Cite: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1029601

Comments

No comments yet.

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

PUBLIC WORKS.

WORKING OF DEPARTMENT.

REPLY BY PUBLIC SERVICE

BOARD.

CRITICISM OF ENGINEER-IN

CHIEF.

iThc comments of the Enginecr-in-Chief

on thp report of tho Public Service . Hoard on tho Department of Public Works havo drawn a counterblast from I the board, which Was made available for I publication by flio Minister (Hon. Jas. Belton) yesterday. The boaid says inter

alia: -

Tho Enginecr-iu-Chiof lias quito evi- dently failed to understand tho scone of the commiosion entrusted to the boaid by yourself. The boaid was requested lo investigate and report upon tho methods adopted by the depaitment generally, and tho whole tenor of its re- port bears out the fact that tho depait mi'iif", as a whole, was considered, and not iii". Fowler in, particular.

It is to be deplored that in the tone of his remarks in ciiticism of the board the- Enginecr-in-Chief lias adopted mi attitude which at once, biings him into conflitr with his obligations as a sub- ordínalo officer io tho board. This de- fence, as ho calls it, could have been made on its merits, without (sneering il- lusions and offensive and indiscreet re- marks. Such behaviour cannot bo toler- ated, as it is utterly at variance with what is lcquiied from mciiibeis ot the service in the interests ot discipline and

control.

HOADS, ETC.

Tho Engineei '*i-Chief writes that the boaid s statement as to the proceduic followed in connection with arrangements for the expenditure of the .vole-, is "ab- solutely erroneous," but he dues not stnlo in what iiaiticului". If, howe*, cr, he iefoi& to the whole of the board's statement in this connection, then the boaid must

flatly contradict him. The board's re- marks lefcr to the actual setting in

operation of the oxpcndituio of each'

particular vote. It is not conceivable !" that iho head of a large depaitment such ¡ as the Public Works should spend his time writing numberless letters, me-

moranda, etc., deciding and directing ', whether n vole of ^¡20 tor a little bit of

a road «hall bo spent to-day or next wook, ' or ah all. Tho Enginecr-in-Chief ii cer- tainly not paid "SOO per annum for the porfoimunce of such Toutine detail, which

could bo better and more readily per-1 formed hy (lie Secrelaiy of Public Works. '

INDOOR STAFF.

Dcspito tho cheap sneer at the board

(with which tho reply of tho Engineer-' in-Chief is so di-*:ourteously icpleto, and which the boaid feel» will in no wise help his ca«,e), the board contends thal Mr. Jîoss Reynold« is Assistant Enginccr-in Chicf, as his litio shows and is not merely a supervii-or of railway and tram- way biirvoy and construction. The "As- sistant" Enginecr-in-Chief is at, essen- tially common to both indoor and out-

door staff as the Bngineer-in-Cliief him-1 self, and in any ordinary, well-conducted, cptnblishinent (he Assistant Ungineer

in-Chief would havo boen the officer re-1 sponsible for tho admiaiííration of the department m the absence at any limo of tho Engineer-in-Chief, instead of that duty being sought to bo placed hy tho hitter uron an officer who is not an en- gineer, and whoso duties should havo been devoted lo-' engineering, designing, and drafting.

The Eugincer-in-Chicf has further stat- ed 11111101" ibis heading, in lefcrcnce * to the boaid'» lemai'ks on road matters,

that "I was compelled to devoto more time to the work of tnat branch" than I should in justice to the other portions ' of my work," and again, "I bavo had to work myself about fifteen hours per week, ov/erlirao when in Hobart practically constantly for the last two years." The Chief Inspector of Roads (Mr. Trappes), an officer in whom the board has tho fnllesl confidence, has slated "in oudence flint "the rond~work is not behind, ex- cept in a Tew instances, and wo aro far ahead of tho amount of labour wo aro able to get. Tho work would not havo been any further advanced with a more extensive staff. The Enginecr-in-Chief went out with me sometimes over tho work, but\Jie did not lay out any work. I would be justified in saying that tho Hngiuecr-in-Chief leaves the work en- tirely lo nie, apart fiom casual visits. After the work is practically completo tho Engineer-in-Chief might go and nave a look at it." lti there any need for further comment in regard to this?

CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNTS.

Were it any other than Mr. Fowler, tlio board could hardly eonceivo thal

¡my head of n department claiming to bo ^ responsible and having any knowledge

of tho efficient, conduct of a largo depart- ' rnent could, in his wildest imaginings, put upon the clauses ol tho Audit Act referred to ' by him tbo interpretation lh.it ho has given them-an interpreta- tion which is certainly not in keeping

with the views of 'tho Auditor-General. ' Apparently the "EngiDecr-in-Chief has

never heard of such a tiling a* .the. delr- ' cation of authority in mattere of this j Kind, a practice tliat. is absolutely neces- ' sury for the' prompt dibpatch of business, 1 and which is ono of tlio commonest prnc- i tier« existing in Government depart- , tnenls. It is no1, however, tho mern i writing of the ßignaluro that the-board < lias taken exception to; it is tho labori- t

ous attempt at tho checking of the con- tente of tho vouchers (a duty which the youngest junior clerk could do equally woli, ti- fur; us this Engineer-in-Chief is able to do it). . This the boaid regards iib .111 utter waste of time.

SURVEYS FOE, PUBLIC WOBKS

DHPARTMBXNT.

Tll<? ,Knö«!<,r-in-Cliip( has gono into

au elel-u/sto dissertation on tho above .>uojt*ar, otld lins served up once moio a I'jt-of correspondenco which should never havo been necessary, had lie shown himself amenable to reason and the law which governs, these surveys. His per Mstciicy in this matter appears to have had its origin in an inordinate, desire lo cjioosc the surveyors and order tho surveys. It would appear from his rc uwrks that when ho ordered the surveys 1U5 had the work carried out in its com- pleteness, but such is not tlio easei for, ne- a matter of fact, he. never knew w bother the biirveys were either carried out in their entirety, or what eirbrs had been mad« in them until tho plans were tnecked in the Surrey Department. So thal, whilst one departumnt was order- ing thu surveys, another department iVas expected to tako the responsibility of «?hocking them mid certifying lo their corroctneas. In regard to the blame the Enginecr-in-Chief seeks to pass upon the Sui\ovor-Geicral, on account of delays and the alleged delinquencies of tho dis- trict surveyors, it is pointed 911t Unit, if they exist, ho, and not tho Surveyor Geneial, is wholly responsible. Had he sent a request to the Survey Department, according to tho Usual practice, the sur- veys would have been piomply and effi- ciently carried out. But ho preferred to exercise what ho claimed to bo his right to engage the surveyor)).

So long as the Engincer-iu-Chief wag. at nil icasonable in the matter, the Sur- veyor-General hesitated to iliteifere, but when ho got into trouble and then sought to saddle the latter with the re- sult of his iiregulnrilios, it became neceô sary to insiot upon the woik being car- ried out through tho proper channel.

METHOD OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS

OF SURVEYS.

Tho board has no quurrpl with the method of accounts as kept by the ac- countant of thu department, so tar as the requirements of tho Audit Act are con- cerned.' Thu Engineer-in-Chief, how- ever, has not grasped the board'-, point, vir... ' tljat although tho accounts are kept quito accurately lor audit purposes, when it comes to a question of dissection for the purposes of ascertaining the cost of any particular portion of the work, they fail lamentably.

SURVEY OF BRATsXHOLM-JIOOMNA

LINE.

Tho Enginecr-in-Chief has sought to discredit the board's statement in regard to the difficulties of ascertaining the actual cost of the above work. It is interesting to note that tho department, presumably with tlio concui renee of tbo Engineer-in-Chief, has («ken on itself tho responsibility of increasing the cost ot tho survey from tho amount voted by Parliament (#1,500) to an additional ex- penditure of over £2,800 by charging against 11 different vote (5 Geo. V., No. 22) the balance of the expendiUue over tho J21,5O0, the legality of which pro- ceeding may lie open to question. It seems evident that when Parliament vot- ed the suin of .£1,500 for tho »«ney it had beru represented to it thal such sum would he sufficient for the purpose, and it is further interesting here to noto how closely-that umount approximates tin* board's contention that these survov« should be carried out for something slightly over £100 per mile-tho length of extension in this instance being 14 miles. Another peculiar feature of this particular survey is that, inasmuch as the Act (.1 Geo. V.« No. 15) pio\ides for a contract survey, it ia questionable whether tho department, in having; tho survey carried out by ile own officers, has not overstepped tho law, as, so far as can bo ascertained, no subsequent statute has retrospectively empowered that course to be followed. Tho point the board particularly desiros to moke, clear is tliat an inspection of the book of the department, say fivo years hence, by any person endeavouring to ascortain tho cost'of the Branxholm-Moorina ex- tension survey would show that such sur- vey cost Ü1.500 (the only amount, voted for the suivcy), whereas it actually cost over .£2,800, the balaucp being cliaigccl against consfiuction, whilst there is no means of 'niiccrtaining- from the entries in the book where the'survey expendi- ture ends and that for construction be- gins.

RECEIPT AND ISSUE OF STOKES,

AND STOCKTAKING.

The Engineer-in-Chief states that he has given "íepeatcd and emphatic in- structions" thal nil stores must bo ob- tained through the stores department, in ease of special emeigoncy, and tries to combat the board's statement that "an »fficei is engaged by tho department in tho capacity of buy or, wlio^o principal duties aro to nrrangq for the puicbasc of timber, fodder, bullocks, horses, otc." The Enginecr-in-Chief states tliat this officer is a timber inspector on a railway construction work, and that ho lias no authority to purchase horses or bullocks, nor to purchase any fodder, timber, 01

other stores.

This is another instance whoro tho Enginoer-iu-Chicf discloses that he doet. not know what is going on in his depart- ment, 'j.he timber inspector -referred te may hold no authority to purchase fod- der, etc., but ho does make such pur- chases. Lot us enlighten the Engineer in-Chief by an cxtruc-t from a communi- cation received by tlio board fiom tho inspector oi stores, dated 20th March, 1916-. "An officer of tho Public Work', Department ¡«till purchases horses, fod- der, sleepeis, and limber, and his de- partment is frequently not mado ac- quainted with the transaction until after tho event." The officer in ques- tion is the 0110 referred to by "the En- gineer-in-Chief as a timber inspector, and nothing else. Hore is another ox tract from tho same communication, for the information of the Engineer-in Chief: "In December last (1915) twelve tons of chaff wero purchased ¡it Doloiailie for the Braiixbolm-Mooiina line, ut ¿£S 15*!. per ton, which should havo been purehnsed at Scottsdale, or near the line, at about, half tho priée. Ai. soon as I became aware of this transaction I asked the Engineer-in-Chief to obtain an ex- planation, hut so far this has not been íeceived, although asked for a second

time."

As iho Engineer-in-Chief boasts of his efficient efl'oits in assuring that thero are no ii regularities in ordering stores and supplies, lol us rofor to iregularitics of recent occurrence. On inquiry tho board is informed that accounts amounting te -£68 wero ordered irregularly, and tho Public Works Department, instead of ob- taining an explanation from the officers i»sponsibla for the irrogularity, sent the accounts direct to the Trnasury, with th? apparent object, states tho inspector ot stores, of getting them paid without further trouble. "Had the Treasury not notified that they had been forward el out of tho proper course," states tho in- spector, "payment would havo been made without the stores depaitment haung any io.'01'd." Then again, ¡1 number of items, amounting to over £100, were,ob- tained in tho month ol' February last without leferonco to Gie stores depart- ment. The inspector of stores informed tho Engineer-in-Chief that this proce- dure "is contrary to the reeoinmonda tions made by the chairman, Public Ser- vice Board, and approved by the Minis-

ter."

PURCHASE OF LOCOMOTIVE. FOR

THE MARRAWAH TRAM. I

Vi oin tho following instance, it will be seen tliat not only aro tho "repeated and emphatic instructions" of tho Eiigineor iu-Chief violated, but ho himsolf / vio- lates thom. If tho bead of ¡1 depart- ment sots such a Bad example is if any wonder that his subordinates ignore in- structions "and that disorder prevails? Quito ignoring instructions regarding store and supplies being ordered through tho Stores Department, the Engineer-in Chiof entered into negotiations with a Melbourne firm of machinery merchants in May, 1915, tor tho purchase of a Bald- win loeonioti*"-*- for tho Marrawah tram line, tins, too, despite the emphatic pro tost of tho Commissioner of Railways. In ¡x. subsequent communication tho Com- missioner further protested, stating he had looked into tho matter again, arid found from tho papers that .the engine iras 80 years old. The maximum life of 1 boiler allowed on the Tasmanian rail- ways was 25-.years, and ou 6ome railways as low as 12 years. Tho Commissioner wa6 also of opinion that the prie« asked was top high, and-intimated that if the Enginecr-in-Chief would bo good cnongn 10 supply certain particulars,. he (the Commissioner) would tako steps to pro; cure all the necessary information to en- able a decision to bo arrived at in regard to the typo of. engine* which would bo moat suitable for the present and futuro requirements of the Marrawah line.

Tho Engineer-in-Chief, in a character- istically loqgthy screed, replied to the »fleet thot, if there weio any prospect of .he Commissioner agreeing at an early

dato to take over tho Marrawah line.no Pelion would bo moro pleased than ho li-ho Engineer-in-Chief). Ho also recog- nised that, if ho -were purchasing plant which the. Comniisioner would bo asked to take over, the Commissioner would havo gioa ground for complaint if such plant was purchased without consulting tho Commissioner, but such conditions he urged, did not apply in this case. To this tho Coinmissionr replied that, if tho Public Works Department "desired ti purchase any equipment for a railway which would ultimately beconio a portion of the general railway system, it was im- portant that the Ruilwny Department should bo consulted." To this the En gincer-in-Chief retorted that he could see "no advantage in continuing this discus- sion, foi" whicJi I ho-yo no Urne, unless I am to lot other work fall more behind than it is at present." Tho administra- tion of the Public Works Department, he contended, "was n matter for the Min- ister of Public Works and his officers."

The reference of tho Enginecr-in-Chief *o the groat amount of work on his hand's

.í uudct-itundnblo considering the amount of corrofpondence that transpired before ne finally concluded the pinchase of the engine. Tho'filo shows llieio wcreabout G1 letters, 20 telegrams, and somo Teports

The engine was purchased at a cost of .£552, and when landed on tho North-Wont Coast und inspected by a Government in- spector of machinery it was enndomned, the inspector stating that it would cost between JI120 and Xi50 to put the boiler and engine in good repair. The mannger of the Marrawah tram also obieeted to the engine as unsuitable in other re .peets to.* hit. work.

The Engineer-in-Chief then endeavour ai to put the blamo on the machinery merchants in Melbourne, who negotiated the purchase,- also on Hie expert of tho "> lctorian Railway Department, who in- jected it, and he also doubted the iden 'i ty of tlio engine with the one purchased .n Victoria. Eventually tho expert in question came over to Tasmania, viewed the engine again, and reported that it was the same engine. The prico paid for the engine was,' the expert considered, "greatly nndv ridiculously in execs3 of its proper viiluo."_

To cap all, the" Assistant Enginoer-in Ohicf (Mr. Reynolds) reported to the Eli gineer-in-Chief that the engine did' not appear to havo been in work for a long time, probably some years. The engine, by the way, ans not been put into use. The final wold appears to havo boen given by the Minister (Mr. Belton) in notifying the Engincei-in-Chiet that he was of opinion the engine would not suit, even if repaired, and suggested that the Coni niKsioner of Railways should be approach- ed before any further purchase is made.

ARCHITECTURAL BRANCH.

The Engineer-in-Chief has again sig- nally failed to grasp the boaid's proposals with regard to the nature of the duties to be peí formed by the Government Architect. The board does not desire, nor has it suggested, that tho Government Architect should "convert himself into a draftsman in charge of the drawing office. What the board desire-,, and hopes lo seo carried out, is, that the Go- vernment Architect will be permitted to perform the duties of an architect, and not be required to ilovotc a large portion of his lime to routine correspondence, Or in-

spections, which latter should be carried out by the Inspector of Public Buildings and clerks of works, whose particular duty it is.

CORRESPONDENCE: DUTIES OP CHIEF ENGINEERING DRAFTSMAN.

In answer to the Engineer-in-Chief's in- quiry, "Does tho board realise that the chiof engineering draftsman has tho siipervWon of tlio preparation of plans and spooitication*" for the construction of roads, bridges, jetties, etc., amounting U from "220,000 to ¿£210,000 per annum?" the board desires to reply that it doea not know it, nor does auone else. Let us take the Public Woiks Execution Act for the present year, and glance at tho

summary:

Roads ._10i,88o

Bridges (including renewals;.., ... 8,225 Jetties (including additions) ... ". 4,400

_118,510'

Out of this total of _11S,510 (wliich, by tho way, is far short of "210,000) tho board is prepared to accept thal tho Chief Engineering Draftsman (excluding, for argument's Bake, the other engineer- ing ofheors of the department) is alono responsible. The board, however, deli- berately states it as its opinion that prac- tically tho whole amount of ¿£105,885 lor roads requires no plans other than typed drawings for culverts, whilst the specifica- tion!« aro propax*cd fiom full particulars supplied by the outdoor staff, from which any competent junior could make up tho completo specifications. Unless it is the contention of the Engineer-in-Chief that the supervision of tho Chief Engineering Draftsman consists of handing these over lo the specification clerks, then tho board insists that this sum of ¿105,885 bo de- ducted from tho total value of tho pro- fessional worlc undei taken by the officer, leaving a balance of "12.G25 for bridges and jotties. Now, let us examine this amount furthoT. Bridges, .£2,625, is for now bridges, only one of which is abovo ?6150, and if this could not equally well

be designed by the other engineering

draftsmen, with tho assistance whe*"c ne- cessary, ol' the Chief Enginoering Drafts- man, tho board might well a<=k what they aro doing. Renewals of hndges, .£5,000. A similar remark is applicable lo this nmnunt, whilst in regard to the amount of Ü500 for small bridges generally if type drawing, do not exist on tlio department tiuitablo for the^o, it is quite timo such were utilised. The amount piovidcd for iotties (=24,100) is almost too negligible foi* discussion. As a matter of tact, thero

aro only four item« (excluding renewals) to bo dealt with, one of which embraces the sum of .£2,000. and that is for the completion of the East Coast jetty, Bang Island. Whoro does the importance or designing and the prepaartion ot specifl

cationes como in here?

RECORDS.

Notwithstanding tho denials of the Engineer-in-Chief, the board reiterates its statements tliat the work of tho re oords has boen considerably prejudiced owing to the Engineer-in-Chief retaining correspondence that has not passed through the record¿room. It has boen further stated to tho board tliat not only does that happen, bnt in several instanced when papers hare been missing tho Engi- neer-in-Chief has been asked for th-em, and donied knowledge of them, whilst tho omcers oi tho department havo subse- quently, in his absenco, instituted a search, and found the missing papers on

his table.

DERWENT VALLEY RAILWAY

EXTENSION.

The board states that one error oiopt into its report. This waa in rehtion to the cost of the section of the Derwent Valley railway- extension. The cost oi the Russell to Russell Falls extension is certainly less than wat" stated by the boaid in its ,original report, but it is equally certain that it is moro than is represented by Mi. Fowler in his alleged correction. Tho actual amount will never be known, becnuee there is no reliable data' from which to 'compile the figures.

The only independent information we have upon the point at issuo is supplied by tho Public Works Committee itself. This eommitteo visited the line in Sep- tember last, examined nil tho engineers Concerned, irom tho Engineer-in-Chief downwards, mid reported to Parliament

as follows:

"The route of this section of tho^ ex- tension Russell to Russell Falls, 41 miles; passe.-, almost entirely along n rocky sideling, and great difficulties, in- cluding a htuvy landslip, costing over £1,500, were mer with, so largely increas- ing the cost of construction that the original vote of £30Mu was almost ab.

6orbed."

Wo are now asked to bqlievo that a line that in September had proved so costly that, in its incomplete condition at that date, it had nearly exhausted a vote of .£30,000, now, after three months' further work and expenditure upon it, has only cost (vide the department's lat .est report) ¿616,000. Evidently the de- partment's figures are of such n strangely elastoc chararUu" Ihnt they can bo adapt- ed to meet any en*ary»ncy. When the department wanted moro money to com- plete the line, they were able to impress the Parliametinry Committee with the expensive difficulties they had had to overcome in tlio earlier portions of tho construction, but when it was later re- quired to show how cheaply the same work had boen done, the figures could juat as readily be made lo suit the occa-

sion.

If the Engineer-in-Chief is able lo har- monisa these strikingly conflicting esti- mates, it is certainly moro than the board can do. One thing, however, is clear-that this instanco alone furnishes a speaking example of the nc¡ed for cor tain of th"" radical reforms outlined by the board in its recent report.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

The responsibility ? now íojts upon Ministers of determining whether the recommendations contained in the. report mado by the board eài'ill bo adopted.

The board insists tZiiit tho Public

Works Depaitment is urgently in need of reorganisation. Mor» than one mem- ber of Parliament who has held the port- folio of Minister of Public Works has declared that the department is in need of improvement. Aloir-bcTi of Parlia- ment, members of municipal bodies, and others, have voiced similar views. Tho Public Sen ice Board has in ils report matle reconimendntions which, if adopt- ed, will bring about the desiied result. And yet we have the spectacle of tho En- ginecr-in-Chief actually declaring that lhere i*> no need for marked improve-

ment !

The Engineer-in-Chief must not be al- lowed to be an obstacle in the way of putting tho deportment on a proper foot- ing. His attitudo amply justifies tho re- commendation that tne office of Bngineer in-Chie£, should be abolished, and that a capable,, organiser and business man be placed'\n charge, leaving the professional work to lie conducted by the cnpablo pro- fessional officers already in the ^depart- ment, who would bo h*ld responsible,.for

such work.

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down