House of Representatives
20 June 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

ACTING CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
ISSUE OF HANSARD
QUESTION
- MEETING PLACE OF PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR - GENERAL’S INSTRUCTIONS
PENNY POSTAGE IN VICTORIA
RAILWAY PASSES FOR MEMBERS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVANTS: ASSURANCE
QUESTION
- REBATE ON SUGAR
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- DUTY ON TYPE
QUESTION
- IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MAIZE
QUESTION
- IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF TIMBER
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS
QUESTION
- EMOLUMENTS OF MINISTERS
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Friday Sittings : Bills Affecting State Bights

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1366

ACTING CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of stand ing order 25, laid upon the table his warrant nominating Mr. Batchelor, Mr. Kirwan, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Piesse, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. V. L. Solomon to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees.

page 1366

ISSUE OF HANSARD

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that there is no corrected copy of Hansard for distribution to the different parts of the Commonwealth before the bound volumes are issued. I understand that, although corrections are mode, they are not put into the ordinary copies of Hansard, which are available during the session. I wish to know if that is correct.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The facts are these : It was the intention to issue the paper-bound proof copy to honorable members, and afterwards to issue a revise; the revise, of course, to be bound up finally into volumes at the end of the session. There has been a proposal since then that each honorable member should receive a galley proof of his own speech, on the night on which it was uttered, in order to enable him to see whether it was correctly reported - not, of course, to alter it - and that then those would be taken together and put into the revised copy, without issuing any bound proof copy. That was the proposal which emanated from the President, and from you, Mr. Speaker, and which, we thought, would bea very advisable thing to do, and onewhich the sense of the House would approve. The present position of the matter is that the Government Printer of Victoria does not yet see his way to be able to do this, because his opinion is that it wouldinvolve more labour than the previously accepted process, while, as honorable members understand, his office is altogether overburdened pending the arrival of the new machinery. “ I have no doubt that, in conjunction with the President and the Speaker, the Government Printer will probably arrive at some acceptable method of doing this business, so that honorable members may be best convenienced.

page 1366

QUESTION

MEETING PLACE OF PARLIAMENT

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed dissatisfaction of members of the Victorian Parliament, at this building being used by the Commonwealth Parliament, it would be possible to hold the sittings of this Parliament in Sydney, where no doubt we would be received in a true federal spirit ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– I do not anticipate that the complaints which appear to have occurred in another place will continue, because I am assured that the arrangements for the comfort and convenience of honorable members of the State Parliament will shortly be effected in. such a way that they would rather be there than here.

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

– I w I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, if he contemplates a change, he will come to Hobart, where the State will give him the Parliament House ?

Mr BARTON:

– I must ask that honorable members will give notice of any questions which may have ambulatory results.

– Perhaps my honorable friend will forgive me for asking him to give notice of the question so that the necessary information may be obtained from the Minister for Home Affairs.

page 1367

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS: ASSURANCE

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether he will, before dealing in committee with clause 44 of the Bill for the Regulation of the public service, obtain and place the House in possession of the following information : -

At what annual premium per £100 are life assurance companies prepared to issue a policy on a first-class life, conferring all the benefits provided for in the clause, at the ages of 16, 20, 30, and 40 years respectively ?
The extra annual premium per £100 that will be charged on a policy at each such age when five years’ loading is imposed ?
Whether the companies will provide the increased assurance required by subclause (d) without medical examination prior to each increase ?

The quantity of maize imported into each State of the Commonwealth during the post three years, and the countries from which it came ?
The amount of maize exported from each State for a similar period, and where sent?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The answer is, yes.

page 1368

QUESTION

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF TIMBER

Mr CLARKE:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether he will cause to be prepared and to be laid before this House a return showing -

. The amount of timber imported into each State of the Commonwealth during the past three years, and the countries from which it came ?
The amount of timber exported for a similar period from each State,, and where sent ?
The number of saw-mills in each State, their annual output, and the number of hands employed directly in each mill ; and the number indirectly employed in supplying timber to such mills ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BARTON:

– I move-

That all Government orders of the day be postponed until after notice of motion No. 1 .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1369

QUESTION

EMOLUMENTS OF MINISTERS

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

I move -

– Our Constitution departs from the Australian practice.

Mr GLYNN:

– The Federal Constitution departs from Australian practice, and the question is whether that is justifiable. I am considering the expediency of making this departure. We all have to make departures, and sometimes they are in the wrong direction, and sometimes in the right direction. In Canada the Prime Minister gets £1,600 a year, and the other Ministers £1,400 a year, and their population is in excess of ours.

An Honorable Member. - Does the Prime Minister get his parliamentary allowance in addition?

Mr GLYNN:

– I am not quite sure, because I am laying before the House the result of an incomplete research. There is an allowance for expenses in Canada, with a maximum of 1,000 dollars for a session.’ So that the salary of a Minister is less in Canada, even if the parliamentary allowance be paid to him - on which point I am uninformed - than the salary allowed here. I was about to remark that Canada has resources equal to ours and a population quite as great, and that the Dominion calls for as much detailed administration and at present more detailed administration than does the Australian Federation.

Mr O’malley:

– C - Canadahas seven months of snow.

Mr GLYNN:

Mr BARTON:

An Honorable Member. - Where is the comparison?

Mr WATSON:

– The comparison is in this fact, that the leader of the Opposition gets nothing while he is in Opposition beyond his allowance, and when he becomes leader of a. Government some honorable members want to tie him down to a sum that will only about keep him. I think that is a mistaken view. The opportunity of following the- practice- of their profession is absolutely absent, except so far as one or two members of the Ministry who reside in the State inw hich Parliament meets, and even that will be limited when we shift, as I hope we shall soon do, to the federal capital ; because wherever the capital is placed in New South Wales, from the professional and business point of view, it will be the home of not one of the Ministers who will compose the Administration, it means that they will have to give up all their private occupations. They cannot follow the practice of a profession for more than, perhaps, three months in the year at I the very outside, and I doubt if they can do that. Honorable members who have any Iknowledge of law know that if a man goes away for, say, six months from the place where he usually carries on his profession, it is not only what he loses during that time , which has to be considered, but the fact that he gets out of touch with the solicitors who would otherwise employ him. They get into other grooves, ana probably do not go near him during, the remaining six months, when he is there, unless it may be now. and again whenthere is a rush of work on. I do not pretend that the present Ministers are worth any more than their successors may be, but on the broad general ground that they have the most important work it is possible to conceive of, affecting the lives, the liberties, the prosperity, andth happiness of the millions in Australia, I think it would be a false policy on our part to indulge in any cheeseparing. I think the sum inclusive of the allowance of ?400 a year is little-enough indeed for those who undertake the onerous, responsible, and highly honorable work which the Federal Ministry have.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I rise to support the motion, because in my travels in South Australia during the recent electoral campaign, the great question raised in reference to this Parliament was the cost of its administration. It is all very well for the honorable member for Bland to endeavour to exaggerate the importance of the position of the Ministers on the Treasury benches, but I venture to think that, in comparison with the salaries paid in the States, the provision of ?.12,000 for Ministerial salaries was deemed by most of the States ample, and by some of the State Legislatures even too much. I would call the attention of the honorable member to the fact that amongst the suggestions made, I think from South Australia, as to that provision, was. one that it should be reduced to ?9,000 or ?1.0,000, and although the Prime Minister has stated that hi the calculation of the probable expenditure of the new Federal Government, which was prepared for the Convention’s Finance Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, the full number of members’ salaries was included, I would like to point out that that was a rough and ready calculation, that the question of a few members, more or less, was not considered, and that the point as to whether the members of the Ministry should receive ?400 in addition to their salaries was never before that body at all. . The right honorable gentleman has alluded to the debates on this question in the Convention. The question was not allowed to pass without comment there.

Mr Mauger:

– But we have nothing to do with conventions.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– We had though.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– We have something to do with the Convention, and I think that the people of Australia had something to do with the recommendations of the Convention and the Draft Commonwealth Bill, whatever the honorable member’s position may be in that respect. At any rate, it is on the records of the proceedings of the Convention that a proposition was made when this very matter was being considered that -

No member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, whilst in receipt, out of the general revenue, of any official salary or annual sum shall be entitled to receive any such payment as aforesaid, except in so far as such payment may exceed the amount of such official salary or annual sum.

Mr Mauger:

-Which Convention was that?

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– The Sydney Convention of 1897, and for the informamation of the honorable member, as he evidently has not closely read the debates, I shall give him the opinions of some of the members, including the Prime Minister, upon tliis very point, as to whether two salaries should be taken or not. The right honorable gentleman said -

I wouldsuggest thatwe should not pass this proposed new clause. It is a mere matter for the Legislature of the Commonwealth toconsider.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon thought

It would be undesirable to agree to thisproposal. It is very unlikely that any Minister would refuse to deduct from his official salary the salary he receives as a member of the House of Representatives. Besides that, if any provision of the kind be necessary it will be competent for the Federal Parliament to pass it.

Mr Mauger:

– That shows the question was quite open to doubt even there.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– Not if they understood the subject.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr.G. B. Edwards. - If they had been getting £10,000 a year it would have been just the same.

Mr MAUGER:

– Thatdoes not touch the question that I am arguing. We should start on a true economical basis by adequately paying the occupants of the Treasury benches. I am just as anxious as the honorable member for Gippsland that this Parliament should begin on an economical basis. The whole questionis - “What is economy?” There is true economy and false economy, and would it not be false economy to pay Ministers inadequately and by-and-by have to grant them annuities or to support their children. I urge just as strongly as the honorable member that in the interests of economy this House should begin by paying adequately for services rendered by those in its employ/ whether those services be rendered by Ministers or by the humblest servants of the Commonwealth.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I intend to support the motion. I referred to this matter when speaking on the Address in Reply. It is not the amount involved about which I am concerned. It is rather a matter of principle. The practice in all the Stateshas been that when a Minister accepts office, he ceases to draw his allowance as a member. I have no hesitation in affirming that, as. . far as South Australia is concerned, the people of that State were almost unanimously of opinion that the £12,000 provided for in the Constitution Act covered the whole of the Ministerial charges. I am positive that if a referendum were taken there to-morrow, they would decide against Ministers drawing the £400 allowance which is made to other honorable members. I believe that honorable members should come to this House and carry out the pledges which we made to our constituents. If there is one question that was raised more prominently than another in the State of South Australia during the federal campaign it was this question of economy. If Ministers are permitted to draw the ordinary member’s allowance of £400 a year, I agree with the honorable member for Gippsland that it will be but the thin end of the wedge towards getting more salary. If that amount is ‘allowed to Ministers, then no fault can be found with giving an increase of salary to honorable members.

Mr Mauger:

– Is that a fair thing to say?

Mr POYNTON:

– I say that is the position.

Mr Mauger:

– Personally, I repudiate it.

Mr POYNTON:

– If the cap fits, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports can wear it. The question to be considered is - “Did any of the States previously permit their Ministers to accept the allowance made to members of the local Parliament in addition to the amount paid to them as Ministers? ” The answer is - “ No, not one of them.” ‘ What was prominent in the minds of the electors during the recent campaign was the practice in vogue in the various States. It is idle for honorable members to talk about paying a salary which will enable Ministers to make provision for themselves in the days to come. Why, if we were to give some men £10,000 a year it would not be sufficient to make provision for them. Besides, we are not here for that purpose. I knew, when I contested the recent election in South Australia, the amount of remuneration that would attach to my position, and I am equally confident that the total sum which was to be divided amongst Ministers was generally accepted as £12,000. I shall certainly vote for the motion.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- Upon tliis matter it may perhaps be well for honorable members to refer to the discussion which took place in Sydney during the Federal Convention sittings.

Mr W H GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT

– That does not bind this Parliament.

Mr CONROY:

– It was clearly recognised there that a payment of £400 a year to Ministers would be made in addition to their Ministerial salaries. It is perfectly true that the following clause was debated on the suggestion of the Legislative Council of South Australia, which objected to that course being adopted : -

No member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives whilst in receipt out of general revenue of any official salary or annual sum shall be entitled to receive any such payment as aforesaid except in so far as such payment may exceed the amount of such official salary or annual sum.

The Convention, after discussing that provision, negatived it. That clearly shows that its members recognised it as quite probable that Ministers, in addition to the £12,000 to be divided amongst them, would draw their allowance as members of the House of Representatives. I, for one, should like to see some addition made to the £12,000 which section 66 fixes as the amount to be divided amongst Ministers, “ till Parliament otherwise provides.” In one way it might have been better to alter that sum by introducing a Bill, and to have fixed the amount at £17,000, or even at £21,500. Such a course would at all events have allowed us, if necessary, to increase the number of Ministers, and to give them a fair payment. The question which presents itself to my mind is, “ what ought to be the allowance to a Minister?” It appears to me that we cannot do better than take into consideration the fact that the Ministers, or at least five out of seven of them, are at present not located in the respective States, where as a rule they cany on their businesses or professions. Whilst Melbourne is the seat of government, it is perfectly clear that at least five out of the seven Ministers cannot carry on their ordinary avocations. If we look at any great financial institution, and compare the salaries they pay to thenchief men with the salaries this Parliament is asked to pay to the Ministers here, we find that capital generally knows very well how to take care of itself, and certainly does not en- on the side of extravagence if there is no necessity for it. We find that these banks - and I have taken the trouble to go through the returns of four or five of the chief of them - pay no less than from £3,000 to £3,500 to their chief managers, and in the case of at least one banking company, salaries of £2,000, and residences with other allowances, are provided for their managers. If we find that done in the case of a bank where men are looking after the interests of investors and capital, if we find the shareholders willing to pay these salaries, then it is perfectly fair that we should pay Ministers a salary proportionate to the work they do, and based on similar lines. It has been said by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, that of course there is a sense of gratified ambitionin being ‘a representative in Parliament, and that especially applies when one is a member of a Ministry. That is perfectly true, but I do not think that the people of Australia ought to try and trade upon it. We ought to give to each man, so far as we can, exactly that sum which his services are worth, and we should presume here that the people of Australia have sent in the men whom they consider the best. It is true that there may be certain selections made in error, perhaps, by constituencies, but we take it on the whole that all of us here were the best men who presented themselves - at all events were the men whom the electors viewed with the most favour. Therefore, it can fairly be said that we are entitled to some consideration on that account alone. Honorable members are not asked at the present time any question as to an extra allowance to themselves, and therefore in voting on this motion it is clear that we are considering the public interest. The decision we- shall come to cannot affect the great body of us, because we do not hope to become Ministers. We do not all think we can give due care and attention ; nor do we always think, even if we have the ability, that we could fill the positions successfully. In voting on this question we are giving perfectly disinterested voices, because to the great bulk of us it is of no concern whatever. But let us see what Parliament has already done in some States. In New South Wales I find that six puisne Judges receive in all the sum of £18,500 per annum. It may be that there are many persons who think that a limitation ought to be placed on the amount of salary which any man ought to receive, but until that time comes along, I think that all those who wish to see proper work done, and the best men appointed to the positions, will take care to offer a salary at all events which they can earn outside, In New South Wales, although no less than £18,500 per annum is paid in salaries to the six puisne Judges and the Chief Justice, still we find that even that is. not very tempting, and that many barristers have been known to refuse to take a judgeship. I do not suppose it will be argued for a moment that the position of Minister of State in this Parliament is less worthy than that of a puisne Judge, or Chief Justice in New South Wales. While I would have been glad to have seen some advantage taken of section 66, and the House directly asked to vote a salary, still at the same time, considering as I do, the salaries paid in other positions, and that various banking institutions find it to their advantage to pay sums such as I have mentioned, I think the members of the Federal Ministry will not be overpaid if in addition to the sum allowed under section 66, they draw the member’s allowance of £400 a year. Therefore 1 intend to oppose the motion,

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I think it is to be regretted that the House has been called upon to discuss this matter in this manner. At the same time I think Ministers are to be commended, first for not drawing the members’ allowance of £400 a. year in addition to their salaries, and next for the chivalrous attitude which they adopt in not voting on this motion. The question, as it appears to me, is one which has been suggested to many other honorable members in the same way. As far as my experience goes, we were all committed to a distinct promise to support economy in the administration of the Federal Government at the outset. There can be no sort of question that the people throughout, at any rate the State of Tasmania, for which I can speak personally, look to us to see that economy is exercised in every possible way, and to go behind the Constitution, as we should do in some degree by allowing Ministers to draw the member’s allowance, would be to open the flood-gates to extravagance, and to give our sanction to that which we should all reasonably deplore. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports has said how delighted the people would be to pay Ministers adequately, to pay everybody adequately, and he added that if the allowance of £400 per annum were taken “from Ministers and were to go into the pockets of the people, he would gladly advocate that course, but he overlooks the fact that money has to go out of the pockets of the people to go into the pockets of Ministers. I think that those who were at the Convention know that so far as any public action was taken there, so far as debate went on any subject touching this question, members of that body were decidedly in favour of the view that the salary of Ministers was to be a sum not exceeding £12,000, and certainly was_ not to include any addition by .way of allowance. We have had laid upon the table an estimate of yours, sir, showing the probable expenditure of the Commonwealth Government at £300,000 per annum. In that estimate it is quite true that the Ministers’ salaries are put down at £12,000, and that the allowance for the full number of members is put down. But that was one of many estimates laid before the Convention. It was never considered, and never discussed, and has no sort of authority as the result of any debate or motion upon it. I hope that honorable ‘ members will not be misled by that paper, as being something which has the authorization of the Convention. And really when one has said that, one- has said nearly everything there is to say on the matter. We have undoubtedly at the outset to exercise the most rigid economy. We have to pay salaries which, although they may be small as compared with salaries paid to bank managers and specialists in other lines of life, are not small as compared with similar salaries paid throughout the States, and also in every other civilized community. The salaries which we offer in the Constitution to Ministers are ample by comparison with any standard that we can set up, as the honorable and learned member for South Australia has shown, and I hope that we shall support Ministers in a somewhat tardy spirit of renunciation, and see that they get merely their salaries and no allowance. The remuneration of members does not enter into the question at all. There is no sort of reason why, at the present moment, we should discuss that question. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that many honorable members are already dissatisfied, and will resign their positions if their allowance be not increased. I cannot understand any honorable member taking up that position. We all knew when we stood for election what we were going to receive, and we all ought, I think, to be satisfied with the allowance. The very utmost that could be allowed to be dune is to place those from the more distant States on the same footing as those from the States closer at hand. Some allowance might be paid for their passages by steamer and coach and so forth, which would bring about an equality. I can say that, although I am a member for a distant State, because I should never make any charge on the public exchequer for my expenses, inasmuch as I should do no travelling to and from Tasmania during the session. I hope that the motion will be carried, and that we shall* show to the people that we have the courage to be economical, to be saving of their rights and taxes, and to exercise the high privilege we enjoy in attending here to carry out that which is for their best material welfare.

Mr. W. H. GROOM (Darling Downs).I have no wish to prolong the debate, but I wish to make my reason clear for the vote I am about to give. I am accustomed to the word economy. I have been accustomed to the word for the last 40 years. I have heard it mentioned on the platform and on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, and I have known the most ardent economists when they have got into office prove the most extravagant Ministers the colony ever had. I have had a good deal of experience of what is called economy. There is an economy which leads to wisdom, and there is an economy which leads to unwisdom. I take it that in discussing this motion our remarks will not be taken to apply to present Ministers, that we are dealing with the question generally. I have always maintained from the time when payment of members was first raised in Queensland that it should never be taken into consideration in connexion with Ministers’ salaries, which ought to be distinct and separate altogether. Unfortunately I was not supported in my contention in that State. Ministers in receipt of £1,000 a year have their parliamentary allowance of £300 stopped, so that they have to carry on their departments, and do the heavy work of a young and growing colony, on the very small salary of £700 a year more than .is paid to an ordinary member. In Queensland they even go to the extent of applying that principle to the Chairman of Committees. The salary awarded to the office is only £500, and the member’s allowance of £300 is not paid, so that he. has to discharge the heavy work of Chairman of Committees for six months, besides the work he has to do in the recess, for the small additional salary of £200. That, I think, is carrying economy to extremes. I have always thought so, and I see no reason to alter my opinion. I cannot support this motion, which I have no doubt is moved from the highest motives ; but it is well that at this early period of the session the matter should be decided one way or the other. “We talk a good deal about Ministers’ salaries, but have we really gone into the question in an “intelligent way as it affects other countries ? My honorable and learned friend, Mr. Glynn, knows that the Prime Minister of England receives £5,000 a year. Is it not an historical fact that during the last year the late Lord Russell was Attorney-General the income he derived from contentious cases in which the Crown was engaged amounted to £30,000. In our State the Attorney-General receives a salary of £1,000. He is allowed to take no cases against the Crown, but he is leading counsel in all contentious cases for the Crown. In Queensland in one year, according to a parliamentary return, the Attorney-General received £3,500 for Crown briefs in addition to his salary of £1,000 a year, while the Prime Minister, who had to bear the whole responsibility of the government of the country, had to be content with a salar)’ of £1,000. I consider that the sum of £12,000 which is appropriated for the salaries of Ministers is not at all excessive, and that if the House refuses to pass the motion it will not be paying them an excessive amount. I am consistent in the course I am going to take. I have always advocated that Ministers of the Crown should receive adequate salaries for discharging their duties in connexion with Ministerial office. But they have also to discharge their duties as members ; they have to answer all the correspondence of their constituents, to attend deputations and to do various work in connexion with their constituencies, so that I think they should receive the member’s allowance also. I believe this motion has been moved from the highest and most patriotic motives; but, to be consistent with my past political life, I shall be fully justified in declining to vote with my honorable and learned .friend (Mr Glynn) on this occasion.

Mr. G. B. EDWARDS (South Sydney).I exceedingly regret that I cannot support the motion, and I regret, too, that the subject has been discussed at all in the first days of this Parliament. Undoubtedly it is the custom in all the States that Ministers shall not take the allowance paid to Members of Parliament. Undoubtedly it was the opinion of the people of this Commonwealth that this allowance would not be taken by Commonwealth Ministers, and it is a duty incumbent on the House to see- that the initial stages of the Commonwealth are entered into with .every regard for economy. The Ministry have acknowledged the existence of the custom, and the feeling of the people in this matter by staying their hands from drawing the allowance in the’ first instance. If it had. been clear, as they say it is made in the

– Of course, we must all form our own conclusion from the records, and my impression is that the statement then made so swayed the members of the Convention that they did not consider it desirable to put in this provision. At the Convention the present Minister for Defence said, with regard to the position of a Minister -

I should say lie ought not to receive two remunerations.

The whole of what was said during the very short discussion went to show there was no necessity to make provision, and therefore the amendment suggested by South Australia was not insisted on. With those facts before the public, those who stood for election to the Federal Parliament, when they were questioned On the point, took the view that Ministers’ salaries would not exceed the £12,000 reserved under the Constitution. And they were borne out in that by the practice throughout Australia of deducting members’ allowances from Ministers’ salaries. Looking at these facts, I feel that if I were to vote for this addition to the Ministerial salaries, I should be committing a breach of faith with those who sent me here, because they understood, and I led them to understand, that there would be no increase of Ministers’ salaries beyond the £12,000. With these views, I shall be obliged to support the motion of the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

– While recognising the generosity of the Ministry iri allowing members to discuss this matter absolutely freely, I could wish that generosity had gone a little bit further, and had obviated the necessity of having this discussion at all, with a division at the end of it. Although it is true the amount under consideration is comparatively trifling, there are other matters in regard to the question which enable me, without any hesitation, to vote in favour of the motion. Those of us from Western Australia who took an active part in the federal campaign there were continually being confronted with the allegation that federation was going to mean a considerable accession to the burdens of the people, and that many fat billets wore going to be made for those taking part in federal work. I and others who took part in that campaign as federalists replied to those allegations with a certain amount of confidence, having read the debates which took place in the various conventions. We felt sure that to say a policy of rigorous economy should be strictly enforced by the Federal Government for some time to come, was a very safe deduction from those debates. I think it is a thousand pities that in this particular case Ministers did not show themselves more willing to set the example of economy, and, if necessary, selfsacrifice, so that we should be able to cany out the same policy right through the public service, at any rate during the first few. years of the life of the Commonwealth. The member for Melbourne Ports has given us some rather pathetic pictures of statesmen of a past generation and of their families living in penury. I fail to see what he wishes us to infer from those pictures. Does he wish us to imagine that by giving this extra £400 a year to Ministers we shall enable them to avoid such an unfortunate position as that 1 Or does he wish us to take up the position that we shall be obliged to be sufficiently generous to Ministers to prevent any such contingency as he has pictured? I take it that this opens up a vista of possibilities before which even the most luxuriously inclined politician would shrink. We have heard also of the necessity of adequately remunerating not only the Ministers but Members of Parliament. I do notT see that this question of adequately remunerating members of the Federal Parliament or Ministers is at all to be placed on the commercial basis indicated by those gentlemen who advocate that aspect of the question. I do not see that Members of Parliament are at all on the same basis as gentlemen who sell their services in the open commercial market to the highest bidder. We come here prepared, if necessary, for a certain amount of self-sacrifice, because we presume we are interested in the politics of the country and in the welfare of its people. The question of remuneration is simply one of enabling members to come here and to exist under ordinary comfortable conditions. That, I take it, is fully provided for both in the case of Ministers and members by the amounts that have been appropriated for the purpose.

Personally, I shall oppose in every way any attempt to raise the salaries of either Ministers or members, because I believe the necessary provisions for securing the best men have already been placed in the Constitution.

Mr WINTER COOKE:
Wannon

– I think a great deal too much has been made of the fact that during the election campaign it was stated that economy was to be observed by those who direct the affairs of the Commonwealth. Undoubtedly the people of Australia look to us to practise economy, but at the same time it is not to be supposed that, sitting here as we do, representing the whole of Australia, we are to be charged with extravagance, because some of us think that the £2,800 which represent the aggregate parliamentary allowance of seven Ministers should be added to their Ministerial salaries. I think that the States made a very great mistake when payment of members was introduced in deducting the allowance made to ordinary members from the salaries of Ministers. I have always held that, at any rate in Victoria, Ministers were paid a great deal too little, as the deduction of £300 a year from their salaries reduced them in some instances to £1,100. What is really proposed in this motion 1 We are proposing really to make the Ministerial salary £1,300 a year, because as ordinary members of the Commonwealth Parliament Ministers would be entitled to an annual allowance of £400. Section 48 clearly distinguishes between Ministers and ordinary members, inasmuch as it speaks of “allowances,” whereas section 66 speaks of “ salaries.” That seems to me conclusive that Members of Parliament who take up the duties of Ministers are to have the sum of £1 2,000 divided amongst them as salary, in addition to which they are each to receive £400 as an allowance. I shall vote against the motion. I am quite convinced that the sum allotted to Ministers is nothing like sufficient for them. It is true that even £2,000 or £2,100, which would represent what I believe they are now entitled to receive under the terms of our Constitution, is not anything like adequate remuneration. It has been said that Ministers go on to the Treasury benches prompted only by public spirit. I think they go there from a good many motives, but I do not think they would go there unless they had some pay.

By our local Acts of Parliament and by the Commonwealth Constitution we recognise that they are entitled to some payment, and though £2,000 a year may not be adequate compensation, yet it is a proper recognition of the duties which Ministers have to perform in addition to their work as Members of Parliament. Honorable members know that our allowance of £400 a year very scon disappears, and I think that Ministers also will find their allowance ebb away, and that will not leave them very much for salaries. I shall vote against the motion.

Mr CAMERON:
Tasmania

– The motion submitted by the honorable and learned member for South Australia (Mr. Glynn) is one of considerable import* ance. What particularly struck me in the earlier part of the proceedings when honorable members were speaking was, that the opponents of the motion insisted upon quoting the salaries paid in various other portions of the Empire. They compared England and Canada with Australia. It seems to me that such a comparison was absurd on the face of it. Australia with a population of something like 4,000,000, and with a revenue as far as the Commonwealth is concerned of £2,500,000, which is all that we can legitimately hope for without resorting to direct taxation, is not to be mentioned in the same breath with England, which has a population of 40,000,000 odd and a revenue of £110,000,000. Turning to Canada, what do we find 1 We are told that the Canadians pay their Ministry £21,000 per annum, and that there are fifteen Ministers. But on referring to Canadian statistics I find that the general revenue of that country amounts to very nearly £10,000,000, whereas even New South Wales and Victoria have a ‘revenue of about three times as much as that of the Commonwealth. -We know perfectly well that the people of the Commonwealth were induced to support the Constitution Bill and to federate on the distinct . understanding that taxation would be as light as possible and that no increased expenditure would result. We were told in the various States that die local Parliaments would be reduced in numbers because they would have less to do. Yet so far what has been the result ? Not one State can be said to have attempted to curtail its expenditure by a single sixpence. As the local Parliaments have so far forgotten their obligations, it is the duty of the’ Commonwealth to show the way. I was opposed to the establishment of the Commonwealth from start to finish, ‘ but the States, having accepted the Constitution, I am prepared loyally to do my duty to the people as a whole. I am not in the habit of making long speeches, and I wish some honorable members who have addressed the House would follow my example. There is one point, however, upon which I feel that it is my duty to touch. The honorable member for Gippsland in the course of his speech said that if he were allowed to go round the country he could get a majority of ten to one in favour of the motion. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports said it was quite possible if the honorable member for Gippsland did stump the country alone, that he might succeed, but the honorable member for Melbourne Ports gave the House to understand that if he followed, the result would be exactly the reverse. It may be that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is as eloquent .and persuasive as he asserts, but I would point out that he came over to Tasmania advocating protection, and, as. the result of his eloquence, four of the five men returned to this Parliament by that State are free-traders.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think honorable members will agree with me, that, no matter how interesting, this has been a very unpleasant subject to debate. I must confess that I have seldom in my political career felt such painful misgivings in coming to a conclusion upon any question. This is a very important question, and I think that a greatdeal of the debate has been taken up with very irrelevant matter. It does not seem to me that this is a question of economy at all. It is a question whether every Member of Parliament, irrespective of his position as a Minister, should, as a member, take the salary which is given to him under the statute. The question as to whether the Ministers of the Crown are paid or underpaid is one for this House to consider upon another occasion. As far as usage is concerned, there is very little difficulty in coming to a conclusion. We find that in every Parliament throughout Australia the custom has been for a Minister not to take his salary as a Member of Parliament. We have certainly allowed the other principle to obtain dealing with the Speaker of this House and the President of the Senate, but whilst I am inclined to give a very considerable amount of weight to that, we must allow that it was done under exceptional circumstances to get out of a difficulty. We found that certain salaries were reasonable for those positions, and, as these gentlemen’ had a statutory right, we had no power, under the circumstances, of dictating to them. Therefore we resorted to what one may call the device of reducing the salaries provided on the Estimates so as to bring them, with the allowance made to Members of Parliament, within the scope of our ideas. It has been said by some honorable members that the allowance to members of Parliament ought to be increased, and it is just possible that that may become a matter for debate in the future. That has made the difficulty with me in. coming to a decision on this question, because, though honorable members may think that the present high salaries of Ministers, plus the allowances of Members of Parliament is not too much, in. years to come the allowance to Members of Parliament may be considerably increased, and a mixing up of these two matters might cause a great deal of confusion. I do not for one moment say that Ministers of the Federal Parliament are over paid. I think there is no analogy between their position and the position of Ministers in other countries to which reference has been made. I think their expenses will be very great, and I am very much afraid we shall have to place, year after year, on our Estimates, a large amount of money for special allowances, owing to the peculiar nature of the duties which they have to perform. It will be a very objectionable item, and will often give rise to a great deal of unpleasant criticism. At the same tune the Government themselves have, notwithstanding the statutory right under which they can draw their allowances, asked us to consider the whole question in the light of the Constitution. Therefore, whatever may have been the events happening in the Convention, whatever may have been the opinions expressed there, these matters are now open to us for our decision. I do not hesitate for one moment to say that it was the understanding in the Convention that the usage in vogue throughout the Australian States would be the usage of the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that that is perfectly clear. I feel a great difficulty in that I think it is the opinion of the people of the Australian States, that in reading this Constitution they had to read it that the amount of the salaries provided for Ministers was the whole amount which they would draw.

Mr Sawers:

– Until otherwise provided.

Sir william mcmillan:

-Until otherwise provided. That being so, it seems to me in this particular case, while i allow that it is surrounded by great difficulties, that there is a safe course to pursue. Of course members will vote according to their convictions. i am voting with considerable hesitation, but i am voting for what i believe after all is the safe principle under all these circumstances, and the principle which was understood to underlie the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, while i shall be willing if any opportunity is given to consider further the salaries of Ministers, because the Constitution has put no limitation on the power of Parliament in that respect, i am obliged - i confess very reluctantly, and after the most careful consideration- - to come to the conclusion that as a matter of constitutional usage which is in vogue in these Australian States, and as the safer course under all the circumstances, the Parliamentary allowance should not be added to the Ministerial salary.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– i desire to say just a word or two upon this matter, since considerable importance appears to have been given to it, and since, on questions of this sort, it is inadvisable to record a vote without attaching to it some few reasons for doing so. i notice that a number of honorable members have delivered themselves of speeches and of reasons which seemed to me with the echoes of the recent elections ringing in my ears, to savour too much of the hustings, and too little of the forum. The speeches we have heard about economy delivered from a balcony to the people, would, i think, gain many votes. They are useful to refer to in the pages of Hansard byandby, and when the elector asks his elect what has he done, he will say, “You turn up to page so and so inHansard, and you will see where i made, with some few others, a noble stand against those who would have looted the Treasury.” Then, although his sins may be as scarlet, although he may have shamefully neglected his duties, although he may have absented himself on scores of important occasions when the Constitution may have been tottering to its fall, since he has saved£2,800 all will be forgiven him. He will be taken into the fold once more, and held up to admiration. He will be the man who saved £2,800, which, as an honorable member, with a gift for arithmetical calculation which I do not possess has pointed out, represents a halfpenny per head of the entire population: I have always attached myself to the party advocating economical and good government. But I do not belong to that party whose solitary appearance in politics belongs to the period when the Estimates are being reviewed, and when some salary is being attacked the attack upon which brings a certain amount of cheap notoriety. We had in our State Parliament a man who spoke only once in twelve months, and passed the interveningperiod in a sort of peaceful hibernation, but on the appearance of the Estimates he was the apotheosis of wakefulness. His raucous voice was then heard hour after hour, and perhaps the sum total of his efforts for the year was that he saved under £100 to the people. But they accepted him at his own valuation, and I presume that the race of those electors is not yet extinct. I propose to approach this question from the constitutional standpoint with which some of my honorable friends have dealt. It appears to me that the Constitution is very clear. lt says distinctly that the Ministers are to take, or rather it does not say that the Ministers are not to take, the allowance of £400. I do not see why they should not take it.

An Honorable Member. - It does not compel them to take it

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Kingston:

– No.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I do not like to give a vote to deprive men of legal rights if they insist upon them. But I certainly would like to- give a vote that might act as a guide to these responsible gentlemen in arriving at a decision hereafter. I am quite sure that the attitude they assume is not based on a selfish desire to appropriate the two salaries. It may be that they wish to assert a principle, because they know the rights at issue are not merely their own rights, but those of Ministers to come after them. It has occured to me to suggest whether this question might not be put in a modified form such as this -

That in the opinion of this House section 48 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ought to be so altered as to provide that Ministers of State should not, in addition to their salaries, receive the allowance of £400 a year.

That the question be amended by the insertion after the word “House” of the words: - “The provisions of section 48 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ought to be altered so as to provide that. “

Mr Glynn:

– I will accept the amendment, but there is no necessity for it.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I think it would be less objectionable to deal with the matter in tliis way,

Mr Glynn:

– But effect can be given to our determination only by Act of Parliament.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– - I deeply regret to have to differ so widely from the famine party of this House. I have the profoundest respect for the mover of this motion. I had the honour of being with him in the House of Assembly of South Australia for three years, and I know he is the soul of’ honour.

An Honorable Member. - He did not make much impression upon the honorable member.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– V - Very few men make an impression on me unless’ they are going straight for democracy. It seems to me that this motion is an absolute nullification of the Constitution. That there is no better authority on the Constitution in this House than the last speaker we all admit; but sometimes in his zeal for one specific point a man forgets everything else in his chase after that point. A great, many honorable members have come in, no doubt, pledged to keep down expenses, and so have I ; but I have not come in here to do anything that is going to destroy the foundations of the Constitution, and it seems to me that this motion is an indirect way to destroy paymentof members. When a beginning is made in tliis way there is no telling where it will end. Whatever may he said or done, I cannot see why the House cannot start itself without quoting Canada, Russia, England, or the United States. Have honorable members no originality in their carcasses at all ? Surely we have not come here to be echoes of some other country. I hope I am regarded as a living voice at least. We have had custom and usages spoken of. What is custom ? Why, custom is the ignorant dead of past ages riding on the head of the living and enlightened present. What is usage ? Because our grand fathers did something are we to continue to do it ? I met a man once walking from Leeds to London, and when I inquired why he did not take the train, he replied that his father never rode, and that he was not going to pay money for railway fares. There is another thing that caused me to think this afternoon. I noticed that, with few exceptions, honorable gentlemen who are thoroughly able financially to come here when it pleases them, are helping in an attack which is the beginning of the destruction of the Commonwealth Constitution. I regret my friend Sir John Quick misunderstood my friend Mr. Hughes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in alluding to other honorable members by name.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– I - I am sure the member for West Sydney never in any Avay intended to cast any reflection when he spoke of cheap advertising. What he said was that he himself could obtain a cheap advertisement. And so could I. What is a statesman ? A man who understands the past, who solves the present, who moulds the future is the statesman, and not a little tinpot local rooster plucker. What we have to do is to carefully consider this matter. I hope the honorable and learned member for Indi, the late AttorneyGeneral for Victoria, will give us an opinion on this subject, becausehe is admitted to be one of the soundest lawyers in the Commonwealth of Australia, and I hope the matter will be looked into very seriously. If in America in the early days of nullification they had crushed it out, they would never have had to fight their great war, and many of their most able and best citizens would not be sleeping in Southern battle fields now, without stick or stone to mark their last resting place. That war arose because the question was not settled aright, and no question is settled until it is settled aright. They allowed the nullification doctrine to get headway. That was the beginning. What was the end ? In the end it had to be submitted to the arbitrament of war, in which slavery went down. I hope that will not happen here. I am behind the Government in this question.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).This is a kind ofquestion which forces individual members to their legs against their wills, because they feel obliged to explain their attitude. It is an unusual question, and I am beginning to resent my honorable friend bringing it forward. I am sorry we could not have had the debate without such recrimination as that between the honorable and learned member for Bendigo and the honorable member for West Sydney. I do not think the honorable member for West Sydney was in the least suggesting that all members who voted for the motion were actuated by a desire to stand well with their constituents or with the public, but was simply warning us, if I understood him aright, that we ought to put aside mere popularityif we found ourselves face to face with the question of our duty. T. agree with the honorable member for Bendigo that if the motion be carried it must be followed by a Bill which, I understand, will be brought in by the Government, and if the motion be carried it had better be carried in the form indicated by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. For my part I shall vote against the motion. There is no one who feels more than I do the importance of practising economy in order not to alarm the people at the beginning of the working of our Commonwealth. But when I am asked to reduce the salaries of Ministers I say that it is a relative question. If men like the commissioner of the public service and other functionaries are appointed, they, no doubt, will get at least £2,500 a year, and is it fair to give to a man who has only a fraction of the public work of the Commonwealth to supervise, that salary, and to give to a Minister who may be turned out of office in a month or two, and who has to give up his whole private business during the time he is a Minister, andperhaps ruin that business, only £1,500 or £1,600 a year?

Mr Fowler:

– If the honorable member wants to be relatively fair, the Minister must be given £5,000 or £10,000 a year.

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– There may be a great deal in that, but it is not proposed to give £5,000 or £10,000 a yeal-. I am sure the honorable member for Perth knows there is a terrible strain on the Minister during his period of office in regard to expenditure. In Victoria the late Commissioner for Railways was paid £3,500 a year, and the commissioner of the Commonwealth public service will no doubt be paid £2,000 or £2, 500 a year.

Mr O’Malley:

– T - The manager of the Mount Lyell mine gets that.

Mr HIGGINS:

– That may be so; but here it is proposed to pay £1,500 or £1,600 a year to a man who very often sacrifices a great deal in order to do public work. He has to stand the racket of attacks in the House night after night, and have objections made to every step he takes, and who has to use up his energy to an extent that no other man in the country does. He may be here that with his £1,300 or £1,700 a year to-day, and gone to-morrow, with nothing to show for it. I do not think there is any work more thankless than that of a Minister of the Crown. In constitutionally governed countries there is no . work so important as that of a responsible Minister. I would be the last person to blame those who vote for the motion. I perceive that there is considerable difficulty in coming to a determination, and we all feel the responsibility. This is the beginning of our Commonwealth, and I can understand the feeling of the honorable member for Wentworth when he said he had come to his conclusion with very grave doubt. We must respect one another’s feelings in this matter. The honorable member has come to his conclusion with doubt, and I think that every one of us will do the same. I am as anxious as any one to keep down expenditure. I happened to face a meeting of my own constituents the other evening, and I found that an extreme desire and anxiety in regard to the expenditure of the Commonwealth existed. But the place now proposed is the very worst place to begin cheeseparing. We want the greatest skill that Australia can get at the table in this House. And the choice of men is limited if we say that Ministers are to get less for their precarious tenure than a Commissioner or some other public servant outside Parliament. We have been in the habit of paying too much for a great many services in Australia, but at the same time, if there has to be a reduction, we must reduce all round. We are outrunning the constable altogether in a great many ways, and we might with all humility follow the example of Canada. The Dominion is not so much poorer a country than Australia, as has been said, and in Canada the salaries are much less all round. But I object to taking away the parliamentary allowance from men who have such tremendous pressure on them as have the Ministers. As to the terms of the motion, I think that the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, is, to use the ordinary phrase, “ barking up the wrong tree.” If he desired to attack the amount received by Ministers he might have attacked’ the £12,000 a year, because this amount by the Constitution is open to discussion.

Mr Glynn:

– I could not possibly do so ; the initiative in all financial matters must come from the Ministry.

Mr HIGGINS:

– It is provided in section 66 that the amount to be paid to Ministers of the Crown is not to exceed £12,000 a year.

Even in the case of the Ministers who live in Victoria, if they give that attention to their departments which the Commonwealth will demand for years to come, it will be quite impossible for them to carry on their businesses. We have also to remember that Commonwealth .Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and that they have the same demands made upon ‘them by their constituents as other honorable members of this House. It will thus be seen that this allowance should be continued to’ them for the main purpose for which the Convention intended it, namely, that it should be an allowance, and not in the nature of salary. Instead of agreeing to decrease the Ministerial salary by £400, [ would increase it not only by £400, but by a larger amount.

Mr Mauger:

– That would be true economy.

Mr CROUCH:

– Various parallels have been drawn by some honorable members in regard to the position occupied by Ministers in other countries. But so far no one has stated that a Minister of the Crown in England, if he retires from office in -an impecunious position, is entitled to receive an allowance from the State. No such proposal has ever been made here. I am sorry that the forms of this House will not permit, after the motion has been put, of an amendment being moved upon it. if this motion is to be carried, I should certainly like, an amendment to be added, by which, if this £400 a year is to be taken away from Ministers, that amount shall be put into a pension” fund, which fund shall be available in future years for impecunious Ministers of State.

An Honorable- Member. - There are none.

Mr CROUCH:

– At the present time there are not. Perhaps we ought to be very glad of it. But that is really an argument in favour of my suggestion, simply because it allows of time in which the pension fund might grow. If £2,800 a year, with the interest which would accumulate upon it at? the rate of £84 per annum, were placed to the credit of a pension fund, it would, in a comparatively few years, be sufficient to keep Ministers of the - Commonwealth who had fallen upon evil days- in a position of affluence. It would only be following out the example adopted for many years in the United Kingdom.

Mr Conroy:

– -If a man is a Cabinet Minister for five minutes in Austria-Hungary he is entitled to a pension.

Mr CROUCH:

– I find that other countries have also adopted this system, and, under the circumstances, I should like, if the motion is carried, for some such amendment as I have indicated to be made. I have no option but to oppose the motion.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN:
Melbourne

– I can quite see the difficulty that the Ministry have felt themselves in in deciding that they will not vote upon this question. I feel, however, that they have not done right in coming to that conclusion. It is not a mere question of the amount involved, but a question of principle, and, under these circumstances, I think that their vote should be given with those who intend to vote against the motion. I gather from what has been said that there is a feeling on the part of those who are supporting the motion that the Ministry should be able not only to attend to the affairs of the country but to have time and opportunity to attend to their own businesses as well. I do not look at it in that light at all. I consider that the very important and onerous duties which they have to perform will occupy the whole of their time and attention. Therefore, X feel that they should be recompensed, not in the manner in which they would be recompensed if engaged in their ordinary business, but hy being given such a sum as any ordinary business man would consider fair if he were asking any one to undertake such duties as they are called upon to perform1. I am quite sure that some honorable members of this House have had to employ men to undertake very important duties, and they know very well that there are many who are called upon to perform onerous duties to whom they would not offer less than £1,800 or £2,000 a year. If we go to our banks, or to any financial and insurance institutions, we all find that in many instances they pay £3,000, £4,000, and £5,000 for the discharge of duties not nearly so onerous as those performed by Ministers of the Commonwealth. I say that we should give Ministers a fair recompense. If they are fitted for their positions wo get fair value for what we pay, and if they are not so fitted, it is bur duty to remove them. I do not” feel disposed to cut down their salaries. The motion submitted really involves more than the cutting down of their salaries, because it ‘. contemplates taking away from Ministers what under the Constitution they have a. right to, and I shall be no party to it.

Mr CRUICKSHANK:
Gwydir

-.! am’ one of those who very strongly objects to what appears to me to be a very distinct violation of our Constitution. We have a law under which we voted to our senators and members of the House of Representatives a sum of £400 a year. If the honorable and learned member who has moved this motion had waited till such time as it was proposed to distribute the whole sum allowed for salaries, that would have been the time that the matter could have received the fair consideration of this House. But to pick out a section in the Constitution, under which it is directed that each member of the Senate and of the House of Representatives shall receive a fixed salary of £400 a year, and to place this motion on the business-paper in regard to it is a thing that a majority of this House ought not to tolerate. I, have not felt that great delicacy and .indecision that has been referred to by so many honorable members, who have spoken in favour of the resolution. I have felt, and I have always stated, that, for the sake of the purity of Parliament, we should have purity in our Ministerial officers. Not only do I think that we should have good salaries paid to our responsible officers, but in our public life we should hold these high positions so much above the ordinary public offices that men of transcendent ability would lay themselvesout to gain them, and be willing to cast aside their opportunities for gaining a living otherwise. I feel that a Minister of the Crown should be in the position to give up his entire time to his public duties. I think it is degrading to have this cavilling about the payment of Ministers when we know the great demands made upon the pockets of public men.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– Having listened to the debate that has taken place I consider it is only right that Ministers should have their allowance as members’ as well as their salaries as Ministers. The honorable and learned member, Sir John Quick, expressed surprise that the honorable member for West Sydney should, as a democrat, support this proposal ; but if democracy means sweating - aud that is how I regard the proposal to deprive the Ministers of their allowance as members - then I am no democrat. I know that if the allowances to- members were not included in the Constitution Act, I for one would not have been in this House, and there are several other honorable members to whom the same remark applies. No honorable member has yet explained why the parliamentary allowance should be kept back from Ministers, and therefore my vote will go against the motion.

Mr.E. SOLOMON (Fremantle). - I would like to give my reasons for voting in support of the motion. In Western Australia when a Bill for the payment of members was brought forward there was a special provision in it that the members’ payment should merge in the payment to Ministers, and that was carried unanimously by the House. It seems to me that if this matter is not settled now the probability is that we shall have a debate each session similar to that we have had this evening. If it is really necessary that the payment to Ministers should be increased, I would be in favour of increasingthe amount rather than they should accept the allowance given to ordinary members. In all likelihood there may be some motion before the House to increase the payment of members, and although the probability is that it will not be carried - and I for one would not vote for it - if such an increase were to occur, the Ministers would get a still further allowance. I think that there should be some finality arrived at at once in this matter, so that future Parliaments may not have it to decide.

Mr Cruickshank:

– This motion affects the senators as well.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I think it a pity that any member should have thought that this motion was brought forward by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, in any spirit of antagonism to Ministers, or from any illiberal motives, because I feel sure- that the honorable member has acted more as a matter of principle than in any other way. Although I am not given to cheeseparing in regard to wages -because I think every man is deserving of fair payment for the work he does, andIdo not think Ministers are overpaid by receiving the amounts provided for them in the Constitution Act - I still think it is undesirable that we should allow them to draw the two allowances.

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
South Australia

– I intend to support the motion of the honorable and learned member for

South Australia, Mr. Glynn. As this House has already been told, there is no question upon which the representatives of the State from which I come have received a more direct mandate from the people they represent, than that the Federation must not be overweighted by any unnecessary expenditure - that there must be all possible economy. I do not say that the salaries drawn by Ministers, even with the member’s allowance added, are too large. I think good men should be adequately paid ; but I am quite sure that salaries greater than those provided for in the Constitution Act - that is, £12,000 a year, leaving out of consideration the parliamentary allowance - are not needed to attract good men to the positions of Ministers of the Commonwealth. References have been made to Pitt, and to the need for paying Ministers salaries within which they can live ; but it seems to me that that is hardly a matter for us to go into. I am reminded of a picture I saw the other day in an illustrated paper. It represented a man and his wife discussing domestic concerns. The husband was depicted as saying to his wife, “You don’t appear to be so happy now that I get £5,000 a year as you were when I got £2,000 “ ; and the wife replies, “No. You seem to forget the great difficulty there is in living within your income when you get £5,000 a year.” There is the possibility of something similar happening in the case of Ministers if we make their salaries too large. But, inasmuch as we who come from South Australia have an explicit command from the people of that State to keep down expenses as far as possible, I shall support from a sense of duty, if not with pleasure, the proposition of the honorable and learned member, Mr. Glynn. There may come a time when it may be well to increase the salaries of Ministers, but I do not think that at this early stage in the history of federation we ought to make their salaries greater than at present provided for in the appropriation of £12,000 a year.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– When the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, placed his motion on the notice-paper, I was inclined to be in sympathy with it, but I am not now so favorably disposed towards it. Much has been said by honorable members regarding economy, but there is such a tiling as false as well as true economy, and I do not think it would be true economy to reduce the salaries of responsible Ministers. I have listened- very carefully to the arguments brought forward by honorable members on both sides of the House, and each speech has seemed to be better than the other. Still with all the arguments that have been brought forward I have’ not been able to make up my mind that it is necessary for me to vote for the motion, and I have been obliged to fall back on the Constitution. In section 48 it is provided that -

Until the Parliament otherwise provides each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance- of £400 a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.

It is very clear that this allowance is intended for Ministers as Members of Parliament. lt is further provided ‘in the Act that -

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of Ministers of State, an annual sum which until the Parliament otherwise provides shall not exceed £12,000 a year.

This distinctly states that £12,000 shall be set aside for the salaries of Ministers, and it does not interfere with the allowance which each member of the House receives. If it should be the good fortune of any one of us to become a Minister of State, we shall have the right to receive a share of the £12,000 in addition to the £400 a year. Now, the position of Ministers of State is a very important one. They are obliged to devote the whole of their time to the affairs of the Commonwealth, and if they have any private business even here in Melbourne, they cannot look after that business and conduct the affairs of the Commonwealth at the same tyne. Four or five of the Ministers come from the other States, and it is a matter of impossibility for them to look sifter their businesses or, their practices at this distance from their homes. I think that Ministers are entitled to this £400 a year, and that the people of Australia are quite willing that they should be well paid. The members of this Government or of any future Government could easily make more than they rereceive as Ministers of State. If they could not they are very much less capable men than I have been led to believe. During the years I have been in business I have not made less than the salary of a Minister amounts to, and I feel certain that if any of the Ministers were to direct their attention to private business or practice, as the case might be, their emoluments would be very much larger ‘than they now receive as Ministers of State. I intend to vote against the motion.

Mr W KNOX:
Kooyong

– I am sorry to have to detain the House on a subject which has been sufficient])7 debated ; but I am unwilling to occupy an exceptional position in the Chamber because I shall soon be about the only member who has not spoken on the subject. In whatever form the motion is put to the Chamber, it is my intention to . oppose it in order that Ministers may have the right secured to them to draw their £400 a year in addition to the salary which they receive under the Constitution Act. My belief is that the circumstances of the Ministers of the Commonwealth are exceptional, and that they have duties to perform which are not analogous to those of the Ministers of the various States. They have to travel from capital to capital, and have to undertake obligations which, so far as I know, are not connected with any other similar office. My own feeling is that whilst I am here I should do everything that is within my power to secure economy in the expenditure of the Commonwealth funds ; but I do not consider that it is effective economy to reduce the salaries of those who are in the supreme control of our Commonwealth affairs. I believe, as was well said by one speaker, that it is inconsistent that a Minister who has control of a great and important department should be paid an amount inferior to what would have to be paid if we had to go outside Parliament and ask some person, because of his special knowledge, to take charge of that department. I may be permitted, perhaps, to refer to the fact that I am associated wit’, large enterprises in the various States. In the control and conduct of those enterprises we have to pay very large salaries indeed, and I find that effectual results and also economies are secured by paying liberally the men whom it is desirable to have placed in such positions. I want to make the positions which Ministers occupy such that every honorable member may aspire to them, and feel that while he -must of necessity sacrifice in the interests of his country a very great deal, . his sacrifice will not be such as to make him feel that he is entirely surrendering all natural opportunities which come to him. It is a question of principle on which I am voting. I should have preferred to see the Ministers voting on the motion. I quite recognise the somewhat delicate position -in which’ they might feel themselves _ placed, as they are to some extent interested in the result of the division, hut I apprehend that they would take a higher course if they voted.

Mr Cruickshank:

Mr BAMFORD:

– I am bound to accept the honorable member’s disclaimer ; but, at the same time, there is that principle underlying the motion, and I think that those who support the motion are aiming a direct blow at it.

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).I followed this debate with considerable interest, and I must say :T have taken the cue from the Ministry as to the way in which I shall vote, because, when we started out on this federation, I found that the Ministry had determined that we should manage our affairs as economically as possible. At the risk of not obtaining the very best men for the civil service, they offered but a small salary for the higher positions. When it came to the granting of the salaries of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of this House, we found the Government bringing down an estimate of £1,500 a year for each office, showing again that they wore desirous r of economizing expenditure. If, then, -we are to take the cue of economy from the Government, there is no reason why the House should grant them more than the £12,000 a year, which is appropriated in the Constitution. Indeed, there is every evidence that Ministers have no desire that we should do so, because they have not made this a party question. They would not be guilty of voting in favour of receiving the further sum of £400 a year each - the further sum, I say, because they have not yet taken the allowance..

Mr Mauger:

– But they have said why they are taking up that position - simply because it is a personal matter.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It occurred to me that if this motion is rejected, and the Government take it that they are to appropriate ±’400 a year each, there will be some necessity for bringing down a Bill. As a large number of honorable members are not here, and not having paired, are not likely., to record their votes, there is some risk of that Bill being brought forward. Will this Bill, on being introduced by the Government, be a party Bill ? Will the Government resign if it is not accepted ? That is the question which is occupying my attention just now. I think with the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne that it would be much better if this matter had been brought forward in such a way that we might if we thought fit reduce the £12,000 a year which is granted to His Majesty for the Ministers of State under section 66 until Parliament otherwise provides. If the Bill were brought down at a time, when federation was fairly established, and we knew exactly what the new expenditure of the Commonwealth would be, and also had some knowledge of the Tariff to be imposed on the people, and if we found the Government bringing forward a policy consistent with the views held by gentlemen on this side of the House, and consistent with the views held by a majority of the people in the State of New South Wales, I, for one, would be ready to grant even a larger sum than £12,000 to Ministers. I would be prepared to do that if it could be shown that the amount of salary was inadequate for the close attention required to their duties, and the loss they sustain thereby. But on this occasion, I take it, we must follow the cue given by the Government, and vote in favour of the motion proposed by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn. In the course of the discussion certain references have been made to what people outside will think of the proposal. The honorable member for Gippsland has said - and I think he said it on a previous occasion - that a large expenditure will make federation unpopular. While I agree that it is not desirable to grant this sum to Ministers, I am not disposed to go the length the honorable member goes, and say such a grant would make federation unpopular. The sum of £2,800 a year is not likely to ruin federation. Indeed, if the proposals of the Government are carried out to the full, as indicated by the Prime Minister in his address to the country, and the railways are taken over, then, according to the estimate of no less an authority than the late Mr. Eddy, we shall save £300,000 a year which is the amount of the estimated new expenditure, so we have no need to fear, I think, that federation will become unpopular because we spend the small sum of £2,800. At the same time, this is not the moment for granting any further sum to Ministers, and I shall record my vote in favour of the motion of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia) in reply. - I shall not detain honorable membcrslong, because really the debate has been of a most comprehensive character, and, with one or two slight exceptions - not of design - marked by the best of taste. I really think the honorable member for Bland, when he referred to those who were supporting the motion as being desirous of obtaining the “ plaudits of the unthinking”-

Mr Watson:

– It was not I who said that.

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes, the honorable mem ber did, but the words were, I think, used undesignedly, because they are not marked by the good taste which characterized his previous utterances. To make such an assertion is to use a dangerous and a poisoned weapon, and like most poisoned weapons, as we know from the play of Hamlet, it can be turned and used against the man who handles it. I am sure that the honorable member for West Sydney, speaking from my recollection of his remarks, did not impute the motives which have been attributed to him. Several members have said that I ought to have introduced the motion in a different form ; but I can simply affirm the principle. In a previous discussion on the question, I suggested that the proper way would be for the Ministry to move in the matter by putting £12,000 on the Estimates or bringing in a Bill to deal with Ministers’ salaries, grading the salaries according to the importance of the office, and then the £400 a year - which I acknowledge is constitutionally payable to the Ministers under the terms of our Constitution - could, by a provision in the Bill, be deducted from the salaries of the Ministers. But it is purely a matter of method. I cannot introduce Estimates. It is not for a private member to initiate proposals for expenditure. He can only table an abstract motion and declare a principle. As to what is meant, there can be not the slightest possible doubt on the part of honorable members. I can see no harm in passing the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, because that is merely another method of accomplishing the principle of the motion. The honorable member wishes section 48 to be amended so as to allow the reduction of £400 a year. I may point out to the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne that this was his suggestion in the Convention, though now he seems to think it well to deal with the matter on the Estimates. These are merely methods of obtaining the end, and I confess I am somewhat doubtful which method is the more constitutional.For that reason, as I said the other night, and as I said in my opening speech, I ask honorable members by passing the motion to affirm the principle, and let the Government take the initiative in regard to legislation. The Prime Minister has mentioned, though with rather a mistaken sense of propriety, that Ministers will not vote on the motion. It would be perhaps rather an unfair inference to say that if they voted they would vote against it.

Mr Barton:

– It would be an unfair inference.

Mr Deakin:

– We are quite prepared to vote for the payment of the allowance to future Ministries.

Mr.GLYNN.- The Attorney-General will remember that I said I was quite willing not to make it an ex post facto piece of legislation.For the first year the £400 might be drawn by members of the Ministry, because under the letter of the Constitution they are entitled to it, and because the work of organization is particularly onerous.

Mr Higgins:

– We expect the Ministry to be here for more than one year.

Mr GLYNN:

Mr. BARTON (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - I wish at this stage to make a brief explanation. It arises from the fact that it was not until after the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, had spoken at some little length in reply that it became known to me that the amendment of the honorable member for Bendigo had been seconded, and was therefore before the House. I do not ask leave to make a speech, but merely to offer a short explanation as to the position of the Government. The Government feel bound to vote against that amendment, and for this reason.We invited a discussion on some specific proposal of the kind made by the honorable member for South Australia in order that we might get a definite guide as to our future course of action. On that understanding it was that the public business was set aside to enable this discussion to take place, and it having taken place upon a specific proposal, will guide the Government in their future action.I only ask that the House may come to a decision on the matter which the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, has brought forward, without any amendment. If the motion is carried, assuredly the Government will introduce a Bill to give effect to it. We shall vote against the amendment, although we shall not vote on the motion.

Sir John Quick:

– In view of that intimation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put. The House divided -

Ayes … … … 22

Noes … … … 30

Majority … … 8

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1409

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 19th June, vide page 1309). “(1) In this Act the following expressions shall unless the contrary intention appears have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them namely : - (a)” Governor-General “ means the GovernorGeneral with the advice of the Federal Executive Council :

” Minister” means the Minister of State for the time being charged with the administration of this Act, or the Minister of State administering the Department of the Public Service wherein is employed the officer in connexion with whom the term is used or is applicable, as the context may indicate ;

” Officer” means any person employed in any capacity in the Public Service of the Commonwealth whether appointed or transferred thereto before or after the commencement of this Act ; .

“Act “means any Act of the Commonwealth ; and

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat - AttorneyGeneral). - I propose to move theomission of the definition of Governor-General, which is rendered unnecessary owing to the anticipatedpassage of the Acts Interpretation Bill, in which a meaning is assigned to the term Governor-General wherever it mayappear in our legislation. I also intend to propose the omission of certain words in sub-clause (b) and sub-clause (a) for a similar reason. I move -

That the following words be omitted : - “.(a) Governor-Generalmeans the Governor-General with the advice of the Federal Executive Council. “

Amendment agreed to.

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

– Then perhaps we had better postpone this sub-clause until I have hadan opportunity of considering it further.

Mr Piesse:

– But the Act does not apply to the Inter-State Commission.

Mr POYNTON:

– It would apply to their staff, and the position would be that no railway man would be eligible for employment in the public service of the Commonwealth.

Mr Higgins:

– The railway men serve the State, and the men to whom the Bill will apply serve the Commonwealth.

Mr POYNTON:

– Yes; but we haveheard argument after argument in this Chamber that we ought to exhaust the public service of the States before we go outside in making appointments to the public service of the Commonwealth, and whilst we are protecting all those who arecoming over from the States’ services we ought to protect the railway men, so that any present or accruing rights may be preserved to them.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Without entering into the merits of this question at present, might tell the honorable member that the proper place for him to make his amendment would be in clause 29, which relates to transfers from the public departments of the State to the public service of the Commonwealth without limitations as to age, or the passing of preliminary examinations, or the other qualifications to which the honorable memberhas alluded. If the honorable member moves the introduction in that clause of the words he wishes to introduce - and I will gladly prepare the amendment for him - he can thus secure the interests of the railway servants in the way he desires.

Mr Poynton:

– That is allI want.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I move-

That thu following words be omitted : - (h) “Act” means any Act of the Commonwealth “ and “

The word “Act” is already defined in the Acts Interpretation Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Unless otherwise expressly provided, this Act shall not apply to …. any honorary officer ; or any officer the right to appoint whom is not vested in the Governor-General in Council ; or any examiner under this Act who is not an officer.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– There are two words in this clause which are rendered unnecessary owing to the definition in the Acts Interpretation Bill of the words “ GovernorGeneral” as the “ Governor-General in Council.” I thereforemove -

Mr Cruickshank:

– Could we not go on with other business now ?

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
AVentworth

– I should like to ask the AttorneyGeneral if, in view of the very exhaustive debate on the question, he has taken into consideration the general desire of theChamber to strengthen the hands of the commissioner’!! I understood that he was to prepare some amendments. Ifthose amendments can be prepared by the Government in proper shape it is much better than private members taking a hand at it. I think the general feeling has been that in all matters of arranging salaries, changes in a department, and everything besides the actual discipline of the department - its current going, so to speak - the commissioner ought to have a much stronger position than he has under the Bill. This is a complicated measure, and it is not easy to interweave ideas into a Bill which has been constructed on rather a different principle. What I had intended was to ask the Attorney-General when we got to clause 5 - I had no idea that any issue would be raised at this point - whether he had any proposals to laybefore the committee which would give us an intelligent grasp as to his views on the whole question. I think perhaps, if ray honorable and learned friend the member for Corinella would not mind, it might be better if we first had some remarks from the Attorney-General with regard to the result of the debate, and his views as to the reconstruction of the Bill to meet what I think are the wishes of the majority of honorable members.

Mr. McCAY (Corinella). - I understood from the Attorney-General last night that he did not see the necessity for any reconstruction.

Mr Deakin:

– Not in that particular.

Mr McCAY:

– There might be details to be amended, but in principle the GovernorGeneral appeared in the Bill where the honorable and learned gentleman thought he ought to be in the Act, and consequently there is nothing he could suggest which would meet with the desire of the acting leader of the Opposition. I move -

That thewords “or the commissioner” be inserted after the word “Governor-General” line 4.

Mr Deakin:

– I have prepared a great number of amendments to embody suggestions which were made during the debate on the second reading, but I do not think I could describe any of them as making anything like so vital an alteration in this particular as that which the honorable and learned member proposes.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - I understood from the AttorneyGeneral that he saw hisway in clause 9 to enlarge the powers of the commissioner very much in the direction which the honorable and learned member for Corinella proposes. It seems to me that this clause gives a very considerable power, and it might be enlarged sufficiently to cover the scope ofhis ideas.

Mr McCAY:

– I want to make him master in all the ordinary dealings with the members of the service.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– How can we differentiate the ordinary dealings?

Mr McCAY:

– I would differentiate in the Bill. As a matter of fact they are so differentiated. I am aware that there are two or three exceptional cases in which it is possible for men to jump a class, but those are extraordinary cases. In promotions outside the ordinary cases, provided for in clause . 21, I would specify either in the Bill or in the regulations, that cases in which there would be a veto allowed over the commissioner’s action or over his decision. I would not allow the Governor-General power to veto everything which the commissioner recommends. From the beginning to the end of this Bill the commissioner can do absolutely nothing. He can recommend a host of things, but he can do nothing. As the Attorney-General says, he is merely a watch dog. But it is often said that it is no use keeping a dog and barking oneself, which is exactly what this Bill does. The Governor-General is going to do all his own barking, when he might be much more profitably employed. I ask what cases would arise under such a system, which would be more likely to be unsatisfactory than under tine Systran proposed in this Bill ? If honorable members say - “But under your proposals such and such a thing may happen,” it is perfectly true. I admit that these things may happen, but on the other hand we must look to see if these tilings cannot happen under the Governor-General’s regime.

– The honorable member for Corinella has placed this question before the committee in a very proper and distinct manner, but I think it has been pretty well demonstrated that we are not going to surrender the right of executive responsibilities. Reverting to the speech of the Attorney-General last night, I must say that the only reason why I was not satisfied with it was that it did not proceed to’ deal in the same fashion with the other aspects of the Bill. I. was perfectly satisfied with the way in which the honorable gentleman put his case as to the parts of the Bill which he treated of, but I was waiting and anxious to hear him deal in the same lucid and convincing manner with other portions of the Bill. But this particular branch of the subject - the right of the Executive to take part in appointments, and alsoin transfers and promotions, which are the necessary corollaries - I thinkhe put beyond any doubt. I am able to speak from various stand-points, not only as a citizen and as an old member of the public service, but as one with some experience ‘in administration. I desire to say very shortly than when the matter is properly considered, there is no doubt whatever that there must be for the efficient working of the public service three distinct safeguards - a permanent head, the commissioner or somebody in his position, and finally the Executive sanction. First of all the permanent head must express the wants of his particular department. Then the commissioner has to express his views for the benefit of the public service without regard to political considerations, and then there must be the connecting link between the service and the general public, namely the Executive, to finally come in and pronounce judgment. I did not understand the Attorney-General to say last night that the Executive, or the Governor - General as representing the Executive, was to be in all cases or even as a rule to engage in a mere perfunctory exercise of power. I did not understand the honorable gentleman to say, that usually, as a matter of course, the Governor-General would adopt the recommendation or nomination of the commissioner. The responsibility of the Executive is a real and very serious one, and no commissioner, however earnest he may be, is free from a tendency to slip into grooviness, and to lose touch with public requirements, and new notions. To say, as the honorable member for Corinella said, that if we are going to let the Governor-General deal with this matter of appointment it is virtually handing it over to Parliament, and that Parliament is unable to do it, is going too far. I think the analogy fails, We might as well say that no department should be administered by a Minister, seeing that Parliament has the oversight of that Minister, on the ground that Parliament cannot administer a department. .

Mr McCay:

– I was detailing the list of the cases in which reports are specially presented to Parliament.

Mr ISAACS:

– We will not be able to avoid that if we have a commissioner appointed. We cannot exclude from Parliament cases which individual members like to bring forward as a last appeal for justice. When we take into consideration the whole matter, I think we must agree that to exclude the Executive would be a fatal mistake. We have examined the various systems. We have Canada on the one hand, where there is an absolute executive system. There, the Governor-General in Council appoints, transfers, promotes, and dismisses, practically without the intervention of a commissioner or any other official.

Mr.O’Malley. - Hear, hear, and it works well.

Mr ISAACS:

– I am not prepared to say anything about that. On the other hand in New South Wales we get the other extreme. There is a public service managed practically by a board without any controlling power by the Executive. That as we have heard has given rise to an enormous amount of dissatisfaction. We have actually heard from the honorable member for Parkes, that notwithstanding the almost complete severance of the Board from the Executive we had the extraordinary spectacle of the commissioner being sent for by the Premier of that State and practically commanded to cut down the salaries of the service by about £200,000 a year. Is that any safeguard 1 None whatever. In Victoria we have the combined system - the system of the permanent head first of all accepted to express the wants and requirements of the particular department of which he has charge. Those wants are placed before the Public Service Board which makes its recommendation with a view to the efficient discharge of the duties required and the claims of the various officers within the service. Then the Ministerial head comes in. He is above all others, and his function is to see that justice is done not only to the service but to the public outside. That system is, it seems to me, the best that can be devised. I hope it will be adopted, and I think the only thing we can do is to make the system as perfect as we possibly can.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

For the purposes of this Act the GovernorGeneral may from time to time appoint Some fit and proper person to be Public Service Commissioner and not exceeding six fit and proper persons to be inspectors. Such commissioner shall submit for the consideration of the GovernorGeneral reports as to any matters requiring to be dealt with by the Governor-General under this Act ; such commissioner shall have the powers, duties, and authorities in this Act vested in or imposed on the commissioner, or as may be prescribed, and shall, in addition, perform such other duties as may from time to time be imposed upon him by the Governor-General ; and each inspector shall exercise during the pleasure of the commissioner such powers, duties, and authorities under this Act of the commissioner or inspectors as the commissioner thinks fit to assign to such inspector.
The commissioner and inspectors shall each be appointed for a term of seven years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
If any officer of the Commonwealth is appointed commissioner or inspector his service as commissioner or inspector shall for the purpose of determining all his existing and accruing rights be counted as public service in the Commonwealth, and if any officer in the public service of a State is appointed a commissioner or inspector he shall have the same rights as if he had been an officer of a department transferred to the Commonwealth, and were retained in the service of the Commonwealth.
In the case of the illness, absence, or suspension of the commissioner or any inspector the Governor-General may appoint some other person to act as the deputy of such commissioner or inspector during such illness, absence, or suspension and no longer ; and such person shall, during the time forwhich he acts as such deputy, have all the powers and perform all the duties of such commissioner or inspector.
No action or suit shall be brought or maintained against any person who is or shall have been a commissioner or inspector- for any nonfeasance or misfeasance in connexion with his duties nor shall any action orsuit lie nor any costs be payable in respect of any proceeding before the commissioner or inspector.
Out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth there shall be payable to the commissioner a salary at the rate of pounds per annum and to each inspector a salary at the rate of pounds per annum ; and the Consolidated Revenue Fund is to the necessary extent hereby appropriated accordingly.
The commissioner in addition to his duties as commissioner may also at any time exercise and perform all or any of the powers, duties, and authorities by this Act imposed on inspectors.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think that as we are at this point coming to the crux of the Bill we might adjourn.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I had no notice of any amendments in the earlier part of this clause, but there are certain verbal amendments which I intend to propose. They will not alter the sense, but I think they will make the first sub-clause more precise. In that sub-clause, line 5, I propose to omit the word “such,” to insert the word “the,” and to make a number of other verbal amendments. Sub-clause (1), in the form which I suggest by way of improvement, will read as follows : -

For the purposes of this Act the GovernorGeneral may from time to time appoint some fit and proper person to be public service commissioner, and not exceeding six fit and proper persons to be inspectors. The commissioner shall submit for the consideration of the GovernorGeneral reports as to any matters requiring to be dealt with by the Governor-General. The commissioner shall have the powers, duties, and authorities vested in or imposed on him or as may be prescribed, and shall in addition perform such other duties asmay from time to time be imposedupon him by the Governor-General. Each inspector shall exercise during the pleasure of the commissioner such powers, duties, and authorities of the commissioner or inspectors as the commissioner thinks fit to assign to him.

– Are the Government going to provide for the transfer of members of the defence forces to the public service 1

Mr DEAKIN:

– The Government are not able to accept the precise proposal which was recently made in that direction, and which has been most adversely criticised in this State.

page 1426

ADJOURNMENT

Friday Sittings : Bills Affecting State Bights

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I understand that a Bill in which J. was interested has been dealt with in another place, but that a certain intimation that we are expecting will not reach us until to-morrow. I notice that there is very little business on the paper for to-morrow, and I understand practically only one motion that will provoke any debate, and that a very short one, so that Iam not asking the House to depart from the usual meeting hour to-morrow. In answer to what the honorable member for Wentworth said, if I see any sign of congestion in the business paper for Fridays I shall adopt his suggestion, which was in the mind also of the Government, and alter the sessional order so as to meet in the morning on Friday, but that necessity has not arisen yet. I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to one matter which may be of some importance. Amongst the Bills which are distributed there are, and probably in the’ future to a still greater extent there will be found, provisions affecting the States in various ways, in connexion with the railways and other matters. I would ask the Government if they would take care to send in every such case an intimation to the various State Governments of the proposals in that regard. I have had my attention drawn to the fact that important proposals were made, and that it was some time after the authorities in another State had received on intimation of them that they reached the Victorian Railway department. I would ask the Government if they would kindly see that the States do get timely intimation of any proposals, and also that all the States get the intimation at the same time.

Mr BARTON:

– I understand that a Bill which was in draft and not ready for submission to the House, was sent in its rough state to certain gentlemen of experience in a particular direction for the purpose of seeing whether they had any suggestions to make. That was an intimation to the State authorities in respect of the Bill. If there was any difference, if in another State any intimation of that kind was received before a similar intimation waa received in Victoria, that was entirely on inadvertence, and I shall take care that the practice is made as equable as possible.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– As I have the first business on the paper for to-morrow, I desire to intimate that it is not my intention to go on with it. The fact is that I have asked for certain information from the Government which they have not been able to give me, and they in turn wantto get information from other States. I propose when the motion is called on to-morrow . to ask that it be taken on the 16th August. That will leave the motion as to old-age pensions at the head of the list. I make this intimation so that honorable members may not be without knowledge as to what business is coming on.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 June 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010620_reps_1_1/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 June 1901

ACTING CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

ISSUE OF HANSARD

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

MEETING PLACE OF PARLIAMENT

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

GOVERNOR - GENERAL’S INSTRUCTIONS

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

PENNY POSTAGE IN VICTORIA

Mr POYNTON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

RAILWAY PASSES FOR MEMBERS

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS: ASSURANCE

Mr THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

REBATE ON SUGAR

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:TASMANIA

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

DUTY ON TYPE

Mr CRUICKSHANK:GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MAIZE

Mr CLARKE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF TIMBER

Mr CLARKE:

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CAMERON:Tasmania

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Crouch:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr Crouch:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CAMERON:

Mr Thomas:

Mr CAMERON:

QUESTION

POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr Glynn:

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

EMOLUMENTS OF MINISTERS

Mr GLYNN:South Australia

Mr Barton:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Barton:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Barton:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Kirwan:

Mr GLYNN:

House of Representatives
20 June 1901

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr CRUICKSHANK:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr CLARKE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr CAMERON:
Tasmania

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · IND; ALP from June 1901

Mr WATSON:
Bland