MELBOURNE, 20TH JANUARY TO 17TH MARCH, 1898. VOLUME II. (Comprising the period from 22nd February, 1898, to 17th March, 1898.) را MELBOURNE: ROBT. S. BRAIN, GOVERNMENT PRINTER. Commonwealth of [22 FEB., 1898.] Australia Bill. 1265 like a jury, come to a conclusion whether to settle whether a rate is unfairly the differential rates are reasonable or unreasonable. If you will remark that the burden of proof is upon all those who object to the rates, prima facie, every colony is to be entitled to have its own rates to develop its own country in its own way. But supposing it is proved that a certain rate, like the rate between Cootamundra and Hay, is obviously intended for the purpose of preventing trade coming to Melbourne which would naturally come here, the Inter-State Commission can interfere. Mr. DOBSON.-Would that question be settled by the commission, and not by the High Court? Mr. HIGGINS.-Yes, I think it is desirable that the High Court should be kept to the decision of law points, while the Inter-State Commission should be confined to the decision of expert questions with regard to railway management. The func tion of a legal court is to deal with law; it has not to deal with questions of policy or of railway management. Mr. DOBSON.-Suppose we provided in the Bill that the states were not to impose these improper rates, could not the High Court decide that question as well as the Inter-State Commission? Mr. HIGGINS.-That is quite true; assuming that after the Inter-State Commission decided as experts that these rates were unfair differential rates, and then the state still imposed those rates, of course, there would be the ordinary legal process. That would come before the ordinary Federal Courts. There is no doubt that if the law or the rule laid down by the Inter-State Commission were not adhered to the only appeal would be to a law court. Mr. DOBSON.-Supposing the Constitution said that there were to be no preferential rates, and the Inter-State Commission decided in another way, would there be no appeal to the High Court? differential, and that will be final. But supposing that, notwithstanding the Inter-State Commission had laid down. the principle, the rates were still imposed, the only process would be to go to law. But I apprehend that in every such case it would be like the story of the coon and the colonel-the state, instead of waiting to be shot, would say, like the coon-"Don't fire, colonel, I'll come down"-and on being told by the InterState Commission that a rate was unlawful and unfair, the state would cease to impose that rate. Mr. DOBSON.-The decision of the Inter-State Commission would be final. Mr. HIGGINS.-I think so. We are all sinners in this respect. I find, from the Border Duties Act of Queensland, that New South Wales has been doing to Queensland just what we have done to her. The preamble to that Act says— And whereas it has been ascertained that differential rates on the railway lines of the neighbouring colonies have been promulgated and otherwise arranged for, which have had and are continuing to have the effect of diverting the traffic which ought legitimately to be conveyed over the railway lines of this colony, thereby entailing a considerable loss in railway revenue; and whereas it is considered desirable to prevent, as far as practicable, this diversion of trafficThen they impose a certain duty on all goods exported over the border to New South Wales. There is no doubt we do to South Australia exactly what New South Wales does to us. We have these tapering rates, which are meant to protect West Victorian trade from going to Adelaide, or in that direction. I admit it is most anti-federal. Mr. DEAKIN. And the only federal feature about it is that we all do it. Mr. HIGGINS.-I hope we shall stop all these practices. We had a discussion a few days ago with regard to bounties, and the Premier of New South Wales stated, in words which struck me at the time, the true principle that ought to 144117 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, I take it that the Inter-State Commission will be the jury [80] guide this committee in dealing with this system of railway rates. He said The keen point, as my honorable friend will admit, of federalists throughout all Australia is absolutely this: The rising of the Commonwealth is to be the death of these local struggles to get an advantage for one colony over the others. Are we to carry that out? What is an unfair differential railway rate but a bounty to the warehouseman in Sydney? Does it not simply mean that, in order to get business to Sydney or any other city, you are imposing rates so as to draw trade to it, and unduly low rates in order to draw business into Sydney? It means, practically, that out of the railway revenue you are making a present to the people of the port. If it is improper and inconsistent with the federal spirit for us to give bounties, are we not to stop this system of giving bounties to the ports, which arises from the system of giving unfair differential rates? I appeal to the right honorable gentleman, who always uses most guarded words in this matter, to carry out the noble principle which he laid down in his own words only last week-"The rising of the Commonwealth is to be the death of these local struggles to get an advantage for one colony over the others." Mr. REID.-It did not convince you at the time; you voted the other way. Mr. HIGGINS.-It convinced me that my right honorable friend understood the true federal principle. I was altogether in favour of interfering with that system which allows, by means of bounties, one state to get the better of another. I only supported bounties so far as the bounties did not interfere with the system of freedom of trade. I think honorable members will bear me out that that was so. Speaking to the general principle, the Premier of New South Wales has laid down a maxim by which we ought to be guided. Mr. REID.-By which we are to be guided, but not you. Mr. HIGGINS.-I might also indicate that the late Mr. Eddy, an authority second to none on this question of railways, speaking in the interests of New South Wales, has used these words in a report : The advisability, and even necessity, for federal control appears to be fully recognised. For this reason, in some countries Governments are steadily buying up railways originally constructed by private enterprise. The welfare of the whole continent is largely dependent upon the economical and effective working of the railways. It seems to me that, as time goes on, we shall see more and more how much Australia is dependent upon the effective working of these railway systems. Eddy also says Mr. The greater the efficiency and economy of the administration, the greater the ability to reduce rates. Water-ways being practically nonexistent, the railways of Australia become to a greater extent than elsewhere the main arteries of communication. Take the idea of an artery. The system which is at present at work has a tendency to tamper with the organism of Australia, and to make separate arterial systems, in place of working, as it were, from one heart. I know of nothing more ridiculous than looking at a map of the eastern part of Australia, showing its railway systems. You find a number of railways in New South Wales all carefully avoiding the Victorian border, and you also find railways in Victoria going up as far as the Murray and eager to draw as much life-blood as they can from New South Wales. Mr. WALKER.-Why not federalize the railways? Mr. HIGGINS.-I cannot get that, therefore I am going for the next best thing. We must not have separate arterial systems; I am only using Mr. Eddy's metaphor. He continues :— If the federation of the Australian colonies be realized it may become absolutely necessary to have some kind of federal railway control. The principal objects in view are to insure uniformity of policy, efficiency of management, and the affording of greater public convenience; to minimize to as great an extent as possible the friction and unfair competition now existing in the border districts for the trade of adjoining states, and to bring about as speedily as possible at a minimum cost a uniform gauge on those sections of state railways where desirable. South Australia might impose any differential rates she liked, no matter how unfair, to the injury of Western Australia. I said, a little time ago, in reply to an interjection by Mr. McMillan, that I had a passage from the North American Review. It is an article by Mr. H. T. Mr. MCMILLAN.-What are you quoting Newcomb, entitled "The present Railway from ? Mr. HIGGINS.-From a report by the late Mr. Eddy. Mr. MCMILLAN.-What is the source of the quotation? Mr. HIGGINS.-It is a report made prior to the Convention in Adelaidedated the 16th March of last year-and was addressed to the Premier of New South Wales. Mr. MCMILLAN.—I think Mr. Eddy said afterwards that that could not be carried out unless the railways were absolutely vested in the Commonwealth. Mr. HIGGINS.-I have read Mr. Eddy's evidence, but I do not know whether he goes definitely as far as that. But, at any rate, that does not affect my point, which is this: As the committee has decided against federalizing the railways in the full sense, are we to interfere with unfair rates so far as they affect Victoria and South Australia, and not interfere with unfair rates so far as they affect New South Wales? I think the question bears upon its face its own answer. I have no doubt whatever that the representatives of New South Wales are as anxious as we are to stop this ruinous war of competition which is going on between the colonies, and I have no reason to think their federal sentiment is not as strong as our own. But I hope we shall rise to the occasion, and treat all the colonies fairly. It is a matter which at present only perhaps affects three colonies, but it will soon affect Western Australia as well. She will, in the course of time, find herself prevented from the possibility of having preferential rates. Suppose a railway were constructed from Port Augusta towards Coolgardie. At the same time. Situation," and the passage I quote is to be found on page 591 of the North American Review, for November, 1897. The writer says The present railway situation may be briefly summarized. From the stand-point of the investor in railway enterprises, the salient facts are: That rates and charges for transportation services are demoralized; that the law has imposed upon railway managers the unnatural burden of maintaining a costly, wasteful, and worse than useless competitive system; that the carrying corporations are allowed to combine neither for the establishment and maintenance of just rates, nor for the prevention of unjust discriminations; that nearly 40,000 miles of railway are in the hands of receivers ; that railway securities having a par value of nearly four and one-half millions of dollars receive no return of interest or dividends; and that solvent lines are practically at the mercy of those of their competitors whose bankruptcy has relieved them from the necessity of attempting to earn a return upon at least their bonded indebtedness. Then he asks what is the remedy, and he says (on page 593) What is to be considered an equitable adjustment of the burdens of transportation? It will be far easier to enumerate some of the things that cannot co-exist with such an adjustment than to give it a positive definition. Relatively just charges will not make arbitrary or unjust discriminations among railway patrons, whether considered individually, as constituting communities, or as producers or consumers of particular commodities. They will not favour a particular individual on account of his political, social, or commercial standing, the character of the business in which he is engaged, the extent or number of his commercial transactions, or, what is almost the same thing, the quantity of transportation that he purchases, nor unduly on account of the place of his residence, or location of his farm, factory, warehouse, or store. Such rates will not place a locality at commercial disadvantage on account of the number of the inhabitants, the degree of their geographical |