House of Representatives
6 October 1911

4th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1205

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister of External Affairs been drawn to the following cablegram which appears in this morning’s Argus : -

The regular liners trading to Australia have decided to curtail the space now being allotted to assisted immigrants, and to devote the accommodation gained by doing so to paying passengers.

It is estimated by the Agents-General that the reduction will be equivalent to a loss of space for 15,000 emigrants annually.

Rates by the Orient line steamers have been advanced by 60s. and 40s. a berth for two-berth and four-berth cabins respectively.

In future emigrants will be carried only in open berths.

The Age prints a- similar message, but it says that the Agents-General estimate that the reduction in rates is equivalent to £15,000 annually. Will the honorable gentleman consider the advisability of approaching the States to ascertain whether an arrangement cannot be’ made with them to charter, if necessary, vessels for the

Us] transport of immigrants, so as not to impede the flow of immigration to Australia?

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not read, the messages referred to, but it was stated in the newspapers quite recently that the space to be given for the accommodation of immigrants is to be vastly increased, to provide for the large number expected to come here during this and next year. I shall ascertain whether the reports referred to are correct, and, if they are, what can bc done to remedy matters.

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister take into consideration the necessity of providing against the bringing out of coal miners,’ inasmuch as a large number of those already here are out of employment, or work intermittently. Recently the proprietors sent to the Old Country, stating that there was work for 1,070 men at wages varying from. 7s. to £1 a day, although at the time the Government of New South Wales was finding relief work for miners because of, the difficulty they had’ in getting employment.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not know that coal miners are being brought out.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Will the Minister make inquiries, and ascertain for certain that miners are not being brought out? Will he ascertain, also, the true position of the coal -mining industry at Newcastle, with a view to preventing men in the Old Country from being deluded as to the prospects here?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Certainly.

page 1205

QUESTION

BRANDING OF COMMONWEALTH. EXPORTS: TUBERCULOSIS

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister of Trade and Customs been directed to the statement that a number of carcases of pork, exported from New South Wales and “Victoria, and bearing the Commonwealth brand, have been condemned in England as infected with tuberculosis, and will he make inquiries to ascertain to what extent swine suffer from that disease, and the - manner in which it manifests itself on the examination of the carcases? Are many carcases condemned during the examination which is made prior to exportation?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I informed the representatives of the Argus and the Age, when they showed me the cablegram on the subject, that inquiry would be made at once to ascertain where the condemned carcases were examined, and whether their supervision and branding was carried cut directly 1206 Branding of Commonwealth [REPRESENTATIVES.] Exports: Tuberculosis. under the control of the Commonwealth, or by officials of the States acting for the Commonwealth.

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister ascertain whether the Commonwealth certificates given in connexion with exports from Victoria to Great Britain are issued by the same authorities as issue certificates for goods sent from Victoria to Western Australia? It has been brought under my notice that absolute rubbish has been sent from Victoria to Western Australia, accompanied with the Victorian certificate that its quality was first class.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is a matter over which we have no control. The people of Australia said that they would not give it to this Parliament.

Mr HEDGES:

– Will the Minister inquire whether the authorities who issued the certificates for the exports to Western Australia to which I referred also issue the certificates for the Victorian exports to Europe ?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister inquire whether it is advisable to put the Commonwealth brand on produce which, although it may be in first class condition when it leaves Australia, may, owing to its perishable nature, be absolutely putrid when it reaches the Old Land?

Mr TUDOR:

– I should like notice of the question.

Mr Fisher:

– If goods are in first class condition when they leave here, it is only right that they should be branded as firstclass.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did. I understand the Minister to say that goods in transit between Victoria and Western Australia are not under the control of his Department? Is he not aware that InterState trade is entirely within the control of his Department?

Mr TUDOR:

– Will the honorable member give notice of the question ?

Mr GROOM:

– The Prime Minister has on many occasions shown his interest in the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis. Has his attention been drawn to the report recently issued in England, based on ten years’ scientific investigation of the disease by a Commission, and containing very important recommendations ; and will he take steps to give full publicity to it by issuing a condensation to all interested in combating the spread of tuberculosis ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I shall do so with great pleasure. I met a number of the members of the Commission, and others interested in the work, and have read a summary of the Commission’s findings. The report is a very promising one.

page 1206

PRINTING OF BILLS

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When the amending Electoral Bill is presented to the House, will the Minister in charge of it see that copies are printed incorporating the amendments in the original Act, so that honorable members may easily understand their effect?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I would remind the Prime Minister that it was promised some time ago that, whenever amending Bills were introduced, copies showing the existing provisions of the law and the proposed amendments would be so printed that honorable members could without unnecessary trouble understand the effect of what was proposed. That has not been done in connexion with the Copyright Bill, in which several references are made to the Act, involving considerable trouble.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The instruction was given some time ago that the existing provisions of a law. thatitwas intended to amend should be printed with proposed amendments in darker type, and that will be done. Perhaps, in the hurry of preparing measures for Parliament, it. has not been possible to have this done in every case, but it will be attended to in future.

page 1206

QUESTION

ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister was not in the chamber last night when an attack was made by the honorable member for Gwydiron the ex-Premier of New South Wales, and the Liberal Leagues in general. I ask the honorable gentleman whether he will consider the propriety of introducing a clause into the amending Electoral Bill requiring the accounts, not only of Liberal Leagues, but of the Trades Halls and the Labour Leagues, to be submitted to public auditors ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– Speaking generally, without reference to disputes between politicians, I am favorable to what is suggested.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Will the honorable gentleman make the legislation retrospective, to cover the expenditure in connexion with the recent referenda campaign?

Mr FISHER:

– My answer was, that in principle I am in favour of the auditing of all accounts relating to electoral expenditure, .and would have no objection to making it retrospective, but I am afraid that we cannot effectively legislate in that direction.

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that under the industrial laws of New South Wales all trade unions are compelled to lodge a properly audited statement showing the expenditure of money received by them, whether for political or other purposes, and, if he is so aware, will he consider the advisability of incorporating in the new Conciliation and Arbitration Bill an amendment which will make a similar condition imperative on employers’ unions?’

Mr FISHER:

– It is advisable that public accounts of all kinds, whether relating to political or industrial matters, should be duly audited. I was not aware that the New South Wales law so provided, but I know that has been the case in Queensland for many years.

page 1207

QUESTION

UNDERGROUNDING OF WIRES : UNION LABOUR

Dr CARTY SALMON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether it is necessary for men seeking employment on the work of undergrounding the telephone wires in Melbourne to belong to a union; and, if so. which union?

Mr THOMAS:
Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is -

The policy of the Government in this respect has already been indicated to the House by the Prime Minister, viz., that, all other things being equal, preference is to be given to those applicants who aTe members of a recognised trades union.

page 1207

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL

Mr THOMAS:
PostmasterGeneral · Barrier · ALP

– I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for .in Act lo amend the Post and Telegraph Rates Act 1902-10.

What is proposed is to define “ book,” and to leave out the word “serial” in the section dealing with magazines. A number of people are sending out business catalogues every month, or every three months, and at present these may be called serials.

Mr Groom:

– Is it proposed to define “catalogue”? ‘’

Mr THOMAS:

– No ; the Bill will en-‘ - able the Government, by regulation, to de-fine “ catalogue “ at any time.

Question resolved in the affirmative”.

Bill presented and read a first time.

page 1207

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th October, vide page 1174): Clause 3 - (1.) Upon an Act of the Parliament of the State of Western Australia being passed consenting to legislation by the Parliament of the Commonwealth with respect to the construction of the portion of the railway included in the State of Western Australia or consenting lo the construction of that portion of the railway by the Commonwealth, the Minister may, subject to this Act, construct a railway from kalgoorlie in the State of Western Australia to Port Augusta in the Slate of South Australia. (2.) The construction of the railway shall not be commenced until the State of Western Australia and South Australia respectively have granted or agreed to grant to the satisfaction of the Minister such portions of the Crown lands of the State as are in the opinion of the Minister necessary for the purposes of the construction, maintenance, and working of Hie railway.

Upon which Mr. Chanter had moved by way of amendment -

That the following words be added : - “ (3.) In order to partially recoup the Commonwealth for the capital expenditure involved in the construction of the railway it shall be a further condition precedent to the work being entered upon that the States of Western Australia and South Australia respectively.’ shall reserve from sale and vest in the Commonwealth all the Crown lands in alternate sections of 10 miles square on both sides of the line as ultimately adopted (inclusive of the reservations required under the previous subsection) along its whole length through, out the territories of the respective States. Provided also that no land shall be so granted within ro miles of the terminal points of the line.”

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I cannot see why the Government do not accept the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina, in view’ of what we know of their past intentions and desires. I can quite understand cer-‘ tain honorable members being fearful that’ any interference with the Bill may tend’ to retard the progress of this work. It’ is thought that the Bill, as presented by the Government, represents the conditions’ under which the work must be carried out; and any alteration, however small - and this would not be considered a small one - would, as I say, cause delay. If, however, any unfair advantage has, inadvertently, of course, been gained, the matter could be submitted to the State Parliaments, and then we should know exactly where we stand. I admit that, up to the present, the Western Australian Government have recognised that certain concessions are necessary, seeing that they have agreed to alter the gauge of their railway from Perth to Kalgoorlie at their own expense; and I see no reason why they should object to the Commonwealth endeavouring to, in. some way, reimburse itself for the loss which, in my opinion, must result from this railway for twenty years to come. The Western Australian Government, I have no doubt, would agree to the concession asked for by the honorable member for Riverina. The South Australian Government may not regard this as affecting them so much as did the negotiations over the Northern Territory ; but, at the same time, I should say that as, in common with the other States, South Australia is nationalist in feeling—

Mr Chanter:

– South Australia is morally bound because cf the agreement.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Quite so; and I cannot see what objection either Western Australia or South Australia can have to the Commonwealth making sure of this project being a payable one. There is no doubt that the Governments of the various States have adopted a policy of centralization; and the power of the majorities in the thickly-settled districts has predominated in deciding expenditure in the more sparsely-populated parts. This may be beneficial to the more densely-populated centres, but it is clearly detrimental to the rest of a State and to the Commonwealth as a whole. The construction of this railway will give South Australia a new province.’ We have heard it said that Broken Hill made Port Pirie; and there is no doubt that the development of the interior is entirely favorable to coastal interests. I am assured that Port Augusta can be made a splendid harbor at an ordinary expenditure; and, as this is really the water terminus of the overland railway, it will tend to become a larger and more important place. The railway will also open up certain mining districts, and make them payable, whereas hitherto these have been worked under the greatest possible disadvantages; and similar results will follow in Western Australia. Unless the country is developed throughout the length of the line the project can never be a payable one; and no State not pecuniarily affected will be much concerned in seeing that it is made payable. Not only this Commonwealth Government, but every preceding Government, have had to fight the Premiers, no matter the party to which those Premiers belonged ; and that state of things will continue. We are told that there are Labour Governments in power here and there ; but no matter what the brand of politics, if a State Premier be scratched we find the State rights feeling; and I suppose this is only natural. We, as the Commonwealth Parliament, ought to insure to the people of Australia some fair dealing. I do not desire this concession in order that the land reserved shall be under the control of the Commonwealth Parliament for all time, but only for so long as there is a loss on the railway. My idea is not to have a State within a State; and there is no doubt that if this land were taken over for ever there would have to be a governing body. My idea is that, if the loss extends over ten years, and then gradually begins to disappear, some form of trust ought to be created by whom the lands could be handed back to the States pro raid.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That is the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If that is so, why not accept the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina? I understand that all the land will be leasehold, so that there will be nothing to prevent our handing it back by degrees to the States as the deficit is made up.

Mr Webster:

– By that time all the railways will belong to the Commonwealth ! ‘

Mr MATHEWS:

– That is quite possible. I came into this House as a believer in the federalizing of the railways, but I have changed my mind considerably, not because I feel that such -a step is less desirable, but because I recognise the fact that the assertion of State claims here makes it undesirable for them to come into a union of that character.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We should manage the railways as well as we do the Post Office?

Mr MATHEWS:

– If so, I should be willing to federalize the railways, for the Post Office is a million times better managed now than it was under the States. I hope that the honorable member for

Riverina will alter his amendment in the direction suggested. I fail to see why that outlined by the honorable member for Parramatta should not be incorporated with it. The two States concerned have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. The Commonwealth Treasury alone can suffer j and South Australia and Western Australia ought to be prepared to do justice to the other States, which are ready to assist them to develop their country in this way, by entering into such an undertaking as will insure at least that there will be no loss to the Commonwealth on the working of the line. To those who fear that the making of such a condition as this would retard the building of the railway, I would point out that it is far better that we should impose some such stipulation than that we should have trouble later on with the States concerned. We all recognise the necessity for this railway. It must be built, not only for defence, but for commercial purposes ; and I believe that it will ultimately prove to be of material assistance to our commerce. The enormous sum which we are at present paying in respect of the oversea mail subsidy would in itself be sufficient to pay interest on the cost of this line, I admit that the representatives of South Australia and Western Australia are peculiarly situated. I assure them that there is no desire on our part to block the construction of the railway, and I appeal to them to recognise that, in fairness to the rest of Australia, an arrangement should be entered into whereby the line will be made payable as soon as possible to the Commonwealth. Having regard to what is the evident feeling of the Committee, I hope that the Government will endeavour to make some such arrangement as is covered by the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Riverina, and that outlined by the honorable member for Parramatta. Those honorable members ought to confer, with a view of embodying their two proposals in the one amendment.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- The confusion and uncertainty in the minds of those who are opposing this measure are well exemplified in the speech to which we have just listened. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports rose to support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Riverina, but before he had proceeded far he showed that, in his opinion, it was radically defective, and 3ie concluded by commending a wholly different proposal. If those who are bringing forward these amendments were animated solely by a desire to facilitate the construction of (He railway upon an equitable basis, many of the proposals outlined by them would not have been made. They require but little consideration to show that they are impracticable. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports expressed surprise that the Government had refused to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member foi Riverina. They have a good and sufficient reason For the stand they have taken. If they accepted the amendment, they would al once convict themselves of hypocrisy and insincerity with regard to the construction of this railway, since its adoption would ruean that the building of the line by the Commonwealth would be quite out of the question. The amendment is designed to secure, not only from Western Australia, but from South Australia, a large area of territory. The honorable member for Riverina having been in this House since the inception of Federation, and having taken a keen interest in this question, must know that the great obstacle to the construction of the railway has, from the first, been the attitude of South Australia. The concession to construct this line through its territory was only squeezed out of South Australia in connexion with the agreement for taking over the Northern Territory. But for South Australia’s difficulty in that regard, and the fact that we were in a position, to a certain extent, to impose terms, we should not have gained from her the concession that this line should be constructed through that State.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Are we not one and the same people?

Mr FOWLER:

– That is all very well, but the fact remains that South Australia does not want this railway.

Mr Ozanne:

– Why?

Mr FOWLER:

– I am not concerned with the reasons, but I know that they are of an entirely provincial and parochial character. The great bulk of the people of South Australia do not want this railway, and will be only too glad of. any excuse by which the proposal may be set aside. If we impose this condition, providing as it does for the confiscation of portion of the territory of South Australia in common with that of Western Australia, then we may say at once, “ Good-bye to the line.”

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member does not object to those States confiscating £6,000,000 of Commonwealth money.

Mr FOWLER:

– I dealt with that argument on the amendment submitted by the honorable member. I then showed that the .shoe was on the other foot, and that the honorable member’s proposal was really one for confiscation. I hope to prove that the amendment now before us is practically on all-fours with that submitted by the honorable member for Parkes. The honorable member for Riverina emphasized the unearned increment which he said would accrue to the lands through which this railway would pass. No doubt a certain increment will accrue to them, and they will probably remain unoccupied for an indefinite period if a railway be not constructed. But it must also be remembered that a great deal of the value of the lands adjoining that portion of the line which will run through Western Australia will be due to the proximity to the gold-fields market to the producers settling on them. It is not altogether fair to emphasize the unearned increment as coming from the construction of the railway without recognising the value that will be added to the lands by the fact that the producers settled on them will have in the gold-fields towns, perhaps, one of the best -markets in the world for all kinds of produce. There is a still more important consideration which I think at once puts the amendment out of court. A very few figures will show that it is altogether unreasonable. The honorable member proposes that the Commonwealth shall take over a total area of 6,400,000 acres, which I have no doubt could be sold at 5s. per acre if the railway were constructed.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– How much is that land worth now ?

Mr FOWLER:

– If the honorable member will allow me to proceed I shall show the force of my argument. The value of these lands if the railway is to be constructed will in all probability be 5s. per acre, or, roughly, ^1,600,000, and it is to be remembered in this connexion that the greater portion of the line will run through South Australian territory.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then we are to give these States ,£1,600,000 in addition to building the railway for them.

Mr FOWLER:

– I have shown what will be the value of the land along the route if the railway is constructed, and I wish to remind the Committee that, roughly speaking, three-fifths of the total length of this line will be in South Australia. The honorable member for Riverina has reminded us that Western Australia in the past has constructed railways on the landgrant principle. In view of the figures I have just given, it would pay Western Australia to allow a private company to construct this line on the land-grant principle rather than to hand over such a large territory to the Commonwealth.

Mr Mathews:

– That is the worst argument I have heard in this connexion.

Mr FOWLER:

– It is sound. Let it be remembered that if the people of Western Australia handed over these lands to the Commonwealth they would cease to have any control over them, whereas if the line were constructed by a private contractor on the land-grant system, the State would still retain the power to tax those lands.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The proposal is only to recoup the Commonwealth, so that after the Commonwealth had been recouped the land would be returned to the States, having discharged the cost.

Mr FOWLER:

– I should like to know in which, of these amendments there is anything to indicate that the land is going tobe returned. Seeing that it has taken us ten years to get the agreement in connexion with the line indorsed by this Parliament, I should not like to make a rough guess as to how long it would take the States of South Australia and Western Australia to recover their lands from the Commonwealth if the line began to pay.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There never was an agreement in this case.

Mr FOWLER:

– It is all very well for the honorable member to say so, but if Western Australia had had a knowledge of the way in which politicians will play fast and loose with honorable engagements of that kind, that State might have had a different word to say when it was asked to enter the Commonwealth.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not think the honorable member has any right to say that. I, for one, never heard of such an obligation.

Mr FOWLER:

– We have supplied the evidence of it to this Parliament time and again.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– When the honorable member talks of members being willing to break their honorable obligations, it is necessary that they should know what their obligations are.

Mr FOWLER:

– Those obligations have been stated time and again in this House, and have been recognised by members of this House, and also of another place.

Mr Roberts:

– The only engagement was a verbal promise by the late Sir Frederick Holder that he would do his best. He did his best, and that was all.

Mr FOWLER:

– We had a much more definite engagement than that, but I do not want to labour the matter now. I rose merely to point out the impracticability of the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina. Having done so, I leave it to the Committee.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I regret that I am unable to support the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina. I cannot bring myself to the idea of taking these lands from the States. If we begin administering land in this way in alternate blocks with the State Governments, a whole group of very serious troubles is likely to arise. Our administration of any such proposal would be immensely costly, and could never be carried out satisfactorily in conjunction with the States.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Why should it not be carried out satisfactorily?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have yet to learn that two authorities operating over the same area-

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They, would not both be law-making authorities. It is not proposed that we should get this land as sovereign territory over which we shall make laws, but that we should get it as territory in South Australia or Western Aus tstralia 1 1 fi

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If the land is vested in the Commonwealth as suggested, I take it that we shall have sovereign powers over it, and do what we like regarding it.

Mr Chanter:

– Those difficulties do not arise in Canada.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– No, because in Canada, the Dominion and not the States owns the land. Moreover, these blocks may be very suitable for settlement. Are we to control their settlement and administration? If so, we should have to launch out upon a territorial as well as a land policy. It is not wise in connexion with the construction of a railway to acquire this land from the States, and I am the more opposed to it because I think we could arrive at the desired result in the much more simple way which I have already suggested. I feel compelled to oppose the amendment, while appreciating to the full the motives of those who are supporting it. They are trying to do the right thing in perhaps a faulty way. That we are entitled to be considered in this business arrangement is beyond all cavil or question, and I shall wait with some surprise and concern to see this Government turn down any proposal for recouping any loss on this railway out of the fund which the railway will create. The honorable member for Perth said a little too much for himself and his position. He told us frankly thatwe were going to make a present of 5s. per acre in respect of all this land to the two States concerned. If the land concerned in the amendment will increase in value to the extent of 5s. per acre, it is fair to assume that that increment will apply over a much wider area. ‘ There are 123,000,000 acres in the whole length pf line 100 miles wide, and, applying the 5s. calculation, it means that we are presenting those two States with’ ^30,000,000 sterling. I arrive at that result on the basis of the honorable member for Perth’s own figures, and they bear out the figures presented by good judges of country, who have had a life-long practical experience. Even halving the amount, if we are making a present of ^15,000,000- to those two States, are we justified in incurring the further loss involved in carrying the line through their territory? There is no answer to that position. It is the fairest thing possible to ask that a little of the fund which this line cerates shall be set against the loss incurred in running the railway.

Mr Fowler:

– Western Australia has never denied that position, but objects to the land being taken absolutely away.-

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have not heard ‘ that either State would repudiate such an arrangement. Why not therefore incorporateit in the Bill and make it the basis of a fair and reasonable business bargain between the Commonwealth and the States? If I were in either of those small States I could not vote against a proposition of that kind. . I hope we shall not carry our State prejudices and predilections so far as to overlook those elements of fairness, which ought to apply to business arrangements. While I regret very much having to vote against propositions which require the lands of the States to be surrendered to the Commonwealth, we may at the same time fairly call upon that fund which we are ourselves creating for a contribution against any loss which we incur.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– For exactly the same reasons as led me to oppose the amendment of the honorable member for Parkes I now oppose the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina. I object on principle to any suggestion that the Commonwealth should take sovereign rights over or control of lands of a State within the State and independent of the State authority. If the principle is wrong with regard to a stretch of 25 miles on either side of the line it is no less wrong in regard to alternate sections. Indeed the difficulty seems to be aggravated by the proposal to have a sort of interrupted authority at every 10 miles. There is much more in the contention of the honorable member for Perth than he himself submitted, and perhaps than the Committee are inclined to accept. If we stipulate as a condition for the building of the line that we must have control over certain land within the two States concerned, we must accept responsibility for the development of that land, the control of the population, the education of the children, the policing of the district, and all the other work necessary..

Mr Fenton:

– Do we intend to do all that in the Federal Capital territory?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Absolutely, although we are not doing it completely yet owing to a wise temporary arrangement with the New South Wales Government. We have made certain laws of the State of New South Wales apply to the Federal Territory, and stipulated that certain others shall not apply. That of itself shows that we accept the responsibility.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– If the railway, when constructed, is to be controlled by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth will have to look after land to the width of the line, and, therefore, the difference is only a question of degree.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The provision made in the Bill for the acquirement of land in connexion with the railway is so extensive that members need have no fear that the interests of the Commonwealth will not be fully safeguarded. The Bill makes it clear that the Minister must be satisfied that such portions of the Crown lands of the States as are necessary for the purposes of the construction, maintenance, and working of the railway are granted by the States before the work can be proceeded with.

Mr Chanter:

– The question is. “ What is going to satisfy the Minister? “

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Those supporting; the amendment might well accept the Minister of Home Affairs as the best man to be in charge of the Bill for that purpose, because he has already expressed the very definite opinion that the Commonwealth should have 25 miles of land on each sideof the railway.

Mr Fenton:

– Then the honorable member favours the Commonwealth taking: 2t miles instead of 10?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I favour leaving it to the Minister to say how much land the Commonwealth requires.

Mr Wise:

– Why does not the Minister say it now, and settle all the trouble?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I said, on Wednesday evening, that the Minister could be safely intrusted with this power, but that I had not the slightest hope of either of the States being so foolish as to grant suchan extent of territory to the Commonwealth for the purposes of the railway. Under the provisions of the Bill, the whole, of the States of Western Australia and’ South Australia are open to claim by theMinister.

Mr Wise:

– Oh. no !

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am simply pushing the argument to the extreme, to show that, so far from any advantage beinggained by the amendment, it sets a limit tothe demands which the Minister may make.. The Minister may be satisfied with halfamile at one place and ask for 50 miles at another. That would be a much better arrangement for. the Commonwealth, and’ much more satisfactory from the States’’ point of view, than to have a Commonwealth fence on both sides of the line at at fixed distance all the way.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– Would the honorable member vote for an explicit statement to that effect?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– May I direct theattention of honorable members to page loof the report, dated, Melbourne, 20th September, 191 1, in which the engineer says -

For the mere construction of the line through the country generally, a width of 3 chains would, be sufficient. In the case of this railway, howlever, the land is likely only to acquire much lvalue as the result of its construction, and, therefore, there is not much reason to stint thearea. I would accordingly suggest that outside the sand hills, which will be referred to presently, and excluding stations and other placeswhere special works are required, a width of half-a-mile on each side should be arranged’ for, and this width would suffice for most of the deviations that are likely to prove necessary. At station yards, water stations, reservoirs, &c.f special widths will be required. For that part of the line in South Australia which runs through the sand hills, I recommend for consideration that a width of, say, 10 miles, be acquired and reserved from occupation.

Apparently what will be needed will be a strip of varying width, and where the country is covered with loose sand the reservation must’ be wider than at other places, in order to protect the line from the encroachment of the sand. I do not think that we should ask the States through whose territory the line will go to pay for its construction, because the line is being made, not for developmental purposes, but for defence and in furtherance of Federal interests generally. If it is desired that the Commonwealth should acquire the lands of the States, the question should not be approached in a pettifogging, trivial spirit. We- should say straight out that we want these lands, because we desire to run railways through the States. The proposition now before the Committee is a nibbling and paltry one. I expect the amendment to be defeated, but 1 hope that the Government will accept another amendment providing that before the construction of the line is begun guarantees will be obtained from Western Australia and South Australia for the conversion of the existing . lines from Kalgoorlie to Perth and Port Augusta to -Adelaide to whatever gauge may be adopted -for the Commonwealth line. If the Conmonwealth line had a gauge differing from those of the present State lines, there would be breaks at Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta, and the difficulties now arising from breaks of gauge would be increased, and the efficiency of the line for defence purposes greatly diminished. The right honorable member for Swan interjected the other evening that the Western Australian Government would make the gauge of its railway uniform with that of the Commonwealth railway, but I want to see that provided for in the Bill. If the States are not prepared to make any changes in gauge that may be necessary, it may be advisable to delay the further construction of the Commonwealth line.

Mr Fowler:

– Western Australia must make the gauge of her railway uniform with that of the Commonwealth line. The honorable member’s proposal is perfectly fair.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– If the States are prepared to do what I suggest, I shall oppose the amendment providing for the transfer to the Commonwealth of a strip of territory on each side of the proposed line.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I am surprised at the intemperate speech of the honorable member for Brisbane.

When his orgy of words had exhausted itself, he made a proposal which, I think, is hardly fair to the States concerned, namely, that they should foot the bill for altering the gauges of their railways to that chosen for the Commonwealth line. It must be remembered that the railway whose construction is in contemplation is not a developmental line, though possibly it may lead to some development. It is being constructed primarily for defence, and to provide quicker means of transit between the States than sea-carriage provides. It would be very unfair to saddle any of the States with the cost of what is Commonwealth work, namely, the unification of the railway gauges on main lines.

As for the suggestion that Western Australia and South Australia should contribute out of the unearned increment created in their territories by the construction of the proposed Commonwealth line towards the reduction of its cost, I hope that honorable members will agree that it is a fair one. I do not bind myself to support any particular proposal in that direction, because anything we may enact in this Bill may be used by South Australia as an excuse for postponing the construction of the line for a year or two. My view is that the Government should give an undertaking to endeavour to arrange with the Governments of Western Australia and South Australia for the concession which we desire. Our difficulty lies with South Australia, which is mainly run for Adelaide, and Adelaide is very frightened that it may lose the advantage, microscopic as perhaps it is, of being the port at which the mails are landed. If we inserted in the Bill a provision declaring that, willy-nilly, the States concerned must do this or that, the South Australian Parliament might get its back up, and refuse point blank to let anything be done. Under the Northern Territory agreement, we have accepted certain responsibilities, and South Australia might reasonably say to us, “ Until you carry out your bargain in respect to the Northen Territory we shall refuse to let you make the line from Port Augusta to the Western Australian border.” They may say, “ You must first begin the line from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek.”

Mr Chanter:

– We shall have to make that line soon.

Mr KELLY:

– We shall not be able to construct the two transcontinental railways concurrently. Honorable members supporting this proposal might well ask for a solemn Ministerial undertaking that the Government will endeavour to get the States concerned to agree to what we ask for, failing which it will introduce a Bill providing for an amendment of the Constitution, so that the’ line can be made on our own terms in the interests of the Australian people.

Mr Chanter:

– We are asking for a Ministerial statement.

Mr KELLY:

– Unfortunately the member in charge of the Bill at present is the Honorary Minister for Western Australia. The Government ought to face the position, and send into the chamber some Minister prepared to make a statement in the interests of the Australian people, not merely in view of what the Honorary Min- “. ister may have said, and may expect to say again on the platform in Western Australia.

Mr Frazer:

– The policy of the Government is that they will insist, as a condition precedent to embarking on this line, on having all the land necessary for railway purposes granted to them by each of these “States.

Mr KELLY:

-“ Railway purposes,” which may mean 20 feet.

Mr Frazer:

– We stand by clause 2.

Mr KELLY:

– What a concession from the Minister for Western Australia ! Western Australia will actually give the land covered by the ballasting and sleepers !

Mr Frazer:

– It may involve very expensive areas in some cases. It will certainly include all the land necessary for deviation in the event of difficulties on the route, and all the land necessary for obtaining ballast or other materials for the maintenance of the line ; for water conservation, for stations, and for the maintenance of employe’s while engaged.

Mr KELLY:

– That is all that is desired by the Honorary Minister - not by the Australian people. What we want is some guarantee that the taxpayers of the Commonwealth are not presenting to two of the” States an amount, which, if the estimate of the honorable member for Perth is correct, will, by unearned increment, mean £30,000,000. Why should this Parliament make such a present to two prosperous States?

Mr Roberts:

– South” Australia made a present to this Parliament of the whole of the Northern Territory.

Mr KELLY:

– Even the Chairman smile’s at that interjection. If the Government’s undertaking, with regard to the “ condition precedent,” is to be anything more than a mere blind to the Committee, the sooner we know the actual extent of the area to be acquired the better. Either the Honorary Minister is serious, or he is trying to dupe the Committee; and, if he is serious, we are entitled to know the extent of his proposals. How much land will it be necessary to reserve for the maintenance of a water supply? How much of the regions of Central Australia will it be required to hold for this purpose ?

Mr Cann:

– Right through to the Northern Territory.

Mr KELLY:

– Possibly.

Mr Webster:

– The honorable member for Swan proposes to lay a pipe line for 400 odd miles, and the necessary land will have to be reserved.

Mr KELLY:

– Of course the ground on which the pipe lies will have to be reserved.

Mr Webster:

– There will be the catchment.

Mr KELLY:

– Possibly the Honorary Minister can suggest a more practical method of storing water in Central Australia than that suggested by the right honorable member for Swan ; but, if there is to be a catchment, will he, in the interests of Australia, not to speak of the interests of the two States, tell us how much land the Government propose to reserve?

Mr Webster:

– There cannot possibly be a catchment, because very little water falls.

Mr KELLY:

– That is my point; it might mean the taking over of the whole of the two States of Western Australia and South Australia for catchment purposes. I think the [Honorary Minister ought to show us that he is not merely attempting to dupe us.

Mr Frazer:

– Let us have a vote.

Mr KELLY:

– That is the whole Ministerial ambition - to have a vote. He asks us to take a vote before the Committee understand the position.

Mr Riley:

– The honorable member is wasting the country’s time.

Mr KELLY:

Mr. Chairman, I insist on the withdrawal of that statement.

Mr Riley:

– I shall not withdraw it.

Mr KELLY:

– The statement is offensive and untrue.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not in order to say that an honorable member is wasting the time of the country.

Mr Riley:

– An honorable member may think so if he does not say it.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member may feel it if he likes. The honorable member’s understanding may be sufficiently acute. to enable him, to decide when an honorable member is wasting time, although that honorable member does not himself so understand.

Mr Frazer:

– It is not in order to say that another honorable member’s statement is untrue.

Mr KELLY:

– It may be said that a statement is untrue, but not that an honorable “member intends it to be untrue.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable member for Wentworth resume his seat? I have repeatedly called honorable members to order; and if they do not take warning I shall try some other means.

Mr KELLY:

– I ask the Government, through its one Australian representative present, namely, the Minister of Trade and Customs-

Mr Tudor:

– There are two Ministers present.

Mr KELLY:

– But the Honorary Minister is representing Western Australia - he is in this chamber, on this question, as a delegate of the Western Australian Government.

Mr Tudor:

– The Honorary Minister is more representative of Western Australia than any other man in the House.

Mr KELLY:

– In this case, the Honorary Minister is representing Western Australia only ; and I desire the Government to act in a corporate capacity, and take the Committee into their confidence. Surely this measure is not being used merely as a means to trap votes in Western Australia, as one might assume from the reply just given by the Minister of Trade and Customs? Surely the Government have a better purpose than the capture of votes for its own party in Western Australia or the adjoining State?

Mr Tudor:

– I never suggested any such thing !

Mr KELLY:

– I am sure the Minister must have some purpose in’ view, although he is keeping it extraordinarily well-hidden.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have repeatedly called the honorable member for Maranoa to- order. The ‘honorable member knows that he is distinctly out of order in inter jecting from his present seat on the Treasury Bench.

Mr Page:

– I am a member of this - House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Interjections aredisorderly in any case, and particularly so when they come from the Treasury Bench.

Mr KELLY:

– I shall not further labour the question, because I observe that the honorable member for Gippsland is about to speak, and he will deal with it more ably than I am able to. I suggest to that honorable member that he should insist on the Government acting in a corporate capacity, and taking the Committee into their confidence, not simply placing the control of the business of the country in the hands of an Honorary Minister who, for the time, is not a Commonwealth Minister, but a delegate representing the selfish interests of one of the States.

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

.- I protest against the remark made by the honorable member for Perth with regard to those who are supporting any of these amendments. The honorable member started off by speaking of those “ who are opposing “ this measure. I am not an opponent of the measure, nor do I think there is a genuine opponent of it in the Committee. We all recognise the necessity for this railway, and are prepared to support the Bill ; but because we desire that there shall be some concessions, the honor-, able member is .not justified in describing us as opponents. Then, again, the honorable member said that if the Government accepted the amendment, they would brand themselves with hypocrisy and insincerity, because they know that the States concerned, particularly South Australia, would not agree to the condition. The condition seems to me to be so manifestly fair that it is an outrageous slander to say that either of the States will not be prepared ‘ to accept it. I am considerably surprised at the condition the honorable member for Brisbane desired to impose. He opposes this amendment, which requires the States to reserve territory which at present is practically valueless, and which the honorable member for Perth said will be worth 5s. ‘ an acre when’ the railway is made. The “honorable member for Perth further said that the’ railway would make an equal quantity of other ‘ territory, ‘which the State would” retain, and ‘ which” is nowvalueless’, worth “a similar amount. ‘ Yet the honorable member for Brisbane, while” opposing the amendment, is prepared to impose the exceedingly onerous and unfair condition that the Western Australian Government shall convert their gauge from 3 ft. 6 in. to 4 ft. 8J in. or 5 ft. 3 in. at their own expense. That is a condition we do not propose to impose on any other State; and I am not prepared to support it. It is all very well to say that this railway is necessary fo*r defence; we know that it is so. It would be a great burden on the two States to ask them to find money for the construction at the present time; and we are prepared to undertake the responsibility. At the same time, it is only fair that we should ask the States to give us something that will enable us to recoup the Commonwealth for the expenditure incurred. I was very glad to hear the honorable member for Flinders interject, when the honorable member for Perth was speaking, that the handing over of this land does not necessarily mean our taking control and governing it in the same way as we should any other territory belonging to us. I, myself, could not see that such a result was necessary; and, as I say, I was glad to hear the interjection. I object also to the remark of the honorable member for Perth that, if it has taken Western Australia ten years to get this Parliament to carry out the agreement which was made at .the time of Federation, how long would it.be before the Commonwealth would be prepared to build this railway with some of the conditions inserted?

Mr Fowler:

– I asked how long we should have to wait until the Commonwealth handed back the lands again.

Mr WISE:

– To begin with, there was certainly no agreement, so far as the people of the eastern States were concerned. We recognise the desirability and necessity of this line, and I support it, not because of any agreement, but because it ought to be constructed in order to link up east and west. I am not prepared to support the honorable member for Wentworth when he says he would be satisfied with a Ministerial guarantee to do their best to get as much land as possible. I do not care what Minister gives a guarantee to that effect; it practically means very little.

Mr Kelly:

– The honorable member forgets tEat I said that if we could not get some such guarantee, the Government should pledge themselves to introduce a Bill for the alteration of the Constitution.

Mr WISE:

– It would be infinitely better, as I have said on another matter, to have in black and white what honorable members desire, instead of leaving it to the Minister of the day to understand what is wanted, and do his best to get it. I do not anticipate that the two States concerned will not do what is right. In any case, I do not see that in giving the Statesan opportunity to comply with the conditions we shall materially delay the construction of the railway. We could, I imagine, get their answer early next year,, or it might be this year. In the meantime,, the work in connexion with plans and specifications, and so forth, could be proceeded’ with, and it is improbable that we shall’ be prepared to let any contract or start: building until fairly well on in next year.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We ought to get an answer from the States a fortnight after the Bill is passed.

Mr WISE:

– At any rate, we ought toget an answer very soon. As for WesternAustralia, I anticipate no difficulty, because that State has already offered to construct the railway up to the border; and’ the Commonwealth has acted so generously and fairly in taking over the great burden’ of the Northern Territory, that, until theevent happens, I cannot believe that South. Australia would refuse to comply with the proposed condition.

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- Thehonorable member for Brisbane is indignant” at the proposal that we should ask WesternAustralia and South Australia to transferto the Commonwealth certain lands along’ the line of railway in order to recoup usthe cost of construction. It has alwaysbeen difficult for me to understand why, in* the years gone by, the two States concerned did not undertake this work forthemselves, seeing that the Eastern Stateshave spent millions in building their owntrunk lines. The construction of this railway will enhance the value of land in theimmediate vicinity, and must lead to a largely increased population in the twoStates. By way of emphasizing the latterpoint I would remind the Committee thatin 1854, when the railway mileage of America was only 16,756, that country had a population of 26.000,000. whereas to-day it has a railway mileage of” 238,356 miles and a population of over- 91,000,000. It appears to me that thehonorable member for Brisbane was inconsistent in opposing this amendment since he saw no objection to New South Wales being asked to hand over to the Commonwealth an enormous territory for the purposes of the;-

Federal Capital. We have been told that Western Australia was promised that if she came into the Federation this railway would be built for her, while New South Wales was promised the Federal Capital. But even if those bribes were held but to induce the people of New South Wales and Western Australia to enter the union, would that fact justify us in asking the Eastern States, with their population of 3,500,000, to contribute most of the cost of building this railway for the other States, whose population amounts to little more than 600,000. We ought to recoup ourselves by controlling a certain area of land along the route. This is by no means a new proposal. The principle has been tried in Canada and has proved very successful. The honorable member for Parramatta declared that he could not agree with the proposition to ask for the transfer of land to the Commonwealth since he believed that the taking over of the territory would give rise to a (rood deal of trouble. But in this matter he is in the same position as the honorable member for Brisbane, since he also voted for taking over a large area for the purposes of the Federal Capital.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The difference is that in the case of the Federal Capital we were under a constitutional obligation.

Mr OZANNE:

– There is a distinction between the two positions, but the fact remains that the honorable member voted for the taking over of a very large area in New South Wales. The honorable member for Perth has valued at 5s. per acre the land along the route of the railway. I have been along portion of that route and also on the Oodnadatta line, and whilst I admit that it is not all desert country that is to be served by this railway, I find it difficult to understand what justification the honorable member has for putting such a valuation upon it. At the present time the Government of South Australia only receives something like 2s. 6d. per square mile for land leased for grazing purposes. Some of that land is far superior to the land which this line will traverse, so that I do not think we shall find many people coming forward with offers of 5s. per acre for this tract of country. I did not support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Parkes, because I thought that it asked for the transfer of too great an area. I knew, however, that this amendment was to be proposed, and I shall have pleasure in voting for it.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall heartily support the amendment. It is on all-fours with my own except that the honorable member responsible for it has reduced the proposed reservation from alternate blocks of 15 miles square to alternate blocks of 10 miles square. The principle is the same in both cases, and if the amendment be rejected and another embodying the same principle be submitted I shall also vote for it.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- Before we proceed to a division may I make a suggestion which, I think, will bring into line the whole Committee, including the Honorary Minister in charge of the Bill? The amendment commences by providing for the transfer of a certain area in order to partially recoup the Commonwealth for the capital expenditure involved in the construction of the railway, and it contains the proviso - provided also that no land shall be so granted within ten miles of the terminal points of the line.

That proviso is to save to the States the valuable lands. Let us take the amendment a step further by adding the words “ provided further that as soon as the proceeds from the said lands vested in the Commonwealth cover the cost of constructing the railway-

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Why not use the words “ as soon as the proceeds from the said lands cover the loss on the line.”

Mr KELLY:

– That would be merely a yearly loss.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the land were held by us until the proceeds covered the aggregate loss-

Mr KELLY:

– I wish only to so amend the amendment as to show that we are not asking from the States anything more than that the Commonwealth should be covered so far as our actual loss as trustees of the Federal purse is concerned.

Mr Fowler:

– Is the railway of no value to the Commonwealth that the honable member is proposing to put the whole cost on the two States concerned ?

Mr KELLY:

– I am not proposing to put any cost on the States. The honorable member knows that the land along the route, which he hopes will be worth 5s. per acre, will not be worth id. per square mile unless the line be built, and since we are asked to build the railway, surely it is fair that some of the unearned increment should come to our use. 1 have just learned that the honorable member for Parramatta proposes to sub- mit an amendment dealing with this very subject, and therefore I shall not move : any addition to that now before us. I desire only to say that the silence of the Ministry places me in a very awkward position. My sole desire is that this Bill shall provide for what is fair. I do not wish to have to vote for this or that amendment which might quite unjustly give - offence to the States, but the Ministerial « silence may force me into the position of supporting an amendment at this stage.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If we are going to - do our duty we must not mind whom we offend.

Mr KELLY:

– It is a question not of doing our duty, but of how best to do it, and I think that we shall best do our duty by allowing the Ministry to arrive, by negotiations, at the result at which we are aiming. I feel that I am in a difficult posi- tion. I do not wish to vote on this amendment, but we are simply being fooled by the Ministry, and as a protest against their action I shall have to vote for it.

Question - That the proposed sub-clause be added (Mr. Chanter’s amendment) - - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the following words be added : - “ (3) The construction of the line through Western Australia shall be conditional upon the reservation from alienation of lands on each side of the railway in terms of the .resolution passed by the Western Australian Government on 26th October, 1904, and the ratification of the undertaking given by the Western Australian Government, dated 18th May, 1904, to bear for a period of ten years after the construction of the line a share of any loss resulting therefrom, and shall be further conditional upon similar undertakings being given by the Government of South Australia.”

This differs from the two previous amendments in the essential particular that it does not propose the surrender of any territory by either of the States to the Commonwealth. It simply directs that the terms of a previous agreement shall still hold good, that the substance of the resolution agreed to by the Western Australian Parliament when the subject of the survey was before this House should be embodied in the Bill, and that South Australia be expected to conform to the same position. It aims at the reservation from alienation by the States of land within their own area and control, and suggests that the States should be asked to share some of the loss that is certain to result from- the working of the line for a period of ten years.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- The amendment is too indefinite. What amount does the expression “ a share of any loss resulting therefrom “ mean ? The Government will be in no better position as regards an instruction as to the nature of their negotiations with the two States indicated, if this amendment is passed, than they are now.

Amendment negatived.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I move -

That the following words be added :- ‘ (3) Before the construction of the line is entered upon, the State Governments of South Australia and Western. Australia respectively shall agree to contribute annually for a period of twenty years out of the land values created by the construction of the railway such sums as may be necessary towards .recouping the Commonwealth for any loss incurred in the working and maintenance of the said railway.”

*Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta* [6 October, 191 1.] *Railway Bill.* 1219 {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Is there to be no limit of the area over which the increment is to be calculated ? {: #debate-6-s13 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No. {: #debate-6-s14 .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The amendment is identical in principle with that which I proposed last night and that which the honorable member for River - ina proposed this morning. The honorable member for Parramatta voted against both of those, and I propose to heap coals of fire on his head by voting for his amendment. {: #debate-6-s15 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta -- What is the attitude of the Government towards the amendment? {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- We cannot accept it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I very much regret to hear it. I hope we shall no longer have the Government talking of the communitycreated value. I hope we shall hear no more from them as to the effect upon land of the construction of public works. How can they reconcile their present attitude with their past professions? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- Who gets the unearned increment under this Bill? {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- The people, and that is why the honorable member for Parramatta objects to it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is quite true that the people will get it, but is not my proposal as fair (between the Commonwealth and a State as between the State and an individual ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- No. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- We have our own responsibilities. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member did not say that in the last Parliament. It was all States and no Commonwealth then. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is all States when State integrity is concerned, but I have yet to learn that there is any obligation on this Parliament to put itself in a servile attitude with respect to any State. Where are the great nationalists upon a deliberate proposal to hand out national funds to be absolutely controlled by the States? It is proposed that the National Government shall incur losses so that the State Governments may reap millions of money. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- For national purposes. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Are the States then, in the opinion of this Government, the guardians of national purposes ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member says so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member's attitude is entirely . reversed. Honorable members who bitterly denounced us from end to end of Australia for our want of nationalism, only a few weeks ago, are now proposing quite unconcernedly to hand out national funds for the benefit of the States, and, at the same time, to incur a national loss on the enterprise. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- Has not this railway a national meaning and value? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Of course it has, but it has also an extraordinary State value, according to the honorable member's own figures. He showed that we are presenting these two States with £30,000,000. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I hope the honorable member does not think that he is speaking for this side of the House. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am certainly not speaking for the right honorable member. I hope I may be permitted to speak for myself, as I am doing. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I wanted that to be understood. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The fact was quite obvious without the right honorable member's interjection. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Save us from our friends ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- We are the friends of the National Government. On any fair business consideration of this matter we are bound to ask the States to help us to bear any loss arising from the construction of the line. The line, I admit, is a national one, and must be constructed, but that does not relieve us from the obligation of making a fair and reasonable business arrangement concerning it. I believe my amendment contains a business proposition of the kind, and I submit it accordingly to the Committee. {: #debate-6-s16 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- The amendment is almost on all-fours with the two which have been negatived. It has been admitted that the proposed railway is a national work, which should be constructed in the interests of the people as a whole. Yet it is argued by the mover of the amendment that the two States through whose territory the line will pass should make good any loss by returning to the *Commonwealth the* increment of value given to that territory by its construction. It would be better for the States to make the railway themselves. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- They would, under the proposal before the Committee, escape the capital cost. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- If they have to make good the deficiency in interest and working expenses, they virtually bear the capital cost, and it would be a better thing for them to build the line themselves than make up any loss on it for the first few years, and ultimately allow the Commonwealth to take all the profits from it, as well as to have full control of it. Why should we put into the measure a provision which may cause the States to say that they prefer to make the line themselves ? {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The States will get the increment of value_ given to their land by the construction of the line. That will amount to about 5s. an acre. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- To show how misleading these estimates are, the honorable member for Parramatta yesterday complained that the estimate of the honorable member for Perth, who said that the value that would be added to the land would be ^30,000,000, was too large, but he himself stated that the land would be worth 2s. 6d. an acre, and subsequently pointed out that it would take 10 acres to keep a sheep, and that "a sheep is worth 5s. a year. It would, therefore, require 25s. worth of. land to provide for a sheep which earned 5s- {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I said no such thing. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The statement is to be found in *Hansard.* {: .speaker-L1R} ##### Mr Agar Wynne: -- A return of 5s. a year on 25s. is a return of 20 per cent., which is very good. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- The honorable member for Hunter forgot to capitalize the return. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- And so did the honorable member for Parramatta. We all realize the need for the construction of this line for national purposes, and, that being so, the States concerned cannot be expected to agree to such propositions as are now being put before the Committee. It is not fair to them to say, " You must make up all loss on the line for the first few years, and allow the Commonwealth to take all profits and benefits if it becomes a paying concern." We have heard a great deal about State Rights, but it is those who have had most to say about them who are putting obstacles in the way of this proposal by interfering with the rights of South Australia and Western Australia. I hope that the amendment will be defeated. {: #debate-6-s17 .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE:
Gippsland .- The principle of the amendment is the same as that of the amendments which have been negatived, and therefore I shall vote for it, though I should have preferred the adoption of the proposal of the honorable member for Riverina. It is all very well to say that this will be a national railway. It cannot be denied, however, that Western Australia and South Australia will benefit largely from its construction, and that the cost will fall chiefly on the other States. The representatives of New South Wales and Victoria should remember that it is their constituents who must bear the chief part of the burden of taxation which must be imposed to meet the Commonwealth responsibilities in regard to great undertakings like this railway and the development of the Northern Territory, and they should carefully consider whither they are leading them financially. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Those States benefit from the construction of the line. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE: -- Not to anything like the same extent as the States through whose territory it will pass. We should protect the interests of our constituents, and see that some return is made by South. Australia and Western Australia for the benefits conferred by an undertaking whose cost will fall chiefly on the people of the eastern States. {: #debate-6-s18 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP -- The amendment does not take into account the interest on the cost of constructing the line. It refers only to loss on working expenses and maintenance. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Working expenses and maintenance cover interest. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I differ from the honorable member. The statements of the honorable member for Gippsland raise an issue bigger than that covered by the amendment, and a reply should be given to them at once. It has been stated, for the first time, that New South Wales and Victoria, being the most populous States, will provide a larger share of the cost of the proposed line than will be provided by the other States. That is a truism. But if that fact were taken into consideration in connexion with Commonwealth expenditure generally, this National Parliament would not be able to do anything. We could not construct a work at Port Darwin, or at any point in Western Australia, or in Tasmania, because of the objection that a small community was being benefited at the expense of the larger States. But those who raise that contention forget that the Commonwealth was brought into existence to deal with questions that were considered national and not parochial, and the right attitude to take in regard to a proposal like that under discussion is the national one. I do not wish it to be thought that because we are opposing these amendments we do not desire to obtain a considerable area of land along the route of the proposed line. That is stated clearly and definitely in the Bill. But honorable members should look further. The construction of the line will, by increasing facilities for communication, tend to development and the increase of population, and as population increases the Commonwealth revenue grows, because twelvethirteenths of our income is from Customs and Excise duties. Moreover, the Commonwealth has equal power with the States in the taxation of land values. If the value of the land along the route is increased, the Commonwealth can, if it thinks fit, raise revenue by taxing it. We all hope that the construction of the line will increase the value of the country through which it goes, and add to the population and revenue of the Commonwealth. Following the construction of this line must come the unification of gauge of the trunk lines connecting the capitals of the States. I have promised that the Government will negotiate with the States on that subject. Would the honorable member for Parramatta, and those supporting his amendment, demand that the States in whose territory gauges were altered at the expense of the Commonwealth should pay to us something by way of compensation ; that our expenditure should be recouped from the increment of value created by it? {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- What increase of land value will follow the unification of railway gauges ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- This is not the time to go into that matter, but I could show clearly, and prove my contention by statistics, that no State would gain more from the unification of gauges than that in which this Parliament now sits. {: #debate-6-s19 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta -- I wish to meet the point taken by the ' honorable member for Hunter. I frankly admit that there is a national as -well as a local aspect in this matter, and agree with the Prime Minister that it is the business of this Parliament to deal with the questions coming before it from the national point of view. This, however, is one of those questions which is, at the same time, national and State. We are all partners in the concern, and cannot separate ourselves from it j there is no distinction and no dividing line, so far as the interests of the Commonwealth and the States are concerned. For that reason, I ask leave to modify my amendment by leaving out the words " be necessary " after the. word " may," and inserting " be agreed upon." This will leave it to the Government to negotiate in regard to the sums. Amendment amended accordingly. {: #debate-6-s20 .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Prime Minister drew attention to two points. One was that of the gauge, and it was a point which, I venture to say, has nothing to do with the question. When the right honorable gentleman found that he was leading himself into a sort of *eni de sac,* he abandoned it altogether ; and, therefore, I shall leave it alone. The right honorable member then dealt with subclause 2, and, obviously without having studied it sufficiently, he attempted to satisfy the Committee that under, it all that was desired by honorable members would be done. But if the Prime Minister will look at the clause, he will see that the whole of the power conferred is to deal with lands so far as they may be required for "construction, maintenance, and working." Does the Prime Minister contend for a moment that the Commonwealth will have the power to take lands and dispose of them in order to compensate us for any loss? According to the "common or garden " interpretation of words, there would not be the right to take a single acre, except so far as it was required for the "construction, maintenance," in the practical sense, and the " working " of the railway ; not one copper could be taken to compensate the Commonwealth for the loss, which might amount to £50,000 or £100,000 a year. There is a sort of political flatulency in some honorable members in regard to " nationalism." Of course, the question has a national aspect, since this has been recommended as a line for military purposes. For my own part, as a layman, i quite agree with the honorable member for Echuca, who, last night, said that, in his opinion, the line was a weakness rather than a strength, from a national standpoint ; and laymen have a right to an opinion on what I may call the practical side of defence questions. We all know that the people and Parliament of England are snapping their fingers at recommendations for the defence of England made by one of our greatest generals and soldiers. Lord Roberts has recommended, in the House of Lords, a system of defence of which the English people are taking no notice. {: #debate-6-s21 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I trust the honorable member is not going into the question of the defence of England. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Only by way of analogy. Apart from the difference of opinion as to the effect of this railway for defence purposes, it has a national aspect ; but it also has incidentally an aspect which shows that it is going to give an enormous profit, in regard to which I accept half the estimate of the honorable member for Perth. As I say, this project has, incidentally, a local aspect, which shows that South Australia and Western Australia are to be given an increment of something like ;£i 5,000,000. If this line is going to involve the Commonwealth, in carrying out a national purpose, in a very heavy loss per annum, on what grounds of common honesty or morality can the two States refuse to compensate us for that loss, when it can be so easily recouped from the incidental benefits they derive from the national line? {: #debate-6-s22 .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide .- We need not be depressed on account of the people of England declining to accept the advice of Lord Roberts, for we have a distinct recollection that the people of Australia, on one or two occasions, have declined to accept the advice of the honorable member for Parkes. I suggest to the honorable member for Parramatta that the acceptance of the alteration in his amendment makes the amendment superfluous. It means that there shall be such money recouped as is agreed on; and for all practical purposes that idea is contained in sub-clause 2. We have a Government in office which is likely to remain there a number of years, and which has indicated that it does not approve of the principle underlying the amendment, and has distinctly told us that it will attempt to secure such guarantees as are necessary under sub-clause 2. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- For what purpose? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS: -- For the maintenance and construction of the line; and I wish to read the word "maintenance" in its largest possible sense. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If the words "financial maintenance" are used I shall be satisfied. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It means land for the men engaged on the railway. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS: -- The clause now suggested is entirely permissive; it is simply a question of what may be agreed on in the future, and the Government in power have already indicated that they do not intend to accept it. Under the circumstances we should be merely inserting another sub-clause of a permissive character, with the underlying principle of which the Government have no sympathy. Is it likely that there can be any practical effect? If not, why insert the amendment? {: #debate-6-s23 .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE:
Gippsland .- I am not aware that the Government have no sympathy with the principle involved in the amendments proposed. I rather understood the objection to be that the amendments would prevent the railway being constructed, because South Australia would not consent. I can understand honorable members objecting because they do not agree with the amendments, for one reason or the other; but do not let any one run away with the idea that if he opposes them he will be able to obtain what is desired by reason of sub-clause 2. I do not think that the Prime Minister, the honorable member for Adelaide, or any other layman would be able to get a single lawyer in this Chamber, no matter on which side, who would be prepared to say that the words of the sub-clause are wide enough to embrace the land which is the object of the amendments. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- I do not suggest that. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE: -- Under the sub-clause, only those lands can be taken which are necessary for construction, maintenance, and working. . {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Not the financial maintenance. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE: -- No, that is not touched at all ; and if these amendments are not carried we give up any claim to a contribution of the character desired. I quite agree with the Prime Minister, as I have said on many occasions, that we federated in order to carry out schemes that no individual State could carry out; and I have never, yet voted against a national proposal, made in this Parliament. I voted strongly right through for the taking over of the Northern Territory, and have acted as much on broad national grounds as any man in the House. But I do not shut my eyes to the fact that, in the matter of finance, the people of the east, particularly of the two large States, have at present, and will have for some years to come, to shoulder the burden. When there is an opportunity, the central and western States, which are short of population but rich in land, of which they are making no use, ought, in fairness to the people in the east, who have to put down the money, to compensate the latter by contributing land, which is at present valueless, but which this national work will make valuable. Question - That the proposed new subclause, as amended, be added (Mr. Joseph Cook's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 0 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. *Sitting suspended from 1.5 to 2.15 p.m.* {: #debate-6-s24 .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane .- I move - > That the following words be added : - " (3) The construction of the railway shall .not be commenced until the States of "Western Australia !ind South Australia respectively have agreed to bring the existing railway lines between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle, and between Port Augusta and Adelaide, into uniformity with the gauge of the railway between Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta." My object in submitting this amendment is to secure that there shall be a railway of one gauge between Adelaide and Fremantle. Let me disclaim any desire to do anything that would delay the construction of this line, for I believe there are many reasons, commercial, sentimental, and national, demanding that it shall be built at ah early date. I look upon it as the first section of a great length of railway that will encircle Australia, and be our great strategic defence proposition. If this railway is to fulfil the purpose for which it is to be built there must be an uninterrupted run of line without any break of gauge from Adelaide to Fremantle. The purpose of my amendment cannot conflict with the intentions of Western Australia. The right honorable member for Swan and the honorable member for Perth, who may be presumed to be familiar with all the details of this question, have told us that the people of Western Australia are prepared, even if they have not already promised, to alter their present stretch of railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle - a line, roughly speaking, about 400 miles in length, and built on a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge - to whatever gauge is adopted for the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta section. That being so, I need not argue that from the stand-point of Western Australia this amendment ought to be adopted. The position of South Australia seems to be somewhat different. It is because the Commonwealth has treated that State so generously by relieving her of the very heavy burden of the Northern Territory 'that I think it should be prepared to meet the people of Australia by undertaking a fair proportion of the cost of this line. When the honorable member for Parkes introduced his amendment in regard to the transfer to the Commonwealth of certain lands along the route, he insisted that a *quid pro quo* should be given by these two States for the building of the railway. I think that the *quid pro quo* should come not in the way suggested by the honorable member for Parkes, or subsequently by the honorable member for Riverina - much less should it come in the way proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta- but in the shape of a patriotic offer by South Australia to link up its small section of railway, about 260 miles in length, between Port Augusta, and Adelaide, on a uniform- gauge. It is freely admitted that the building of this railway will greatly enhance the value of 'the lands.. which it will traverse. It is .estimated that the cost of the railway will be from ,£4,000,000 to £6,000,000, and that it will enhance the lands through which it passes to the extent of £30,000,000. Even assuming that these lands are enhanced to the extent of only £^20,000,000, both States will benefit immensely by the Federal expenditure, and, that being so, the other States have a perfect right to ask that South Australia shall do what Western Australia is prepared to do, and bring the gauge of its line between. Adelaide and Port Augusta into uniformity with that of the transcontinental line. A small section, from Port Augusta to Terowie, covering a distance of about 100 miles, is built on a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, and 'it would not cost much to extend that to the gauge adopted for the transcontinental line. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr Hedges: -- Is the honorable member aware that that line traverses a very circuitous route through the mountains, and that the work of extending the gauge would be very expensive? {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON: -- My argument is that the people of South Australia will gain so largely by the construction of this railway that it is not too much to ask them to bear the cost of bringing the line between Adelaide and Port Augusta into uniformity with the transcontinental railway.- The section between Terowie and Adelaide, a distance of 150 miles, is on a 5-ft. 3-iri. gauge, and it would cost only a few thousand pounds to alter it. I am in favour of the Commonwealth bearing the burden of linking up all the capitals by means of a uniform gauge of railway. That is a national work, and should be undertaken by the National Parliament, but the people of the Commonwealth as a whole may fairly claim that in return for the construction of a railway that will cost something like £5,000,000 the two States concerned should agree to the proposal embodied in my amendment. {: #debate-6-s25 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- The honorable member for Brisbane was careful to point out that he did not submit this amendment with the object of delaying the construction of the railway, but I think that it would have that effect, since it requires the two States directly concerned to agree to do certain things before the work is entered upon. We have it stated that Western Australia, in all probability, will bring its railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle into uniformity with the transcontinental line. We have no such assurance, however, in regard to the line between Adelaide and Port Augusta, and it is not likely that the people of South Australia will consent at the present time to such a proposition. The amendment has also an important bearing on the question of gauge. If it be carried it will be practically uselessto ask the States to meet the Commonwealth in conference to determine the question of gauge, for the reason that it will* have practically decided the question. New South Wales has already a 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge, and by declaring that this line shall not be constructed until the two States haveagreed to bring the gauge of certain linesinto uniformity with that of the transcontinental line, we shall have practically settled the matter. In other words, there will' be three States committed to a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge, and Tasmania might see no objection to falling in with what had been determined so far as those three States wereconcerned. That being so, this amendment, if carried, would practically determine the question of the gauge to beadopted by all the States. I think that thisquestion should be an open one. I certainly hope that it will soon be settled, but we ought to be careful not to prejudice- future action on the part of the States and the Commonwealth in regard to it. **Mr. JOSEPH** COOK (Parramatta)- [2.'27). - Apart altogether from the fact that the honorable member for Brisbaneis seeking by a side-wind to determine, in the most unfair way, the uniform gauge for' all Australia, his proposal is in itself unjust and the very essence of provincialism. Why should we require these two States todo anything which the others are not' compelled to do? Why should they be compelled to alter their gauges any more than the other three States are compelled to do?' If the honorable member is setting up the theory that the States to be traversed by any transcontinental line ought to be under - an obligation to assimilate their gauges with that of the Commonwealth, and tolink up their own railway systems to it,, at their own cost, he is certainly taking ona pretty big contract so far as Queensland"! itself is concerned. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Did I suggest anything of the kind? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorablemember's proposal, as I understand it, isthat this railway shall not be built until : these other lines are linked up with it. I ' understand that this transcontinental lineis to be part of a complete railway round' Australia, in which Queensland will beequally interested with the rest of the--- States. There is no argument with respect to the assimilation of gauges that does not apply equally to every State in the union. Let the matter stand by itself and be considered on its merits. I decline to vote for a proposal which would require every State in the Union to do likewise. By accepting this amendment we should be committing ourselves to the assimilation of our individual State gauges to that of the railway now proposed to be laid down. That may or may not turn out to be the case. I imagine that when the standard gauge is determined, it will be applied, in the first instance, as between the various capitals of Australia, and that there will be a gradual assimilation later on of the whole of the railway systems of the Commonwealth. That matter, however, does not arise at this stage. It would be unfair to lay this impost on two of the States only, and leave the three large contributing States to this matter absolutely untouched. Amendment negatived. {: #debate-6-s26 .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr PALMER:
Echuca .- I move - >That the following words be added : - > >* (3) That the State of South Australia and the State of Western Australia be required to vest in trustees areas of land contiguous to the railway sufficient to produce an annual revenue to meet the annual loss upon the working of the line, any revenue derived from the land so vested in excess of the annual loss to revert to the State to which the areas belong." {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925 -- That amendment is out of order, as it is on all-fours with previous ones which have been negatived. {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr PALMER: -- There are essential differences between it and all previous amendments. It provides that the Commonwealth shall get neither more nor less than the actual amount of the loss. It allows money to be derived from land vested in a trust. That provision was made in the original amendment of the honorable member for Parkes, but he abandoned it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- When the line pays, what is to be done with the land? {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr PALMER: -- It would become absolutely free from obligation, and revert to its J original position as part of the State. My objection to the amendment of the honorable member for Parkes was that I did not believe in the Commonwealth obtaining a proprietary right in the land of a State. I advocate the vesting in trus tees of sufficient land to produce an amount equal to the loss on working expenses, leaving it to the Commonwealth to bear theinterest on the capital cost, in. return for the national advantages to be derived. I. concede the claim that we are going to receive certain national benefits from the construction of the line, and that, therefore,, we should be prepared to bear a proportion of the annual loss. No doubt, that would be the major portion of the loss. If" the States could be induced to meet any deficiency in the working cost, I am satisfied that it would, to a great extent, allay any feeling of antipathy in the eastern' States, be absolutely fair to the Commonwealth as a whole, and lead to a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- Has the honorable member any idea of how much land would be involved? It might take in half WesternAustralia. {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr PALMER: -- It would do nothing of the sort. If the land is so valuelessas the honorable member indicates, it isuseless to attempt to develop it ; but I have a personal knowledge of this class of country, and know it is not valueless if it canbe brought into touch with other parts of the Commonwealth by railway. One of the virtues of the amendment is that it requires only sufficient land to produce the necessary annual revenue. It would be the duty of the trust, when formed, to determine how much land was necessary. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Only the rental value of the land would be taken. {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr PALMER: -- Yes. I think it is afair proposition, and submit it with confidence to the respectful consideration of the Committee. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- It has been suggested, " by interjection, that this amendment is the same as others which the Committee has already negatived. There are, however, two distinct differences in it. One is that it vests the land in trustees, the other is that it proposes to raise from the land only sufficient revenue to meet the loss on working expenses. I therefore rule that it is in order. Amendment negatived. {: #debate-6-s27 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong .- Now that we seem to have got rid of the preliminary difficulties, we ought to have an emphatic declaration from the Government as to their intention with regard to the interpretation of sub-clause 2. Do they propose to acquire simply the width of the track, such as we generally see along: railway lines in Victoria and South Australia? If so, it will be altogether too small an area to ask for. This is an exceptional line, and I should like the Prime Minister, or the Honorary Minister who is now in charge of the Bill, to declare emphatically that the Government will use their very best efforts to obtain .as much land as they can along the route of the railway. {: #debate-6-s28 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP -- Now that the Committee has decided against requiring the surrender by the States concerned of alternative blocks, or of any strip of a fixed width on either side of the route of the railway, a request is made that the Government should state their intentions with regard to subclause 2. The Government have considered the question very fully, and have determined to request the States to supply all the land that is necessary for the route of the railway to begin with - a reasonable area on either side, which will be judged by the circumstances of the case in each instance - and all the land that will be necessary for any deviations which are considered to be likely, or may be found to be necessary at some future time. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Even after the railway has been constructed? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Quite so. Precautions will be taken so that in the event of some unexpected happening, such as a sand slide, it will be possible to get a route perhaps some miles away in order to effect a deviation. The Government will request the States to supply also all the land that will be necessary for water conservation, whether it is water in catchments or water brought from different parts to the route of the railway. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Including catchments for local railway purposes? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Yes, and all the land necessary for stations and sidings, and for the provision of ballast required, not only for the construction, but for the future maintenance of the line, and also the land that will be necessary for fettlers' homesteads, and for making provision that those who will be subsequently employed in the maintenance of the line shall be able to keep cattle or horses. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- What area would the Honorary Minister suggest? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- It is impossible to fix "even an approximate area. It must, of necessity, vary in different localities. We may" want 1,000 'acres, or even 10 square miles, in one place, whereas 50 acres may be sufficient in another. I assure the honorable member and the Committee that the Government will see that before the construction of the line is embarked upon a satisfactory settlement is arrived at between the Commonwealth and the Governments of the respective States in regard to this allimportant question. {: #debate-6-s29 .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE:
Gippsland .- Apparently the whole position boiled down means that, as the Government have no desire to delay the passing of the Bill, they will have still less desire to delay the construction of the railway, and consequently will take whatever the Western Australian and South Australian Governments will be prepared to give them for the construction, maintenance, and working of the railway. They cannot get out of that position, no matter how many definitions or guarantees they may offer in this chamber. {: #debate-6-s30 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta -- All these inquiries show the necessity for the Government coming to Parliament with some sort of rough plan and specification of the line before asking Parliament to authorize its construction. The Government all through are following an unprecedented course in connexion with this railway. They ask the House to put the project through without telling the House what they propose to do in the way of land resumption, or anything else. Whenever a railway proposal is put before a State Parliament, plans and specifications are always laid upon the table, so that all the details may be thoroughly studied before a vote is taken. In this case there is an utter absence of any of that preparation, and the sooner we are made aware of what is intended to be done in detail the better it will be for all concerned. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 - >The route of the railway shall be as described in the Schedule, but the Minister may make such deviations as are reasonable for the better construction and working of the railway. {: #debate-6-s31 .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE:
Gippsland .- Is it possible for Ministers to give us an idea of the limitation, if any, under the power to make deviations? In the Victorian Railway Acts there are limitations on the constructing authority. The Bill says that our constructing authority may make such deviations as are reasonable for the construction" and working of the railway. Surely* there should be some limitation-? {: #debate-6-s32 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP -- The honorable member was arguing a little while ago that we were not taking sufficient power, but now he asks for a limitation. The Government will be sure of its power to do everything necessary for the construction of the line before it embarks on the project. An unlimited power of deviation is taken, because the sum expended on the preliminary survey was small, and the engineer advises that it may be necessary at some points to deviate considerably from the route now marked out. The provision to which exception is taken has been adopted to make the position of the Government absolutely secure, and to enable us to follow the most satisfactory route. {: #debate-6-s33 .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane .- I wish to emphasize what has been said by the honorable member for Gippsland. We should certainly have the assurance of Ministers, if a provision to that effect is not inserted in the Bill, that the railway will not go nearer the coast than 60 miles. I am in agreement, too, with the honorable member for Parramatta as to the need for the fullest information regarding route, methods of construction, and other particulars. We are committing ourselves to an expenditure of ^5,000,000, or more, and leaving everything in the hands of the Government. No doubt it is safe to do that under present circumstances, but, were I in opposition, I should object to such a course. We should receive an assurance that the deviations will be limited in some way, and that the line will not approach nearer to the coast than the existing route. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 - >The gauge of the railway shall be four feet eight and a half inches. {: #debate-6-s34 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas -- I move - >That, after the word "be," line 1, the following words be inserted, " five feet three inches or." The object of the amendment is to enable the Government to get the advice of the Engineers-in-Chief of the six States, or those acting for any who may be away or out of office, as to the best gauge for the railway in the light of recent expert knowledge. To follow this course will not delay the passing of the Bill. The report of the engineers consulted could be obtained in a month, when the Bill could be amended, or, if already passed into law, a resolution could be agreed to declaring what the standard gauge must- be, and that resolution would have the force of law. I wish to put before the Committee concisely one or two points in favour of the 5- ft. 3-in. gauge which have not received, even from engineers, the consideration due to them. There was a meeting of the Engineers-in-Chief of the States in 1904, but the question chiefly engaging their attention then was the survey of the proposed route, the question of gauge being incidental. If honorable members will refer to their report, they will see that their consideration was whether the then existing lines in Western Australia and South Australia should be prolonged on the 3-ft. 6- in. gauge until they met, or whether the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge should be adopted for the extension. In paragraph 6 of the report they state that - >We are of opinion that this standard gauge should be adopted for the trans-continental line, as it would be *a* calamity to postpone the realization of the unification of the gauges, and increase the cost of doing so by constructing 1,100 miles on a narrower and inferior gauge. They were comparing the 3-ft. 6-in. with the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge, and did not deal with the relative merits of the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge and the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. I have heard that **Mr. Moncrieff,** who was then the South Australian Engineer-in-Chief, and is now Commissioner, has declared that he dissented orally from the assumption that 4 ft. 8J in. is the best gauge. That was said inferentially in a lecture by **Mr. Smith,** and I have heard it stated in South Australia, though not by **Mr. Moncrieff** himself. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925 -- I have heard it from **Mr. Moncrieff.** {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- **Mr. Moncrieff** told a member of the Committee that 5 ft. 3 in. was, in his opinion, the best gauge. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would the honorable member act on the report of the railway engineers? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- We should be guided by their decision, but it would not bind us, because Parliament must have the last " say " in these matters. When we ask for Commissions to be appointed, we, as a. rule, follow their recommendations, that is, if we act at all. In India, they appointed a Commission in 1884, and another -in 1870, to consider the gauge question. I referred to the latter Commission when, in 1889, I introduced a motion on the subject in the South Australian House of Assembly. When the first Commission met, the Indian railways had the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge and the metre gauge, which is about 3 ft. 3^ in. The question was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which recommended that all leading trunk lines, with the principal feeders, should be on the broad gauge. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr Hedges: -- That is the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I have within the last half-hour consulted the authority on Indian railways from which I have derived my information, and I say that the comparison was between the 5 ft. 6 in. and the metre gauge. In 1889 the Director-General of Railways in India, Colonel Conway Gordon, recommended that an Act be passed to make the gauge 5 ft. 6 in. I believe that since the Commission of 1870, the conversions have been in the direction of adopting the wider gauge, and it was shown in an article in the *Age* a few days ago that 1,100 miles of metre gauge, and, I think, a smaller gauge, have been converted to the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge. I do not know whenrailway construction began in the Argentine, but I remember reading some years ago that in about 1877 or 1878 their expenditure on railways increased very rapidly, so that their construction is comparatively recent. It is significant that in the Central Argentine there are now 10,176 miles on the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge. The_ Russian gauges, according to the pamphlet of **Mr. Schmidt,** are 5 ft. 3 in. and 5 ft. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'malley: -- In the Argentine there are 16,000 miles of 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- It is assumed that the United States of America have adopted the 4-ft. 8^-in gauge on its absolute and comparative merits, but is that so? In Ohio some years ago 10,000 miles of 5-ft. gauge were converted to 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge. Was that done to obtain the advantage accruing from widening the track by 3^ inches? Would they have gone to that expense, and the expense of altering rolling-stock, as well as increasing the risks in rapid transit from the larger overhang, merely to secure a wider track? The alteration of gauge was made to get rid of the break of gauge. The Minister will admit that it would not have been considered economical by an American, or even by a Canadian, who, by a small gauge, missed the chance of occupying the Presidential chair, to go to the expense which the undertaking to which I refer involved, merely to gain inches in the width of track. In America the conversion of the gauges was determined by the necessity, seeing that there were at least thirty-eight or forty States and many territories into which some railways ran, of having one standard gauge, which, at the time, seemed to be 4 ft. 8J in. Honorable members will see that 1 am not overdoing the inference I have drawn from the fact that this great conversion of only a few inches was merely to overcome the break of gauge. It is asked why the lines should not be altered now ; but how could that be done? There are 237,000 miles of line crossing forty-seven or forty-eight States and territories, with different railway companies, all sorts of State and Inter-State laws, and the control of an Inter-State Commission. The financial prospects of such a proposition would stagger the enterprise and courage of even the Minister of Home Affairs. No doubt the reason why the lines are not converted now are found in the great financial outlay and the difficulties of reconciling the conflicting interests, if not the jealousies, of so many companies. In Canada, I think, they also converted to the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge in order to link up with other railways. The most recent evidence I can get as to the inadequacy, under modern conditions of traffic and speed, of the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge is that given before an Irish Railway Commission which sat from 1907 to 1910. The subject of inquiry by the Commission was the nationalization of the railways, because of the alleged maladministration, not by Irishmen, because the reports showed that the railways are principally owned by English companies. One of the witnesses before that Commission was **Mr. Pinn, Chairman** of the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway, who, on the question of the gauge, was asked - Do you think it is an advantage in Ireland to have a gauge different from the gauge in England? - I think it is a rather curious thing that in Ireland, where we have less traffic, we should have a wider gauge; but I think the misfortune has been greater in England than in Ireland. The witness went on further to say - It is the public that suffers. I think the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge is too narrow, and it is a great, misfortune that it was adopted. They have the 5-ft. 6-in. gauge in many foreign countries. They have it in India, and, I think, in South America. He was asked - *I* venture to think that the actual advantage of the narrower gauge is very small, and has its limitations, and that if you were to inquire you would find that your Irish railways are able to keep their locomotives much longer out of the work-shops and get a greater mileage between shop repairs than we can in England, because your wider gauge enables all the wearing parts to have bigger bearing surfaces. His reply was - >I think if Brunei had adopted a 5-ft. 6-in. gauge instead of a 7-ft. one it would have prevailed, and that the narrower gauge is a great disadvantage to the English railway system. That is the experience, as against the assumption in 1846 that 4 ft. 8J in. was the proper gauge. Then a Royal Commission sat in England on the question of gauges ; and I have here the history of the Great Western Railway, published in 1895, which contains extracts from the report of that Commission. It mentions that the assumption in 1848 was on imperfect information ; and an assumption that has been falsified by subsequent experience. This strengthens what was said by the witnesses before the Irish Commission in 1909. First there was a fear that speed on the wider gauge would be dangerous - that the gauge should not be broader than 4 ft. 8 in., because otherwise the speed would be too fast. I do not know what they considered fast in those days ; but they evidently thought it would mean a multiplicity of accidents. The broader gauge gives more easy travelling, as shown in the report, and greater speed, with less risk. I have read that experts consider that the overhanging is always greater in proportion to the axleboxes in connexion with the narrower gauge, and, of course, increases proportionately the liability to accidents. Here is what is said in the book to which I have referred - >Had the Commission taken place thirty or even twenty years later, one half of the report would not have been written, for the deductions and conclusions drawn by the Commissioners on the results that would accrue from the various suppositional premises would at this later period have been found to be entirely incorrect, or else the conditions under which the conclusions were arrived at would have been so completely changed that such speculations would have been unnecessary in the face of various improvements which had in the meantime been developed, and which were at this later period in daily use on railways. The writer goes on to mention that the summing up of the Commission on the comparative advantages of the two gauges was wrong on two points - the danger, and the greater possibility of carriage on the narrower gauge. It must be remembered that the narrow gauge then considered was not only the 4 ft. in., because others were suggested - >First. That as regards the safety, accommodation, and convenience of the passengers, no decided preference is due to either gauge, but that on the broad gauge the motion is generally more easy at high velocities. > >Secondly. That in respect of speed, we con- .sider the advantages are with the broad gauge ; but we think the public safety would be endangered in employing the greater capabilities of the broad gauge much beyond their present use, except on roads more consolidated and more substantially and perfectly formed than those of the existing lines. The writer goes on to say - >Thirdly. That in the commercial case of the transport of goods, we believe the narrow gauge to possess the greater convenience and to be the more suited to the general traffic of the country. . . . We are desirous, however, of guarding ourselves from being supposed to express an opinion that the dimension of 4 ft. 8i in. is in all respects the most suited for the general objects of the country. This bears out what I assumed a few days ago, that the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge was not adopted in 1846 on its merits, as compared with the 5-ft. and 5-ft. 6-in. gauges. And the recent Commission bears out the assumption that were the battle fought again now the victory would be with the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. Professor Kernot is, I think, regarded as an expert in railway matters. He delivered a lecture on the question of gauges in .1906, and dealt with the same question in Glasgow in 1901 in a paper read before the Institute of Engineers Congress. In the lecture the Professor said - " Great discussion took place at this time as to the gauge to be adopted. Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and the colony of New Zealand, after careful inquiry, adopted the Irish gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. ; while New South Wales, after having at first adhered to that gauge, and at a time when the other colonies had already placed large orders for rolling - stock, changed its decision and adopted the English gauge of 4 ft. 8^ in. In 1857, the New South Wales railways were taken over by the Government, who appointed **Mr. John** Whitton, M.Inst.C.E., as Engineer-in-Chief . This gentleman assured the writer that he did his best to induce the Government to alter the gauge to that of the adjoining colonies, but without avail, the result being that that State now has 2,811 miles of railways on a gauge that exists nowhere else in Australia, and the evils of break of gauge exist wherever the lines cross the frontier. But even in Victoria and New South Wales strong pressure was brought to bear, about the year 1870, to induce the Governments lo have all further extensions on the narrow gauge. This, however, was successfully resisted by the Engineers-in-Chief of the two colonies, T. Higinbotham, M.Inst.C.E., and John Whitton, M.Inst.C.E. In Victoria, so strong was the pressure that tenders were actually invited for the two lines, one in easy and the other in rather difficult country, both on 5-ft. 3-in. and 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, the result being that the narrower gauge showed a saving of only ^150 per mile in the former and *£iii* in the latter case. After this,' all railway making in Victoria continued on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge until the last two years, during which two very short lines of *2* ft. 6 in. have been built under very special c conditions. Later the Professor said that in 1857 **Mr. Whitton** begged the New South Wales Government to go back to the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, and the reply was, " The lines will never meet for centuries." That, of course, was absurd in the face of recent experience. I omitted to mention that in 1846 there was rather a prejudice in favour of the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, arising from the fact that 1,900 odd miles had been constructed on that gauge as against, I think, a highest mileage, in other instances, of 274 miles. It strikes me that the engineering difficulties are not comparatively less in connexion with the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge than in connexion with a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge over the class of country to be traversed by the proposed line. It is not mountainous country. The only portion where the conversion would involve heavy expense would be south of Port Augusta, where for 40 or 50 miles we have a stretch of line the conversion of which would be very costly. If, however, this railway is built on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, South Australia will have a very great inducement to convert at once its line to Port Augusta. The State has been considering the conversion of that line, and even, I believe, the conversion of the line from Port Pirie to Hamley Bridge. The adoption of a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge would not matter much to Western Australia. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr Hedges: -- Would it not? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I said it would not matter very much to Western Australia. I know it is alleged that there are some difficulties there in regard to stations, but those difficulties are small in comparison with such a tremendous undertaking as this. Indeed, they should be only trifling' to Western Australia, which has done so much in the past, and will no doubt accomplish big things in the future. If this line were built on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge I assume that there would not be very great difficulty in converting the Western Australian lines to the same gauge. If that were done we should then have, within a reasonable time, a line of railway stretching from Fremantle to Albury on a uniform gauge, involving a diminution of the present complexities, and without any dislocating effect either upon New South Wales or Queensland. If, however, we built the line on a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge we should immediately complicate the position as regards South Australia, and incidentally operate against the transformation of our gauges to a uniform standard. The adoption of a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge would do something towards immediately effecting that transformation, whilst the adoption of a 4- ft. 8j-in. gauge would mean only further complexities. If we built this line on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge I believe that South Australia would at once convert its 3-ft. 6-in. gauge line between Terowie and Port Augusta, and alter its 3-ft. 6-in. line to Port Pirie, whilst we should also get, I believe, a conversion to 5 ft. 3 in.- in Western Australia. I find from my reading that the question of flexibility is not affected by the difference between a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge and a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. On the broad gauge, according to an engineer cited by Professor Kernot, you must go slowly round the curves, and may run fast on the straights'; but on the narrow you must go slowly all the way. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I travelled 70 miles an hour the other day on a narrow-gauge line. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- We must be guided by the opinions of the engineers, and so far as my reading has gone, owing to the greater over-hang and the greater length of trains for the same freight, there is more danger in travelling at, say, 70 miles an hour on a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge line than there is on a 5- ft. 3-in. line. I do not desire to cite an American experience in this matter, because immediately one does so some one who has not been there declares that it is due to causes other £han those stated. But it is rather significant that in the United States of America, where we have the greatest length of 4-ft. 8£-in. railway, we have in proportion to train mileage the greatest number of accidents. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- In Victoria, where we have a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, there are more accidents than in any other State. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- It is easy to make that assertion, but can the honorable member prove it? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- I think I can. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The honorable member for Wentworth says he " thinks " he can. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Does the honorable member deny that statement? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I would not deny a statement of opinion on the part of any honorable member. An honorable member is entitled to express his own opinion, and may, believing what he says, be morally right while actually wrong. I am giving the Committee conclusions I have formed on the evidence of experts ; but perhaps I may be wrong. There is not much to be said -in regard to the question of the difference in the length of line that would have to be altered if we adopted a 5-ft. 3-in. instead of a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. The difference is only about 300 or 400 miles. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- But the cost of altering an equal length of line is very different. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes. But what is to be said against obtaining the opinion of experts? 1 am simply asking that this question should be very carefully considered by experts before we finally decide. What are we to say of these questions when we see differences of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 between the estimates of experts regarding the cost of constructing the line, and equally striking differences in the opinions expressed by experts as to the cost of conversion. One expert takes into account the provision of new rolling-stock, another does not ; one expert takes into account the cost of new sleepers, while another says new sleepers will not be necessary ; and so on. If we look back at the records as to this point presented twenty years ago by **Mr. Eddy,** we shall find that engineers and recent lecturers, like **Mr. Smith,** are not so far out as are some of the amateurs of the House. In the light of what I have said, of what has been said by other honorable members, and of that which will be contributed, I am sure, in the course of this debate, I think that we may well ask the Government not to prejudice the matter by leaving in the Bill the provision as to a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, but to accept this amendment, which merely asks that the experts of the States, who have not met to consider this question seriously - the experts of the six Statesshould be called together to deal with it. The question affects the whole of the States, because Tasmania and Queensland will have to pay the piper in this matter, just as the other States will have to do. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- What delay would the honorable member's proposal involve? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I do not think it would mean a delay of more than a few weeks. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- More demands for delay from South Australia. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I have never attempted' to asperse the motives of the representatives of other States ; but, for the last two days, I have listened to nothing more than bantering insinuations. A representative of South Australia or Victoria cannot open his mouth in this debate without an insinuation being made that he has some ulterior motive ; whilst, if he remains silent, it is said that he is afraid to stand up for bis honest convictions. When men have to fall back on even a bantering imputation of motives, we may be sure that they are strengthening the other side. What I ask for is that an inquiry shall be made. I tried, before submitting this amendment, to ascertain how long it would take experts to consider this question; but I could not get any definite information on the subject. I assume, however, that the engineers of the several States could be brought together within two or three weeks, and that with the detailed information at their disposal they should be able, witnin a fortnight, to come to a decision. I appeal to the Committee to affirm the principle that inquiry is desirable. {: #debate-6-s35 .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle .- The honorable member for Angas has dealt with this question from a purely theoretical and impracticable point of view. He has presented information to prove what might have been done, what some one suggested should be done, and to show that there are all sorts of possibilities in regard to the adoption of a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge throughout Australia. I propose to give the Committee, not mere theory, but actual facts, in regard to what has been, and is being, done at the present time. I would, first of all, tell the honorable member for Angas that the fastest trains ever known have been run on a 4-ft. 8 J-in. gauge ; that the biggest engines ever built are running on lines of a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, and that the cheapest railways ever built have been constructed on that gauge. Whilst lines of 5-ft. 6-in. and 7-ft. gauges have been built in England, and pulled up again, I have searched the world's records in vain for an instance where a 4-ft. 8£-in line has been pulled up. I know, however, that lines of every other gauge have been. Let me give the Committee a few facts regarding the railways of England. In the first place, the London and North- Western Company has a length of 2,000 miles of railway; it carries yearly 77,000,000 passengers, and 55,000,000 tons of minerals and merchandise ; and has an annual revenue of £16,000,000, or ,£43,000 a day. Then, again, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company has over 1,500 locomotives, 1,100 of them being under steam every day. It carries 60,000,000 passengers and 25,000,000 tons of freight over its lines every year; while it has a passenger mileage of 13,000,000 miles, and owns 4,800 coaches. In the construction of that line, it was found necessary to excavate a tunnel 2,885 yards in length, in which 23,000,000 bricks and 8,000 tons of cement were used. That is a class of work that will not have to be undertaken in connexion with this railway. The making of this tunnel reminds me of a story told by Mark Twain regarding a fellow countryman of the Minister of Home Affairs, who entered into a contract to construct a railway. The excavation of a big tunnel was one of the works involved ; and as the contract proceeded the contractor found that it was the only part of the undertaking that was paying him. That being so, when it was discovered that the distance through the hill was not as great as the engineers had -estimated, he declared that he was not going .to be done out of the only part of the work that . paid him, and he therefore ran the tunnel out on trestles. The Great Central Railway, formerly the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, carries 24,000,000 passengers annually, and 31,000,000 tons of freight; and owns 35,000 waggons, 1,500 coaches, and 1,200 locomotives. The yearly mileage run by the locomotives is 16,645,000. Let us turn now to Scotland, which has 3,843 miles of railway, of which 2,267 miles are single track. The Caledonian line controls 1,100 miles "carries 34,000,000 passengers annually, and 28,000,000 tons of freight. It owns 65,000 vehicles and 927 locomotives. The Glasgow and South- Western line controls 467 miles of track, carries 15,000,000 passengers annually, and 8,500,000 tons of freight, owning 19,000 vehicles and 400 locomotives. The Great Northern operates over 850 miles, has 50,000 waggons on its books for freights of different classes, carries 65,000 head of cattle, and 10,000,000 tons of coal to Peterborough every year. The New England sidings have standing room for 5,000 waggons, and there are sixty tracks side by side. Nearly all the 50,000 waggons are privatelyowned, the company owning 43,000 coaches, waggons, and locomotives. These travel 23,000,000 miles yearly, and carry 37,000,000 passengers. All that work is being done in England and Scotland on the lines of some of the medium-sized companies on the 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge. I have so far left out the Great Midland line, of which the figures would stagger the Committee, and no fault has ever been found with that gauge on the ground of incapacity to do all this big work. The Midland trains run 1,000,000 miles each week. The com- pany owns 2,900 locomotives and 126,000 vehicles. Do we anticipate having to deal with a traffic even approaching that in Australia? The honorable member for Angas mentioned the Great Western Railway, in connexion with which I think I can give him something to think about. In a book which I was reading to-day, and which was written by an undoubted authority, the following reference is made to the donversion of the Great Western Railway from the 7-ft. oj-in. gauge to the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge:- >And so the conversion extended until in 1892 the broad gauge was quite cleared away. With its disappearance the company began to thrive as it had never done before. That is a good advertisement for the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. The company could not thrive until it got rid of the 7-ft. o-in. gauge. If a gauge of that width will pull a company down to that position, does it not follow that if we take a step towards it from the 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge, we must be taking one step towards decreasing the profits? I fail to see what better proof the Committee could wish for. The four lines I have quoted, leaving out the Midland, are carrying annually 139.000,000 tons of freight and 195,000,000 passengers on a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. If more convincing proof is wanted that this gauge is ample for all the requirements of Australia, let me refer the Committee to America. In regard to. that country I shall not go into ancient history, or even into the figures of a year or two back. The book I hold in my hand is dated 191 1. It states that the total number of miles of railway operated in the United States is 237,867 ; the passenger train mileage is 519,000,000 odd ; the freight train mileage is 589,000,000 odd ; the mixed train mileage is 32,000,000 odd ; the total train mileage run is 1,141,000,000 odd; the passengers carried number 924,000,000 odd ; the passenger mileage is 29,896,000,000; the tons of freight moved total 1,635,000,000, and the freight mileage run is 227,198,000,000. All that is done in America on a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge. . A statement which I made in the House recently regarding the position held by the late **Mr. Harriman** in relation to the American railways was questioned. He was quoted as a great authority, and it was said that at one time he made a statement to a meeting of his shareholders, that he wished the gauge of his lines was wider than it was. I said that I considered that that statement of this was merely a market move. I find -after all that **Mr. Harriman's** position, although he owned a big interest, was not :so great in regard to the American railways as some people thought. He commanded 28,000 miles of railway, but at that time the total miles of line in the United States was 210,000. Moore-Reid commanded an equal mileage, while Vanderbilt commanded 24,000, the- Pennsylvania 19,000, and Gould 21,000 miles. If **Mr. Harriman** did say he wanted his gauge widened it proves nothing. All those other people were not complaining at the same time, and **Mr. Harriman** was simply trying to boom his own track by making it appear that he could not carry on it all the freight that was offering. We must not give credence to all these statements that come from America. I heard of Vanderbilt and Gould, each of whom owned a railway running out west, getting up a war of tariffs. This went on until Vanderbilt found that he could not get trains enough to carry the cattle that were waiting to be sent out east. He then found that Gould had cornered all the cattle in the west, and was running them over Vanderbilt's line at a rate that did, not pay Vanderbilt. I think it is a good* thing that our Minister of Home Affairs is a Canadian. The speed that can be obtained on the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge should be sufficient for Australia or any other country. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It is the fastest in the world. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES: -- The fastest recorded runs for short distances are the following : - On the Philadelphia to Reading line, from Egg Harbor to Brigantine Junction, 4.8 miles, at the rate of 115 miles an hour; on the Great Western Railway in England, from Paddington to Bristol, 118 miles was run in. 1904 at 84 miles an hour ; on the Pennsylvania line from Washington to Fort Wayne, a length of 81 miles, was run at 75 miles an hour. From Alpine, New York, to Geneva Junction, New York, a distance of 43 miles, was run at 80 miles an hour. One of the biggest achievements of the lot was that of Harriman's special from Oaklands, California, to Jersey City, a distance of 3,239 miles, "in 73 hours 12 minutes, or an average of 44.3 miles an hour. All that is on the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. We can hardly expect that the Government will want to run -trains through to Western Australia at that speed, but there is no doubt that it can be done. It has been stated that heavier locomotives can be built for the 5-ft. 3-in. than for the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge. That is incorrect, or if it is correct it has never been done up to date. It is stated that the heaviest locomotive ever built weighs, including the tender, 700,000 lbs., with a length over all, including the tender, of more than 100 feet. Those figures are given in the book published in 1 911 to which I have referred. That locomotive runs" on the 4-ft. 8L-in. gauge. All this is beyond theory as to what may or may not be done or ought to be done. It is what has been and is being done as a working proposition. Surely those facts are of more value as a guide to Australia than all the theory that can be laid before the House. These are statistics from the two biggest railway nations in the world, and should be convincing proof that what the Government propose to do is right. They must have decided upon this course with these facts in front of them. Some one has considered the matter, or the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge would not have been adopted. The engineers who have been engaged on this problem met together and considered gauges, and I am certain that if the House fixes the 4-ft. 8j-in gauge it will be doing what is right for Australia. The statement has been made here that the 4-ft. 8-J-in. gauge is called a narrow gauge, but I find that it is the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge that is termed the narrow gauge; the 7-feet, 5-ft. 6-in., and 4-ft. 8-in. gauges being known as the broad gauges. The authority from whom I am quoting, referring to the New Zealand system, says - >The same gauge, 3 ft. 6 in., and the same section of rail, 40 lbs. per yard, were adopted for narrow gauge lines. Dealing with the question of cost, he says - >According to the Commissioners' report for 1893-4, the cost of the southern group of South Australian lines on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge had reached £9,715 per mile, and that of the southeastern group on the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge £4,110 per mile. These were the lowest figures in each case. Other sections on both gauges cost much more. Here is another important statement - >When minimum first cost is an essential condition of light railway construction, one may be driven, in a country where the standard gauge is so wide as 5 ft. 6 in. or even 5 ft. 3 in. to abandon it in favour of a metre or even a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. But, in a country which has been fortunate enough to adopt the more common and sufficient gauge of 4 ft. S£ in. as the standard, the strongest reasons will be required for discarding it in favour of a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, and the ultimate economy will be secured by constructing a standard gauge line with light way and works, capable of carrying ordinary goods stock at low speeds, but not the mainline engines. Do not build your main lines too light ! He emphasizes the fact that New South Wales built light railways on the 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge through its level pastoral country, and instances the Nyngan to Cobar railway. He says - >Such pioneer railways have been constructed at an average cost of *£2,019* per mile, and have proved satisfactory both as regards working and traffic. . . . The adoption of the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge has again been urged on the Colonies of Victoria and South Australia. These statements are taken from the reports of the New South Wales Railways Commissioners. William Henry Cole is a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and was deputy manager of the Northwestern Railway in India. He is a very high authority on railway construction. He says - >The variety of gauges in Australia is extraordinary. The 5-ft. 3-in. and 3-ft. 6-in. gauges are found in South Australia, the 5 ft. 3 in. in Victoria, the 3 ft. 6 in. in Queensland and Western Australia. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- He is not up to date. There is a 2-ft. 6-in. gauge in Victoria. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES: -- Victoria could not continue to construct on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. To resume the quotation - >It is unfortunate that the 4-ft. 8 1/2 in. gauge, adopted in New South Wales, is not the standard of all Australia, with a 2-ft. 6-in. gauge to fall back on whenever reduction of gauge is a *sine qua non.* I think it is unnecessary to say more to prove ' that the 4-ft. 8£-in gauge is the standard. {: .speaker-L1R} ##### Mr Agar Wynne: -- The honorable memmight now give us his own opinion. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES: -- I have built a good many railways, and know that the cost of railway construction is increasing in Australia. Sleepers are becoming dearer every year, and on the lines between Melbourne and Adelaide they are substituting steel for wood in some places. We must remember the desirability of ultimately giving through direct transit from Fremantle to Sydney. I cannot understand why South Australia urges that all the traffic should be brought through Adelaide, and carried over the Mount Lofty ranges. It would be much better to lessen the haulage by going over level ground. We should not deal with big questions in a tiddlywinking way. I have a friend who says that there are men in Australia who, if they were farmers, would want to plant their wheat with gimlets, and some honorable' members are inclined to deal with this sub'ject much in that way. The 4-ft. 8j-in.. gauge has proved effective in other parts' of the world, and to be capable of any strain that we are likely to put on it. The 5-ft. 3-in. gauge increases the cost of railway construction, and both South Australia and Victoria have been forced to abandon it for some lines. The South Australians,, when they got to Terowie, had to give up the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, and connect with' Broken Hill, and the country beyond the big lakes, by means of the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. Although they are now urging the adoption of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge for the' line from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, they commenced the construction of the big transcontinental railway to Port Darwin on the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, and their engineerinchief did his best to impress it upon Western Australia that that gauge was good enough for the line now under consideration. Victoria has not been able to build all her railways on the 5-ft. 3-in.: gauge, and has had to adopt the 2-ft. 6-in. gauge for some extensions. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1234 {:#debate-7} ### NAVIGATION BILL Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by **Mr. Tudor)** read a first time. {: .page-start } page 1234 {:#debate-8} ### STATUTORY DECLARATIONS BILL Bill returned from the Senate, without amendment. {: .page-start } page 1234 {:#debate-9} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-9-0} #### Sugar Commission Motion (by **Mr. Batchelor)** proposed- >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia .- Can the Minister of Customs tell us whether a secretary has been chosen for the Sugar Commission, and also give us some idea of when the Commission will commence its labours ? {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- A secretary has, by permission of **Mr. Speaker,** been chosen in the person of **Mr. Woollard,** SergeantatArms. The Chairman of the Commission is coming to Melbourne next week to arrange for an early commencement of sittings. '. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 3.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 October 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19111006_reps_4_60/>.