[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-201844-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-201844-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","queensland-legislative-council-parliamentary-debates-hansard-wednesday-11-february-1920-railway-proposals-and-gas-act-disallowance","Queensland Legislative Council - Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - Wednesday, 11 February 1920 - Railway Proposals and Gas Act Disallowance","","Parliamentary debates in Queensland’s Legislative Council address two major issues: railway proposals reported by the Public Works Commission and the disallowance of specific Gas Regulations. Members ask for names, line counts, total lengths, costs, estimated annual losses, and construction time for recommended and non-recommended railway lines, then receive detailed figures and lists. The chamber also debates the Gas Act’s regulations, focusing on definitions of “main” and “premises,” including concerns about legal intent, practical impacts for consumers, and proposed substitution of regulations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/queensland-legislative-council-parliamentary-debates-hansard-wednesday-11-february-1920-railway-proposals-and-gas-act-disallowance/201844/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/queensland-legislative-council-parliamentary-debates-hansard-wednesday-11-february-1920-railway-proposals-and-gas-act-disallowance/201844.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Melati","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What information was requested about the railway proposals reported by the Public Works Commission?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Members asked for the names and total number of lines and branches recommended versus not recommended, plus total length, total cost, estimated annual loss, and the aggregate construction years required.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What key issues were debated regarding the Gas Act regulations?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Debate centered on whether regulations 3, 4, and 47 should be disallowed, especially the new definitions of “main” and “premises,” and whether the changes would defeat the Act’s purpose.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why did some members argue that the definition of “main” was problematic?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Members argued the wording could unintentionally label ordinary service arrangements as “main,” such as when one pipe supplies multiple consumers in buildings like hotels or flats, leading to an absurd result.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},201844,1788539299,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962085570644,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Queensland  \nParliamentary Debates[Hansard]  \nLegislative Council  \nWEDNESDAY,11 FEBRUARY1920  \nElectronic reproduction of original hardcopy  \nLEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.  \nWEDNESDAY,11 FEBBTABY,1920.  \n一-—一  \nThe PRESIDENT(Hon.W.Hamilton)tookthe chair at half-past 3 o'clock p.m.  \nQUESTION.  \nRAILWAY PROPOSALS REPORTED ON BY PUBLICWoRKS CoMMISSION.  \nHon.E.W.H.FOWLES asked the Secre-  \ntary for Mines--  \n\"With regard to the railway proposalsupon which the Royal Commission onPublic Works have reported—(a).whatare the names and total number of linesand branches(i.)recommended by theCommission,(ii.)not recommended bythe Commission:(b)with regard to thelines and branches recommended,whatis(i.)their total length,(ii.)their totalcost,(iii.)the total estimated annual losson them,(iv.)the aggregate number ofyears estimated to be required for theirconstruction?\"  \nThe_SECRETARY FOR MINES(Hon.  \nA.J.Jones)replied一  \n“(a)(i.)Fourteen—Beaudesert toKyogle,Nanango to.Yarraman,Kinga-roy to Bell,extension Mount MolloyBranch,Haughton Valley Loop.Gargettto Owen's Creek,Brooloo to Kenilworth,Peeramon to Boonjee,Cottonvale toSoldiers'Settlement at Pikedale.Rail-ways in Gulf District.—This includes thefollowing:—Dobbyn to Burketown,andconnection from Camooweel.to join thisline near Gregory Downs.  System ofrailways to open up Northern Burnettand Callide Valley.—This includes thefollowing:—Mundubbera to New Cannin-dah,Many Peaks to New Cannindah,Rannes to Monto,Goondoon towardsKalliwa Creek,Dirranbandi Extension,Degilbo to Biggenden Iron Mine;(ii.)NineJuandah to .Taroom,Qona toMount Oxide,Tarong to Cooyar,Jan-dowae to Proston or Mundubbera.Wood-ford to Peachester,Mulgowie to Thornton,Tinana Deviation and Maryborough Loopline,Mount Larcom to Bracewell,Dun-winnie to St.George.(b)(i.)757 miles;(ii.)cannot be given,as detailed estimatesof a number of the proposale have notbeen taken out:(iii.)same as No.2;(iv.)same as No.2.\"  \nGAS ACT.  \nDISALLOWANCE OF REGULATIONS.HoN.E.W.H.FOWLES,in moving一  \n\"That regulations 3,4,and 47 of theGas Regulations of 1919,laid upon thetable of the Council on the 22nd October,1919,be disallowed by this Council\"一  \nsaid:Hon.members will remember that theGas Act was passed in 1916,after a numberof negotiations,and it turns out to be apretty satisfactory Act,as it has not neededany amendment since.In accordance with  \n.  \nthe provisions of the Act,regulations wereissued in 1917 and 1918,which also appearto have worked fairly satisfactory;but,astime went on,a few alterations became neces-sary,and some forty-eight amended regula-tions were issued on 10th October,1919.Ofthose regulations forty-five seemed to bewithout objection,which is an excellen+record for this Government.But the otherthree regulations seem to have escaped thenotice of the Government.  Regulation 3introduces a definition of the word“main,”and regulation 4 gives a new definition ofthe word\"premises.\"It will be easilyseen that,if regulations are allowed to intro-duce new definitions,the very purpose andobject and administration of the Act may bedefeated.When an Act leaves this Chamberall the terms used in that Act are taken tohave the usual accepted meanings,and it isonly in very emergent cases that the Govern-ment should feel called upon to step in andgive to any term a meaning that was not incontemplation when the Act was beingpassed.I understand that two of theseregulations are not wholly satisfactory to theGovernment themselves,so I trust that thismotion will go through without the slightestopposition.In fact,negotiations have takenplace with regard to regulationg 3 and 4.I understand-I do not think there is anysecrecy about the matter-that the CrownSolicitor and the gas company,and one ortwo other authorities,together with theChief Gas Examiner,have had conferenceson the subject;but they can hardly alter theregulations in such a way as to suit every-body.The result is that it is advisable forthis Council to disallow those regulations andallow others to be substi","cbCait9XdBGFFUGb","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait9XdBGFFUGb","pdf",5332547,31,"English","# QUESTION\n## RAILWAY PROPOSALS REPORTED ON BY PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION\n## GAS ACT - DISALLOWANCE OF REGULATIONS","[{\"question\":\"What information was requested about the railway proposals reported by the Public Works Commission?\",\"answer\":\"Members asked for the names and total number of lines and branches recommended versus not recommended, plus total length, total cost, estimated annual loss, and the aggregate construction years required.\"},{\"question\":\"What key issues were debated regarding the Gas Act regulations?\",\"answer\":\"Debate centered on whether regulations 3, 4, and 47 should be disallowed, especially the new definitions of “main” and “premises,” and whether the changes would defeat the Act’s purpose.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did some members argue that the definition of “main” was problematic?\",\"answer\":\"Members argued the wording could unintentionally label ordinary service arrangements as “main,” such as when one pipe supplies multiple consumers in buildings like hotels or flats, leading to an absurd result.\"}]","Queensland Legislative Council - Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - Wednesday, 11 February 1920 - Railway Proposals and Gas Act Disallowance | PDF",78]