/
19111130_senate_4_62.xml
7648 lines (7648 loc) · 484 KB
/
19111130_senate_4_62.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1911-11-30</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1911-11-30</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPERS</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<type>papers</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator PEARCE</inline>laid on the table the following papers: - </para>
<quote>
<para>Gauge of Australian Railways : Letter from Acting Premier of Victoria to Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, suggesting Conference between responsible Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States. &c. </para>
<para>Gauge of Australian Railways - Reply by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. James</inline> Alexander Smith, C.E., to comments of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. H.</inline> Deane, M. Inst., C.E. </para>
</quote>
<para>Ordered to Be printed. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQ4</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCOLL, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator McCOLL</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if he has any information to give the Senate with regard to two letters from the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia to the Government of the Commonwealth that appear to have gone astray? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am very sorry and considerably annoyed to have to say that I gave the answer to this question previously that these letters had not been received, because that was the answer supplied by the Department concerned. On <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McColl</inline> again raising the question. I made further inquiries, and I am now informed that the letters in question have been received, and that they had been received at the time <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McColl</inline> first asked the question. I can only express my regret and annoyance that, quite innocently, 1 gave the Senate misleading information supplied by one of the Departments. I have made the necessary arrangements to have copies of the letters prepared for honorable senators. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PERSONAL EXPLANATION</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<type>personal explanation</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQ4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCOLL, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator McCOLL</name>
</talker>
<para>- By leave of the Senate, I wish to make a personal explanation. When a division was being taken last night, I was making some remarks to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Needham</inline> when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henderson</inline> said something which I took to be a reflection upon my regard for the truth. I do not think that the honorable senator meant what he said in that way, but I took it in that way at the moment, and made a very sharp reply, in which I used an expression which I ought not to haveused. I am very sorry that I used it, and I apologize to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henderson</inline> for having done so. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY</title>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>If the Government has, as stated in the press, received notice from the Marconi Company in reference to an alleged infringement of its patent rights? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>for Senator Findley</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answer to the honorable senator's question is - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>The Government has received an intimation from the Marconi Company that they have commenced proceedings for infringement of their patent against the users of the Telefunken System in England ; that instructions were cabled on the 14th instant to their representatives in New Zealand to commence proceedings against the users . of the Telefunken System . in that country ; also that similar instructions with regard to Australia had been mailed to their attorneys in Melbourne. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3398</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing thePostmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Has the Marconi Company made or signified an intention to make the Commonwealth Government a party to legalproceedings with regard to alleged infringements of the Marconi patents in wireless telegraphy? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If so, in what respect will the Commonwealth be a party to any action that the above company may make? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is the Commonwealth Government charged or threatened to be charged in any way as a party to an alleged infringement or a party seeking to benefit by an alleged infringement? </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator PEARCE</inline>(for <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley).</inline> - The answers to the honorable senator's questions are - </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>See answer to No.2. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>No ; but the Marconi Company have notified the Government that they purpose commencing proceedings against the users of the Telefunken System in Australia. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL</title>
<page.no>3398</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>3398</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 29th November (vide page 3337) on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> - </para>
<quote>
<para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Upon which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> had moved - </para>
<quote>
<para>Thatall the words after " That " be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - " as the Commonwealth Government is not possessed of sufficient powers from the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia to enable it to proceed with the construction of the railway through the said States, and to control its management thereafter, and as this Senate is not supplied with sufficient information on (a) the proposed route ; (a) the cost of construction ; and (b) , the probable revenue and expenditure and interest charged - this Bill be not proceeded with until the Senate is further informed on these points; and, further, as the proposed railway serves directly to assist the development of the States of South Australia and Western Australia, this Senate is of opinion that the Government should consult with the Governments of the two States, with a view to devising an arrangement securing to the Commonwealth a reasonable portion of any value added to the lands along the line of route and accruing from the construction of the said line." </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3398</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>. - In addressing myself to this Bill I wish to say as briefly as possible that I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has made out avery good case indeed for the inquiry asked for in his amendment. It has to beremembered that this is one of the most important works that the Commonwealth has yet been asked to undertake. It is not only an important, but, I venture to say, an inevitable, work for the Commonwealth. The circumstances surrounding it are such that we' should enter upon it with the fullest consideration and the adoption of the most careful precautions such as are usually observed in connexion with similar undertakings in the States and in any selfgoverning community. Iam not referring now to the actual cost which it is estimated this work will entail. I realize that it means the initiation of a railway policy for the Commonwealth. We know that in each of the States there is a railway system. These have been brought into being by following different policies. In some respects they are the same, and in other respects they are totally dissimilar. We have the advantage of the experience of the States to guide us in this matter, but it would appear that insubmitting this proposition to Parliament the Government have not been minded by any considerations either of the past or the future. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen's</inline> amendment is aimed at securing information, much of which is regarded as essential in connexion with the submission of any railway proposition to a State Parliament. Other information asked for it isalmost indispensable that the Commonwealth Parliament should have before it enters upon a railway policy at all. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has asked for information as to the route of the proposed railway, more definite information as to the cost of construction, the probable revenue and expenditure, and interest charged. So far as the route is concerned,itis a most important factor for consideration before any determination of the question whether or not this railway should be constructed. I am reminded of a very recent instance which occurred in one of the States, where the slightest deviation from what was understood to be the route of a certain railway led to a celebrated case in which certain suggestions were made which had to be determined upon by a Royal Commission, inasmuch as they involved the position, integrity, and status of one of the highest officers of the State. That position of affairs was brought about in the main by the fact that the question of route was not definitely determined upon, or rather was not made unmistakably understood by every member of the Parliament. It was thus fairly open to members of that Parliament and the public outside to assume that one route was taken which was hot the route which the </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Government subsequently stated was intended to be taken. In connexion with the case, members of the State Parliament referred to gave evidence in which they honestly expressed their opinion as to the route proposed for a line which, so far as the length and importance are concerned, was a mere bagatelle in comparison to the line referred to in this Bill. Yet it was found that there were most complete divergencies of opinion on the subject honestly entertained by members of that Parliament themselves. So far, therefore, as the route of this railway" is concerned, it is eminently desirable that Parliament should be informed exactly as to the route of the proposed line. There are many reasons for thatwhich I need hardly dilate upon at length. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member say that the Bill does not indicate the route? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, I do not say that. But provision is made for deviations, and I think the route should be indicated with sufficient accuracy, and only after it has been clearly ascertained that no competing route for which there is any measure of support outside or within this Chamber has been compared with it, and has been unequivocally set aside. I believe that it has been suggested, not only in this Chamber, but outside, that there aresources other than that proposed by the Government which this line might take with greater advantage to the Commonwealth, to the line as a line, so far as the cost of construction and the return of revenue from its working are concerned. I do not think that we have had sufficient information to enable us to clearly and unmistakably express our preference for the route proposed as against all the other routes that have been considered in connexion with this matter here as elsewhere. I should say that I regard the cost of construction, and the probable revenue and expenditure and interest charged, as secondary matters in the sense that I do not think that it is competent for anybody to lay down with anything like an approximation to reasonable accuracy what will be the cost of a line of this character, and still less to estimate the probable revenue and expenditure of the line. This work, as I have said, is not only important, but inevitable. It must be undertaken by the Commonwealth at some time or other, and there is no doubt that it will have to be undertaken early. But that does not justify us in walking into the enterprise blindfolded, neglectful of the ordinary precautions which any man would take about a matter which involved the expenditure of . £100 or£200. It is precisely because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen's</inline> amendment directs attention to the precautions which would be taken by a business man entering upon a transaction involving the expenditure of such a sum as I have mentioned, and because the precautions proposed are taken in every one of the States in connexion with works of a similar kind, that I think it should be regarded by the Government as essential in the proper consideration of this measure. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRASER, Simon</name>
<name role="display">Senator Fraser</name>
</talker>
<para>- They should accept it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- Whether the Government are in a position to accept the amendment in relation to the course of business which they have laid down is a matter which is entirely within their knowledge, but I certainly think that, before asking Parliament to sanction this enterprise, precautions of this character should have been taken. In my opinion we would be regardless of our responsibilities - no matter how strongly we may believe in the necessity and justification for this connexion - if we said, " Oh, we have not the time to inquire into those circumstances. We have not the opportunity or chance of finding out if the line could be constructed under better conditions." That, in effect, is what the Bill says. Virtually it asks Parliament to sanction the construction of the line, and when the Government are asked what precautions they have taken in regard to the matters mentioned in the concluding paragraph of the amendment, what satisfaction have we got? Do we not all realize the state of uncertainty which exists in South Australia and Western Australia as to their policy towards the Commonwealth ? Do we not also realize the state of uncertainty as to what will be the policy of the Commonwealth to those two States in respect of this line if constructed? Why should we not have something more definite? Will any honorable senator say that, in the event of the railway being constructed with all these doubts and uncertainties surrounding the position, ten years afterwards, in connexion with some railway movement on the part of the Commonwealth, this may not be cited as an instance of its policy in relation to such matters? In matters of comparatively minor importance the Commonwealth has decided that it will take no course of action in relation to individual instances until it has a general policy which will apply to all cases. Is there any trouble in obtaining the information which is asked for in the amendment, or is there any doubt on the part of the Government as to what will be the result of taking such action as the amendment indicates should be taken? I do not think that there should be much trouble or much loss of time, and I believe that any differences which may exist between the three Governments would be solved on a principle of mutual understanding, and on a principle which, as far as the Commonwealth was concerned, would not, in relation to any future enterprises of this nature, prejudicially affect it or tie its hands in relation to other States. It will be realized that there are other railways which may possibly, in the very near future, come under consideration on the part of the Commonwealth Government. I allude, not merely to the possibility of a line from the northern part of South Australia to the southern or south-western part of the line from Port Darwin inland, providing that the line goes through the Northern Territory itself, but also the possibilities of lines which may be built either into or up to the borders of Queensland and New South Wales. There is the further possibility of a line to Western Australia, which may go more directly from east to west than does the proposed line; that is to say, farther north from the coast. There is not the slightest doubt that in connexion with any of these enterprises in the future, if they were decided upon, and certainly if they were contemplated, the Commonwealth will be bound to the respective States by whatever action it takes now in relation to South Australia and Western Australia. If we sanction this line, and proceed about its construction, is the Commonwealth, in respect to many matters, to be at the dictation of South Australia and Western Australia? If it is to be at such dictation in respect to any matters, then, assuredly, in the future, in connexion with any similar enterprise, it will find that it has made a precedent from which it will be hard to extricate itself. I think that it is not only desirable, but almost indispensable, that the information sought in the amendment should be obtained before further action is taken, because of the fact that we are now embarking upon a railway policy for the Commonwealth, and that whatever action is taken will bind the Commonwealth in the future. I intend to support the amendment on that ground alone. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>. - Speaking to the amendment, sir, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Defence to a rather important fact which has come out by interjection. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is not this your second time? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Minister listen to me for the third time? We did not get the answer except by interjection, and the comment was made by more than one speaker on this side that the matter ought to have come out in the speech of the Minister. As it was not given directly in his speech at the beginning of this debate, I rise for the purpose of asking him, if he chooses to reply, as I think he must do, for a clear and explicit answer to this question, Where is the money to build this railway to come from? By interjection, the Minister either expressly said, or left it to be inferred, that the answer was to be found either in his own speech, or in the Budget papers, or in some financial statement. As the question has been addressed in various forms from this side, but has not been explicitly answered, I beg to press again, even if it be for the second time, for a clear answer on that point. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- They are cutting down the note reserve. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Leader of the Opposition has just anticipated the next thought in my mind. The information ought, I repeat, to have been supplied in clear terms in the Minister's opening speech. It ought to have been given equally explicitly during the course of this debate. I contend that it has not been given yet. This proposal involves an expenditure of anything from ,£4,000,000 to ^6,000,000, to which each State will have to contribute its share. When we are asked to pass this Bill, we, as representatives of the States, are entitled to have clear and full information on the point. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGregor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do not worry. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3400</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall worry this Bill as long as ever I choose to do so; and the more interjections that are made by Ministers, the more irritation that is displayed by them and their supporters, I assure them that the longer will be my criticism. As regards the question of cost, I ask the Minister of Defence to assume the fact that we on this side are as well acquainted with the possibilities, financial and otherwise, underlying the Australian note issue as are the Government, and that when we have asked how this railway is to be financed, we have borne in mind and understood the Australian Notes Act. Is that Act to be used in any way with regard to the financing of this work? I also ask the Minister of Defence to consider that we on this side are fairly well acquainted with the general effect and provisions of the Bill called the Commonwealth Bank Bill, which is being considered in another place. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- When we have a clear idea as to the provisions of one Act, and when we also know something of the possible application of the banking policy of the Government, we are entitled to ask, Where is the money to build this railway to come from ? I ask the question, in view of Acts which have been passed, and also in view of the expressed policy of the Government in another respect. Apart from these two questions, or, if you like, with them, what is the new financial scheme which the Government intend to devise in conjunction with financial measures which have been passed, or are contemplated to be passed? We are justified, not merely in criticising, but in holding up the Government, and exhausting every form of the Senate in order to get an explicit answer. I do not know whether I shall be transgressing the Standing Orders, sir. but from what I know and can gather of the financial policy which the Government have already outlined, they do not hold one stiver in cash for the building of this railway. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do not show us up in that way. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is exactly the position. Am 1 not justified in making this criticism ? On nearly every branch of my criticism, I am on pretty sound grounds. As far as we can gather from the Budget papers, and from what we know of the financial policy of the Government, apart from the Acts relating to the note issue- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to a point of order. I submit, sir, that the honorable senator is only entitled to discuss the amendment, which does not refer to the method of paying for the construction of the railway. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>-- I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> is right. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger will look at die amendment, he will see that it relates to the cost of construction, probable revenue and expenditure, and the interest charged. I gave him one intimation that he was overstepping the Une. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Quite so, sir. I admit the propriety of your ruling. I wish to submit another question. The second part of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen's</inline> amendment reads - and further, as. the proposed railway serves directly to assist the development of the States of Western Australia and South Australia, this Senate is of opinion that the Government should consult with the Governments of the two States - for a certain purpose. It has been pointed out on the evidence of the report of the Commonwealth engineer, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deane,</inline> that a very large portion of the country through which this line will pass will be absolutely unremunerative for railway purposes. There has been no effective answer to that criticism. But <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> argued that we ought to consider the needs of the growing population at the terminal points, east and west. I consider that he was quite right in submitting that view. I take an instance from the railway construction policy of Ihe State which I have the honour to represent. The country lying between Cloncurry and Charters Towers, apart from the very narrow coastal fringe, is practically unremunerative. But 80 miles inland a population of between 25,000 and 40,000 people sprung up in consequence of the discovery of a gold-field, and a railway was constructed which ultimately proved remunerative in consequence of the profitable trade conducted between the two terminal points. But this line will be a powerful factor in developing the portion of Western Australia stretching south and east from Kalgoorlie. As Western Australia is certainly going to benefit to such an immense extent, she should be prepared to give some guarantee to the Commonwealth to cover the probable loss upon the line for a few years. There is no State in Australia which has not had to face similar disadvantages in connexion with its railway construction policy. This amendment simply asks the Government to direct the attention of Western Australia to the great advantages that will arise from the construction of the railway, and to ask her to give us some guarantee against loss. Are the other States to bear this burden? Is Western Australia to take all the proceeds from the railway which, at the expense of the Commonwealth, will make the other railways of Western Australia more remunerative than they now are? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3401</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator is getting away from the amendment by bringing in the question of whether this line will make other Western Australian railways remunerative. The amendment simply affirms that the Government should consult with the Governments of two States with a view of securing to the Commonwealth a reasonable proportion of any value added to the lands along the line of route. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is admitted by the Minister of Defence that this line will be a factor in the development of Western Australia. When we build the railway it will make many other railways in Western Australia more remunerative than they are now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have pointed out already to the honorable senator that the amendment is confined to the added value of the lands along the route of the proposed railway. The honorable senator is debating the question of whether the construction of this line will make other Western Australian railways more remunerative. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is quite clear that this line must add value to the lands along the route, and ' will indirectly benefit Western Australia in other ways. If the Government insist on rushing through this measure as a matter of policy, this Senate, exercising its trust on behalf of the citizens of the Commonwealth, should insist on a clear understanding in reference to the matter raised by the amendment. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- - I have listened attentively to the debate on this Bill, and as one of the representatives of the State which will have to pay the largest amount towards the construction of the railway, I regret that, the route selected is the one upon which we are now asked to vote. Looking at this question principally as a defence proposition, I should have preferred to see a railway constructed running directly from Brisbane to Perth, or even directly from Brisbane to the south of the Northern Territory, or the north of South Australia, enabling a military depot to be formed, and thus establishing a basis for a railway which in time to come will have to be constructed through the Northern Territory. A railway built in that direction would afford excellent opportunities for connecting up New South Wales with South Australia .and Western Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGregor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Those projects must all come forward ultimately. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I recognise that, and it is for that reason that I support the present proposal. If I could induce the Government to immediately undertake . the construction of a line direct from Brisbane to Perth, or to the Northern Territory, 1 would join with those led by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> whose principal aim is, I take it, to obstruct the present proposal. Listening to the debate throughout, I find that two chief reasons have been given as to why this railway should not be built. One was elaborated very much by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> who dissected very ably the report of Engineer Deane. He endeavoured to show how poor was the country through which the railway would run, and how little traffic it would have to carry. The other point was debated at length, and very strenuously, in another place, and will, I suppose, be considered fully in Committee in the Senate - namely, that the traffic on the railway will be so great that a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge will not be sufficient to carry it. I am rather confused between those two contentions. In <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen's</inline> view the country is so poor that there is no hope of traffic for years to come, except from the terminal points. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SAYERS, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sayers</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is the correct view. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If that be so, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sayers</inline> will not join with those v/ho hereafter will demand a wider gauge than 4 ft. 8J in. Which is the correct statement ? Is there going to be such an immense traffic over the line that the gauge which has proved sufficient for New South Wales will be utterly inadequate? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GIVENS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Givens</name>
</talker>
<para>- The argument advanced is that if the line- is to be of any use for the rapid conveyance of troops and mails it must be constructed upon a wider gauge. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3402</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Exactly. And the argument used is that we must employ more powerful locomotives upon it. We have learned from engineers' reports that in America locomotives three times as large as those employed in New South Walesare being successfully used upon a 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge. But even this knowledge does not satisfy the opponents of that gauge. They clamour for a still wider gauge, so that we may use even heavier locomotives upon this line for the purpose of transporting troops and munitions of war more expeditiously. To me it appears that this line ought not to have been the first undertaken bv the Commonwealth. From a defence point of view, a railway from Brisbane to Perth should have been given precedence. But the Government have not adopted that course. I think we can well afford to allow the Bill to pass, because it is an indication that they are determined to link up the east and the west by means of a railway. Measured by their contribution to our Customs revenue, or even to the revenue which is derived from land taxation, I say that half the cost to the Commonwealth Government will be borne by the people of New South Wales. But, notwithstanding that fact, I, as a representative of that State welcome this Bill as the first direct attempt on the part of the Ministry topre pare for the defence of Australia. If they experience any difficulty in raising the necessary money to carry out this undertaking, the construction of some of the vessels of the Australian Fleet unit may well be deferred for some time. The estimated loss upon the proposed line is £68.000 annually, and the interest upon the capital outlay involved is set down at £140,000. If the Government were to use the reserve which has accumulated in connexion with our note issue- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the Government were to use that money for the purpose I have indicated, it would not be a fair thing for us to still saddle this railway with an interest bill of £140,000 per annum. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SAYERS, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sayers</name>
</talker>
<para>- They are getting 3¾ percent. for the money they have loaned to the States. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- This railway, it is estimated, will cost £4.000,000, and that money will pay for itself from the very day that the railway is opened. I am' pleased that the Government have taken such a practical step towards preparing for the defence of Australia. I shall support the Bill, and vote against the amendment submitted by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.I</inline> recognise that it does not matter how much information is supplied to honorable senators opposite; when that question comes to be discussed, they will still be as dense as ever. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GIVENS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Givens</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> himself engineered one of the necessary preliminary Bills relating to this railway through the Senate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> commenced his criticism of this Bill with the remark that he had no information at his disposal, and then proceeded to speak for an hour and a-half, in the course of which he supplied us with a whole heap of information. When this Bill first came before Parliament I intended to support the adoption of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, but I find that the Government have made such full inquiry into that question that it is entirely removed from the area of debatable propositions. I believe that for some years past the Victorian Government have recognised that the adoption of a 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge is inevitable, and havebeen making their preparations accordingly. I merely rose to make these few remarks because . I recognise that the Government are not anxious to get the Bill through the Senate. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Are we not? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- By their action last night Ministers showed that they were not anxious to get it through. I shall support the Bill, because I believe that the construction of the proposed line will strengthen the defence of Australia. I would ratherhave supported the building; of a railway through Central Australia, and the establishment of a military depot there as the first step towards the adequate protection of this country. Later on such a line could have been linked up with the railways of the different States.. When the details of the measure are under consideration in Committee, I shall ask the Minister whether he cannot arrange, with the various States, for the construction of branch lines by the Commonwealth to the proposed transcontinental line. One clause of the measure stipulates that the Commonwealth shall have power to link uponly one mile of railway with the central line. But I am not shutting my eyes to the tone of the recent utterances of the South Australian Premier. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- He has been grosslymisrepresented by the Melbourne press. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Clause 14 reads - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>By arrangement with any State, the Minister may - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a)">
<para>connect the railway with any State rail way ; or </para>
</item>
<item label="(b)">
<para>permit any State railway to be connected with the railway ; and </para>
</item>
<item label="(c)">
<para>run trains or rolling-stock of the Commonwealth over any State railway with which the railway is connected. </para>
</item>
</list>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>No connexion which involves the construction of more than one mile of additional line of railway shall be made by the Minister in. pursuance of this section. </para>
</item>
</list>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- That means that we have to get parliamentary authority to do more. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3405</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If that be soand I recognise that we cannot give any Government unlimited powers of railway construction - I would like provision to be made in the Bill for the construction of lines to other States. As the proposed transcontinental railway will carry troops and munitions of war to the west in case of emergency, no sooner will it be constructed than it may be necessary to link up the railway systems of Queensland and New South Wales in a more direct way than they are linked up at present. That will be specially necessary if South Australia refuses to convert her main line to the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge, as Victoria proposes to do. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3404</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQ4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCOLL, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator McColl</name>
</talker>
<para>- She does not, by any means. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3404</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understood that, for years past, the rolling-stock of this State had been constructed with a view to accommodating it to the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3404</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McColl</inline> himself said that this State had been preparing for it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>