Senate
30 November 1911

4^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL
- Second Reading
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
QUESTION
- ROYAL COMMISSION ON POSTAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- PENSIONS TO WIDOWS

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

page 3397

PAPERS

Senator PEARCE laid on the table the following papers: -

Gauge of Australian Railways : Letter from Acting Premier of Victoria to Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, suggesting Conference between responsible Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States. &c.

Gauge of Australian Railways - Reply by Mr. James Alexander Smith, C.E., to comments of Mr. H. Deane, M. Inst., C.E.

Ordered to Be printed.

page 3397

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if he has any information to give the Senate with regard to two letters from the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia to the Government of the Commonwealth that appear to have gone astray?

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– I am very sorry and considerably annoyed to have to say that I gave the answer to this question previously that these letters had not been received, because that was the answer supplied by the Department concerned. On Senator McColl again raising the question. I made further inquiries, and I am now informed that the letters in question have been received, and that they had been received at the time Senator McColl first asked the question. I can only express my regret and annoyance that, quite innocently, 1 gave the Senate misleading information supplied by one of the Departments. I have made the necessary arrangements to have copies of the letters prepared for honorable senators.

page 3397

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McCOLL:

– By leave of the Senate, I wish to make a personal explanation. When a division was being taken last night, I was making some remarks to Senator Needham when Senator Henderson said something which I took to be a reflection upon my regard for the truth. I do not think that the honorable senator meant what he said in that way, but I took it in that way at the moment, and made a very sharp reply, in which I used an expression which I ought not to haveused. I am very sorry that I used it, and I apologize to Senator Henderson for having done so.

page 3397

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

If the Government has, as stated in the press, received notice from the Marconi Company in reference to an alleged infringement of its patent rights?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · for Senator Findley · ALP

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

The Government has received an intimation from the Marconi Company that they have commenced proceedings for infringement of their patent against the users of the Telefunken System in England ; that instructions were cabled on the 14th instant to their representatives in New Zealand to commence proceedings against the users . of the Telefunken System . in that country ; also that similar instructions with regard to Australia had been mailed to their attorneys in Melbourne.

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing thePostmaster-General, upon notice -

Has the Marconi Company made or signified an intention to make the Commonwealth Government a party to legalproceedings with regard to alleged infringements of the Marconi patents in wireless telegraphy?
If so, in what respect will the Commonwealth be a party to any action that the above company may make?
Is the Commonwealth Government charged or threatened to be charged in any way as a party to an alleged infringement or a party seeking to benefit by an alleged infringement?

Senator PEARCE (for Senator Findley). - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

No.
See answer to No.2.
No ; but the Marconi Company have notified the Government that they purpose commencing proceedings against the users of the Telefunken System in Australia.

page 3398

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th November (vide page 3337) on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Millen had moved -

Thatall the words after “ That “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ as the Commonwealth Government is not possessed of sufficient powers from the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia to enable it to proceed with the construction of the railway through the said States, and to control its management thereafter, and as this Senate is not supplied with sufficient information on (a) the proposed route ; (a) the cost of construction ; and (b) , the probable revenue and expenditure and interest charged - this Bill be not proceeded with until the Senate is further informed on these points; and, further, as the proposed railway serves directly to assist the development of the States of South Australia and Western Australia, this Senate is of opinion that the Government should consult with the Governments of the two States, with a view to devising an arrangement securing to the Commonwealth a reasonable portion of any value added to the lands along the line of route and accruing from the construction of the said line.”

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

By arrangement with any State, the Minister may -
1. connect the railway with any State rail way ; or
2. permit any State railway to be connected with the railway ; and
3. run trains or rolling-stock of the Commonwealth over any State railway with which the railway is connected.
No connexion which involves the construction of more than one mile of additional line of railway shall be made by the Minister in. pursuance of this section.

Senator FRASER:

– I can refer the honorable senator to .the country through which the proposed line from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek will go. It is pretty well all occupied. If the proposed route of that line were slightly deviated it would run throughout its length through country that is occupied. 1 know the country very well, and it possesses great mineral possibilities. I am not hostile to the proposal now before the

Senate because it has been submitted by a Labour Government. Honorable senators will admit that I was equally hostile to it when it was proposed by my honorable friends on this side. I am opposed to the proposal from conviction, and not because of party feeling. It is a mistake to build a line through country without natural water, and with an insufficient rainfall. There is a very low rainfall in the country through which the railway from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta runs, but it will be only a hop, step, and a jump from this proposed line to the coast. Can any one be led to believe that this country would have remained unoccupied if it had been worth anything? I say that the fact that it has remained unoccupied is a complete answer to all that has been said about its possibilities. I refer those who wish to know more of the character of this country and its early history to Sir John Forrest’s statements about it, when he was exploring the country.

Senator Pearce:

– Sir John Forrest never went over this country.

Senator FRASER:

– He went over the best part of this country. But let me say that a Garden of Eden without an adequate rainfall could not be productive, and if a line of railway is run through country that is not productive, and can supply no local traffic, it must be a failure. I have been, not only a railway builder, but the owner of a railway from Echuca to Deniliquin, going through beautiful fertile country, and yet it has. not been a marvellous success from a financial point of view. There are lines even in Queensland in districts where there is a good rainfall which barely pay. lt is proposed, under this Bill, to construct a line 1,063 miles in length, and let me say here that it is proposed to make the line longer than is necessary. That is a very bad error of judgment, because if every ton of traffic on the line has to be carried 70 miles further than is necessary a great wrong will be done to the producers, and it must result in a great loss of traffic. It is proposed to construct a railway which will not cost a shilling less than £5,000,000 through country in which it will be impossible to get water unless by pumping. Much of the water that can be obtained by pumping will not be fit for use. When I was building the line from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta we had to carry water by our own trains for from 50 to 60 miles, and when our bullocks were unyoked in the evening it was impossible to find the yokes in the morning because they were covered with sand. T do not say that the whole of this line will be liable to be covered with sand, but there will be a great deal of sand on some parts of the line. The Commonwealth, no doubt, can afford to lose j£5, 000,000, but a terrible mistake will be made if this line is made 70 or 80 miles longer than is necessary. People will not travel by rail through country like this when they can travel by fine steamers along our beautiful coast. I say that there is no hurry for this railway at all. When it is suggested that it is necessary for defence purposes, I reply that it would be infinitely wiser to spend half the money in building a big ship or two. There will be no danger of the invasion of this country while the British Navy is able to come to our assistance. Let us wait until things are developed, and we have more population. Let me tell honorable senators that we have been very lucky in Australia. We never, previously had such seasons as we have had since 1903. During that time we have had good seasons, and good rainfall in every one of the States. If we get one or two droughts, as we may, and £70,000,000 has to be called up in London, we may be confronted with the reverse of our present happy, contented, and prosperous condition.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does the honorable senator not think that thousands of Melbourne people would flock to Western Australia on a day like this ?

Senator FRASER:

Senator CLEMONS:

– At any rate, many honorable senators opposite have said that they object to public borrowing, except for reproductive works.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is in the Labour platform.

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I have only a few remarks to make. I wish to say that Senator Gardiner was in error in stating that the Victorian Government must have been in favour of the construction of this line, in view of the fact that they were anticipating its construction in the building of rolling-stock for the 4-ft.8½-in. gauge. I have already admitted that rolling-stock has been converted in Victoria, but I have explained that the Government knew nothing about what was being done. It has been done by the order of some one’ in the Railway Department, but I have been informed that neither the Government nor. Parliament knew anything . about the change in the construction of rolling-stock. The letter which we have’ before us to-day by the courtesy of the Minister of Defence, from the Acting Premier of Victoria, puts quite a different aspect on the matter. Addressing the Prime Minister, Mr. Watt writes as follows -

Sir,

Adverting to previous correspondence on the subject of theuniformity of the railway gauges in Australia; I have now the honour to inform you that this Government is of opinion that no satisfactory solution of this question can be obtained without a consultation between the responsible Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States.

It is therefore desired that a conference of such Ministers should be held asearly as practicable to consider and deal with the political, financial, and engineering problems which are involved.
This’ Government further strongly urges that, pending such deliberations, the Commonwealth Government should take the necessary steps to prevent a final decision being arrived at with respect to the gauge of the proposed transcontinental line intimately related as such subject is to the general question of gauge conversion, in which the States of Australia are vitally concerned.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. Watt,

He thought that special concessions were necessary before Western Australia would join the Federation.

If the Western Australian delegates had put forward at the Convention any other special terms they would have been granted.

Mr. Henry, a Tasmanian, who was also a prominent member of the Convention, and took a prominent part in the financial debates, was on board the steamer when the deputation waited on Mr. Deakin at Albany, and according to the press report, he cheered that sentiment. Mr. Deakin went on -

Western Australia would secure the transcontinental railway if she joined the Federation.

Those words are definite enough.

The question was a national one.

Senator St Ledger:

– Certainly, but who is going to pay for it?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Who should pay for a national work?

The question was one of national policy, and, personally, he advocated the construction of the railway at the earliest possible moment. For years the railway probably would not pay. But he believed the State of Western Australia would be connected by railway with the other States just as the State of British Columbia had been connected with the other States of Canada.

Senator St Ledger:

– So we all believe now.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Then what is the meaning of this opposition, and of the hue and cry about precautions as to the financial aspect? The financial responsibilities were recognised twelve years ago. Yet we are still asking for the railway.

Senator St Ledger:

– Is not Western Australia going to do something for herself?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No State in the Federation has done more for railway construction than Western Australia. We have the largest percentage of railways in proportion to population in the Commonwealth.

Senator St Ledger:

– If the Western Australian people will help themselves we will help them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator St. Ledger has spoken twice on this question, and he is now interjecting so much that it is difficult to discern whether he or Senator de Largie is making the speech.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have one other quotation to make to show that a promise was definitely made. Thereis a wellknown gentleman whom we are all pleased to have still with us. Some of the great Federalists have passed away, and can no longer, take the responsibility for their words. The one from whom I have just quoted is still filling a prominent position. There isanother who is also prominent in the affairs of this country. He recognised that Federation would be a mere farce if one-third of the continent was left out. He knew that Western Australia at that time was in a prosperous condition. She was building up her secondary industries.

Her people recognised that if they joined the Federation without getting a quid fro quo those secondary industries would be destroyed by the competition of the more advanced eastern States . As a matter of fact, . many of our secondary industries have been snuffed out by competition. The authority to whom I now wish to refer knew the feeling in the West. I refer to Senator Symon. I said last night that it was Senator Millen who introduced the Railway Survey Bill in the Senate. I find that I was mistaken, and that it was Senator Symon. The quotation that I shall make is from a letter sent by that gentleman to the Federalists of Western Australia. These few words show his attitude at that time. He said -

Federation must inevitably give to Western Australia at a very early date the transcontinental railway upon which your and our hearts are set.

It is quite poetical !

That will be one outward and visible link to join Western Australia with the rest of the Federation. In my belief the acceptance of the Commonwealth Bill by Western Australia will mean the complete inauguration of that work.

– When interjections are made so freely, I can hardly be blamed for replying to them. However, I have little more to say. I congratulate the Government upon the business-like way in which they have proceeded with this measure. I hope that all the doleful predictions of the opponents of the scheme will be doomed to failure. I know something about the country through which the line will run. I know that much of it is good country. There are hundreds of miles in Western Australia that used to be considered desert, but which to-day are amongst the best wheat-producing land in Australia. The sandy soils of Western Australia have been shown by actual experiment to be excellent wheat lands of the best kind. Important towns have sprung up in parts that were formerly considered to be waste.. I dare say we shall find just as many pleasant surprises in the country to be opened up by this line. I also hope that therailway will do much to open up a large tract of auriferous country. If it does so, that will help to pay the cost of the line. I shall not touch upon the value of the undertaking from a defence stand-point, because that subject has been dealt with time and again. But 1 hold that we are entitled to connectWestern Australia by railway with the eastern States for no other reason than that of defence considerations. I congratulate the Government upon the

Very business-like methods which they have adopted to make this transcontinental railway an accomplished fact.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As a South Australian, I should scarcely be doing my duty ifI did not occupy a few minutes in placing upon record my view of this Bill. When I was before the electors some six years ago, I told them, amongst other things, that, if returned to the Commonwealth Parliament, in order to do justice to Western Australia, I would support the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill which had so frequently been rejected. When I became a member of the Senate, that measure was brought forward by the Deakin Government, and I then fulfilled my pledge. At the same time, I made it clear that I was not committed to the building of the proposed line unless the report of the surveyors was a satisfactory one. To my mind, their report is a satisfactory one, and, therefore, I most warmly support the Bill. Whatevermay be said of the little troubles which the Opposition is endeavouring to rake up-

Senator St Ledger:

– What about the width of gauge?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I would rather haveseena 5-ft. 3-in. gauge adopted, so far as South Australia is concerned; but, having followed the discussion which has occurred in another place, my opinion is that to fight for that gauge, would be merely a waste of time. I am prepared to trust the Government, and I am sure that South Australia will do. justice to the Commonwealth in connexion with this measure. We have been frequently told that the proposed railway will traverse worthless country. But I would remind honorable senators that, years ago, the same statement used to be made about South Australia itself, and that some of our best country was then described as valueless. The railway which we are now considering is to be constructed primarily for the purposes of defence, and defence being a national question, the undertaking ought to be paid for by the Commonwealth. I believe that the amendment which has been submitted by Senator Millen was concocted and prepared in the Caucus. I have weighed it in the balance and found it wanting I am glad to know that the Government will be in office when the preliminary arrangements will require to be made for the construction of this line, because I am satisfiedthat they will do what is right in the interests of the Commonwealth and of the States. On behalf of South Australia, I congratulate them, and I heartily support the Bill.

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel CAMERON (Tasmania) [5.21]. - To me the debate has been most interesting, and especially the speeches delivered by representatives from South Australia and Western Australia. The glowing colours in which the future of those States has been painted, would almost lead one to suppose that there is no need for them to ask the Commonwealth to build this railway. They could easily carry out the work themselves. I was very much interested in the suggestion of Senator Gardiner that areas should be reserved along the route of the proposed line for the purpose of planting trees, with a view to supplying the timber which may be required for the railway in the future. He spoke of growing sleepers upon country which will not grow grass . The attitude which I have always adopted in regard to. this proposal is that Western Australia should be linked up with the eastern States. It is all a question of the route which should be adopted. I unhesitatinglysay that I shall support the amendment offSenator Millen, though, in principle, I adhere to my former view that Western Australia should be connected with the eastern States by railway. The vitalpoint which we have to consider is the route whichshould be followed.: If the information which has been collected is found to be incorrect, ‘and the line should provea most difficultline to negotiate, our money will have been wasted. Would it not be far better for Western Australia and South Australia to wait a little bit longer and make absolutely sure that the best route has been chosen? Then, if we haveto build a line through the desert, let us do so. But at present we do not know that there are not better routes unsurveyed. When we voted £50,000 for the survey of the proposed line, that survey was not restricted to this particular route. Senator Gardiner very wisely said, in effect, “ We want one line - a line which will give us a reasonable assurance that it will not be tampered with in time of national emergency.” The soundest words uttered in this debate emanated from him. We ought to ascertain what is the best route for the line to follow from the stand-point of defence considerations. I have heard military authorities declare that Western Australia should be linked up with the eastern States, but they have never expressed an opinion as to the route which ought to be taken. They have never been asked for such an opinion. Lord Kitchener, in his report, affirms that the railways which have already been constructed are a source of danger to the Commonwealth. If that be so, I ask honorable senators whether the proposed line will not accentuate the danger.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Was not that opinion given mainly because of the break of gauge which exists?

Senator Lt Colonel CAMERON:

.- Certainly not. I ask the Minister of Defence to give this matter some consideration. I am not hostile to the railway, nor do I desire to burke the consideration of this Bill.

Senator Stewart:

– Will not the building of a double line be necessary?

Senator Lt Colonel CAMERON:

I notice that all the estimates we get, emanate from the two States directly interested in the construction of this railway.. We do not get any estimates from other engineering or railway authorities. The; estimate which I have just quoted was supplied ina previous memorandum. Mr. Deane is an engineer ; but I do not think that he knows much about the management, of a railway. I am not going to dispute hisengineering ability, but I think, from information I have received, I can legitimately dispute his ability as a railway manager. I do not know whether that estimate is correct or not. I very much doubt if it Is. Next,Mr. Deane estimates theworking expenses. I want the Minister in his reply to deal with this matter, because it is being watched by railway men who know what the cost is. It is of no use to set down figures in a document for our perusal it they will not stand the light of day. In the case of a railway which is to be taken through some of the poorest parts of Australia, where I think the working expenses will be more than on any other railway, the cost for 441,792 train miles is put down at 5s. per mile, or, in all, at £1 10,448. 1 should like to know from the Minister what authority there is for that statement. I am informed that the amount is insufficient ; and if that is the case, the report must be misleading. I have been asked to call attention to the matter by men’ who know the cost in other States. For what purpose can the cost be set down at 5s. per mile unless it is to reduce the deficiency as much as possible? What we want to know is, What amount a railway manager - not an engineer - would put down for working expenses? That includes the cost of stationmasters, guards, engine-drivers, porters, coal, water, and ether material. My information is that the -working expenses will’ be more on the proposed railway than on any existing line. The cost in this case is under-estimated, and persons think that it is under-estimated for a reason. They . may be wrong, or they may be right. I .do not know. I have simply conveyed to the Senate information which I have received from a man who is competent, if he likes, to give the truth. I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us on what this estimate is based? Nothing is allowed for the wear and tear of the line, for the gangs who will have to keep it in repair, unless, of course, the expense is included in the estimate of 5s. per mile. I do not believe that it is included, because I am told that even 5s. per mile is too low a sum to set down for ordinary working expenses. .Another part of the amendment reads -

And, further, . as the proposed railway serves directly to assist the development of the States of South Australia and Western Australia, this Senate is of opinion that the Government should consult with the Governments of the two States, with a view to devising an arrangement’ securing to the Commonwealth a reasonable portion of any value added to the lands along the. line of route and accruing from the construction df the said line.

We have no guarantee from the State Governments concerned.. The land has been painted in glowing colours, by senators from South Australia and Western . Australia. I .do not: blame them ; in fact, I give them all credit for trying to get this measure put through. But I happen to represent another State, whose people do not think that it will be to their advantage to pay a portion of the cost of constructing this transcontinental railway, or to be saddled for all time with a share of the loss on its working. In Queensland we are constructing, at our* own expense, more miles of railway than it is proposed to com struct across a continent. We are not asking a State, or anybody else, to help us. .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator SAYERS:

– Perhaps, sir, I am transgressing the rules a little. My information is that the needs of the people of the Commonwealth will be served better by the Senate accepting the amendment of Senator Millen, who has used very clear and concise language. If it is accepted, that will not prevent us, at the proper timeafter further information has been obtained, and the Senate knows what the State- Governments intend to do, and what facilities they are prepared to offer us - from dealing with the Bill on its merits. I do not think that it would be in the ‘interests of the people of the Commonwealth to pass the measure at the present time. I believe’ that a little delay will be advantageous, and will not defer the matter beyond what the States are doing. Neither of the- two States is prepared to act. We have . no. information that they are prepared to pass a Bill authorizing the Commonwealth- to build the railway this year. By carrying this amendment, next year we should know what the two States had agreed’ to do, and our own responsibility relating to the’ railway when it was built. Honorable senators on the other side are apparently eager to pass the measure without any information,’ and without any restrictions, and to allow, the State Parliaments, to make their ownterms. If the Bill is passed without this amendment,, the Ministry will say, “ We have an Act ‘ which authorizes us to’ build a- railway. ‘ Parliament has practically done with the matter, and we will make What terms we think fit with the States.” Be- fore honor-able senators pass the measure they should take time to deliberate. I arn sorry to say that the Senate does not seem to know what it is doing. It is not taken into’ the confidence of the Government or of the State Parliaments, but it is asked to pass a Bill ; and when we learn later what the State’s have done we shall be bound hand and foot, and cannot go back That is a very bad course for Parliament to pursue; it should not allow the control of this matter to pass out of its hands. I opposed this proposal when it was brought forward by Mr. Deakin. I am not opposing this measure because it is submitted by the present Ministry. I hope that even at the eleventh hour the Government will reconsider their position, and take time to ascertain what the two States intend to do. When they have satisfied themselves that the States are prepared to make reasonable concessions, and that at some future time we may be able to get our money back, they will, I venture to say, get the Bill put through with a great deal less trouble than they are going to have now.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Before I reply to the remarks of honorable senators, I wish to read the letter fromthe Acting Premier of Victoria, which was omitted from the tabled correspondence with the Premiers. I find that no further letter has been received from the Premier of South Australia. But on the 6thof October last this letter was received by the Prime Minister from Mr. W. A. Watt, Acting Premier of Victoria : -

Adverting to previous correspondence on the subject of the uniformity of the railway gauges in Australia, I have now the honour to inform you that this Government is of opinion that no Satisfactory solution of this question can be obtained without a consultation between the responsible Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States.

It is, therefore, desired that a conference of such Ministers should he held as early as practicable to consider and deal with the political, financial, and engineering problems which are involved.

ThisGovernment further strongly urges that; pending such deliberation; the Commonwealth Government shouldtake the necessary steps to prevent a final decision being arrived at with respect to the gauge of the proposed transcontinental line intimately related as such subjects to the general question of gauge conversion, in which the States of Australia are vitally concerned.

I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this gentleman proposed that a Conference of Ministers of the Commonwealth and of the States should be held to discuss and decide political, financial, and engineering problems, and that some honorable senators on the other side, who have been complaining of the want of information, are asking the Government to defer the consideration of this Bill in order that a Conference of politicians to deal with engineering problems may be held.

Senator Millen:

– We never asked for that.

Senator PEARCE:

– I know that as soon asI commence to deal with the objections they urged they will disown them.

Senator Millen:

– Will you tell us who asked you to adjourn the consideration of this Bill till the Premiers met?

Senator PEARCE:

-I also want to read some correspondence which has taken place with the Premier of Western Australia. On the 17th instant the Prime Minister sent this telegram to the Premier of Western Australia -

Bill for an Act called Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Act1911 has received approval of House of Representatives. Now under consideration of Senate. Clause three of such Bill provides that before construction of railway can be commenced Act must be passed by Western Australian Parliament consenting and agreeing to grant such Crown lands as in the opinion of Minister necessary for purposes of construction, maintenance, and working of the railway. Shall be glad if you will have necessary Bill drafted for State legislation, with view to early submission.

On the same date the Prime Minister sent the following memorandum to the Premier of Western Australia -

I have the honour to inform you that a Bill (copyenclosed) for an Act called the “ Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Act1911 “ has received the approval of the House of Representatives, and is now under the consideration of the Senate. You will observe that clause 3 of such Bill provides - “ The construction of the railway shall not be commenced until the States of Western Australia and South Australia respectively have granted or agreed to grant, to the satisfaction of the Minister, such portions of the Crown lands of the State as are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary for the purposes of the construction, maintenance, and working of the’ railway.”

I shall be glad, therefore, if your Government will intimate its willingness to. grantto the Commonwealth any Crown lands as indicated in the clause quoted, and if the authority of the Parliament of your State is considered necessary, if you will take early steps to obtain it.

The first reply was received on 22nd November - .

Prime Minister, Melbourne. - Your telegram eighteenth, re Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway.Suggested Bill will.be drafted as early as possible and submitted to State Parliament now in session. (Signed) J. Scaddan, Premier.

The following telegram was received yesterday by the Prime Minister -

Prime Minister, Melbourne. - Transcontinental railway, re your wire eighteenth instant, this Government proposes to revive the West Australian Act No. 4 of 1903. I assume this will suffice. (Signed)J. Scaddan, Premier.

I am going to deal straight away with the point raised by Senator Sayers. Although thirsting for information which he challenged me to give when I rose to reply, Senator Sayers, knowing that I was the next speaker, immediately left the chamber. So much for his dying thirst for information ! The honorable senator pointed out that, in an estimate which he incorrectly said was supplied by Mr. Deane, but which was really the estimate of Mr. Moncrieff, the South Australian Railways Commissioner, the working expenses per train mile run were put down at 5s. Senator Sayers said that that was too low an estimate, and he gave that as an instance of the inaccuracy and unreliableness of the report from which he quoted. But if Senator Sayers will turn to the official Year-Book of the Commonwealth he will find that the cost per train mile run for the whole of the Commonwealth railways last year was 51.38 pence; that is, roughly, 4s. 3£d. per train mile, or 15 per cent, lower than the estimate in Mr. Moncrieff’s calculation. So that Mr. Moncrieff has increased the cost 15 per cent., although the average given in the official Year-Book is the highest for the last ten years. Another point was made by another honorable senator during the course of the debate, as to the weight of the rails. An attack was made on the engineers, who were said to be unreliable and unworthy of credence, because they specified 70-lb. rails. I have here a paper, which has also been supplied to honorable senators, containing an estimate ordered to be printed on 28th November, 191 1. It shows the length of the various railways throughout Australia, their gauge, the weight of the rails, and the speed of trains. I notice that the honorable senator who thirsted for this information has also gone out.

Senator Givens:

– References might be made to the honorable senator’s conduct in this chamber, if he wishes to be personal in that manner.

Senator PEARCE:

– When an honorable senator makes such remarks as were made on the point with which I am dealing, he must expect to get something back.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable sena- tor will get back more than he likes if he goes on like that.

Senator Millen:

– A man who looks for trouble is bound to get it.

Senator PEARCE:

– This return shows that on the railway from Serviceton to

Keith, 41 miles, on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, the weight of rails’ is 61 lbs., rate of speed 40.82 miles per hour, and the express runs at the rate of 1 mile in 1.47 minutes.

Senator Vardon:

– All those rails are being gradually replaced.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course; rails are being replaced from time to time on every railway in Australia. In time we shall replace the rails on the line with which we are dealing. From Keith to Coonalpyn, 40 J- miles, 61 -lb. rails, the train travels 43-7° miles per hour, and the express runs at the rate of a mile in 1.37 minutes. From Coonalpyn to Murray Bridge, 54 miles, 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, 61 -lb. rails, the train travels 40 miles per hour, and the express runs 1 mile in a minute and a half. From Mount Barker Junction to Mount Lofty, nf miles, 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, 61-lb. rails, the train runs 18.55 miles per hour, and the express travels 1 mile in 3.36 minutes. From Mount Lofty to Adelaide, 19J miles, 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, 61-lb. rails, the train runs 22J miles per hour, and the express travels 1 mile in 2.66 minutes.

Senator Vardon:

– The honorable senator might quote the case of some of the New South Wales lines, which now have 80-lb. rails.

Senator PEARCE:

– The point is that the argument was used that this line would be unsafe, and that here is a railway that carries some of the busiest traffic in Australia, over which express trains travel with the mails from Adelaide to Melbourne, and which runs through mountainous country. Yet it is provided with rails 9 lbs. lighter than are to be provided for this proposed railway, which will run over flat country with hardly a curve in it: Honorable senators opposite profess that they are quite willing’, if the line is shown to be necessary for the purpose of defence, to vote for the Bill. If they had heard my speech in introducing this measure, they would have listened to a quotation which I read from Lord Kitchener’s report on the subject. Some of them certainly heard Senator Ready’s quotation from Major-General Bevan Edwards._ The honorable senator also quoted “a telling pasage from Major - General Hutton. But notwithstanding this, after saying that they were prepared to vote for the line if it were shown to be necessary for defence purposes, they brush aside all these authorities, and say that the line is not necessary for defence purposes. I invite Senator

Cameron to read the extracts to which I have referred. As a soldier, he will attach to them the importance which they deserve. 1 now wish to deal with Senator Keating, because he has taken up a most extraordinary attitude on this question. Senator Keating now wants a survey of an alternative route. He suddenly discovers that it is not satisfactory to have a survey of one route only. In July, 1907, Senator Keating was a. member of the Ministry which introduced the Railway Survey Bill. He sat alongside his colleague, Senator Best, who moved the second reading of the measure. Not only was he a member of the Ministry which introduced the Bill, but he was actually the Minister responsible for the Department that superintended the construction of the survey. On 10th February, 1908, after the Bill was passed, Senator Keating, under the authority of Parliament, issued instructions for the survey. A copy of those instructions appears in a parliamentary paper presented by command on 13th October, 1909. It is entitled Instructions to the EngineersinChief in connexion with the Trial Surveys, and is signed by Senator Keating as Minister. The document contains the following paragraph : -

Route. - (1) It would appear desirable that both routes, namely, that vid Tarcoola and that vid Gawler Ranges, be surveyed.

He held then the opinion which he voiced this afternoon -

Consequently, in your deliberations and recommendations, I shall be glad if you will consider both routes.

He was perfectly consistent so far. But after the engineers received his instructions, on 14th February, four days later, in answer to. his memorandum, the engineers, according to a paper ordered to be printed on 6th March, 1908, wrote as follows : -

With regard to the question of surveying the alternative routes vid Tarcoola and the Gawler Ranges and Fowler’s Bay, we beg to point out that the sum of£20,000 respecting the expenditure of which we are asked to. deliberate is not sufficient to admit of a preliminary survey being made of more than one of these routes, as the cost 6f even an exploration over, say, 400 miles of the Gawler Ranges would amount to£1,200.

– Senator Keating has had sufficient Ministerial experience to know that there was an easy way out of that difficulty. He had the preparation of his Department’s Estimates, and all he had to do was to put a sum of money on those Estimates for the purpose of a second survey. If Parliament had passed that sum, he could have carried out the survey. That is the answer. Before I come to the criticisms of Senator Vardon, I want to deal with a piece of misrepresentation that has originated outside the Senate, but which evidently has affected some honorable senators inside; because one or two honorable senators have practically repeated what appeared in the press. I do not blame them for that, if they had no means of checking what was published.But that it was a piece of misrepresentation will be seen immediately. The Age of 29th November published the following paragraph as regards the attitude of South Australia: -

So disgusted is the Premier of South Australia with the Federal Government’s adoption of a 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge for the trans-Australian railway that he. has said that his Government will take no further action to assist in the construction of the line.

Mark these words -

Hehas declared also that the Commonwealth will have to pay the cost of converting the 5 ft. 3 in. railway between Port Augusta and Adelaide.

SenatorW. Russell, reading his South Australian newspapers, came across the following little paragraph, relating to exactly the same circumstance, as reported in the Ade- laide press on the previous day.

Senator McColl:

– I think the Argus published the same news.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Argus published it correctly. This is the paragraph that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser of the 28th November -

When asked on Monday whether the Government intended to press their claim that the Western Australian railway should be constructed on the 5- ft. 3-in. gauge the Premier (Hon. J. Verran) said no further action could be taken in the matter of gauge, as the Federal Government had definitely decided upon 4 ft. 8½ in. The South Australian Government were now awaiting the Premiers’ Conference, when an attempt would be made to induce the Commonwealth Government to meet the expense of altering the gauges where necessary in the different States.

That is quite a different question. It has nothing at all to do with the construction of the proposed line. Here is the Argus report of the matter -

The Premier (Mr. Verran) in reply to a question, said that he had heard nothing of any hitch in respect to the Western Australian railway. South Australia had given all the necessary land, but had refused to give half-a-mile on each side to enable the Federal Government to build townships. He did not think that the Federal Parliament would alter the gauge, but if the Inter-State lines had to be converted the Commonwealth Government would meet half of the cost.

Senator Millen:

– Is the statement that South Australia has given the necessary land, correct?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think it is correct. I think that what Mr. Verran meant was that South Australia is prepared to give the land. I make these quotations for the purpose of showing that an attempt has been made at gross misrepresent ration for the purpose of affecting the result of this debate. If honorable senators could be led to believe that the South Australian

– The honorable senator attached considerable importance to his statements. As a matter of fact, although nosurvey was made of the Gawler Range route, the Engineers-in-Chief did take it into consideration. Mr. Deane, in a summaryof their report, says -

With regard to the advisability of substituting the Cawler Range route for the approved one, I beg to call the attention of the Minister to the following extract from the report of the Engineers-in-Chief of nth October,1911: -

The prospects of the country to be served by the Tarcoola route as to pastoral and mineral advantages were incomparably in excess of those to be expected from the Gawler Range route.

The Acting Surveyor-General, South Australia, in a minute to the Hon. the Commissioner for Crown Lands, dated 5th February, 1908, in recommending a route somewhat north of the proposed one, held out the prospect of tapping an area of from 117,000 to 120,000 square miles of pastoral country; and the Government Geologist and the Chief Inspector of Mines pointed out, in minutes of the 7th and 8th February, 1908, the prospects of the gold mines and copper mines in the districts traversed. With regard to the Gawler Range route it is to be observed that, while distance might be saved and economies effected by adopting it, the countries served would by no means be so extensive, and it has, moreover, already theadvantage, as far as the coast strip is concerned, of lines of steamers touching at various ports of call ; and as regards the area adjacent to the Gawler Range, we are informed that the South Australian Government have a well thought out project for extending to Port Lincoln-Yeelanna railway in two directions so as to tap it, and these ‘important lines are likely to be authorized. This being the case, it may be concluded that any further consideration of the Gawler Range route is quite unnecessary.

The above goes to show the reasons why this route was previously rejected, and it is scarcely necessary for me to point out that any wheat that is produced along that route would, undoubtedly, be carried to the nearest port, and would not go to the railway at all, as the steamer freight would be so much cheaper than any rate that could be charged for carriage by the railway. On the other hand, it may be expected that there would be a considerable amount of revenue owing to local traffic and produce from the country between Port Augusta and the sand hills, which are encountered 320 miles back.

The latest report which I have received from the Tarcoola mines is a favorable one. There is also the Glenloth district, which has been reported to be extremely promising. Stock returns show that there are now 300,000 sheep grazing upon the whole district as well as 35,000 hear) of cattle and horses. Some of the country, like the tablelands country, is stated to be of a high fattening value. Were the railway made, a very great development is bound to take place in this country, and would, undoubtedly, be found capable of carrying a very much larger quantity of stock.

In order to show that that is not mere assertion on Mr. Deane’s part, I have here an official map issued by the Crown Lands Department of South Australia showing the distribution of that stock. The squares through which the proposed railway will pass are numbered 767 and 767a and a reference to the footnote attached to the map shows that in districts 767 there are 4,657 cattle, 888 horses, and 157,735 sheep; in district 767a there are 6,248 cattle, 868 horses, and 32,491 sheep; whilst in district 768 there are 15,901 cattle, 2,962 horses, and 36,411 sheep.

Senator Millen:

– Right or wrong ? The honorable senator must be thinking of his own party when he says that.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:

– That is what Senator McColl learned when he commenced his peregrinations. On page 6 of his report he starts a chapter on the arid States and their rainfall -

These States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico,

Arizona, and the rainfall figures given are those issued by the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture.

In California the rainfall varies from 15.6 inches at Los Angeles, to 2.5 inches in Salton, while San Diego and San Jose have 9.4 inches and 14.8 inches respectively.

This is an important point, and this is where I invite the notice of my fellow Australians to the difference between the conditions in the United, States of America and our conditions -

Of this, over one-half falls in the winter months, a fourth in the spring ; the balance spreads over summer and fall, but little in the summer.

In Oregon the fall is 15.4 inches and 14.5 inches, the half falling in winter. In Washington State the fall is 8.3 inches at Spokane, and 8.9 inches at Yakima, of which the heaviest fall is in winter. In Nevada and Idaho the fall is from 12.9 inches to 7.3 inches, about half in winter and one-fourth in spring. In Utah it runs from 15.8 inches in Salt Lake City to 7.5 inches in Moab country, one-third in spring and one-third in winter. In Montana the fall is 16.4 inches to 13.6 inches, evenly distributed. In ‘ Wyoming over one-half is in spring and summer, and in Colorado it is the same, the fall running from 14.6 inches to 7.7 inches. In Nebraska two-thirds of the fall of 14. q inches is in spring and summer. Kansas, with 19.6 inches, has two-thirds in spring and summer. New Mexico, with 14.2 inches to 9.4 inches, has about one-half in summer, the balance over the rest of the year. Arizona, with 15.6 inches at Prescott, and 2.7 inches at Yuma, has one-third to one-half in summer, and but one-fourth in winter.

If these farmers get that rainfall, as Senator McColl seems to indicate, spread over a longer period, it is not of as much value as a rainfall of 8 inches in winter over the country to be traversed by the proposed railway. What art the results? On page 10 of his report, Senator McColl says -

My inquiries were made about Fresno and Tulare, and there they never had over 13 inches per annum. Mr. J. L. Good, of Clovis, near Fresno, has been farming twenty-three years, and was formerly managing for Mr. F. Tarpey, a large land-owner, but for the past seven years had been working his own farm of 2,800 acres at Clovis. He took off the crop in July or August, and as soon as the condition of the ground would permit he ploughed, getting as deep as he could, from 6 to 8 inches. After the weeds sprouted, say, in April, he ploughed again, and kept a clean surface on the land. He used a Stockton Gang plough, five shares in each, the draught being ten horses. His winter sowing was done in September and October, and the spring sowing in December and January. He cropped only once in two years, leaving a summer fallow, and seeded 60 lbs. of barley and 5.5 lbs. of wheat to the acre.. He had used the White Australia wheat for the past seven years, and had never failed to get a . crop. The rainfall had been from 10 to r» inches, never over the latter. The principal rains fell in December. January, and February. The average of the farms round him was 16 bushels, but he got from 20 to 30 bushels. He rotated wheat and barley. He had not us«d manures.

Dealing with the case of Mr. Bearss, another dry farmer, Senator McColl says -

The rain for the year was but 7.40 inches, but the soil was in condition to receive and hold it.

They did not get as much rain as fell at Tarcoola in 1910, but “ the soil was in a condition to receive and hold it,” because, as the honorable senator points out, it had been cultivated under a system of dry farming -

In the critical month of March but 0.6 points fell-

That is when the wheat was germinating - and yet the yields were excellent. None of the trial plots yielded less than twenty bushels of wheat.

– I come to Victoria. The line from Birchip to Cronomby, 26J miles, cost £1,548 per mile. The line from Rupanyup to Marnoo, 15 i-3rd miles, cost £1)787 per mile. The railway from Tailem Bend to Pinaroo, South Australia, 86^ miles, cost £1,470 per mile. Those instances dispose of the statement that this line is excessively costly. In any case, that point has been well disposed of by the six experts, who had before them all the necessary information about ballast, about the supply of timber, about water supply, and so forth. History has a knack of repeating itself ; and similar arguments to those which have been used against this railway have been used before. As I have been quoting from rather severe authorities, I shall conclude by citing a passage of a lighter character from- Alfred Russell Wallace’s Wonderful Century. I take it from page 30 of the book, where the writer deals with the history of railways. I think that Senator Vardon and others will almost think that they hear themselves speaking -

The Quarterly Review embodied the ideas of the educated public of the period, when it declared in 1824, that “ As to those persons who speculate on making railways throughout the Kingdom, and superseding all the waggons, mails, and stage coaches, postchaises, and, in short, every other mode of conveyance by land and by water, we deem them, and their visionary schemes, unworthy of notice.” And, again, in 1825, when it” was proposed to make a railway from London to Woolwich, and to travel on it “ at twice the speed of stage coaches with greater safety,” the reviewer remarked : “ We should as soon expect the people of Woolwich to suffer themselves to be fired off upon one of Congrieve’s ricochet rockets, as trust themselves to the mercy of such a machine going at such a rate.”

When the first great railways from London were in contemplation, much fear was expressed of injury by them, one of the most fantastic being that of the town of Northampton, which objected to have a railway and station there, on the ground (among others) that the smoke from the engines would injure the wool of the sheep.

When this question came before Parliament the Sayers, and the Millens, and the Vardons, and the St. Ledgers of that day, spoke thus - “ W.is the House aware of the smoke and the noise, the hiss and the whirl, which locomotive engines, passing at the rate of 10 or 12 miles an hour, would occasion?” “And,” they concluded, ‘* it would be the greatest nuisance, the most complete disturbance of quiet comfort in all parts of the Kingdom, that the ingenuity of man could invent.” Another member urged that “ such schemes were dangerous, delusive, unsatisfactory, and, above all, unknown to the Constitution of the country.”

He concluded -

He hated the very name of a railway - he hated it as he hated the devil.”

I appeal to honorable senators opposite to shake off their fears, and to assist us to do something with our magnificent heritage. I appeal to Senator Keating, as a young Australian, to dissociate himself from the old Tories, whose cry is always that the time is not ripe, whose plea Is always for delay, whose excuse is always that they have not sufficient information, and to help us to grapple with the problem of settling, not merely the fringe of country around our coast, but that vast interior which can be settled only by the construction of such a railway as we propose.

Senator Givens:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have to complain that the Minister of Defence, during the course of his remarks - I hope unconsciously - misrepresented what I said in debating the motion for the second reading of this Bill. I do not think it is fair that such misrepresentation should be allowed to go uncontradicted. The Minister stated that I was visibly disappointed when I was informed that it was the intention of the Western Australian Government to complete the railway, which was already half built, from Kalgoorlie to Esperance Bay. Such a statement was grossly unfair, seeing that at the time the information was imparted to me, I expressed both pleasure and gratification at the news. I admit that I did not express any gratification that the railway had been constructed only half way to Esperance Bay, because I recognised that it had been built, not for the purpose of opening up communication with the sea coast for the benefit of the residents of the gold-fields’, but for the purpose of dragging more of the trade of those fields to Perth and Fremantle to be an additional source of profit to property owners and traders there and consequent satisfaction to the Minister who represents them.

Senator Pearce:

– By way of personal explanation I wish to say that I had no intention of misrepresenting the honorable senator. I accept his assurance that he was not disappointed when the news was conveyed to him that the Government of Western Australia intended to construct a line of railway from Kalgoorlie to Esperance Bay, and I express regret that I misunderstood his attitude.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (SenatorMillen’s amendment) - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 17

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 6

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3437

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That leave he given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Post and Telegraph Act 1901.

In moving for leave to introduce this Bill, I may say that I did not expect the Government to give the evening to private members’ business, and consequently, even if my motion be carried, I have not the Bill ready to present to the Senate. But as the opportunities for submitting such a motion cannot occur very frequently during the remainder of this session, I take advantage of this occasion to ask permission to introduce this Bill. If it is granted I shall have the Bill prepared and bring it before the Senate later. I intend to be quite open and fair in the matter, and I say at once that my object is to amend section 57 of the principal Act for the purpose of depriving the Deputy PostmasterGeneral and his officers of what I consider the dangerous power which they at present possess to open and interfere with private correspondence. We are all aware that the Parliament of Tasmania has legalized the carrying on of certain sweeps, and the departmental prohibition of correspondence addressed to a certain institution in Tasmania has been the cause of very considerable inconvenience to many business people. Postal notes taken out, for instance, in New South Wales, are returned to the people who took themout, and they are put to very great trouble in cashing them, as they are frequently made payable to certain banking institutions. I have publicly stated that, in my opinion, it. is not the dutyof the authorities of the Post and Telegraph Department to interfere in any way with private, correspondence going through the Post Office. I draw a line distinctly between interference with correspondence passing thorough the- Post Office and addressed to business institution’s, and interference with the circulationthrough the Post Office of pernicious literature, for instance; The Bill “I propose to introduce will be framed with; theobjectoftaking out of thehandsofthePostmasterGeneral andhis officersthe power they now exerciseofopeningandinterferingwith correspondence chieflydirectedtocertain persons who are conducting “a business legally in Tasmania atthepresent time. I want the Senate to express the opinion that the business of the Postand Telegraph Department shall not be, so conducted that letters properly stamped may be opened or interfered with in any way. I presume that there may be some opposition to what I propose on. the ground that the interference of whichIcomplain has been permitted under the law with the object of preserving the morality of the community. I may say- in reply that if we are going to strain the powers of the postal authorities to enable them in this very doubtful way to improve the morality of the people, it may be contended that we should refuse to permit certain persons , to travel on the Commonwealth railways when we have constructed them. I venture to say that the Governments of the various States are quite as much interested in the morality of the people as is the Commonwealth Government. Yet we find that they give the people every possible facility to attend race meetings.

Senator Lynch:

– They advertise them.

Senator GARDINER:

– They advertise them by advertising cheap fares on the railways to the race-courses, and they afford every possible facility for people to attend race meetings.

SenatorO’Keefe. - And members of Parliament lend their countenance by going to the races themselves.

Senator GARDINER:

– If members of Parliament did not do so they would cease to be representative men. If I am asked what the result of this postal interference on behalf of the morality of the people has been, I should say that it has been nil. Glancing through a newspaper recently I found that Tattersall’s Sweeps on the last Melbourne Cup, including special No. 1, and special No. 2, were all -filled. It is possible that the Ministercalled upon to, administer the Post -and Telegraph Departmentmay under the existing law have toadminister a provision in this respect with which he does, not agree. I feel sure, however, that the Postmaster-General who preceded the present occupant of the office, believed that in interfering in that direction he was conserving themorality of the people by preventing persons investing in Tattersall’s Sweeps. I believe that that gentleman conscientiously felt that to be his duty. I do not know anything of the views in this connexion of the present occupant of the office nor do I desire to know anything of them. am asking. the Senate to. give me permission to introduce a Billto provide that the PostmasterGeneraland his officers shallno , longer have the right to open any sealed correspondence of the character to which I have referred. I do not wish to take from them the right to prevent the circulation of pernicious literature. Ishould, like, however, to ask those who claim that they ought to have the right to interfere in this way in the interests of the morality of the people, how they can justify the circulation through the Post Office. of newspapers which certainly no member of the Senate would give to any member of his family to read? I feel that I shall have no difficulty in obtaining leave to introduce the Bill to which I have referred, in order that its merits may be discussed on the second reading. I wish the Senate to decide that the Post and Telegraph Department in this matter shall be conducted on the same lines as a private business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3439

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON POSTAL SERVICES

Debate resumed from 16th November (vide page 2739), on motion by Senator de Largie -

That the report of the Royal Commission on Postal Services, laid on the table on 5th October, (910, be approved by the Senate.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western. Australia

– I feel it somewhat difficult to bring back honorable senators’ minds from the question of the Western Australian railway and Tattersall’s Sweeps to that of the report of the Royal Commission on Postal Services. Important as Have been the discussions on the transcontinental railway, and the motion of Senator Gardiner for leave to introduce a Bill, I think that die report of the Royal Commission on Postal Services is equally worthy of our very serious consideration. It is about eight weeks since Senator de Largie moved that it be approved by the Senate. Let me here extend my congratulations to the members of the Royal Commission for the splendid and very able report which they have made, so comprehensive in its nature, and dealing with every aspect of the Postal Service. At the same time, I want to single out those members of the Royal Commission who, despite the hostile and malignant criticism of the press, stuck to their posts. I venture to say that since the inception of Federation no Royal Commission has been subject to such bitter criticism as has the Royal Commission on Postal Services. So bitter was that criticism that we found some of its original members resigning their positions, lest they might be injured in another way. I wish to specially mention the fact that the Royal Commission included men who were determined to see the inquiry through to a finish: We are now in possession of a report so comprehensive in its nature that it has enabled the members of this Parliament to see where the weak spots in the Postal Service are. I might also say that since the presentation of the repot t the Government of the day have endeavoured - and endeavoured successfully - to meet many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. There are still, however, some defects in the Postal Service which we may be able to rectify, and it is with that intention that I am addressing myself to this motion to-night. Last session, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in reply to a question I asked, made a promise to the Senate. that ample .time would be given for the discussion of this report. I am aware that he, as Leader of the Senate, has been good enough to extend the time for the discussion of private business by one night. Notwithstanding that extension, I venture to say that the ample time which he promised last session to afford has not been given for the discussion of a report of this nature. Whilst I recognise that the Government have extended the facilities for dealing with private business by a night, I still contend that this report deserves more time for its consideration than has been allowed up to the present.

Senator McGregor:

– You have had every Thursday night, and the matter has been put off.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– However, we must content ourselves with the opportunity which is offered. Perhaps it is somewhat unique that the report is being discussed at all. Royal Commissions sit and present reports, but usually the reports are shelved.The Royal Commission on Postal Services has had a chance to get its report discussed by members of this Parliament. There is one feature to which I desire to refer, and that is that when the Royal Commission was sitting evidence was called for. Every, employe in the Postal Service had an optunity of appearing as a witness, and the Public Service Commissioner had a similar opportunity.’ The point I want to make and I think it is a just one, is that after; he, and his employes, had that opportunity,’ we are to-day presented with a report from him reviewing the evidence given by a section of the Postal Service. I am not questioning his right in one way, but -in another I am. Whilst Mr. McLachlan is todaythe Public Service Commissioner, and whilst to a certain extent he is really the autocrat of the Public Service, he is also an employ^ of the Commonwealth Government. And to give him the opportunity to present this report, while the mouths of his employes were closed, was, to say the least of it, unfair. He gave his evidence on oath, and so did the men over whom he has the ruling hand. I think that the matter should have ended when the Royal Commission presented its report. But, after the evidence had been taken on oath from both sides, and the Royal Commission had drawn its deductions and presented its report, we find Mr. McLachlan coming in with another reply, and no opportunity given to the men whose evidence he, according to this report, entirely condemns. I could understand this being done if 4 chance had been given to both sides. It is well known that, according to the law which dominates the Public Service, it is unlawful for any section of the Public Service to circularize members of Parliament, but the employer of the Public Service can do that ad lib. ‘ What I want to emphasize is the evidence given in connexion with the sorters. In a memorandum by the Public Service Commissioner relating to recommendations of the Royal Commission, and presented to the Senate on the 15th September, 1911, I find the following paragraph : -

Sorters. - The position of sorter has received careful consideration in the new grading prepared by the Commissioner, Which became operative from rst January, 191 1. The rates of pay previously existing were as follow : -

Sorter -£144 to£156; increments of £6.

Senior Sorter - £162 to ; £168; increment £6.

Despatching Officer - £174 to , £180; increment £6.

The Royal Commission proposals were as follow : -

Sorter - £150 to £190; biennial increments of £8.

Despatching Officer - £200.

In a subsequent paragraph he says -

In making proposals as to rates of pay for Commonwealth sorters, re.iance was evidentlyplaced by the Royal Commission on New Zealand rates, which apparently provide for a maximum of£200.

It was pointed out in evidence by the Public Service Commissioner that while that rate purports to be the maximum attainable by sorters in New Zealand, it is not as a matter of practice paid, and that 45 per cent. of Dominion sorters were receiving less than the minimum of an Australian softer, while the average salary in the Commonwealth was£14 higher than in New Zealand. Despite the definite statement of the actual position of sorters in New Zealand, the Royal Commission reported (para. 383) that “ from an examination of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Departmental List, 1908-9, your Commissioners discovered that a number of sorters now in receipt of£180 will reach the maximum of£200 per annum, in accordance with the Post and Telegraph Classification Act 1907. This Act came into force in April,1908, and provides that officers in the Non-Clerical Division mav advance from £50 to£200 per annum in fifteen years by £10 increments.”

I desire to point out that Mr. McLachlan’s statement replying to the evidence tendered to the Royal Commission is not correct. I have here a statement in rebuttal, as it were, of that alleged evidence.

Senator McGregor:

– You mean that one of the statements was not correct?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Well, in connexion with the sorters I will say - and I say it advisedly - that neither of Mr.

McLachlan’s statements is correct. Dealing with the New Zealand position, I have here the reply, which I will quote -

Table of Salaries.

New Zealand (1908 Classification).

Grade, 3. Position, sorter. Salary , £110 to £140 by three annual increments of £10 each.

Grade 2. Position, sorter. Salary,£150 to £170 by two annual increments of £10 each.

Grade 1. Position, sorter. Salary,£180 to £200 by two annual increments of £10 each.

Despatch clerk. Salary,£200 to£220 by two annual increments of£10 each.

Australia asproposed by Postal Commission.

Sorters,£150 to£190, with biennial increments of £8, a period of ten years. (Par. 385).

N.B. - Sorters in Australia have to serve as Letter Carriers or Assistants (generally a period of twenty years) before being promoted to Sorters.

Despatching officers, salary, £200. (Par. 386).

It must be further borne in mind that even since the Royal Commission presented its reportthe cost of living has increased. Even if the Government and the Parliament accepted in toto the report, thai would not meet the situation. I see that, in connexion with the cost of living, it is estimated, from official figures, that the purchasing power of £1 in 1904 was reduced to 16s. 3d. in 191 1. A salary of£190 in 1904 is only equal to £154 7s. 6d. in 191 1. A despatching officer in receipt of£100 in 1911 received an equivalent of £162 10s. in 1904. It may be added that the State of Victoria increased the pay of all members of the Police Force who had had fifteen years’ service1s. per day, or £18 5s. per annum; and those who had had less than fifteen years’ service were increased 6d. per day, or£9 2s. 6d. per annum. In South Australia, increases were also granted in consequence of the increased cost of living. There, again, I point out that, even if the Commissioner was correct in his estimate, and even if the full report of the Royal Commission was accepted, still, the recommendations fall short of the necessary remuneration to the men employed. The Royal Commission recommended that a board” of control or management should be appointed. That raises a very vexed question. For my own part, I support the recommendation. I consider that our Postal Service is too big for one man to administer it. But, not only has the Commissioner to administer this service, but also the Customs and the Defence Departments. There is no man breathing who is capable of grappling with the various problems that present themselves in. con- nexion with all those Departments. View the matter from whatever stand-point honorable senators choose, we can only come to the conclusion that, unless we adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission, our Postal Service will not reflect credit upon Australia. It is true that we have reduced the price of telegrams and adopted penny postage. It is true that, in many respects, the Commonwealth Postal Service is exemplary. But it is also true that it is wanting in other respects ; and it -is because of the unwieldly nature of the service, and the fact that one man has to govern it and other services, that there is a weak link in the chain. I do not advocate political control, but I do desire that every one of our services shall be properly and ably administered. I do not reflect, in the slightest degree, on the personal ability of Mr. McLachlan; quite the contrary. He may be a Napoleon in his way, but the Postal Service has proved to be too big for him. That is the reason why I think we should centre the administration in a board of control. We must remember that at present there is no appeal beyond the Public Service Commissioner. No man dare say him nay, be he member of Parliament, Minister, or employe. It is high time that such a state of things was remedied. The only way that 1 can see for remedying it is to accept the recommendation relating to the establishment of a board of control. The Government of the day have brought down a Bill, the intention of which is to give public servants the right of appeal to the Arbitration Court. I welcome that project, and hope that it will become law. lt has been said that the postal servants are not desirous of appealing to the Arbitration Court. That may or may not be correct. But, claiming to have a wide knowledge of the postal servants of Australia, I venture to say that, if their own wishes were consulted, we should find that the majority of them were anxious to have this power of appeal. I refer particularly to the general division. I have no desire to see any privileged class established in Australia; and whilst we have one law tor workers outside the Public Service, we should not have another law for those within it. I believe that the present Government are considering the pensions phase of the question.

Senator Vardon:

– Pensions, or a superannuation fund?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There is a desire to legislate on the subject, which I think will receive favorable consideration from the Government. In conclusion, I shall mention only one other point. It was not fair to a section of the Postal Service that the Public Service Commissioner should have issued a final reply when the lips of the members of the Commission were sealed. I cannot lay too much emphasis on that point. If 1 were to consult the dictionary, the only word which I could find to describe such conduct would be the word “ despicable.” I am satisfied that, in the hands of the present Government, the intentions of the Royal Commission will be honorably and faithfully observed. So far, the Government have met them, lt is their intention to go further. Our public servants must have the same freedom of thought and speech as the man who is today their autocrat; and I hope that the day is not far distant when the powers vested in him will be taken away, and when more power will be given to “Parliament and to the Minister.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I join with Senator Needham in recognising the work done by the Postal Commission. No Commission of which I have any knowledge has sat so long, made such exhaustive inquiries, or presented so full a report and recommendations as this Commission has done. I should have preferred that the motion submitted by Senator de Largie had not committed us to an absolute indorsement of every recommendation. When the adoption of a report was moved in another place, the words, “ in a general sense,” were used. It would have been better if those words had been adopted in the motion before us. A number of the recommendations have already been acted upon. Probably we shall all admit that it is impossible to carry out others. Generally speaking, however, the recommendations are sound, and have been submitted with a genuine desire to improve the service. I wish to address myself to one or two matters only. One has reference to those public servants who came over from the State service to the Commonwealth. They were transferred with the full assurance that no officer would lose his rights or his accruing rights. More than that, any one who reads the debates of the Convention, will find that very great stress was laid upon this point. It was recognised that if the public servants did not feel sure that their rights would be conserved under the Commonwealth, they might refuse to vote for Federation, and their influence through- out the Commonwealth mightbe large enough to defeat the carrying of the referendum upon the Commonwealth Bill itself. I do think; that some of those officers! and especially some of the South Australian officers, have been shamefully used in this respect. They have cause for very serious complaint in regard to the treatment which they have received. I notice that their case was put before the Commission in very clear terms, and I am sorry that the conclusion at which that body arrived was not more favorable to them. Their case is thus put upon page 65 of the Postal Commission’s report -

The representatives of the Post and Telegraph Association in South Australia stated that -

Theloss of accrued and accruing rights is the South Australian officers’ greatest grievance. . Officers were assured before Federation that the Constitution effectively preserved rights accrued and accruing, but the compact was broken by the Commonwealth authorities in every instance, except in the matter of retiring allowances. Consequently, a very large proportion of the South Australian officers have suffered monetary losses ranging from £5 to£150 per annum, and. loss of status to such an extent that in some cases postmasters with thirty-five and forty years’ service are junior to officers who served under them as messengers.

That is a very serious statement for them to be able to make.

South Australian postmasters, postmistresses, and . a number of assistants were deprived of accrued and accruing rights by the abolition of emoluments under the 1904 classification. These emoluments were not gratuities.

That is a pointwhich I wish to emphasize. The emoluments which they received in excess of their salaries were not gratuities. Had they been, these officers would have been placed in a very unsatisfactory position so far as the rest of the service was concerned. More than that it was made abundantly clear by the late Sir Charles Todd that these emoluments were not gratuities, but were regarded as part of the statutory salaries. ‘

Under the State, the officers in question were remunerated partly by statutory salary., and partly by sundry emoluments, such as Savings Bank salary, rebate on sale of stamps, and free quarters, which were regarded as part of their salaries.

If these emoluments were not regarded as part of their salaries they ought to have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue, and the officers should have been paid the salaries actually due to them.

Individual losses range from £1 4s. to £157perannum, and subsequent promotion has made up the loss in some eases. The total amount involved is about£4,000 per annum, or a total of about . £20,000 up to the time of giving evidence.

So that the amount involved was not a very serious one after all. I would also point out that the existing and accruing rights which should have been preserved to transferred officers, would have been confined to a gradually decreasing number. One of these officers, the late John Bastard, who suffered more than didanybody else, died some years ago. Others. such as Mr. Holder, have retired from the service. These gentlemen would have been gradually passing out of the service, and the particular rights of which I speak would have been limited to them.

The hard-earned recognition granted to South Australian officers just prior to Federation was minimized by the Commissioner’s action in stopping increments duetothem under the South Australian Civil Service Act of 1874, which provides for yearly increments in the various classes. . Shortly, before Federation (about six months) a number of. officers who had been at the maximum of their classes for from five to twenty years were promoted to the next class, entitling them to annual increments of£10 for five years.

I know that that is. a fact, because I was a member of the South Australian Parliament at the time. That State had then been passing through years of depression. Times were bad, and the Government had to say over and over again that they were not able to pay to certain officers increases which were recognised as being actually due to them. It was to prevent these officers from suffering some of this loss that the South Australian Parliament pro moted them to the next class.

On transfer to Commonwealth these increments were paid for three years, but they were stopped when Parliament approved of the 1904classficica- tion, and the right to subsequent increments was repudiated by the Commissioner on the AttorneyGeneral’s opinion. They considered that if Parliament had been aware of the conditions this would not have happened.

I am also of that opinion.

Several of the officers received their increments pending the adoption of the classification by Parliament, but were subsequently put back to their classified salaries, being deprived of £10 to £20 per annum thereby.

That was a very serious loss for them to sustain.

In South Australia there was no age limit for retirement prior to Federation. Since Federation the Civil Service Act of South Australia has been amended, making seventy years the retiring age. The Commonwealth Public Service Act fixes the age at sixty-five. This right should be preserved to South Australian officers, more especially as they have no pension rights. Officers have been retired at sixty-five, thereby losing financially.

Otherwise they might have had an additional five years’ service.

These witnesses claimed that the High Court’s decision in the test cases concerning State rights was not logical, and that restitution should be made.

Paragraph 264 of the Commission’sreport contains this lame conclusion -

Your Commissioners are unable to recommend the introduction of legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament to overcome the decision of the High Court.

If there was only one way in which justice could be done to’ a number of mcn who had faithfully served the State for some years, that way should have been taken, even if it involved the necessity of. introducing legislation for the purpose. It is a very bad thing for any Government to break faith with their servants. Such an act creates dissatisfaction, justas in the South Australian branch of the Post and Telegraph Department it has created very serious discontent. This dissatisfac-, tion has been simmering in theminds of these officers for years, and I think they have very just cause to complain of their failure to receive that consideration which was due to them. They are in a position to say, “ We were transferred tothe Commonwealth Service with the full assurance that all our rights would be preserved. Those conditions have not. been complied with, and as a result we are suffering seriously to-day.” I should have been glad if the Commission had been able to recommend parliamentary action with a view to abolishing this dissatisfaction, and doing justice to some 200 men. Another very important recommendation made by the Commission relates to the establishment pf a board of management. I am thoroughly in accord with that recommendation, which reads -

Your Commissioners consider that in order to secure sound and economical administration a basic change is essential, and recommend that a board of management, consisting of three directors, namely, a general manager (chairman), a postal director, and a telegraph and telephone director be appointed to control the Department. From a careful consideration of the requirements of the Department, it is deemed advisable to allot the functions and duties of the respective directors as follow : -

The general manager should be the chairman of the board of management, and should be immediately responsible for finance and general administration.
The postal director should be responsible for the management and general supervision of the mail services.
The telegraph and telephone director should be responsible for construction and maintenance.

page 3445

QUESTION

PENSIONS TO WIDOWS

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

. I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, section 51 of the Constitution should be amended so as to permit of legislation for the payment of pensions to widows of any age.

– It is rather a difficult matter to reply to the question which has been put by Senator Keating. It must be recognised that the matter contained in Senator O’Keefe’s motion must be submitted to the Treasurer, who will inquire in’to it. Then the Government would have to take it into consideration. It is impossible off-hand for me to make any statement such as has been suggested. But 1 can assure Senator O’Keefe that every opportunity that can be afforded will be afforded.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 November 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19111130_senate_4_62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate30 November 1911

PAPERS

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator McCOLL:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McCOLL:

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · for Senator Findley · ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Pearce:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Fraser:

Senator KEATING:

Senator ST LEDGER:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Millen:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator McGregor:

Senator ST LEDGER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator de Largie:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ST LEDGER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ST LEDGER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator McGregor:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Sayers:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Givens:

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Sayers:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Givens:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator McColl:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GARDINER:

Senator FRASER:Victoria

Senator Pearce:

Senator FRASER:

Senator de Largie:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator FRASER:

Senator de Largie:

Senator ALBERT GOULD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Needham:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Needham:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Needham:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senate
30 November 1911

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · for Senator Findley · ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator READY:
Tasmania