ARCHIVE FILE
This article was published in 1937
See the original document
Administration of Public Watering Places and T.S.Rs. in the Western Division
Mr. J. N. McCULLOCH, Inspector of Stock. Bourke.
The first intimation of the Government of New South Wales interesting itself in public watering places is the Public Watering Places Act of 1884, which came into force in January, 1885, and was administered by the Department of Mines, Public Watering-places Branch. The Act is short, only 16 sections. The Regulations are more comprehensive and detailed, but the most interesting portion of this document is the "General Instructions for Inspectors, Overseers and Caretakers of Public Watering-Places," issued by the Chief Inspector of Stock, appended at the back of the Act. Some of these instructions might well be incorporated in the present Act.
On the 22nd of September, 1900, a new Public Watering-Places Act came into force, repealing that of 1884. By this Act the Public Watering Places were handed over to the Minister, Public Works Department. This Department carried on the work until the present Pastures Protection Act of 1934 came into force on March the 29th. 1935.
From 1891 to 1906 the Governments pushed on vigorously with the formation of P.W.P.'s. In that period of about 15 years, approximately 100 bores were sunk on P.W.P. Western Division. The information regarding excavated tanks is meagre, but Bourke District had at least 10 sunk and equipped in that period, so it is evident considerable amount of money was also spent in this manner throughout the Western area; but by the time of taking over by the Pastures Protection Act of 1934, this expenditure had dwindled to practically only sufficient to keep up necessary repairs.
On March 29th, 1936, all P.W.P.'s in the Western Division were handed over to Pastures Protection Boards. Inspectors of Stock in that Division will, one would imagine, never forget the harassing time that followed, and you will, I trust, pardon me if the subject matter is dealt with from now on in a more or less personal vein.
The seed of the 1934 Act had germinated some years before its advent with Part V. inserted dealing with P.W.P.'s. It had been carefully tended and nurtured, and at times gave off tender shoots of promise, only to be nipped by the cruel and bitter frosts of political "cold shoulder." Still, it lived, and at last the day came for its transplanting into the domain of Pastures Protection Boards. One would have imagined this domain would have been prepared for the great and memorable day, and the controlling authority duly instructed as to the best method of nurturing this still anaemic creation: yet, strange to say, nothing was done. This precious and exotic creation was cast out of its nursery with cruel and callous indifference to light against the rigours of the West. To make matters worse, the controlling authority received it with either appalling indifference or cursed it, avowing they knew not its antecedents, therefore were not responsible for its nurture. But the thing was with us, which meant the controlling authority designated must either take and use it or leave it for some other authority.
While all this fuss and bother was going on, travelling stock still continued to travel and P.W.P.'s had to supply water. One had visions of windmills breaking down, supply tanks bursting, and troughing collapsing—and this in 1935, which was one of the driest years on record.
Fortunately for the Bourke district, the Chairman, taking "the bull by the horns," set out to guard against mishap. He secured the services of an able man to assist in the organisation of this new undertaking. Estimates of expenditure were submitted, on approved Departmental methods, and before the close of 1935 the Bourke Board was in a position to deal effectively with any repair work required.
Having surmounted the difficulties in the field, the Chairman had to turn his attention to the clerical aspect of the questions, and here again great difficulties were encountered; but his clerical staff faced up to the problems, and after months of work and concentration, brought out a system of book-keeping which has proved so satisfactory the Department has practically taken it over for general use among Pastures Protection Boards. The 1934 Pastures Protection Act, or that portion of it relating to P.W.P.'s having survived its babyhood, is now cutting its teeth and still needs protection and nurture to place it on a firm footing.
We, as Inspectors of Stock and servants of P.P. Boards, should take the keenest interest in the smooth and efficient working of P.W.P.'s, for on us devolves the responsibility of endeavouring to keep sufficient grass and water on stock routes, so that travelling stock may use them when most required.
The following questions are submitted for your consideration, discussion and criticisms:
1. What attitude should an Inspector take in the interest of his Board in regard to work undertaken on P.W.P.'s?
2. How is the Work of P.W.P.'s to be supervised so that the Western Division may obtain the greatest benefit from funds received?
3. Now that P.W.P.'s are under the control of Boards, what should be the attitude with regard to T.S.R.'s and C.R.'s?
4. What would be the better proposition for Boards—travelling stock to continue to pay for water received or a travelling rate, on similar lines to that which now prevails in the Central and Eastern divisions?
In dealing with this questionairre, (sic) it is realised more could be added, but it is considered these are the major problems facing the Boards in the West in regard to the added responsibility of P.W.P.'s, therefore these problems are of interest to Inspectors of Stock.
Question 1—What attitude should an Inspector take in the Interest of his Board, in regard to work undertaken on P.W.P.'s?
Some Inspectors have apparently taken the matter of supervision entirely into their own hands, others have left the matter more or less in abeyance. At present the Bourke, Brewarrina, Cobar and Wanaaring District have a supervisor, and under him are men who might be termed leading hands, who have under them one or more men to assist them.
The supervisor is a competent draftsman, capable of drawing up any plans and making estimates of work required. He has full control over the leading hand and his men, and the Inspector does not interfere in any way with the supervisor in this work. The Inspector, when in the field, inspects P.W.P.'s and, if necessary, reports to the Board on any work required. He also reports to the Board on any new work required. The Inspector and supervisor should work amicably together and consult one another on matters relating to field work. For instance, the supervisor is having tanks and troughing erected; it would be wise for him to consult the Inspector as to the best position to place them, the size of piping to supply water to the trough, what guard rails to place over the trough, and the height of same,etc. But the Inspector should not criticise the work done, unless it is obviously at fault. On the other hand, an Inspector should report to his Board it in his opinion, the supervisor is not doing satisfactory work. In other words, the Inspector is there to guard the interest of the Board and travelling stock.
Question 2—How is the work of P.W.P.'s to be supervised, so that the Western Division may obtain the greatest benefit from funds received?
This question opens up, probably, varied opinions. If the Western Division collected travelling rates, as is done in the Eastern and Central Divisions, the supervision of P.W.P.'s might possibly be managed by each district and pay out of Reserve Improvement funds; but while the Western Division relies on the Government to more or less spoon-feed it, by grants,etc., the work must be carried out under Departmental methods; and to obtain this it appears necessary for one or more supervisors to be appointed. Only by this method could uniformity be obtained, and plans and estimates made and carried out to Departmental satisfaction.
It was thought Directors of Boards would supervise the work of each District, but this soon proved unsatisfactory. Firstly because very few Directors had the time or inclination to give this service. Secondly, because it takes a trained man to compile proper plans and estimates to conform to Departmental standards. Thirdly, because any man's job is no man's job; that is, eight Directors would become, more or less, supervisors, and so enough said.
Consequently a supervisor appears essential. A man who knows his job and is directly under the control of Boards. Who would consult the Boards as to what work is required, but who knows how to carry out the job without any unnecessary interference.
Question 3—Now that P.W.P.'s are under the control of Boards, what should be the attitude with regard to T.S.R.'s and C.R.s?
This also raises a knotty problem. In the past stock have wandered through the West in a more or less "go as you please style." There was plenty of country to travel over and, generally speaking, little interference from lessees; but those conditions are rapidly altering. Closer settlement has apparently come to stay, and to become closer. Some seem to think that the present order of events will not last, and the land will revert again to large holdings; but those who make these statements overlook the fact of demand, which must increase as population grows. Also motor cars, and probably aeroplanes in the future, have revolutionised conditions—to say nothing of electric light and Kelvinators—so that the settler of to-day has as much pride in his home as any suburbanite of Sydney. Settlement also depends on a supply, of permanent water, and great strides have been made of late years in obtaining it; so it is reasonable to suppose closer settlement will continue and become more intense in the West. That being so, how are the T.S.R.'s and C.R.'s going to fare? Naturally, the "small man" is more concerned about every blade of grass that grows on his patch than the big holder. It might be argued, stock routes are protected by the Western Land Act, but unless there are some more stringent measures brought into force to prevent general overstocking, it would be difficult to prove overstocking of stock routes. On the other hand, it appears quite impracticable at the present juncture to suggest all main stock routes be taken out of lease and fenced, but quite a good deal can be accomplished by bringing under the notice of the Western Land Commissioners when additional or original blocks are being thrown open, the position of T.S.R.'s in the vicinity. For instance, in the Bourke District, two valuable areas of T.S.R.'s have been withheld from lease, and handed to the supervision of the Board, and it is hoped the same policy will be followed in at least two areas in the Brewarrina District. It has been found, the Western Land Commissioner lends a sympathetic ear to any legitimate proposal placed before him for the benefit of travelling stock, and the Bourke Board has taken full advantage of this and is gradually building up its main stock routes, by having any area possible taken from lease and placed under the supervision of the Board.
We Inspectors should do our utmost to retain and, where possible, add to the T.S.R.'s all advantages possible, not only for the benefit of owners of travelling stock, but for the good of the State as a whole, for no one benefits if stock die from lack of water and grass on T.S.R.'s, or if "condition" goes off in hot air for the same reason. It is a pitiable sight to see either poor or fat stock struggling along T.S.R.'s without sufficient grass or water, when such should be there if their routes were properly handled.
Some folks say, why all this fuss and bother about routes and travelling stock, when motor road trains will be shifting all stock in the near future? Although much is being done along these lines, and undoubtedly this form of transportation will grow, one would be an optimist to argue that mobs of say 1,000 head of cattle or 5,000 sheep will be moved in this manner for many a year to come.
Question 4. The last question is somewhat of a poser and one can imagine what a furore it would raise if it was on the agenda paper of the P.P. Conference to be held at Wilcannia next month. "What would be the better proposition for Boards—travelling stock to continue to pay for water received or a travelling rate, on similar lines to that which now prevails in the Central and Eastern Divisions?"
There is no doubt, if this question was put to a body of Western landowners the mover would at least be counted out, what would be said is best left unsaid, but the following arguments in favour of the travelling rate In the Western Division are submitted.
(1) If the Eastern and Central Divisions pay the rate, why not the Western Division?
(2) Why should stock from the Central Division be allowed to travel through the West, looking for grass, without paying. In most cases, a penny piece? For when they come, as they did in 1936, and again this year, in thousands, the season was good and feed and water plentiful, so that very little water was required from P.W.P.s.
(3) Why should not Queensland stock pay rates? Approximately 80,000 head of cattle and 380,000 sheep crossed into the Bourke-Brewarrina District, from Queensland last year, and being a good season evaded the watering fees to a large extent.
(4) If travelling rates were imposed and watering fees abandoned, how would it affect the P.W.P.'s?
The last question is the only one to be answered: the rest are left to the will of the gods.
The following comparison in fees is submitted.
Travelling Rate.
Head
Cattle … … 25 for 10 miles—9d. = 7/6 per 100 miles.
Sheep … … 100 for 10 miles—7d. = 5/10 per 100 miles.
Watering Fees, P.W.P.s.
Cattle … … 25 for 10 miles-2/1 = £1/0/10 per 100 miles.
Sheep … … 100 for 10 miles-1/- = 10/- per 100 miles.
If this table was shown to a group of Western landholders and it was moved that travelling rates be imposed, it seems likely the mover would NOT be counted out. A saving of 12/4 on 25 head of cattle every 100 miles and 4/2 on 100 sheep for the same distance, it is surmised, would appear good business, and Boards would possibly turn it down because it would not pay! Unfortunately, the case for travelling rates is not, in actual facts, so rosy. If P.W.P.'s were always, and only, 10 miles apart, and if water had to be bought every 10 miles, then the change-over would be rapid and the mover of the motion might be knighted ! As it is at present, watering places are generally from 12 to 15 miles apart, and natural watering-places intervene, such as rivers, lakes and pot-holes, so that stock travelling from, say, Hungerford to Bourke, a distance of 135 miles, often get through with very little payment for water. The point which is stressed is, in drought years, when stock are travelling mainly for grass and owners are being pinched, the payment for water becomes excessive, because there is no water but at P.W.P.'s,; while in good years, when the majority of stock are travelling to the fat market, watering fees can be evaded. This does not seem a fair, equitable arrangement. On the other hand, a travelling rate would fall on all and be equal tax. The question arises, How would this affect the Board's P.W.P. funds?
Take Bourke District again as an example—The P.W.P. Rentals Fund amounts approximately to £700, therefore it would take approximately 15,000 cattle and 200,000 sheep travelling 100 miles through the district in the year to balance the budget. The rentals from P.W.P.'s would probably drop 50 per cent. That is to say, the Bourke Board would receive £700 from rates and probably £350 from rentals.
What would be the advantages from the change-over?
(1) A defined and equitable tax on travelling stock and a more defined and equitable value on P.W.P.'s.
(2) More money to spend on improving P.W.P's and T.S.R.'s and less spoon-feeding by the Government.
(3) A better status for all Western Division Boards.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thank you for your patient hearing, and only wish to add the views expressed in this papers are set down in the interests of Boards and travelling stock.
I thank you.