View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
1 October 1924

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ISSUE OF TREASURY-BILLS
QUESTION
- BRITISH PREFERENTIAL TARIFF
QUESTION
- DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS
QUESTION
- LOAN TO EQUALIZE EXCHANGE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
SUPERANNUATION BILL
QUESTION
- WRECK OF DOUGLAS MAW SON
QUESTION
- WOOLLEN GOODS
IMPERIAL ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT
- Draughtsmen’s Services
QUESTION
- PAPUAN PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE
QUESTION
- MAIZE INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- RUBBER GOODS
QUESTION
- PAPUAN INDUSTRIES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- CANADIAN PREFERENCE
PAPER
QUESTION
- AIR FORCE STATION AT RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES
LESSEE TAX BILL
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL
- Second Reading

Mr. Speaker (Rt. Hon. W. A. Watt) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4951

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Conference at Geneva.

Mr W M HUGHES:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister received any official message from Geneva about the discussions which have been taking place there in the Assembly of the League of Nations ? If so, is he in a position to make a statement to the House in regard to the matters discussed.

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

page 4952

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Board of Directors

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the fact that the Prime Minister made the bill to amend the Commonwealth Bank Act an urgent measure, I ask when he is going to announce to the House the personnel of the board of directors of the bank.

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I hope to do so at a very early date. The Government has been anxious in constituting the board to obtain the services of directors who will command the confidence ofthe whole of the people of Australia, and it is for that reason that the appointment of the board has been delayed longer than we otherwise should have wished.

page 4952

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Alleged Retrenchment

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have before me a telegram which states that men employed in the telegraph section of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department are being retrenched, and it is expected that 200 or 300 more will be put off shortly. Can the Postmaster-General give the House any information as to why this retrenchment is taking place?

Mr GIBSON:
CP

– It is not the intention of the department to put any men off. The information conveyed by the wire which the honorable member has received is, therefore, not correct.

page 4952

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer when will the Superannuation Bill be tabled, so that members of the House who are interested in matters affecting the Public Service can give it reasonable consideration ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– As soon as it is possible to introduce the bill it will be introduced.

page 4952

QUESTION

WRECK OF DOUGLAS MAW SON

Rescue of White Women

Mr MAKIN:

– When is it expected that information will be given to this House and the country generally respecting the expedition sent by theHuddersfield to rescue the white women reported to be held in captivity by the aborigines of the Northern Territory?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– As the honorable member knows, the John Alce some days ago proceeded from Darwin to the assistance of the relief expedition, and it is hoped that information will be available in the very near future.

page 4952

QUESTION

WOOLLEN GOODS

Mr COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

. Will he state-
1. The total value of woollen goods im ported into Australia during the past twelve months.
2. The description of manufactured goods imported, also the country whence imported.
3. The wages paid to employees in woollen factories in Germany.
4. The wages paid to woollen factory operatives in Bradford, England.
5. The rates of wages in the Australian Woollen Mills?
Is it a fact that many of the woollen mills that were started, largely on the advice of the Federal Bureau of Science and Industry, are threatened with extinction as the result of oversea importations of woollen goods?
What are the rates of duty now paid on imports of woollen material into Australia?
Is the Government prepared to financially assist by loan the under-capitalized woollen mills?
If not, what action, if any, does the Government intend taking to save the small woollen mills?

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The information is being obtained.

page 4952

IMPERIAL ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT

Draughtsmen’s Services

Mr COLEMAN:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice - 1.Is it a fact that draughtsmen from the Imperial Ordnance Survey Department, England are being brought to Australia by the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the preparation of a series of maps?

If so, why were not applications for this employment invited in Australia?

Mr BOWDEN:
Minister for Defence · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

No.
See answer to No. 1.

page 4953

QUESTION

PAPUAN PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr YATES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that dissatisfaction exists in the Public Service in Papua owing to the failure of the department to fix a date for the reclassification ?
Is it a fact that the Service has, on two occasions, sent a delegate to Melbourne in connexion with the matter?
Is it a fact that the Minister promised, last year, that a member of the Public Service Board would visit Papua and report to him?
If so, when is it intended that the visit shall take place?

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

The Public Service of Papua was reclassified in 1020. and a further reclassification was asked for last year. Disappointment has been expressed by the local Public Service Association, at the fact that it has not yet been possible to comply with this request.
A deputation of Papuan officers, who were at the time on leave in Australia, waited upon the Minister in April, 1923, and asked for a reclassification of the Papuan Service by an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. In May last, another officer, also on leave, called at the Home and Territories Department and inquired when “the reclassification was likely to bo made.
The Minister promised the deputation referred to th at he would bring their request before the Commonwealth Public Service Board upon its appointment. The Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922 came into operation on the 19th July. 1923. and on the 4th August. 1923, the deputation’s request was duly brought under the notice of the board.
Owing to the pressure of work in connexion with the classification of the Commonwealth Public Service, the Public Service Board is unable to indicate when it will be possible to make the services of an officer available for the reclassification of the Papuan Service. In view of the fact that there seemed to be no likelihood of the Public Service Board being able to give the matter its attention for some considerable time, the Lieutenant-Governor of Papua suggested to the local Public Service Association that he should ask the Minister for a reclassification to be made by the Secretary, Home and Territories Department, but this suggestion was declined by the association.

page 4953

QUESTION

UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE

Mr MANN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Commonwealth Government made proposals to the states that if the complete scheme of main lines unification is carried out the cost should be met by the Commonwealth and the states on the same basis as that proposed for the Graf ton -South Brisbane line now projected ?
If so, when?
What is the estimated quota for each state and the Commonwealth of the total estimate of £21,600,000?
Did all the states accept this basis? If not, which declined to do so?
Did those who accepted do so subject to approval of their respective Parliaments?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

The Commonwealth Government has made definite proposals to each of the five mainland states regarding the uniform railway gauge scheme recommended by the royal commission in September, 1921, at an estimated cost of £21,600,000.

This scheme provides for -

a standard-gauge railway from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie;
a standard-gauge direct railway from Port Augusta via Red Hill, Long Plains, and Salisbury;
conversion to standard gauge the broad-gauge lines of South Australia, standardizing with 80-lb. rails, &c, certain portions of the railway from Adelaide to the Victorian border; also new railway bridge over the river at Murray Bridge, and deviation in connexion therewith ;
conversion to standard the broadgauge lines of Victoria;
standardizing the existing railway between North Grafton and Kyogle, and construction of a standardgauge railway from Kyogle to Brisbane.

The proposal was that the Commonwealth, in the first instance, should find the money, that the Commonwealth’s quota be one-fifth, the remaining four-fifths to be borne by the five mainland states in the proportion that the population of each state bears to the population of the whole of the five states.

At a conference of the Commonwealth and state Ministers, held in Melbourne in October and November, 1921, and again in January, 1922 (see printed reports of discussions, &c. ), the proposals were committed to a draft agreement printed and circulated to each of the State Governments.
The cost of the work within each state, and in Commonwealth Territory, and the quota from each state and the Commonwealth, is as follows: -

Each of the states agreed to thebasis of payment, viz., one-fifth by the Commonwealth, and remaining four-fifths by the states on a per capita basis. At the conferences referred to (in reply to Question 2) the states of Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia were in agreement generally that the works proposed by the royal commission (estimated to cost £21,600,000), should be put in hand; but Victoria and South Australia, whilst accepting the standard gauge of 4 ft.8½ in., and agreeing that “ the adoption of a uniform gauge is … . essential to the development and safety of the Commonwealth,” would not assent to the work being proceeded with for the present.
Acceptance by the states was subject to approval of the respective Parliaments. This was a proviso in the draft agreement referred to in reply to Question 2.

page 4954

QUESTION

MAIZE INDUSTRY

South African Reciprocity

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Are negotiations for a new reciprocal trade treaty with South Africa now going on?
Is maize one of the commodities included in the negotiations?
If so, will the Government carry out the promise made to rectify the tariff anomaly now existing in connexion with this commodity ?

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes. 2.Yes.
The Government recognizes the absolute necessity that exists to give better protection to the Australian maize-grower.

page 4954

QUESTION

RUBBER GOODS

Mr MAHONY:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What was the value and country of origin of the following imports for 1921-2, 1922-3, 1923-4: - (a) Rubber goloshes; (b) rubber sandshoes; (c) rubber boots;(d) plimsolls; (e) rubber tyres.

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

– The information is being obtained.

page 4954

QUESTION

PAPUAN INDUSTRIES

Preferential Tariff

Mr YATES:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Minister to provide for preference to be given under the tariff schedules on rubber, maize, sugar, coffee, hemp, cocoa, and other tropical products grown and produced in the Territory of Papua ? 2.W ill such legislation be introduced during the present session?
If not, when will such legislation beintroduced?

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

– This matter is receiving the earnest consideration of the Government. There are several difficult problems involved. It is my intention to go very fully and sympathetically into the whole matter during the coming recess.

page 4954

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

What is the estimated amount of expenditure on authorized work at Canberra to date? 2.What was the estimated cost of the completion of the design submitted and accepted from Mr. W. B. Griffin?

Mr HILL:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

The expenditure exclusive of land, to 31st August, 1924, was £2,295,222.
The design submitted and accepted from Mr. Griffin was a sketch plan only of the layout for a city. It contained no developed details of the actual works involved, each of which would have to be the subject of special design, as required. Prior to the war, the Government had put in hand certain engineering services, and in 1921 it appointed an advisory committee which drew up a scheme of works necessary to enable the Seat of Government to be transferred as early as possible. The scheme was based generally on Mr. Griffin’s design, but many of the larger works involved therein were postponed indefinitely for financial reasons, provisional services being meantime arranged to meet present requirements.

page 4954

QUESTION

CANADIAN PREFERENCE

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

– On the 19th September, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook) asked the following questions : -

Is it a fact that Canada is willing to consider preference upon Australian wines with her importation of 60,000 gallons of wines, on dried fruits with her importation of 33,000 tons annually, also on brandy, of which she imports 114,000 gallons annually, conditionally upon the Commonwealth granting admission of Canadian newsprint on equal terms with British newsprint?
Is it a fact that60 per cent. of British newsprint that is admitted free is of Scandinavian origin?
If the Minister is not aware of the position, will he ascertain the facts?
If found to be in time, will he at once place Canada on a favorable footing conditionally upon Canada granting reciprocity in respect of wines, brandy, and dried fruits?

I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : - 1 and 4. The proposals submitted to the House in connexion with the reciprocal tariff agreement with Canada provide for this. 2 and 3. The information sought is not available locally.

page 4955

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Canada - Application to Canada of British Preferential Tariff and Intermediate Tariff - Report on proposal by the Tariff Board.

page 4955

QUESTION

AIR FORCE STATION AT RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · Echuca · CP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public WorksCommittee Act 1013-21, the following work bo referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, for its investigation and report thereon, viz.: - Establishment of the Royal Australian Air Force Station (No. 2), at Richmond, New South Wales.

The scheme prepared by the Air Board for the aerial defence of the Commonwealth includes the establishment of an air force station in the vicinity of Sydney. Richmond has been chosen as the most suitable locality for such a station, which in time of war would be a base for the operation of air units defending from attack by air and sea the important commercial and strategic centres of the Sydney and Newcastle areas. The advantage of this particular site, apart from its accessibility and suitability for flying purposes, is that, while in effective working range of Sydney and within striking distance of Newcastle, it is immune from naval bombardment, and consequent disorganization. It is, also, within convenient distance of Sydney for the raising and training of personnel in peace time. The proposal provides for the establishment over a period of five years of a nucleus of units comprising squadrons for fighting, single-seaters for light bombing and for co-operation with military forces, and a flight for training purposes. In addition, administrative units, such as wing head-quarters and stores park, will be provided. The proposed site is close to the Clarendon railway station, on the Richmond line, about 40 miles inland from Sydney. The area, comprising 175 acres, was originally used by the New South Wales Government for a flying training school, and, together with existing hangars, store, workshops, &c, was acquired by the Commonwealth in 1923, at a cost of £9,318. The buildings to be proceeded with include wing headquarters, hangars, stores buildings, cottages, barracks, messing and recreation accommodation for the permanent officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, and hutting, &c, for the Citizen Force trainees. The type of construction will be wooden framing and walls, with iron roofs, except for the stores, hangars, and guardroom, which will be of brick. The existing hangars and workshop will be repaired and improved, and the officers’ and caretakers’ quarters taken over, but now occupying another site in the vicinity, will be removed and re-erected to conform with the general scheme. The total estimated cost of the scheme, including accessory engineering services, but excluding the cost of acquisition of the property, is £177,400. I lay upon the table papers and plans respecting this proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4955

LESSEE TAX BILL

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to-

That a tax, at the rate declared in this resolution, be imposed on every person who, being a lessee, receives, in the financial year commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, or in any subsequent financialyear, any payment for, upon or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of a lease to any other person after deducting therefrom -

the part (if any) of such amount which, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Taxation, is properly attributable to the transfer to him of any tangible assets belonging to the lessee (not including the unexpired portion of the lease assigned or transferred); and

so much of any fine, premium or foregift paid by the lessee or any amount paid by the lessee for the assessment or transfer of the lease as is properly attributable to the period of the lease unexpired at the time of the assignment or transfer by the lessee.

That the rate of the tax shall be ascertained as follows: -

(i) Where not less than one-third of the payment for, upon or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of the lease is received in any financial year, the amount of the whole payment for the transfer or assignment, after making the deductions referred to in the last preceding clause, shall be divided by the number of years of the unexpired period of the lease as at the date of the making of the agreement for the assignment or transfer, or the date when the assignee or transferee became the lessee in respect of the lease so assigned or transferred, whichever is the later, and the amount so ascertained shall be added to the amount of income derived by that person during the financial year in whichthat part of the payment is received;

The rate of income tax which would, under the law of the Commonwealth, be applicable to the aggregate amount ascertained under the last preceding subparagraph, if the whole of that amount were income, shall be the rate of tax payable under this resolution upon that part of the payment so received;

Where less than one-third of the payment for, upon or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of the lease, is received in any financial year, the rate of tax upon the amount so received shall be the rate which would be applicable, under the law of the Commonwealth, if that amount were income and were included in the income derived by that person during that financial year.

That the law for the time being in force relating to the assessment and collection of income tax shall apply to the assessment and collection of the tax imposed by this resolution.

That this resolution shall not apply to the proceeds of the assignment or transfer of -

the lease of a mining property (other than coal mining) where the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the leasehas been assigned or transferred -

by a bona fide prospector; or

by a person, partnership, syndicate or company that does not make a business of buying or selling mining properties, and that purchased the lease from a bona fide prospector and worked the property in a proper and efficient manner; and

a lease from the Commonwealth or a State being a perpetual lease without revaluation or a lease with a right of purchase.

That where estate duty is paid under any law of the Commonwealth upon the amount calculated for the purposes of estate duty as being the value of a lease forming part of the estate of a deceased person and the lease is assigned or transferred by the executors, administrators, or trustees of that estate orby a beneficiary entitled to the lease, the tax under this resolution, in respect of the payment made for, upon or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of the lease, shall be payable only upon the amount (if any) by which that payment exceeds the amount calculated for the purposes of estate duty.

That where any person, being a lessee, has at any time prior to the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, received any amount of any payment for, upon or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of a lease to any other person, a tax be imposed upon that person to the amount which would have been payable under the law of the Commonwealth, if the amount of the payment had been income, and had been in eluded in the income derived by that person during the financial year in which the payment was made.

That where, under any law of the Commonwealth relating to the imposition, assessment, or collection of income tax, in assessing for the purposes of income tax, the income of any person in any financial year, any payment for, upon, or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of a lease by that person has, prior to the commencement of the act passed to give effect to this resolution, been included as income, the amount of that payment shall be deemed to be and to have been legally included, and the amount of tax attributable to the inclusion of that payment shall be deemed to be and to have been legally paid or payable and to have been tax imposed in accordance with this resolution.

That this resolution shall not apply to the payment made for, upon, or in consideration of, the assignment or transfer of a lease in respect of which any person has, before the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-four -

obtained a judgment of the High Court in his favour in respect of his right to a deduction of the value of the lease so transferred or assigned by him; or

applied to the Commissioner of Taxation for the transmission to a court of an objection to the taxation of the value of the lease so transferred or assigned by him.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Dr. Earle Page and Mr. Bruce do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Dr. Earle Page, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Trea surer · Cowper · CP

. - (By leave) - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The necessity for this Bill arises out of a recent judgment by the High Court in what is known as the Dalrymple case. In that case the appellant had sold a lease of his pastoral property, and the Commissioner of Taxation had. demanded, under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915- 1921, payment of income tax upon the part of the total amount received by the vendor which represented the value of his leasehold estate in the property. Mr. Dalrymple claimed that he could not be taxed on the amount in question because

he was entitled by the law to deduct from the total sale price the amount received by him for all the assets sold, including the lease itself, and that these deductions absorbed the whole of the sale price, and left no taxable balance; and (2) that the proceeds of the sale of a lease represented a realization of capital, and, as such, taxation of the proceeds is contrary to the principles of income taxation. The High Court upheld the appeal on the first ground stated by the taxpayer, and did not give any judgment as to the constitutionality or otherwise of the tax. The judgment of the court means that, as regards all assessments issued under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-1921 to vendors of leases, the taxpayer was legally entitled to deduct the amount received for the lease as representing the value of an asset sold. There was, therefore, no tax payable in any of those cases, and the obvious intention of Parliament to collect. tax on such amounts was reduced to a nullity. Honorable members will be interested to learn why the tax was imposed in the first place. When the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915 was passed by Parliament, it forbade the allowance of any deduction in respect of the depreciation of a leasehold estate, but it granted a deduction of the sinking fund required to recoup the amount of any fine, premium, or foregift, or consideration of that nature, which a lessee might have paid to the owner of a property for the purpose of securing a lease. That deduction was allowed because another section provided that the person who received the fine, &c. , should be taxed upon the amount he received in each year under that heading. No deduction was then allowable of the sinking fund required to recoup any amount paid by a purchaser of a lease for its transfer or assignment to him by an existing lessee. The Government of the day acceded to numerous requests to extend the law to the latter amounts, but in doing so it stipulated that the vendor of the lease should pay tax on the profit he received upon the transfer or assignment of his lease. The law was amended accordingly. Briefly stated, then, the tax was only imposed upon a vendor of a lease because the purchaser wasallowed a deduction of an annual proportion of his purchaseprice. The words “ or an amount for the assignment or transfer of a lease of premises or machinery used for the production of income “ were inserted in section 20 of the principal act. At the same time additional words were inserted in section 14 d, which defines what is included in income. That section provides that the income of any person shall include -

Money derived by way of royalty or bonuses, and premiums, fines or foregifts or consideration in the nature of premiums, fines or foregifts demanded and given in connexion with leasehold estates.

To that the following words were added: -

And the amount of any payment received by a lessee upon the assignment or transfer of a lease after deducting therefrom -

The part (if any), which, in the opinion of the Commissioner is properly attributable to the transfer of any assets belonging to the lessee.

The judgment of the High Court in the Dalrymple case does not in any way affect the deduction allowable to a purchaser of a lease. It merely excludes from taxation the amount received by a vendor. The revenue, therefore, suffers by losing the tax from the vendor, and by losing the tax from the purchaser through the allowance to him of a deduction in his assessment, thereby reducing his taxable income. Acceptance of the Dalrymple judgment for application to all past assessments would involve the Treasury in refunds exceeding £100,000, in addition to the heavy expense which would be incurred in amending the assessments. As announced in the budget speech, the Government has decided to introduce suitable legislation for validating all past assessments of this tax, and for continuing the tax in the future in a form free from possible constitutional objections. Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill will validate all previous assessments. Clauses 2. 3 and 4 deal with the imposition .of the tax in future years. Clause 8 permits Mr. Dalrymple to retain the benefit of the judgment of the High Court in his appeal, and allows a similar benefit to any other taxpayer who has applied to the Commissioner of Taxation for transmission to a court of an objection to his assessment on the value of a lease transferred or assigned by him. Thirteen persons applied for transmission of their appeals to the court and will benefit by this provision. If the judgment of the court were accepted, and applied to all past assessments, it would be essential to amend the law to discontinue the deduction allowed to the purchaser. Otherwise it would be very simple for any person so minded to enter into fictitious arrangements whereby all hia income would be absorbed by the deduction allowable to a purchaser. The Government considers that it would not be reasonable to discontinue the allowance of the deduction to the purchaser, and it consequently proposes to continue the imposition of the tax. The bill before the House provides for the imposition of a tax on the profits on the transfer or assignment of leases, separately from the imposition of the income tax. This course has been taken so that ‘ the validity of the tax under section 55 of the Constitution cannot be successfully challenged. The Income .Tax Assessment Act will thus deal with what is generally recognized as income, while this bill deals with another class of receipts which it is considered desirable should be taxed. Clause 2 introduces a new method of assessing the amount of tax payable. Provision is made for those cases in which not less than onethird of the payment is made when the sale takes place. In such cases, the total amount to be paid is divided by the number of years that the lease has still to run, and the amount thus ascertained is taken into account in determining the income tax rate for that year on the total part of the total payment which is assessable in that year. In those transactions in which less than one-third is paid, the instalments themselves are taken into account for similar purposes. That provision does not apply to the past, but only to the future. The proposed tax will not apply to the proceeds of the sale of the lease of a mining property, other than coal-mining, where the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the lease has been assigned or transferred -

by a bona fide prospector; or
1. by a person, partnership, syndicate or company that does not make a business of buying or selling mining properties, and that purchased the lease from a bona fide prospector and worked the property in a proper and efficient manner.

These exemptions were in the Income Tax Assessment Act, and have been transferred from that act to this bill. It is also proposed to exempt the proceeds of the sale of leases from the Crown which are leases with a right of purchase or perpetual leases without revaluation of rent. These classes of leases are to all intent* and purposes freeholds, and as it is not the policy of the Income Tax Assessment Act to tax profits on the sale of freehold lands, or to allow any deduction in tho assessment of a purchaser of a freehold in respect of any part of his purchase price, these particular classes of leases will be dealt with as freeholds. A vendor of either of these classes of leases will not be taxed, and the purchaser will not receive any deduction in respect of the proceeds of the sale.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Gabb) adjourned.

page 4958

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 30th September, vide page 4906) :

Clause 14 - (1.) Section ninety-five of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2.) thereof the following sub-sections: - “ (3.) In every case in which the amount of tax from which the taxpayer applies to be re- leased is not less than Five hundred pounds, the Board shall, and in any case in which the amount of tax from which the taxpayer applies to be released is less than Five hundred pounds, the Board may refer the application to a member of a Board of Appeal constituted under this Act. “ (4.) The member of the Board of Appeal who shall have jurisdiction to deal with applications referred under this section shall, at the discretion of the Chairman of that Board, be the Chairman or such other member as he authorizes in writing to deal with the application. “ (5.) The member of the Board of Appeal may require the taxpayer to appear before him, either in person or by a representative, and may examine the taxpayer upon oath concerning any statements which the taxpayer has, or may desire to have, placed before the Board constituted by this section.

Section proposed to be amended - (1.) In any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of a Board consisting of the Commissioner, the Secretary to the Treasury and the Comptroller-General of Customs - (a.) that, a taxpayer liable to pay income taxhas become bankrupt or insolvent; or

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- I support the view expressed by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) yesterday. Under this clause a member of the present board of appeal, appointed under the original act, who is answerable only to Parliament, and has power to review decisions of the Commissioner, may beasked to investigate certain matters and make a report on them to the Commissioner. These proposed new sub-sections make the members of the Appeal Board, who, in some matters are superior to the Commissioner of Taxation, subordinate to him. That is placing them in an invidious position, and it is lowering the dignity and status of a board which was appointed for a specific purpose, and made answerable only to Parliament. It would be much better if the matters referred to in this clause were submitted to the whole board, to be dealt with as it thinks fit. I therefore move -

That the words “by inserting after subsection (2.) thereof the following sub-sections: - “ (lines 1-2), and sub-sections (3.) and (4.) be omitted, with a view to the insertion of the following words in place thereof: - “by omitting the words from ‘ a Board ‘ to Comptroller-General of Customs ‘, and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘ the Board of Appeal ‘.”

If the amendment is agreed to, certain consequential amendments to the remainder of the clause will need to be made. The effect of the amendment will be that cases of hardship will be submitted to the Appeal Board as a whole.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Trea-. surer · Cowper · CP

– I trust that the committee will not agree to the amendment. Both the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann) and the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) are labouring under a misapprehension as to the exact position. The Appeal Board has nothing . whatever to do with the remission of taxation. The remission of taxation has been specifically entrusted by Parliament to the Hardship Board, which consists of the Commissioner of Taxation, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs. Under certain conditions, cases in which hardship is alleged may be submitted to that board, and upon it solely rests the responsibility of deciding whether or not there shall be any remission of taxation. The powers of the Hardship Board are set out in section 95 of the act. Not even the Treasurer nor any other member of the Ministry is able to remit taxation. ‘ The three permanent heads of our public revenue departments which deal with the collection of taxation are the proper persons to consider these matters.

Mr Mann:

– Cannot the Appeal Board remit taxation under certain conditions?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It cannot; its function is to inquire into- questions of fact associated with the assessments.

Mr Maxwell:

– In case of disputes between the taxpayers and the Commissioner the Appeal Board inquires into the facts of the case.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– That is so, and any questions of law are considered by the High Court. The Appeal Board has no authority whatever to remit taxation. The only body clothed with that power is the Hardship Board, and even it oan only act in certain clearly denned circumstances. For a number of years the general public were more or less unaware of the existence of the Hardship Board, and the board had so little work to do that the three members who constituted it were, able to handle all the business effectively and expeditiously; but the position now is that so many applications have been made to it that it is quite unable to cope with them. A number of taxation agents have specialized in preparing cases to submit to it, and the Government considers that the members of the Appeal Board, though not in their capacity as such, could give valuable assistance to the Hardship Board. The Appeal Board is not an overworked body, for ithas had to deal with only 80 cases in the last two years. The proposal is that individual members of the Appeal Board shall investigate cases submitted to the Hardship Board, hear personal testimony from the taxpayers when that is deemed to be necessary, and submit a report to the board. A member of the Appeal Board could interview the taxpayers concerned in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, or Hobart, which would result in economy and expedition in dealing with cases, and submit reports to the Hardship Board. That board alone would say whether or not taxation should be remitted. The members of the Appeal Board will not be asked to do this work for the Hardship Board as members of the Appeal Board; it will be a separate duty. In these circumstances I feel that the honorable member has moved his amendment under a misapprehension.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- I was under no serious misconception, and in spite of what the Treasurer has said, I submit that if we agree to these proposed new sub-sections we shall place the members of the Appeal Board in an invidious position. They were appointed to discharge certain definite duties, and they are answerable only to Parliament Surely we cannot ask them to undertake other work as well. I do not know whether the Appeal Board members have been consulted on this matter, but I submit that they will be placed in an unfair position if they are obliged to carry out these proposed duties. They are . practically in the position of arbitrators between the Commissioner of Taxation- and the taxpayers, and in the exercise of their duties they are superior to the Commissioner.

Mr Scullin:

– That is in settling a dispute.

Mr MANN:

– True, but we should not place them in an unfair position. The board, although it should be independent, is to be answerable in some respects to three officials. I recognize the importance of the work done by those officers, but the board should not be made subservient to them. Its members should not be required to do the work of clerkswhen in regard to some of their dutiesthey are superior to the Commissioner.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I cannot support the amendment. The clause as drafted deals with the matter satisfactorily. The release of taxpayers from the payment of taxes is a question properly to be decided by the three heads of our tax -collecting departments.

Mr Mann:

– That is an appeal from Caesar to Caesar.

Mr SCULLIN:

– No question of anr appeal, or the settlement of a dispute is involved. It is an act of grace to remit taxes that are legally due, and it would be undesirable to mix the functions of the two bodies.

Amendment negatived.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I. move -

That, after the word “ act,” the words “ and shall notify the taxpayer in writing of its having done so “ be inserted.

This is to enable the taxpayer to know that the board is prepared to hear the appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to -

That sub-section 5 be omitted, and that the following new sub-section be inserted in lieu thereof : - “ (5.) The taxpayer may appear before the member of the Board of Appeal, or the member of the Board of Appeal may require the taxpayer to appear before him, either in person or by a representative, and the member of the Board of Appeal may examine the taxpayer or his representative upon oath concerning any statements which the taxpayer has, or desires to have, placed before the board constituted by this section.”

Clause verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 - (1.) The amendments effected by paragraphs (a) to (k) (inclusive) of section four, by section five, by paragraph (c) of section six, by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section seven, and by section twelve, of this Act shall apply to

Assessments for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and all subsequent years. (2.) The amendments effected by paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) of section three, and by section thirteen of this act shall not commence until a date to be fixed by proclamation. (3.) The amendment effected by section eleven of this Act shall apply to all assessments made after the commencement of this act. (4.) The amendment effected by section nine of this act shall apply to assessments for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twentythree and all subsequent years. (5.) All the amendments effected by this act (except those effected by sections two and fourteen), other than those specified in the last four preceding sub-sections, shall apply to assessments for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and all subsequent years.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That the letter “ (k) “, sub-clause 1, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the letter “ (g).”

Sub-clause 1 of this clause makes the bill retrospective regarding assessments for 1922-3 on the following points: - (1) The manner in which live stock shall be brought to account in a taxpayer’s income returns for all years, and the exercise by the taxpayers of a choice between (a) market values and cost ; (b) inclusion or exclusion of natural increase ; and (c) minimum and maximum values of the cost of natural increase. Thereason for the amendment is that, although it was thought last year that Parliament made the election irrevocable, some taxpayers did not think so. They desire an opportunity of again making the election, and the amendment will permit them to do so. Paragraph g exempts the dividends or bonuses paid by companies out of profits on the sale of assets which were not acquired for the purposes of re-sale at a profit. The Government has drawn up a new definition of what are termed “ capital assets.” Take the case of a warehouse which is sold. The profit on the sale is not taxable to a company or its shareholders if the company distributes it, and the Government desires that provision to be made retrospective. The taxation on breeding live stock, when sold in the ordinary course of business, is taken back to 1922, because last year in certain cases live stock have not been taken into account in any way. The clause provides for the disallowance of (a) Bates and taxes paid by one person on behalf of another, and (b) Double de duction for war-time profits tax. Further, liquidators are made liable to pay tax assessed to a company in liquidation. The non-retrospective provisions relate first to the exemption of profits from gold mining, and, secondly, to bonus shares paid out of profits which, under the acts of 1922-3, were not taxable. There are very few of these cases in which the revenue will suffer, and it is thought that the amount involved is not large. Thirdly, these provisions apply to distributions of profit which the Commissioner may deem distributable under section 21 of the act. There is no attempt to make the new method of calculating depreciation deduction retrospective.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Boothby

– With what the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) said yesterday on the subject of this retrospective legislation, I entirely agree. I thought that he put his case most temperately, and with the essence of fairness. I desire to draw attention to the uncertainty which prevails as the result of legislation which operates back for several years. The Government has the advantage of excellent expert advice when bills are prepared and laid before Parliament. It not only has legal advice, but also has the assistance of taxation experts. If, by the acceptance of this advice, every one it is hoped to catch is not caught - and, of course, the object of such legislation is to catch people - it is clearly unjust that an attempt should be made to catch them by retrospective legislation. If people, who should be taxed have escaped, then by all means let us tighten up the act, but do not make the legislation retroactive. A taxpayer should only have to pay the sum of money which he is legally obliged to pay under the laws of the land as they stand. What inducement can there be to any man to go to the trouble and expense of finding out whether he is legally liable to pay tax, if, after he has done so, an amending measure is passed which makes him wrong where previously he would have been right? The result will be that taxpayers will pay the tax for which they are assessed, and will not go into the question whether they are liable for it or not. They will understand that if they do they may have to pay it as the result of retrospective legislation ; and they will have a distinct feeling of injustice.

Coming, to the section itself, I direct attention to a provision which illustrates the injustice of this kind of legislation. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) did not refer to the matter in the course of his remarks, but I direct the attention of the committee to clause 12, which was passed yesterday, and the effect of which it is now proposed, under clause 15, to make retrospective to the year beginning 1st July. 1922. Section 59 of the original act, which is amended by clause 12 of this bill, refers to a liquidator, and provides that - (1.) Where a company is being wound up the liquidator of the company shall give notice to the Commissioner within fourteen days after the approval of the shareholders for the winding up has been given, or the order for the winding up has been made, and shall set aside such sum out of the assets of the company as appears to the Commissioner to be sufficient to provide for any income tax that becomes payable.

The alteration of that section which the committee made yesterday by passing clause 12 of this bill substitutes for the words “becomes payable,” the words “ then is or will thereafter become payable.” Sub-section 2 of section 59 of the original act provides that - (2.) A liquidator who fails to give notice to the Commissioner, or fails to provide for the payment of the tax as required by this section shall -be personally liable for any income tax that becomes payable in respect of the company. “

By clause 12 of this bill the committee has inserted after the word “ Commissioner “ in this sub-section the words “ within the time specified in the last preceding sub-section.” and by inserting af ter the word “ tax “ last occurring the words “ then or thereafter.” It will be obvious to honorable members that, as a result of these amendments of section 59 of the original act the Commissioner can hold any one responsible for what, in fact, happened two or three years ago. The duty of a liquidator is to realize the assets of a company as quickly as possible. It is a gross injustice that a man who has carried out the duties of his office as a liquidator in strict conformity with the law existing at the time should, two or three years afterwards, be made liable to pay taxation as the result of a measure the provisions of which are retrospective. The position is made all the worse by the fact that the liquidator is to be held “personally liable.” It is his duty to distribute the assets of the company, and if he has done so, it is suggested that he should be liable to be held personally responsible by a subsequent enactment. I know of no liquidator placed in such a position, but I am dealing with the merits of the provision as it stands in this bill. It seems to me that it may cause gross injustice to men who have acted perfectly legally, and within their rights. It may be that the Commissioner of Taxation has had trouble with a liquidator in the past, but itis the duty of Parliament to hold the scales of justice evenly between the Commissionerand the taxpayer. I am not saying that it is not desirable that section 59 of the original act should be tightened up for the future. The committee has agreed that that should be done by passing clause 12 of this bill, but I am opposing the making of the operation of the amendments retrospective, so as possibly to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to catch some liquidator who, acting fully within his rights under the law, has refused to agree with him on this point, and has properly distributed the assets of a company of which he was liquidator. Under the amendments which have been agreed to, such a man will have to meet the liability out of his own pocket.

Mr Mann:

– Although he would not have acted in his own personal interest.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That is so. He is to be held personally liable. The committee has agreed to clause 12, no doubt believing that the amendment of the law for which it provides should operate in the future, but it seems to me most inequitable to apply it to the past. I urge upon the Treasurer the desirability of omitting from clause 15 the reference to clause 12 of this bill. I should also like to say a few words with reference to paragraphs a and b of clause 7 of this bill, which are referred to also in clause 15, which we are now discussing. I suggest that this reference to paragraphs a and b of clause 7 should also be omitted. The principle is the same, though I do not think that this provision would cause such rank injustice as the one with which I have already dealt. This deals with the deductions which may be made in calculating income. Sub-section 1 of section 23 of the principal act provides that -

In calculating the taxable income of a taxpayer the total assessable income derived by the taxpayer from all sources in Australia shaft be taken as a basis, and from it there shall be deducted -

all losses and outgoings (not being in the nature of losses and outgoings of capital), including commission, discount, travelling expenses, interest., and expenses actually incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income :

all rates and taxes for which the taxpayer is personally liable (including State and federal land taxes and state income tax) actually paid in Australia by the taxpayer during the year in which the income was derived, but not including any tax under this act, or any war-time profits tax.

– I move -

That in sub-clause 1 the words “ by paragraph (c) of section 6 “ be struck’ out.

This amendment applies to the cases of which the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has been speaking. Only very few cases are affected and it would be rather difficult to review all the past transactions; indeed, such a review would involve the reopening of all company assessments in order to determine how this clause would operate in such cases. In view of the fact that the revenue at stake is very small, the Government has decided that the amendment relating to the taxation of a company whose distribution of profits is not considered reasonable, shall operate from the 1st July, 1924. We must recognize that the companies which have acted in the manner referred to by some honorable members have done so in conformity with the existing law. If the law contained a flaw, the blame attached to Parliament and not to the taxpayer who took advantage of it. We are now completely closing any loophole that exists. Clause 6, and the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) last night, will make the law effective.

Question -That the amendment be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 17

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUNCAN-HUGHES (Boothby; [4.50]. - I understand that the provision relating to the war-time profits tax, to which I objected, is inserted merely with the object of preventing the duplication of deductions. If that is clearly so I shall not say any more on the subject, for I do not wish to make double deductions possible. I am not, however, equally satisfied on the other point i raised relating to liquidators. I direct the attention of the Treasurer to the fact that under this proposed amendmenta liquidator may be caught at any time it; the future for something he did as far back as 1922. If he did not comply with the law in the past he should be dealt with under the law as it stood when he failed to comply with it; and from now onward he should be dealt with under the amending law, which he knows. He should not, however, be dealt with under an act passed in September, 1924, for something he did on the 1st July, 1922. I move -

That the words “ and by section twelve,” sub-clause 1, be left out.

The carrying of that amendment will prevent the possibility of an official having to pay out of his own pocket for a course of action that he thought to be legal.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– A liquidator can be liable only when he has not given notice and has been informed of the amount that is due. The question is not very vital from the point of view of the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Verbal and consequential amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

, - I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 5a. Section eighteen of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (2.) thereof the following subsection : - (2a.) In this section, a reference to a State shall be read as including a reference to a Territory which is part of the Commonwealth.

The amendment will have application only to those provisions of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act that relate to the elimination of double taxation by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Under the existing law, it is not possible to grant a rebate to prevent the double taxation by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of a person carrying on business in the Northern Territory. No difficulty has arisen in this connexion, because no taxpayer has been liable to pay both the taxes mentioned. In the event, however, of Vestey Brothers reopening their works at Darwin, the necessity for this amendment will arise. It will place the Northern Territory taxpayers in the same position as those of a state of the Commonwealth in regard to double taxation by the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Title: agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments, and, by leave, passed through its remaining stages.

page 4967

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25th September (vide page 4796), on motion by Mr. Bruce -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- The bill has been viewed from various aspects, and it is my intention to draw attention to some points of view that have not yet received attention. In doing so, I hope that I shall not be charged with looking at the matter from the parochial view-point. It is easy for those who have a special interest in public works in a particular place to appeal to other honorable members to take a broad national view, but all such proposals as this must be considered on their merits, with special regard to their probable benefit to Australia. They must also be considered in connexion with the system ‘ of federation under which we live. I fully recognize, as I am sure that other honorable members do - although they may experience difficulty in giving application to the prin-. ciple in some cases - that it is necessary to spend in particular parts of Australia money that is contributed by the people of the whole Commonwealth. That happens every day. When we build a post office in Sydney, or construct waterworks on the river Murray, we engage in a national work and pay for it with money provided by ‘the citizens of the whole Commonwealth. The mere fact that a proposed work is to be constructed in Sydney, or on the river Murray, is not necessarily an objection to it. We must look at the merits, the character, and the object of the work. I shall not occupy time by discussing the desirability of unifying the railway gauges of Australia. There is a general, if not a universal, agreement that unification is eminently desirable. We differ only as to the time, the means, and the method of accomplishing the work. The history of the Australian railway systems in relation to the unity of gauge is one of most unfortunate misunderstanding and state jealousies. In the beginning, Victoria and New South Wales agreed to construct their railways with the same gauge, but, for some reason, that was not done. I do not desire to introduce into this discussion any of the old misunderstandings and unfortunate jealousies which have retarded the solution of this problem for so many years. The first important point I make is that this Parliament should not run the risk of incurring further similar misunderstandings in the future. I fear, sir, that the agreement upon which this bill rests, and the principles to which it seeks to give effect, will encourage and foment misunderstandings, andthat, although the bill is brought forward as an instalment of unification, unless some changes are made in the agreement which it seeks to adopt, we can anticipate, almost with certainty, further misunderstandings and misapprehensions. Surely it is our duty to do everything in our power to prevent the adoption of a scheme which will be open to that objection. The bill rests upon an unfortunate suggestion that the people of Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia made an agreement whose obligations they are not fulfilling. The Prime Minister in moving the second reading of the measure, said that it was proposed that the Commonwealth should pay towards the cost of the work certain sums on behalf of those three states, namely, for Victoria, £819,000; for South Australia, £267,000; and for Western Australia, £177,000. The Commonwealth has no authority to purport to pay any money on behalf of those states upon the assumption that they are not carrying out an agreement made with them. Such a foundation for the bill does not augur well for the future unity of the states in effecting the unification of their railway gauges. The preamble of the bill recites that at a conference of Commonwealth and state ministers held in Melbourne in July, 1920, it was resolved that a commission of railway experts should be appointed to consider and report upon three things: first, the unification of the railway gauges of Australia; secondly, the gauge it was desirable to adopt; and thirdly, the cost of conversion. It further recites that the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the various states agreed to abide by the decision of the commission, and that the parties agreed that onefifth of the total cost of conversion should be borne by the Commonwealth, and that the. remaining four-fifths should be apportioned among the five states on the mainland on a population basis. It goes on to state that the railway commission made certain recommendations with regard to the unification of the gauges to which it is desired to give partial effect. Let us look for a few moments at the terms of reference to the commission. It was authorized, in the first place, to report upon the unification of our railway gauges. What does the unification of railway gauges mean? I suggest that it means the unification of the gauges of railways already constructed, and that it is quite an improper extension of the meaning of the phrase to say that it embraces the construction of entirely new railway lines. It covers the bringing of existing railway lines of different gauges to a single gauge, and that is all. The terms of reference gave the commission no authority to recommend the construction of a new line. I do not say that the commission acted wrongly or improperly in making the sug gestion that a new line was desirable from a railway point of view.

Mr Bruce:

– No; and such estimates as are furnished are several years old. The only provision in the bill is that the line is to be constructed on the route shown on the sketch-map. If honorable members will look at that map they will see that all it shows is a line going generally northward from Kyogle. The House is not asked to authorize the construction of a line following a surveyed route. The cost of the work will depend on the route adopted, and that will depend on the survey. There is no obligation in the bill to follow any surveyed route. The line to . be approved is only shown by a black mark on the small-scale sketchmap accompanying the bill. It is impossible to say what the line will cost. We have the estimate, made in 1920-21, of £3,500.000, excluding the bridge, but no actual route is determined, and the sketchmap attached to the bill merely shows four or five points that the line will touch. The cost will depend on the route followed, the character of the soil, the quantity of rock met with, the extent of sidings and embankments, the grades, and other particulars. In section 13 of the Public Works Committee Act a. very definite procedure is laid down in these terms - (1.) No public work of any kind whatsoever (except such works as have already been authorized by Parliament, or which are authorized during the present session, and except works for the naval or military defence of the Commonwealth exempted by Order in Council from the operation of the act) the estimated cost of completing which exceeds Twenty-five thousand pounds, and whether such work is a continuation, completion, repair, reconstruction, extension, or a new work, shall be commenced unless sanctioned as in this section provided. (2.) Every such proposed work shall in the first place be submitted and explained in the House of Representatives by a Minister of State, in this section referred to as “the Minister “. (3.) The explanation shall comprise an estimate of the cost of the work when completed,

I suggest that that means an estimate by our own officers, and not by a royal commission together with such plans and specifications or other descriptions as the Minister deems proper, together with the prescribed reports on the probable cost of construction and maintenance, and estimates of the probable revenue (if any) to be derived therefrom, such estimates, plans, specifications, descriptions and reports to be authenticated or verified in the prescribed manner.

Can anybody regard the sketch-map. showing a black line, as an estimate, a proper plan, specification, or report? If the House authorizes the construction of the line without data, it will be acting in the dark, and it will be setting aside the precautions which Parliament itself adopted hi order to secure that public moneys should not be expended without careful scrutiny of the proposals for expenditure. Section 15 of the Public Works Committee Act further provides - (4.) Upon motion made in the usual manner by the Minister or by any member of the House of Representatives the proposed works shall be referred to the committee for their report thereon.

Then the committee has to make its report, and the report must be placed before the House. There is in the act no defi nition of “public work”. It may be said that this is not a public work because the Commonwealth is not carrying it out; that it is to be done, if honorable members please, by a body called the Railway Council. That Railway Council is to have complete control of the expenditure. There is involved in this proposal a surrender by this Parliament of control over expenditure which, I think, is without precedent in regard to so large an amount. Does the intervention of the Railway Council in the expenditure of £3,500,000 of Commonwealth money absolve this House of its responsibility for seeing that there are proper plans, surveys, estimates, and reports supplied? I submit that it does not. Even if it should be contended that a “ public work “ must be a work definitely carried out by the Commonwealth, I submit that the principles of the Public Works Committee Act plainly apply to this case. This Parliament would be failing in its duty if, out of hand, it authorized the expenditure of. so large a sum of money as £3,500,000 by such a body as the Railway Council, when in the case of expenditure by the Commonwealth itself exceeding £25,000, it requires a scrutiny of estimates, plans, and so forth by members of this House and by another place. I move -

That all the words after the word “ That “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - ‘‘the bill be withdrawn in order that tlie procedure prescribed bv the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1921 be followed.”

My object in submitting this amendment is that in regard to this large expenditure of money, ordinary - not extraordinary - and commonplace precautions shall be observed, and further that the lapse of an interval shall be secured during which the Government will be able to go into the matter, not only with the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland, but also with those of the other states, and endeavour to arrive at an agreement for the unification of gauges which will be a real agreement, possible of completion in instalments. In that period of delay it will also be possible for the Commonwealth, if it fails to obtain a general agreement at this stage among all the states, at least to have the agreement referred to in this bill amended by the incorporation in it of the very definite provision that, as this line is being put forward as the beginning of the unification of the Australian railway gauges, New South Wales and Queensland will see the whole work of the unification of gauges carried through. I submit that nothing in the way of unification of gauges should be done in any one state unless that state has definitely and clearly bound itself to unification of the Australian railway gauges generally.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I find it difficult to believe that a majority of honorable members will vote for the amendment of the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) requiring the bill to be withdrawn. I have always listened with particular pleasure to the honorable member, because his contributions to debates in this chamber invariably broaden them and lift them to a higher level. I would not suggest for a moment that the honorable member has in this matter hearkened to the still small voice of parochialism. He is a distinguished representative of a very fortunate state. The people of Victoria are fortunate in many ways ; indeed, in some respects they have been rather spoiled. I say that in no unfriendly spirit. They have a network of railways such as no other state possesses ; they have waterways and other means of transport in which the larger states of Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia are lacking. I think sometimes that these advantages cause a tendency to parochialism. It is generally admitted that if we are to develop our country properly, and are to be in a position to defend ourselves, should the occasion for defence unfortunately arise, we must standardize our railway gauges. In times of drought a railway system which would enable us, if necessary, to transport live-stock from Brisbane to Fremantle, would be of inestimable value. By such a system trade and commerce would also benefit to a very great extent. As showing the necessity f or the unification of gauges, I may mention that, in one month at Albury, as many as 834 truck-loads of fruit and vegetables were transferred from one line to the other, and in another month 2,765 tons of fruit had to be transferred from one line to the other at the same place. A very great deal of that fruit was brought from Brisbane, and it therefore had already been transferred at Wallangarra. I am sure that honorable members are agreed that the bringing about of a uniform gauge should be treated by this House in a broad way as a national matter. Australia is not the first country which has had to face this problem. Great Britain and the United States of America have had to deal with it. In the United States of America railways were built originally without regard to the requirements of the future. I think there were seven different railway gauges in America in the early eighties, and it was at about that time that the unification of the gauges of the main lines was brought about. As the Prime Minister mentioned in the course of his speech in moving the second reading of the bill, unification of gauge was carried out over 13,000 miles of main line in the United States of America. It may be said that the unification of gauges in the United States of America had much to do with bringing the states together, bringing the north more closely in touch with the south and the west with the east, making the states really united, and enabling the people to realize that they were one great nation. In Great Britain the same problem had to be faced, and I think it was the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) who quoted from a, report, which I have here, a statement by Mr. Edward Simms, secretary to the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, who, at the request of the then Minister for Works and Railways (Sir Littleton Groom), furnished a report on the unification of the gauges. He pointed out that Great Britain had to face the same problem ; that as far back as 1846 the question of unifying the gauges of railways was causing concern to the authorities ; and it was between the years 1870 and 1872 that it was dealt with. In this connexion, the defence point of view has to be considered. I think it was again the honorable member for Capricornia who quoted from Lord Kitchener’s report of the 7th July, 1910. on the defence of Australia his opinion that the existing railways in the Commonwealth, because of the lack of uniformity of gauge, were not advantageous from a defence point of view, but rather the reverse, and might even be of considerable value to an enemy which had temporary command of the sea. At a meeting of a war military railway council held in November, 1914, it waa resolved that -

A military service transporting troops and munitions that, under existing conditions, took ti-3 days, could, if the gauges were unified to i ft. 8-i indies, be accomplished in 23 days, or a saving of 40 days.

The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner said, in 1920 -

H appears to uie to bc unnecessary to estimate for, or consider at present, the adoption of a uniform gauge throughout Australia. The gauges of the existing lines, which run from the distributing centres, would naturally remain its they are for many years to come, even if the adoption of a uniform gauge was immediately decided on, and it would be necessary to consider at the outset the provision .of a ‘Uniform gauge connecting the capitals.*

He recommended various ways in which this might be accomplished. His first recommendation was that Kyogle and Brisbane should be connected with a railway on the 4-ft. 8 1/2-in. gauge. His second recommendation was the building of a 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge line from Albury to Melbourne. His third recommendation was the building of a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge Une from Hay to Port Augusta, via Crystal Creek, and with a connexion with Adelaide, via Morgan, and he then proposed the altering of the gauge from Kalgoorlie to Perth from 3 ft. 6 in. to 4 ft. 8-J in. The royal commission appointed in 1921 to report on the adoption nf a uniform railway gauge made careful inquiry, and brought in a unanimous recommendation that the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge should be the standard gauge for” Australia. The commission recommended that the first steps taken should be the linking up of the capital cities by the provision of uniform gauge lines, and the conversion of the broad gauge lines of Victoria and South Australia. The Commonwealth and State Governments considered the royal commission’s report in 1021 and 1922, and eventually agreed to the adoption of the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge as the standard gauge. The present Government has, I think wisely, decided that immediate action should be confined to the building of lines which would open up new country, form part of the general scheme of conversion, and have a fair prospect of earning interest within a reasonable period. The railway at present under consideration is the first step in the general scheme of conversion to the standard gauge. It would be quite absurd to claim that the proposed line will he of any great strategical value from a defence point of view, but it is quite certain that every developmental railway which opens up country suitable for closer settlement, and which, consequently, helps to increase our population, must be of immense value, and must do much to solve the problem of our national defence. With our present population, I do not think this country would be justified in building railways purely for strategic purposes. The proposed railway will save 100 miles in the journey between Sydney and Brisbane, and will considerably shorten the time occupied in travelling between those capitals. Any scheme which will result in bringing the capital cities of the Commonwealth closer together must be considered of national importance. The honorable member for Kooyong has expressed the opinion that the people of Queensland and New South Wales should be called upon to give a definite undertaking that they will support the entire scheme for the unification of the gauges of bur railways. The Queensland Premier, .when the agreement referred to in this bill was before the Queensland Parliament recently, stated that the people of that state are prepared to accept their share of the burden of complete unification of gauge from Brisbane to Fremantle. I have personally no doubt that they will be prepared to do so, and that this applies also to the people of New South Wales. The people of Queensland recognize that the task of unifying the gauges must be faced, and the longer it is delayed the greater will be the expense. They realize that the adoption of a uniform gauge will be an excellent thing from the Australian and national point of view. The proposed line will open up large fertile areas, and will provide means of transport for- farming districts which are at present most inadequately served. It will be of inestimable value for the transport of starving stock and fodder in times of drought. For all these reasons it may be said that the construction of this line appeals only to the people of Queensland and New South Wales, but I believe that it will appeal to the people of Australia generally as the first step towards carry ing out a work which must be undertaken, and which the longer it is delayed will involve greater expense. I trust that the amendment will not be agreed to.

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

– I usually greatly appreciate the speeches delivered in this chamber by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham),, but to-day even his best friends would not give him credit for discussing this proposal in the manner to be expected from one of his standing in the community. His criticism, boiled down, was that it’ the bill were passed there would be a likelihood of misunderstanding between the states, that the Commonwealth was assuming a right to pay certain moneys on behalf of the other states, that unification was never intended to include the building of new lines, and that if the whole scheme of unification were not undertaken the line from Grafton to South Brisbane should not be constructed. In other words, he contended that if we were unable to do every part, we should do nothing.

Mr Latham:

– That is not so.

Mr MACKAY:

– I made a note of the honorable members remarks, and what I have said was certainly a part, if not the whole, of his argument. The purpose of the bill is to ratify the agreement made between the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales. Although there are 23,911 miles of railway in Aus- tralia, there is a break of gauge in every state. The Commonwealth controls 1,733 miles of railway in its own territory, and including the Oodnadatta line. The length of railways in New South Wales is 5,318 miles; in Victoria, 4,333 miles; in South Australia, 2,373 miles; in Western Australia, 3,555 miles; in Tasmania, 663 miles ; and in Queensland, which state has what is generally regarded as the finest system of railways in Australia, 5,905 miles. In Queensland there are no fewer than four trunk lines, with numerous branch lines running from coastal ports into the interior. We have the Cairns to Forsyth line of 263 miles, the Townsville to Cloncurry line of 481 miles, the Rockhampton to Longreach line of 428 miles, and the Brisbane to Cunnamulla line of 604 miles. In addition, there is a coast line running from Brisbane to

Cairns of about 900 miles. Although the gauge is 3 ft. 6 in., the record of railway accidents will bear favorable comparison with that of any other state. In past years the state governments were short-sighted in not building lines to provide for -the interchange of rolling-stock. During the last twenty years the residents of the Northern Rivers District of New South Wales have agitated for railway connexion with Brisbane. The New South Wales Government has consistently refused to provide those people with a few miles of railway to enable their produce to find its natural market. It has repeatedly been said, that the unification of the railways of Australia would involve a gigantic expenditure, but the Prime Minister has pointed out that the longer this matter is delayed the greater will be the cost. A royal commission was appointed in 1920 to inquire into this problem. It submitted a scheme estimated to cost £21,600,000. It was definitely stated at that time that the scheme besides providing for a 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge included the construction of new lines, the alteration of existing lines, the erection of bridges, the provision of tunnels, and the adjustment of rolling-stock. I ask representatives of states other than New South Wales and Queensland to view this line, not from the stand-point of the benefit to be derived by Queensland and New South Wales by its construction, but with the definite idea of unifying the railway gauges of Australia. The following complete scheme was proposed by the commission: -

A 4-ft. 81/2in. gauge railway from Fremantle toKalgoorlie, linking with the existing railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta.
A 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge railway from Port Augusta to Adelaide (part conversion) .
Conversion of the whole of the5-ft. 3-in. gauge’ line of South Australia and Victoria (including the conversion of the 3-ft. 6-in. line between Terowie and Peterborough, in South Australia) .
A 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge railway linking

Sydney and South Brisbane, via Macksville, Kyogle, and Richmond Gap.

The estimate for this scheme is £21,600,000, made up as follows: -

After considering the difficulty of financing this huge undertaking, and the extraordinary interference with trade that would result from it, the Commonwealth Government decided to submit an alternative proposal. It is common knowledge that it is not the fault of the Commonwealth, the New South “Wales, or the Queensland Government that the alternative scheme has not been carried out. In addition to the scheme before the House, the Commonwealth Government proposed to construct a railway from Port Augusta to Hay, a distance of about 500 miles, at an estimated cost of £4,500,000. The next step was the extension of the transcontinental railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, giving communication over a distance of 3,040 miles, and shortening the distance between Brisbane and Perth by 448 miles, equal to about 36 hours’ travelling. This alternative scheme is a practical attempt to deal with this great national work. It is a national scheme by reason of its value from a defence point of view. The honorable member for Kooyong did not at any time discuss that phase. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart), when Minister for Works and Railways, strongly stressed the importance, for defence purposes, of the alternative scheme now suggested. When speaking before a conference of representatives of the states last year, he referred to the fact that the military advisers of the Commonwealth, in advocating this scheme, had made the following suggestions: -

Tho construction of some line between Port Augusta and the oast, which will avoid Adelaide and Melbourne.

A railway line in the Murray basin through Morgan, northward, cutting out Adelaide.

He also said that only a few days previous the military advisers of the Commonwealth had furnished him with the following opinion : -

At the present time the transcontinental railway, through shortage of standard-gauge rolling-stock, is of but limited military value. A connexion with the New South Wales system, which would allow the transfer of rolling-stock, would be of distinct value. The junction of tlie transcontinental system with the 4-ft. S-J-in. system of New South Wales may, from several points of view, be said to give a definite and desirable military advantage.

Mr. Stewart then referred to a report furnished to him by the Inspector-General of Military Forces, in which he made the following comments on the necessity foi; quick transport of material ; -

I consider it my duty to again draw attention to the serious situation which, in the event of her troops being mobilized for the defence of her own shores, will confront Australia through the lack of suitable railway communications, and a uniform railway gauge. Recent conferences inaugurated by the Prime Minister have acknowledged the ultimate necessity of a uniform gauge on commercial and industrial grounds, but do not appear to have fully realized its vital necessity in the interest of the safety of the Commonwealth.

Another advantage of this proposal is that it would largely overcome the existing break of gauges without interfering with the working of the present railway systems. In support of this, I would mention that in 1923, at Wallangarra, situated on the border of Queensland and New South Wales, there were transhipped 102,147 tons of goods, 250,000 head of live-stock, and 99,109 passengers. There is no very great difficulty in transhipping passengers, but there is a real difficulty and heavy expense occasioned in transhipping goods and live-stock. Queensland sends a large quantity of fruit to tho southern states, and each month 30,000 cases of fruit from that state are handled . The proposal before the House is to standardize the present railway from Grafton to Kyogle, a distance of 85 miles, at an estimated cost of £800,000; to construct a line of 27 miles from Kyogle to the Queensland border, at an estimated cost of £850,000; and to construct a line of 70 miles from the Queensland border to Brisbane, a.t an estimated cost of £1,250,000. In addition, there is an estimated expenditure of £600,000 for the alteration of rolling-stock. The total expenditure in Queensland will be £1,843,000. and in New South Wale? £1,657,000’. The liability of the states, excluding Tasmania, allotted on a per capita basis, after deducting £700,000, representing one-fifth contribution by tho Commonwealth, is - New South Wales. £1,127,000; Victoria,’ £819,000; and Queensland, £410.000.

Mr Maxwell:

– The amount of £819,000 for Victoria is exclusive of that state’s contribution to the one-fifth share of the Commonwealth.

Mr MACKAY:

– The same remark would apply to the figures for the other states. Queensland indirectly contributes to the expenditure of the Murray River scheme, and to the grants to Tasmania and Western Australia.

Mr Maxwell:

– That is so.

Mr MACKAY:

– The liability of South Australia is £267,000, Western Australia £177,000, making a total of £3,500,000. When the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Stewart) met the representatives of the states in conference they submitted an alternative scheme, which included the railways from Grafton to South Brisbane, Hay to Port Augusta, and also, I believe, Kalgoorlie to Fremantle. As the states of Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia have refused to agree lo the proposal now before us, the Commonwealth Government has promised to advance the proportion those states are liable to provide until such time as they agree to participate in the general unification scheme. It will stand to the credit of tlie Bruce-Page government that it took some definite action to bring about the conversion of a part of the railway systems of Australia to a standard gauge. The Grafton to South Brisbane line will open up some of the best lands in Australia, and the fact that it will dovetail with the general scheme of unification is another commendable feature. It is unfortunate that there should be a difference of opinion in regard to the proposal for no other reason than that the first step towards unification is being taken in the northern states. As a matter of fact, when the whole scheme of unification is carried out Queensland will carry a very heavy obligation in respect of expenditure, the greater portion of which will occur in other states. The honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) said a lot about the undertakings which the states should give before the scheme is proceeded with. I particularly direct his attention to the remarks of the Premier of Queensland (Mr. Theodore), who, speaking in the Legislative Assembly on the South Brisbane to Kyogle Railway Agreement Bill, said -

There i3 one other point that I think ought to be mentioned in justice to the whole question’ of the uniform gauge, and that is that this is necessarily only the first step towards a uniform gauge in .Australia. We must not think that Queensland is getting a wonderfully good bargain out of it, and that we are adopting it simply because we are getting a good bargain. Wc have entered wholeheartedly into the question of contributing towards a solution of the uniform-gauge problem, and Queensland was one of the few states at the Premiers’ Con ference which were willing to adopt the whole scheme.

In a later portion of his speech Mr. Theodore said -

Queensland was quite prepared to come into the whole scheme, but difficulties arose because of the attitude taken by the Victorian Government and later by the South Australian Government. They were the two states which practically frustrated the carrying into operation the decision of the royal commission.

So that there should be no misunderstanding, Mr. Theodore again impressed upon members of the Legislative Assembly the nature of the contract when he said-

We are committing ourselves with our eyes open to further obligations than the £410,000 which is involved in this agreement when the other states come in and express their willingness to go on with the larger scheme of linking up the trunk lines. Our obligations then will be higher than the amount just mentioned, but, in any event are estimated not to exceed £2,000,000 or £2,800,000.

Those statements by Mr. Theodore show definitely that the people of Queensland understand the arrangement to which they are being committed. In contradiction of some of the statements made by the honorable member for Kooyong I submit to the House these details of the apportionment of the unification expenditure, together with the estimated cost of the work to he carried out in each state : -

It will be seen that from a financial point of view the Commonwealth and the states of New South Wales and Queensland will receive by far the worst of the deal. It is regrettable that Sir Henry Barwell, when Premier of South Australia, should have proved himself to be a “little Australian “ by refusing to even participate in the discussion of this national work, merely because he was of the opinion that the Commonwealth had unduly delayed the commencement of the north-south railway. If they are quite candid, I do not think that any honorable members will contend that it is an urgent project. As a matter of fact, there is a difference of opinion as to whether a definite promise was made by any Commonwealth Govern- ment to build the railway for which South Australia is asking. However, that proposal is notunder consideration now. Having regard to South Australia’s dilatoriness in honouring its promise to survey and make available for selection lands within its borders and adjoining the east-west railway, the representatives of that state should be the last to complain of the breaking of promises. As far back as 1913, the South Australian Government gave an undertaking that as soon as the east-west railway was constructed, certain lauds adjacent to it would be surveyed and thrown open for selection; and it is to the discredit of that state that the promise was so grudgingly honoured.

Mr Foster:

– The honorable member is talking utter rubbish. That land has been open for selection for 40 years.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon,W A Watt:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Order ! The honorable member for Wakefield knows that the expression he used is offensive. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Foster:

– I certainly withdraw it.

Mr MACKAY:

– I remind those honorable members who have raised general objections to the proposal now before the House, that Queensland is bearing its share of the cost of the east-west railway, and of the extensive locking scheme on the Murray River, which involves an expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. I make no complaint of that expenditure, having had an opportunity recently of inspecting some of the work that has been done. 1 think the scheme is highly commendable, and I am sure that the people of Queensland do- not object, in the interests of all Australia, to contributing towards the cost. They are also bearing a proportion of the annual loss of £1,500,000 on the Oodnadatta railway. I do not believe in introducing these little side issues, but when they are introduced it is fair to remember that every state can find some ground for selfish complaint. The bill should be discussed on its merits : and I ask the House to recognize that New South Wales and Queensland will pay as their quota of the cost of unification a sum exceeding the value of the work that, will be carried out within their borders. The other states should welcome the carrying out of the Grafton to South Brisbane railway as the first instalment of a general scheme of unification of railway gauges, which is undoubtedly a great national work.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- Although I believe in the unification of interstate railways, I am not at present in favour of the unification of intra-state lines, because the country cannot afford the expense. The speech of the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) contained much matter that calls for serious consideration by this Parliament before it embarks on a scheme for the unification of interstate railways. This Parliament should first definitely and finally approve of the unification of the three sections of railway that have been referred to. If the Grafton to South Brisbane project is to be the first section to be converted let that be definitely stated in the bill, and let all the states alike be legally committed to it: If that is done, the argument we have had to-day will not recur. I believe the Government would be wise to re-draft the bill in that way. So far as the proposal now before us is concerned, Queensland and New South Wales will be the only states to participate in unification. The obligation should be equally binding upon all states, and honorable members of this Parliament should vote for a composite scheme for the standardization of the whole of the interstate railways from Fremantle to Brisbane. I believe that even the honorable member for Kooyong is agreeable to the unification of the interstate railway gauges. I would be prepared to vote in favour of a scheme of unification that extended from Fremantle to Brisbane.

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

.- 1. congratulate the Government on the bill. It will stand to the credit of the Government for all time that it is the first Government of the Commonwealth to deal with the problem of the unification of the railway gauges. The problem is of great importance to Australia, and should have been dealt with long ago. One of the greatest hindrances to progress in Australia has been the narrowness of view of many . of -our public men. Although the proposed railway will not go anywhere near my electorate, and will not influence one vote for or against me, I give the bill, because it is in the interests of Australia, my strongest possible support. Tie division list on the secondleading will show, apart from a few honorable members who have apparently been bludgeoned by the press of their states, those who have the necessary breadth of view and those who have not. I cannot imagine that any one who has had experience of our railways in peace time, to say nothing of war time, and who realizes the . enormous losses that result from the want of unification, will oppose the bill. In 1920, I was chairman of the Rural Industries Board of New South Wales, which was distributing large quantities of fodder to farmers who were in difficulties- as a result of the drought and the war. The board purchased large quantities of fodder in Victoria and South Australia, but was unable to get it transported to New South Wales. Every siding between Melbourne and Wodonga was filled with trucks of fodder; but the congestion at Albury was such that the fodder ‘ could not be transhipped. A new siding was built, and electric light was installed so that work could be carried on both day and night. The farmers were losing money, and working stock was dying for want of the fodder that had already been purchased in the southern markets. Such conditions may recur in the future. One fact that was stressed by the honorable member for Kooyong showed that he was not conversant with the facts. He correctly stated that no survey had been made of the route, and he suggested that it was, therefore, impossible to have even an approximate idea of the cost of the line. He has evidently not had so much experience as I have had of the railway surveyors of ‘ this country. Australian railway engineers are among the finest in the world. They are recognized wherever they go as authorities on railway construction. They have had a wide experience in building railways in new country. Sixteen years ago I was in the Philippine Islands, and there a lot of railway construction work was being done under Australian engineers. The men who were in charge of railway construction work in China, and the engineers who were building the line from Capetown to Cairo, were Australians. Our engineers have had experience of building lines through country similar to that between Grafton and South Brisbane, and it is only necessary for them to drive over the country in order to form an approximate estimate of what the line will cost. In New South Wales it used to be the practice to have a careful survey and estimate made of the cost of all proposed lines, but it was found that the officers of the department were so accurate that the survey could be dispensed with. Thousands of pounds have in that way been saved to the state. After going through the country the engineers can form an estimate that is quite near enough for all practical purposes.

Mr Yates:

– Can the honorable member name a railway that was built without a survey?

Mr MANNING:

– Yes ; the line from Wyalong to Cargellico. I could mention a number of others that are now in course of construction that were not surveyed until after their construction had been recommended by the Public Works Committee. When the war broke out there was no railway from British East Africa, to the German territory in Africa. That line was built over a distance of 380 miles in less than a year; the country was not surveyed, two big rivers were bridged, and the whole of the work was carried out by the engineers going ahead and forming an estimate. A line such as that proposed, in the bill is in a different class from the proposals ordinarily submitted to the Public Works Committee. It is a national line, and it must be constructed whether it will pay or not. Recently the House gave a decided vote in favour of the railway from Yass to Canberra, the construction of which was not recommended by the Public Works Committee. The House would be justified, if it thought fit, in authorizing the construction of this railway without reference to the Public Works Committee. Another matter mentioned by the honorable member for Kooyong was the bridge at Grafton. If he will look at the plan he will see that the bridge will serve not only this line, but two existing lines in New South Wales. Even if this line is not built, the bridge will have to be built by the state.

Mr Fenton:

– What will the bridge cost?

Mr MANNING:

– It does not matter what it will cost. Grafton is largely on the north side of the river, and to build a line from Grafton does not necessarily mean that it will be built from South Grafton, which is the smaller portion of the town. This year over 2,000,000 bushels of wheat had to be transported from New South Wales to Queensland, and the whole of it had to be transhipped at the border. That is an example of the economic loss of the break of gauge. Another statement made by the honorable member for Kooyong was that this line is the only part of the work of unification that interests New South Wales. Again he is wrong in fact. It is of infinitely more importance to New South Wales to have a 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge from Wodonga to Melbourne than from Kyogle to South Brisbane.

Mr Latham:

– I said that this line was the only part of the unification scheme that is in New South Wales.

Mr MANNING:

– I admit that. If New South Wales had looked at it from that point of view, it would not have consented to the agreement. It would have paid New South Wales to build the small part of the line in that state better than to bear its share of the whole cost of the unification scheme. It is because the New South Wales Government realized the great importance of unification that it accepted its share of the expenditure. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8p.m.

Mr MANNING:

– The argument of the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) that the construction of this work would practically end the interest of New South Wales and Queensland in the unification of our gauges, and that they might not be agreeable to bearing their share of converting the gauges in the other states, was hardly worthy of him. All who are familiar with the history of Australia since the early days of federation will know that a suggestion like that is entirelyunwarranted so far as New South Wales is concerned, for the people of that state have always readily accepted whatever responsibilities federation has placed upon them. Of course, in this matter, New South Wales is on the box seat, so to speak, for her railways are all of the approved uniform gauge; but, at the same time, her people are alive to the necessity, from both the economic and defence point of view, for the general conversion of the Australian railways to the standard gauge, and they will willingly bear their share of the expense of doing the work. The press has given a great deal of publicity to this matter during a number of years. I do not object to tho influence of the press, nor question it3 right to criticize public projects of this nature. A Melbourne . newspaper has lately issued instructions to certain honorable members of this Parliament as to the attitude they must adopt on this bill, and it has directed them to be in their places when the vote is taken in order that they may vote against the measure; but I have a few press quotations which I submit are as authoritative as those which have appeared in that newspaper. I quote the following from the Melbourne Argus of 18th February, 1922: -

The question of the unification of the railway gauges of Australia has been brought up once more at the conference of the Prime Minister with the State Premiers. Its importance can scarcely be over-estimated. The longer the work is delayed the more does its necessity become apparent, and the greater does the difficulty and cost of the undertaking become.

Tho Customs Houses, which Sir James Patterson described as evidences of the barbarisms of borderism, have vanished, but the barriers imposed by the diversity of railway gauges remain and become every year more irksome.

The commission recommended that the work should be commenced by connecting all thecapitals with a uniform gauge, and that is. doubtless, the first accomplishment to be aimed’ at.

Xo Australian can look forward to a great future for his country and conceive of that future being continuously and increasingly harassed and hampered by the present egregious diversity of gauges. The past generation was responsible for the wrong beginning; the present one must commence the work of reform, and. quite possibly, it will be left to the following one to complete it.

In a reply to arguments used by the Victorian Railways Standing Committee in opposition to the unification scheme, the Argus published the following article on the 31st July, 1922 : -

The preliminary scheme would cost £21,600,000, and they declare that the money could be spent more advantageously on reproductive work, which would add immediately to the wealth of the Commonwealth. The obvious rejoinder is that work of such magnitude cannot be done for nothing, and that delay will only make the problem more difficult and the cost greater.

The permanent benefit to Australia as a whole, and not merely its temporary effect upon any state, should be considered. To look at the proposal from the point of view of the immediate present, or of the early future, would be narrow-minded.

If a uniform railway gauge would hasten the development of the Commonwealth, then the prospect of spending even so large a sum as £21,000,000 should not stand in the way.

The fact that we have railways implies that those railways should be complete and efficient. They certainly are not complete nor efficient now, seeing that through traffic cannot be carried on. Mr. Hughes has asserted that if our losses of stock in one drought year could be averted, the amount saved would almost pay for the whole scheme of unification. He probably overstated the case, but great losses have been caused in lean years because it has been impossible to transport speedily fodder from Victoria into the drought-stricken areas of New South Wales.

It has been urged by the Victorian Railways Standing Committee, and other opponents of the scheme, that the times are unpropitious for involving the Commonwealth in such huge expenditure. But the times will not become any more propitious by delay. If the ‘work had been commenced 40 years ago, when Sydney and Melbourne were joined by railway, we would have been better off, to-day. If, through’ timidity, it be delayed for 40 .years more, the cost will bc ten times greater than it would be to-day. Australia is not the only country which has had to face this problem” It has been faced and overcome by Great Britain and America. There was probably opposition to the proposal in those countries, just as there is opposition here to-day; but the people of England or America would laugh at the suggestion that the pioneers who wrought the change acted unwisely. If wo have the courage and vision to follow their bold example, the opposition now being manifested will probably inspire similar derision a generation hence.

Hie uniform gauge is not, however, a mere whim of Mr. Hughes. Its advocates include experts of world-wide experience, members of the Federal Ministry, and tho Premiers of all the states. Whatever objection there is to proceeding with the work immediately is based on the ground that the cost is prohibitive in the present condition of the money market. But there is nothing to hope for by waiting. The money market may become easier a few years hence; but there would then be more conversion work to do, and the apparent benefit would thus disappear.

The mobility of railway rolling-stock is essential to the economical and speedy handling of produce, and any plan which! will give that mobility merits more weighty consideration than has apparently been given to it by the Victorian Railways Standing Committee. It is contemplated to increase greatly settlement on irrigated areas in Victoria; and if it were possible to send soft fruits to Sydney and Brisbane without intermediate handling, the prosperity of the growers would be greatly enhanced, and the value of the land considerably increased. Fruit is “packed” in California to-day and unloaded in New York, more than 3,000 miles away, the refrigerated cars not being opened in the interval. That would not be possible but for the uniform gauge. Goods pass between Canada and the United States as easily as between Melbourne and Ballarat. America realized long ago that a uniform gauge meant reduced working expenses and an enormous saving in maintenance. Australia might as well learn the same lesson now as later. The only issue is whether a commencement should be made now or postponed. The longer the work is delayed the greater will be tlie difficulties and the higher the ultimate cost.

Some strong arguments were used in an article in the Melbourne Age on the 20th January, 1922, in favour of proceeding immediately with the unification of our gauges. I quote the following from it : -

The failure of the Conference with the Premiers to make any progress in the plans for the unification of the Australian railway systems will greatly disappoint the public, which had been led to believe that this great national undertaking was at length to be proceededwith.

It will amaze the people of Victoria to learn that the attitude of their representative was mainly responsible for the unhappy fate of the project. Have the people of Victoria ever expressed themselves in any other fashion but strongly in favour of the earliest possible commencement of the work of unifying the railway systems?

In common with the people of the other states, the Victorian public recognizes that a uniform railway gauge over the whole continent is essential for the future industrial development of Australia; that the job must be tackled, and that the longer it is postponed the more difficult and more costly does it become.

Twenty-five years ago the cost of the whole undertaking w”as estimated at £3,000,000. Ten years ago it could have been accomplished for £20,000,000 less than the estimate to-day.

Every year that the break of gauge is perpetuated adds millions to the ultimate cost of the essential conversion.

The Premier of Victoria has been a party to obtaining the indefinite postponement of the undertaking on exactly the same arguments as have secured its postponement on every other occasion.

The present is not the right time to tackle the problem. The present is never’ the time to tackle anything that involves trouble and difficulties.

The argument that it would be unwise to proceed with the work at the present stage because the cost of material is inflated and labour charges would be high is mere balderdash.

The undertaking is one of huge proportions, and there is so much to be worked out and arranged that, even with the utmost despatch from now on, it would probably be twelve months or more before spade would be put to ground.

The states are not asked to plank down the money immediately to meet the cost of the undertaking. As the work would be spread over many years, so would the financing, and if a slump is to come in the value of money the states would . be just as likely to benefit from it by getting the preliminary work in hand immediately as by waiting upon problematic events.

Next year and the year after there will be plenty of fresh difficulties in the way of starting theundertaking to provide such provincialminded and spineless politicians as Mr. Lawson with excuses and arguments for fresh postponements.

Mr. Lawson’s attitude towards the unification of the railway gauge is not the attitude of the people of Victoria. Itis only the attitude, of a nerveless Administration and a lazy officialdom.

I could also quote from a vigorous article which appeared in the Age on the 26th June, 1922, hut I think I have quoted sufficient to show the great importance of proceeding with the unification of. our gauges without further delay. My reply to the argument that we cannot afford to go on with the work at present is that we cannot afford not to go on with it. If Australia had this and other railways built, such as one crossing the Barklay Tableland and connecting Camooweal with Bourke, the northsouth line, and the Hay to Port Augusta or Broken Hill to Port Augusta lines, it would be in an infinitely better position to carry the burden of debt it would then have than it is at the present time to meet its liabilities, because the increased development would lead to national prosperity. The time has come, not for postponement of the work of unification of the railway gauges, but for action. If the bill is regarded from the right point of view, it will be passed without delay.

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr MANN:

– It is common knowledge that because of the slack methods adopted in building that line, it cost probably twice as much as it should have cose. Surely that should be an object lesson to us. I am anxious to see the unification scheme completed, but it is hopeless to expect it in the immediate future. We shall defeat the object of the scheme by attempting to carry it out piecemeal. Since the original agreement was made, governments and conditions have changed. It is time for fresh light and thought to be introduced into this scheme. It should be referred back to the state governments. It is not right for this Parliament to practically bind the states for all time to certain payments without even consulting them and ascertaining whether they are prepared tto accept the obligation. I am not considering this matter from a parochial or narrow point of view. If the States were bound to a definite scheme, I should be quite prepared to say that the line from Grafton to Brisbane should be the first, and probably the Kalgoorlie to Fremantle section the last to be built. I have not lost all sense of proportion. Let the line be built where it would do the most good and serve the greatest number of people. But first the states must bind themselves to complete the whole scheme. It would be foolish to construct a small section of line in New South Wales and Queensland, and to give facilities to those two states without those states accepting this obligation. The bill should not be rushed through this House without honorable members having full information at their disposal. I am not against the unification scheme, but before this section of it is constructed, further inquiries should be made. I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Kooyong. I hope all honorable members will support his proposal, which at least is wise and cautious, and is certainly not narrow and small as represented by some honorable members. We should consider the whole scheme, which we all hope will at some time be fulfilled, rather than confine our views to state interests.

Mr LACEY:
Grey

.- I have listened with interest to the debate on this bill. It is extraordinary that those honorable members who support the bill have asked other honorable members to take a broad national view, even though they themselves are speaking solely in the interests of their own states or electorates. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green), when speaking the other night, referred to the benefit that this railway would confer upon his electorate, and he then entreated honorable members to view it as a national undertaking. Other honorable members have spoken in the same strain. Generally speaking, they have stated that this is part of a scheme to unify the railway gauges of Australia. This railway, if constructed, would serve the interests only of New South Wales and Queensland. Its construction is not now essential, and if proceeded with, the expense should be borne by those two. states. Some years ago an agreement was made between Queensland and New South Wales for the construction of a railway along the coast to the border. Queensland constructed a line to Coolangatta, and New South Wales constructed one to Murwillumbah, on the Tweed River. There still remains a gap of 20 miles to be served by railway, which the New South Wales Government has failed to construct. It will be interesting to see how the Victorian representatives vote on this proposal, in view of the attitude taken up by the Victorian press. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) and other members of the Cabinet represent Victorian constituencies. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Manning) quoted the Age, the Argus, and other Victorian newspapers as supporting the unification of gauges, and also this bill. I refer him to the following article, which appeared in the Age of the 22nd September : -

Under the pretence of commencing the unification of gauges on existing railways, the Bruce-Page Government is about to build an entirely new railway that, in the case of some of the States, may lead to disastrous consequences. An examination of the history of the Kyogle-Brisbane Railway Bill and the ‘Grafton regrading proposal leads inevitably to that conclusion. Victoria has to be on its guard against an unusual kind of political job - a job, too, proposed by men who are supposed to be representatives of this State, and to give special attention to its interests.

If the bill dealt with the general unification of railway gauges in Australia I should vote for it. Before this railway is built the compact between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government respecting the construction of the north-south line should be honoured. I shall vote against the construction of any Commonwealth railways until the north-south railway has been built.

Sir Elliot Johnson:

– Does the honorable member think that South Australia should bear the whole cost of constructing that line?

Mr LACEY:

– No. The Commonwealth Government, when taking over the Northern Territory from South Australia, agreed to construct the north-south line. It is the duty of every South Australian representative to adopt the attitude that I am taking, and to use his best efforts to bring about the construction of that line. The recommendations made by the royal commission on the unification of gauges were adopted by this

Parliament in September, 1921, three years ago. The Northern Territory Acceptance Act was passed in 1910, fourteen years ago. Honorable members representing New South Wales and Queensland have repeatedly asked members representing the other states not to take a parochial view of this proposition. I remind them that when the proposal to expend moneys on certain works at Canberra was before this House, I voted for it, because the agreement with the State of New South Wales warranted that expenditure. Honorable members heard the information with which the Minister for Works and Railways furnished me to-day regarding the capital expenditure at Canberra. Notwithstanding those heavy dis bursements by the Commonwealth, the representatives nf New South Wales ask that the Federal Treasury shall be further burdened by the construction of a costly railway to benefit that state. The Melbourne Tier did, in a leading ‘ article on 22nd September, said -

But it is charged against the Bruce-Page Government that’ the national aspect of this railway proposal is only a pretence, that there is no real intention, because the Government knows quite well that it cannot find the means, to proceed to any useful extent with the unification of gauges, that the whole business is nothing but a dodge to catch votes in Now South Wales and Queensland by making the people of other States contribute to the cost of their local railway undertakings.

Circumstances certainly give colour to the charges. The unification of gauges is an important undertaking that must be squarely tackled as soon as feasible. But no one seriously suggests that in our present financial position, and in the condition of the local and foreign money markets, it is an immediate practical possibility. The Commonwealth Government itself shows how little it thinks of the likelihood by continuing to construct new railways with varying gauges. There is no evidence, in any comprehensive plan, that the profession of making the Kyogle railway the first instalment of a great national undertaking to solve the break of gauge difficulty is sincere. In the absence of such evidence it is not unreasonable that the taxpayers in the States which will get no benefit from the new line should ask why they should be made to contribute to providing local railway facilities in Queensland and New South Wales.

– It seems that I have put my finger on the right spot. The honorable member’s broad national outlook is limited to Murwillumbah and the country surrounding it. He and some other honorable members have discussed this measure from the unification of gauges point of view with their tongue in their cheek. In my opinion, political expediency is the reason for the introduction of the measure. If the Government had an earnest desire to unify our railway gauges it would honour the compact which was made with South Australia years ago, and build a line from Oodnadatta to Darwin. The Prime Minister knows that it was suggested not so long ago by the present AttorneyGeneral of South Australia, that legal opinion should be taken about the position of the various governments respecting the agreement to build the north-south line. In fact it was even suggested that the South Australian Government should go to law on the matter. I certainly think that a writ of habeas corpus should be issued calling upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) to produce the body of the north-south railway. In his speech on this measure, the Prime Minister said that he was confident that if the Government took this first step towards unification the people would see that it was sincere, but before I shall believe that it is sincere I shall need some assurance that it intends, in the near future, to put in hand the building of the Oodnadatta to Darwin line. The previous Government when extending the line from Katherine to Bitter Springs, laid sleepers that would take a 4-ft. 81/2in. line, but that is all that has been done. My opposition to this measure is not to be taken as opposition to the building of developmental railway lines in Australia, for I believe that there is very little country in the Commonwealth which does not merit railway facilities. I object to the bill for the reason that I consider that the various states of the Commonwealth are not being fairly treated. South Australia is attempting to make herrailways more efficient by broadening her gauges ; but if the Prime Minister wouldtake hold of the problem of the unification of our railway gauges as he could do, he could prevent money from being wasted in building additional 5-ft. 3-in. gauge railways, and see that any extensions or reconstructions of existing lines in any of the states were on the uniform gauge of 4 ft. in. I shall support the amendment of the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham). A half-baked proposal like this should be submitted to the Public Works

Committee for report, and honorable members should not be satisfied until a comprehensive unification scheme is agreed upon by all the states, and the compact entered into with South. Australia honoured.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Boothby

– In debating this measure, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not regard the suggested Hay to Port Augusta railway as being involved in it. I hold myself free to consider that proposal on its merits later on, just as I propose now to deal with this proposal on its merits. Two questions are suggested for consideration by the bill. The first is: Is this line theoretically advisable ? The second is : Assuming that it is, is it advisable from the practical point of view? I am inclined to think that, theoretically, the line is advisable. There is no need for me to engage in a discussion of unification for that subject has been dealt with frequently in this chamber. Any one who has travelled from Fremantle to the north of Brisbane as I have, and knows from experience the numerous breaks in the railway gauges in that journey, must agree that the unification of our gauges is advisable. I acquit the Government of any intention to place a slight on any state which has not become a party to this agreement. That the Government has undertaken to pay the proportions which would be due by the non-participating states on the condition that they shall later on re-pay them if they come in, seems to me to be evidence of its earnest desire to proceed with the work. It requires no stretch of the imagination to realize the difficulty of getting all the states of Australia to agree on a certain work. The point has been raised whether this line should be built while the building of the north-south line, agreed to seventeen years ago, is held in abeyance. I do not propose to debate that matter at length, but as the honorable member for Grey has referred to it, I may be excused for mentioning it. The Government seems to be acting .like a man who admits that he owes a debt to some one, but, seeing an opening for what he thinks a profitable investment, chooses to invest his money rather than to pay his debt. I hardly think that one would be justified in voting against the bill, if it is of national importance, simply because there has been delay over the north-south line, which I deplore as much as do my friends opposite. Taking the practical point of view, I ask, “ Is this work desirable-?” I listened with very great interest, as I am sure every other honorable member did, to the remarks of the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham), and with him I am inclined to the view that the’ proposal should be recommended by the Public Works Committee before it is carried out. If the points raised by the honorable member are answerable, they have certainly not been answered. No serious attempt has been macle to reply to him. I particularly stress the quotations which he mad© from the Public Works Committee Act. On reading that act one wonders bow a government could bring down a proposal for such an enormous expenditure as £3,500,000 without first submitting it to the body which has been specially appointed by Parliament to consider such matters.

Mr Mathews:

– This is not the first occasion on which the Public Works Committee Act has been evaded.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– But that is no reason why that course should be again followed. If I were a member of the Public Works Committee, and such a bill as this were brought down without the work having been referred to that body, I should be inclined to regard the omission as somewhat in the nature of a slight. It appears to me that the proposal should be referred to that committee for the guidance of Parliament. More details than have been provided as to the cost of the undertaking should be supplied. Three years have elapsed since the royal commission reported on the matter of gauges, and I fail to see any need for the tremendous haste with which some honorable members desire to push the measure through the House.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– A start must be made at some time.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes; but it is desirable that the work should be begun in a proper manner. I also think that Queensland and New South Wales should be more strongly bound than they are at the present, time to the remaining portion of the undertaking. One has only to remember what has happened in connexion with the agreement entered into by South Australia, in 1907, for the construction by the Commonwealth of the north-south railway, to realize the difficulty there may be in completing the scheme for the unification of the railway gauges, and, although the intention is reasonably clear, one is forced to the conclusion that a big scheme such as this should be formally endorsed by all the parties to it. Unless given good reasons why I should change my views, I shall support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham). At present the arguments of the honorable member appear to me to be unanswerable.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- This is a bill -

To approve and provide tor the carrying out of anagreement entered into between the Commonwealth of Australia and the states of New South Wales and Queensland respecting the construction of a railway of standard gauge between Kyogle and South Brisbane, and the re-grading and re-laying of the railway between Grafton and Kyogle and to authorize the raising and expending of moneys for the purposes of the agreement.

The first thing that strikes me is that the purpose of the bill as set out in the preamble makes no reference to the state of Victoria, of which I, by the grace of God, am a citizen and a taxpayer. If one only read the preamble, which is supposed to explain the bill to some extent, he would be justified in viewing the proposal with the detached and judicial air of a totally disinterested person, but from clause 9 of its portentous schedule the following particulars are to be gleaned : -

The cost of the said works shall in tha first instance be from time to time provided by the Commonwealth out of moneys legally available for that purpose.
Of the money provided by the Commonwealth as aforesaid -
1. four-fifths (hereinafter called the quota of the states) shall be deemed to be provided on behalf of the said five states collectively; and
2. one-fifth shall be deemed to be provided on behalf of the Commonwealth.
New South Wales and Queeusland shall in amounts and at times and in manner hereinafter set forth re-imbursc to the Commonwealth the amounts respectively attributable to them of the said quota of the states.

– It might if this were a matter to be treated by instalments of that kind, but we sa.y it is not such a matter. The short title of the measure is to be “The Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Act. 1924,” and there is not a word in the bill, or in the agreement, which guarantees to the people of Australia either the initiation or completion of an Australian scheme for the unification of the Australian railway gauges. The unification of the Australian railway gauges is an Australian enterprise, and the first thing that should be done to enable this Parliament to visualize what is intended, how’ it is to be carried out, and what it is to cost, is to bring forward a general outline of an allAustralian scheme, and then to allow this

Parliament to discuss it on the basis of an all-Australian proposal. This is clearly a hole-and-corner bargain made between the Government and a sec- tion of its Country party supporters. It is perfectly obvious to even the most casual observer that it is another of those sops that have to be given by the National Government to the leader of the Country party in order to hold this dissolving pact together. It bears that fact upon its face. Nowhere in the bill or in the long, loosely-drawn schedule attached to it, is one word binding the states that are to benefit by this proposal, to any subsequent wellconsidered scheme of unification for Australia. This is a big enough subject for the Federal Parliament to face as a whole. It is too big a subject to be brought before this Parliament in the concluding days of the session in the form of a bill for a short and expensive spur railway, designed to benefit, immediately and substantially a small section of the community. No doubt in ite ultimate result it may to some extent benefit - other sections of the community as well, but only, indirectly, inasmuch as every section of railway is a benefit to those who use it. The honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. D. Cameron) spoke of the fortunate state of Victoria, which he said was the spoilt child of the group. He called attention to her good fortune in possessing a fine network of railways. Of course, materially, her general development is far ahead of that of the other states, but that has been brought about at the expense of the Victorian taxpayer. I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay), and also of the honorable member for Brisbane, that Queensland has an excellent system of railways, but I would remind them that that state has, for years, been in the happy position of being controlled by a Labour Government. Although every credit is due to my Labour colleagues in Brisbane for what they have done, I do not feel disposed to saddle the taxpayers of this state with a burden that ought to be borne by the people of Queensland. For this reason I oppose the bill. The question now arises whether I should support the amendment moved by the “honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham). That seems to

Mr. Brennan be the only alternative. I do not object to voting with a fellow-worker, even, for once, but, after all, his proposal to refer the matter to the Public Works Committee is only putting off the evil day. It decides nothing. The time is ripe- for honorable members to record a decided opinion upon the principle underlying the bill, the method of its introduction. the object it has in view, the influences at work in having it tabled in this chamber, and the obvious injustice that it will work upon the other states of the Commonwealth if it is passed. However, in the meantime, it will serve my purpose to vote for the amendment. It is curious that bills of this kind - and they are becoming very common with the present National Government - are introduced with a long and apologetic preamble. There is, as the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, a French phrase - qui s’ excuse, s’accuse - which alleges that people who excuse themselves accuse themselves. This phrase always occurs to my mind when a long preamble of explanation and excuse is made by the Government in introducing a short bill. I object also to the method of attaching to a bill an agreement which is really the substance of the bill. We are asked to accept the schedule as a whole, whereas it might well be debated clause by clause. That, perhaps, is a matter for arrangement in committee. I oppose the passing of the bill on broad national grounds, only slightly tinged, by the subordinate principles of protective coloration.

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member ought to ask for the adjournment of the debate.

Mr GREGORY:

– The measure is certainly worthy of the most careful consideration. I understand that the Government desires to take a division tonight, but it would be wise if time were allowed to enable honorable members to think over the proposal. It seems to me strange that, after a speech such as that of the honorable member for Kooyong, no member of the Government has risen to reply and explain the position from the Ministerial point of view. In my fairly long parliamentary experience I have never known a Ministry to adopt such an attitude as this Government appears to have assumed over the present measure. It practically says, “ Here is the bill. We have the numbers, and we intend to put it through.” The honorable member for Kooyong advanced very grave and cogent reasons for reconsideration of the agreement. In few Parliaments would a course of procedure such as has been adopted in this case be tolerated. If the Commonwealth is to accept the responsibility that the bill places upon it, New South Wales and Queensland should be bound to pay their proportion of the cost of the unification of the gauges throughout Australia. I realize that this work must be carried out so far as the main lines are concerned. We need it for defence, as well as for the trade and commerce of the country. I believe that Victoria and New South Wales would have seriously considered the proposal at the conferenceof Commonwealth and state Ministers had it not been for the tremendous obligations thrust on Australia in consequence of the late war. We might well have waited before venturing upon an expenditure of over £22,000,000. The estimates before us were prepared by gentlemen from other countries who, perhaps, did not have a full knowledge of Australian conditions. In my opinion, if the work were carried out to-day, it would cost considerably more than was estimated by the royal commission.

Mr.Foster. - The estimates, as far as they related to the work necessary in Victoria and South Australia, were not justified.

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not think they were, and it is more than probable that the cost will be greater than was supposed. When was the desire of the Government to pass this measure first announced ? I did not hear of it in any speech by the Prime Minister, or in the

Governor-General’s speech. There is no reasonable justification for the expenditure. I now’ ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Bruce:

– No; we must go on.

Mr GREGORY:

– It is extraordinary that no ministerial reply has been made to the speech by the honorable member for Kooyong. It appears to be the practice of Ministers to introduce a bill, make a few preliminary remarks on the motion for the second reading, and then expect the House to accept it willy nilly. I do not approve of such a procedure. I hope that at least some honorable members will stand up to their responsibilities in this matter, and will seriously consider the whole situation before they record their votes. I believe the 4 ft. 81/2 in. gauge is the proper gauge for Australia, but if we are tohave a uniform, gauge for the Commonwealth we should not commence in the way proposed. The proper method is to induce South Australia and Victoria to convert their gauges to that adopted by the Commonwealth. Does any one seriously suggest that the construction of this line will aid a general scheme of unification ? I do not think it will. I was impressed by the remarks of the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Manning), who, in stronglysupporting the bill, directed attention to the inconvenience during drought periods of transferring huge quantities, of fodder at the break of gauge between Victoria and New South Wales. Will any improvement in that direction be affected by the construction of this railway? The honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) and other honorable members have dealt exhaustively with this important proposal, and reference has been made to the desirability of the construction of this line being referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works. Under the agreement a council of three, consisting of the Commonwealth engineer for railways, the engineer for railways in New South Wales, and the engineer in chief in Queensland has been appointed with very extensive powers. It is true that the council will have to apply to the Commonwealth in matters of finance, but beyond that they will have plenary powers in the matter of expenditure. According to the agreement the council will have the entire control of -

(i)all the works contemplated by this agreement; and
the expenditure thereon;
1. determine the order in which and the terms and conditions under which the works shall be carried out and the times at which each portion of the works shall be commenced and completed;
2. determine the portion of the works to be carried out by any party hereto;
3. authorize in manner prescribed by it any party hereto to carry out any portion of the works;
4. where works for the purposes of this agreement arecarried out concurrently with other works, determine the amount or amounts to be regarded as expenditure for the purposes of this agreement;
5. take all practical steps to secure standardized methods and types of construction, and in particular to prescribe -
standards of permanent way, bridges, and other structures, standard structure gauge, grades, and curvature of lines and axle loads;
standards and types of rolling-stock for use on lines of the standard gauge; and
any other standards whichin the opinion of the council should he prescribed;

That was quoted when we discussed the gauge of the east-west railway in 1911. The report is of the first meeting held by the engineers of the three states - South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. On the motion of the New South Wales delegate, it was agreed that the gauge for Australia should be 5 ft. 3 in. Immediately after the conference, Victoria set out to construct a line of 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. South Australia did the same. There was, however, in New South Wales a change of engineers, and with it a change of policy and of gauge. That is the reason for the present lack of uniformity. Queensland established a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, and has carried out considerable development with railways on that gauge. For the most part, the Westtern Australian railways are of the same gauge as those of Queensland. It is of no use for us now to cry over spilt milk, but that change of policy on the part of New South Wales caused the great trouble of the gauges from which Australia is suffering to-day. Nor does it help us now to say that either gauge is better than the other. The 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge was decided upon because that was the gauge of the first locomotive made by George Stephenson. Britain adopted the gauge of Stephenson, and as America in the firstinstance obtained her locomotives from Britain, her gauge also became 4 ft. 81/2in. The railways of Ireland are of 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, while the main lines of India have a gauge of 5 ft. 6 in. Mr. Harriman, one of the greatest of American engineers, said that if he had his way the gauge would be 6 feet. The amendment by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) is a desirable one. In New South Wales, Victoria, and other states, the various Railways Standing Committees, after taking evidence and inspecting alternative routes, have frequently recommended the construction of railways along routes entirely different from those in the proposals referred to them. Numbers of proposals for developmental and strategic railways have been made from time to time. I have here the report on a proposed strategic railway made in August, 1915, by Mr. A. Combes, an engineer of repute, who was engaged by the then Minister for Home Affairs to try to devise a scheme whereby railways could be constructed that would be of both a strategic and developmental nature. He had with him plans showing the railways of Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, and Queensland. In the first paragraph of his report he said -

An alternative scheme to that recently investigated by the writer for connecting the east-west railway with the New South Wales system and Bri sbane, has been proposed or suggested by the New South Wales authorities. Accordingto the Melbourne Age of the- 6th May, 1915, “Mr. Holman has a proposal. which he believes will save about £4,000,000 on the line from the west. The sections of the route from Western Australia which he suggests are: - Perth to Kalgoorlie, to Port Augusta, to Cockburn, to Broken Hill, to Condobolin, to Parkes, to Barradine, to Narrabri, to Moree, to Goondiwindi, to Milmerran, to Brisbane; totalling 2,608 miles.” In the Melbourne Argus of the 11th May, 1915, it is stated: - “The New South Wales Ministry, which was responsible for the latter proposal showed that only 194 miles of construction would be necessary, apart from what the states were committed to, and leaving out the loop to Melbourne; while Mr. Fisher’s proposal involved the building of 1,020 miles of new lines.”

Parkes is a railway junction with lines running north, south, east, and west, connecting with other railways. It is 272 miles west of Sydney, and is a common point in the New South Wales scheme for linking up the eastwest line with Sydney and Brisbane, and presumably Melbourne.

– It would not. Tha honorable member for East Sydney poses as ono. of our chief financiers, yet he would agree to scatter broadcast £3,500,000 without . ascertaining whether the proposition is a sound one. I have sat atthe feet of this financial Gamaliel, and from him I have learned many things, that have been valuable to me. ; but, by his interjections, I am led to think’ that after all he is not the great financial expert that he claims to be. I could never absolutely lose confidence in the honorable member, but I must, confess that he has shaken my confidence a little by his rash statement that a proposal to expend £3,500,000 needs no inquiry. Clause 4 of the bill, which gives thepower to borrow, is a very vital one. When the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) sat in- the corner opposite as a private member, he was continually endeavouring to switch on the light to see the way in which public funds were being expended. I do not know whether his filament lamp now refuses to function,or whether he has burst the globe; but he no longer engages in that unpleasant occupation, and it devolves upon others to switch the light on the actions, not of those whom he formerly condemned, but of himself. Clause 4 provides -

The Treasurer may, from time to time, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1918, or under the provisions of any act authorizing the issue of treasurybills, borrow moneys not exceeding in the whole the sum of £3,500,000, together with such further sum as is necessary to meet discount and the expenses of borrowing.

That provision strengthens the arguments that I have been, endeavouring to put forward. I was cheered by the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook), and received murmurs of approval from the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister), when I stated that we would not get out of this little job with an expenditure of only £3,500,000. The bill itself provides for tho raising of “ such further sum as is necessary to meet . discount and the’ expenses of borrowing.” The Commonwealth engineers will have to exer cise a supervision over the Queensland and New South Wales engineers, to see that they carry out the work properly.

Mr Brennan:

– A couple of million pounds may be added to the cost,

Mr FENTON:

– I was going to say it might involve an extra £500,000. The Treasurer has admitted that an expenditure of more than £3,500,000 is involved. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would adjourn the debate. I remember reading in the press that he had declared, that he did not intend to walk blindly into his grave through the medium of all night sittings, but Honorable, members now find themselves, after midnight, discussing -a most important proposal on which they have been supplied vith meagre information. What ever political camp the honorable member for Kooyong may be in, he has rendered a good service to the country, and I intend to support his amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I regret the tone of the debate, for most of the speakers have shown that they are primarily representatives of the different states. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Penton) has gone to some- pains to emphasize what Victoria has done for the Commonwealth. I regret that the representatives of Western Australia are not in agreement on the measure. It has been said that no proper agreement has been drawn up, but I am inclined to think in any case that those honorable members who have spoken against the bill would have taken up the same attitude if the agreement they seem to require had been provided. I support the’ measure because I desire to see the scheme for the unification of the railway gauges of Australia put into’ effect. A lot of comment has been offered on the delay in transferring, the Seat of Government to Canberra. I contend that it is far more important for this Parliament to do away with the. objectionable breaks of gauge in our railway systems than to hasten to the new capital. The bill proposes the construction of a line on the- standard gauge in a portion of Australia, where- the work will prove a payable proposition. It does not concern me whether the line is to be built in the Treasurer’s electorate. I support tho measure, because I contend that we should adopt the unification scheme recommended by the royal commission.

Mr West:

– Did the honorable member when in the United States of America, see anything like the breaks of gauge in the railway systems of Australia.?

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I have seen nothing like them in any part of the. world. They are a disgrace to the Commonwealth, and the. time has long passed when a start should have been made to remove this blot on transcontinental travelling in Australia. The natural thing to do after passing the bill is to adopt the standard gauge between Brisbane and Fremantle, and whether a link is- made between Hay and Fort Augusta will depend upon the attitude adopted by Victoria and South Australia. Long ago the royal commission decided that 4 ft. . 81/2 in. should be the standard gauge for this country.. South Australia and Victoria object to the decision, because their railways are of . the 5. it. 3 in. gauge, and it is therefore the bounden duty of the Commonwealth to proceed with the scheme. I am glad that a start has been- made, andI have no doubt that Queensland and New South Wales will faithfully carry out their undertaking to pay their share towards the cost of completing the work of the unification of gauges: If it is thought necessary to state in black and white- that they shall pay their share towards that cost, the necessary agreement can be drawn up when this bill’ has been passed. I trust that not only will the section under- consideration be completed, but that extensions will be made at no distant date, so that before long Australia will have a uniform- gauge from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, enabling, us to compete with steamships, which now occupy an unnecessarily long time in travelling from, the western to the eastern coasts of Australia.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I was. very much impressed with the able speech delivered by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham).

Honorable members interjecting’ -

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– I have allowed considerable liberty during this debate, and I trust that parliamentary decorum- will be preserved,, notwithstanding the lateness, of the- hour..

Mr MAKIN:

Mr BRUCE:

– Technically, he may have’ been rig]*, although I found his reasoning difficult to. follow ; but it is perfectly obvious that practically he was hopelessly wrong. The royal commissionhas always been known as the Unification of Railway Gauges Royal Commission. Possibly that was a misnomer - although I do not think it was - but amongst the duties delegated to the commission in the terms of reference were : -

To ascertain- -which would be the estimated cost of unifying the gauges of main trunk lines’ and all lines, including and showing separately - (a) alterations of existing railways and structures; and .(b) any new lines that are necessary.

Quite distinctly, new lines were included in the terms of reference. The commission, in its report, did refer to the new lines that were necessary, and, amongst them was that from Kyogle to: South Brisbane. The estimated cost of £2.1,600,000 represented - alterations to existing railways and structures, £9,012,000; any new lines necessary, £6,873,000; adjustments, to rolling-stock. £5,715,000. Having regard to these facts, I suggest to the House that there is nothing in the contention of the honorable member for Kooyong that tho Grafton’ to- South Brisbane railway, being a new line, was outside the scope of the royal commission, and cannot form part of a general unification scheme. It is, I think, clear that the* recommendation of the royal commission with regard to new lines was- properly made, because’ the-, express terms of reference show that the indication of new lines was necessary for a proper unification, scheme.. The next’ point upon which the scheme has been challenged! is that a wrong principle has been introduced by the Commonwealth in undertaking to bear more than onefifth of the proposed expenditure. It has been- urged that the. Commonwealth should not- have undertaken responsibility for the expenditure of the states that did not join in with the. proposal. That point, I think,’ has been wrongly taken. I am perfectly certain, and I think every other honorable gentleman in this House is also certain, - that eventually all the states will come into the unification scheme. There are- two reasons why this was the proper way to deal with the proposal. In the first place, unless the. Government had taken- up this attitude, it would- have been-, impossible ‘ to proceed with any scheme for- the unifies- ti on of the- railways. If theCommonwealth hadbeen in a, generous mood it could have approached the States of Queensland and New South Wales with a proposal to bear its share of the cost of the Kyogle to Brisbane line. But the construction of ordinary lines is a state function. Consequently the Commonwealth decided that the agreement must be that the Commonwealth would bear one-fifth of the cost, and the several states their proper share under the unification scheme, but that some arrangement should be made to finance the proportion of expenditure to be charged against ‘ those states which, at present, are not parties to the proposal. I feel sure that this must only be a temporary financial arrangement, because the states at present outside the agreement will eventually come in. For the present the ‘Commonwealth will finance the proposal on the original basis, agreed to by all the states under the unification scheme, : and the matter -will be adjusted later when the other states come in. This arrangement,Isuggest, is a perfectly proper one, if the Kyogle-Brisbane proposal is to be regarded as the first step towards the unification of the gauges, about which there should bet no doubt. The Government has entered into the scheme because it believes that a start must be made with the unification of the railways gauges of Australia. If a start is not made now it will be impossible to get the work done later, . because the cost will then have become absolutely prohibitive. The other -point taken by critics of the proposal was that no survey bad been made and no information was available to honorable members. That point also was quite wrong.

Mr Latham:

– There is no information before the House.

Mr BRUCE:

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question (Mr. Latham’s amendment) - put. The House divided-

Ayes … … 27

Noes……………………….. 15

Majority … 12

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 -

This act may be cited as the Grafton to South Brisbane” Railway Act 1924.

Mr FENTON:
Maribymong

– I move -

That the word “ Grafton “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Kyogle.”

From Grafton to Kyogle this is a regrading proposition. The New South Wales Government has given a vague promise to construct a bridge across the Clarence River. Regrading in all the states is carried out by the state authorities. Why, then, should the Commonwealth Government stand behind a State Government that desires to regrade a length of line? The expenditure will be incurred chiefly, not upon a new line from Kyogle to the Queensland border,’ but upon the regrading of a long length of line from Grafton to Kyogle. When that particular length of line is regraded, New South Wales will occupy the happy position that all its railways will be of the standard gauge, and there will be no fur-, ther regrading for it to do. It is a piece of unblushing effrontery for the wealthy residents of New South Wales to ask the Commonwealth to bear the expense of regrading this line. The agreement should contain a clause placing upon the New South Wales Government the obligation of regrading the line from Grafton to Kyogle and bringing it up to the standard of an interstate line. I submit the amendment with confidence, and I hope that it will have some support. New South Wales and Queensland will reap a very great advantage from the expenditure of this money. Although Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia are not to benefit, those states will have to contribute their share of the interest upon the money that is expended. If the new line is to be built from South Brisbane to the Queensland border, and from Kyogle to the New South Wales border the title of the bill should be altered.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I hope that the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) will not press his amendment. This measure is the first step towards carrying out the unification scheme, and the royal commission recommended that this line be built as part of it.

Mr Fenton:

– The chairman was a New South Wales man.

Mr BRUCE:

– The other two members of the commission came from overseas. The honorable member suggests that because the chairman was from New South Wales an improper recommendation was made. If the honorable member is determined to make charges of that nature he should at least have some evidence to support them. A similar procedure to that followed in the bill will be adopted in the case of railways in the other states that require to be brought up to the standard in order to become part of a unified system.

Question - That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

The agreement is hereby approved, and shall be valid and effectual for all purposes.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

– I move -

That, the following words be added to the clause : - “ subject to the Parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland passing acts of Parliament agreeing to an amendment of the said schedule providing that the said states shall (together with the states of Victoria,. South Australia, and Western Australia) bear their respective proportions on a population basis of four-fifths of the cost of the unification of the railway gauges of Australia, on the basis of the estimate of £21,600,000 made by the said Railway Commission.”

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr) has described the amendment submitted by me as a camouflage. I regard that as an offensive remark, and I ask that it ‘be withdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir Neville Howse:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I know that the honorable member for Parkes will withdraw the remark to which objection has been taken.

Mr MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I withdraw it. The honorable member for Kooyong views this proposal as heviewed the Canberra proposition, that is, from the stand-point of a great number of Victorians who imagine that if they climb the Melbourne postoffice tower they will see the whole of Australia.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move -

That the question be now put.

A division having been called for, and the bells rung,

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr MARR:

– The representatives of New South Wales and Queensland in this Parliament have given sufficient guarantee that those states are prepared to help the other states in every possible way. If a bill providing for the unification of guages . were introduced into this House tomorrow, honorable members representing Victoria would vote against it, although the New South Wales and Queensland representatives would support it. Honorable members from South Australia have stated to-day that they will refuse to vote for any Commonwealth railway until the north-south line is constructed. The states of New South Wales and Queensland will always honour their obligations, and are prepared at all times to assist the smaller states financially. The Hansard report of the last Premiers’ Conference held in this chamber shows conclusively that New South Wales and Queensland are committed to the unification scheme, and there, is no doubt that they will honour their compact with the other states. Victoria is to-day being helped by New South Wales to extend railways into her territory. If the proposed third railwas laid from Albury into Victoria for a distance of 30 miles, to the nearest shunting yards at Barnawartha, it. would prove a decided success. If the whole scheme of unification were now to be commenced it would receive the support of the New South Wales Government Ten years ago the standardization of gauges was estimated to cost £3,000,000; later the figure rose to £7,000,000, now it has reached £21,000,000, and if the work is deferred much longer the cost will be £50,000,000. I hope the committee will take a reasonable view of this scheme ; but most of the honorable members representing South Australia and Victoria are doing everything in their power to prevent effect being given to it.

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

– This is a question of ordinary business. There is no agreement amongst the states in regard to the practical part of the scheme, viz., the carrying out of the unification of gauges. I admit that the proposal before the committee is not a bad commencement, but honorable members owe a responsibility to all the states and the people of the Commonwealth, and have no right to pass the bill without ensuring by a solemn agreement that the states which will derive the first benefits to be derived from the unification policy will accept their share of the liability for the scheme recommended by the royal commission. Why . should they not agree to do that?

Mr Marr:

– Has such an agreement ever been asked for previously?

Mr FOSTER:

– Of course it has. I ask the Prime Minister to deny the correctness of the contention of the honorable member for Kooyong that New South Wales and Queensland might comply with their portion of this agreement, and be free of any legal obligation to make their pro rata contribution to the cost of the completed scheme.

Mr Marr:

– The representatives of those states will give the necessary assurance now.

Mr FOSTER:

– All that the amendment asks is that those states shall enter into such a binding agreement, and if that is not done the whole scheme of unification will be jeopardized.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– This agreement has been approved by the Queensland Parliament, and the amendment is, in effect, a proposal to remit the question back to that Parliament.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- The honorable member for Parkes spoke of a compact. Can the honorable member produce any evidence of it in black and white ? The honorable member knows that there is no such agreement. Can South Australian representatives be blamed for demanding that these conditions be stated in black and white, knowing as they do that the Commonwealth has repeatedly consulted legal authorities with a view to evading the agreement made with South Australia in regard to the construction of the north-south line? Having that knowledge, we ask that nothing in connexion with the unification of gauges be left to chance. If New South Wales and Queensland are to have the first plums of the scheme, they should give an undertaking that they will assist the other states to get their share in turn. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister will not accept the amendment.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- The statement of the honorable member for Richmond, if allowed to pass unchallenged, may leave the impression that what is now being sought by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) has been already approved by the Queensland Parliament.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I did not say that. I said that the agreement has been ratified by the Queensland Parliament.

Mr MANN:

– What has. that to do with the amendment before the committee ? It is absurd to argue that, because Queensland has not already given an undertaking, we should not ask for one. I hope that the Prime Minister will either accept the amendment or postpone further consideration of the bill. The representatives of Queensland and New South Wales are taking advantage of their superiority in numbers in order to get the bill passed. If they are as strong in their sense of honour and fair dealing as they profess to be, and believe that the undertaking which we are seeking will be granted, why do they refuse to accept an amendment to have the undertaking stated in black and white ? We are not questioning the personal honour of those representatives, but it is our duty to protect the interests of the people in our states against possible happenings in the future. The honorable members who give us their personal assurances to-night may not be in this Parliament five years hence, and their successors may say that the circumstances have altered, and they will not be bound by assurances or promises given in earlier years. The statements made by the honorable member for Parkes and others are mere expressions of a pious hope. The fact, as stated by the. honorable member for Boothby, that such an outcry is being made about this matter is ample warrant for the request. The work cannot be undertaken at once. The Government must make the necessary arrangements to raise the money. Surely there is ample time within which to consult the Parliaments of the states concerned and get their consent to the agreement. I have no wish to ‘ ‘ stone-wall “ the measure, but we must take this opportunity to impress on the Government, and on those members who are supporting the bill, to be careful how they use their strength in this Parliament. There has been nothing said to suggest that “Western Australia is unwilling to take its part in the general unification scheme.It has been stated that this proposal is a commencement. It may be intended as such, but in reality it is not. If on this point we could get an assurance that one could accept we should withdraw our opposition to the proposal.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does the honorable member wish the Commonwealth to carry out the work from Kalgoorlie to Perth?

Mr MANN:

– The honorable member’s interjection has no point. I have already expressed my views on that subject, and I think the honorable member himself will be one of the first to admit that what I said was perfectly fair and reasonable, so it is not fair to imply that I meant anything else. Many people behind us in our states are well aware that we are fighting here for something which they have a right to demand, and I warn the Government that, if this course be persisted in, it will have a disintegrating effect upon the Commonwealth.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added (Mr. Latham’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.’

AYES: 16

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.

Clause . 8 (Regulations) .

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– I am particularly concerned at the regrettable omission from the bill or the agreement of any provision for preference to returned soldiers. I should like the Prime Minister to give me an assurance that preference will be given to returned soldiers in employment on this work. I know that it is the considered policy of this Government, and of the Nationalist Government of New South Wales, to grant preference to returned soldiers. Unfortunately, it is not so in the State of Queensland. Of the sum of £3,500,000, which will be the cost of the line, the Commonwealth Government will contribute £1,963,000; Queensland, £410,000; and New South Wales, £1,127,077. The work will be carried out under the control and supervision of a railway council consisting of the Railways Commissioners of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, and Queensland. Sub-clause 10 of clause 4 of the agreement sets out the powers of the council. It is to -

have the entire control of -
1. all the works contemplated by this agreement; and
2. the expenditure thereon;
determine the order in which and the terms and conditions under which the works shall be carried out, and the times atwhich each portion of the works shall be commenced and completed;
determine the portion of the works to . be carried out by the party hereto;
authorize in manner prescribed by it any party hereto to carry out any portion of the works;
g) have power to employ thestatf and labour necessary for the completion of the works contemplated by this agreement and fix the terms and conditions of their employment;

In very close proximity to the area in Queensland through which the line is to be built - so I am advised by the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia - there are more than 1,000 returned soldiers unemployed. I am sure it can be safely assumed that a considerably larger number of returned soldiers in New South Wales are also unemployed. When those men answered their country’s call in her hour of need they were assured that when their work was accomplished oversea they would be the first care of a grateful country of unbounded resources. They were told that neither they nor their dependants should lack anything. Many of the soldiers were young men from 18 to 21 years of age, and gave the prime of their lives in their country’s defence. For the remainder of their lives they are now compelled to be unskilled workmen, and subjected to more or less temporary employment. In the construction of this proposed railway, I see two or three years’ work for these returned soldiers, and I want to make certain that this is assured to them. The Commonwealth Government is making a grant to the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, and otherwise doing all it can to help to secure employment for the unemployed returned soldiers throughout Australia. I want preference for returned soldiers on this work. The men should be engaged, subject to the approval of the railway council, through the employment section of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia. I know the desire of the Government to have the bill passed without amendment. I do not want to imperil the passage of this measure by moving an amendment to secure this object.I ask the Prime Minister to give me his assurance that the Government’s policy of preference to returned soldiers will be carried out in this national work. The second point I wish to mention is the Beaudeaert Shire Council tramway. That tramway runs through the heart of the territory through which this railway will pass. It is a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge tramway, and, including sidings, there is a total length of 39. miles 29 chains of line. In the centre of the area is the tramway junction Tarbooba, which is the only stopping-place on the line from the Queensland border to South Brisbane. The Beaudesert Shire Council is naturally concerned about its position, now that the whole of the area, served by its tramway is to be traversed by the Kyogle to South Brisbane line. I ask the Prime Minister to let me know the Government’s intention regarding that tram-line.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– The agreement contemplates that the work of constructing this railway will be controlled by the railway council, composed of representatives, of the Commonwealth Government and each of the two states concerned. The policy of the Commonwealth Government and the State of New South Wales is to give preference to returned soldiers in all works, and I think the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. J. Francis) can rest assured that that policy will be carried out, as it will be the policy of a majority of the representatives on the railway council. There is nothing in the agreement to provide for compensation to be paid to any tramway or railway that may be affected by the building of the line. The honorable member will agree that that is certainly not an obligation of the Commonwealth Government. If the circumstances are as he suggests, it is a matter for the Queensland Government to take what action it may deem necessary to compensate the shire council.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to. “Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; report adopted.

Bill, by leave, read a third time.

House adjourned at 2.45 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1924/19241001_reps_9_109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 October 1924

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Mr W M HUGHES:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

ISSUE OF TREASURY-BILLS

Mr WEST:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

BRITISH PREFERENTIAL TARIFF

Mr GREGORY:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS

Mr MAKIN:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GIBSON:Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

LOAN TO EQUALIZE EXCHANGE

Mr MANNING:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr YATES:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GIBSON:CP

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:CP

QUESTION

WRECK OF DOUGLAS MAW SON

Mr MAKIN:

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

WOOLLEN GOODS

Mr COOK:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr PRATTEN:Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

IMPERIAL ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT

Draughtsmen’s Services

Mr COLEMAN:

Mr BOWDEN:Minister for Defence · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

PAPUAN PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr YATES:

Mr HILL:Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE

Mr MANN:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

MAIZE INDUSTRY

Mr CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr PRATTEN:NAT

QUESTION

RUBBER GOODS

Mr MAHONY:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PRATTEN:NAT

QUESTION

PAPUAN INDUSTRIES

Mr YATES:

Mr PRATTEN:NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr LACEY:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HILL:CP

QUESTION

CANADIAN PREFERENCE

Mr PRATTEN:NAT

PAPER

QUESTION

AIR FORCE STATION AT RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HILL:Minister for Works and Railways · Echuca · CP

LESSEE TAX BILL

Second Reading

Dr EARLE PAGE:Trea surer · Cowper · CP

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Mr MANN:Perth

Dr EARLE PAGE:Trea-. surer · Cowper · CP

House of Representatives
1 October 1924

Mr W M HUGHES:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

Mr MANNING:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GIBSON:
CP

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr BOWDEN:
Minister for Defence · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr MANN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

Mr MAHONY:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HILL:
CP

Mr PRATTEN:
NAT

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · Echuca · CP

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Trea surer · Cowper · CP

Mr MANN:
Perth

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Trea-. surer · Cowper · CP

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Boothby

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon,W A Watt:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

Mr MANN:
Perth