back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
Welcome Swamp Reclamation:
Report of the Royal Commission, 1924
WELCOME SWAMP RECLAMATION:
REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.
Presented to both Houses of Parliament by His Excellency's Command.
[Estimated cost of printing (280) ― £8.)
To His Excellency the Honourable NORMAN KIRKWOOD
EWING, Administrator of the Government of the
State of Tasmania, in the Commonwealth of Aus-
tralia.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
WE have the honour to report on the several matters referred to us for enquiry
by Your Excellency's Letters Patent of the 20th day of December last.
The enquiry was opened at Hobart on the 23rd January last, and public ses-
sions for the taking of evidence were held at Hobart, Marrawah, and Smithton,
finally concluding at Hobart on 28th February last. We were assisted in the mar-
shalling of evidence by Mr. J. P. Clark, of the Crown Law Department, and the
following Counsel appeared for parties concerned, namely ― Mr. A. J. Douglas,
for the Superintendent of the Reclamation Works (Mr. Thomas Strickland); Hon.
Tas. Shields, for the members of the North-Western Sawmillers Association; and
Hon. F. B. Edwards, for the Marrawah Timber Proprietary Ltd. We personally
visited portions of the works on the Welcome Swamp, Mr. McCabe also making a
separate inspection thereof; and visits were paid to portions of the Mowbray and
Irish Town Swamp areas. We received every assistance from the Superintendent
of the Reclamation Works, the Manager of the Marrawah Tram, and residents of
Smithton and Marrawah and the vicinity in pursuing our enquiries. The Com-
mission issued to us by Your Excellency covered a number of matters of varying
magnitude, and we group our findings under the several headings suggested in the
Commission:―
(1) ― THE RECLAMATION OF WELCOME SWAMP.
The reclamation of the Welcome Swamp lands of the North-West Coast has
received attention from various Governments for years past; and to the Welcome and
Montague Swamps, in particular, the Surveyor-General (Mr. E. A. Counsel) called
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
2
the attention of Hon. Ed. Mulcahy, then Minister of Lands, at whose direction, in
December, 1913, District Surveyor Harrisson did some preliminary survey work,
but owing to change of Ministry no progress was made in the matter until Hon.
Alex. Hean took it up. In 1920 and 1921 he obtained reports from Mr. Thos.
Strickland, who had had years of experience in Victoria and King Island in drain-
ing swamp lands, and had (apparently successfully) completed the draining of
Egg Lagoon at King Island for the Government. Mr. Strickland does not claim
to have any academic or theoretical training in such matters, but was prepared
to apply to this work such knowledge as he had gained over a period of 42 years
by practical experience. His reports, dated 15th December, 1920, and 7th May,
1921, strongly recommended the work, and were supported by the Surveyor-General
and the District Surveyor. Mr. Strickland roughly estimated that the area could
be drained, cleared, grassed, and fenced, ready for settlement as grazing lands,
for a total cost of £10 to £12 per acre, and that the lands could then easily be sold
for £25 per acre, and up to £60 per acre, on terms. He reported a good fall for
drainage purposes and first-class land, and advised following the old creek bed
for the main drain, while straightening the course, and he suggested special terms
to attract settlers with some capital, and likely to make a success. He estimated
the land should be ready for settlement in from three and a half to six years. It
was also recommended that the Crown should resume certain alienated lands
impinging on and rising beyond the swamp, which would assist the scheme.
Owing to special facilities under that Act for carrying out such a work, it
was decided to develop the scheme under "The Closer Settlement Act," and mem-
bers of the Closer Settlement Board, after a perfunctory visit to the locality with the
District Surveyor and Mr. Strickland, and relying on the judgment of Mr. Strick-
land, recommended the scheme, and the employment of that gentleman as supervisor.
The total cost of the work was vaguely estimated as being in the vicinity of
£100,000. The Minister himself visited the locality, and formally approved, and
Mr. Strickland was installed in full control of the works at £1000 per annum,
as from 1st October, 1921, "appointment to be made for a term of three years, termin-
able on three months' notice on either side." Details of the progress of the work
have already been made public in the annual Ministerial Statements and reports of
the Closer Settlement Board, which are included in the evidence herewith, together
with the monthly progress reports of the Superintendent.
Apart from the taking of the levels in the Welcome River, north of the Marra-
wah tramline, no preliminary survey or detailed investigation of the area to be
drained was made; so that apart from a general knowledge that, whatever proved
to be the extent of the watershed, all the waters eventually found their way into
the Welcome River, and that there was a good fall to the outlet, there were no data
upon which the drainage scheme was based at the commencement of operations
and any estimate of expense must consequently have been quite unreliable, besides
the possibility of unforeseen engineering difficulties arising. It appears rather
surprising that the staff of the Public Works Department were not consulted before
the scheme was entered upon, instead of reliance being placed entirely on estimates
based on such inadequate premises, but the Superintendent appears to have been
impatient of scientific methods, and made little use of even such engineering exper-
ience as was available in his own staff. Early in 1923 Mr. J. R. Fidler was loaned
by the V. D. L. Company to make a survey of the area, and found the total to
comprise 4658 acres good swamp land; 745 acres slightly rising; 720 acres scrubbed
and grassed (being portions of lands resumed from private owners by the Crown);
and 2533 acres dry second-class land; making a total of 8656 acres. Of this, the
actual swamp area to be drained is now ascertained to be about 4628 acres, besides
about 745 acres of slightly higher flat lands, or 5373 acres in all.
The net result of the reclamation work done to date is as follows:― The total
area more or less completed is 1085 acres, through which 2 miles of main channel
and 8½ miles of subsidiary ditches have been cut or partly cut. Of this 1085 acres,
an area north of the Marrawah Tram, comprising about 601 acres, has been
drained, and 535 acres scrubbed and awaiting an opportune season for burning off,
so that it is within reasonable sight of being ready to settle. South of the tram the
main channel has been scrubbed and grubbed for 1 mile 30 chains, of which 1 mile
has been ditched and six subsidiary drains dug, and an area of 772 acres has been
scrubbed.
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
3
A steel tramway, junctioning with the Marrawah Tram, has been laid for 2
miles 53 chains in a general southerly direction into the Swamp area; formation
has been completed to 3 miles 14 chains, and the route pegged to 4½ miles. The
construction of the tram was agreed to by the Crown with the Marrawah Timber
Company, who claim to have 1¼ million feet of timber on the area awaiting trans-
port, and there is an agreement pending that such timber of the company as lies
within ½-mile radius of the tramway is to be delivered by the Government to the
Marrawah Tram at 4s. per 100. It will be seen from the report of the Engineer
of Works that he considers the construction of the steel tramway at, say, £1700
per mile, is scarcely justified, though for the time being it affords cheap haulage for,
and accessibility to, the timber in the area, and consequently should increase the
price to be obtained by the Crown for timber.
(2) ― THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF TASMANIA.
The following areas were purchased by Mr. Strickland for the Government:―
the total cost amounting to £25,735 17s. 9d. Assuming that the drainage schemes
of all these swamps are eventually to be completed, these land purchases appear
to be fully justified, and the prices given not excessive. But for Mr. Strickland's
personal negotiation of the purchases the State would certainly have had to give
much higher prices for the land. The properties were "well" bought, and we are
satisfied, on the evidence, that they are, on the whole, worth to-day what was paid
for them. On the further question submitted to us, namely, whether Thos. Strick-
land improperly acquired for himself any such lands or any interest therein, there
is no evidence whatever to justify such a suggestion.
(3) ― THE METHODS ADOPTED.
Any criticism of the efficiency of the work of reclamation depends largely
upon what degree of engineering perfection is desired. On the one hand, such
perfect engineering work might be required in the first instance that no further
expenditure would under normal conditions be contemplated. On the other hand,
the land may be roughly drained by less meticulous methods, but afterwards need
fairly regular attention and improvement as circumstances arose. Roughly, the
former might be described as an "engineer's drain," and the latter as a "farmer's
drain." There is no doubt that the work that has been done has been to an extent
effective, and is far from useless, but, as will be seen by reference to the detailed
report obtained from the Engineer of Works (Mr. W. R. Reynolds) ― the correctness
of which has not been challenged ― the grading, length, and curvature of the drains,
and the size of the main channel and of some of the ditches, do not comply with
the requirements of established engineering practice so as to provide against scour-
ing, floods, or silting, and consequently the work done will require to be renovated
and improved, either at once or as future circumstances may suggest. It is also
fairly obvious that to make engineer's drains in the first instance would eventually
have resulted in less total cost than in constructing farmer's drains, in contempla-
tion of future improvement. The probable extra cost involved in at once making
the work already done perfect, from an engineering standpoint, is estimated at
£11,782 for drains alone. The drainage work should not have been commenced
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
4
until a comprehensive survey of the area to be drained had been completed, and a
proper scheme of drainage worked out on paper. Such a survey should have
shown with reasonable accuracy ― first, the total area of the watershed to be drained;
second, the area of the swamp as distinguished from the higher-lying land within
the watershed; third, sufficient levels within the swamp area to enable the drains
to be laid down on the plan, and their respective dimensions and falls to be marked
on each separate drain. This, with some trial holes in the swamp area to ascer-
tain the nature of the soil in which the drains would have to be cut would have
made it possible to ascertain with reasonable certainty what is the highest velocity
of flow which could be allowed in the drains without danger of serious scouring and
damage to the drains taking place, which will, if allowed, involve constant expense
for maintenance of the drains. In addition, the highest probable rate of rainfall
within the watershed should be known, and if in doubt a safe figure for this would
have to be assumed. To arrive at the figures, in the absence of sufficient actual
rain records, would require experience and judgment. With this latter figure, and
the survey above mentioned, it would be easy to design the size of each drain,
and the velocity which could be allowed in it; while, without this knowledge, drain-
ing a large area is simply working in the dark and trusting to luck that it will turn
out all right, a method which may be good enough for dealing with a small area
with private money, but is certainly not good enough for a large area to be drained
at the public expense. The drains, so far as they have been completed, or partly
completed, are tortuous and winding, and do not in any way lend themselves to
the necessary subdivision of the land. This applies more especially to the sub-
sidiary drains. In many of the existing drains the velocity of flow is much too
great, which will be a source of constant trouble owing to erosion of the banks.
In many places the surface of the water in the drains is not sufficiently below the
surface of the land to ensure efficient subsoil drainage at any great distance from
them, and in at least one drain the velocity of flow is so small that frequent atten-
tion will be necessary to keep it from being choked with aquatic weeds. The
actual fall in the drains, as they exist now, is very uneven, which is only to be
expected, seeing that apparently they were constructed without any system of
checking the fall by levelling. The spoil from the drains has not been thrown
sufficiently far from the edge of the banks; this puts a heavy load on the banks,
diminishing their stability, and causing much more stuff to fall into the drains
when falls occur, as they certainly will, from erosion of the banks.
(4) ― TENDERS FOR PURCHASE OR REMOVAL OF TIMBER.
At the commencement of operations very vague ideas were entertained as to
the quantity of marketable timber on the swamp; for instance, in his report of
12th May, 1921, the Surveyor-General states that it "has yielded some splendid
blackwood, of which little remains except some large heaps of splendid logs cut and
ready to be taken to the mill. There is very little large timber, but sufficient on
the rising ground to meet all requirements." But very shortly afterwards it was
apparent ― at any rate to the Superintendent ― that, especially in the southern
parts of the Welcome Swamp, the State had a valuable asset in the timber beds
there, and that the proceeds of these, if credited to the scheme, would help in
paying for the reclamation works. The quantity was estimated by one witness
at 6 or 7 million feet of blackwood, and 37 million feet of hardwood. Other
estimates even exceed this by millions of feet. For our purposes we are adopting
an estimate of 5 million feet of blackwood and 30 million feet of hardwood as still
a source of profit to the scheme. It must, however, be remembered that without
these works the forestry asset would be of value, so that we are treating the scheme
liberally in crediting it with the whole of the proceeds from the timber. Some tim-
ber has already been sold to a mainland firm, and realised £1850. No question
has been raised as to this sale. In August last it was decided to call tenders
offering various alternative methods of dealing with the timber. The advertise-
ment was the combined effort of Mr. Strickland, the President of the Closer Settle-
ment Board (Mr. Rudge), and the Minister, and its exact meaning is open to argu-
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
5
ment. No-one except Mr. Strickland appears to have appreciated what the adver-
tisement involved, nor the amount of the State's assets that was being offered for
sale. Mr. Rudge admits that he made no enquiries as to the quantity; and, in fact,
he seems to have exercised no independent judgment on the matter.
The only tenders upon which dispute arises are those for the straight-out
purchase of the whole of the blackwood on the Welcome Swamp. Four were
received, namely:―
(1) An unconditional tender for blackwood "logs" on "Montagu"
swamp, at 6s. per 100 feet. This was signed "C. Bishop," but
is now sworn to have been put in at the instance of J. H. Mackay,
and the word "Montagu" to be a clerical error for "Welcome."
(2) A combined unconditional tender for blackwood "logs" from four
sawmillers (Lee, Gray, Fenton and the Marrawah Timber Co.),
at 3s. 1d.
(3) A tender with elaborate conditions from Bertram & Etchell, at 5s.
(4) A tender embodying like conditions as the last from W. Innes, at
5s. 3d.
First, as to Bishop's Tender. ― It will be seen that if this was genuine and
intended to relate to the Welcome Swamp timber, the advantage offered to the
State over that of Innes' would be about £2000 or more according to which estimate
of the quantity of blackwood proved correct. But, without enquiry as to whether
the word "Montagu" was a mere clerical error (as it obviously was), this highest
tender was thrown aside by the Superintendent as "not applicable" and the Presi-
dent of the Board and the Minister accepted this decision without further enquiry.
As it was open to defer decision, or to reject all tenders, and either advertise afresh,
or even make a private contract with Bishop or his principal, after obtaining
satisfactory proof of the bona fides of this tender, the decision to at once discard
this and accept the next tender was too precipitate, and again indicates that no
independent judgment was exercised in Hobart regarding the Superintendent's
recommendations. But in view of Mr. Strickland's relations with the successful
tenderer sinister motives for this recommendation have been suggested.
As to Innes' Tender. ― The acceptance of this was recommended both by Mr.
Strickland and Mr. Rudge, and agreed to by Mr. Hobbs, the Minister. It is
established ― and, indeed, undisputed ― that Bertram and Etchell's tender was
submitted after some consultation with Strickland; that Bertram (a protégé of
Strickland) decided to throw over Etchell when he found that Innes was prepared
to tender at a higher rate, and he gave Innes details of Etchell's tender as a guide;
that Innes consulted both Strickland and Bertram the day before the closing
day; that Bertram became partner with Innes; and that Strickland has now agreed
to guarantee Bertram and Innes up to £3000 at 7 per cent. on moneys actually
paid by him. But it is alleged that Strickland is further interested as a partner
with Innes and Bertram, and was to have been a partner with Etchell and Bertram
if their tender had succeeded. The reasonable conclusion to be reached from
a review of the whole of the facts is that Strickland acted in close co-operation,
first, with Etchell and Bertram, and then with Innes and Bertram, in regard to
these tenders; and that an arrangement was in contemplation for him to have an
interest in the former, but the tender was not successful. And as regards Innes'
tender, the inference cannot be avoided that it was intended that Strickland should
be financially interested beyond his admitted guarantee of Bertram and Innes.
It is unnecessary to comment on the flagrant impropriety of such intimate dealings
between a State official and purchasers of the State's assets entrusted to him; and
the correspondence between Strickland and the Board on the matter of these ten-
ders indicates a bias in favour of friends which should not be tolerated in
public affairs.
The net result to the State has been that, if Innes' tender, with all its condi-
tions, is to stand, concessions will have been granted to him which other tenderers
had no opportunity to consider, and which would have enhanced their prices.
Thus, the Superintendent's anxiety to accept this tender without giving
others a chance of naming a price for the same terms has certainly done the latter
an injustice, and probably caused loss to the State.
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
6
(5). ― THE COST.
The cost already incurred up to 22nd January last, according to the records
of the Closer Settlement Board, is £53,158 11s. 11d., made up as follows:―
(6). ― ESTIMATED COST OF COMPLETING THE WELCOME SWAMP
RECLAMATION.
Again, the distinction drawn above between an engineer's drain and a farmer's
drain is applicable.
A. ― The figures supplied by the Engineer of Works for the former are as
follow:―
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
7
B. ― On the other hand, assuming the present standard of work to be accept-
able, and not allowing for improvements and general annual maintenance costs,
the following estimate appears reasonable:―
In this case provision would also have to be made for considerable annual
maintenance. This would be a perpetual expense, neutralising the lower
immediate cost, and consequently, we cannot recommend the adoption of the lower
standard for the work. It will be noted that no provision is made for roads in
any of the above figures; the steel tramway before referred to will, to an extent,
serve the settlement. To complete this for another 3 miles is estimated to cost
another £5118.
(7). ― MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.
Agistment of Stock on Crown Lands. ― Some stock owned by Mr. Strickland,
with others, was agisted on the lands adjoining the swamp, but reasonable payment
was made therefor in competition in the open market, and no charge of impro-
priety in this regard is sustained against any person.
Drain No. 10. ― It was suggested that this drain was put in for an ulterior
motive, but the suggestion is not justified.
Hardwood. ― One request accompanying Innes' tender, and to which the Presi-
dent of the Closer Settlement Board proposed, at the instance of Mr. Strickland, to
accede, was a right to cut all the marketable hardwood on the area at Innes' sug-
gested price of royalty rates, plus 1s. per 100 (or 16s. per 1000 feet in all). Thus,
a prior right to an estimated quantity of 30,000,000 feet of hardwood, worth at this
figure £24,000, was to be lightly sold to a friend of Mr. Strickland without com-
petition. This matter should not be finalised without an effort to obtain other
offers, and no such monopoly should be granted.
(8). ― CONCLUSION.
Assuming that the State can afford to go on with this work, the question of
eventual financial success, of course, depends on the value of the lands when
reclaimed. The mechanical analysis of the Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Mr.
J. H. Johnstone) of samples taken from various parts of the area gave a surpris-
ingly poor result in the majority of cases, owing to excess of sand. This indicates
that the lands would not, as a whole, be suitable for agriculture, but, assuming a
fair rainfall, the grazing proposition should succeed. On this point, however,
we advise that the same analyses be completed chemically. The price obtainable
for the land in four or five years' time, when the reclamation is complete, is neces-
sarily difficult to guess. Reliable estimates indicate that £20 per acre for the
land, if drained, scrubbed, grassed, and fenced, would not be a too sanguine figure
for the better blocks at the present moment. Striking an average of £16 per acre
would realise £138,496 for the 8656 acres, a sum which would well cover the cost
of what is above designated as farmer's drains and would even come within the range
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page
8
of the cost of the more perfect engineering scheme outlined. There is little doubt
also that a keener appreciation of the demand for, and profits latent in, the timber
on the area by those disposing of these State assets would result in better prices,
and consequently increase the probability of financial success for this venture.
It should be noted, however, that the land will not be suitable for settling raw
immigrants; it will require men of some experience in such grazing ventures, and
some capital, although we made enquiries on the matter we are unable to say
that there is any indication of such an amount of land hunger for such areas as
would lead to a hope that the whole area, or even any large portion of it, would
be taken up for some years to come.
The suggestion has been made, and appears to be acceptable, that the area
north of the Marrawah Tram should at once be completed and offered for settle-
ment, and thus an indication would be obtained of the demand and prices that
could be expected for the remainder. One matter of general interest to those
concerned in State administration emerges from our investigation, and that is the
absence of consultation and co-ordination between departments of the Public Ser-
vice. Expert knowledge available was in the service on many matters in connection
with this scheme, but its use was strangely neglected by the Closer Settlement
Board and the Ministers. This extensive scheme was originally undertaken with-
out seeking any advice from the Public Works engineers or making use of their
technical knowledge; and important tenders and contracts were arranged without
reference to the Law Department; while the Agricultural Department, whose
officers are skilled in estimating the potentialities of soils, were never consulted
in the matter. Further, this enquiry proves the unwisdom of commencing a
scheme of this magnitude without making use of all the advice, resources and skill
already available in the public service before importing what proves to be less
suitable assistance from outside.
We wish to record our appreciation of the efficient services rendered by the
Secretary to this Commission (Mr. L. Norman), who, besides attending to the neces-
sary organising details, took the whole responsibility of noting and transcribing the
evidence.
We have the honour to be,
Your Excellency's obedient Servants,
E. W. TURNER, P.M.
W. B. MACCABE, M. Inst. C.E., F.I.C.
Hobart, 9th March, 1924.
back to Welcome Swamp introduction page