The Secretary to the Postmaster-General's Department has forwarded an extract from a report which has been received from the Chief Electrical Engineer of his Department, as to the interpretation to be placed on the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1914, in relation to works of the Postmaster-General's Department, and desires advice as to the application of the Act to the works in question.

He points out that if it was the intention of Parliament that the ordinary work of the Department should come under the purview of the Public Works Committee the operations of the Department and the public convenience will be very seriously interfered with.

The memorandum of the Chief Electrical Engineer is as follows:

A copy of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913 is attached and 1 beg to direct special attention to Clauses 14 and 15 the wording of which is particularly broad and may be interpreted in a variety of ways some of which would hamper the Department's works considerably.

The effect will perhaps be better seen if a few typical cases are stated and decisions asked thereon:

1. Telephone exchange networks

In any telephone network the Department's works are usually divided into three main sections-

1. exchange equipment;
2. line construction;
3. subscribers' equipment.

Each is part of the telephone plant and all are interconnected. No part is complete in itself.

For the purpose of this Act shall works in any network be regarded separately in sections or as part of the whole? For example while the cost of the exchange equipment in any network might be less than £25,000 the cost of the exchange equipment, line construction and subscribers' equipment might exceed that amount.

2. Exchange equipment

Assuming that the three sections named in (a) are to be regarded and dealt with separately, is the equipment for each exchange to be considered separately in any network such as Sydney or Melbourne, the exchanges in which are interconnected?

3. Line construction

Is line construction in any network to be regarded as a whole or are the individual works to be considered separately?

For example in Sydney or Melbourne the total cost of all conduit works or of all the cable works to be carried out in any one year may exceed £25,000 though the cost of the individual works may be well under that figure.

4. Line construction-Conduits

Assuming that conduits, cables and open wire work are to be considered separately, which is to be regarded as 'the work' in the case of conduits or cables? Shall 'the work' be the conduits along any route or the conduits connecting with any one exchange in the network or the conduits of the network?

So also with the cables. Shall each cable be regarded as a separate work or the cables connecting with each exchange or the cables of a network?

Similarly with open wire construction: Shall each route be regarded separately or the open wire connecting with each exchange or the open wire work of the network?

5. Subscribers' equipment

Similarly the cost of the additions to subscribers' equipment in any year in any one network may not be £25,000 but the aggregate expenditure on this item over a series of years may exceed that figure, in certain networks.

6. Continuous expenditure

Expenditure on telephone plant is continuous and while the expenditure in any network in any one year may be less than £25,000 the total expenditure in say five years or more may exceed that figure.

In such cases shall each year's proposals be regarded separately or as part of the estimated whole and if the latter is the case, on what period shall the whole be estimated?

7. Telegraph and trunk line system

Shall any extension of the telegraph or trunk line systems be regarded as part of the whole service or as part only of the particular line extended? Effect: If the interpretation is that in the cases quoted in the foregoing statement individual works are in every case to be regarded as part of the whole, then it will be a matter of considerable difficulty, if not an impossibility, to comply strictly with the requirements of the Act.

It is not possible to forecast the ultimate expenditure on any work of a continuous nature such as telegraph or telephone construction.

The work of endeavouring so to forecast the cost will be enormous if the estimate is to be made beyond one or two years and the results will be open to various objections and will be the more unreliable the longer the period covered by them.

The cost of preparing proposals for works will be considerably increased and the time spent in obtaining approval to matters which are of minor moment will put a serious handicap on the whole of the Department's operations and will seriously interfere with public convenience.

The Act contemplates that every distinct proposal for a public work should, if the cost of the work will exceed £25,000, be referred to the Public Works Committee.

It does not appear to be possible to advise definitely upon all the questions propounded by the Chief Electrical Engineer, though advice can be given if the facts in any particular case are supplied.

The question is one of fact and intention rather than of law. Parliament has declared that every 'work' which is estimated to cost more than £25,000 must be sanctioned by the Committee-whether the 'work' is a new work altogether or a continuation, or a completion, or a repair, or a reconstruction, or an extension. Of course in the case of (for instance) an extension, it would be an evasion of the Act to split up what was essentially a single work into parts in order to avoid the necessity for sanction. On the other hand, the fact that a work, undertaken separately, and estimated to cost less than £25,000, may or will ultimately be part of a scheme costing more, does not necessarily bring it under the Act. For instance a telephone exchange the initial cost of which is estimated at £20,000 is not under the Act, though it may be built with a view to extension as the growth of the population demands. And the mere fact that two or more telephone exchanges are provided for on the Estimates in one lump vote does not necessarily make them one work.

[Vol. 13, p. 421]