1100 Collie-Boulder Bill. [ASM Y. HabuTrtBil

and that was the reason I believe why thePremier withdrew Mr. Moran's name. Itwas perhaps through my not conveyingthis fully to my hon. leader that the un-fortunate misunderstanding has arisen.

Tni Pnxmsa: I did not withdrawMr. Moran's name.

Mu. Mo&&w:- No; it *;as a misunder-standing.

Question (that a select committee beappointed) put and passed.

Ballot taken, and a committee appointed comprising Mr. Foulkes, rHarper, Mr. IFastie, Mr. Moran, also Mr.Rason as8 mover; with power to call forpersons and papers, and to sit on daysover which the House stands adjourned;to report this day fortnight.

[Mn. ILLINGWORTE, as a. deputy-Speaker, took the Chair a few minutesbefore the close of the sitting.]

ADJOURNMENT.The House adjourned at 10,42

until the next Tuesday.o'clock,

JLcgilatibt gtssemtlp,Tuesda-y, 16th. September, 1902.

PAGELeave of Absence ....... ... .. 10Returns, etc., ordered- Boiler Fluid, risk" 110

Osuphite, result..............1100Railway Cars Esobaned Mild)....1100

'unrt Timber in Pubbo Wrs......1100Eillst. Fremantle Harbour Trust, second reai.. 1100

Railways Acts; Amendment, re-omfttT;smdreported .. 11

Public Vorks, in Committee (resumed), re-111

WlJr of late b: Y. O"Connor An'n-ity,. econd 1121reading, in Committee, progress........ 1127

Friend] Societies Act Amendment, referredO select committee 18

Transfer of Land Act Amendment,seu&10

Deputy Chimn minu~.... .... ins

THE SPEAKER took the Chair at4-B0 o'clock, p.m.

PRAYERS.

PAPER PRESENTED.By the MINISTER FoR MrNus: Resi-

dential areas (Williamstown) near Kal-goorlie, Return ordered on motion by Mr.Reside.

Ordered: To lie on the table.

LEAVE OP tABSENCE.On motion by the PRExrER (in

absence of Mr. Jacoby), leave of absencefor one fortnight granted to the memberfor East Kimberley (Mr. Connor), on theground of urgent private business.

RETURN-ATLAS BOILER FLUID,DIXON'S FLAKE GRAFEITE.

On motion by MR. RESIDE (Han nans),ordered: That there be laid upon thetable a return, showing-it, The cost forthe Atlas Boiler Fluid supplied for the12 months ending B0th June, 1902, andthe corresponding reduction in boilerrepairs. 2, The composition of the AtlasBoiler Fluid. 3, The advantage thathas followed from the introduction ofDixon's Flake Graphite into the Locomo-tive Branch, and the saving in oil effected.

PAPERS-RAILWAY CARS EXCHANGED(MIDLAND).

On motion by MR. ILLINGWo~RTH (inasence of Mr. Wallace), ordered: Thatall papers and correspondence relating tothe Sale or exchange of composite andlavatory cars between the Midland Rail.way Co. and the Government be laid onthe table.

RETURlf-TUART TIMBER.On motion by MR. HAYWARD, ordered:

That a return be laid ttpon the table,showing- T, The total quantity of tuarttimber used by the Works and RailwayDepartments during the past two years.2, The approximate quantity of availabletuart timber now growing upon theStirling Estate or other Governmentproperty-

FEMANTLE HARBOUR TRUST BILL.SECOND READING.

Debate resumed from the 2nd Sep-tember.

MR. F. ILLINOWORBTE (Cue): Iam sorry to say this Bill is like someotbers that have been brought into the

[ASSEMBLY.] Harbour Trust Bill.

Harour!ThuetBil; [6 SPPEBER 192.] Second reading. 1101

House t it practically means neither onething nor the other. If we hadl a pro-post1 to put the Fremnantle harbour intoa real tist commission, I should bestrongly inclined to support the measure;but this Bill is neither one thing nor theother-it is one of those half-and-halfmeasures that do not commend them-selves to my judgment. We look at theposition, and find that the State hasexpended £1,219,014 on this harbour.We have been informed that the tonnageof the harbour has increased since 1891from 41,654 tons to 523,152 tons in1900. The State has provided the wholeof the money that has been expended onthe work; and now that the work is sofar completed that it is bringing in acertain amount of revenue, it is proposedto hand over the management to a boardof commissioners. fIs there ever to be anend to handing over the work of thisParliament and of the Government tothe hands of commissioners P Or are weto go on from time to time referringevery special work which involves anyparticular amount of care and manage-ment to a select committee, or to a com-mission? The State has expended thismoney; Parliament is responsible forthis expenditure, and ought to be respon-sible for its control: and if the Govern-ment cannot undertake to fittinglymanage a concern like this, it does notspeak welt for the Government. It willcome to this very shortly, that everypiece of work of any magnitude thatrequires management will be taken outof the hands of the Government. Whatare the Government for, but to take con-trol of matters of this kind ?

MR. DIAMOND: The Government in nopart of the world control such things.

Mn. ILLIENGWORTH: I it wereintended by the proposal of the Govern-ment to create a, harbour trust thatwould assume the responsibilities of thisexpended money, and would undertaketo give to the State interest and sinkingfund, and take the whole control andresponsibility off the hands of the State,then we should have something worthyof consideration. It does not appear tobe the intention of the Government inthis Bill to do anything but create aboard practically to manage the harbour.And the management are under no obli-gation to pay to the State interest and

sinking fund on the money expended;they are under no obligation-indeedthey have no powers given in the Bill-toraise money for improving the harbour,for extending it, or for in any wayincreasing its efficiency. They have nofinancial p owens, so far as I can gather,in this Bill, the object of which is simplyto relieve the G overnment of the manage-ment of the harbour. Of course it maybe said the management has been bad inthe past. Perhaps that may be true.But I wish to suggest that the Govern-ment have not yet had a fair opportunityof managing that harbour, owing to itsgincomplete condition; and what guaran-tee have we that when the trust corn-mission have been formed, legitimatecharges will be made, and care taken inthe expenditure connected with thiswork?9 It does not seem to me that thisBill protects the interests of the State asit ought to protect them. But let uspass from that, and take the Bill just asit is, assuming that there is justification-as the Government doubtless thoughtthere was, or they would not havebrought in the Bill-for placing themanagement of the harbour in the pro-posed commission. The first objection Ihave to the scheme is the question of thechairman. If there is to be propermanagement and control, and if it isintended to hand over the control of thisimportant work to the commission, Icontend that the chairman ought to be aman of strength, a man who would givehis whole attention and his whole time tothe work, and that such a man cannotpossibly be procured for e600 a6 year.This is, I contend, a cardinal defect inthe Bill. Provision should be made fora chairman, a man of known ability,capacity, and integrity, who would givehis whole time and devote his whole atten-tion to the management of the harbour.We must remember that he will managefor this State a6 property which has costus nearly one and a quarter millions ofmoney; and I contend thabt£600 a yearwill not procure the man who ought tobe plac-ed at the head of this work. Ishould think something like £1,000 ayear would be the sum required. Thenthe next complaint I have to make re-garding the Bill is that the engineer,who ought to be an officer of the com-mission and not a commissioner, is placed

Harbour TnW Bill, [16 SEMMBER, 1902.]

1102 Harbour Trust Bill, ASML. eodraig

absolutely higher in the matter of salarythan the chaiman of the board, Nowwho is to control ? Is the engineer to bethe controlling force? If so, he ought tobe the chairman; and he ought to have asufficient salary. But I contend that theengineer ought not to be a member ofthe board at all; that he ought to be aprofessional man of repute and capacity,able to do the work which it is intended heshould do; and that he should be underthe control of the chairman. I believethe harbour is at present managed by anengineer at something like £400 a year.

Mn. DixmoxN: He controls the con-struction only, and has nothing to dowith working the shipping.

Mn. ILLINGWORTH:- That may beso. But in the Bill the engineer hasnothing to do with anything but main-tenance. No construction comes underhis control. Construction, extension, andimprovements remain in the hands of theGovernment; and if improvements be re-quired, the Government have not only tomake them, but to find the money. Nowthe Harbour Trust of Melbourne areelected by the persons most interested inthe harbour. When appointed, the trustwere called on not only to manage but tocreate the hiarbour, and to find the moneyfor its creation. They were responsiblefor the money; they had Dower to raisethe money; they raised the money, dlid thework, and were responsible to theirown constituents. When the SydneyHarbour Trust were created, the first,thing done was to make thefii re-

spnsble for the interest on the moneyalready invested in the Sydney harbour;and If cannot understand why the Gov-ernment do not propose to do the samething here. It seems to me that the veryfirst thing we ought to do is to make thecommission responsible to the State forrecouping at least interest, and I thinksinking fund also. In this Bill the Stateis practically relieved of all control; andthere is nothing to prevent the commis-sion making the wharfage rates and othercharges so low as to be unpayable, if theythink fit; and if they make their ratesso low as not to pay the State for interestand sinking fund, byT whom will suchliabilities be raidP This money is madea charge on the general revenue; andnecessarily so, because interest and sink-ing fund must be paid;j and I venture to

say it will be an actual charge, to a verylarge extent, on the general revenue, ifthe harbour be handed over to cornmis-sioners practically irresponsible, rso far asthis Bill is concerned; for there is noduty laid upon them of providing in-terest and sinking fund, so far as I amable to gather. Then, taking the boardas suggested, T do not think five memberssufficient. I think the commissionshould consist of at least seven members.The first interest to be considered is thatof the State, which has to provide the

Imoney; and clearly the State shouldIhave a, controlling power. Of course itImay be said that if the Governmentappoint three members of the commnis-sion, or at any rate a controlling voice onthe commission, the Government have acertain control over the revenue. Butthere is no security that in appointingthree men the State's interest in therevenue will be protected. I do inot ap-prove of a nominated board; but if weare to have such a board, then the pro-

Iposal of the Bill is, to my mind, in thisrespect defective. There are three in-terests involved. First, that of the State,which provides the money ; second, thatof the shipping interest, which uses theport; and third, that ofthe merchants, onwhoseaccou nsthe port exists, and who haveeventually to pay. Of course it may beenid; the general public have to pay in the

en;but all the charges fall first onthe merchants; and the shipping peopleprotect themselves, because they regulatetheir freights to the port according to thelocal conditions, as is done with every

Pother port ini the world. So I suggestthat if the commission be appointed there

1should be at leant seven members, tworepresenting shipping, two representingthe merchants, and three under thenomination and control of the Govern-inent. There are some other small defectsin the 'Bill which can perhaps be amendedin Committee, and with which I shall Dotnow detain the House. I wish simply tosuggest that this is not the kind of com-mission we ought to have. We ought tohave an elective board; a board which willtake the responsibility for providing in-terest and sinkingfund to protect the State.The cardinal points of the Bill as itstands are that the Government createthe harbour at their own cost; they aregoing to extend it and do all the work

[ASSE-MBLY.] Secondreading.

HarourTrut Bll: [1 SETEMER,190.] Second reading. 1103

that requires to be done at their owncost; and when finished, the harbour isto be handed over to an irresponsiblecommission to make charges and dealwith the harbour as it pleases. Farther,this commission is deficient in the pointsI have suggested. I am not prepared tosay the Bill ought not to be considered inCommittee; but it will require a, greatdeal of consideration in Committee beforeit is likely to meet the requirements of aBill of this character.

MR. A. J. DIAMOND (South Fre-mantle):- I presume a Bill of this descrip-tion can hardly come within the scopeof contentious politics. The Fremnantleharbour is a great national undertaking, agreat national asset, a great source ofnational expenditure. If it is, as Ipresume, the duty of the Government ofthe State and of this House to make theharbour a source of national income, thatis an income that will not only payinterest on the outlay but also the work-ing expenses and perhaps a trifle over-although I do not think that is necessary-in order to bring this state of affairsabout, it appears fairly evident to any-body who knows anything about thesubject and of the working of affairs atFremantle that some direct control musthe exercised. At the present. time theharbour is maniaged- or mismanagedperhaps, because a conglomeration ofmanuaers very seldom results in any-thing- satisfactory to the public -bythe Railway Department, by thePublic Works Department, by the Cus-toms Department, and by the HarbourMaster's Department. This is not amatter which affects Fremantle as a, port,or the people of Fremantle as a shippingor mercantile community: it is a matterwhich affects the people of this State farmore than it does anky individual interest;consequently, in taking into considerationany scheme for the management of thisgreat national undertaking, I want toplace on record my opinion that theinterests of the State must have theprimary consideration. I will just giveone practical illustration of the necessit 'yof something like a legitimate businesscontrol of the Fremntle harbour and itsworking. At the present moment a. shipdischargi ing at the quay at Fremantle mayhave cargo consigned to Fremantle andcargo consigned through to Perth. The

Fremantle cargo is put over the side ofthe ship on to the wharf, and pays 3s. 6d.per ton wharfage; the Perth cargo is putover the other side of the ship into alighter, and only pays Is. a ton lighterage,although the cargo comes out of the sameship and has nfl the benefits of the har-bour construction. The Perth cargoought certainly to pay its fair proportionof the harbour dues, but the result is thatone portion of the cargo is penalised atthe expense of another portion. Thisalone shows the necessity for somethinglike consistent business control whichwill bring about a scale of rates fair toall parties.

MR. ILLINGWon'PH: Could not theGovernment do that?

MR. DIAMOND: The Government atthe present time collect rates throughthe Railway Department. Where theGovernment come in, I do not exactlyknow. I do not know how the moneyis allocated, I mean the 3s. 6d. perton which the Railway Departmentreceive for the cargo landed on the wharfand the Is. per ton for the cargo which isput into lighters for conveyance to Perth;bow it is eventually distributed I am notable to say. There is another anomaly, andwhen one begins to talk about this harbourthere is a whole vista of anomalies crop-ping up. Cargo is discharged into truckson the open wharves where there are nosheds constructed, and this cargo has topay 3s. Gd. a ton, which includes the'truckage of the goods into the new sheds.Thus the IRailway Department receiveBe. 6d. a. ton for taking the goods intotheir trucks and putting them into thesheds, and eventually distributing them.But if a, ship lies alongside one of thenew sheds constructed on the wharf,the owner of the ship discharging thegoods puts them into the sheds, and,the mnerchant has to pay 3s. Gd. a ton forthe goods. The shipowners receive Is.3d. for handing the goods into the sheds.Whether they pay too much or too littleis a matter to be inquired into. Theamount charged for the various servicesappears to be far out of proportion towhat is fair and reasonable. These arereasons which I give why the harbourshould be placed under some business-likecontrol. I am giving some reasons toshow the necessity for such a control asthe Government propose. Fremantle, to

Harbour Trust Bill: [16 SEPTEYBER, 1902.]

1104 Harbour TrustiU [ASSEMBLY.] Second readinq.

become a great part, must show that costof handling cargo is cheapened and thatthe handling is facilitated. The cheaperand quicker the cargo is handled inwardsand outwards the greater chance there isof Fremantle becoming a great dis-tributing port. I do not think theambition of the West Australian Govern-mnent, the West Australian Parliament,and the West Australian people will goso far as to expect that Fremantle willsome day become the great Australiandistributing port, but in my opinion theday will come when cargo will be largelytranshipped at Fremnantle, not so muchfor the transcontinental railway line, butinto coastal steamers going to other ports.That can only be brought about bycheapening the cost of handling, landing,transhipping, and forwarding cargoesinwards and outwards from Fremantle.I venture to submit from previous experi-ence, not only here, because I hardlytake our experience as any criterion, butfrom experience gained all over the world,this can only be done by a special board.How that b~oard is to'be constituted isdebatable matter, but I submit all theinterests of this State, starting with thefirst interest of the State as the capitalist,right down to the lahourer who works onthe wharves, will be better served bybringing the harbour under a small cen-tral control, and taking it out of thehands of Government officials. I shall'always be an advocate of retaining thesupreme control in the bands of the State,that is the Government. With refer-ence to the Bill, we have had the experi-ence of Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaidedinned into our ears ad nauseam, and I1want to say at once and without hesita-tion that I think Melbourne a frightfulexample of the evils of an elective board.No doubt the member for Cue thinksdifferently, but I think the Victorianauthorities have made an awful mistake.Every little suburban municipality whoseboundaries are watered by the harbourelects representatives to the board.

MR. ILLINGOOTH: That is because itis a river

MR. DIAMOND: Itis not only ariver.Williamstown is not on the river, hut onPort Phillip Bay or Hobson's Bay; PortMelbourne is noton a river, but on Bob-son's Bay. Every little suburban munici-pality has the right to elect members to the

board, and I say, God forbid that weshould have such a system in WesternAustralia. The result in Melbourne hasbeen that every one of the delegates arefighting to get the harbour trust moneysspent in their little piece of country, ontheir own little-f mean municipality.I hope we will not have this elementin our harbour trust. I do not pro-pose to take up the time of the Houseto any extent, but I say I sincerely trustmembers will see the advantage of passingthe second reading of the Bill. At thesame time, every member naturallyreserves the right t) offer suggestions ormove amendments in jonunittee. I amnot bound hand or foot to the Bill; Ihave no meason to he; and when in Com-mittee possibly I shall have some littlealterations to suggest. Speaking generallyof the Bill, and I have gone through it Ican almost say backwards and forwards,I cannot see what is to be gained bymaking anly material alteration in themeasure. ]A to the number of com-missioners, T must say that last year Isuggested on the bustings that the boardshould consist of seven members. I amnow compelled to admit that during thefirst few yearsperhaps, or for the first year,as a tentative proposition we should con-tentourselves with five members. Wehavenot had such good instances given to usof having many members on boards whichshould induce us to follow the exnmple.In Sydney the number of commissionersis three, nominated and appointed by theGovernment. I think five a reasonablecompromise, and I shall not advocate anincrease of that number for some time atleast, and when an increase is proposedthe necessity will have to be shown.With reference to the constitution of theboard, I will say at once this House, if itdoes its duty to the country, will see thatthe Government of this State and thatthe people of this State secure in thisBill a6 preponderating influence on theboard, that is a majority of the membersof the board must be nominated orappointed in the interests of the State.

MEMBER: Why not the whole of theboard ?

MR. DIAMOND: I shall explain thatin amoment. The people of this State, asthe member for Cue (Mr. lllingworth)has pointed out, have invested one anda quarter millions in the Fremantle

HarourTrut Bll: [16SEPEMBTI,190.3 Second reading. 1105

Harbour Works; therefore the Fremantleharbour represents a business propositionwith a capital of one and a quartermillions wholly subscribed by the peopleof Westerni Australia, This businessproposition must, like every other businessconcern, work with customers; and thecustomers in this instance are shippingand mercantile people. The public, theold mulch cow-as has been very properlobserved by the member for One-alwaypay in the end; still, the direct, immediatcustomers of this business concern, as Icall it, the Fremazntle Harbour Works,are the shipping and business people;and therefore I consider it only right thatthe shipping and business people shouldhave a voice in the management. Totheir contributions in the shape ofwrharfage, harbour dues, and so forth, wemust look to return interest on capital aswell as to cover working expenses inconnection with the harbour. Therefore,while I am desirous, and while I trustevery member is desirous, that theGovernment should have a preponder-ating influence in this board, I see noearthly reason why the business andshipping people should not have somevoice in the management. Some degreeof injustice would be involved in refusingthem such a voice. So long as theGovernment secure preponderating in-fluence, no harm. can result. The memberfor Cue has touched on the salary proposedto be paid to the chairman of the board;and I agree that the Government are notlikely to secure in return for the sumproposed the undivided services of a mansufficiently trained and experienced. Itake it that the intention of the Govern-ment is that the chairman of the boardshould devote the whole of his time tothe management of the harbour. If asuitable man be selected for the post, theharbour matters will be virtually the workof his life, or, at any rate, will demandthe whole of his energies for years to come.Accordingly, I suggest to the Government-possibly I may move to this effect inCommittee-that the salary of the chair-man shall be a sum not exceeding £1,000a year. The salary need not necessarilyhe fixed at X1,000 at the start. TheGovernment may be left to recognise theservices of the chairman from time totime, if those services warrant it, byincreasing the remuneration. As regards

an engineer, I confess that at first I wasof opinion that the engineer should bavea seat on the board. I went even so faras to suggest that the engineer should bechairman. Farther consideration, bow-ever, and a little reading on the subject,brought me to a. different frame of mind.Fortunately or unfortunately, profes-sional men of the 'highest standing arenot always celebrated for business apti-tude; and the details of management inconnection with the harbour are such asto demandsa great deal of practical busi-ness experience. Necessarily, the engi-neer will have a large amount of work todo notwithstanding the statement of themember for Cue that the engineer wouldnot be called on to do construction work.That statement scarcely puts the positionfairly.

MR. ILLINGWORTR; The engineer willhave mainteniance to do.

Mna. DIAMOND : Of course. If,however, the board suggested additionsand improvements to the harbour, andthe Government, with the consent of theHouse, decided to carry out those addi-tions and improvements, the practicalexecution would certainly fall to the lotof the engineer, who, therefore, wouldneed to be a man of high standing in hisprofession.

MR. ILINGWRTH.The Bill does notsay that.

MR. DIAMOND: I think the Billdoes say so. At the same time I considerthe interests of the State and of thepeople in general, as well as the interestsof the harbour itself and those of themercantile and shipping .people, willbe served much better if the engi-neer is a salaried servant of the

1board. The limit of salary in this case*also is too low. I do not wish to men-tion names; but I maintain it has beenclear for some time past in this State that

*we have not overpaid our best men, tosay the least of it, and that we are likelyto lose our best men if we do not remu-

*nerate them adequately. I hold that theengineer's salary might be limited some-what after the same fashion as I sug-gested in the case of the chairman. Thematter, however, is one which I am pre-pared to leave to the discretion of theGovernment, who certainly must havebetter knowledge than I can have of thebest men for the two positions. Now, if

Harbour Trust Bill: [16 SFPrP.MBER, 1.902.]

1106 Harbour Trust Bill: [ASBL. Scodeai.

the Government control the appointmentof the chairman and the nomination oftwo other members of the board, therewill be three members appointed in theinterests of the Government. One othermember should represent shipping, andone other member mercantile interests.When I say that one otber member shouldrepresent shipping, I do not mean thathe should represent simply those whovirtually arrogate the claim to speak forthe whole of the Fremantle shippinginterests, some of which are not repre-sented at all on the various shippingorgaisations. There is the inter-StateSteamship Owners' Associations, repre-sented by various managers in Fremantle;there are the large ocean steamer inter-ests, English, American, and Continental;and, outside of these, there are the mailsteamer interests. Represented oil noneof these organisations, however, arenumerous other lines of ships: Messrs.Sanderson and Company's ine, GeorgeWills and Company's,, and others. Finally,there is the purely local, West Australianship owner. When I say that the ship-ping interests should be represented onthe hoard, T refer to the whole of theshipping interests of Fremantle, and Ileave it to the Government to considerand decide what franchise should nom-iniate the member who represents ship-ping interests. The selection of the repre-sentative of mercantile interests might, Ithink, fairly be left to the Perth and Fre-mantle Chambers of Commerce, which twobodies, by putting their heads together,could no doubt nominate a gentlemanwhose selection would be approved by theGovernment. In connection with thisBill, one other question stares us in theface, and it is one which cannot be over-looked. The Labour members have notyet made themselves heard on this Bill;but it is runmoured in Fremantle thatbefore the measure passes out of Comi-mittee, Labour will advance a claim forrepresentation on the board. When theLabour members do advance that claim,I shall have something to say. Amongthe suggestions circulated by, the Perthand Fremantle Chambers of Commerceis one which to my mind is most objec-tionable; that the chairman of the har-bour board or harbour trust should beelected by the other members. Theadoption of that suggestion would virtu-

ally remiove the control of the business ofthe harbour trust fromn the Governmentand hand it over to the Ohambers ofCommerce and to the shipping people.Now, I think I am a loyal Fremantleinu. I have incurred a considerabledegree of obloquy-I am sorry the mem-her for Dundas (Mr. Thomas) is nothere-by reasp~n of my advocacy of Fre-mantle interests. Notwithstanding myloyalty to Fremantle, however, I recog-nise that in this particular matter-thestatement can hardly be repeated toooften -the preponderating influence mustrest with those -who are shareholders tothe extent of one and a quarter millionsof money, and that by no possible meansshould the supreme control of the har-bour be allowed to pass out of the handsof the people as represented by thisHouse and its lieutenants, the memberson the Treasury bench. Consequently,I for one cannot accept the suggestionthat the chairman of the board should beelected by its members. If fully approveof the determnination shown in thbe draft-ing of this Bill not to invest the boardwith borrowing powers. We should notbe doing our duty to the country,indeed we should be traitors to the coun-try, if we granted any board the powerof borrowing sums of money to spendat its own discretion. In this connectionI desire to refer to certain observationsof the member for Cue, many of whoseremarks meet with muy entire approval,though others, the hon. member will notbe surprised to learn, I cannot indorse.The hon. member -referred more thanonce to a responsible board.

MR. ILNGrwourH; I Said, an irre-sponsible board.

Ma. DIAMOND: I understood thehion. member to refer to the necessity fora responsible board.

Mu. ILLINOWOUTRE: No, I said thepowers of the Ministry were to be handedover to an irresponsible board.M. DIAMOND: What responsibility

other than a merely nominal one canattach to the members of this or anyother board, unless those members areinsured under bond with a fidelity-guarantee companyP A man may makehimself nomninally responsible by saying" Yes; I am chairman of the board;Jones, Brown, and Smith, are also mem-bers; and we will see that the State of

[ASSEMBLY.3 Second reading.

Harbour Trust Bill: ( 16 SEPTrEMRER, 1902.] Second reading. 1107

Western Australia receives interest onits money, and that the working expenseswill be paid." But even under suchcircumstances, where does responsibilitycome in? If the members fail to carryout their engagements, they are simplyrelieved of their offices; and that is theonly redress to be obtained from menwho assume this imaginary responsibility.Business men appointed to do the workof the board will use their utmostendeavours, but it is surely impossibleto fix financial responsibility on them.If they fail to carry out their work asthey ought, they will suffer in fame, andperhaps in pocket by loss of office. Buta body constituted like the board pro-posed by this.Bill cannot in the longrun assume any direct and tangibleresponsibility such as is suggested by themember for Cue.

Mn. ILLINOWOETH: But under thisBill the commissioners are irresponsible,and cannot be got rid of.

MR. DIAMOND: No; that is pro-vided for in the Bill. I venture tosubmit that the adoption of the hon.'member's suggestions would simply resultin the creation of another expensiveGovernment department. In existingcircumstances, and in view of theexperience of the past, I do not think amajority of the House will agree to anyalteration of this Bill tending towardsthe formation of another expensivedepartment. The board as proposed tobe created by the Bill will be com-paratively inexpensive. Some of itsmembers, at ay rate, will practicallyperforn honorary duties; certainly, theirfees will not exceed those of a directoron the board of a small company. Agreat deal of work in connection withthe harbour board 'will be done forvirtually no remuneration by men whounderstand what they are about. Ithink, therefore, that the general idea ofthe Bill will meet with the approval ofthe people, and I sincerely trust it willmeet with that of the majority of thisHouse.

Mn. 1M. H. JACOBY (Swan): I wishto state briefly that I agree with thisBill generally, and with one or two slightalterations in Committee I shall be ableto support it. But I shall object, if anyattempt is made to give a controllinginfluence to outside bodies. I consider

that, as the State has expended themoney, the State should have the con-trolling power in the appointment of theboard. It seems to mne rather aridiculous attitude taken up by somebodies outside, that the shipping interestsand the mercantile interests who con-tribute to the revenue of this harbourshould be given a controlling influenceon the harbour board. I mnust object tothat attitude on principle. If there isany chance of our handing this over as aself-supporting institution to a board,then there may be something in theargument for handing over all respon-sibility and complete control to thatboard: But whilst the State will have tofind a considerable amount annually topay the interest on the harbour, and alsoto find considerable additional sums forcompleting it, I consider that the maincontrol of the harbour must remain inthe hands of the State. I hope thatwhen the time comes for the appointmentof this harbour trust, no member of Par-liament will receive a seat on that board.I hope the House will take a stand inthis matter, and that we shall lay downthe principle, or anyhow recognise theprinciple, and perhaps lay it down laterin the Bill, that no memaber of Parlia-ment should be appointed to anyremunerative office unless he has ceasedto be a member of Parliament for atleast six months. I want to see, ifpossible, this Assembly remain respectedthroughout the State; and if these thingsoccur, if members of Parliament areappointed to positions in the publicservice, it does not matter how par-ticularly fitted they may be for thepositions, there will always be in theminds of a very large proportion of thepeople an idea that some occult influencehas been at work. I trust the Govern-ment will refrain from appointing anymembers of Parliament to this board.

With regad to the management, I wouldle to see the salary of the engineer mn-

creased, and that of the chairman de-creased. No doubt, we shall haveappointed to the position of chairman ofthis board a recognised businessgentlena~nlargely interested in mercantile pursuitsat Fremnantle. I think that, praps, itwould be as well if we were to give £C800a year to the gentleman to act as chair-man of the board, instead of £2600, and

1108 Barrnur Trust Bill: [ASSETMBLY.] Second readin.

give an additional £800 a year to acompetent engineer. It is necessary tbatwe should have as an engineer oif thisharbour a man fully qualified, and Itrust that we shall not get ourselvesinto the same trouble as we bare hadbefore in this House through expectingmen with small salaries to take veryonerous positions. I see no necessity togive the chairman so large an amount as8£600 a6 year, and I think the amount

pu down for the engineer is too smallfor a man qualified for the position. I

have much pleasure in supporting thesecond reading of the Bill.

Ms. R. HASTIE (Kanowna) : It ispleasant for us now to deal with a matterthat is not to be treated as a party one,and on which members will not beengaged in scoring points against eachother. I notice that everyone seems toexpect that we shall agree unanimouslyto have the Bill read a second time. Ithink that would be wise, provided thatif we agree to have the Bill read a secondtime, we in no way commit ourselves asto the principle upon which members ofthis hoard will be elected. If that heleft an open question to be decided iu Corn -mittee, we shall, I hope, be able to createthrough this Bill a very fair and satis-factory board. For a long time many ofus have spoken in this House of thegreat desirability of stopping as much aspossible this principle of centralisation,and of seeing that wherever we can weshould decentralise atffairs, and notarrange matters so that everything thatgoes on throughout the entire countryshall be centred say in Perth, or in someof the Government offices in Perth. Itseems to me particularly desirable that,if possible, we should see that the harbourboard shall be under some separatecontrol from that of one of the publicdepartments. But I very much doubtif the manner in which this is pro-posed to be carried out by the Bil isa wise one; for in the first place thepeople in Perth and Fremantle did notcreate that harbour; and on the otherhand it really is the case that this har-bour, to a very large extant, createdFremantle. The harbour has not beenbuilt by the people who live in this partof the country, but by the whole of theState. So much hs that centralisingpolicy been recognised that it does not

seem to be the intention of the Govern-mnent to alter it in any way, to try tocarry out a decentralising policy byappointing some people from elsewherethan this particular part of the countryto manage this trust; and it seems tome that they have gone to a, verydangerous extent in this respect, bygiving power to this proposed board tospend a very large amount of Govern-ment money. This board is empoweredby the Bill, if not to carry out extensionsand improvements, to point out to theMinister what extensions and improve-ments are required; and the Minister willno doubt in the vast majority of casesdo what is required by the commissioners,because the Minister will appeal to theHouse and say " The commissioners forthe harbour here are the people whoknow best the requirements of the har-boar, and unless lecan show a particularlygood case I am bound to carry out theinstructions which they give." Besides,it is proposed to hand over to themanother power more dangerous still. ThisBill proposes that one man shall beelected by the Perth Chamber of Com-merce, and one by the Fremnantle Chamberof Commerce, and probably the Ministerwho introduced the Bill will be found toagree that one representing the shippinginterests also shall be appointedl. Theconsequence will be this. The first andgreatest object of those three men-twomen, at any rate, and perhaps three men-will be to reduce the harbour dues, toreduce freights and those other thingsto a non-payable price. This will be theprincipal object that those men will beelected to carry out.

TUE PREMIER: The board cannot re-duce or increase rates without the consentof the Government.

MRt. HASTIE: But then the firstthing that will be done when this businessis handed over to the board will be toleave almost everything to it, and Minis-ters will not be in such a good position totake a fair view of the thing as the boarditself; so it must be an absolute certaintythat if a board be constructed on the linesproposed in this Bill, instead of theFremantle harbour being a better payingproperty, the loss will be heavier everyyear. I was rather surprised at one ortwo remarks which fell from my friendthe member for Cue (Mr. Illingwortb).

Harbour Tsut Bill: [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.] Second reading. 1109

LIt was only the other night that be par-ticularly declaimed against handing overthe property of the State to commissioners.So far as the railways are concerned, heappeared to find fault with that verystrongly; but to-night he seems to favourcommissioners- [MR! . ILLINOWORTrH:No]-only those commissioners ought tobe popularly elected. I do not knowexactly what lie would expect from com-missioners in a harbour any more thanin a. railway ; but I feel certain of this,that if those commissioners are elected inthe way proposed by the Bill, people out-aide the direct shipping interests in themetropolis will very soon declare them tobe a failure.

MR. TLL!NGWORTH: They will have tofind the money.

MR. HAS IE: If the question ofelection comes in, two particular pointsshould be borne in mind. The memberfor Cue has just mentioned one of them,that if the members of the cominnssionare elected and if they have responsi-bility, those persons must be made to findthe money, and the Government mustnot always be expected to foot their bill.But, as I have already said, the greattendency will be to reduce rates, and thetendency will be ten times stronger to dothat seeing they have no responsibility offinance, but that the Government willalways come along and finance the under-taking for them. Then another thingin connection with an elective board alsorequires to be strongly borne in mind,and that is, who are to be the electors ?Will they be the people who live in Perthand in Fremantle ? I believe I am rightin saying that as a general rule thefarther people are away from the seaboardin this country, the greater is the amountof imported stuff they' use, on the average.That is, the people who live in Perth andin Fremantle no doubt consume a muchgreater quantity of locally grown producethan do people who live a considerabledistance off ; and if it is necessary for theChamber of Commerce in Perth and theChamber of Commerce in Fremantle tohave representation here, it is still morenecessary that the chambers of commerceand the business people at a very reatdistance from the metropolis should haverepresentation. But as it would be veryinconvenient to increase this board up to14, 15, or 16, it is evident there are more

reasons why this board as proposedshould not be elected than that it should.If we are to have a popular election, thenpractically every person ought to have avote in the choice of these commissioners.I am impelled to speak on the matterthis way, that as this is a big national workand the State has to find the money, as itis not proposed to hand over the financesof the harbour to any small board, thenwhatever board is appointed, that boardshould be nominated directly by theGovernment of the State, and the Gov-ernment should be responsible to thisHouse in the first place for the manage-ment of the harbour, and in the secondplace for any expenses incurred. Weneed not expect that our expenses con-nected with the Fremantle harbour areat an end. I do not think that we havehalf completed it yet. We shall find inthe future, as we have in the past, thatevery year there is a good case made outfor additional expenditure. That is thecase in regard to almost every harbour Iknow of in the world, and I do not thinkwe are justified in taking a more opti-migt view in connection with Fremantle.Another question was raised by themember for Cue. He expressed somedoubt as to whether decentralisationshould begin in this matter. " Would itnot be better," he said, " if we changedthe mode of control that obtains withthe Fremantle harbour at the presenttime ?" The Public Works Depart-ment and the Railway Department man-age it between them at present; andI take it the hon. member's sugges-tion is that we should have a distinctsub-department directly under the Min-ister, and that it and italone should con-trol this harbour. Much may be saidfor that; but I think on the whole ourexperience in this country has shown thatwherever we can possibly decentralise, itis better for the country and for the work.

MR. ILLINGWORTH: Put the Govern-ment into commission!

Mn. HASTIE: Well, commissionscan sometimes be elected which will showthe Governent something Ministers donot know. I understand the Govern-ment are practically a commission.

MR. ILLIYGWORTH: And you aretaking away their work.

MR. HASTIE: We certainly takeIaway some of their work; but the prin-

1110 Harbour Trust Hill: [AS BL ]Seodraig

cipal complaint I have heard from Mini-isters since I have been in this House isthat they have too much work to doalready. If the Minister in charge ofthe Bill can assure us that we shall havea full opportunity of discussing thevarious details in Committee, I think wemay fairly agree to the second reading;and we shall then be able considerablyto improve the Bill, anid to do something-and something is really required-to

*put the shipping affairs of this State inbetter order.

Ma. J. L. NANSON (Murcbison):'Until the member for Cue (Mr. Illing-worth) had spoken, I was under the im-pression that the principle of this BilUcommanded the universal support of hon.members; and even so far as that hon.member is concerned, I was undler the ima-pression that at one time in his politicalcareer be had belonged to a Governmentthat made very prominent in its platformthe system of management of harboursby mneans of trusts. However, with ex-perience there sometimes comes changeof mind; and possibly, having left theMinistry and looked on this matter fromoutside, the hon. member sees reason why-he should oppose the principle of placingthe Fremantle harbour under a trust,and is inclined to believe that it shouldremain as at present, -wholly controlledby the Government. If, however, welook farther abroad than Western Aus-tralia., we shall discover, as was pointedout by the Colonial Secretary in movingthe second reading, that in the EasternStates the principle of harbour trustshas I think witbout an exception beenadopted, and has on the whole answeredvery well. If we go to England, we shallfind that although in the mother countrythere is not the tendency that is to someextent bewailed in Australia, of puttingevery important branch of administrationunder commission, yet it has been founda sound policy to pl~ace the control ofharbours, of lighrhouses, and of riversunder boards freed from political control.

Mn. ItLINrwowRn:- But the countryhas not found the money.

MR. NANSON: The country, in thecircumstances I have mentioned, hasfound a very great deal of the money; infact in regard to lighthouses, which areunder the control of the Trinity' Brethren,Ithink the whole of the money is found

from national resources, and the TrinityHouse, an absolutely non-political body,is invested with very wide powers indeed.

MR. ILLIYOWORTu: And is responsiblefor the interest.

MR. NANSON:- I -am entirely at onewith the member for Cue in guardingagainst this tendency to place too manypowers in the hands of commissions, todivest the Government of too large ashare of responsibility; but if I read thisBill aright, it seems to me that there isno intention on the part of the Govern-ment to divest themselves of respon-sibility, but that they keep a very tighthand. on the proposed harbour trust, andthat if they err at all, they err possiblyin the direction of keeping somewhat tootight a hand on the commissioners. Ifit be proposed that the Governmentshalt nominate the majority of themembers of the harbour trust, and ifthat intention be adhered to, then itis matter for consideration whether thepowers of the harbour board may not tosome extent be enlargedl, or whether thosepowers may not be used without havingin almost every instance recourse to theGovernment inorder to obtain Govern-ment sanction. However, as I have said,on the general principle of this Bill therecan be little need of debate. The prin-ciple that it espouses is not the heritageof any political party in the State. Ibelieve the principle of a harbour boardwas advocated before the Iacake Gov-

*erment came into power; the LeakeGovernment were always its strong sup-porters; the present Government onlycarry on that policy; and no one, withthe exception I think of the member forCue-and he is only a recent convert-has ever attempted to suggest that theultimate evolution of the control of theFremantle Harbour Works was not theplacing of those works under commis-sioners.

Ma. ILLfINGWORTHT: I complained thatthe board are not responsible.

A] it. NAiNSON: I am not quite ableto follow the hon. member's argument.I thought he was complaining that theGovernment were throwing responsibilityfrom their own shoulders on to theshoulders of the board; but I now gatherhie is complaining that although the Gov-ernment throw responsibility off their

Second reading.[ASSEMBLY]

HarwurTrut Bll: [1 SETEMER,190.] Second reading. 1111

shoulders, they do not throw it on to theshoulders of the board.

MR. ILLINOWORTH: The Bill does notmake the board responsible for interestand sinking fund.

Mu. NANSON:- However, it is re-freshing and agreeable to find that thehon. member is on his guard against whatis undoubtedly a dangerous tendency ofGovernments in Australia-that of throw-ing too much power on irresponsiblebodies; but I think, in his affection forthat principle of waking the Governmentresponsible, he has perhaps, so far as thisBill is concerned, allowed his fears to carryhim somewhat away. There will no doubtbe a need, when it reaches Committee,to amend the Bill in some particulars. Iunderstood from the speech of the ColonialSecretary,, that he anticipated as muchhimself ; and in the admirable addresswith which he introduced this Bill, hedid not lead us to suppose the Gov-ernment were absolutely wedded to anyof the details with which the measurenecessarily deals. For my part I aminclined to think it will be a. mistake ifthe engineer of the board be also amember of the hoard; because there isundoubtedly a tendency, when a profes-sional man of high attainments is both amember and a servant of a board, thatfor all practical purposes he ceases to bea servant and becomes a dominant factoron such board. I doubt if that state ofthings is altogether desirable. Then asto the remuneration of members, whileit is no doubt necessary that we shouldpay such a salary to the engineer as willsecure a man of the necessary attain-meats, I do not know that the remunera-tion of the ordinary members of theboard is a point of great importance, atany rate as regards those members whomay be nominated by the chambers ofcommerce or bky the shipping companies,if it be desired to give the shippinginterests a, voice in the nomination ofmembers; because the gentlemen nomi-nated by those bodies do not go on theboard with the idea of drawing largesalaries, but will sit simply to safeguardand to represent the mercantile and theshipping interests of the community, andbe quite willing to serve without anyvery liberal rate of pay. There is atendency against which it is desirable toguard at a time when the necessity for

economy is becoming more urgent; thatis, while we contemplate making reduc-tions in the public service on the onehand, we on the other hand create anumber of new positions carrying salariesperhaps unnecessarily liberal. It maybe possible to give the chairman a fairlygood salary ; but with th e otb er membersof the board I am inclined to think thatthe more desirable principle would be tovote a lump sum -for their remuneration,and to let them distribute it amongstthemselves. As to the number of mem-bers on the board, there is certainly muchto he said for giving the shipping comn-panics representation equal to that ofthe mercantile community. If the boardwere given larger powers than are contem -plated in this Bill, if they were allowedto fix the harbour dues without referenceto the Government, there can be nodoubt it would be essential that theGovernment nominees should be pre-domiinant; because otherwise we mightfind that the mercantile and shippingrepresentatives were simply running theboard in the interest of the bodies theymore particularly represented. At thesame time, even if there should be a ten-dency to lower the harbour dues, it isnot I think a tendency that need neces-sarily excite much alarm. among hon.members. There can be no question thatit is a, good thing for the port to have thename of being a cheap port; and itshould be part of the public policy of thecountry to make the shipping facilities ofFremantle as cheap as we possibly canafford to make them. We wish, its themember for South Fremantle (Mr. Dia-mond) indicated, to make Fremantle thegreat distributing centre in Australia.There seems to be nothing extravagantin that ambition, nothing in it that isimpossible. But nothing can be morecertain than that if we are to fulfil thisambition, th en we must make the harbouras attractive as possible to those who useit; and if the shipping dues be low, ifthe shipping facilities be abundant, thenI take it the general public of West-ern Australia really reap) the majorportion of the benefit in the long run.Before I sit down I should like tocongratulate the Colonial Secretary (RIon.W. Kingsmill) on the mannier in whichhe moved the second reading. He veryfully explained the principles of the Bill.

Harbour Trust Bill. [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.]

1112 Harbour Trust Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

and gave us a highly interesting rjsum,of the legislation of other States in regardto this subject. To my mind his methodof introducing the measure was a model.It certainly makes it very much easier todebate the Bill on the second reading,and I think to a large extent expeditesthe course of public business.

MR. H. J. YELWERTON (Sussex): Iam entirely in accord with the idea that atrust should be formed to take over tbemanagement of the Fre mantle harbour.I think the time has arrived when thedetails of the harbour work should betaken out of the bands of the Governmentand given to a. board. Ilam also in accordwith the Government in retaining controlin respect of future works and construc-tion. I think too that in these circum-stances the Government should retain apreponderating interest in appointingmembers of the board. At the same time,I believe the mercantile and the shippinginterests should be represented on theboard. With regard to the engineer, Iam entirely opposed to his being amember of the board. I think he shouldbe a servant of the board, and that asalary of about X80oo a year, as proposedin the Bill, will be sufficient for the pre-sent. Considering that he will not haveanything to do with the farther develop-ment and construction of the harbour,this salaryv should be sufficient to obtainthe service of a suitable man. I shouldlike to know whether he is to bea mechanical or a civil engineer. Atpresent, a mechanical engineer is em-ployed by the Harbour Department,and it is necessary that such a manshould be employed by the department.The engineer employed in conjunctionwith the board or by the board should bea man who has the combined attributesof civil and mechanical engineer. Itis possible to get such a man, and Isuggest to the Government, or rather Isuggest to the board, that in appointingtheir engineer they should have such aman. With regard to the chairman Iam not in accord with the proposal thathe should receive a high salary. I ratherthink that the man appointed to theoffice, as suggested by the FremantleChamber of Commerce, should receive afee of about three guineas per sitting,and other members of the board will beamply remunerated-considering they do

not have very great responsibilities underthe Bill-by the payment of two guineasper sitting. According to the planshowing the boundaries of the Fremantleharbour as proposed, Rockingham jettyis included within the boundaries of theharbour. Yet there is an agreement, soI am informed, with the JarrshdaleForests and Riockinghami Railway,whereby they have a grant in fee simplein so much of the soil and of the sea andforeshore from high water mark sea-wards as may be deemed necessary.

THE PREMIER: Deemed necessary bywhom?

MR. Y.ELVEI{TON: I presume bythe Government. At any rate thatclause exists in the agreement betweenthe company I have referred to and theGovernment, and I should. like anexpression of opinion from the Govern-ment how under these circumstances theypropose to include the property of thecompany within the provisions of theBill. I am entirely in favour of the for-mation of the trust, and support thesecond reading of the Bill, subject, ofcourse, to whatever amendments may bedeemed necessary in Committee.

MitJ.J. HIGHAJVI(Fremantle): Thoseof us who have been brought into dlosecontact with the shipping of Fremantlemust be gratified that the House admitsthe necessity for the Bill, and does notindorse the expressions of op~inion ofthe member for Cue, that the Govern-ment should go on managing this greatwork. Ever since the harbour wasextended to include Victoria Quay, thoseconnected with the shipping and mercan-tile interests have not been satisfied withthe manner in which the harbour hasbeen managed. There has been conflictbetween the various departments havingcontrol over the harbour-the RailwayDepartment, the Customs Department,and the Harbour Department. Afterhaving had a fair trial without givingsatisfaction, all begin to realise, as themercantile community realised some timesince, that it is essential the harbourshould be placed uinder the control of atrust. We regret that the powers to begiven to the commission are of such atentative character, and there is somejustification forthe remarks of the memberfor Cue, that the board to some extent isneither one thing nor the other. But we

HarourTrut Bll: [1 $ETEMEH,190.1 Second reading. 111a

are satisfied that if we get this Billpassed, the work accomplished under thetrust will justify the Government at nodistant date in giving increased powerand responsibility to that board, whowill, I amt sure, show increased work inreturn. Members seem fairly in accordwith regard to the principles of the Bill.As to the proposed constitution of theboard, the general opinion of those atFremantle interested in the harbourseems to be that there should not be toomaeny members on the commission. Fivemembers would be ani ample number, andalthough there is same little difference ofopinion as to how the five should benominated or elected, still I hope theHouse will conic to a satisfactory conclu-sion and that a hoard will be nominatedwho will do good work. I hope andtrust the Government will not desire tomake the engineer of the trust a memberof the bord.n It seems absurd that aman who is to be a servant of the boardshould also be one of those in control.The man who is to receive the highestsalary on the board is also to be aservant. There is one anomaly whichI trust the Colonial Secretary will explainto us. Why should we have an engi-neer receiving a high salary when allthe engineering work has been takenout of the hands of the commissionand placed in the hands of the PublicWorks Department? The only workover which the board's engineer will haveany great control will be to effect all neces-sary repairs, with the mnaintenance andinstallation of better methods of deal-ing with the cargo that have been pend-ing so long. So far as the outside har-bour is concerned, I do not see that theengineer will have much to do. So far asthe chairman is concerned, the Bill laysdown the principle that the chairmanshould devote the whole of his time andenergy, to the work, and this principle isto be maintained. It is absurd to expectthat the Government will get a gentlemanto occupy the position for the paltry sumof £600 a year. Anyone with the quali-fications which we hope to see the chair-man of the board possess ought to beworth £2,000 a year, and the Governmentare not likely to get a man to take theposition under £1,000 or £1,200 a year,and this accounts for the suggestionwhich has been made by the Fremantle

Chamber of Commerce that instead ofhaving a chairman whose services shallbe entirely devoted to Lhe board, theGovernment should offer the chairmansome additional fee for the slightly exces-sive duties he will have to perform overthe other members of the board. Nodoubt the chairman would have to give acertain amount of supervisory attentionin connection with the secretarial work,and in seeing that the work of the boardis carried out. But if we can afford, andwe should be able to afford: to pay agentleman to take the position of chair-inan, we ought to pay him adequately forhis services, which would result ink greatbenefit to the community. Attention hasbeen drawn to the amount which theharbour has cost-one and a quartermillions practically. T do not 'know ifmembers realise that this amount willhave to be substantially reduced if thatportion of the reclaimed land which isin the occupation of the Railway Depart-ment be debited to that departmentinstead of to the harbour. If that bedone, the amount I have mentioned willbe considerably reduced. The land is nowused by the Railway Department, andthough a great deal of benefit is notbeing reaped f rom. it, yet if the departmentwere prepared to lease a great dealof the land which they do not re-qjuire, a substantial amount would bereceived annually from that land.The question of the revenue of the harbou~rhas been brought up in connection withproviding the money for sinking fund andinterest on the cost of construction. Iam afraid if the harbour commission arenot more successful than the Governmenthave been, we are not likely to rec;eivemuch return, if any at all. It is nosecret that during the administration bythe Railway Department and the WorksDepartment, although substantial wharf-age rates have been charged, little or nobenefit has been reaped. This has beendue to want of system, want of properappliances, and to the conflict of interests.There has been too munch delay in theloading and discharging of vessels throughiwant of facilities for the proper handlingof cargo. The system of dischargingdirect into the sheds has been a greatsuccess, and I think the country have tothank the mnercantile community forbringing about this system. The late

Harbour Trwt Bill: [16 $EPTEMMEt, 1902.1

1114 Harbour Trust Bill: [ASSEMIBLY.] Seodraig

Engineer-in-Chief started the harbourworks with the idea of working all thewharves on the truck system. He couldnever see the benefit to be derived fromdirectly working into the sheds, and itwas only with the greatest difficulty, andI may say in the absence of the Engineer-in-Chief in England, that the shippingand mercantile communities were enabledto secure the first step towards getting theunloading worked direct into the sheds.That system has worked splendidly, andthe sheds which are now open are givinga substantial return to the RailwayDepartment. Although the Railway De-partment have received no benefit fromthe wharfage dues in the past, from theworking of the sheds they a-re nowreceiving 3s. 6d. per ton wharfage. Cer-tainly out of that they have to pa, theshipping agents is. 3d. per ton, stil thedepartment obtain 2s. 3d. without anyexpenditure except that for supervision.There is no expenditure for labour at all:-the 2s. 3d. is practically the net amountthe Government receive. I hope whenthe harbour trust is in proper workingorder, more sheds will be built and a muchlarger return will then be obtained to theTreasury. We may then see the harbourpaing something approximating theinterest and possibly a fair amounttowards the sinking fund. No doubt weall realise that a considerable suw has yetto be spent on the harbour works beforethey are placed in efficient order.Possibly the lower portion of the -wharf,now devoted to the old system of dis-charging into trucks, will be raised to thesame level as that portion where directdischarge into sheds is dlone. Allgeneral cargo will then be dealt with onthe shed system. The harbour commis-sion will not be an employer of labour,but will receive wharfage .dues from thevessels in return for the conveniences ofthe wharves and appliances and forplacing the goods in the sheds fordistribution. The stevedores or theships' crews-though we hope that nottoo much work -will be carried out by thelatter on the wharves-will do all that isnecessary for conveying the goods into thesheds. The system has been proved themost economical and the best for allconcerned. The north quay, which willsoon be finished, may then be utilised forspecial cargoes necessitating handling

direct from vessels into trucks. Thetimber trade, the sandalwood trade, andall other heavy trade will be done on thlenorth quay, and done effectively withproper supervision to provide that thetrucks as soon as loaded may, be got away.There are many points to which consider-able attention will have to be given inCommnittee; but I am pleased to Msee thatalthough hon. members may differ inopinion on various matters, we are likelyto come to such a conclusion as will giveFremantle a. useful harbour board, andwill, I hope, eventually result in otherharbours as well being worked econlomi-cally and for the best results. Thecompletion of the Fremvantle harbour andthe providing of all1 necessary facilitieswill do much to benefit the whole corn-inunity. Lower rate-s of freight andquick discharge will be two importantfactors in our trade. Whereas theharbour is in disfavour at the presenttime, we may hope in the near future tohave it regarded by foreign shipowners asone of the best managed ports inthe world. As things are, manyowners will not accept a, charterfrom Fremantle, notwithstanding the vastimprovements of the last few years. Thesteamer 11Hafis," which discharged atFremantle the other day, took 50 percent, more time than the owner consideredreasonable. I know from the shippingaxssociation with which I am connectedthat the owner complained bitterly, andhas declined to offer any of his vessels forFremantle charter in the future. Untilthe harbour is controlled by a properly-constituted board and adequate facilitiesfor prompt discharge are made available,we shall haive to put up with high chargesfor freight and great difficulty in obtain-ing vessels.

Tnx COLONIAL SECRETARY (inreply):- I have but few observations toolffer inreply. First of all, I must thankhon. members for the spirit in which theyhave received the Bill; and especiallymust I thank the nmember for the Mur-chison (Mr. Nanlson) for the extremelyflattering remarks he has made concerningmyself. *"Praise from Sir Hubert ispraise indeed." With regard to certaincriticisms passed on the Bill, both insideand outside the House, I have a fewwords to say. In the first place, I mustremark that I have failed to grasp the

Second reading.

Harbour Trust Bill: [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.] Second reading. 1115

exact attitude taken by the severest op-opoent of the Bill inside the House, themember for Cue (Mr. Illingworth), onaccount of his occupying, apparently atthe same time, two absolutely differentpositions. The hon. memherflrst blamesthe Government bitterly for wishing toshift responsibility to the shoulders of acommission, and then proceeds to blamethem still more bitterly for not shiftingenough responsibility on the shoulders ofthe commission. Of course, I am. sorrythat the Government have failed in thisparticular; but the position is one iniwhich failure is inevitable; for if Minis-ters satisfied the aspirations of the hon.memberin one respect,they must fall shortof them in another. Again, the memberfor Oue suggested that the Governmentshould do the work of the proposedboard. Witi, all deference I must main-tain, however, that there is a good dealof work connected with the effectivecarrying out of operations in the harbour

afremantle which cannot be properlydone by any Minister, which demands forits effective carrying out the supervisionof three business men such as we hope tosecure by the appointments to be madeto the board proposed by this Bill.Various suggestions have been made inconnection with the measure by Fre-mantle bodies representing the com-mercial interests and the local and foreignshipping interests. With some of thesesuggestions I am glad to say I can fallin; with others, however, I must disagree.Nevertheless, I thank those bodies inFremnintle and elsewhere for their sug-gestions; and I thank also various mem-bers of the general public who have tothe best of their ability criticised theBill, for the fair and impartial attitudeassumed towards it. I may add that, asI invited criticism, I am not in the leastput out by it, but shadi endeavour toassimilate in the Bill those suggestionswhich I consider to be good and as tend-ing to advance the interests of the State.I find that quite a little agitation hasbeen caused by the proposal of the Gov-ernment to appoint the engineer a mem-ber of the board. At the time I in.troduced the Bill, I gave certain reasonswhy this should be done. I may say atonce, however, that I do not wish toadopt any bigoted attitude on the point.I desire merely to remind hon. members

that there is excellent precedent for theproposal. The present chairman orpresident of the Sydney Harbour Com-mission is a gentleman who fulfils thefunctions of engineer to that commission.

MR. ILLINOWORTE: Is he not chair-man as wellP

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: Yes.MR. ILLINGWOSTH: That alters the

position.THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: I

suppose that gentleman is one of themost skilled, if not the most skilled,harbour engineers in Australia at thepresent time. I am reminded thatthe fact of the gentleman in questionbeing chairman as well as engineer wouldrather emphasise than remove the objec-tion. which has been taken by the memberfor Oue in this particular. One amend-ment suggested by certain hon. membersI hope will not be pressed, though I amnot greatly concerned about it eitherway. Those members expressed a con-viction that the appointment of nmembhersof Parliament to the harbour boardwould be improper. I for my part donot see that the fact of a gentlemanoccupying a seat in Parliament shoulddebar him fromt using any abilities hemay possess in the interests of theState in connection with this board. Irepeat, I have no strong objection to theamendment; but I must point out thatthe remuneration of members of theboard will be practically honorary-thatis to say, the fees proposed to be paidwill merely cover the out-of-pocket ex-penses estimated tio be incurred bymembers of the board in respect of thetime which they serve on it, and thatthe practice in the past has been for hon.members serving on Royal Commissionsto draw fees. That being so, why shouldnot members of Parliament who mightpoqsibly be appointed members of thisboard be enabled to draw fees withoutendangering their seats?~ I ay onceagain, I have no object in making thestipulation; and I repeat what I statedin introducing the Bill, that the Govern-ment have not yet taken into considera-tion the personnel of the board. That isabsolutely a fact; and therefore I wish toemphasise that in urging my view I haveno object other than a desire that no classof the community shall be debarred fromappointment to the board, if the Govern-

ills Harbour Trust Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Deputy Chairman.

ment should consider the appointment ofa member of that class suitable, andlikely to prove advantageous not only tothe board but to the State.

MR. JAcoBY: There are just as goodmen outside the House as in it.

Tun COLONIAL SECRETARY:Possibly there are good men outside theRouse, but there may be better meninside. I do not think the hon. memberwill dispute that proposition. In intro-ducing the Bill, I emphasised the pointthat the clauses dealing with remunera-tion were purely tentative. So far as Iam concerned, I am quite ready to wel-come the suggestion made by the Fre-mantle Chamber of Commerce with regardto the appointment of the chairman. Atthe same time, however, I will go farther;and,' say in particular, f do not wishthe chairman to be elected by the mem-bers of the board. On the contrary, Idesire that the nomination of the chair-man should be in the hands of the Gov-ernment. I may observe that I shouldbe jealous about parting with any unduedegree of control and placing it in thehands of commissioners, viewing thecircumstances of this board. The mem-ber for Cue has striven to labour thepoint that the board should be maderesponsible for the payment of interestand sinking fund. In reply,'I may pointout tbat in only one State has that beendlone, namely New South Wales. Inmoving the second reading I pointed outthat the circumstances of the SydneyHarbour Trust are altogether differentfrom those of the harbour trust hereproposed. When a times comes--asperhaps it may come some day-makingit possible for the Fremantle HarbourBoard to pay interest and sinking fund,then the constitution of the board willhave to be altered. The principal workto be carried out in the immediate futureis that of organisation, that of puttingthe Fremantle harbour on such a footingas will be fair to merchants and ship-owners on the one hand and to the Stateon the other. That work having beenaccomplished, it may become necessary-as it has become necessary in other States-to amend the system. I previouslyobserved that wherever harbour trustBills have been introduced, amendmenthas been found necessary-perhaps notimediately, but in some cases within

two or three years. I do not for amoment suggest that this Bill is perfect;I do not suppose that it winl f ulfilall requirements of conditions whichmay arise within the next few years;but for the purposes for which the Billseeks to provide, for the purpose oforganisation and for the purpose ofputting matters on a fair and equitablecommercial basis, this measure, in mostrespects at all events, will be foundadequate. When the time for amend-ment comes, I shall certainly be glad toreceive suggestions. As regards a pointraised by the member for Sussex (Mr.Yelverton)-I am surprised to learn fromthe member for Fremantle (Mr. Higham)that the pithas been raised-theremay be a hidden meaning which I atpresent do not suspect. However, Ishall make the fullest inquiries, andshall endeavour to satisfy the curiosityof hon. members. I must again thankthe House for the extremely reasonableattitude adopted in regard to this measure,which I hope will be treated during theCommittee stage in the same fair spiritas has been manifested during the debateon the second reading.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

At 6-30, the SPEAKER left the C~hair.At 7-30, Chair resumed.

DEPUTY cHAR&-COMPLTMECNTARY.

Order read, for resuming in Committeethe consideration of the Railways ActsAmendment Bill. MR. SPEAxER (underthe new Standing Order) nominated Mr.Illingworth to take the Chair.

MR. ILLINGWOETH, having takenthe Chair, said: In taking the C~hair forthe first time, I may be permitted toexpress my feeling of gratitude to thehonourable the Speaker for the honourwhich he has conferred in nominating meone of the contingent Chairmen, and alsoto hen. members for the kindly way inwhich they received that nomination.

THER PREMIER (Hon. Walter James):I am pleased to add to those words, andto say with what pleasure members ofthis House received the nomination ofthe member for Cue (Mr. fllingworth),and the member for Toodyay (Mr.Quinlan). We cannot hope that you,Mr. Chairman, will long continue to fill

Railways Bil: [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.] in Committee. 1117

this subsidiary position, or either of you.All we hope is that this is but a stepping-stone to higher places.

RAILWAYS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.IN COMMITEE.

Consideration resumed from 4th Sep-tember; the COLONIAL SECRETARY inlcharge.

Clause 18-Classification:[At the previous sitting, Mr. Yelverton

bad moved an amendment to enable anyservant discharged by the Commissionerto appeal to a conduct board.]

MR. ATKINS: The Premier took upthe position that a conduct board was nota good thing, and he (Mr. Atkins) wasquite with the hon. gentleman. Seeingthat we had an arbitration court and aconciliation board, he did not see why weshould have any other board, either in itsplace or subservient to it, or above it. Hethought the hon. inember for Sussex wouldbe satisfied to withdraw that portion ofhis amendment after the words " or dis.miss any officer or employee." The factthat we bad an arbitration court and aconciliation board ought to be goodenough as a check against any outrageousconduct on the part of the Commissioner.The Commissioner should have full powerover the men, and if he misbehaved him-self the House could take that powerfrom him. He moved that all words inthe amendment after " any officer oremployee " be struck out.

TH'E PREMIER: If the amendment(Mr. Yelverton's) included the right toappeal to a. conduct board, it made nodifference from the position as it stoodto-day. If there was a desire to alter thepresent condition of affairs, the conductboard must be eliminated. As he under-stood, the object of the amendment wasto give to the Commissioner the sole powerto dismiss. That object would to a largeexten 't be defeated by the -inclusion of areference to a conduct board. The rightof an appeal to a conduct board dependedto-day on regulations, and it might bea question whether the right of appealenjoyed now was not too full. His ownopinion was that whilst men who hadbeen in the service for some years wereentitled to have a provision by whichthey could be protected from the arbi-trary exercise of power by subordinate

officers, yet on the other hand a manwho had been in the service only 12months, for instance, and was reallyserving a probationary period, should nothave the same right as was given to aman who had served a longer term andwhose length of service was thereforeprimA facie evidence that he was a goodand efficient servant. This Bill as itstood left the position as it was to-day,and he wished to urge upon membersthat whatever they might think in refer-ence to the matter, it was far better forthe Committee to avoid so controversialand so difficult a question until it cropped

up in connection with a ClassificationBill. In a Classification Act, provisionwas made for a minimum and maximumsalary or award in respect to all gradesand classes throughout the service, andalso for an internal appeal hoard. Whenthe Classification Bill was before Parlia-ment would be the time to deal with thepowers conferred upon the conductboard; so he appealed to members to letthe question remain as it was now.During next session a Classification Billwould, the Government hoped, be intro-duced. He hardly hoped they would beable to settle a matter so complex in timefor the House to deal with it this session,but they could introduce it next session,and members could then thoroughlygo into the question. In the mean-time matters could stand as they were to-day. The Government intended to standresolutely behind the Commissioner, whowould not be able to carry out his dutiesunless he felt the Ministry were preparedto give him opportunity for improvingthe railway administration.

MR. ATKINS: The Commissionershould feel he had Parliament behindhim. By passing the amendment he hadmoved the Committee would indorse thePremier's assurance that the Commis-sioner would not be slaughtered.

Mn. JACOBY: If the second amend-ment moved by the last speaker werecarried, the Commissioner would havefull power irrespective of any board; butif negatived, and if the first amendmentwere passed, his power would be subjectto certain regulations. If it were desiredto give him opportunity to make the rail-ways successful, the second amendmentshould be passed. It was absurd to ex-

1pect any commissioner to succeed unless

ills Railways Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] in Committee.

he had absolute power. In the Arbitra-tion Act, any body of employees wasgiven power to appeal against any unfairdecision;i and no harm could be -done by

expressing in thbis amendment the opinionthat full power should be given the Coin -missioner, so that he might conduct thedepartment on business principles.

MR. HASTIE seconded the amend-ment on the amendment.

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: ThePremier's assurance, read with the Rail-ways Act of 1887, under which the Com-missioner obtained his power of dismissal,should satisfy the Committee that theCommissioner would not be treated withthe contumely which the member for theMurray feared. Section 2 of that Actgave thle Commissioner power to appoint,to fine, or to dismiss summarily or other-wise the railway servants mentioned in theschedule, any such action to be subject tothe approval of the Governor; and theschedule included practically all classes ofrailway servants with whom the Comn-missio ner would come in contact.

ME. ATKINS: What harm could bedone by allowing the Committee to con-firm the intention of the Government tosupport the Commissioner?

MR. HASTIE: The last speakerseemed to assume that if some Commis-sioner had the railways under absolutecontrol, a11 trouble would be at an end.But what had experience shown else-whereP Whether under one or threeCommissioners, the result was unsatis-factory unless the management wasthoroughly good. According to a Perthnewspaper, the report of the selectcommittee on the Victorian Railway Comn-missioners stated that the system ofappointments and promotions was with.out method, and the treatment of em-plojvees unequal, and that the Ministerhad no control over the management;while the committee recommended thatin future the department should beplaced under the control of a board ofthree, one of whom should be theMinister for the time being and chair-man of the board, with power to veto theboard's decision. And this was in spiteof Victorias long experience of one Coin-missioner. Such a proposal would surelybe better than giving one man arbitrarypower. It seemed to be thought Mr.George could personally inquire into

every case ; but most cases would bethose of which he had no personal know-ledge. Moreover, in a branch wherethere was already a conduct board, thatboard had assisted considerably insettling disputes. Those who said theemployees could appeal to the Arbitra-tion Court should remember that thecourt could not deal with individualcases, but could interfere only where thegeneral conditions or the wages wereconsidered unsatisfactory. The firstamendment meant that if any manwere employed for a few days, he couldappeal to a conduct board against dis-missal; but that was surely not theintention. Leave this matter as it stood,trusting the Government to fulfil theirpromise. The Premier had said he didnot expect this session to introduce aclassification scheme, including a conductboard; but without an Act of Parliament,a conduct board had been created to dealwith engine-drivers; and the Ministerfor Railways should extend the schemeto the Railway Association, when therewould be less trouble with employees.

Amendment on amendment (to strikeout latter part) put and passed.

Amendment as amended put 0andnegatived.

Clause passed as printed.Clauses 14 to 19, inclusive-agreed to.Clause 20--Quarterly reports to Min-

ister:On motion by the COLONIAL SECEn-

TARY, in line 4 the words " per ton "struck out, and the clause as amendedagreed to.

Clause 21 -Annual Report:MR. FOULKES: It might happen that

at different times the Commissioner wouldapply to the Minister for rolling-stock,which application the Minister mightrefuse. The Commissioner should havepower to furnish a return of all1 applica-tions made by 'him and refused. He sug-gested that after "preceding," in line 3,the following words be added, "and shallfurnish reports of all requisitions made tothe Miuister for additional stores, plant,material, rolling-stock, stations, sheds, oraccommodation made during the." Thiswould enable members to find out whetherthere had been any shortcomings on thepart of the Minister in supplying theCommissioner with rolling-stckr whichhe needed.

RniaysBil: [6 SPTEBER 192.] in committee. 1119

THE PREMIER:- Such an amendmentwas not necessary. However, the mem-ber might give notice of the amendment,and move it on recommittal.

MR. FOULKES: A previous managerhad been suspended from office becausehe had not applied to the Ministerfor necessary rolling-stock. It shouldbe placed on record whether the Cornmis-sioner in the future did apply for rolling-stock, so that the trouble which hadarisen in the past would not occuragain,

T.HE COLONIAL SECRETARY: TheCommissioner would, in his annual report,guard against any imputation whichmight be made by giving an account ofall requsitions for rolling-stock that hadbeen, rfused by the Minister. If for theconduct of the railways the Commissionerthought rates or fares should be reduced,and the Minister refused to reduce theserates, the Commissioner would surelyrefer to these requests in his report.'However, the bon. member might givenotice of his amendment.

MR, FOUJLKES: Clause 15 providedthat the Commissioner should apply tothe Minister for rolling-stock, whichshowed that it was recognised that theCommissioner had to apply. He wouldgive notice of his amendment.

Clause passed as printed.Clause 22-Deputations:MR. DAGLISH moved that the clause

be struck out. The provision was abso-lutely useless. There was no likelihoodof members on deputations bringingpressure to bear on the Commissioner.The clause was a reflection on members ofParliament.

THE PREMIER:- The clause wasinserted deliberately by himself, in viewof certain suggestions made in Victoria.A discussion arose in Victoria in 1898,and there was a complaint by the Minis-ter for Railways that deputations headedby members waiting on the Commissionerwere, to that extent, using po!iticalinfluence. On the second reading hehadexplained that members of Parliamentwere asked to head deputations, notbecause of their personal abilities orqualifications, hut because of their politi-cal status. That being so, members ofParliament should refrain from attendingon deputations which were addressed to

a subordinate office;, and which wouldnot be allowed in any other depart-meat.

MR. DAGLIsli: There was no lawag~ainst that.

0Ta PREMIER: Members would findthat if a subordinate officer received adeputation, he would be reprimanded,and the danger of the practice arising inconnection with the Commissioner ofRailways was obvious. The Commis-sioner occupied anu independent position.,and the Minister could not reprimandhim for receiving deputations, or if, afterbeing reprimanded, the Commissionerreceived a deputation, the Minister couldnot dismiss him. Members admittedlthat it was not right to allow deputa-tions. beaded by members of Parliament toapproach subordinate officers. All recog-nised that deputations should go to theMinisterial head, and not to the depart-mental head. That practice had notgrown up in connection with departmentsso far, because the departmental bead hadnot that security of tenure or independenceof power that the Commissioner wouldhave under the Bill. On the principlethat the Minister for Railways was theofficer responsible to Parliament, andthrough Parliament to the people, he wasthe person to whom deputations shouldgo, aind be was the person to whom mem-bers should make complaints, if they hadany to make. The Commissioner, thoughenjoying security of tenure under th e Bill,would not be placed in an altogetherdesirable position if he found himselfconstantly worried by well-meaning butaggressive members of Parliament. Mem-bers of Parliament constantly worriedMinisters and others, and the wanit ofconsideration which was shown by somemembers towards Ministers might beshown towards the Commissioner ofRailways. After all, members of Par-liament were not entirely to blame, becausethey had behind them often an aggressivebody of electors. If Parliament could,by any clause of the Bill, insist ondeputations, as we understood deputationsand as we knew deputations, going to thepolitical head and not to the actual andmanaging head, we would be passing aclause which would prevent an abusegrowing up in connection with the rail-ways, which it was recognised would bemnost harmful if we saw it growing up in

Railway8 Bill. [16 SEPMWER, 1902.]

1120 Railways RB [SEMLl]il:omite

connection with subordinate officers ofexisting departments.

Kma. JACOBY: In drafting this clause,the Colonial Secretary appeared to haveyielded to his jocular propensity.

THE PREMIER: This clause had notbeen drawn by the Colonial Secretary, butby himself.

Mn. JACOBY: It was a, pity the clausedid not state the penalty to be inflicted onau offending member of Parliament. Aninstruction from the Minister to the Corn.missioner not to receive deputationsheadedl by members of Parliament Wouldbe sufficient. The clause as it stoodwould inflict hardship on distant con-stituencies, which should not be debarredfrom laying little requests before theauthorities through the agency of theirmember. The Premier, in arguing thatthe Commissioner of Railways, like-othersubordinate Government officers, shouldnot receive deputations, had forgottenthat Mr. Barry Wood, when Director ofPublic Works, was in the habit of waivinjgoff deputations to the Under Secretaryfor Works. The clause should not stand.

Mn. HASTTE: The Premier, whoseemed proud of the clause, might havebeen expected to advance substantialreasons in its support. One reason whichmuight have been urged was that depu-tations would occupy too much of theCommissioner's time. The Premier, how-ever, had advanced the extraordinar yreason that there was a danger of theCommissioner, who was guaranteed in hisposition for five years, being undulyinfluenced by members of Parliament, andthat these should therefore interviewonly the Minister, whose tenure on theother hand was of the most precariousnature. It was eas-y to conceive circum-stanaces in which a deputation ought tosee the Commissioner rather than theMinister. All that could be urged infavour of the provision was that it wouldafford members a good excuse for refusingto take part in deputations to the Minister.Since it could not achieve its object, theclause shouldl be struck out.

Mu. NANSON tThis clause was aswell meaning as it would prove inef-fective. What was to prevent a memberof Parliament waiting, on the Commis-sioner of Railways in private and makingan improper request, which improperrequest might be dangerous by reason of

the privacy surrounding it? Deputationswere rendered harmless by reaon of theirvery publicity. The Commissioner wasnot likely to yield to improper demands.At all events, the clause would be easilyevaded. A member might precede adeputation instead of accompanying it orintroducing it. To prevent membersrepresenting countryv constituencies fromaccompanying two or three of theirelectors, who might not, be accustomedto clothing their ideas in words, on adeputation to the Commissioner would bemonstrous. Moreover, the clause threwan utterly undeserved reflection on inem-hers of Parliament generally. Anyabuses which might exist were in connec-tion with private matters, which theclause did not strike at.

THE PREMIER:- Presumnably, nomember would support a system underwhich a deputation consisting of half-a-dozen members of Parliament mightinterview the Commissioner.

MR. Nti~isoN : That would not occur.THE PREMIER: Perhaps not; but

in the same way it might be argued thatwve should not find the practice adoptedof a member ha~vinag a private interviewwith the Commissioner, and that privateinterview being followed by a. deputationof the member's constituents. Under thisBill the Commissioner had the power tofix freights and fares and to make regu-lations. Whom was a deputation seehu ga reduction of freights or fares to inter-vriew ?

Mn. Donmin:y The Minister.Taa PREMIER: Were we to permit

a system under which members of Parlia-ment desiring a reduction of freights orfares mnight wait on the Commissioner,who might reply, " Yes; I agree to thereduction if the Minister will agree ?" Insuch circumstances, the Commissionermight pla 'y himself off against theMinister.

MR. XNNn And the Minister mightplay himself off against the Commis-sioner.

THE PRKM TE: - In those circum-stances, the Minister would be justifiedin doing so. Again, the Minister in theinterests of the State, night agree to areduction whilst the Commissioner mightsay, "As a practical railway man, I dis-approve of the reduction." Conflict

Imight easily arise from the joint exercise

[ASSEMBLY.] in Committee.

Railways Bil: 116 SEPTEMBER, 1902.] ill Committee. 1121

of powers by two individuals. Deputa-tions which bad waited on the Ministerfor Railways in the past had usuallyinvolved important issues, not merelyquestions of detail. The Commissionerof Railways or the General Manager ofRailways should receive no deputations,which properly ought to interview theMinister for Railways. A deputationintroduced by amem her of Parliament,and therefore prima facie a political depu-tation, ought to interview the politicalhead of the railways, the Minister andnot the Commissioner, whose duty it wasto look after the detailed control andmanagement of the railways. The practiceof political deputations being received bythe Commissioner might lead to seriousabuses, and had on that account beencondemned in the Victorian Parliamentsome years ago by the present acting-Prime Minister of the Commonwealth,Mr. Alfred Dleakin. There was a cleardistinction between deputations of privateindividuals and deputations headed bymembers of Parliameat. Moreover, ithad to be borne in mind that if therequest of a deputation bad been assentedto by the Commissioner, subject to theindorsement of his Minister, then theonus was thrown on the Minister ofrefusing the request of a deputationwhich catme to him at secondhand, thedeputation indeed treating the Ministeras a cipher and the Commissioner ofRailways as the man in control. Theabuses which it was sought to pre-vent by Clause 22 had cropped up inVictoria, and bad been commented onvery strongly in a debate which tookplace there. Such abuses might arisehere. The argument by the member forKanowna (Mr. Hastie) that the Com-missioner should not have his time wastedby receiving deputations was a very goodone.

Mr. DA.GLISH: When the Bill wasfirst introduced we heard of the advan-tages that would be derived from theadoption of the New South Wales system;hut the Premier could not find in theNew South Wales Act a clause like this.

TnE PREmIER: There were severalplaces in which the Government haddeparted from the New South Wales Act.

MR. DAGL1SH: The Premier hadadopted a provision which could not befound on any statute-book. Al! agreed

that the deputations should be to theMinister -he for one, at all events, agreedwith the Minister on that point-but thequestion was whether it was necessarythat we should load our statute-bookwith what was a covert insult to members

Iof Parliament. It was utterly unneces-sary to put a clause like Clause 22 in theBill in order to achieve the purposereferred to.

MR. DoHERTY: It was a safeguard.MR. lAG LISH: The same safeguard

did not exist with regard to any otherGovernment officer.

MR. DOHERTY: In Victoria they ob-jected.

MR. DAGLISH: No such clauseexisted in the Victorian statute-book,nor, as be had said, on our statute-bookwith regard to any other officer than theCommissioner of Railways. The merefact that our Commissioner had so muchsmaller powers than was the case inVictoria was, he thought, a safeguardaginst all danger of the kind referredto growing up here; the Commissioner wasso strongly under the thumb of theMinister.

Mn. DoHERTY: This had grown up inVictoria.

MR. DAGfLSH: Where the Com-missioner had absolute power.

THE PannxaR Oh no. Not in 1898.MR. DAGLISH: The Commissioner

there had far greater power than theCommissioner here would possess underthis Bill.

THE PREMIER: No. The same in 1898.Mn. DAGLISH: If we needed a clause

like this, let us have one with a penalty,and one which could be enforced. As amatter of fact, there would be nothingwhatever to prevent a member of Parlia.-ment from going to the Commissioner, ifthis clause were passed. One must askthe Premier to absolutely debar a memberof Parliament from speaking to the Coin-missioner. Far more harm was done by

iprivate pressure brought to bear on theCommissioner than by open pressure, andthere would be always danger with theseprivate interviews, which would not be

Iprohibited under this Bill in any way,that undue influence would be brought tobear on the Commissioner. There couldnot be undue influence brought to bearwhen a deputation waited upon him inthe light of day.

1122 Raihaays Bill. [SS1fTYJ nCmite

MB. QUINLAN. There was no specialreason to follow in the wake of Victoria.The Premier was fully justified in regardto the clause as drafted. It had beendecided that there should be one Corn-missioner on account of the reasons urged

agaist there being more than one master.If a member of Parliament were allowedto go to the Commissioner, we would bieacting contrary to the vote already passed,by permitting there to be two masters.Only the Minister should be interviewed.We were paying a Commissioner, andthat officer would have quite enough todo without receiving deputations. Therewere deputations every week and perhapsone each day. He hoped the member forSubiaco would not press the amendment.

THE PREMIER quoted, from the Vie-torian Hansard, extracts from speechesdelivered by Mr. Graham, Mr. Williams,and Mr. Deakin (now Acting Premier ofthe Commonwealth) on the 17th July,1898, showing that the Commissionerof Railways in 'Victoria, was receivingdeputations accompanied by memabersof Parliament, although it was under-stood that after the Railways Amend-ment Act, providing for the appoint-ment of a. new Commissioner, was passed,all deputations in relation to the Rail-way Department of which membersof Parliament formed part were to be tothe Minister. There was nothing in theAct to forbid the Commissioner receivingdeputations, but it was, generally un~der-stood that such deputations should bereceived by the Minister. Mr. Deakinfelt thEst it was undignified that anymember of Parliament should be askedto wait upon any public servant, and beurged that deputations should be totbe Minister. Members here might(continued the Premier), find thatunless we had iu the nrnl some clauselike this, as was the case in Victoria,certain members would say, "I wouldnot head a, deputation to the Comnmis-sioner," but others would perhaps do so,and the faut of others doing it wouldplace those who would not in a some-what false position. On political ques-tions members should approach thepolitical head only, and should not beasked either directly by their constitu-ents, or be indirectly compelled to do sobecause other members did it, to approachthe Commissioner of Railways and ask

for certain favours, or, as they believed,certain rights. The clause would do noharm, and he thought it would do good.

MR. NANson: Prohibit political depu-tations altogether.

Tus PREMIER: They had a rightto go to the political head. He repeatedthat members of Parliament should notbe directly or indirectly required to go tothe Commissioner of Railways to ask afavour at his hands.

MR. JACOBY: A member might go todiscuss the time-table.

THEs PREMIER: A member mightgo like any other person.

MR. JACOBY : That was worse thanthe other,

Tan PREMIER said he had referredto the observations. of men who had ex-perience, and had pointed out that thesedeputations needed checking.

Mn. FOULKES:, The Premier seemednot to approve of deputations attendingbefore the Commissioner, and one was inaccord with him to that extent. Butunfortunately with regard to his argu-ments, there were provisions in this Billstipulating certain matters over whichthe Commissioner alone had control.For example, Clause 11 said the Com-missioner should have the management,maintenance, and control of all Govern-ment. railways open far traffic, and Clause14 said the Commissioner should decideon the character and suitableness of allstations, station platforms, etc. Amember might be largely interestedin a district, and might be anxious tohave a fresh arrangement made in themanagement and the maintenance ofthe railways in his particular district.The memiber might come before theMinister with a. deputation; but theMinister would refer him to the Commis-sioner, who by Clause 22 would be pre-vented from seeing the member.

THE ParEMR Suppose the Commis-sioner promised to give, say, a siding, ifthe Minister would find the moneyP

MR. FOULKEES: The Commissionercould grant the siding under Clause 14.

THE PREMIER: But under Clause 11he could not spend the money withoutMinisterial approval.

Mu. FOULKES:- Then what was theuse -of Clause 14 ? How was a member toact on a deputation ?

[ASSE3MLY.] in Committee.

Rai~may8 Bill: [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.] in Committee. 1128

THE PREBE: Personally, he thoughtIthere ought not to be deputations as torailway management.

MR. JOHNSON: What was the dif-ference between a deputation beaded bya member of Parliament going to theCommissioner, and one not headed by amember of Parliament? One could under-stand all deputations being prohibited.

THE PREMIER: A deputation intro-duced by a member was prima facie apolitical deputation. The hon. memberwould be asked to act on a deputation,not because he was Mr. Johnson, butbecause be was member for Kalgoorlie.In 99 per cent. of cases a member wasasked to head deputations because hewas a member; therefore there was anobvious distinction between a deputationheaded by a member and one not soheaded.

MR. HA STIE: Why not limit thenumber of persons in a deputation to,say, 17? There had been huge deputa-tions of as many as 47.

Clause put, and a division taken withthe following result:

AyesNoes

... .. ... 20"7

Majority forAYE.

Mr. Atkins MiMr. Diaond MiMr. Doherty MIMr. MrnaNMr. GrnrMiMr. Gregory NJ~Mr. Hastie M,Mr. HeywardMr. HicksMr. JamesMr. KingsmiflXr. McoalndMr. O'ConorMr. Phillips

Mr. eiSir J. G. Lee SteersMr. StoneMr. liigamm (T.11.,).

.. 13NOEnS.

rDoglishr. Foulkesr.hnsonr.14"n

r.FPigttYelvcrton

rJaoby (Teller).

Clause thus passed.Clause 23-Suspension and removal of

Commissioner:THE COLONIAL SECRETARY

moved that in Sub-clause 3, line 1, theword " not" be inserted between " shall"and "1be." The Minister would take theresponsibility of suslpending the Com-missioner; aind the suspension would bediscussed by Parliament, which might ormight not restore the Commissioner toifice.

ME. DAGLISH: Both the proposedamuenduient and the sub-clause wereunsatisfactory, because two Houses wouldhave equal power; and that would beunworkable. If the Government sus-pended the Commissioner, and if theAssembly disapproved of the suspensionwhile the Upper House confirmed it, thenthe Commissioner would not go back tooffice. The result would be the Govern-ment who suspended the Commissioner,being met by an adverse vote in thelower House, would go out of office; butwhile the Government would lose poweras the result of their action, the Commis-sioner whose action was absolutely vindi-cated by the Assembly would not go backto office because the Upper House did notpass a resolution. That showed the weak-ness of the clause. If another House de-cided that the Commissioner's suspensionwas warranted, be could not be replacedalthough his suspension from office hadremoved the Government from power.

THE PREMIER: There were one ortwo good reasons why the amendmentshould be -adopted. It threw on bothHouses of Parliament the need of passinga resolution confirming the suspension orotherwise. This position might arise.The Lower House might pass a reso-lution confirming the suspension, but theother House might refuse to do so; theCommissioner therefore would go back.The suspension would cease, and the Com-missioner would remain, however stronglythe Assembly thought to the contrary.If the Assembly said the Commissionershould not be restored to office, the posi-tion would be that before the Commis-sioner could be restored, a resolution mustbe passed by both Rouses in hisfavour. If the Assembly passed a reso-lution in favour of restoring the Comii-sinner to office, and the Upper Houserefused to carry such a resolution, whatwas the position? In the Lower Housethere was the Minister who had thereappointing of the Commissioner tohis place, and even if the Upper Houserefused to pass the resolution the will ofthe Assembly could be carried out. Thecontrolling power thus remained with theAssembly. If the Bill was amended asS roposed, the effect would be that theCommissioner's suspension would be re-

moved unless both Houses said that heshould be dismissed.

1124 Railways Bill: [A EML.inCm te.

Ma. D&urasn: The controlling powerin either case was not with the As-sembly.

Tn PREMIER: Unless both Housesagreed to dismissing the Commissioner,the suspension would lapse. The Assem-bly might say that suspension wasjustifiable, and the Assembly should bethe more important House to discuss aquestion of that kind. If the Assemblysaid that the suspension was justifiable,and the Upper House said it was not.the position would be that the opinion ofthe Assembly would be nullified 'by theopinion of the Counctil, and the Corn-missioner would remain. He wished. toavoid that by the amendment. Uf theMinister suspended the Commissioner,the Minister would come before theHouse and the Assembly might say thatthe Commissioner should be restored,while the otheir House might say he wasnot to be restored. In that case theCommissioner was not restored. But thepower of appointment restedl with theMinistry, and all the Government neededto do was to reappoint the Commis-sioner whom the Assembly said shouldnot havec been suspended, therefore theAssembly had the controlling power leftto it. If the Assembly could control theMinistry for the time being and hadthe power to insist on the reappoint-ment of the Commissioner, the diffi-culty of the opposition of the Councilwas overcome. The amendment wouldleave with the Assembly the controlof the question. There was a fartherpoint. If the Minister took on hisshoulders the responsibility of suspendingthe Commissioner, prm0astasuspension ought to be treated as good,because it was made by the Governmentwho were responsible to the Assembly.If a Minister did wrong, then the Govern-ment could be ejected from office, andthe successors of the Government couldrectify the wrong. The responsibilityrested with the Ministry who made thesuspension. As the clause stood, thematter might be allowed to drift, and bythe automatic operation of the clause thesuspension would be removed withoutthe matter having been dealt with by theAssembly. The responsibility ought tobe more fixed than that The Ministryshould know if they suspended a manthat the suspension was operative uless

Iboth Houses agreed to the Commnissionerbeing removed.

Ma.. NANSON: In the event of aCommissioner being suspended imme-diately after Parliament went out of ses-sion , then the Commissioner remainedsuspended until Parliament met again.

THE PREMIER: That was provided for.Mn. NANSON: According to Sub-

clause (c), if the Commissioner becamebankrupt he would have to he sus-pended; but a Commissioner mightbecome bankrupt through the suspensionof a bank or a, building society, theCommissioner would not be blamable,yet the Minister would not have powerto remove that suspension until Parlia-ment tuet.

THu PREMIER: The clause said "m iaybe suspended from office,"

Ma. NANSON: It was not man-datory.

Amendment put and passed.Mu. DAGLISH moved that in line 26

the words " each House of Parliament "Ibe struck out, and the words " the Legis-lative Assembly " be inserted in lieu.We ought to maintain that the powerof the Assembly was greater thanthe power of the Council, which hadonly one-fifth the constituents of theAssembly. He agreed with the re-mark s of the Premier as to the responsi-bulty theolnosewa Minister t h seby

ot the Mldnitse tow th Ansembycould have any responsibility to anotherplace; therefore the Assembly was theonly competent tribunal. The Assemblyhad the power of appointment, and theAssembly alone ought to have thepower of removal. The Assembly wasresponsible for the proper administrationof the funds of the State, and wasdirectly responsible for the way in which

1the railways were conducted. The Councilwould not be so severely criticised if therailways were grossly mismanaged; butthe Assembly, iu which the Minister forRalways occupied a seat, would come infor severe castigation in the Press and onplatforms. Tie objected to the Comn-muittee willing away to another place onehalf its responsibility and power.

THE TREASURER: The AuditorGeneral stood in much the same positionwith regard to both Houses of Parlia-ment as it was purposed to make theCommissioner of Railways. The Auditor

[ASSEMBLY.] in Committee.

Rail ways Bill: [16 SEnE3niDE, 1902.] in Committee. 1125

General could only be dismissed by anaddress presented to the Governor byboth Houses, of the Legislature. Thetwo Houses bad equal rights, althoughthe Assembly controlled the spending ofthe funds.

Amendment put and. negatived.THE COLONIAL SECRETARY

moved that, in line 2 of Sub-clause 3, thewords "twenty-one" be struck out and"forty" inserted in lieu. The time, itwas thought, was rather short, especiallyin the case where the Commissionerwas suspended during recess. It oftenhappened that the debate on the Address-in-reply took a considerable time, and itmight possibly come about that the 21days would have elapsed before thedebate on the Address-in-reply wasfinished, and until that debate wasfinished it was impossible to transact anyother business.

Amendment put and passed, and theclause as amended agreed to.

Clause 24-Penalties:MR. DAGfLSH: Was there any

reason for making the penalty in the caseof a Commissioner becoming interestedin a contract a fine not exceeding fivehundred pounds, or a term of imprison-ment not exceeding three years, or both,Iwhilst the contractor Must su~ffer impnison-ment?

THE PREMIER: The penalty wasreally more severe in the case of theCommissioner, who might be both finedand imprisoned. This was right, becausethe Commissioner was a highly trustedand well-paid officer, who might reason-ably be expected to show himself morescrupulous than outsiders doing businesswith him.

MR. DAGLISH: In order to insurethat the penalty in the case of the Corn-missioner should be more severe, hemoved that, in line 6, the word " or " bestruck out and "and" inserted in lieu,and that, in lines 7 and 8, " or to bothsuch punishments" be struck out. -Underthe clause as it stood, a delinquent Com-missioner might escape with a mere fine.

THE PREMIER: The bon. member'sobject would be attained by striking out,in line 6, "a penalty not exceeding fivehundred pounds, or to." As a matter offact, Judges had power under theCriminal Code to impose money penaltiesin lieu of imprisonment.

MR. HASTIE ± Then the amendmentwould make no difference?

THE PREMIER: The alternative of amoney penalty, if allowed to stand, mightbe regarded by the Judge as an intima-tion from Parliament that a fine shouldbeinmposed rather than imprisonment.

Amendment altered as suggested bythe Premier, put and. passed, and theclause as amended agreed to.

clauses 25 to 27, inclusive-agreed to.New Clause:THE COLONIAL SECRETARY

moved that the following be added tostand as Clause 27:-

Penalty for permitting animials to trespass onRaitwavs-(i.) Any person who permits anyanimal to wander, stray, or trespass on anyrailway shall be liable, on summary condov-tion, to a penalty not exceeding Pift7 pounds.(2.) The penalty for every such offence maybe recovered on complaint made by any personon behalf of the Commissioner.The clause was needed to minimise thedanger to the travelling public involvedin the trespassing of stock.

MR. STONE: The penalty of £50 wastoo heavy in the case of stock strayingon unfenced portions of the railway lines.How were cattle to be kept off unfencedlines? A penalty of £5 would be ample.

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: Themost trouble in connection with strayinganimals occurred in the neighbourhoodof stations, where loss was frequentlyoccasioned by wandering stock eatingproduce. No reasonable bench of magis-trates would hold the owner of stock tohave permitted them to stray on an un-fenced portion of the railway line.

MR. ATKINS: Notwithstanding tbeMinister's statement, the fact remainedthat the Railway Department at thepresent day sought to make owners re-sponsible in respect of stock which hadstrayed on unfenced portions of the rail-ways. The department refused to payfor stock killed in such circumstances.

Question put and passed, and theclause added to the Bill.

New Clause:THE COLONIAL SECRETARY

moved that the following be added tostand as Clause 28: -

Amnend"'ent of 59 Viet., No. 22. a. 3.-Sectiontwo of the Railway Acts Amendment Act,1894. is hereby amended by striking out thewords " in somne newspaper circulating in the

I neighbourhood. of the station or place where

1126 Public Works Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] in Committee.

the same are found," and inserting in placethereof the words " in the Government Gazette."This clause referred to advertisementsrelative to goods or animals of which theowners were unknown, or, if known,could not be found. The clause enabledsuch goods or animals to be sold by theCommissioner within the space of onemonth after they had been advertised.

MR. STONE: What was the presentlawP

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: flatan advertisement should be inserted insome newspaper circulating in the neigh-bourhood of the Station or place wherethe goods or animals had been found.The amendment provided that the adver-tisement be inserted in the GovernmentGazette instead of a newspaper.

MR. STONE : But nobody read theGovernment Gazette.

MR. QUILAN: There should be anadvertisement in some newspaper as wellas the Gazette. Very few people botheredto read the Gazette, except those concernedin public affairs.

THn COLONIAL SECRETARY: Inthe case of valuable goods, the loss wasat once known to the owner, who made

Inquiry not through any newspaper, butdirect to the Railway Department, and

t he goods probably were traced and re-stored to the owner. The RailwayDepartment was put to considerableexpense in the way of advertisements.He did not see why the Government,when they' had ain organ of their own,should have to advertise all over the Statefor this purpose.

Clause passed, and added to the Bill.Preamble, Title-agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.

PUBLIC Wouxg BILL.IN COMMITTEE.

MR. ILLWNGwoRTH in the Chair.Consideration resumed from the 2nd

September; the MINISTER I-OR WORKSin charge.

Clauses 84 to 98, inclusive -agreed to.Clause 99-Bed of every river to vest

in Crown:Mn. HAYWARD: Was not this an

extraordinary provision? We must pre-sume that a great many of the rivers ofthe State were in the hands of privateindividuals, and this clause appeared to

take away the property which those per-sons had had for very'many years.

THE MvINISTER FOR WORKS: Ifmembers would look at the Notice Paper.they would see he had already givennotice of amendment on recommittal, tostrike out the words " and stream up tohich-water mark, or in the case of non-tidal rivers," and insert before the word"river,'' in line 1, the word "' tidal."

When this alteration had been made, theclause would then apply only to tidalrivers, and would read, "The bed ofevery tidal river, up to ordinary winterhigh-water mark, shall vest in and be theproperty of His Majesty."

MR. HASTIE asked for informationrelative to the possession of river beds.

THE MINISTER FOR WORKS: Theownership of i'iver beds by private indi-viduals existed only in the case of oldgrants. He believed that in olden timesgrants of land were made which gave toan owner the right half-way across thestream; one owner had possession of onehalf, and another of the other half.

MR. HASTZ: What would be theeffect of the clause as it stoodP

THE MINISTER FOR WORKS: Itwas not proposed to allow the clause toremain as at present, inasmuch as it wouldwork an injustice. People having beengiven grants of certain property, theirpossessions would not be interfered withnow. Steps had been taken to avoidthat procedure in the future, and forsome time past grants had not includedany portion of the stream. We couldnow only make this rule apply to tidalrivers.

MR. HASTIE: If the Government hadpower to resume these river beds, it wouldbe very wise to pass the clause as it stood.

THE PREMIER: At common law theCrown had the bed of every tidal river.Where land granted was bounded by thebank of a non-tidal river, the grantee hada right to the bed of the river half-wayacross; and some grants had been givensuch right in express terms. But in recenttime grants had not included land in theriver bed; and the clause as proposed tobe amended would leave the law unaltered,being here inserted because this was aBill consolidating the existing law, thatthe bed of every tidal river vested in theCrown.

Public Works Bill. [16 SEPTIEMBER, 1902.] O'Connor Annuity Bill. 1127

MR. HASTIE: Why should not thatapply to all river-beds ?

MR. HAYWARD: The hon. membermight as well try to confiscate other landthat a man had held for 21 years.

MR. ATKINS: 'The ho~n. member'sproposal would deprive a man of landwhich in the rainy season might beflooded.

MR. HASTIE: None would pretendthat flooded country was the bed of ariver.

THE PREMIER: Did the hon. mem-ber wish to give parliamentary sanctionto the present custom ?

Mit. HASTIE: Yes; and to make itapply to past grants also.

THE PREMIER: That could not bedone. It would not be right to resumeproperty without compensation.

Sia JAMES G. LEE STEBRE: Wasit proposed by the clause to take awaythe right to the river-bed now possessedby persons who owned river banks ?

THE PREMIER: No. The clause wouldbe amended, as the Minister for Workshad explained.

Sin JAMES G. LEE STEERE: Itwould hardly be in the power of the Houseto abrogate such rights; for by the Con-stitution Act, all rights in land were pre-served.

THE MINISTER FOR WORKSrepeated the amendment he purposed tomake in the clause on recommittal.

Clause passed.Clauses 100, 101-agreed to.Clause 102-Procedure for making

railways:DR. O'CONNOR: What was the effect

of Sub-clause (d)?THE PREMIER: A, mortgagee had a

right to compensation by the earlierclauses; and he would receive such com-pensation in lieu of his mortgage.

Clause passed.Clauses 103 to 114, inclusive-agreed

to.Clause 115-Penalties for trespassing

on railways in course of construction:DR. O'CONNOR: Sub-clause 3 pro-

vided that any trespasser could bearrested by an overseer. This wasarbitrary. Procedure should be bysummons.

THE PREMIER: An overseer actingharshly could be dealt with by hissuperiors.

MR. ATKINS: Often the departmentacted arbitrarily, as when they arrestedpersons using a foot-way over the SwanBridge, which the public bad a right touse. 'There should be provision to pre-vent abuse of power.

THE PREMIER: The sub-clauseapplied only to those who refused to leaveafter being warned.

clause passed.Clauses 116 to 132, inclusive, agreed to.Schedules, Preamble, Title-agreed to.Bill reported with an amendment.

WIDOW OF LATE C. Y. O'CONNOR

ANUITY BILL.ECOND nEflHNG.

THE MINISTER FOR WORKS ANDRAILWAYS (Hon. 0. H. Rason), inmoving the second reading, said:Although I have little hesitation in com-mending the second reading of themeasure to the House, I cannot refrainfrom saying as a matter of principle, Ido think it is no part of the duty of theState to make provision for the widlow andchildren of officers who have enjoyed asalary as did the late Engineer-in-Chief;and I should feel inclined to agree withthose who might say in the case of humbleofficers of the State, men not drawingsuch large salaries, and therefore not ableto make such provision for those nearand dear to them in cae of death, thatone seldom hears of expectations of thiskind, or perhaps we should not feel somuch inclined to grant applications ofthis nature. But it is merely a matterof principle, and perhaps there is noprinciple so good that it is uot advisablein the interests of mercy or of justice,or of both, to depart from it on someoccasions; and surely this is one of suchoccasions. If we remember that on thatsad morning of the 10th March lastwhen the late Engineer-in-Chief wasfound dead on the shore at Fremantle,from what cause, though we mightsurmise, yet heaven only knows, behA been eleven years or close uponeleven years in the service of this State.He had come to this State to take up theduties of Engineer-in-Chief from thecolony of New Zealand, and in leavingNew Zealand he had given up theright to a considerable pension at thehands of the New Zealand Government;

1128 O'Connor Annuity Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] eod edn

therefore the muere fact of his cominghere, if I may paint it out, did awaywith his right to a considerable sum ofmoney be would have had f rom the Gov-erment of another colony, lie had beeneleven years in the service of this State-eleven years of probably the bard est workany man in his position was ever calledupon to perform. They were elevenyears of gigantic undertakings, works ofvery large magnitude, which were de-pendent mainly on his engineering skillfor their success. But they were depend-ent not only on his skill, but upon hisapplication to the discharge of his dluties.With a less strong min~d or a less strongbrain, the weight of those responsibilitiesmight well have told their tale beforeeven they had an effect on the lateEngineer-in-Chief, lint they did havean effect on him, because those who wereintimately acquainted with him noticedthe change towards the last, a changewhich he himself realised; and if hecould only have tried enough to havebeen content to take his well-earned restin this world-I should like to point outto the House-he would have been entitledto a pension of £526 per annum. Thelate Engineer-in-Chief could have retiredfrom the service of this State on a pensionof £525 per year, and although he hadbeen so many years in the service of theState, and had worked so hard, will theHouse credit it when I tell theta thatduring the whole of these eleven years,the only leave of absence recorded againstthe late Mr. O'Connor was 17 days.Seventeen days leave of absence in 11years; and 17 days taken for what?For recreation, for some rest for thatweary mind and bodyP No. Taken for

thepuroseof roceeding, to Adelaide atthe request of tie South Australian G-ov-ernment, to confer with other eminent en-gineers on their outer harbour scheme.So that, practically, we may say the lateEngineer-in-Chief bad no rest and noleave at all. And taking that view of theposition, the late JMr. O'Connor wouldhave been entitled under the ColonialOffice Regulations, which applied tohim, to 204 months leave of absence onfull pay and 54 months of leave ofabsence on half pay. And the moneyvalue of that leave of absence, amounts to£2,906 s., which in itself would bealmost sufficient to purchase the annuity

for the widow which the House is nowasked to grant, The sumn of £92,906 s,would have heen the value of the leavedue to Mi. O'Connor at the time of hisdeath, and he was entitled to a pensionbad he retired of £525 per annum. It isunfortunately the case, that at the timeof Mr. O'Oonuur's death his widow andfamily were left wholly unprovided for.When his body had been carried to itslast resting-plaoce, the position of Mrs.O'Connor and her family was so bad, andthe circumstances surrounding her sosevere, that it was necessary that theGovernment should step in to tier relief.Therefure, I feel it my duty to state thatthe Government have already made agrant to Mrs. O'Connor of £250, leavingthe question of any farther aid entirelyin the hands of the House. The Houseis asked to-night to grant an annuity of£,250 for the rest of her life. I cannotthink Western Australia will be so un-mindful, so ungenerous, so ungrateful asto imagine for a moment that the widowof the man who after all has unquestion-ably done so muc;h for Western Aus-tralia shall be allowed to end the yearsthat may be spared to her in want andmisery. I cannot believe that WesternAustralia can be so unmindful of thosewho are left behind the man who did somuch work for this State; 1 do notimagine for a moment that the Housewill even question this annuity. I cannotbut think members will cheerfully grantthis smnall aid to the widow of one whomthe State owes so mluch. I think inasking this I am not ;tsking merely as anaction of charity, T think some justiceenters into this question ; I think it will beadmitted that on justice alone, somesmall recognition such as this is due toMrs. O'Connor and her family. As Ihave said, I have no reason to doubt forone moment that the House will refuseto pass this mueasure;- on the contrary, Ibelieve the House will pass it. I believeoven if more were asked the Rouse wouldcheerfully grant it; 'but the State hasno right to do more than prevent anychance of want and misery overtakingthe widow of the late Engnerin-Chief.Th at snum is all that is proiddfor in theBill. I move the second reading of theBill with very great sadness. As theMinister controlling the Engineer-in-Chief at the time of his death, it is

Second reading,

O'Connor Annzuity Bill: [16 SEL'ThIABER, 1902.] Second reading. 1129

natural I should feel very m uch depressedthat it should be necessary to ask theHouse to pass this measure; but in doingso and in expressing my admiration forMr. O'Connor's undoubted skill and greatability, I feel that the Government, andmyself individually, are laying a spray oflaurel and of cypress upon the tomb of agreat man and a faithful servant of thisState. I move the second reading of theBill.

MR. J. J. IG HAM (Fremantle): Idesire to add but a few words to theeloquent speech in which the Ministerhas moved the second reading. Whilstadmitting that the principle of makinggrants to the relatives of deceased civilservants is a. bad one, I think there aremany circumstances in the case of thelate Engineer-in-Chief which not onlywarrant but demand that the Houseshould recognise in some measure thegreat services which the deceased gentle-man rendered to Western Australia-thegreat sacrifice of health, and I mightalmost say of mind, which the strain ofhis duties entailed. We are asked notto make this grant in response to anad misericordiam appeal, but rather asan act of justice, by way of recognition ofthe fact that, as matters have fallen out,a duty devolves on us to mnake some pro-vision for the widow and the youngerchildren. We must all recognise that,in a year or so, the completion of thestupendous works which the late Mr.O'Connor had undertaken, and all butcarried out, for the benefit of the Statewould have impelled the West Australianpeople to recognise and avow by a sub-stantial honorarium their debt of grati-tude to the late Engineer-in-Chief. Thefact that Mr. O'Connor would have beenentitled to leave of absence of a value insalary equivalent to nearly £3,000, andthat he would have been entitled to aretiring pension of £525. per anumm, insome measure justifies the action pro-posed; but I think the gratitude of theWest Australian people demands thatwe should recognise the sacrifices whichthe deceased gentleman made on behalfof the State. Those of us who, residingin Fremantle, have watched Mr. O'Connorworking from day to day, especially inthe earlier stage of the Fremnantle HarbourWorks, when these works were, in agreat measure, experimental, know the

devotion of the late Engineer-rn-Chiefto his work. We have seen him en-gaged at his duties at all hours of theday and night, so that be mightadequately supervise the work and pre-pare the structure to withstand thepressure of the ocean for all time. Allwho have known the late Mr. O'Connor'swork realise that he has justly earnedthe small weed of recognition proposedto be granted to his family; and we hopethat the House will see its way to grantthe annuity, not as a matter of charitybut as a matter of just-ice.

MR. J. C. G. FOULiKES (Clare-mont) :I am strongly of opinion that inthis particular case the House is noterring on the side of liberality. We haveit from the Minister for Works and Rail-ways that the late Mr. O'Connor wasentitled to leave of absence which, on itspecuniary value, amounted to a sum of£2,900. It is now proposed that anannuity of £e250 shall be granted to hiswidow. From inquiries I have made, Ilearn that the value of such an annuityto Mrs. O'Connor can be purchased for asum of about P4,000. The Bill, there-fore, in effect merely asks the House togrant a sum amounting to £1,100-amoderate amount indeed. There can beno doubt that the late Mr. O'Connor wasa great public servant, who never sparedhimself. I have had the honour of hisacquaintance and friendship for manyyears in this State; and 1, like manymembers, can testify that he devotedhimself whole-heartedl- to his work, hissole desire, his single purpose, beinghonestly to do his duty by the State. Inone respect the deceased gentleman setan admirable pattern to all holding highpositions, and indeed to all holdinghumble positions in the State service.Mir. O'Connor had the opportunity oftaking advantage of his official know-ledge, and thereby placing himself be-yond the necessity of leaving his widowand children to appeal to the State forassistance. However, we know it washis constant pride that he kept himselfclean-handed, and religiously abstainedfrom making any investments whateverin this State. This Bill, therefore, repre-sents the very least we can do. I make thesuggestion to the Minister for Railwaysthat the late Mr. O'Connor's widow begranted a free pass over the railways of

1130 Friendly Societies Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] rnfrofLn il

this State for life.. It was with greatsadness that a few weeks ago I sawMrs. O'Connor travelling in a second-class carriage. It touched we deeplyto think that the widow of the manwho constructed our railways in amanner which will always stand as amonument to his memory should nothave a free pass over the State lines. Ihope the Mlinister for Railways will seehis way to adopt my suggestion.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

IN COMMITTEE,

Ma. ILLfI-NwoRTH took the Chair.Clause 1-Annuity to Susan Letitia,

O'Connor:Ms. NANSON: While joining with

Other members in testifying to the valueof the late Mr. O'Connor's services tothis State, it did not appear desirablethat the Bill should pass through theCommittee stage at this sitting, seeing sofew members were present. While all ofus were anxious to pay some substantialtribute to Mr. O'Connor's memory, yetwe had to remember that we were trus-tees of the public money. It was un-desirable that any sign of haste or anyappearance of wishing to rush mattersshould attach to this measure. He movedthat progress be reported.

Progress reported, and leave given tosit again.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMWEND-MENT BILL.

SELECT COMMITTEE.

Order read, for consideration of the'Bill in Committee.

Ms. RESIDE: As there appeared tobe some misunderstanding in referenceto this measure, he moved that the Billbe referred to a Select committee.

Question put and passed.Ballot taken, and a comm~ittee appointed

comprising Dr. Hicks, Mr. Hopkins, Dr.O'Connor, Mr. Yelverton, also Mr. Resideas mover.

Ma. RESIDE farther moved that thecommittee have power to call for personsand papers, and to sit on days on which theHouse stands, adjourned; to report onthe 23rd September.

Put and passed.Mn . RESIDE: Would the committee

be authorised to go to Kalgoorlie, if they

required to do so? They might want togo there to collect evidence.

THE PREMIER: It was to be hopedthat would not be done. If memberswanted that authority, he would have tooppose it. The committee should nothave power to go round the country andcollect evidence. That was open to abuse.

TirE SPsEAKE: It was open to greatexpense.

Mia. RESIDE: It was not likely to beabused this time.

TaE PREMIER: It was a question ofprinciple.

Ma. RESIDE: It would be mucheasier for two or three Members to gothere than to bring witnesses down here.

Tan PREMIER said he did not seethat it was a question of witnesses at all.

TRANSFER OF LAND ACT AMEND-MENT BILL.

5ECONfl READING.

Tan PREMIER (Ron. Walter James).in moving the second reading, said: Thisis a, Bill to amend the Transfer of LandAct, 1893. It passed through the Legis-lative Council, and comes down here forour approval. The amendments pro-posed are those desired by the department.Clauses 2 and 3 have this effect. At pre-sent one can obtain a certificate of titleunder the Transfer of Land Act for a feesimple title, and also for a title for anynumber of years. A person, for instance,who h as a6 leasehold for five years, may goto the Titles Office and get a certificate oftitle. Th at has not been done, l uckily.We think the Power to do so should bestopped, because there is no need forit in relation to these comparatively shorttitles. Where a title is issued, thie leaseunder that of itself gives a sufficientlyclean title. By Clausos 2 and 3 of thisBill, amended as members will see by thenotice appearing on the paper, we proposeto give an opportunity of obtaining a6clean certificate of title either for the feesimple or 21 years. Clause 4 amendsSection 86 of the principal Act, whichprovides that the duplicate of any whollycancelled certificate shall be retained bythe Commissioner of Titles. If it is onlypartially cancelled, he does not retain it.The consequence of that is, as membersperhaps have Seen, that some certificatesof title are covered with the transfer ofthis little section, that little section, and

Tranqftr of Land Bill.

Transfer of Land Bill: [16 SEPTEMBER, 1902.]

some other little section, and very often y en jenceit is extremely difficult to ascertain how Titles Gimuch land is covered by this certificate of .every tinetitle. It is proposed by this alteration to one or twissue a, fresh certificate of title whenever out a ne~a. transaction takes place in -onnection If we havwith land; whenever a portion is trans- as we noferred a clean certificate of title will be serious iteissued. 160 alloti

Mn. ILLINGWOnTE: At what priceP transfersTHE PREMIER. The same price as out a fres

exists now. I think you know better a good dthan I do. there is

MRn. STONE: Twenty-one shillings, regulationM39. LLINowoRTa: That is why the procured

Bill was rejected last year. case, theTHE PREMIER: Then in Section 124 perhaps ti

of the Act, the Bill provides that before that is so.the word " discharged," in line 5, " trans- every timiferred or" be inserted. The section Office, itreads.:- get out a.

When land shall have been brought under land. Atthe operation of the Transfer of Land Act, into 2001874, or of this Act, and at certificate shall sells five,have issued subject to a mortgage or otherencumbrance made or given before the issue the .rema.of -such certificate, such mortgage or other serious ciencumbrance may be discharged. land. UThat does not give proper power to pared totransfer the encumbrance; and the price, I tiomission to give such power is an over- this Bill asight. Then Section 160 of the principal last year,Act provides that where a, block has been Mn. T.subdivided for a certain number of I suggestyears and it is found that the plan of sion whejsubdivision appearing on the ground certain udoes not quite agree with the plan cur- made onveyed and lodged, then if the survey has certificatebeen in existence for upwards of 20 sive to hayears. the discrepancy can be put right fresh certin the Titles Office. It is proposed issue afteito strike out the words -then if it is can beupwards. of 20 years since the original when th~subdivision was made," thus giving the one certifpower to ma'ke the correction at once in to arise,athe office, as soon as these errors crop sometimeiup, so that there may not he any delay, best, soI think I am right in saying there is revenue breally no need for a second reading dis. the Titlescussion or speech. Possihly in Committee introducewe may have to deal with questions of that waydetailI; but I dto not think there is involved be raisedany question of principle. I beg leave to as to ndimove the second reading. in Comnai

MR, F. ILLINGWORTH (Cue):- The said to m:difficultyv with this Bill is the same as issue of fwith the similar Bill discussed last session:- man's Janwhat is the owner of the land to pay for a expensescertain convenience, which is a con- Iprofit whi

r

Second reading. 1131

30t to him but to the Landsce ? If the owner have to payhe puts in his title and sells

o allotments, and have to takev title, what is the cost to be ?e to pay the sum of X1 12s. 6d.,w pay ordinarily, it is a very,in. If a, man have a block ofrents, and if every time hea little allotment he has to takehr title, that will run away withLeal of money. I understandiow an arrangement under &,, by which a, new title can befor about 10s. If that be theobjection is not so great; andre Premier can tell us whether

But according to this clause.e one takes the title to the Titlesremains there, and one has tonew title for the balance of theaowner may subdivide a blockallotments, and every time hehe has to take oat a title for

ining blocks; and this is aharge, on anyone subdividingniess the Government are pre-issue such titles at a nominalrink we shall have to deal withis we dealt with its predecessorthat is by throwing it out.F. QUINLAN (Toodyay) : Maythat the Premier make provi-ain Committee that after a

amber of indorsemeuts has beena certificate of title, a6 newshall issueP It is very expen-ye to pay 12s. 6d. each time aificate issues; and a title shouldr, say, six indorsements. Muchsaid on either side; becauseere are many dealings withkate, complications are likelyad people dealing in land aresmisled. I think it would beas not only to increase theut to decrease the expenses of

Office, that a Bill should bed to amend the Stamp Act. Ina considerable revenue wouldbut in any case my suggestion

orsement ought to be adoptedittee. The Titles Office is nowake a considerable profit by theresh titles when a portion of ad is sold. Of course there areto be set against the £4,000ek is said to have been made

1132 Transfer of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]Qetin

by the Titles Office in the last year ortwo.

TuE PRMIER:- Tis is a very fairdepartment on which to make a profit,because the people dealing with it getgood value for their money.

Mn. Qt1fl{LAN: True. I am notopposed to revenue being derived; but itis hard that one particular section of thecommunity should pay for these extracertificates, when there is really no needfor them after a certain number ofindorsements has been made.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second tilme.

ADSOURYMENT.The House adjourned at 10'47 o'clock,

until the next day.

Wednesday, 171A September 1902.

FAGE,Questions:- B3oiler Preservatives.........1132

Railway Freight chars................ 1183Macnerd Reports: Question of Privilege ........ 11 33Select Commnittee, Change ofta Member.....11M4Federal Union. Separation of Western Austenlia.. 1134Motions: Spark-Arresteis. to inquire.......... 1134

Patrnffby Members in Diviions ... 1135Pa erso nd: Camels Inmportationi.......... 1134

Exploratory Trip, Mir. Hill .. .. .. 1185Bills -city of Perth Building Pets Validation, in

Committee (resumed). reotd.......1136Marine Stores, second reading, in Cormmittee ... 1140Brand disc:harge of order ................. 1142Poblo erice Act Amendment, second reading 1 142Public Works, recommittal..........L...1156

THE SPEAKER took the Chair at4-30 o'clock, p.m.

PRAYERS,.

PAPERS PRESENTED.By the MINISTER FOR WORIKS AND

RAILWAYS: i, Report of Royal Commis-sion on Donnybrook freestone (mnoved forby Mr. Ewing). 2, Return showin~gWharfage and Fort Dues received at

Fremantle (moved for by Mr. Monger).3, Alteration to Railwaysa Classificationand Rate Book. 4, Works Department,report for 1901.

Ordered: To lie 01) the table.

QUESTION -BOILER PRESERVATIVES.MR. RESIDE asked the Minister for

Railways: i, Why the Railway Depart-ment is paig7s. 6d. per gallon forAtlas Bo ier Preservative when the BlackSwan Boiler Fluid appears on Govern-ment contract list at 4s. per gallon. z,Whether the Government have made anypractical trial of the Black Swan BoilerFluid. 3, Whether it is a fact thatinstructions were issued to all sheds toincrease the consumption of Atlas BoilerFluid. If so, whyP

THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYSreplied :.-lI, The Blacek Swan Boiler Fluidwas brought under the notice of Mr.Rotheram about two years ago by Mr.G. Henriques, of 20, Short Street, Fre-mantle. On the 29th January, 1902, five(5) drums were supplied for trial free toLocomotive Department. This trial isstill proceeding in company with otherboiler fluids, and a decision is not yetarrived at. The following fluids andcompounds are now being systematicallytested:- Atlas Preservative Fluid, Kelo.fuge Fluid, McFie's Fluid, Black SwanFluid, Imperial Boiler (compound),Cleansing and Preservin (compound).The contractors for tis Black SwanFluid are W. Sandover & Co., and themanufacturer is Mr. Henriques. Thetitle is merely a registered name and has

nocnnection with any local businessusing the same prefix. Locomotive De-partment has no knowledge 'why tenderswere invited for Black Swan Fluid noras to which, if any, Government Depart-ment is using it. The Stores were askedby Locomotive Department for AtlasPreservative, its merits being ascertained,and until the trials of the other fluidshave been concluded it is not desirable todepart from &.'known article in favour ofan, untried and unknown article. Theprice becomes a, factor for considerationonly after the merit of the article isarrived at. 2, Test trials are proceeding3, The Government Stores accepted a.tender for Atla Boiler Fluid at thebeginning of year 1901-2 for use of Loco-

Question.