existing lines in the three Colonies with a view to obtaining uniformity.”

The Commissioners, in view of the contemplated Federation of the Australian Colonies, and the desirability of providing the utmost facility for inter-communication, are impressed with the necessity of having as soon as possible a uniform gauge. “ 2. The probable cost of carrying out the change.”

The mileage (including double roads, sidings, and private coal lines) of 4-ft. 81/2-in. and 5-ft. 3-in. gauge in the various Colonies is as under : -

The cost of the unification of the gauges as estimated by the engineering officers would be as follows : -

In view of the great difference in cost, the Commissioners are strongly of opinion that the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge should be adopted in lieu of the 5-ft. 3-in., as being at _ present the most economical method of securing the end aimed at.

That has been the ruling factor all through ; cheapness and the lesser cost of conversion. The Conference did not consider the interests of the future, and the fact that by not having the fullest railway facilities a tax would be imposed upon the producers of the country for all time. They looked at the present cost of conversion, and recommended accordingly. They were followed in this respect by other Conferences that sat subsequently. The Conference of Engineers said the adoption of the 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge would be the cheapest course to follow, and the War Railway Council took the same view. The question of commercial efficiency and the carrying of higher loads at lesser rates was completely lost sight of.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator think that the members of those Conferences never took into consideration the utility of one gauge as compared to the other?

Senator McCOLL:

– I have no doubt they did. Mr. Mathieson was a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge man. I do not know where Mr. Oliver and Mr. Pendleton came from, but Mr. Mathieson was a Scotch railway manager, and was accustomed to narrow-gauge railways.

Senator Lynch:

– He was in Queensland before he came to Victoria.

Senator McCOLL:

– I am aware of that. He was accustomed to the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge in the Old Land, and to the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge in Queensland. He was doubtless affected by his environment of English’ workers, work-shops, engines, and rollingstock, and the narrow gauge adopted in Queensland, and he was not prepared to face the cost of conversion to the wider gauge. These Commissioners had to make their lines show a profit. They did not desire honour and glory forty years later. They wished to get a name ‘for cheap management, and to be able to show that they could run their lines cheaper than they had been run before. They looked, as all imported Commissioners have done, to the present. We had an experience of this in the last Victorian Railways Commissioner, Sir Thomas Tait. That gentleman allowed the stock to run down to such an extent, while he was making a name for himself for cheap management, that we had to send out of the country for engines. These Commissioners were not engineers, and did not go into the merits of the questions of traction, economy, and commercial efficiency. They simply looked at the present cost, and desired to secure credit for an increase of railway revenue. There is a very extraordinary statement in the document from which I have quoted which I was amazed to see. The Commissioners say -

If the Governments of the respective Colonies determine to take steps towards the unification of the gauges, the Commissioners suggest that all new rolling-stock should be constructed with that object in view.

Will it be believed that those charged with the superintendence of the construction of railway stock in Victoria have been for some years past, in anticipation of the adoption of the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, and without consulting the Government, or obtaining the consent of Parliament - because the Government have told me that they knew nothing whatever about it - constructing railway stock for Victoria for the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, instead of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge? They have been building waggons to carry lighter loads, and this must have increased the cost of working. I was amazed when I found this out, and, further, that the Government of the day knew nothing about it. It seems an extraordinary thing that those in charge of our workshops in Victoria could make such a change as to construct Victorian stock to run on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge with bodies only fit for a 4-ft. 8-in. gauge, and without the people, Parliament, or the Government being aware of what was done. The Commissioners further reported - “ 3. In what proportion they recommend the cost of the change shall be borne by the respective Colonies.”

The question of the distribution of the cost of the change was discussed by the Commissioners at great length ; but they were unable to» agree upon the proportion which should be borne by each Colony. “ 4. The number of years the cost of the change should be spread over ; and the amount of money to be set aside each year as a sinking fund.”

Having regard to the national aspect of the question as affecting the Australian Colonies as a whole, and to the fact that the change is not expected to bring about any immediate increase of railway revenue, the Commissioners are of opinion that the necessary fund should be provided by a loan raised under Federal control, and that a sum of money should be set aside annually as a sinking fund for the purpose of paying off the loan in such manner as may be deemed advisable by the Federal authorities. Further, that no portion of the cost of the unification of the gauge should be added to the railway capital. “ 5. The date on which the commencement of the change of gauge might, with economy, be arranged ; and the probable length of time it would take to complete the work.”

The Commissioners agree that the work can be carried out within five years from the date of Us commencement. (Signed) JOHN MATHIESON, CHARLES OLIVER,

page 3082

ALLAN G. PENDLETON

I come now to the report submitted by the Engineers-in-Chief in 1903. The various States were represented on that occasion by the following gentlemen : - New South Wales, by H. Deane (Chairman); Queensland, by Wm. Pagan; South Australia, by Alex. B. Moncrieff; Victoria, by Maurice E. Kernot; and Western Australia, by C. S. R. Palmer. They met in Melbourne in March, 1903, and they recommended the adoption of a 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge, and based their estimates thereon. They did so chiefly on account of its cheapness. But they were not unanimous on the subject, and Mr. Moncrieff, the Engineer-in-Chief for South Australia, very strongly objected to the 4-ft. 8-in. gauge, though, in the report, his objection is not set out. But the correspondence which followed includes a letter from Mr. Moncrieff on the subject, which is dated 14th October, 1909.

Senator McCOLL:

– For six years he appears not to have known that his dissent had never been handed in with that report. It seems an extraordinary thing that for six years the Conference of EngineersinChief, which met in Melbourne in 1903, was regarded as having been unanimous in its recommendations, and that the dissent of Mr. Moncrieff was not made public. In a letter to Mr. Miller, Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs, he expresses himself on the subject as follows -

My Dear Sir,

I received to-day in an envelope from your office, and without memorandum of any kind, a document which purports to be a copy of our joint report on the transcontinental railway survey, but this document does not contain a copy of my dissent which was attached to the original report, and I shall feel very much obliged if you can send me the same, so that it may be placed along with the rest of the documents for transmission to my Government.

I have no doubt that the omission of what, to this State, is an important item of the report, was entirely an oversight ; and I shall be glad to have your assurance that the original of that dissent was in due course forwarded by Mr. Deane to the Federal Government.

His dissent reads -

On behalf of the South Australian Government I dissent from the adoption of the 4-ft. 84-in. gauge for the final estimate for this railway, because my Government objects to an arrangement which involves three breaks of gauge between Perth and Adelaide.

A uniform 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge of railway linking up the capitals between Brisbane and Fremantle.
A gauge of 4 ft. 81/2 in. on the Transcontinental line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta,
That the cost of conversion be shared upon a basis to be determined between the Commonwealth and the States.

The members of the Conference accepted that resolution, because it had been previously agreed to by the Railways Commissioners, and because it recommended a cheaper method of effecting the conversion of existing gauges. But there was a dissent even from that resolution. Mr. Thallon, the Railway Commissioner of Queensland, requested that the following motion proposed by him, but which was not accepted by the War Railway Council, be noted in the proceedings, namely : -

The members of the Railway War Council regret that a uniform gauge was not adopted in the inauguration of the railway system in Australia.
That the Railway Commissioners in each State be requested to prepare an estimate of the expense necessary to convert existing gauges as follows : -

Adelaide to Melbourne, 5 ft. 3 in.

Melbourne to Sydney, 4 ft. 81/2 in.

– This is too big a question to be treated thus lightly. It was the lay officers of the Railway Departments who determined this matter. The Railway

Commissioners are not appointed to investigate engineering facts, but to manage our railways, and to make them pay. They are not skilled in nice points regarding the width of gauge which ought to be adopted, and the steepness of the gradients, &c. The Minister of Defence told us that the gradient would be one in eighty, and he quoted from the surveyor’s report to that effect. Now, it seems to me that where the gradient is a very light one, we ought to lay down the best possible line. I am told that even a gradient of one in eighty will make a very great difference to the cost of haulage. Unless we consider this question very carefully, our action will certainly result in the imposition of taxation upon al] our producers. While the reduced cost may assist the passenger traffic .to-day, the Commonwealth will have to pay the price of the saving at a later period. For that reason, it seems to me, as a layman, that a saving in the cost of construction can only be made at the cost of commercial efficiency byandby - at the cost of producers and passengers. The cheaper cost, of the line to-day will mean a lower standard of efficiency, and, apparently, the States are to be coerced into adopting that lower standard: The Minister has stated that the gradient will be i in 80, but I think I have read. that it is to be 1. in 70.

Senator Pearce:

– I quoted from the report.

Senator McCOLL:

– If 1 in 70 is to be the gradient, as far as my inquiries havegone it is a very steep gradient for a transcontinental railway. It will increase all haulage cost by 36 per cent, for all time, as compared with the ruling gradient of even 1 in 100. Such grades, it seems to me, are just a sign of cheapening the first cost of the work, and at the expense of efficiency and greater profit later. It has been said that Lord Kitchener supported the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge. I have not been able to find in any report of his utterances that he was In favour of that gauge, as against the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. He was simply against a narrow gauge ; but he was speaking in a country with a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, of which he did not approve. Yesterday I questioned the Minister about procuring for the information of the Senate some photographs which have been taken of the route of this line. I do not know if he has heard whether they can be obtained.

Senator Pearce:

– They are private photographs, and we are obtaining copies of them.

Senator McCOLL:

– They will be very useful to honorable senators. The Minister of Defence seemed to be fairly optimistic in regard to the matter of water supply. I do not share his optimism. There is a long tract of country to be traversed, with a very light rainfall. There are no great catchments, no mountains, from which the water can be carried down. I am afraid that this will be a very difficult problem indeed. I do not know that the amount set down for providing a water supply will be sufficient. There may be an artesian basin, but I cannot find in the reports any chemical analysis of the water which is available. It is a most important question that we should know whether the water along the route is fit for use in locomotive engines. I know that the great trouble in going over the prairies in America was to get water free from alkaline. I do not find in the reports on this proposal full information as to the quality and the quantity of the water supply, and as to whether it is fit for use on locomotives or not. These are details which ought to have been supplied, because they have a very important bearing on the proposal. In fact, the whole question of water supply seems to be left obscure. The cost of providing water has been cut down from £609,000 to £456,000, thus showing a saving of £155,000. That seems to be in accordance with the policy of trying to put before Parliament the lowest possible estimate. We ought not to cut estimates down, but to keep them up as high as efficiency may require. It will only mean disappointment later, and will create a feeling of irritation if the line should cost more for construction and running than we are led to believe at the present time. We are told that wooden pipes can be used, which will not be subject to corrosion as iron pipes would be. We do not know how wooden pipes will act in a country where we have white ants to contend with. For a short distance, I dare say that they may be very useful ; but for a great distance we cannot tell how they will stand wear and tear, and the ravages of white ants and other insects. We are told that it is quite possible that internal-combustion engines may be used. I am not an expert in these matters, but I have been trying to gather information on various points as well as I can. I am advised that first-class engineers would not think of using internal combustion engines. We are told in the report of Mr. Deane that, if they can be used, the cost of the provision for water may be brought down to ,£250,000. I am informed that these engines are used to a very limited degree, and only experimentally, on branch lines abroad. They are not used as locomotives for hauling trains, but as engines forming part of single cars. If that is the case, they will bc bound to fail on the proposed line. I do not make that statement from personal knowledge, but as the result of many inquiries which I have made. That is a point into .which I would like the Minister to look into very carefully before he relies on the -estimates. We have been supplied with an estimate of the revenue and expenditure. On this subject the Minister of Defence told us -that, in an official report which was laid before the Senate in 1903, the State Engineers-in-Chief said -

I ask leave of the Senate to conclude my speech to-morrow.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at. 6.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 November 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19111123_senate_4_62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 November 1911

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

PAPERS.

QUESTION

MILITARY OFFICERS

Senator MCDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER SURVEY

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

METEOROLOGICAL MAP

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WEST COAST MAP

Senator VARDON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OF RUSSIANS

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator READY:for Senator Long

Senator FINDLEY:Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

EXPORT TRADE

Senator READY:

Senator FINDLEY:ALP

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator CHATAWAY:for Senator Millen

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

PACIFIC CABLE

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator FINDLEY:

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL

Senator ST LEDGER:Queensland

Senator FINDLEY:Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator ST LEDGER:Queensland

Senator CHATAWAY:Queensland

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator McGregor:

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator Findley:

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator SAYERS:Queensland

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Millen:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator FINDLEY:Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senate
23 November 1911

Senator MCDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator READY:
for Senator Long

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
for Senator Millen

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria