View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
18 December 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

PAPERS
MR. CHINN’S APPOINTMENT: POWELLISING CONTRACT
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- BRITISH AND GERMAN RELATIONS
QUESTION
- SYDNEY CUSTOMS HOUSE
QUESTION
- PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGNS
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL DIVISIONS: NEW SOUTH WALES
QUESTION
- LAND TAX
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
QUESTION
- AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
NAVIGATION BILL
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL
BEER EXCISE BILL
QUESTION
- NAVAL FORCES: LODGING ALLOWANCE
QUESTION
- ORDNANCE STORES : CASUAL EMPLOYES
QUESTION
- POSTAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- COMMANDER BARNES
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES
POSTAL EMPLOYEES
BILLS FROM SENATE
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES
APPROPRIATION BILL 1912-13
FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL1910-11
FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1910-11
BOUNTIES BILL
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
WOOD PULP AND ROCK PHOSPHATE BOUNTIES BILL
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES
INSCRIBED STOCK BILL
LANDS ACQUISITION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Compensation Cases

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

page 7366

PAPERS

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the table the following paper: -

Joint Report of the Library Committee.

MINISTERS laid upon the table-

Actuarial Congress - Report by W. R. Day on the Seventh International Congress, held at Amsterdam, September, 1912.

Ordered to be printed.

South Africa - Correspondence between the South African and Commonwealth Governments in relation to the formation of the South African Union.

Public Service Act -Regulations Amended (Provisional) - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 232.

page 7366

MR. CHINN’S APPOINTMENT: POWELLISING CONTRACT

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– Last night, on behalf of the Government, I said that because of certain statements made by the honorable member for Perth, and certain documents upon which they were based, reflecting seriously on the character of Mr. Henry Chinn, an employe of the Commonwealth connected with the construction of the Trans-Australian railway, I should at this sitting declare what action Ministers would take on the evidence submitted. Having given full consideration to the subject, we consider the charges made against Mr. Chinn so serious that we have suspended him from the service of the Commonwealth, and T am asking the Premier of this State to allow a Victorian Judge to act as a Royal Commissioner, with full power to call for persons and papers relating to the specific charges made, and to investigate them . as speedily as possible, affording Mr. Chinn every opportunity to defend himself. I am not yet able to say that a Victorian Judge will bc appointed to make the inquiry, but I hope that that course will be taken. We desire that the inquiry shall be in judicial form, without prejudice to either party in the controversy. In the. meantime we trust that all persons will refrain, as far as possible, from compromising either party. Wefeel that Mr. Chinn and other witnesses must be allowed the usual fees given to witnesses attending before Royal Commissions. Every facility will be afforded for the in vestigation of the charges to the very root, but the scope of the Commission of Inquiry will be limited to the statements made by the honorable member for Perth last night. Other matters may come in incidentally, but we regard it as undesirable that there should be what I might call a sprawling Commission, dealing with every suggestion that has been thrown out here and elsewhere

Mr Fowler:

– I thank the Prime Minister for the courtesy and promptitude with which he has dealt with this matter.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member stated that he would lay the original papers which he used on the table of the House, and I ask him now to put them in the possession of Mr. Speaker, who will hand them over to the proper authority.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Clerk already has the napers in his possession.

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister if he does not deem it advisable, when an inquiry is being made, to ask the Commissioner to investigate the statements that have been made regarding powellised sleepers, making one job of both matters?

Mr FISHER:

– I regret that the question has been asked. The contract for powellised sleepers is purely a political matter. It has nothing to do with the charge against a man’s character. Character means as much as life to a man.

page 7366

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. W. Elliot Johnson) agreed to -

That leave of absence for the remainder of the session be granted to the honorable member for Oxley.

page 7366

QUESTION

BRITISH AND GERMAN RELATIONS

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence whether he has.observed that the British Admiralty has given orders for the construction of a Parsifal air-ship, 300 feet long, and capable of travelling 50 miles an hour with a load of twenty passengers, which is to be built by a German firm ? Does not this contract indicate that the relations between Great Britain and Germany are much more friendly than the honorable member for Wentworth, by his speeches, would haveus believe? Will the Honorary Minister inquire whether, in the event of war between Great Britain and Germany, the air-ship will be used to kill the German workmen who made it?

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the reported purchaseof the air-ship in question indicates closer friendship between Great Britain and Germany, we shall all be very pleased indeed.

page 7367

QUESTION

SYDNEY CUSTOMS HOUSE

Statistical Branch

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Minister of Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that girls employed in the Statistical Branch of the Department of Trade and Customs in Sydney were compelled to work during January and February of this year until 9.30 every night without extra pay, and that they have again received instructions that they will be required to work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the next two months, as from 16th December. As no overtime pay was arranged for last time, has such pay been arranged for this time, and, if so, what is the arrangement?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the honorable member to give notice of the question, because I do not know what are the hours worked in that branch. Personally, I am opposed to overtime, but certain statistical work must be got out at- certain periods of the year. I regret that the statistics of the States are not published as promptly as those of the Commonwealth.

page 7367

QUESTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the most important business now on the noticepaper is that in the names of private members, and I ask if he will give an undertaking to make a statement as to when an opportunity will be given for its discussion, so that those interested may make their arrangements accordingly?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– It will probably be Friday or Saturday -perhaps Friday, all being well - before private business can be dealt with. We hope to get the Estimates to the Senate to-night.

page 7367

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGNS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister of Home Affairs throw open to public competition the preparation of designs for the public buildings to be erected in the Federal Capital ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– That is the intention at present.

Mr FULLER:

– Does the Minister propose to adopt the plan for the laying out of the Federal city which has been agreed to by the officers of his Department, or will he take expert advice before a definite decision is made?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The matter is a serious one.

Mr Fuller:

– That is why I asked the question.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I am looking into the matter, and getting persons who are experts to examine the design. Mr. Scrivener, yesterday, or the day before, pointed out to me certain defects in the American plan. He said that lifts would be required to take persons up the mountains from the intersections of the streets. The matter will be carefully considered.

page 7367

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS: NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs when we may expect the new scheme for the redistribution of the electorates of New South Wales?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– I have just telephoned to the office, but the papers have not yet arrived.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Will the Minister ask the Postmaster-General why an important and urgent document like the report of the Commissioners is not delivered as quicklv as ordinary correspondence?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I think that the report will be here early this afternoon.

Later -

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the Minister of Home Affairs yet received the maps and other communications in connexion with the redistribution of the New South Wales electorates, and, if so, when will they be made available?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The maps have arrived, but the registered package has not. When the latter arrives, the maps and documents will be made available.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Will the maps be made available immediately for inspection by honorable members?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes.

page 7367

QUESTION

LAND TAX

Valuations - Officers

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– The other day I men tioned a case in which the Land Tax Commissioner had refused to inform the person whose property had been assessed how or why his valuations had been increased. Will the Prime Minister issue to the Commissioner the instruction that he shall give every information to taxpayers as to why their valuations have been increased, and the properties on which they have been increased ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– Every one whom’ I have met, without exception, has expressed gratitude at the manner in which the Commissioner has supplied information in answer to questions, so that the case mentioned is a singular one. There may have been some misunderstanding ; but I shall refer the matter to the Commissioner.

Mr RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– A number of young men employed in the Taxation Commissioner’s office, Sydney, regard it as a hardship that they are classed as temporary employes, because they have been a long time in their present positions, and probably will remain there a long time. Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making them permanent employes?

Mr FISHER:

– I shall give the matter consideration. I am not personally acquainted with the facts.

Mr HOWE:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Following up the question asked by the honorable member for North Sydney respecting the position of certain employes in the Land Tax Department, I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General whether it is not a fact that during the last two months the matter has been brought before them, and promises of consideration given. If that is so, will they be pleased to give it their early attention with a view to the settlement of the difficulty ?

Mr FISHER:

– What the honorable member states may be correct. It is impossible for any one occupying my position to keep in mind all such matters; but my attention having been drawn to it. I can only say that it will receive direct and immediate attention, and that the result will be communicated to honorable members.

page 7368

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Administration - Land Ordinance

Mr THOMAS:
Minister of External Affairs · Barrier · ALP

– Some days ago I was asked a question concerning some statements which had appeared in the Age newspaper concerning the administration of the Northern Territory. With the permission of the House, I desire now to make a reply to the criticism referred to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of External Affairs be permitted to make a statement ?

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr THOMAS:

– It will be remembered that the Age, in its issue of 16th inst., published from its correspondent ‘ at Darwin a letter headed “ How the money goes, “.” Waste i-n the Northern Territory.” Several questions relating to the matter were put to me, and I stated that I had read part of the statement, but considered it to be so frivolous that I did not complete my reading of it. As the outcome of the questions put to me, however, I caused the following telegram to be sent the Administrator : -

Letter appears to-day’s Age headed “ How the Money Goes : Waste in the Northern Territory.” Minister read it, but resolved on taking no notice, knowing what was behind it ; but several members asked questions in House today, and he will be glad to have telegraphic statement from you regarding it.

Then follow the terms of the statement as published in the Age. The telegram continued -

You will kindly understand that Minister himself attaches no weight to these statements, but to satisfy members will be glad to have your assurance.

In reply, I have received the following telegram from the Administrator: -

Glad to have assurance Minister attached no weight to the letter in question. Pleased he had definite opportunity of noting how facts can bc distorted and statements manufactured to suit ends of useless and dissatisfied individuals.

I shall now read the statements as they appealed in the newspaper and* the reply given in each case by the Administrator. The Age said, in the first place, that -

To begin with, the Governor has a Government cow. A man gets 10s. a day for milking it, a nigger gets 35. a day to take it out for pasture, and the food will run into 25s. a week. Nobody gets any benefit from this but the Governor.

Administrator’s Reply - This animal, one of many sent from South for demonstration purposes, was retained at Darwin to ascertain whether there were any truth in the current allegation that cows could not exist in Darwin, hence the absence of any milk supply whatsoever for nearly a quarter of a century. A cow for milking and attendance has never cost more than 10s. weekly, as can be seen by Departmental vouchers. Unfortunately, difficulty experienced from time to time to secure a reliable milker at any price and on several occasions the cow had been nearly ruined through inability to get milkers. Irremediable damage on a number of occasions has only been obviated by the milking being performed by the Director of Agriculture and my secretary. During the winter months, when there was little grass, some hay was .given in the same ratio as to the cows on the farms. I received portion of this cow’s milk. The experiment has proved so satisfactory that two hotelkeepers have now each two cows supplying milk to their guests- Cows now on the way from the South will supply hospital, where for many years tinned milk only has been used, and that at a cost of£100 per annum. The Director of Agriculture, in my opinion, deserves credit for the demonstration in question.

Newspaper Statement. - Then he (the Governor) has an electric plant, steam water supply plant, and a cold storage, all for the residency, and each being run by separate groups of engineers.

Administrator’s Reply. - As regards the electriclightplant, at present it only supplies Government House; but, as you are aware, had a complete equipment arrived sooner, all Government offices would have been supplied to benefit of service. General installation is now being completed.

I may say that in August last I approved of a recommendation that the electric light plant for Port Darwin should be placed alongside the refrigerating plant, in order to avoid additional expense in labour. This involved a considerable additional length of cable, but, owing to delays in connexion with shipment, &c., the full supplies of material necessary are now only available in Darwin. It is assumed that the work of transferring the electric light generating plant from its temporary position to its proper place adjacent to the refrigerating engine is now being carried out. With respect to the steam water supply plant, the Administrator answered, “ This does not exist.” Dealing further with the newspaper statement to which I have referred, he goes on to say -

Cold storage is a public boon, as proved by the fact that meathas been reduced by 5d. per 1b. retail, butter by 3d. per lb., and to meet the demand on storage I have under consideration the question of enlarging the storage capacity. I am informed that the largest hotel proprietor estimates the saving to him through the establishment of cold storage to be£200 per year.

I may add that this cold storage was put up in the township, and is available to anybody who desires to use it. I understand that since it has been erected the price of meat has been brought down, on account of the people being able to have their meat brought from Queensland and placed in the cold storage, thus competing with a monopoly which previously existed in Darwin. I have been informed on the best authority that mutton is at the disposal of the people, because mutton and lamb can also be taken to Darwin and stored - a good thing which, prior to the erection of the cold storage plant, was out of the question. The wife of the late Acting Administrator, when in Melbourne, told me that mutton was a very great luxury in Darwin when she and her husband were there, and that they obtained it only when the captain of a steamer putting into port sent up a little to the residency. Another statement made in the Age articlewas-

The farms are costing nearly£70 an acre to clear.

The Administrator’s reply to that statement is as follows: -

It is sufficient to state that the last contract let on the Batchelor farm was £515speracre to a gang of men who had previously,” worked there and who prefer a contract so theymay work to suit themselves, commencing 5 a.m., and earn more than daily wages.

Newspaper Statement. - Last week theyhad a 12-furrow steam traction plough, a team of eight horses carrying water for this traction engine, six men, and all they did was to plough 4 acres in six days. If it be remembered that the minimum wage paid to some of thesemen was11s. 4d. per day, the cost of doingthis work can be ascertained.

Administrator’s Reply. - Water was brought by the river ; no horses used. Gang consisted of engine-driver and two men. Amount ploughed 4 acres daily, and was limited by the capacity of the engine. Wages were according to Mr. Skewes’ schedule.

Newspaper Statement. - All the heads ofDepartments are away travelling, because their travelling allowances range from 17s. 6d.to £2 2s. a day. There is not a head of any Department here ; they are all away travelling.

Administrator’s Reply. - Heads of Departments were travelling on my instructions.

Newspaper Statement. - A box of tobacco costing 63s. was left out of one of the Government orders, and was not found till some days after, when arrangements were made to send the tobacco overland to catch the party at a certain place along the coast. The cost of pack horses, &c., cost£34 odd. The original cost of the tobacco was only 63s.

Administrator’s Reply. - This statement probably arose through the fact that Protector Linacre, patrolling Darwin and Pine Creek, viâ Alligator River, took some tobacco that had been missed being sent by Professor Spencer.

Newspaper Statement. - The authorities got fourteen heavv draught horses, costing over £80 each. They have already lost three of them by death in four months.

Administrator’s Reply. - I have sent you particulars of the imported horses which have died.

I may say that these particulars show that two of the imported mares have died. One was poisoned with arsenic on vegetation on the railway line, and the other died from the effect of injuries received during transportation.

Newspaper Statement. - The same story is to be told about the pigs brought to Darwin at£25 each to improve the breed; but they never reached the farm. They died as they were being driven there from the railway station.

Administrator’s Reply. - No imported pigs have died save one, whose death was directly due to a farm hand’s inebriation.

Newspaper Statement. - The carpenters have all struck, and are going South, because they cannot get their own way. Buildings are going up all over the place, costing ten times in wages what they should. It is common talk that the carpenters do not put in more than two sheets of iron per day per man, and they are restricted to putting on only two sheets of 8 by 4 fibrous cement ceiling. So, from these few instances, it will readily be seen what an enormous waste is going on.

Administrator’s Reply. - Re strike of carpenters, I have heard nothing of this. Re cost of buildings, statements made regarding this matter are gross exaggerations, and do not merit any consideration.

I may add that it does seem strange that the men should be dissatisfied with the conditions if it be a fact that they only put in two sheets of iron per day, and are restricted to putting on only two sheets of 8 x 4 fibrous cement ceiling. This only shows the ridiculousness and absurdity of the statements made.

Mr Deakin:

– Is that all they do?

Mr THOMAS:

– I say that if the men are not satisfied with those conditions, it will be very difficult to please them -

Newspaper Report. - The worst of the whole thing is that people are afraid to talk.

Administrator’s Reply. - I am. surprised to hear that people are afraid to speak, and tremble to think what would happen if they were not afraid.

In view of the replies received from the Administrator, I think honorable members will agree with me that it is a very great pity that a newspaper occupying the position that the Age does in Victoria should allow its columns to be used by its local representative in the way they have been. That a newspaper holding the position that the Age does in Victoria should be prepared to permit the publication of such a statement, which, on its face, is obviously written out of mere spite, because the correspondent has, in some way or other, come athwart some of the officials in the Territory, is strong evidence in support of the great necessity which exists for signed articles, so that the people may know who it is that writes the statements, and that the information given may be dealt with absolutely on its merits, without having behind it the prestige of a big newspaper. I cannot but feel confident that if the person who forwarded the information, knowing that the statements contained therein were manifestly untrue, unjust, and unfair, was aware that it would have to appear over his signature, such a statement would never have been sent to the paper.

Mr FULLER:

– When does the Prime Minister propose to give the House an opportunity to deal with the Ordinance relating to land settlement in the Northern Territory ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I think it will be convenient to deal with that Ordinance when the Government business has been disposed of, and before we go on to private members’ business. That, 1 think, will be on Friday.

Mr Fuller:

– It is an important matter that ought to be settled before we rise.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes.

page 7370

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister the cause of the delay in the presentation of the annual report of the Public Service Commissioner, and when we may expect it to be furnished.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I am unable now to furnish the honorable member with a reply, butI shall endeavour to do so at a later hour.

Sir John Quick:

– I asked the question a fortnight ago.

Mr FISHER:

– I have not obtained any information in the meantime, but will make inquiries immediately.

page 7370

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the final statement of the public accounts was submitted to the Auditor-General this year? We have just been told that the AuditorGeneral’s report will be laid on the table on Friday.

Mr Fisher:

– That is what the AuditorGeneral tells me.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That will be too late to be of any use this year.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I quite recognise that Friday will be too late to enable us to consider the Auditor-General’s report in conjunction with the Estimates, but it is the earliest possible time I can get the Auditor-General to send it in.

Mr Harper:

– Could arrangements not be made for the report to be submitted earlier in the future? .

Mr FISHER:

– Even if it meant a great deal more expense, it would be a good thing if the Auditor-General’s report were in the hands of honorable members in mid-session, say, about September. That is what we ought to aim at ; but no one knows better than the honorable member for Parramatta that the adjustment of the postal accounts, owing to the transition, has rendered it difficult for the report to be submitted earlier duringthe past two or three years.

Mr HARPER:

– I desire to ask the Treasurer when the Auditor-General’s report will be submitted in Parliament.

Mr FISHER:

– I asked the AuditorGeneral some three months ago, when the question of the presentation of his report was raised, to furnish it as early as possible. He has informed me that he hopes to present it on Friday morning.

page 7371

NAVIGATION BILL

Bill received from the Senate with a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral recommending amendments and intimating that the Senate, having agreed to the same, requested the concurrence of the House of Representatives.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith in Committee of the whole House.

In Committee :

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Since the Navigation Bill passed this House, about a week ago, it has been ascertained that there are two errors in it, one of which is merely the printing of “ fifteen “ where the word “ fifty “ should appear. The other error is in prescribing in the schedule a scale of provisions on oversea ships not engaged in the coastal trade, a regulation that we have no power to make. The amendments have been made by the Senate, and I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

page 7371

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7371

BEER EXCISE BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7371

QUESTION

NAVAL FORCES: LODGING ALLOWANCE

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Why do some members. . of the Naval Forces receive lodging allowances while others in the same grade do not?
Why are the artificers in the Defence Forces not paid the travelling allowances authorized by the Minister?
Why do some labourers in the Ordnance Department receive 10s. a day while others receive only 8s. for the same class of work?

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Lodging allowance is not payable to members of the Naval Forces serving in sea-going ships as they are required to live on board.
Delay has occurred in a few instances in the payment of travelling allowances pending a determination as to what stations shall be considered isolated stations, at which stations only the payment of commuted travelling allowances is admissible. This question is now under consideration, and will be settled very shortly.
Two of such men are in receipt of 10s. per day, ohe of them being in charge of the Ordnance Depot at South Melbourne, and having twenty-eight men under him, and the other being an expert in cloth and clothing materials. The remaining hands are employed only in light labouringwork, and have not the responsibilities of the two above referred to.

page 7371

QUESTION

ORDNANCE STORES : CASUAL EMPLOYES

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence,upon notice -

Is the Minister aware of the provisions of paragraph A, section 40, of thePublic Service Act which provides that casuals doing the same class of work as permanent officers shall receive the same rate of pay?
Is theMinister aware that permanenthands receive in addition to salary- holiday pay, sick pay, and annual leave?
If so, how can he construe the meaning of the Act so as to give casual ordnance storemen Ss. 6d. per day, whilst permanent hands (with whom they are working) receive, under Statutory Rule 163,9s. per day as well as various concessions?
Is it the intention of the Minister to rectify this anomaly, and comply with the provisions of the Public Service Act?
If not, what are his reasons for withholding the payments provided for by the Public Service Act?

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Yes, but it must be remembered that the Public Service Regulations provide a minimum and maximum rate of pay, and permanent officers have to serve stated periods (generally not less than two years) on the minimum before they are entitled to an increment. The pay to casuals would therefore be the minimum rate provided.
Yes.
The Minister presumes that Statutory Rule 103 of 1912 is referred to as 163, does not seem to have any bearing on the subject.

Statutory Rule 103 is issued under the provisions of the Defence Act, and not the Public Service Act. The minimum rate for storemen under the Public Service Regulations is £126 per annum, i.e., about 8s. per day, reckoning 313 days to the year, and all the permanent storemen in the Ordnance Department, Victoria, under the Public Service Act have several years’ service, and have gone from the minimum through grades to present rates of pay.

The minimum rate for permanent storemen under the Defence Act (Statutory Rule 103 of 1912) is£134 per annum, i.e., about 8s. 6d. per day (reckoning 313 days to the year), and the Minister has decided to pay casual storemen from 1st November at the rate of 8s. 6d. per day.

The permanent storemen under the Public Service Act have upwards of eleven years’ service, and their pay ranges from£138 to£144, according to length of service. Only one permanent storeman is under the Defence Act, and he was this year appointed at£134 per annum. 4 and 5. The Public Service Act is not administered by the Minister of Defence, but he does not admit that any payments to casual storemen are withheld.

page 7372

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICE

Accountant: Railway Post-offices.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Is it a fact that the accountant of the Post and Telegraph Department has accepted another appointment, and that, consequently, his position will shortly become vacant?

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

The names of the railway stations at which post-office and telegraph business is managed by railway officials?
The amount of payment made by the Post and Telegraph Department to the Railway Department in each instance?
The amount of remuneration paid to such railway employes for performing these duties?

Mr FRAZER:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 and 2. A return giving the information asked for has been furnished by the Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, and I will lay copy thereof on the table of the House for the member’s information.

I am unaware of the payments made by the Government of Victoria to its railway officers in regard to services rendered.

page 7372

QUESTION

COMMANDER BARNES

Mr HOWE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is Commander Barnes at present employed by the Commonwealth Government?
If so, what are his Naval qualifications?
In what vessels has he served as commander or in any other capacity?
Has he any qualifications as an engineer?
Has he had any experience in shipbuilding?
If so, where, when, and to what extent?
Is he at present representing the Commonwealth Government at Fitzroy Dock; and, if so, in what capacity?

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Yes.
Served six years in the Royal Naval Dockyard, Chatham; five years in H.M.S. Tyne and H.M.S. Nelson; two months as 3rd engineer s.s. Rockton, and from 1886 to date in the Queensland and Commonwealth Naval Forces.
H.M.S. Tyne, H.M.S. Nelson, s.s. Rockton, H.M.A.S. Gayundah, H.M.A.S. Paluma,. and H.M.A.S. Parramatta.
He is a certificated engineer.
Yes.
He was at the yard of the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company, on the Clyde, during the construction of the destroyers Parramatta and Warrego, a period of about fifteen months, and also superintended the re-construction of Warrego in Australia. 7.He is engineer overseer under the Naval Board, during the construction of the machinery of the cruiser and destroyers being built at Cockatoo Island.

page 7372

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th December (vide page 7247) on motion by Mr. Fisher -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Hughes:

– Where everything is bona fide, I do not think there will be one case in a thousand.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am not sure that the definition of joint owners is perfectly clear, and many cases of dispute have arisen. “ Joint owners “ in the Act means persons who own land jointly or in common, whether as partners or otherwise. In New Zealand, under a similarly-worded provision, it was decided that the test of joint tenancy was the ownership of the land, and not the partnership of the profits. When that question arose in New Zealand, the Act was altered so as to define “ joint owners “ as including those who were partners in the profits of the land, although they might not be partners in the land itself. What is doubtful in the Bill as it stands is in relation to partners who own the land in severalty but work it jointly - who may be partners in the profits, but not necessarily partners in the land. If they are not partners in the land, are they regarded by the definition as joint owners, and, as such, liable to the rate of tax determined by the aggregation of their holdings? That is a point which has arisen under the Act, and which ought to be made clear.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Roberts) adjourned

page 7379

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ROBERTS:
Honorary Minister · Adelaide · ALP

– I desire to lay on the table a further report - No. 3 - by the New :South Wales Electoral Commissioners on the redistribution of the New South Wales electoral divisions, together with the maps. I move -

That the consideration of the report be an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Attorney-General has, I think, misunderstood the purport of the statement that was, made. There is no desire to interfere with the progress of the Land Tax Assessment Bill; all that is suggested is that, in view of the little time remaining, and the urgency of the redistribution scheme, it should be taken into consideration immediately the Land Tax Assessment

Bill is out of the way, and before the consideration of the Estimates is resumed. I think the Attorney-General would find that such an arrangement would facilitate business. If the scheme now submitted by the Electoral Commissioners is rejected, there ought to be sufficient time allowed for another to be submitted. If, on the other hand, there is no objection to the redistribution, it can be got out of the way forthwith. But it is of the utmost importance that that scheme should be dealt with without delay.

Question - That the report be taken into consideration to-morrow - put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 15

Majority … … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- May I intervene for a moment? So far as I can gather, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the vote which has just been taken. It had but one motive, and that a sound motive. Now that the scheme for the redistribution of New South Wales into electoral divisions has arrived, we are all anxious that it should be dealt with before the Appropriation Bill finally leaves this House.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Govern ment intend bonâ fide to deal with the redistribution scheme. But I think that the Appropriation Bill should first go to the Senate, so that that branch of the Legislature may have time to deal with it. There will be no attempt on the part of the Government to shirk their duty in regard to the scheme for the redistribution of New South Wales into fresh electoral divisions.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nobody suggested that for a moment.

Mr FISHER:

– But the Appropriation Bill must take precedence. The Senate cannot deal with the Estimates until it has received that Bill. After the Appropriation Bill has been got out of the way, the redistribution scheme will be considered.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We cannot do that. I am very sorry to have to say so.

page 7380

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide 7379).

Mr HUGHES:
Attor ney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I shall not detain the House at very great length in discussing this Bill. It is a measure which is designed to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act, and it has been brought forward to remedy the law in certain directions, which experience has shown to be necessary. It will be better to deal with the particular proposals in Committee rather than to attempt to discuss them - no matter how briefly - at this stage. But the honorable member for Angas made one or two observations to which I must reply. I heartily indorse his broad and sweeping statement as to the necessity for making laws of this character so clear that they can be understood by the people. But I venture to say that the Acts passed by this Parliament are the most lucid pieces of legislation to be found anywhere in the British Empire.

Mr Glynn:

– I say the same thing. The confusion which has arisen under our Land Tax Assessment Act is due to the complexity of the subject.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member spoke of an Act passed by the South Australian Parliamentsome twenty-five or thirty years ago, which he said had scarcely been amended since. He declared that it was easily understood, and he expressed regret that our Act had not been drafted upon equally simple lines. But the position of the two cases is quite dissimilar. Our Act provides for the imposition of a progressive land tax. It has a different object in view from the South Australian Act,. and the method of achieving that object is necessarily entirely different. The very nature of progressive land taxation creates all these difficulties. If we were applying the tax evenly to all land, irrespective of the nature of its tenure and its extent, irrespective of anything but its value, we should have the basis for a simple law, and one which could be easily understood. But in this instance we have to apply the principle of land value taxation to circumstances in which there are so many exceptions that, naturally, a great deal of complication is inevitable. Subject to that, our Land Tax Assessment Act is a very model of clear and concise English. It reflects very great credit on our Parliamentary Draftsman. The honorable member for Angas is of opinion that the proposed amendment of the law in relation to value and the value of improvements is unnecessary. I interjected that while he was speaking that it is declaratory. I agree with him that, as it stands, the section in the Act is sufficient. At the same time, there is room for ambiguity, and it is because of that that we propose to make its meaning quite clear by inserting the proviso which is contained in clause 2 of this Bill. Otherwise the section is capable of the interpretation which has been put upon it by some taxpayers, namely, that they are entitled to deduct as the value of their improvements value which is really inseparable from the unimproved value, and to deduct the value of improvements irrespective of their cost, and irrespective of the difference between the unimproved value of their land and its capital value. This proviso will limit the amount to be deducted to the sum which may reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value to the improved value of the date of the assessment. But the main principles of the Bill arise out of section 27 of the Land Tax Assessment Act, and the application of section 43 of that Act. Section 27 sets out the liability of a leasehold and freehold owner of land in the case of leases made after the commencement of the Act. Section 43 defines in a precise manner who is to be considered a primary and who is to be considered a secondary taxpayer, and what may be deducted by the secondary taxpayer, and in what circumstances. Under section 27, the position of the leaseholder at the present time is this : He has to pay, not upon the value of his estate, whatever that may be, but upon a value not fixed, but contingent on the position of the lessor, the owner of the freehold estate. It is contended that th.at position is unfair. The lessee ought to he taxed on the value of his estate, whatever that estate may be. Should the value of his estate be to the value of the freehold estate as 1 is to 4, his taxation should be in proportion. At present the extent of his liability depends on a number of things, amongst others, on whether his land is owned by a company covered by section 41. In the latter case, his liability is very much increased. Even if the land is not owned by a company covered by section 41, the lessee may be subjected to a higher rate of taxation that he would be were the lessor a bigger land-owner paying at a higher rale. That is claimed to be inequitable, and opposed to fair principles of taxation. It is now proposed that the lessee of any land under a lease of an agreement made after the passing of the Act of 1910 shall be liable to the extent of his estate, and no more. The calculation of this liability is exactly defined. As the honorable member for Angas has explained, it is on the basis of a 4J per cent, valuation. The tax paid’ by the leaseholder is as the proportion of the value of his estate in the land is to the total unimproved value of the land; the value of the lease being calculated upon the capitalized value of the unexpired portion at 4^ per cent, per annum. For instance, a man who has a lease for five years of land the total unimproved value of which is £20,000 is to be deemed to have an estate worth, say, one-fourth of £20,000, and will be taxed on that basis. At present the position is very different. If “A” leases land from “B,” the effect may be to raise “ A’s “ rate of tax from 3d. to 3½d. or 4jd., everything depending on the position of “ B.” This is neither equity nor common sense, and we are remedying it by the Bill.

New section 28 is in harmony with the amendment made by new section 27, but it deals with leases made before the passing of the Act. Under it at present the liability is confined to the estate, whatever that may be; but the calculation of the value of the estate is now based upon the same principles as those applied by new section 27.

Mr Glynn:

– I hope that that is so.

Mr HUGHES:

– Ithink that it is. Sub-section 4 of proposed new section 27 says -

The unimproved value of a leasehold estate means the present value of the annual value of the land calculated for the unexpired period of the lease at 4½ per centum, according to calculations based on the prescribed tables for the calculation of values.

The similar provision in section 28 will read -

The unimproved value of a lease or leasehold estate in land means the value of the amount (if any) by which 4½ per centum of the unimproved value of land exceeds the annual rent reserved by the lease, calculated for the unexpired period of the lease at 4½ per centum, according to the calculations based on the prescribed tables for the calculation of values.

Mr Glynn:

– Is not one based on goodwill and the other on rental ?

Mr HUGHES:

– Under the proposed new section 27, the tax will be in proportion to the value of the lessee’s estate to the value of the total freehold estate, calculated on the basis of 4½ per cent. Under section 28, as proposed to be amended, the unimproved value of a lease will mean the amount by which the capitalized value of the lease upon a 4½ per cent. basis exceeds the annual rental. A lessee may be paying a smaller rent than the economic rent. If he pays a lower rent he is taxed on the capitalized difference. The principle followed in section 28 as proposed to be a mended is the principle now in the Act, whereas proposed new section 27 departs from the principle of the Act; but the method followed in ascertaining the value of the leasehold estate is the same in each case, the basis being 4½ per cent. We deliberately made a distinction between leases granted before the passing of the Act and leases granted after the passing of the Act. In regard to the latter, we make it clear that the lessee is to be taxed only on the value of his estate, and in regard to the former we are concerned only in ascertaining the value of the lessee’s interest, and whether he is paying a fair return to the lessor. If the lessee pays a smaller return to the lessor than he should pay, his tax is proportionately heavier. For instance, if the economic rent of land is £20, and the lessee pays £16, the lessee is taxed on the difference in respect to it.

Coming now to another matter, it was decided by the High Court, in the case of Isles v. The Commissioner ofLand Tax, that the double deduction provided for in section 38, sub-section 7, applies to all joint owners. The provision reads -

Where under a settlement made before the 1st day of July, 1910, or under the will of a testator who died before that day, the beneficial interest in any land or in the income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act, then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds, as provided by paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of section 11 of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each original share in the land under the settlement or will,

The sum of Five thousand pounds, or

The sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

It was not intended that the double deduction should apply to any but the persons mentioned in that provision, and the Bill, therefore, proposes to expressly limit it to them. Joint owners of lands partly held by beneficiaries under a will or settlement made before 1st July, 19 10, will be entitled to one deduction only, under sub-section 3 of section 38, and new sub-section 2, which is to be inserted in place of the present subsection 2. That is to say, that where land is held jointly by persons, some of whom are beneficiaries and others not, the latter are entitled to one deduction.

The other provisions of the Bill, although important enough, can be best dealt with in Committee. The main object of the measure is to relieve those who are lessees of land, or who may hereafter become lessees, of the contingent and uncertain liability which now attaches to the leasing of land. When the measure has become law, every man who leases land, and thereby incurs liability for taxation or additional taxation, will be taxed only to the extent of the estate that he possesses. At present that is not so. He is frequently taxed at a very muchhigher rate. He is frequently taxed exclusively, and the freeholder does not pay any tax at all. That occurs under section 41. If the lessor is not a taxpayer - that is to say, if he does not own land the unimproved value of which exceeds£5,000 - or if he is a taxpayer in respect of property the unimproved value of which does not exceed £10,000, he has to pay at the rate of1d. or a fraction over. If a man owned land of the unimproved value of over £50,000, however, his taxation would be raised from 4½d. to perhaps 6$d. While the Treasury benefits by this, it is scarcely equitable. It. . is, therefore, proposed to relieve the taxpayers in this direction.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– As mentioned by the Attorney-General, I introduced to the Prime Minister and himself - the Commissioner of Land Tax also being present - ra representative of business men who had suffered by the unfair operation of this Act, and wished to show how section 27 more particularly had acted unfairly to them, and affected leaseholders in a manner which the Government themselves, and certainly Parliament, had never intended. Section 27, in its present form, really penalizes the mere occupation, quite apart from the ownership, of land. It introduces the principle that the owner of a leasehold estate in land shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, to be the owner of the fee-simple. It is true that, under the present law, the lessee is entitled to deduct from any tax paid by him the tax which would be payable by the landlord in respect of the land occupied. But it happens that, in many cases, no tax whatever is payable by the landlord. The section works thus inequitably, the leaseholder, in such circumstances, having to undertake the whole liability of the tax. That would occur, for instance, in the case of a lease from a building society and other institutions which, under section 1.3, are exempt from, taxation. It would also occur where the landlord’s holding did not exceed £5,000 of unimproved value. The leaseholder is therefore placed in an extraordinary position. He.never knows exactly what his liability will be. A leaseholder, for instance, taking a lease from a wealthy land-owner would be relieved very often of the whole, or a substantial portion, of the tax, but if that wealthy landlord chanced to sell to a man who did not own land of the unimproved value of £5,000, or to any of the institutions exempted under sections 13 and 41, then the whole incidence of the tax would change, so far as the leaseholder was concerned. Instead of having to pay practically nothing by way of land taxation, he would have to undertake the whole burden so far as his leasehold was concerned. The section even goes further than that In certain cases, a man who did not own a foot -of land in Australia might be a heavy, land tax payer, and be called upon to bear the burden of the taxation of the land held by others. Take the case of a man. whose investments consist of debentures or other personal assets, or of a mart, we will say, in a large way of business, but owning no land, and who pays no land tax. He takes business premises, the unimproved value of which is under £5,000, and he also rents a residence in the suburbs. ‘ Unless the landlords of those properties were taxpayers - and in many cases they would not be - the effect would be that, although he did not own a foot of land in Australia, he would have to bear the full burden of taxation on the two properties, by reason only of his mere occupation of them for business and residential purposes, provided, of course, that the aggregate unimproved value exceeded £5,000. If he found it necessary, also, in connexion with his business, to lease a factory, his taxation would be proportionately increased. It was never intended that the Act should operate in that way. The AttorneyGeneral, in introducing the original Bill in September, 1 9 10, said -

The principle of the clause is that every man shall pay in accordance with his interest in the land which is taxed. … In all cases the liability of a lessee can be determined by taking the difference between the full annual value and the rental paid by him, and multiplying it by 20 or 25, as the case may be, and giving the lessee the benefit of the deduction.

But, as finally passed, the law does not operate in that way. The Act is very complicated, and perhaps legislation in connexion with land taxation is necessarily so. The general idea of the Act was that a landlord should at least be obliged to contribute, and the leaseholder be correspondingly relieved from taxation. A number of cases have come under my notice professionally. There is one of which I have the particulars at hand. It is that of Taxpayers C 1-49 -

The taxpayers own a property in Sydney, and their tax was ^25 os. 4d. In 191 1 they leased premises in’ Melbourne on which the owners paid ^135 3s. 10d. Now, owing tn the inclusion of the land leased in Melbourne, their tax is increased to £52 3s. 2d. It will be seen that the owners of the Melbourne land are large taxpayers, and have paid ^135 3s. rod., and yet the tenant is now taxed £27 as. 10d. more.

There we have the case of a landlord who is actually paying in respect of a particular property a very large sum, and yet, by reason* .of the particular holdings of that -landlord, the tenants had to pay an -additional sum of £27 2s. rod., which, of course, was added to their rental. That . is , only, typical of a number of cases. Business men tell me that, in some instances, the section so operates in thisway as to penalize them to the extentof some hundreds of pounds. When a man enters into a lease his land tax liability may be of a nominal character, yet after a portion of the term of the lease has expired by reason of his landlord’s dealings with the land and throughno fault of the tenant, his liability has increased in some cases by hundreds of pounds. In connexion with section 27, there has occurred this extraordinary anomaly which, with others, I have brought under the notice of the Prime Minister.

Mr.West.-We cannot help land increasing in value.

SirROBERT BEST. - When a man enters into a lease he should know exactly what his liability is.I have already pointed put that under the Act as it stands , a man may take a leasefrom a wealthy owner, and that in that case he may be liable, perhaps, to a nominal amount of land taxation. If, however, the owner sells to abuilding or life assurance societyand both of those institutions are exemptortoan owner the total unimprovedvalue of whose property does not exceed£5,000, then the burden of the liability is transferred to the leaseholder.If that leaseholder happens to beafairly wealthy man, or a company, the transactionmay mean to him a difference, some hundreds of pounds becauseoftheprogressive nature of the company.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is treated as the freeholder?

Sir.ROBERTBEST. - Yes, under section2 7he issotreated. That is a most anomalousstaterof affairs. Then, again, if the man who had given the lease happened to die, and his property were distributed, the effect of that distribution would be that the various beneficiaries under thewillwould be entitled to their exemption, whereas the leaseholder would have probably to undertake the whole burden, of the taxation, although, when he. entered, into the lease, he was liable for only a small sum. In the circumstances, therefore, a leaseholder never knows where he is. At any time, throughno fault of his own, he may have to shoulderaresponsibility for which he never bargained. I was requested by the representatives of business men to introduce these mattersto the notice of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. I did so, and the Prime Minister at once recognised the anomaly and the inequitable operation of this particular provision. I drew the Prime -Minister’s attention to another instance which came under my notice professionally, and which appears to me to be an obvious oversight in section 27, which imposes on a leaseholder the liability of a freeholder. That section provides -

Notwithstanding anything in this section, where the owner of the fee simple of the land is exempt under section thirteen of this Act from taxation in respect of the land, a lessee of the land shall be assessed and liable for land tax as if the lease were made before the commencement of this Act and not otherwise.

Section 13 exempts building societies, places of worship, charitable institutions, public libraries, fire brigade stations, and so forth, but it omits, by an oversight, subsection 3 of section 27, and omits to mention section 41, which exempts mutual life assurance societies.

Mr Livingston:

– No wonder the honorable member for Angas said that the law ought to be simplified.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– No doubt, land taxation is a most complicated question, but, as I read the Bill, it carries out what was suggested, inasmuch as it relieves the leaseholder by making him liable only so far as the estate and interest created by his lease is concerned. Supposing that a lease has three years to run, the unimproved value is capitalized at 4½ per cent., and on that the leaseholder has to pay. whereas under the Act he was liable to pay on the whole unimproved value of the land. That, I think, is a very substantial concession, relieving the leaseholder, as it does, from a burden of which he never dreamt or contemplated when he entered into the lease.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
Balaclava

– It seems to me that there are anomalies in connexion with leaseholds that require to be remedied. If a manufacturer with freehold premises in Melbourne, finds it necessary to lease premises in any of the other States or cities, for the purpose of extending his business, he is called upon to pay the tax just as if he were the owner ofthe freehold of the leasehold premises. The Government ought to be getting the tax from the freeholder, and not from the leaseholder ; and the present arrangement simply amounts to a cumulative tax, without any benefit to the general public. A liability of this kind does not encourage people to invest their money, and we all admit that the more factories are established the better it is for the workpeople and the country generally. Then, again, it seems unfair that the owner of freehold property should have to pay land tax simply because he holds shares in a company that owns land, the company, as a company, being already taxed. Another amendment might well have been introduced to deal with the case of absentees. There is no doubt that this tax on absentees has done a great deal of harm abroad, especially in the Mother Country. I have always contended that we should tax the unimproved value of land in the name of the owner, and that shareholders ought not to be called upon to pay an additional tax. In many cases, if the property of a company were distributed amongst the shareholders, they would not be liable to any tax; in other words, shareholders, in the aggregate, are called upon to pay a tax for which they would not be liable as private individuals. I am informed that the revenue from the absentee tax does not amount to more than £40,000 a year. I admit that some years ago I had an idea that absentee owners ought to be called upon to bear a share of the cost of carrying on the business of the country; but, as a matter of fact, this tax has caused a withdrawal of more capital than the small amount of revenue is worth.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Does the honorable member say that absentees should be allowed to go scot free ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

Mr Livingston:

– The word “ reasonable “ would require interpretation.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– What the improved land in any locality is .worth is a question that can be settled by a business man like my honorable friend, who understands values.

Mr Livingston:

– Value is a hard thing to determine. It goes up and down with the seasons sometimes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– It can be determined ; otherwise land would never change hands. Buyers are able to take into account the value of improvements and of conveniences, such as nearness to a railway station, and situation generally. The last speaker appears to be opposed to absentee taxation, but no part .of the Act pleases me better than that which says that landholders who do not think it worth while to live in the country, and draw huge rents from their land, must contribute something more for the defence of their property against the invasion of a foreign foe than those who live here. Absentees, if it came . to fighting, would not be here to take part in the defence of their land, and, therefore, they can fairly be asked to contribute more to provide for its defence than is asked of residents within the Commonwealth. I do not think that the honorable member is really very desirous of the abolition or the substantial reduction of the absentee tax. We are indebted to the honorable member for Kooyong for the light that he has thrown on the leasing question. The honorable member who last spoke said that if a man having a business in Melbourne wished to extend it to Sydney,, he should not have an extra burden to bear. My sympathies are always with the leaseholder, and especially the poorer leaseholders. Wealthy leaseholders are always able to obtain the best legal advice, and thus manage to evade taxation which poorer leaseholders have to pay; but, if effect were given to the suggestion of the last speaker, any man who leased land from a; lessor in Sydney or elsewhere who was not a taxpayer, would be exempt from taxation in respect of it, and the revenue would suffer. The lessee should pay something, but he should not be called upon to pay as he has had to pay in the past. The amendment will improve his position, and if honorable members read the Bill closely,, they will find that it is not so complicated as it appears to be. Under the Bill, a lessee will no longer be required to pay taxation as if he were the holder in fee simple. He will be taxed only on the present value of his lease, calculated on the term it has to run. That will be a boon to those who are trying to extend their businesses in the way referred to. The Bill will benefit lessees, especially those of the poorer classes, and land-holders in general. It makes it easier to define “ improved value “” and “ added value.” It should be welcomed, therefore, by all who have the interests of the community at heart, and desirefair and honest taxation.

Mr. W. H. IRVINE (Flinders) [5.44!.. - I agree with the honorable member for Indi that you cannot take the cost of improvements as a fair measure of their value. One man may throw away money, making little improvement by its expenditure, and another, exercising great ingenuity, knowledge, and skill, may largely add to the value of his land by a small expenditure. In neither case should you make the expenditure the measure of the added value. In that respect, the provisions of the Act are quite right. Section 2 of the principal Act defines the meaning of “improved value” and of “ unimproved value.” Both are based upon what might be called the market value of the land. It is comparatively easy to ascertain the improved value of a holding. An experc can usually say, approximately, what is the value of a piece of land, no matter how improved it may be. More difficulty is experienced in determining the unimproved value, but the directions given by the Act are explicit. Valuers are told that they must estimate what the land, in a state of nature - if the improvements upon it did not exist - would fetch in the market. Therefore, both as to the improved and the unimproved value, it seems to me that the only proper direction is given, namely, “ Do not take into account either the wise or foolish expenditure of money; but ask yourselves what, if the land were in a prairie condition, it would sell for at the present day, having regard to the railways and roads about it.” That is the test of the unimproved value. In order to ascertain the improved value, one has to take the estimate of an expert agent or valuer, and the added value is the difference between the two. The Bill, however, proposes to take the cost into account as against the skilful, prudent, diligent, and careful owner, but not to take it into account in his favour. Clause 2 proposes to add to the definition of “ value of improvements “ the words -

Provided that the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

I should like to make clear to the Minister the fact that this will lead to a very gross injustice against those whom we ought to encourage, namely, those who do not merely spend money on their land, but who bring to bear skill in the expenditure of it. One man might increase the value of his land by the amount of money that he spends on his improvements - a little more or a little less. Another man, however, might, by care, skill, energy, and ingenuity in the spending of the same amount of money, double or treble its value. Suppose he does, and then apply your principle for estimating the value of the land. Would it not be fair to that man to apply the principle of the present Act, and to say to him, “ What is the value of your farm?” instead of inquiring how much or how little money has been expended upon it. He should be asked what would be its value if it did not have upon it the existing improvements. The unimproved value should be arrived at in that way. Instead of that, if this part of the Bill be carried, it will, in effect, say to such a man, “ It is quite true that you have improved the prairie value of your holding from £10,000 to £20,000, but, instead of going back for the purpose of taxation to the unimproved value, we are going to mulct you, or fine you, because you have been particularly skilful or successful in the application of your money.” As a matter of fact, the Commissioner should get back as nearly as possible to the unimproved value.

Mr Carr:

– Does the honorable member suggest that by spending £10,000 on a property a man might increase its value to the extent of £20,000 ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A man might improve his estate to the extent of £10,000 by an expenditure of only £5,000. Such cases do occur, and in many cases by an expenditure of £5,000 the value of a piece of land is increased by a good deal more than that amount.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– If what the honorable member suggests were adopted, would we not have different unimproved values in respect of adjoining properties?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The ideal way of ascertaining the unimproved value of a piece of land is, where there is unimproved land in the same district, and a market for it, to ascertain what it would realize if placed in the market. That, however, is not always possible. We have, therefore, only to conjecture what the land would fetch if it were unimproved.

Mr Carr:

– We could not have any fixed principle.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is a fixed principle. The unimproved value has to be arrived at in the best way possible. In the case of city lands, it is easily ascertainable. I dare say that most valuers in Melbourne could say, within a very small percentage, what is the unimproved value of any block of land in Collins-street. They would know, from the various sales of vacant land - or of land, the buildings on which had to be removed - that have taken place, the price per foot which that land would sell at if unimproved. The same remark would apply to farms, although in their case the difficulty is sometimes greater. Let me return, however, to the case of the man who has not merely been expending money on his land, but expending it with great care and thought, and has so increased the selling value of his improved farm.

Why should such a man be taxed in respect of a higher unimproved value?

Mr Carr:

– The measure of his capacity is an uncertain quantity.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I say. that, leaving out of consideration the whole question -of the cost of the improvements-

Mr West:

– In other words, ignore all improvements, and say what is the unimproved value.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– -Ignore the cost of improvements.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– This amending Bill only dennes the added value.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But it says that the added value, in any case, shall not be more than the amount actually spent on improvements, o

Mr Carr:

– But how is the value to be assessed ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Honorable members opposite are assuming that the cost of making the improvements is always equal :to the added value. Those who have had practical experience well know that, in many cases, a prudent, thoughtful man will create added value vastly in excess of the amount actually spent. I say that we ought not to mulct that man - to give a fictitious or higher unimproved value to his land - because he has been successful in the application of his money. I wish now to refer to clause 4. I have devoted much time to an effort to understand it, .but I am not at all sure that I do. I admit the difficulties that exist under the present law, and that it requires amendment for the reason to which the honorable member for Kooyong has referred, namely, that a lessee might have to pay taxation and not get any return where the land itself is exempt, or where the owner is assessed at a lower rate than is the lessee. I doubt very much whether this new provision is at all a useful or workable substitute. It seems to me that, .instead of declaring tha’- a lessee shall be deemed to be the owner of the land primarily entitled to deduct what he -can deduct from it, leaving him sometimes in the lurch because he finds that, in certain cases, he cannot deduct anything, this ^clause says to him, quite properly, “ We are going to tax you in respect of the value -of your interest in the unimproved value.” That seems to be right as far as it goes, provided that lessees are to be taxed at all. But, coming to the point as to deductions, if there is a tax payable by the lessor, and at the same rate at which he claims or pays, 4hen, of course, he ought to be allowed to deduct the whole ; and under this provision he would be allowed to do so. But the difficulty arises where the rates are to be payable by the lessor and lessees. Here it is said that he shall be entitled to deduct from the tax payable by him -

The amount which bears the same proportion to the tax payable in respect of the land by the owner of any freehold estate as the unimproved value of the leasehold estate bears to the unimproved value of the land.

The way in which that provision will work, must depend entirely upon the tax payable by the owner. The owner’s taxation depends entirely upon the value of the land which he holds, independently of the particular piece of land which he has leased. The result, therefore, would be that the amount of the deduction allowed to the lessee will depend upon whether the lessor owns a large area of land, and is, therefore, rateable at 6d.-

Mr Carr:

– The lessee is the sport of circumstance.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It will be independent entirely of his own valuation. Suppose the owner at the time the lease is made is paying taxation at the rate of 6d., and that he enters into a fifteen or sixteen years’ lease, the lessee is always entitled, under this provision, to deduct the whole. But suppose the lessor chooses to dispose of the rest of his land, or a large portion of it, so as to bring down to 3d. the rate that he pays, or, it may be, to rid himself of the land tax altogether, if the particular leased estate is less than £5,000 unimproved value, then the unfortunate lessee is left to pay the tax on the whole of the land. I do not think that could have been intended, and I do not think that this provision has been carefully thought out. This is undoubtedly a very difficult question. We start with the view that the owner is the person on whom the tax ought to fall, and this raises the question whether a lessee under a lease made after the Act came into operation ought to be taxed at all.

Mr Ryrie:

– Whether the tax ought nob to be left absolutely to the owner?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes. All these provisions relate only to leases entered into after the Act came into operation. That point must not be forgotten. If it is intended to meet cases where a lessor has an exemption, then it would operate unjustly in another way. It will operate to deprive him of his exemption. Take the case of a mutual insurance society, which’ is a lessor after the Act came into operation. It was intended that such a society should not pay any tax. But if we say that the lessee has to pay, we, in effect and reality, give the exemption with one hand, and take it away with the other. .

Sir Robert Best:

– The Bill provides for that particular instance.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then take the case contemplated by section 13.

Sir Robert Best:

– Both axe now exempt by the Bill.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Still there will be the tax on the leasehold value, and it is .a deprivation of the lessor of some portion of his exemption. The tax will determine the amount of the rent, and, therefore, in a lease after the Act came into operation, the amount of the tax is really a deduction from the rent he has to pay the lessor.

Mr Hughes:

– Is the honorable- member suggesting that this should apply to leases for life, or to leases generally?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not dealing with leases for life, but with ordinary leases for a term of years.

Mr Hughes:

– There will be no tax at all in a great number of the cases.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should tax the owner.

Mr Hughes:

– If a person owns £5,000 worth of land, and be leases it for ninety-nine years to a man who owns £60,000 worth of land, neither one nor the other will pay the tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite true. The principle of the Act is that those who own the land shall pay the tax.

Mr Hughes:

– Those who hold the land.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is exactly where I do not agree with the honorable member. I think the principle of the Act, as evidenced in almost every section, is that the owner shall be the person to be taxed; and once we depart from that principle we get into difficulties, one of which we are discussing.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Supposing a man had £100,000 worth of land, and were to subdivide it into £5,000 blocks - in such case no one would pay any tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The lessor would pay.

Mr Glynn:

– The principle of the Act is subdivision.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite so.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Under the original Act the man who subdivides escapes the tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If he subdivides by lease he does not escape, because he is the owner; and if he divides it into a number of small leases, he still has to pay under the suggestion I make, while the lessee will not pay at all. That, I say, is carrying out the true principle of the Act. I should now like to refer to the Isles case, which raises a question requiring a good deal more consideration. The intention, as I say, is to get at the real owner. In some cases a man is a trustee for other persons, and the Act recognises, in many directions, that he is not the real owner of the land. While imposing a primary liability on a trustee, it is recognised that his is merely the hand that holds the land, and that the beneficiaries are the real owners. In the Isles case there were two owners in common, one a bank, and the other a widow of Isles, who had created a number of interests under his will, dividing his estate among a number of beneficiaries. The estate was landed property, and practically a tenancy in common between the Commercial Bank as to one-half, and the beneficiaries under Isles’ will as to the other. We may take it that the undivided share that had belonged to Isles, really belonged, after his death, to the beneficiaries under his will ; and the present Act provides for cases of that kind. Section 13, while it makes trustees liable for the tax, contains an express provision that, in the case of land vested in a trustee under a settlement made before the Act came into force, if the trustee holds it for the benefit of a number of relatives of the testator, then, for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable value, each of these persons, being a taxpayer in reality, gets the exemption. That is to say, acknowledging the principle that the real taxpayer is the beneficiary, whether large or small, if the land be subdivided, each of the persons concerned ought to be considered as the real owner of his share, and get the benefit of the exemption as a small owner. Mrs. Isles, on behalf of all the beneficiaries, as well as herself, claimed that they were entitled to exemption as being the real owners ; and the Crown, or the Commissioner of Taxes, contended that if, instead of there being a tenancy in common, the whole of the land had belonged to Isles, that would have been so, but because Isles was a tenant in com- mon with the bank, another section, namely, section 38, came into play, and declared that only one exemption should be given to the joint tenants. The High Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Barton, and Mr. Justice Isaacs, unanimously came to the decision that the Crown’s contention was wrong - that, looking at the real substance, object, and policy of the Act, as well as the language of the two sections, there was no difference intended at all between the kind of exemption that ought to be given - whether the land that is left to. the beneficiaries shares in a joint tenancy, or there are separate, independent pieces of land. They held, as Mr. Justice Isaacs pointed out very concisely, that section 38 is merely a machinery clause, to prevent certain evasions of the Act in regard to joint owners, and that section 33 was intended to provide that, so far as the interest of Mr. Isles was concerned, it ought to be treated in exactly the. same way, and, being divided amonga number of beneficiaries, who became actually entitled to separate interests, they should have the benefit of the exemption as small owners. Mr. Justice Isaacs pointed out -

But in the separate assessment of Mrs. Isles, which is to be on her individual interest in the land, and as if she were the owner of the land in proportion to her interest, undoubtedly section 33 must be taken into account. Why then must these beneficial interests be obliterated? The Commission says, because sub-clause a declares the land is to be assessed as if it were owned by a single person. But a single person might be trustee as to named shares of beneficiaries, and hold in his own right as to the balance, and full effect can therefore be given to sub-section (i), without impliedly repealing the distinct and just provisions of the third proviso to section 33.

The whole of the judgment will repay perusal ; and it shows clearly that it was never intended by Parliament that section 38, as to joint tenants, was entitled to override the just provision introduced for beneficiaries who, under a will made before the Act came into operation, became the real owners of land, and, therefore, entitled to whatever exemption, as owners, the Act would give them. That decision of the Court seems to me to be entirely in accordance with the object of Parliament in passing section 33. For some reason or another, clause 8 of the Bill abolishes this beneficial exemption. I shall not say anything more about it now, except that I have heard no reason in support of the amendment, which seems to depart from what I think is the true, simple policy of the Act. That policy is to get at the real beneficial owner wherever we find him - not as trustee or lessee, but the beneficial owner in every case. The provision as to trustees, lessees, and joint holders are all machinery provisions for the purpose of getting at the owner. Where he is a large owner, of course, he pays a heavy rate, with one exemption ; and in the case of beneficiaries under a will - usually small owners - each is separately entitled to the same exemption.

Mr Sampson:

– Does it apply to all beneficiaries under wills, or only to beneficiaries under certain kinds of wills ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It applies to beneficiaries with separate interests under a will. This does not apply to a great number of cases, but really only to a few. The matter was never brought under my notice till to-day; and those concerned feel that, being few in number, they are likely to be overlooked. This Bill will not have the effect of doing away with section 33 of the principal Act in the great majority of cases. But in those cases like the Isles case, in which it happens that the trustee has a joint interest in the estate, the decision of the High Court will be overridden by this Bill. I submit, therefore, that the measure introduces a lacuna in the Act. I shall have a further opportunity of dealing with the matter in Committee.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The particular matter to which the honorable member for Flinders has referred, is contained in sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of the Bill. The hardship of which he spoke is one which I do not think will apply to many cases. One cannot imagine the beneficiaries in the joint ownership of estates in Australia will be very numerous. But the hardships which may result in those special cases are rather significant. I hold in my hand a telegram from Mr. Colin Stephen, a lawyer in Sydney, in whom 1 have implicit confidence, and who says that if the amendment be carried, several beneficiaries in an estate, who own a joint interest worth £33,000, will each have to pay £660 as their share of land tax. Had they been interested in separate estates instead of in a joint ownership, none of them would be called upon to pay a single penny by way of land tax. But, because of their joint ownership, each will have to pay . £660, although the interest of each is less than £5,000.

Mr Hughes:

– All that this Bill does is to make the law what we thought it was before the decision in the case of Isles v.

– Yes. It is proposed to add to that sub-section the following proviso: -

Provided that, where the same persons have a beneficial interest in land or in the income therefrom under more than one settlement or will or under a settlement and will, they shall be jointly assessed in respect of the whole of their interests under the settlement or wills or settlement and will, and there may be deducted in the joint assessment from the unimproved value of the land comprised in the joint assessment, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds as provided by paragraph (4) of subsection (2) of section 11 of this Act the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each of the joint owners who holds an original share in the land being jointly assessed -

the total sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land after deducting the value of any annuity under section thirty-four of this Act as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

– Yes. But the Bill adds to the definition these words -

Provided that the added value should in nocase exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of section 3).

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- I agree with the honorable member for Macquarie that the Commissioner has had a most difficult task in the administration of this Act, for, of course, he must see that absolute fairness is dealt out to the taxpayers. The Prime Minister, in his memorandum, says that clause 2 amends the definition of “ value of improvements” in section 3 of the principal Act, and he adds -

The question of “ added value “ had been a source of trouble in the administration of the Act, and claims had been repeatedly made by taxpayers that something should be allowed apart from, and in addition to, the actual amount involved in bringing the unimproved land to its improved condition.

My object in reading that is to show that we ought to clearly understand what is going to be done. The Court may take a bald and. rigid view of the clause, and may,I thereby do injustice; but ifthe clause be read in conjunction with the explanation by Mr. Fisher, it seems reasonable enough, because it gives a definition upon which the Commissioner can work. The Prime Minister goes on to say -

The amendment confined “added value” to the principle, which was intended in the first case, and allowed as “ added value “ the amount reasonably involved in bringing the unimproved land to its improved condition.

We do not expect the value of the improvements to be unreasonable -that, for instance, a great mansion erected on a piece of wretched land should count in favour of the taxpayer. The Prime Minister goes on to say -

This would include, not only the money actually spent, but also reasonable interest on the amount being expended while the land was brought up to its improved condition.

The taxpayer, therefore, will get the money he has spent, and also interest; and that is quite right, as far as it goes. There is, however, just one little objection, and that is that the value of the improvement is taken as at the date of assessment. This might be found to work a little hardly, because labour is dearer at one time than another, and a man may have made the improvements when the cost was higher. This, however, may be worked out between the taxpayer and the Commissioner on fair lines. The whole question is surrounded with great difficulty ; but, so far, the assessment of the unimproved value has worked harmoniously and fairly well. The great fear is in connexion with land, perhaps scrub land, improved a number of years ago, and the work in connexion with which has been absolutely forgotten. I know land which, at one time, for miles, was covered with ti-tree, but there is no sign of the ti-tree to-day, and the work of clearing is so far forgotten that no charge is made, or, if made, is not allowed. In the case of one estate, the owner found that, so far from his owing the Government money, the Government owed him money, the expenditure being more than the land was worth. However, I think that if the Act is administered in the future as in the past, and in the light of the memorandum issued by the Prime Minister, no great objection will be raised. Of course, it depends on the administration, which, we hope, will continue to be reasonable, as I think it has been in the past. My desire is to direct the attention of. the Minister to the fact that the amending Bill ought to be read in conjunction with the explanatory notes of the Prime Minister.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

. -This taxation is based on the recognition of what is termed the unimproved value of the land - the economic rent, or the communitycreated value of the land. Under the proposed amendment a land-holder is to be allowed the amount that he has expended on the improvement, plus a certain amount for the unearned increment that may be said to be directly the outcome of his expenditure. This is just where the problem arises. There is a difficulty in differentiating between the value that is the outcome of the expenditure and the communitycreated value. We have been told of swamp lands being improved by a certain expenditure ; and it has been claimed that the improved value, the outcome of that expenditure, should be allowed. Swamp land that may be considered valueless can be rendered valuable, perhaps, by drainage, at the expenditure of £1 an acre, and converted into good potato land. I am informed that such land in Victoriais rented at £7 an acre ; but it would be fallacious to argue that the whole of the increased value is due to the expenditure of the money. Land in the near vicinity of a large population like Melbourne may, by such an expenditure, secure the increased return, but land similarly improved in the heart of Australia, away from population, would give practically no return, because there is no demand for the produce. It will be seen that here is shown the margin between the increased value due entirely to the expenditure, and the increased value that is called the community-created value. It is on that community-created value that this taxation is based, and the difficulty arises in drawing the line. In the State of New South Wales, where we have experimented longer in trying to solve this question, there was a case in the early days in which certain lands were reresumed from pastoral occupancy and made available for closer, or smaller, settlement. It was claimed, and allowed by the Court, that the original owner of the improvements was not only entitled to deduct the cost of his improvements, but was also entitled to deduct the unearned increment. As the result of the case of Green v. Hargreaves, the New South Wales Parliament had to legislate to meet that position. It provided that the deduction allowed for improvements should be the value of those improvements at the time of the assessment, but that that value should not exceed their original cost. It had been found that an expenditure of is. 6d. per acre for ringbarking had rendered necessary a further expenditure of 2s. 6d. per acre for the same purpose within a few years. In other words, the so-called improvement had really depreciated the value of the land. Some years ago the Government, of which Mr. Reid was the head, submitted proposals to the New South Wales Parliament to base the tax upon land values upon this principle. The proposal in this Bill is to impose certain conditions which will enable the Land Tax Commissioner or the Judiciary to have some material upon which a decision may be arrived at as to what is the communitycreated value of the land, and as to what value has been imparted to it by its owner. It is in the direction of simplifying the principal Act. But if the Government desire to avoid difficulty, they should follow in the footsteps of Sir George Reid, and refuse to make any allowance for incremental value which is the outcome of expenditure.

Clause agreed to.

Caluse 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Lessees of land after commencement of Act).

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- Doubts have been expressed as to the aim of this clause. Under section 27 of the principal Act, the lessee in the case of a lease entered into after the commencement of that Act is regarded as a land-owner, although he is described as the owner of the fee-simple. Under the proposal embodied in this clause he will still be regarded as a land-owner, but only to the extent of the value of his leasehold. In England, and in countries where the annual rental is taxed rather than the capital rental, he could not possibly be declared to be a land-owner. He is not a land-owner here, because he pays his rent annually to somebody else. . But he is described as a land-owner, and the value of his interest in the land is ascertained by the method which is prescribed in the Act. But, having ascertained the tax to which he is liable, he is not called upon to pay it. We do not ask him to pay the amount of his tax, the rate of which is determined by the land which he owns as a lessee. But if he owns other land, he will be obliged under this Bill to pay a higher rate, and will only be able to deduct the tax on value of the land that he holds at the lower rate. I believe that the complexity of this clause is not due to its draftsmanship, but to the system.

Instead of taxing the owner of the land, and leaving him to regulate the incidence 01 the tax as between himself and a lessee who has taken a lease after the commencement of the principal Act, it is proposed that the Commonwealth should step in and say, “As the leaseholder, we intend to tax. you as a land-owner,” the value of whose land depends upon the value of his lease as ascertained by the method prescribed in the Act. Now, we need not do that at all. The one reason why it is proposed to do it seems to be that a lessee may be the owner of other land than that which he holds on lease, and in order to get from him the higher rate of the tax, the Government wish to make him a landholder under this clause, and to add the value of his lease to the value of his ownership of other lands. That is the only reason why a departure is proposed from the true system of land taxation, which is that the owner of land should be taxed, and allowed to make whatever arrangements he chooses with his lessees. The land-owner ought to bear the burden of the tax, and we ought not to bother our heads about lessees and sub-lessees, except to prevent the shifting of the tax. Of course, that statement does not apply to leases which were in existence at the time the principal Act was passed, because some of those leases might be for fifty or sixty years at a rental lower than the true economic rental of the land. But to land-owners whose land is unfettered by leases, we ought to say, “ You must pay this tax. If you do not pay it, we can take your land and sell it.” That ought to be the policy of the Government. It may be that in the absence of some such provision, “evasion of the tax would be possible. I have heard it said that unless we perpetuate this system of taxation on lessees, it will be possible for land-owners so to subdivide their land by leasing it as to create lessees who will not be liable at all. I really do not know that that would be possible, but if it is, the position is owing to the complexity of the Act. I do not say that the draftsman has not done his work clearly and well, but he has been hampered by the fact that a complex system has been adopted. I think the drafting attains its end in the sense that it taxes the ownership in severalty at a higher rate, but in my view the policy of taxing lessees should have been avoided.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I wish to put my view before the Committee as to the intention of the clause, lest there should be any confusion. It must not be forgotten that the principle of the Act is that of a progressive land tax. If a man owns £5,000 worth of land he pays nothing ; if he owns land valued at £5,001, he pays id. by way of taxation, and the amount goes on increasing by gradations en id. until it reaches the maximum at £80,000. The more land a man has the higher the rate, as well as the aggregate amount of taxation he has to pay. Whenever a man, who already owns land, buys further land, his taxation is increased by the additional amount he will have to pay upon the added land, and by the higher rate of tax upon all his land. He pays not only the tax on the land he had before and the taxation payable in respect to the purchased land, but he has to pay a higher rate on the whole of the land held by him’. Leasehold land is treated exactly in the same way as freehold land, and very properly so. Land is a fixed quantity; nothing can increase its extent. Therefore, the principle of land value taxation -per se is that as the land held by one man to the exclusion of- others necessarily imposes on those others certain disadvantages, the man who holds the land should be taxed in proportion to the advantage he enjoys; whether he holds on a leasehold or other tenure is not material. Leasehold does not differ from freehold except in its duration.

Mr Glynn:

– Except as to the unearned increment which may be attached to the land.

Mr HUGHES:

– The unearned increment in the case of a 999 years’ lease would be just as valuable as that attached 10 a freehold. I am speaking about leasehold tenure as such. In this Bill we have proceeded on the principle that a man is to be taxed according to the interest he has in the land. If a lessee has ten years’ interest he is taxed at a- rate in keeping with the proportion that ten years bears to the twenty-two years which represents a freehold interest, calculated on a per cent, basis. Therefore, if a man holds a piece of land under lease, the expired term of which is eleven years, he is regarded as possessing half the freehold value of the land. Under the Act as it stands, the leaseholder is in a very different position. He does not pay on his eleven years’ interest, but sometimes he pays as much as the freeholder. If he leases land held by any one under section 41, he has to pay the whole of the taxation. He cannot pass the tax on to the freeholder, because the freeholder is not taxable. If he leases land from a man who is not a taxpayer he bears the whole of the burden. If he leases land from a taxpayer who pays a Jd. rate, and he already owns £50,000 worth of land, his total holding is brought up to a value of £75,000, and the rate on the whole is increased from, say, 3½d. to 4½d. or sd. The leaseholder who leases land from a small land-owner has to pay at a higher rate, while the man who leases from the bigger land-owner is better off, because his rate of taxation is less than that of the man from whom he bought. This is entirely wrong, because we ought to make men pay according . to the value of their interest in the land, and not according to the position of the man from) whom, the purchase, was made. If I buy an article in a shop I pay for it according to its value. The price does not depend upon whether the shopkeeper is worth £10,000 or 2d. But the position of the leaseholder under the Act is entirely dependent on the position of the man from whom he leases his land. Under the amendment, he will have to pay taxation according to the value of his lease, but no more. The honorable member for Angas has referred to some question as to whether the ‘clause car1ries out its intention. I say that it is perfectly clear. First of all, subclause 1 lays down the principle that the holder of the land is to be called upon to pay taxation according to his estate in the land. If he has a five years’ lease, he will pay on that, and if he has a twenty years’ lease, he will have to pay so much more. The actual amount of deduction is this : As the value of the lease is to the value of the freehold, so is the amount of tax payable by the lessee to the totality of the tax payable on the land. He deducts one from the other and pays the difference. In many cases he is the better off to the extent of the whole of the difference between the two.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- In view of the fact that the honorable member for Angas, and the AttorneyGeneral, cannot agree as to the exact effect of this clause, I do not see how an ordinary layman can be expected to come to any definite conclusion. It would be very much better to bring in a Bill containing clear and concise provisions that every one could understand. Land-owners do not mind paying the tax when they know exactly the position in which they stand. But it is highly undesirable that the tax should be saddled on two different parties. If leaseholders are to be called upon to pay the tax, trouble will inevitably ensue.

Mr Hughes:

– At the present time, in many cases, one man pays the tax instead of two, and that is where the trouble arises, We bring in a Bill to remedy that, and the honorable member sees nothing but trouble in it.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– It will be much better to make it perfectly clear that only one tax is to be payable in respect of the land.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I agree with the Attorney-General that the clause will relieve leaseholders who are now called upon to pay on the total ofthe fee-simple without recourse. That is a very unfair arrangement, and it is quite right that relief should be given. The object aimed at will be accomplished, and it appears to me that the end might have been attained without taxing leaseholders as such. The only reason why this system of taxing leaseholders is kept up is to enable the Department to obtain a higher rate of taxation from leaseholders who are the owners of land apart from leaseholds. My regret is that we could not adopt some method of dispensing with the taxation of lessees. I do not believe that the necessity for taxing leaseholders is due to the progressive nature of the tax.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Amendment of section 38).

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- I think that the clause will entail considerable hardship on many individuals by reason of the insertion in sub-section 7 of section 38 of the principal Act of the words “of the joint owners who holds an” after the words “in respect of each.” That sub-section, as amended, will read -

Where under a settlement made before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, or under the will of a testator who died before that day, the beneficial interest in any land or any income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act. then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners, there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds as provided by paragraph b of subsection 2 of section eleven of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each of the joint owners who holds an original share in the land under the settlement, or will,

the sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

While each of the original beneficiaries under a will executed before 1st July, 1910, will still have the right to an exemption of £5,000 on the death of any of them, his children will be deprived of that benefit. Suppose that, under a will, an estate worth £30,000 or £40,000 is left to the testator’s four sons. Each is entitled to an exemption of £5,000, but if one dies, leaving a widow and children, these are deprived of the exemption, and whatever dividends they may get from the estate will be accordingly diminished.

Mr Hughes:

– That is not the effect of the amendment. Sub-section 8 defines “ original share in the land “ to mean the share of one of the persons specified in the settlement or will.

Mr RYRIE:

– At present original beneficiaries each enjoy an exemption of £5,000, so long as they continue to live; but, on the death of any of them, the widow and family lose the benefit of that exemption. If, in the case to which I have referred, the four beneficiaries died, the special exemption which each of them enjoyed would be lost. It must be remembered that in many cases the income from an estate may be very small. The estate, perhaps is not worth one-fourth of what it is valued at, as it may be subject to a heavy mortgage, for which no allowance is made. The Attorney-General is endeavouring to prevent a multiplicity of exemptions being claimed by persons who arenot beneficiaries; but I do not think that we should take from the widow and family of a beneficiary the exemption which the breadwinner enjoyed. As to the decision in Isles v. Commissioner of Land Tax, I fail to see why, because a bank and a private person happened to be joint owners, the direct beneficiaries of the private person should be penalized.

Mr Hughes:

– Beneficiaries are not penalized. The trouble was that persons who were not beneficiaries were claiming the rights of beneficiaries.

Mr RYRIE:

– I think that the amendment should be altered to allow the widow and children of a beneficiary to retain the exemption which he enjoyed.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– In Isles v. Commissioner ofLand Tax it was held, amongst other things, that section 38, sub-section 7, enables joint owners, some of whom are beneficiaries, and some of whom are not, to enjoy the extra deduction therein provided for. Under the section a joint owner is assessed jointly, and also severally. Under sub-section 4 -

The joint owners in respect of their joint assessment shall be deemed to be the primary taxpayer, and each joint owner in respect of his separate assessment to be a secondary taxpayer; and from the tax payable, in respect of his interest in the land, by each joint owner under the last preceding sub-section, there shall be deducted such amount (if any) as is necessary to prevent double taxation.

That applies to all joint owners, except those who are beneficiaries under a will or settlement made before the1st day of July, 1 9 10. In interpreting the section, the High Court held that if there were, say, five beneficiaries, and two other persons, who were not beneficiaries, joint owners of an estate, not only the five beneficiaries, but also the two others as well, would be entitled to the special deduction allowed under sub-section 7. The clause excludes such joint owners who are not beneficiaries from the enjoyment of this deduction. Coming now to the other point raised by the honorable member for North Sydney, he says that the Act permits those who inherit from the holder of an original share in land under a will to enjoy the exemption given by sub-section 7 ; but that is not so. It does nothing of the sort. What happens is that the benefits are confined to the original holder. That, at least, is my opinion. I would call the attention of honorable members to the wording of section 7 in the Act of 191 1, which provides that -

Where under a settlement made before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, or under the will of a testator who died before that day the beneficiary’s interest in any land or in the income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act, then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners, there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds, as provided by paragraph (b) of sub-section 2 of section eleven of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each original share in the land under the settlement or will -

the sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same propor tion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less. “ Original share in the land “ is defined in the Act of 19 11 as meaning “ the share of one of the persons specified in the settlement or will.” That excludes any person, who is not mentioned in the settlement or will. If it is devised to B, with remainder to C, then it may be arguable that both B and C enjoy the advantages of this section.

Mr Riley:

– Then what is the use of the amendment adding the words “ of the joint owners who hold an original share”?

Mr HUGHES:

– I am interpreting the Act, and combating the honorable member’s statement that the Act, as it stands, does something which the amendment undoes so far as the beneficiaries are concerned. So far as we have gone, the Bill does not affect the rights of beneficiaries.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I am glad that the honorable member for North Sydney has drawn attention to this matter, for it is right that the public should understand what is the departmental construction of the Act. I believe that the Department tries to act fairly in its interpretation, and does not unduly determine any doubt against the taxpayer. The point raised by the honorable member is that under the Act as it stands the children of one of the beneficiaries who “ took,” on the death of the beneficiary, the original share to which that beneficiary was entitled, would be deprived of the exemption given to the first holder. I do not think that would be the case. The holder of the original share, not necessarily the first holder of the original share, who takes under the settlement or by devolution from the person who took under the settlement, is entitledto the one exemption. In other words, there is attached to that share an exemption. If the holder of that share chooses to make any settlement - to subdivide it amongst five or six others - then it is claimed that each of those amongst whom it is distributed is also entitled to the exemption.

Mr Ryrie:

– I do not claim that.

Mr GLYNN:

– The honorable member does not, but there are some people who misunderstand the scope of the Act. It has been contended that this exemption extends to new beneficiaries created by a subsequent settlement of the share. All that the Act declares, and I think that it is made clearer by this amendment, is that there is an exemption attaching to the share, hut if that share be subdivided, each of those amongst whom it is subdivided is not to get the exemption. In other words, the usual principle must be followed. We must go to the root of the devolution of the share. The point was incidentally raised in the case of Neill v. The Federal Commissioner of LandTax, and, in giving judgment, the Chief Justice stated what I think would be the view of the High Court in regard to this matter. He said -

Now, those words -

He was referring to words in the very subsection we are discussing - do not mean distributed at the date of the will amongst persons named in it, nor do they mean distributable instanter at the death of the testator. So much was decided in Archer’s case (1). In that case we held that the intention is that the distribution intended is a distribution which is made directly by the will itself, in the sense that the shares are created by the will itself. That construction excludes any further subdivision of shares that may be made by the deed or will of the original beneficiaries. For instance, if the distribution made by the will is into four shares, or if, as here, there is an undetermined number of shares which turns out to be four at the relevant time of inquiry, and one subdivides her share into two, or dies, and by her will or by devolution on intestacy her share becomes divided into two, there are still only four deductions to be made, because the distribution made by the will is into four shares, although there are now five beneficiaries. On the other hand, if in the events that happen before the assessment is made the property which was originally divisable into fourths has become divisable into thirds, only three deductions would be made.

I think I have quoted enough to show that the High Court would not deprive the children who took the original share in the ordinary course of devolution, and not under a. new settlement, of the one deduction that is attached to the original share before subdivision. Another point has been raised as to allowing a double exemption as regards beneficiaries who are also joint owners of other land. I have not had an opportunity recently to look at the Isles case, but whatever may have been the intent of the Act, I do not think that a double deduction ought to be allowed. The intent was that the beneficiary was to secure the deduction as a beneficiary under the settlement. But if that beneficial owner was a joint tenant with others who were not under the settlement at all, it seems to me altogether foreign to the purpose of sub-section 7 to say that the joint owners associated with him should get the benefit of a provision that was never intended to reach them. The amendment suggested by the Attorney- General should, I think, be made.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Amendment of section 9).

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I desire to draw the attention of the AttorneyGeneral to what is possibly an unexpected difficulty in regard to this proposed amendment of the principal Act.I think it will tend to discourage what may be urged as a legitimate object, namely, family or ordinary partnerships in respect of separate holdings of land. This seems to be an attempt to bring within the principle of joint ownership a number of persons who are legally separate owners, and who, as such, are entitled to separate exemptions. The principle of the Act is that each separate owner of land in one or several parcels is entitled to an exemption of £5,000.

Mr Hughes:

– Provided the ownership or occupation is bonâ fide.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Quite so. I apprehend that the principle of the Act is that a separate owner is a person who has a separate certificate of title, and that joint owners are those whose title is consolidated in the one instrument. There is a great difference between joint and separate ownership. The principle of the Act is to breakup large estates - to induce their devolution, and, therefore, nothing should be done to discourage separate ownership. For instance, nothing should be done toprevent the father of a family from dividing his estate amongst his children, and giving them a legal title. If a man, for valuable consideration, parts with his land to members of his family, and they become the owners, they are, by law, the exclusive owners, and he cannot get back that estate. His family would thus have an interest in the property, but it might suit their interests to conduct it as a partnership estate, although it might be held in severalty, and various members of the one family have distinct legal interest in it. But, as I read this clause, it seems to me that the fact that the father of a family in such circumstances acted as manager of the whole estate might be considered as suspicious evidence of dummying, or something of the kind, and that the Commissioner would have a right to refuse to grant a separate exemption for the separate parcels of land. In that case, this would not be a tax on landowners calculated to lead to the division of large estates. It would really be a tax on partnerships. I know of cases where land held under separate titles by father and sons has been consolidated by the Commissioner, and where it has been claimed by him that only one exemption should be allowed. That does not give any encouragement to the breaking up of large estates. The clause seems to me to give the Commissioner a greater power than he now possesses. The mere fact that a father was acting as superintendent or manager of a property owned by himself and his sons, and held under separate titles, might be regarded by him as -prima facie evidence of some collusive arrangement. If, however, the property had been absolutely transferred, and the various persons concerned had unassailable titles, why should the Commissioner interfere? An estate might be broken up, yet it might be convenient to work it as one. Surely the law should not compel the owners to have a separate plant and separate homes, and to manage the estate separately, with the result that it could not be successfully carried on. The purpose of the Act, which is to break up large estates, has been achieved, and why not allow this subdivision to go on so long as it is quite clear that separate legal titles are in existence? The case suggested by the Prime Minister of a man with a large quantity of land dividing it up amongst his wife, his niece, his secretary, and so forth, may, of course, look suspicious, but it is hardly a fair test. We ought not to judge a bona fide case of breaking up an estate by an illustration of the kind, because it may be that the results are such as were contemplated, and probably intended, by the Act, meaning only a perfectly legal distribution amongst the members of a family. It may look specially suspicious when the secretary is one of the persons, but the test ought to be whether there has been a legal transfer duly registered. I hope that this is not an attempt on the part of the Commissioner to enable himself to get behind absolutely bond fi.de transfers, and to treat the persons concerned as if they were merely joint owners. If that be done, we shall defeat one of the fundamental purposes of the Act, namely, the breaking up of large estates.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– The honorable member for Bendigo has, I think, failed to appreciate the effect of this clause. The intention is, as the honorable member has pointed out, to break up large estates, and, as far as possible, bring land into cultivation and use. There must be no colourable pretence of this, but the subdivision must be bond fide. The illustration given by the Prime Minister is an actual case, supplied, of course, by the Department, which, after an experience of two years and over, is able to say exactly where the Act needstightening up and where it needs relaxing. If the owner of an estate gives a portion to his secretary, another to his niece, another to his wife, and others to his sons, and so forth, the titles may be perfectly legal, and yet he may continue to control it, stock it, and work it ; and the effect on the country as a whole is exactly the same as if he had not cut it up at all. If the honorable member looks at the clause, be will see that it is aimed at maid fide subdivisions.

Sir John Quick:

– It does not say that the land must be exclusively controlled and used bv the person.

Mr HUGHES:

– In such a case as I have mentioned, what sensible alteration has taken place? A ‘change has been made so far as the legal status of the person is concerned, but the effect is precisely the same as before on the individual working of the land, and on the community at large. Surely there is no reason why there should not be a lease, or an agreement to lease, in which case section 27 would operate, and the tax placed on the leaseholder to the value of his lease? Where the length of the lease is such as to make it, for the purposes of this Act, equivalent to a freehold tenure, the occupier will pay the whole tax. I see no injustice in the clause, and no violation of the principle of the Act.

Mr. GLYNN (Angas) [10.8J.- I mentioned before that clause 42 covers a great many of the cases mentioned, but the clause under discussion goes beyond that, and is not limited to cases of dummying. The subdivision may have been made twentyyears before the Act was passed, under a family arrangement ; and it seems a bit unfair that such an arrangement should be upset by the Commissioner of Taxes, and a man obliged to enter into leasehold arrangements with his sons. Is it worth while to have such an amendment to cover one or two cases ?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : -

Mortgagors of land subject to tax to be allowed an exemption equal to the amount of 6d. in the £1 on the amount of interest paid upon such mortgage.

The phraseology may not be legally correct, but it expresses the object I have in view. There are a large number of persons who are obliged to pay land tax on estates, which, though ostensibly owned by them, are really owned by banks and other financial institutions. This position may have arisen from no fault of the people concerned, because many have suffered from droughts and pests, and in other ways have fallen on hard times. Income tax is collected by the State on the amount of interest derivable from the mortgage, and it is hardly fair that the ostensible owner should be called upon to pay the full amount of the land tax. I have not worked out the proportions, but, under the New South Wales Land Tax Act, owners are allowed an exemption to the amount of the interest on the mortgages, and that is 6d. in the £1. Many of them experience great difficulty in paying this tax, and when they are heavily in debt - as many of them are - its payment year after year only adds to their indebtedness. As a matter of fact, it probably compels them to borrow still further from the mortgagee. That is a very great hardship.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I regret that the Government are unable to accept the proposal of the honorable member for North Sydney. He knows very well that this matter was discussed at considerable length when the principal Act was under review, and it was not without the fullest reflection that the principle of declining to allow an exemption in the case of mortgages was adopted. It was felt then - and experience has shown the conclusion to be quite sound - that exemptions in the case of mortgages was incompatible with the principle of a progressive land tax, however appropriate it might be in connexion with a tax of a different character.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7406

QUESTION

ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from 17th December, vide page 7305) :

Postmaster-General’s Department

Division 106 (Central Staff), £22,041

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– It was promised this evening.

Mr Frazer:

– He said he would try to obtain the report and place it Before honorable members later on to-day, or tomorrow.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– What is the use of presenting the report to-morrow if we have to consider these Estimates to-night? What we require is official information. The Public Service Commissioner is charged with the duty of reporting to Parliament, and his report will lose much of its value if its presentation is delayed until the meeting of the new Parliament. I feel very much hampered in dealing with these Public Service problems, owing to the absence of the report of the trusted guardian of the Service, and the trusted adviser of Parliament, upon such Public Service matters. The Service has been agitated by many burning questions on which the Commissioner ought to be able to render us valuable assistance. It is impossible to disguise the fact that in connexion with the post and telegraphic services controversies have been going on, in which the Commissioner has taken a hand, and we are entitled to have his report before us. Lacking official information, I am at a disadvantage. I do not wish to pass undeserved censure on the Minister or the heads of the Department without proper information. In the circumstances, what I am about to say will be by way of eliciting information. I saw in the press recently sensational reports of the condition of affairs in the Department, and it is only right that the Postmaster-General should be given an opportunity to make some reply to the complaints made. One statement which appeared in the Age of 1st November last, was to this effect -

Discontent has been aroused among the lowe, divisions of the Commonwealth service on the ground that the Government is increasing the salaries of officials in the Professional and Clerical Divisions, and leaving the General Division to obtain from the Arbitration Court the increases asked for.

Mr Frazer:

– No one knows better than does the honorable gentleman that that statement is incorrect.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Many officers drawing under £3 a week will receive no increase, and this section regards itself as most unjustly treated. As the men put it. the Government has acted in entire disregard of the middlemen. It is contended by officers receiving under£168 per annum that increases of at least 20 per cent, should have been granted in view of the heavy cost of living. Many officers of 15, 20, and 25 years service are not even receiving£3 a week.

The report winds up by saying that -

With the entrance of the Labour party into power the men state they expected that justice would be done to the officers in receipt of low wages, but this expectation has not been realized.

I quote the following statement from the Argus of 31st October: -

page 7409

POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Discontent in Service.

Sydney, Wednesday. - The decision of the

Commonwealth Government that no increases will be granted in the General Division of the Postal Service, unless by the direction of the Arbitration Court, is viewed with much disfavour by the executive of the Telegraph and Telephone Construction Union, more especially since substantial increases have been provided to the higher-paid officers of the Clerical and Professional Divisions.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It applies equally to New South Wales.

Mr GORDON:

Committee. The following list is from the Committee’s report -

IMPROVEMENTS MADE AND SERVICE CONCESSIONS GRANTED.

Increase in the permanent staff by making provision in the 1902-10 Estimates for 1,500 additional officers.

Larger votes granted for telegraphic and telephonic construction works.

Telephone rates remodelled.

Position of Chief Accountant created.

Chief Electrical Engineer’s staff augmented.

Introduction of Wheatstone instruments on Inter-State telegraph lines.

deduction of the number of grades of post-offices from thirteen to seven.

Overtime worked in the General Post Office, Sydney, partly paid for.

Accommodation obtained at the Central Railway Station, Sydney, for the Mail Branch.

Sorting test simplified in May, 1909.

A conference of departmental officers held to investigate the question of broken shifts in the Mail Branch.

Additional grade of senior assistant established.

Age for the admission of telegraph messengers to the Service increased, and age of retirement extended.

Appointment of outside supervisors of telegraph messengers.

A uniform Postal Guide introduced.

Improvement made in the compensation allowed for Sunday work.

Letter-carriers’ beats in Sydney readjusted.

Privileges extended to temporary employes.

Procedure under punitive sections of Commonwealth Public Service Act simplified.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I did not notice the remark in the exchange of badinage while I was busy counting to ascertain the number present.

Mr Kelly:

– I wish to direct attention to the fact that the honorable member for Gippsland, who has not yet been promoted, is addressing points of order to you, sir, from the Treasury bench. Is he in order in thus arrogating to himself an importance which he does not possess?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Members other than Ministers are not in order in speaking from the front Ministerial bench.

Mr Wise:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Wentworth, who had been absent from the chamber all trie evening, came in, and, after calling attention to the lack of a quorum, immediately began to smoke a cigar. Then the honorable member for Richmond, who poses as a gentleman, called out “ Sneak.” I wish to know whether the honorable member was in order in applying that word to an honorable member who called attention fo the most disorderly conduct I have ever witnessed - that of an honorable member smoking a cigar in the chamber?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Richmond was not in order in addressing that remark to the honorable member for Gippsland. But I would point out that at the time, my attention having been drawn to the state of the House, I found on counting heads that there was no quorum present, and the sitting of the Committee was, therefore, practically suspended until a quorum was in attendance.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member may be sure that I am taking the course that I believe to be in the best interests of the people.

Mr GORDON:

– I do not suggest anything else. My complaint is that we do not know what has been done, or what is to be done. On the Estimates the sum of £160 is set down for “ South Australian wireless station.” So small a sum can scarcely cover the proposed expenditure in that State for the current year; but having looked twice through the Estimates, I cannot find any other. The policy of Australia should be to adopt whatever wireless system the experience of Great Britain has found to be the best. The system accepted should be the same throughout the Empire, to permit the fullest exchange of messages between vessels of war and land stations. Coming to another subject, I notice that there is now a loss of £16,000 in connexion with the All Red cable line, although the Royal Commission on Postal Affairs pointed out not long ago that Australia’s probable loss would be only £4,000 a year. Last year Senator Pearce proposed to the Imperial Conference the nationalization of an Atlantic cable line to cheapen and render more effective the telegraphic communication between Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. He put before the Conference some important facts, accounting for a part of the loss now incurred; and Mr. Samuel promised to carefully consider his proposal on behalf of the British Government. At the same time, Mr. Samuel submitted an alternative proposal, which was accepted by the Conference. It was that, in the event of considerable reduction in the Atlantic cable rates not being effected in the near future, the laying of a State-owned cable between the United Kingdom and Canada should be considered by a subsidiary Conference. We have not been informed whether the British Government has succeeded in bringing about a reduction in the Atlantic cable rates which will reduce the loss on the All Red line. According to the report of the Postal Commission, only 19,000 ordinary messages are sent from Australia via the Pacific, as against 77,000 sent via the Eastern line, though 1,000 press messages are sent via. the Pacific, as against 1 ,233 via the Eastern. The Commonwealth’s proportion of the loss in 1910 was only £4,700; now, as I have said, it is nearly £16,000. The time is not far distant when this matter will have to be carefully considered by the Australian Government. The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company did good work in connecting Australia with other parts of the world, and its enterprise was aided by the land lines constructed in South Australia. But the loss on the All Red line is so heavy as to be of serious concern to the Australian public, and the various Governments concerned should endeavour to attract sufficient business to make the enterprise profitable. Last year there was set down on the Estimates/ the sum of £375 for St. Peter’s Post Office, Adelaide; but that, I understand, was due to a clerical error. The post-office now in use does not meet the growing demands of the important suburb in which it is situated, and I propose to bring . under the attention of the Deputy Postmaster-General for South Australia the need for an up-to-date building. An important matter to which more atten- . tion should be given is the improving of our telegraph system by the greater use of Wheatstone instruments on the main lines. The Postal Commission reported that the Department might have utilized the Wheatstone instrument more than it has done. I am glad that the Department has given certain South Australian officers who failed in their first Wheatstone test a second trial, because the conditions under which they were given the opportunity to practise with the instrument were such that even proficient telegraphists who had been in the Department for a great number of years failed to answer the demands made on them. Undoubtedly the further use of these automatic instruments would increase the efficiency of the Department, and I can understand that the engineers desire that as many men as possible should become proficient in their operation. But the telegraphists should be given more notice of the intention to call on them to show their proficiency, and the examinations should be conducted under conditions which will give the operators every opportunity to pass the necessary tests and qualify for the higher salaries paid to proficient men. In the United Kingdom the Wheatstone system is largely used because it is capable of dealing with a pressure of traffic. In the central London’ office items of news may have to be transmitted to fifty or more towns simultaneously. Circuits are made up for their transmission, each dealing with a number of towns, some circuits being permanent, and others temporary, to meet special requirements. It is not often that operators in Australia are called upon to work the Wheatstone instruments, except at the main centres. Should the Prime Minister deliver a policy speech in his electorate the necessary instruments and operators would be sent to the town in which he was speaking to transmit the press reports throughout Australia as quickly as possible. But the instruments are difficult to work, and men should be given full notice that they will be called upon to show their proficiency in operating them. Something has been said about the construction of new works being removed from the control of the PostmasterGeneral, and there is a good deal in the proposal to recommend it. A Public Works Committee or some body of the kind to deal with the new construction work of all Departments would be more likely to secure the expeditious carrying out of those undertakings than is possible when they are taken in hand by each Ministerial head. There is much to be said in favour of the appointment of a Public Works Commission, in view of the expenditure that is taking place in connexion with this and other Departments, and it is a suggestion that may well receive the earnest consideration of this Parliament. Reference has been made by the honorable member for Parkes to the adop-tion of a borrowing policy for reproductive works. I have never been afraid of borrowing for reproductive purposes. But for a borrowing policy Australia’ would not have made the progress that it has. We should not have been able to build the 16,000 miles of railway which are such a credit to the States, nor should we have been able to provide the net- work of telegraph lines and the many other public utilities that have been established in the interests of the people. It is folly not to borrow money at 3 per cent, or 4 per cent, when we can find opportunities of earning 6 per cent, or 7 per cent, by its use, and at the same time developing and peopling the country. The Commonwealth will soon be faced with the necessity of borrowing in order to meet its national obligations in regard to the provision of many public necessities. It is impossible to raise sufficient revenue to meet the growing requirements of this and other

Departments. If we wish to encourage settlement in Central Australia and other remote areas, we must be prepared to extend our postal and telegraphic facilities. Those who visited the Northern Territory must have been struck with the importance of increasing such facilities in that part of Australia. It is absurd that those who are trying, for instance, to develop the Victoria River country should be cut off from all communication with the rest of the world. Only yesterday a young man called on me and made inquiries with reference to his settling on the Daly River. He asked whether there was any telegraph communication between that district and Darwin. I had to tell him that there was not, and that it would possibly take him weeks to transmit to Darwin his orders for the necessaries of life, and that probably many more weeks would elapse before they were executed. If there is one part of Australia’ more than another where the PostmasterGeneral will have to face a growing expenditure, it is in the outlying portions of the Northern Territory. I hope that whoever presides over that Department will be prepared to face even a borrowing policy in order to provide means of communication for the people who go into these remote places.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– At an earlier hour I referred to the treatment of certain postmasters in country districts,, and I trust that the PostmasterGeneral will cause inquiries to be made with a view to rectifying what seems to be a very substantial grievance. I agree with the honorable member for Boothby, and the honorable member for Parkes, that there should be no hesitation in borrowing for the purpose of constructing postal buildings and extending our means of communication. While none of us wish our children to pay our debts, it is only fair that those who come after us ‘should assist in the expenditure necessary for the development of the nation, more especially as they must, undoubtedly, secure a fair proportion of the advantages derived from the provision of these public utilities. I wish now to draw attention to a curious regulation in connexion with the Department. For a long time the residents of Mittagong have been anxious to secure the establishment of a local telephone exchange. The necessary number of subscribers have sent in their names to the Department, but since there is an exchange at Bowral it is said that the request cannot be complied with, owing to the fact that a Departmental regulation provides that an exchange shall not be established within three miles of another. As a matter of fact there is what is practically a mountain range between Mittagong and Bowral, so that the application of the regulation in this case is absurd. I have been treated with the greatest courtesy by the manager of the telephone branch in Sydney, and have requested him to supply answers to a series of questions which I have submitted. When I receive replies to these questions I hope to be able to convince the PostmasterGeneral that this exchange should be at once erected. It would be a good revenueproducing asset since Mittagong is a favorite resort for tourists, and for many engaged in business pursuits in Sydney. I am not blaming any one in the Department, but I sincerely hope that this rule will be relaxed. Several honorable members have said that the postal, telegraphic, and telephone services of the country make for our development. That is undoubtedly true, and every effort should be made to extend these public utilities. Within 55 miles of Sydney there is a silver-field which is full of promise. Its development, however, has been retarded largely owing to the want of railway communication and to the fact that the ore produced has to be carted over two very steep mountain passes. Some four or five years ago a telephone line was erected there in the cheapest possible manner, the wires being carried along from tree to tree, and no poles being used. This met the requirements of the people for the time being, but the line is constantly falling into a state of disrepair, and, in view of the fact that there are now 1,300 men on the field, the long and constant interruptions that take place constitute a very serious drawback. A new and up-to-date line is very urgently required. The silver-field to which I refer is that of Urangerie, and I hope that its wants in this respect will be immediately attended to. For some time I have given a lot of thought to the suggestion that the block of land bounded by Moore, George, Pitt, and King streets, Sydney, should be resumed, with a view to the erection of one magnificent building to meet the requirements of the Postal Department, the Commonwealth Bank, and various other Departments of the Federation. I do not know how such a scheme would be received by the people of Sydney, but I think it an excellent one. It would enable the present inadequate postal facilities of Sydney to be largely extended, and would provide much-needed accommodation for other Departments. Some time has elapsed since this suggestion was first made. It originated, I think, in the Department of Home Affairs, and I understand that during the last few months the Minister has given the matter his close attention. Two or three years ago the congestion of business in the Sydney General Post Office - the overcrowding and the ill-ventilation of the building - rendered it necessary that the pressure should be relieved. A block of land was, therefore, secured at the Central Railway Station, and upon it has been erected a large building, where the greater portion of the sorting of the country mails can be carried out. Even when all the proposed alterations to the Sydney Post Office building are carried out, the congestion will still continue, because there is not sufficient space for the enormous business that is conducted there. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the postal service made the following recommendations : -

That a portion, if not the whole of the block, on which the General Post Office, Sydney, is now situated be resumed, or that the Belmore markets site be considered as a site for a central mail dep6t.

The Commission further reported that -

Leading officials stated that the mail branch, the parcel post branch, the money order office, and the correspondence and record branches at the General Post Office, Sydney, are not only unsuitable for the purpose of providing effective control, but are totally insufficient for public and departmental requirements.

The congestion would be got rid of to some extent if the telephone branch were removed from the Post Office building, as has been done in Melbourne. As regards the accommodation, the Commission stated -

It was stated that the accommodation provided for the clerical branches was most inadequate, being based on requirements of thirty years ago ; that the present alterations in the mail room would lessen the natural light and decrease the ventilation. It was alleged that accommodation provided for the parcel post branch was unhealthy, that the letter-carriers’ room is too small to accommodate the number of men employed therein, that the light in this room is artificial and the ventilation bad, and that the room’s situation over the boiler connected with the electric light branch made it most uncomfortable during the summer months.

In a climate such as we have in Sydney during the months of January, February, and March, to have officials working in a room immediately over a boiler connected with the electric light is a state of things which should not be continued a moment longer than can possibly be helped. A good deal has been said about the advisableness of placing the management of the Post and Telegraph services under a Board. It is contended in some quarters that the management of these services should be placed beyond political control, and that a Board of Commissioners should be appointed to conduct the services on commercial lines in the interests of the people. On the other hand there are those who advocate that the Minister should continue to have a controlling power, and should be assisted in his administration by a Board. The Postmaster-General must have felt since he has been in office that it is absolutely impossible for him to attend to all matters in connexion with this great service, and that it would be advisable to have a Board that would visit all the chief centres and exercise direct personal supervision over the various branches. One objection that has been urged to the appointment of a Board is that no Post and Telegraph service in the world is under the control of Commissioners, but there is no reason why we should slavishly follow the practice of other countries. We are dealing with Australian matters, from an Australian stand-point under different conditions, in many respects, from those existing in other parts of the world. On this point the Commission states -

The growing tendency in progressive countries is to place the administration of such governmental services as are rendered to the public in return for specific payments in charge of non-political Boards. The introduction of such systems of management is the outcome of the desire for the application of more business-like and economical administration in the public interest. This object would be attained by the appointment of the proposed board of management.

– I am going to relieve them of the necessity of eating their lunch during business hours.

Mr RYRIE:

– Twelve men are engaged from noon till 3 p.m., and from 3.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eight are engaged from 1 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. On Saturdays there are fifty-six men who are employed from 8.30 a.m. to 1 p.m., sixteen who are engaged from 9 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., eighteen who work from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., seventeen who are employed from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., seven who work from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m., fifty-two who are employed from 1.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., fifteen who work from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., seven who work from 3 p. m. to 8.30 p.m., ten who work from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., and four who are employed from 6.30 6.30p.m. to 12 p.m. I have not much to say against the Saturday roster duty. The Evening News, of Saturday, 14th December, in speaking of this matter, says -

The pent-up feelings of the telegraphists after that day’s digestion of the above little menu overflowed on Friday night at a mass meeting of the Post and Telegraph Association, held in the G.U.O.O.F. Hall, Castlereagh-street, Sydney. The attendance was good. There were over 150 men present, and they showed that they were determined not to be forced to work under conditions they did not approve.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr Frazer:

– I know what the papers contain, and here is a copy of them, which honorable members may see.

Mr Mcwilliams:

The council of the Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Association met to-night and expressed full appreciation of the justice of the claims of the New South Wales men, and resolved to leave no stone unturned to effect a speedy settlement of the dispute. It was resolved to send another telegram to the Prime Minister, urging him to reconsider his decision to revert to the old schedule.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister has decided to revert to the old schedule, but if he has it would appear that there is a split in the Cabinet, as I understand that it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to adhere to the new system. The article continues -

It was decided to appoint Mr. Ward, President of the Victorian Association, to make the application to the Arbitration Court for a compulsory conference under the Act.

I understood the Postmaster-General to say that there was no question of the Sydney telegraphists going to the Arbitration Court, but they appear to have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to get redress from him, and that the only thing left them to do is to appeal to the Court. The Act recently passedby the Government is to be brought into operation in a way they little contemplated. The PostmasterGeneral is endeavouring to force down the throats of the telegraphists in Sydney a new scheme of work, and their reply is, “You sent us to the Arbitration Court, and to the Arbitration Court you shall go.” The report goes on to say -

The necessary documents were sent to Melbourne by to-night’s express.

I presume, therefore, that within the next forty-eight hours an order of the Court will be served upon the PostmasterGeneral, and he will be brought into compulsory conference with the employes whose grievances he has heretofore treated in a cavalier manner.

Mr Frazer:

– I shall hail that with satisfaction.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The report further says -

The President, Mr. Wilson, states that the new scheme imposes longer hours.

The Postmaster-General has said that it imposes shorter hours, but the men who have to work under it deny the statement.

Mr Frazer:

– My statement was that it was expected that the alteration of duties would relieve the officers in the Sydney office of certain hours of duty.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If that means anything, it means that under the new scheme the men would have shorter hours of duty.

Mr Frazer:

– In the aggregate, yes.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

- Mr. Wilson denies that statement, and says that the new scheme will impose longer hours. The report continues -

It will not do away with roster duty, and already it has broken down. It was understood that it bad been altered to bring the staff on at 6.30 p.m., instead of . 6 p.m., as provided in the scheme. It also had the advantage of being worked at the present time by 20 to25 more men than it provides for.

Mr Frazer:

– Mr. Wilson appears to have time to make statements as to how the scheme is working.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– He should have plenty of time when off duty to ascertain whether he is justified in making these statements.

There were rosters on’ all the staffs yesterday. The 8 o’clock men getting away at 9, the 11.30 men getting away as late as 1.30 a.m., and, in the majority of cases, the half-hour break was lost sight of.

That was the half-hour break that the men were to be sure of, so that they should not have to eat their meals at their instruments. Mr. Wilson continues -

To-day matters were worse, and the men were kept on from one till two and half hours. above the scheduled time. The men resent the Deputy Postmaster-General’s statement that everything is working smoothly.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He was not required to do so.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– But he ought to have done so. I found it most killing work to go through masses of papers that might well have been left to officers. I would not leave the work to the Secretary, or to one officer, but if a Board of Commissioners were created they might be trusted to deal with them, reserving the right of appeal to the Minister or the Public Service Commissioner in certain matters about which the Minister should not have to worry himself.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– For the first time since his appointment the Public Service Commissioner has failed this year to place his annual report in the hands of members before the consideration of the Estimates. In this respect there is just cause for complaint. I think that, almost without exception, during this session, not -one of the annual reports, dealing with the Departments, has been tabled before the Estimates relating to that Department have been considered. The Minister shrikes his head. If he says that there is an exception I shall accept his statement, although the exception proves the rule. In his last annual report, which was ordered to be printed on 29th September, the Public Service Commissioner made some important recommendations. The Postmaster- General has said that the whole Service is now running smoothly. That statement, however, is entirely antagonistic to the published reports of meetings of departmental officers in Sydney, and to the text of the resolutions carried by them. In his last annual report the Commissioner wrote -

In my last Report reference was made to the fact that notwithstanding the periodical ventilation of grievances in Parliament and elsewhere, a greater spirit of contentment and satisfaction was apparent throughout the Public Service under the present regime than probably ever obtained under pre-Federal management.

Mr Poynton:

– I thought that the PostmasterGeneral had promised to respect that pledge.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr Frazer:

– I did say so, and I have never said anything else.

Mr KELLY:

– Then I think that when officers of this Department are labouring under a grievance which is brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General, the departmental machinery ought not to be used to bluff them. Of course, I recognise that it is almost impossible for the PostmasterGeneral to keep in touch with everything that transpires in his Department. Take, for example, the answers which are given to questions put to him in this House. On the 19th November last I addressed certain questions to him, and I regret to say that the replies put into his mouth were admittedly inaccurate. One question was -

What effort is being made to pay officers the value of the work they are performing?

The reply was -

The new system of classification adopted specified that the number of telegraphists to receive £210 and ^235 per annum was not to be specified until the Wheatstone system was in full operation, and as soon as the system is in complete operation the necessary adjustment will be made.

– How far Ministers may be responsible for its absence I cannot say, but it is a singular thing, and one that cannot be allowed to pass without adverse comment, that a report which should have been submitted to Parliament in time to allow honorable members to digest its contents before beginning the discussion of the Estimates has not yet been laid on the table. No explanation of the non-production of the report’ has been given by the Postmaster-General, or any other Minister. Although we are placed at a disadvantage in not having this report, certain facts in connexion with the administration of the Post Office are so patent that attention must be called to them at this stage. The grievances of the postal officials are growing like the bulk of a rolling snowball, and the whole Department is seething with discontent. This condition of things seems to point to something radically wrong in the administration. The trouble cannot be due to lack of funds, because, although the Department may have been starved in the past, this Government has command of a revenue far in excess of that enjoyed by any of its predecessors. The discontent in the Sydney office, where the number of employes is larger than in any other, has been forced upon our notice, and honorable members generally are constantly in receipt of correspondence asking for their assistance in the remedying of grievances. Last year there was a conference of postmasters in Melbourne, and I was asked by the Secretary to introduce a deputation to the Postmaster-General, so that certain grievances” might be laid before him, and properly considered. One of the main grievances was the paying of rent for premises. In certain offices postmasters are compelled to live at the post office. Some of these premises, not only on account of their general unsuitability for residential purposes, but also because, in many cases, they are without ground space, are entirely inadequate to meet the requirements of their families. Realizing that their first duty is to their Department, postmaster’s, however, accept these disabilities, and really act as caretakers or watchmen, in addition to discharging their ordinary duties. That is a distinct service which should entitle them to an additional allowance. They also find themselves in another awkward predicament. At all times, and quite irrespective of their convenience, the practice of domiciliary inspection is carried out by officers of the Department, and not always in the most tactful way. This is an intrusion on their privacy, and, in some cases, is held to be unwarranted. These are matters of small matter to the Commonwealth, but mean much to the people affected. Some consideration should be extended to them. Due notice should be given of an intended domiciliary inspection, and the convenience of the household, as far as possible, should be studied. The officers should be granted the free use of such premises, even if they are not granted a bonus as well for acting as caretakers. Another point is that many of these gentlemen, being of an extremely obliging disposition, often supply the public with postal necessities after office hours. Generally “speaking, I have found the postal officials in my electorate most painstaking,, courteous, and obliging - officers of whom any service might be proud. I would also ask the Postmaster- General to represent tothe Minister of Home Affairs the desirableness of giving a little better considerationto postal officers who are acting as electoral registrars. In that capacity . they perform, in their own time, an immense quantity of work which, I fear, is not always appreciated either by the Department or the general public. I wish now to draw attention to a report of the Conference of InterState postmasters held recently in Melbourne. This conference met in the Temperance Hall, and among those present were Mr. J. R. Jackson, President of the Victorian Association, and Mr. R. Darton Secretary of the Commonwealth Association, representing Victoria; Mr. W. E. Grainger, Vice-President of the Commonwealth Association, and Mr. J. S. Roberts, Secretary of the New South Wales Association, representing New South Wales; Senator Stewart and Mr. W. E. Davis, representing Queensland; Senator de Largie and Mr. R. Parker, representing Western Australia ; Mr. C. W. Abbott, representing. Tasmania; and Mr. C. S. Clarke, representing South Australia. The report states; that, concerning the question of percentage deduction for postmasters’ quarters, Mr. Grainger pointed out that there still existed great discontent, and it was decided that a deputation should wait upon the PostmasterGeneral to advocate the adoption of the Royal Commission’s recommendation in the matter. I do not know how that deputation fared, but I understand that the conditions of which they complained still exist. The following telegram from the New South Wales Postmasters’ Association was read at the meeting : -

Large meeting postmasters held Queen’s Hall, Sydney, Monday evening, unanimously decided delegates be instructed use every effort secure payment, Commonwealth- Savings Bank work in event opening 7 till 9 o’clock one night weekly.

That is a matter with which the PostmasterGeneral will probably be asked to deal, if he has not already been approached on the subject. On the question of increased remuneration for electoral registrars, the Conference decided -

That this meeting affirms the desirability of Some additional remuneration being paid to Commonwealth Electoral Registrars for the extra work imposed on them under- the amended Commonwealth Electoral Act, and that a copy of the foregoing resolution be forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. O’Malley).

Another resolution carried was as follows : -

That this Conference affirms the desirability -of postmasters being paid for performing the -duties of State Electoral Registrars, otherwise -that they be relieved of the duties.

In view of the fact that at these Conferences, which are held annually, the same -complaints are made again and again, there must be some solid ground for the action of those concerned in continually emphasizing them in the face of the rebuffs with which they seem to meet when making representations to those to whom they alone can appeal. I desire now to refer to another branch of the Department. In a letter, dated 2nd instant, which I received from the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Letter-carriers’ -Association, the statement is made that-

I can assure you, with present prices of commodities, it is a great struggle to exist at -present rate of salary paid to our class - men with a growing family feel the high cost of living. I find that potatoes are 6s. 6d. quarter, retail; onions, ad. lb.; wood, 6s. 6d. quarter; =a’nd other articles have advanced considerably within the last two years. Yet nothing has %een done by the present Government to help -us to meet these high prices. £6 increases -every two years work out at is. a£d. a week, less than 3d. a day, so you can see if our wives purchased an extra pound of butter the whole increase for that week would be spent. This condition of affairs is tolerated by the ‘Labour Government, acting on the advice of the Public Service Commissioner, who, while ignoring our -claims, has increased the rate of pay to the higher paid, and left those who are more in -want of an increase to scramble for same by the aid of the Arbitration Court.

That puts the position of these men more clearly and concisely than I could, hope to state it, and I therefore make no apology for reading it. It sets forth what is a general complaint among all sections of postal employes. When the Public Service Conciliation and Arbitration Act was before the House, I, with others, pointed out that it was very unfair to force these men to go to the Court to secure the adjustment of their grievances when others in the service have not “to do so. They are undoubtedly placed at a great disadvantage, because of the expense and delay which must necessarily take place. This is a matter which should come under the direction of the Postmaster-General himself, and, without doing any violence to his own feelings or to those of his colleagues and the Public Service Commissioner, he ought to be able to offer some suggestions for- overcoming the difficulties which are the subject of .complaint. This is a branch of the Department which has rendered excellent work, and has been conspicuous for its loyalty and faithful service. It seems to me that even at this late hour some further consideration than has yet been given to their claims might well be extended to them. The increased cost of living has materially reduced the purchasing power of the wages paid, and this is especially hard on employes with large families.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I have on more than one occasion drawn attention to the fact that the General Post Office in Sydney is totally inadequate to the requirements of the service. The building was designed in 1874, and since then the city, and the State generally, have progressed beyond the wildest expectations of the most enthusiastic admirers of ‘ the country. The Government should certainly take advantage’ of the opportunity presented to purchase the central block which has been referred to, which, amongst other advantages, would obviate the necessity of going elsewhere to find premises for the Commonwealth Bank. On reliable information, I can say that the necessary land could be resumed for a little over £600,060 ; and there is not the slightest doubt in the minds of any one acquainted with the city that it would prove a most valuable asset. ‘ The National Bank purchased a piece of land in this block, 66 feet to Pitt-street, with a depth of 100 feet to Moore-street, for £100,000. It matters very little in which street the frontage is calculated, but the price comes out at something like £1,500 per foot in the case of Pitt-street, and £1,000 per foot in the case of Moore-street. The Post Office block consists of 291 ft. 7 in. to George-street, 356 ft. 4 in. to King-street, and 288 ft. 10 in. to Pittstreet, or a total frontage of 936 ft. 9 in. ; and the purchase money of £600,000 worksout at something like £600 per foot. The centre of the block is comparatively free of buildings, and the Post Office extension could be made there, leaving the occupants of the business frontages in possession of their places on a two or three years’ notice, and thus obviating the necessity of any monetary compensation. The Commonwealth Government are already renting premises in and around Sydney, and these are so difficult to obtain, and the rents are so high, that the present policy ‘does not, to my mind, operate in the interests of the community. There is no doubt that the Public Service Commissioner will have to find new offices, for all the space at the Customs House will be required for the accommodation of the Customs officials. Then, again, the Land Tax Department, the Crown Law Department, the’ Department of External Affairs, the Commonwealth Bank, and the proposed Public Works Department will all have to be provided for; and’ the truly business-like course would therefore be to purchase the Post Office block, and thus concentrate the Commonwealth Departments in one of the finest centres in Australia. The Post Office has certainly been improved of late, and much expenditure has had to be incurred in providing artificial ventilation ; but, as a matter of fact, the present space is altogether inadequate for the business. All enterprises, public and private, must have room to expand, and for the proper performance of work, commercial or otherwise, there, must be proper air space. Mr. Young, the. Deputy PostmasterGeneral, at a recent social -gathering of the employes, expressed his gratification that the staff were able, to carry on their work under existing conditions, but with the enormous increase in the volume of business, year after year, he was convinced that something would have to be done in the way of expansion. He pointed out that more working space is required, and that the ventilation is bad ; and we know that a hundred people cannot be crammed into a room capable of accommodating only forty, without vitiating the atmosphere, and leading to most undesirable results. _Mr. Young went on to say that if more space were not provided the growing volume of work could not be satisfactorily handled. That was a statement publicly made; and Mr. Young, who. is quiet and reserved in disposition, is not likely to so express himself without sound reason.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Could a couple of stories not be added?

Mr WEST:

– Two stories have been added, but, in my opinion, the result has been to spoil the original design. The Postmaster-General must not be offended if I say that a departmental reply that I have received in reference to private letter boxes is utterly at variance with facts. Some three -months ago I wrote to the Department on this subject, and on the 15th instant I received the reply to which I have referred. When I wrote, there were 300 applications in for private letter boxes at the post-office, and the applicants were told that there; was no space available, and that they must try at the nearest postoffices. As a matter of fact, however, there is no space at the other post-offices.

Mr Livingston:

– Is it not a fact that the letter boxes cannot be manufactured quickly enough?

Mr WEST:

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Some serious allegations were made against the Department.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– But they were all disproved. The last word of the whole debate is contained in the reply of the Postmaster-General -

Honorable members have made many accusations and many criticisms. Is there any charge left against the Government? There is no response. Well, sir, I have done.

I wish to insure that in constructing these wireless stations ourselves we shall do what is best for the people of Australia. In the first place, we must recollect that one of these six high-power stations is to the built at Port Darwin. As far back as the 31st May, 191 1, a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence considered the question of long range wireless stations. The following is the statement which Mr. Herbert Samuel made, with the permission of the Prime Minister -

The sub-committee resolved on 31st May, 1911, that the six stations ought to be built as soon as possible; that sites ought to be marked out, and the work ought to be put in hand upon them before the end of the year. On 14th December the matter was discussed before the Committee of the Imperial Defence itself, and the members of that committee strongly advocated the urgency of carrying out this work. Eight months after the first resolutions of that sub-committee, in the following January, those first resolutions having been arrived at in May, and further urgency having been expressed in December, I had to decide whether we ought to wait for a period certainly of a year before this contract should be made.

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mir. FENTON.- The High Commissioner stated that the system installed by the Australian Government does not trench on the Marconi system. He would not have given that evidence without being fully posted on the subject.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- The fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department spent last year £3,842,894, and is estimated to spend th-iB year £4,253,410 - an increase of over £400,000 - shows that it is one of the most important

– I do not know that I can. The most important recommendation made by the Commission was in regard to a change in the system of management, and that recommendation has not been accepted. In paragraph 53 of their report they state that -

The earlier portion of this report has amply demonstrated that the present system is most inefficient, and your Commissioners are compelled to recommend a new system of management.

After the most careful consideration the Commission came to the conclusion that the

Mr Tudor:

– They are paying what they ought to pay.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

Lameroo, too, there is a very good postoffice. Indeed, the whole of that large district is very well served in the matter of postal facilities. At Bordertown a new post-office has been erected, and a postoffice has also been decided upon for Tailem Bend. At Kalangadoo there was a little bit of a battle over the site. The PostmasterGeneral instituted inquiries, with the result that he has now obtained one of the best sites available at a very small cost. At Loxton, on the River Murray, another suitable site has been secured, and tenders have been called for the erection of a new post-office. I must also thank the Postmaster-General for what he has done in connexion with the Mount Barker Post Office. The original idea was that a small wing, which would be a disgrace to the Department, should be added to that office. This circumstance was brought under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral, who ordered careful inquiry into the whole matter. Finally he decided not to patch up the old office, but to erect an entirely new building, and I heartily commend him for his action. I am always prepared to give credit where credit is due, and if the Postmaster-General failed to discharge his onerous duties in an efficient manner, nobody would condemn him more quickly than I would. I am glad to recognise the service which he rendered to Australia the other day, when he piloted through this House a Bill providing that shorter telegraph poles may be used in the erection of lines in rural districts. We all realize the necessity for extending those lines throughout the length and breadth of the continent. For my own district the Department has done all within its power with the labour at its command. Mention has been made of the supply of letter-boxes. During the past two years there has been such a demand for those boxes that the available supply was soon mopped up. There are two or three places in my own district for which letter-boxes have been ordered, but, so far, they have not arrived. That, however, is not the fault of the Postmaster-General.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– Cannot those boxes be made in Australia?

Mr LIVINGSTON:

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I think that at least a beginning might be made in the preparation of such a report. I admit that to bring the accounts which have been running for so many years in the various States into something like uniformity will be a monumental work. But we ought not to continue the methods which have hitherto been adopted, and which are the greatest stumbling block to the preparation of such a balance-sheet as we desire. We regard ourselves as the custodians of the moneys of the taxpayers. It is one of our primary duties to closely scan expenditure, to see that the revenue is properly distributed. How can that be done in the absence of the necessary data? Year by year honorable members ask for the information, and, happily, a system has been introduced of supplying them with tabulated statements which are of inestimable value. But these require most careful scrutiny before accurate results can be arrived at. We ought to have this information in a more concentrated form - in such a form that honorable members would be able to assimilate those portions of it to which they desire to direct special attention. But, save for platform purposes, the tabulated statements which are submitted to us from time to time are of little practical value. What we want in connexion with the Postal Department is a statement of receipts and expenditure which will be intelligible to the lay mind. But suppose that all effect should be given to all the projected schemes of the Government for the nationalization of industries, in what position would the country be in the future should the present mismanagement be. perpetuated on a. vaster scale? Ministers and their supporters will show their belief in the Socialistic principles which they advocate if they begin by putting into order those Departments which have already been nationalized, and thus give us some guarantee for the future. The Minister recently passed through the House a Bill providing for the shortening of telegraph poles, which will enable works that are urgently needed in various districts to be proceeded with, but there is still a great lack of wire and apparatus generally. In my district it is three years since a telephone line was first surveyed. Some time afterwards a demand was made on the residents for a contribution towards the cost. Later the construction was sanctioned. Then the route was pegged. Months afterwards poles were laid on the ground, and many months after that - indeed, only two or three weeks ago - the line was opened for public business. Such delays should not occur, and would not be possible under proper business management. No business house would tolerate them. The blame for them cannot, perhaps, justly be laid at ihe door of any individual, because they are due to the want of proper management generally. They affect very seriously, however, those who live remote from centres of civilization, where ordinary supplies are difficult to obtain, and where, without the aid of the telephone, medical assistance cannot be quickly summoned. Apparently, those in the Department who have the responsibility have not the power. The divorce of power from responsibility in administration has largely brought about the present chaotic condition of affairs. Another matter I wish to speak of is the great increase in temporary employment in the Department. The Royal Commission trenchantly referred to the need for competent and permanent staffs. It was thought that the Postal Department would have good prizes to offer to young aspirants for public service, but lack of funds makes it impossible for the Department to give the opportunities to its employes that they should have. Consequently, it has to fall back on temporary hands, who are without the privileges possessed by the permanent men, and are in constant dread of dismissal at the end of six months. Some 16,000 temporary hands are employed by the Postal Department, and their employment has a demoralizing effect on the permanent men. At the present time, a large number of temporary employes are engaged in assisting the permanent men to cope with the rush of Christmas work in the capitals. The Public Service Act says that only those shall be employed in the Public Service in positions of responsibility, or where special skill is required, who have proved their capacity ; but, although the work of dealing with the Christmas mail matter requires skilled labour in various Departments, a great many of those who have been taken on are without any kind of training in it. The Police Department, when extra police protection is required at any centre by reason of a race meeting, or other great public gathering, does not fall back on special constables, but brings in trained men from outlying districts. The Postal Department ought to be able to do something of the same kind. The employment of none but trained men would enable its work to be done efficiently with a much smaller staff than is required when untrained men have to be used in large numbers. The permanent men become disorganized under the present system, and the result is unrest and dissatisfaction. The Treasurer would do well to make proper provision for the various services of the

Postal Department, so that, even in times of rush, they could be carried on without dislocation. It is impossible, however, in two half-hour speeches to deal with the many important questions to which attention should be directed. I am here, not to criticise, but to make representations to the Department in behalf of the community. Every one rejoices that proper attention is now being devoted to the subject of defence. Although a great deal of money is being spent by the Defence Department, none of us grudges a penny of it, though we may feel that the expenditure in some directions is too great and in others too small. I should like the community to feel similarly in regard to the Postal Department. Unfortunately, owing to what has been spoken of as “the damnable lack of pence,” the Postmaster-General has not at his disposition funds sufficient to provide the public with opportunities and conveniences which in other countries are as near to them as the air which they breathe. The public, and especially residents of country districts, have no right to be asked to deny themselves the conveniences that a properly equipped postal service undoubtedly gives to every community. The benefit thus secured to a small community is out of all proportion to that conferred upon a large community.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– None of us can hope to reach that ideal time when, in a vast Department like that over which the Postmaster-General presides, grievances will be at an end. Grievances are part and parcel of the working capital of the Department, and I suppose that the man has not yet been born who is capable of managing it without, at least, a very substantial element of grievances being present. Grievances have recently been brought prominently before the public in connexion with regulations, which I understand have been issued by the Department, altering the system of roster duty for telegraphists. The system, having proved unsatisfactory, an effort has been made to place it on a more satisfactory basis. I believe that the new system provides for the assignment of nine hours’ duty to each man, two and a half hours of which represent a broken shift.

Mr Frazer:

– Why does not the honorable member get the facts before he attempts to deal with the matter?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– It is not within our power to secure all the facts. I can only go by statements that have been made in the press, and representations on the basis of those statements must find their echo in this Parliament. If they are foundationless, as in many instances they are, then the Postmaster-General should place the real facts before us. I understand that some of the Sydney telegraphists suggested that the Adelaide system should be adopted in preference to that proposed to be brought into operation on 16th inst. That system, however, does not seem to be very popular with the local telegraphists, for I find that recently the South Australian Post and Telegraph Association passed the following resolution : -

Executive of this association is opposed to broken shifts, strongly sympathizes with the Sydney telegraphists in the present trouble, and trusts that an amicable settlement will be arrived at, but considers that should a lockout occur the “ common platform “ should be at once put forward, and general meetings immediately held in each State to consider united action.

So far as the Victorian section of these officers is concerned, the statement has been published that -

In any case, the action of the PostmasterGeneral had been sprung upon the men. The men felt that it was an innovation to introduce broken shifts for clerical officers when the work was not of an intermittent character. No consideration had been shown for the home comforts of the men.

The further statement is made that -

Their hours were increased, in spite of the report of the Royal Commission which inquired into the matter, that six hours in the bead offices were quite equal to seven hours in a country office.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
Cowper

– The fact that the discussion of the Estimates of the Postmaster-General has now occupied twenty-six hours, shows the importance of the Department, but it evidences also the discontent which permeates its various branches, and the dissatisfaction of the public with its administration. No other department of government affects the citizens so closely, and the condition of affairs which has been so much commented on is, therefore, the more to be regretted. There is not a representative who could not give instances of disabilities suffered by the people of his district through the lack of good administration. But, instead of -calling attention to particular delays that have occurred in my district, I propose to indicate the seat of the trouble. The Department lacks a proper system of administration. A very important branch of its work is that done by postal inspectors, but they have so much to do, and their districts are so large, that it is impossible for them to give that attention to the various matters which come under their notice that is re quired of them. Some of the men whose work I am acquainted with have to examine and report upon about 200 officers. These inspectors are the eyes of the Department, and everything affecting their districtseven the most trifling matters - must go through them. Their time is so much taken up with small things, that they cannot give the attention required by larger things. Their first duty is to inspect and report on the various post-offices; but this inspection is as nearly farcical as it can be. An inspector dashes up to a country office, counts the cash, the stamps, and the postal notes, signs the last page of the book, and goes off again. The local residents have no chance of interviewing him on any matter. He has not time to make a proper examination of the buildings, or to come into contact with, and thus be able to judge of the character and fitness for their work, of those employed in the office. Thus men in isolated offices, possessing ability, have no opportunity of making their qualifications known to the head office, and great dissatisfaction results. Inspectors are required to report on the condition of the post-offices, but, not being architects, and having for the most part risen from the rank of postmaster, or from some other position in the Department, they have no architectural knowledge, and are not really in a position to say what repairs, if any, are needed, what these should cost, and whether the designs submitted for alterations are suitable. Not only are they not trained to deal with such matters themselves, but they have not time to get the opinion of persons who could advise them. The public should have opportunities for stating its grievances to the inspectors. But the leading citizens of a town have no advice of the intention of the inspector to visit it, and, therefore, cannot put before him suggestions, for the alteration of time-tables, or other matters of local concern to which they would like attention directed. I urge the PostmasterGeneral to consider, during the recess, the work of the postal inspectors, and to do what he can to improve their conditions, in their own interests, and in that of the public. I ask him, too, to consider their remuneration. In my opinion, these officers are now greatly underpaid. They are almost constantly away from home, and their travelling expenses are heavy, because, often they cannot avail themselves of railway facilities. Very capable men frequently refuse to accept the position of inspector because of the hardship it involves and the smallness of the remuneration. I know one man who, having acted as an inspector for a time, went back to the position of postmaster in order to obtain an increase due to him. The gaining of an inspectorship should be the ambition of every postmaster and of every subordinate officer. Every officer in the Service should be inspired with the hope that he may some day become Deputy Postmaster-General. We cannot, however, arouse ambition in the lower ranks if the hardworking postal inspectors are not better paid. Let me refer to another branch of the Service which causes trouble by reason of the inefficient administration. As most honorable members are aware, the Electrical Engineer is expected to keep all lines in repair, both telegraph and telephone, to keep all instruments in repair, to erect all new lines, and to establish telephone exchanges; but the work is more than one man can deal with. The work of the Chief Electrician for New South Wales is out of all reason. In that State, as perhaps in all the others, there is too much centralization. Whenever you call to see Mr. Nelson, you find him with files of papers that he has scarcely time to look at. The following statement in the Sydney Morning Herald of June last illustrates the delays and inconvenience which are created by the present system of centralization -

The electrical engineer is charged with, amongst other things, keeping all telegraph lines and instruments in repair. If a line breaks and is off a pole at, say, Wallendbeen, it is reported to the postmaster at Cootamundra. His linesman is absent at, say, Temora, so he queries the postmaster, at Wallendbeen by telephone or by a roundabout way if he can get some one to fix it up, and at whose cost ? Wallendbeen replies he can have repairs done for 2S. 6d. Mind, the work is not done at once, nor can it be until authority is sent from Sydney. Cootamundra tells the electrical engineer that he can have the work done for 2S. 6d. Perhaps he may receive a reply stating that 2s. 6d» is considered too much and 2s. is enough. Or he may wire authority 542,681, approved, pay John Danks 2s. 6d., repairs to line at Wallendbeen. Cootamundra then speaks to Wallendbeen, quotes the number of the authority, and requests him to pay the amount. This ‘ is no exaggeration. It is the exact routine followed by this cumbrous, creaking branch. All the time people interested are wondering why the line is not put right at once, and the Sydney-Cootamundra line gets a few “on service” messages in addition to its usual load.

It. is absurd to say that a postmaster cannot, be trusted to spend half-a-crown, or even £1 or more, on necessary repairs. If a postmaster had more responsibility, the delays due to the breaking of a pole or something of that kind would not be nearly so serious as they are. Apparently, some of the officials have as many papers as possible sent to them to make it seem that they could not be done without. The sooner we get rid of this centralization the better. The honorable member for Bendigo, whenPostmasterGeneral, deputed a considerable amount of power to the Deputy PostmastersGeneral, and those in their turn should depute many of “their powers to local authorities. Those who have had anything, to do with the management of men know that you get the best work by giving responsibility. There is not a postmaster in New South Wales, or in the Commonwealth, probably, who could not be trusted to see to the carrying out of small repairs to the best advantage to the public and in the most economical way. In my own district, where the rainfall is heavy, and storms frequently occur, communication is sometimes interrupted for days by the falling of a pole, and it could be restored, much more quickly and cheaply were the local authority able to deal with the case on his own responsibility.

Motion (bv Mr. Joseph Cook) agreed to-

That the Chairman do report progress and ask. leave to sit again.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the House will again resolve itself intothe said Committee at a later hour this day.

Mr J H Catts:

– I beg to call attention to the want of a quorum. * Quorum formed.”]*

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– - I move -

That the words “ at a later hour this day “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ as soon as the New South Waleselectoral scheme has been considered.”

– Here is an opportunity to bring it on.

Mr J H Catts:

– At the honorable’ member’s dictation?

M.r. JOSEPH COOK. - I invite the Prime Minister to tell us what the Government propose to do in. regard to this scheme, both here and in another place, and to let us know exactly what we have to face.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I am sure that honorable members generally are pleased to hear that the honorable member for Parramatta is anxious that we should proceed with the business of the House. We are most anxious to do so, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we intend to push on with it. The chief business before us just now is to deter others from preventing the business of the country being proceeded with. The Government will take care of their reputation, and of the reputation of the House, and when they are no longer able to do so, will give place to others. When this controversy started, the honorable member for Parramatta threatened that he would do certain things. No Government worthy of the name would submit to that sort of treatment.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is an absolutely incorrect statement.

Mr FISHER:

– I ask honorable members to make some allowance for the honorable member for Parramatta’s failure of memory.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Parramatta at the time distinctly repudiated any desire to make a threat.

Mr Wise:

– But he made a threat, all the same.

Mr FISHER:

– It is unfortunate that so many honorable members should misunderstand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We must leave the matter at that point. The position is that we are going on with business. I think that a wiser Opposition would have allowed us to proceed with it. More than that I cannot say. The Government are just as anxious to get on with the business of the country as some members of the Opposition appear to be desirous of obstructing it. I can say for the Government that everything that a Government should do will be done, and I can speak in the same way for my party.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7478

BILLS FROM SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment -

Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) B ill.

Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill.

Sugar Excise Repeal Bill.

Sugar Bounty Abolition Bill.

page 7478

QUESTION

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What did the honorable member think of the telephone service which is provided in London i

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is an excellent service; and I especially refer to the system of private bureaux, under which a person may enter a tobacconist’s shop, or other place of business, and, by paying the prescribed fee, get immediately connected with the subscriber with whom he wishes to communicate, or if the number is then engaged, the attendant will see that you are connected the moment the line is clear. The telephone service in the Old Country is far in advance of the service in Australia. In Canada, and America, too, the system in vogue is very up-to-date. In those countries, when one wishes to communicate with a subscriber, he has merely to manipulate the figures appearing on a little dial so as to make them correspond with the number of that subscriber. I mention these facts merely with a view of showing how far we are behind the times, and how advantageous it would be to the Commonwealth for some of our postal officials to visit countries where up-to-date systems are in operation, for the purpose of becoming thoroughly conversant with their systems.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Thursday.)

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON.Our telephone system has steadily gone from bad to worse, so that, instead of being a blessing to the community, it has been responsible for more annoyance and bad language than any other institution. The remedy for the ill-administration of the Department is in our own hands. .We have insisted on the departmental heads sticking too closely to their offices, and have not allowed them the advantages to be obtained from travel ; so that they have not been able to keep abreast of the times, and alive to all new developments. On this point, let me refer honorable members to the following passage on page 11 of the report of the Postal Commission -

Several witnesses in subordinate positions in the Department, of their own volition and at their own expense had collated valuable information in regard to Post and Telegraph- Departments in other countries. This was especially exemplified in an official in the General Division of the Service in the State of New South Wales. The absence of an extensive knowledge of the working of Post and Telegraph Departments in other countries was common to all the high officials, with the exception of the Chief Electrical Engineer. It may be said that the neglect to possess themselves of this information was to some extent occasioned by their too close adherence to duties of a merely clerical nature. The practice of confining the Permanent Head to minor secretarial duties deprived him of an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with outside conditions, and acquiring knowledge which would have tended to the solution of many of the difficult problems of administration now troubling the Department. It would have been prudent if some of the higher officials had been afforded an opportunity of visiting Great Britain and foreign countries for the purpose of making themselves acquainted with modern post and telegraph management, equipment, and improved methods of organization. The only instance evident in which an opportunity was provided of acquiring a personal knowledge of these matters was when the present Chief Electrical Engineer was deputed to visit foreign countries in 1905. There was, however, evidence of endeavours having been made by officers to keep abreast of the times by studying technical and other publications dealing with postal, telegraphic, and telephonic matters. The rapid stride made in telegraphy and telephony, and possibly in post-office administration, warrants more frequent visits than have hitherto been made to other countries.

The reading of books and papers, and the study of illustrations is a good thing in itself, but the knowledge to be obtained thereby is not equal to that which is gained by close contact with the working of modern systems and the study of apparatus in use. In visiting the Department on business, I have discovered that the overwork that has been complained of is not confined to the subordinate officers, and that, possibly, the departmental heads are more overworked than any one else. The Chief Electrical Engineer for New South Wales is probably as much overworked as any one. I trust that the strain on his mental and physical endurance may not result in injury to his health; but the Government would be well-advised to send him on another trip to Great Britain, Europe, the United States of America, and Canada, for the recuperation of his own energies and the gaining of further knowledge in regard to the progress made in other countries. Whenever I interview him, I am struck with the fact that he seems to be gradually breaking down, and urgently needs rest; but, like a willing horse, he is one of those who faithfully and honestly carry out their work right to the death. No doubt other departmental heads are suffering a similar strain. Many of them not only do their work in office hours, which is subject to frequent interruption; through interviews and other time consuming interventions, but have to take part of it home ; so that they cannot enjoy the advantages of domesticity to the full, and their families are deprived of much of their society. This condition of things should be brought to an end. Another passage in the report to which I invite the serious attention of the Postmaster-General is clause 18, on page 11 -

The responsibility for local management should have devolved upon the chief officers of the respective States, instead of the Central Executive overloading itself with unnecessary details of solely State concern. The Central Executive should have confined itself to matters, of general policy, and to establishing uniformity of administration in the Department throughout the Commonwealth.

That recommendation should appeal to anyone possessed of ordinary business instincts, because circumlocution in the end means congestion and delay. Every honorablemember could illustrate that from his own experience. To cite a case, a municipality in my electorate which proposed to erect a new town hall desired to have pulled down; and removed to the opposite side of the roadway a tumble-down wooden shed which was encroaebing on the footpath. They promised to build a new shed in a better position than that occupied by the old one, and to have everything ready for the removal of the materials stored in the old shed, whenever the Department wasready to remove it, and to remove the shed themselves. The request was a reasonable and a simple one, and it might have been thought it would be dealt with off-hand. I introduced the mayor to the Deputy Postmaster- General, and he made the request on behalf of the council ; but we found that the matter had to be submitted to the Central Office in Melbourne, after which it formed the subject of numberless reports, letters, and visits of inspection; so that in the end many pounds of the taxpayers’ money must have been wasted on red-tape procedure about the removal of a shed not worth £2 in its then condition, and it was many months before the matter was finally dealt with. Probably, had the delay lasted a few weeks longer, the shed would itself have tumbled down. The Deputy Postmaster-General should be able to deal with matters of this kind, reporting afterwards to the Central Administration. At one time a pane of glass could not be replaced without the matter being referred to Melbourne, so that what might have been done for -6d. or is., cost, in official time consumed, paper, postage, and reports, pounds. I would like honorable members to pay attention to this recommendation of the Postal Commission regarding the Chief Electrical Engineer. It is contained in clause 21 -

The Chief Electrical Engineer, instead of being employed mainly as a consulting and supervising engineer, has been engaged in doing too much detail work, and performing administrative duties apart from his professional functions. The liberation of the Chief Electrical Engineer from minor duties would have allowed that officer greater opportunities of gauging the requirements of the Department, and would have furnished him with an opportunity to make a close study of electrical engineering developments, particularly telephone engineering, thus equipping him with ample knowledge to effect economies. To achieve this purpose the Chief Electrical Engineer’s Branch should have been adequately staffed by appointments of assistant engineers. Since the commencement of this in- quiry some action has been taken to remedy le serious defect of want of sufficient staff, but your Commissioners are convinced that the necessity for providing an efficient and complete professional staff was not fully recognised by the Central Executive.

I regret that time will not permit me to make further reference to the Commission’s report, but those who study it will find it a most interesting document. Although it has been in existence for many months, -the present Government have taken little notice of the recommendations, which were the result of two or three years’ investigation of the working of the Department. The report is a valuable one, and the adoption of the suggestions embodied in it would have saved the country an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of pounds. The present Government, however, have failed to pay attention to the recommendations, and the country, consequently! has suffered considerably.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr

Chanter). - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– When interrupted this afternoon I had not completed the statement I desired to make regarding the question- of wireless telegraphy. During the debate many statements were made all round the chamber, including some by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, in which the name of the High Commissioner was introduced. I have no doubt that Sir George Reid was instructed to give evidence before the Commission in question on behalf of the Government. He would not think of speak ing for ‘the Government unless he had been instructed, and there was, therefore, no need for the honorable member to make any insinuation.

Mr Fenton:

– - I made no insinuation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member insinuated that I was suggesting that the High Commissioner was not acting’ on his own convictions.

Mr Fenton:

– No.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There is no evidence how as to what are his convictions. As a good and able servant of the Government, he is striving, as far as possible, to represent their views. He is there to do whatever the Government wish him to do that is legitimate, as a servant of the Commonwealth, whether he agrees with it himself or not. So far as wireless telegraphy is concerned, a new departure is being made, and repeated asseverations are made that the Minister will back up Mr. Balsillie in all his proposals. It is a pity that the Minister cannot give us some information regarding this supremely important matter. We have never had a more pronounced indication of the party feeling that prevails in this Chamber than was given this afternoon. I made no charge against Mr. Balsillie, but was almost howled down j whereas a member of the Labour party, who made suggestions against him, saying that he came here as a discredited man, and that the whole thing wore an ugly look, was heard by his party in perfect silence. I have no purpose to serve except to warn the Government that they are making, I fear, a mistake. The matter was before the Courts to-day, when a sworn declaration, which seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous, was put in. Why is it that the Postmaster- General will not allow any one to inspect his invention, or give any information concerning it? Mr. Oxenham, in an affidavit, stated, according to this evening’s issue of the Herald, that he was directed by the Postmaster-General - to inform the Court that it would be prejudicial to the public interest and welfare of the Commonwealth to allow any inspection of the wireless stations at Melbourne, Hobart, Brisbane, Mount Gambier, Thursday Island, Cooktown, Townsville, or Port Moresby. Mr. Oxenham further stated that the Postmaster-General bad directed him to state that his opinion was not based upon the pecuniary or commercial interests, or upon any desire to defeat the plaintiffs’ claim, but it was solely in the interests of the public welfare and the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth.

The British Minister in charge of the world-wide ramifications of the defence of the Empire, however, courts inspection, and actually agrees with Marconi to give him inspection whenever he introduces a wireless novelty of any kind. In view of the contract made by the British PostmasterGeneral to give publicity, the statement that our defence interests will be prejudiced by giving inspection in this case is ridiculous. Mr. Oxenham said in his affidavit that there was nothing secret about the apparatus, and that the action taken by the Department was only in the interests of the defence ot Australia. When I asked this afternoon whether the naval authorities here were in favour of the Balsillie scheme, the Minister said that I had no right to put such a question, and he declined to give us any information.

Mr J H Catts:

– Did the honorable member expect him to do so, in view of the fact that there is now a case before the Court relating to the matter?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why not? I say, as does the British PostmasterGeneral, that a Government has no right to touch a patent as to which there is a scintilla of doubt. The Government is expected to guard the patent rights of others, but it is setting a fine example to private individuals in this matter.

It is strange that Mr. Balsillie has so readily handed over the whole of his invention to the absolute control of the PostmasterGeneral without stipulation or payment of any kind. If he can construct the high-power stations which he says he can - stations that are equal to the Marconi stations - he ought to be a rich man, and this Government should recompense him well.

Another point that is worthy of notice is that Mr. Balsillie has already been singularly unfortunate in his scientific ventures.’ Only last year he was held by a Court in the Old Country to be an “ infringer.” That was the expression used bv Mr. Justice Parker in summing up in trie case brought by the Marconi Company against the British Radio Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited. His Honour said, in giving judgment on 26th April, j 91 1 -

Having come to the conclusion that Marconi’s 1900 patent is a good and valid patent, I must now proceed to consider the question of infringement.’ The defendants propose to make use of a system of wireless telegraphy called the Balsillie system, and fully described in a pamphlet entitled “The Balsillie System of Radiotele graph)’,” which was put in at the trial. It is admitted that they have offered for sale apparatus made in substantial accordance with this pamphlet, and have actually sold and installed such apparatus on board a ship called the Nonsuch.

I do not pretend to follow the technical reasoning of the Judge, but this was his conclusion -

I hold that the defendants, who, in my opinion, have taken all the essential parts of the invention, are infringers.

– I am going to prove it. The Prahran Council wrote, in reply, to the honorable member for Bendigo, who was then Postmaster-General, offering £5,000 for the surrender of the lease and the right to resume possession, and a letter of acknowledgment was sent in the ordinary way from the Secretary of that honorable gentleman. That letter, dated 21st July, 1909, is the proof of what the Honorary Minister says cannot be proved. It is in these terms -

Sir,

With reference to the letter recently presented to you from the Town Clerk, Prahran, Victoria, offering on behalf of the Prahran City Council the sum of £5,000 for the right to resume possession of the post and telegraph offices and quarters attached to the Town Hall buildings, Prahran, and for the cancellation of the lease dated 8th September, 1879, between the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Prahran and Her Majesty the Queen, I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that the Postmaster-General has approved of the acceptance of that offer, and the matter is being referred to the Department of Home Affairs for the necessary action.

I am to add that the premises in question cannot, of course, be vacated until other provision has been made for the requirements of the Department.

It was never suggested then that this transaction could not be a complete transaction without the assent of the Minister of Home Affairs. On the contrary, it was treated as a complete transaction without the assent of the Minister of Home Affairs, although that Minister had certain duties to perform in connexion with the carrying out of the contract, for which purposes it was referred to him. That letter is as clear and distinct evidence of a contract as any letter could be. If the then Ministry had lemained in power, and if the honorable member for Bendigo, who was Postmaster-General at the time, had refused to carry out that agreement, every honorable member opposite would have been loud in his outcry against a palpable and gross breach of public faith. What happened afterwards? There was some delay - as there was bound to be - in ascertaining what other site the Postmaster-General could obtain on which to establish the post-office in Prahran. When the present Government came into power in 19 10, nothing was done. On the 21st March, 1911, the Prahran Council waited on the Minister of Home Affairs to urge that this agreement should be carried out. It has never been disputed that the facts, as stated by the honorable member for Fawkner, are correct. The council waited on the Minister - to urge the carrying out of the agreement entered into between Council and PostmasterGeneral in respect to the surrender of the lease on the payment of £5,000.

The Minister replied that the PostmasterGeneral had nothing to do with the matter beyond intimating that the premises were not suitable for the Department’s requirements.

Does the Postmaster-General concur in that opinion ? Does he say that he is incapable of entering into any such agreement as was entered into by his predecessor? He has not yet said so, and I assume that he will not say so. The thing is absurd. The Postmaster-General is always in occupation of all portions of the public property which are used by his Department. He is the Minister upon whose advice the GovernorGeneral in Council could enter into such a contract.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the Honorary Minister can show that I am wrong, I am prepared to admit it.

Mr Roberts:

– All matters relating to the acquisition and sale of land are under the control of the Department of Home Affairs. That has been the case for years.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the Honorary Minister can prove that, he will make his case so much the better. I say that the Postmaster-General is in control of the whole of these matters so far as his Department is concerned. But, even if the contract required the formal assent of the Minister of Home Affairs, the fact remains that there were not two separate authorities

Mr Riley:

– When I wanted a post-office in my electorate, the Postmaster-General agreed to a site, and the Minister of Home Affairs had to purchase it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is another matter. In that case, the PostmasterGeneral merely said that the site selected was acceptable to him, but that the Minister of Home Affairs was the proper channel through whom the acquisition of land should take place. But when we find a responsible Minister entering into a definite contract, it cannot be urged that the Minister of Home Affairs can set up a position which is inconsistent with that contract. Otherwise we should do away with the whole solidarity of government.

Mr Fenton:

– I should not have regarded it as a finished contract until I had dealt with the Minister of Home Affairs

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member knows that now. But would any honorable member read the letter from the Secretary to the Postal Department as any thing else than a complete acceptance on behalf of the Government of a definite offer? If it were regarded from any other stand-point, the Postmaster-General, as soon as he came into power, should have said, “ My predecessor had no authority toenter into that contract.” But has the present Postmaster-General taken up that position ?

Mr Fenton:

– It was the honorable member for Barrier who succeeded the honorable member for Bendigo as PostmasterGeneral .

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It was the honorable member for Barrier who indorsed the action of the honorable member for Bendigo, and he never took up the position, that the latter had no right to enter into, such a contract. The whole question turns upon this : How is that letter to be read ? Is it possible to read it as meaning that the Postmaster-General took up this attitude - “ As far as the Postal Department is concerned, I would be quite willing togo into other quarters, but if you are going to purchase the property, you must go tothe proper authority.” I say that that is not the meaning of it. The Prahran Council were asked in a previous letter to make an offer to the Postmaster-General. They did so. Then the Secretary to the PostalDepartment wrote -

Sir,

With reference to the letter recently presented’ to you from the Town Clerk, Prahran, Victoria, offering on behalf of the Prahran City Council the sum of .£5,000 for the right to resume possession of the post and telegraph offices and’ quarters attached to the Town Hall buildings, Prahran, and for the cancellation of the leasedated 8th September, 1879, between the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Prahran and Her Majesty. the Queen, I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that the PostmasterGeneral has approved of the acceptance of that offer, and the matter is being referred to> the Department of ‘Home Affairs for the necessary action.

– The honorable member for Barrier verbally confirmed the arrangement. He will not deny that.

ROBERTS.- Of course, I I accept the honorable member’s statement.

Mr King O’malley:

– Do not get excited.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– There would be some reason for the honorable member becoming excited over this repudiation of an honorable obligation of which he has been guilty. The agreement in this case was a fair and honorable one, and could be justified in the public interest. For obvious reasons, however, I do not wish to further prolong this debate.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- One would gather from the speech just delivered by the honorable member for Kooyong that members of the late Government wholly failed to recognise the responsibility attaching to either one or other branches of the Public Service affected by this question. My honorable friend tells us that the Postmaster-General has not only the power to select a site, which is undoubtedly true, but power to offer any money that he pleases for that site. As a matter of fact, the business rests with the Department of Home Affairs, which is supplied with the machinery necessary for investigation and valuation. The honorable member has sought to throw dust in the eyes of the public by talking of what he did as an old Minister of the Crown. But it seems to me that the Postmaster-General, at the time in question, should be asked to state why he exceeded his powers by taking upon himself the duty of acting as valuer of property, and why the Minister of Home

Affairs in the late Government did not take action, between 1909 and 19 10, to safeguard the interests of his own Department. The Postmaster-General in the late Administration had no right to do what he is said to have done, and the Minister of Home Affairs in that Government should have taken care that his colleague did not trench upon the rights and privileges of the Department of Home Affairs. It is wise that there should be a check against any Postmaster-General setting himself up as a valuer of sites required for postal purposes. The Postmaster-General and the Minister of Home Affairs in the late Administration should certainly give us an explanation of their action in this case.

Mr Thomas:

– When the honorable member for Coolgardie held office as Minister of Home Affairs he refused to ratify a certain proposal.

Mr WEBSTER:

– With the result that in that one small transaction the Government were saved a sum of £500. Like many others, I desire to discuss these Estimates, affecting as they do a very important Department. I maintain that they should be reasonably discussed, and that we should place on record any suggestions or criticisms that we may have to offer in regard to the great Department to which they relate. I have been pleased to hear the complimentary references that have been made during this debate to the report of the Postal Commission, and to find that honorable members opposite are beginning to look into that report, and to recognise its merits. Whilst the observations made by them in regard to the recommendations we made have afforded me a good deal of satisfaction, I have also been amused by the attempt of the honorable member for Bendigo to show that when he held office as Postmaster-General he conceived, long before the Commission presented its report, the main recommendations that we made. The honorable member may say that he did, but the scheme outlined by him last night was very imperfect, and could not be supported by any one who understands the conditions of the service. Dealing with the cardinal recommendation of the report of the Commission, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he recognises the need for a drastic change in the control of this great Department. It is quite beyond the power of any one man to master the vast developments and growing details of the service. If I needed any support for the decision at which we arrived in regard to the desirableness of controlling the Department by a Board of Commissioners, I should have only to go to New Zealand. After our report was made available to the public, the people of New Zealand evidently found that their Postal Department was in a condition similar to that of our own, and, as the result of inquiry, the decision was arrived at that the whole service should be placed under a Commission.

Mr Thomas:

– The recommendation of the Commission was practically for the appointment of a Public Service Commission.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have here a newspaper statement regarding the decision arrived at -

The Royal Commission appointed by the previous Government to report upon the condition and control of the Civil Service has submitted its findings to the Governor. The leading feature of the report is that the Commissioners have found a great lack of efficiency in the direction of the Public Service as a machine working in the public interest, and recommend the appointment of a Board of Management. The Board of Management, the Commission thinks, should be under the Cabinet, and not responsible to Parliament only, and its actions should be subject to review by the Cabinet. A single Minister should not be able to interfere with the actions of the Board. All officers in the Service should have the right to appeal direct to the Board of Management by letter, and the Board would .give these appeals their consideration, and their decision would in all cases be final.

Mr Ryrie:

– We want them to get justice.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member is a Tory squatter, and yet he tells us that his heart burns with the desire to help these men. When the wages of the employes of the Postal Department are placed on a decent level by the representatives of Labour, we find the Opposition pretending to have a desire to do something more for these men than has been done by the Labour Government. A large amount of money has been expended by the Government during the last three years in improving the conditions of the postal employes. I should have liked to see more money spent in improving the conditions of those employes, but the revenue is limited, and it is not possible to do as much for them as we should like to. We were instrumental in having the minimum wage raised to 7s. a day some little time ago, and now we have been instrumental in fixing the minimum wage at 8s. a day. There is not a Tory Government in Australia that has fixed 8s. a day as the minimum wage for their employes. For instance, in the State of Victoria we have a minimum of 8s. a day for our postal employes; while the Victorian Government is only paying 7s. 6d. a day to railway fettlers who have been in the service possibly fifteen or twenty years. It is not possible to do very much for the postal employes this session, but I have no doubt that when the new Parliament meets the Labour party will be prepared to still further improve the conditions of these men.

As regards the question of furlough, I believe that six months’ leave of absence on full pay is allowed to public servants after twenty years’ service. Those officers who are in close contact with the high officials of the Department have their six months’ leave of absence granted to them almost without question; but when a letter-carrier applies for leave of absence he is asked, first of all, if he is not aware that there is a provision that when he dies his nextofkin will get an amount equivalent to his salary for that six months. That does not afford very great satisfaction to the employe who wants a holiday for the purpose of recuperating his health. Leave of ab sence should be granted to all employes, not as an act of grace, but as a matter of right.

Mr Thomas:

– It is a matter of right, but they cannot always get it immediately they apply for it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– When an application is made for leave of absence by a lettercarrier, the first question put is -

Are you aware of the amended statutory rule which provides for furlough?

payment in the event of death to nextofkin.

– If that is so, I stand corrected. The honorable member is in receipt of a remuneration from the taxpayers for his services in this House, and he has no moral right to engage in any professional work to injure them. I have not entered into the merits of the case, which is sub judice, but am merely commenting upon the position of the honorable member in relation to that case. I make no personal reflection upon him. I have noticed several cases of this kind, and, in my opinion, it is quite time that an alteration was made. 1 am not physically fit to deal with other matters which I should like to bring under the notice of the Postmaster-General. I shall content myself with having brought under his notice two or three subjects, and called the attention of the Prime Minister to the appearance in the Court of members of the House to damage the interests of the Government and the taxpayers, who may serve here. I ask the right honorable gentleman to look into the matter, and see if some alteration cannot be brought about by which every member of the House shall be on the same footing.

Mr. MATHEWS (Melbourne Ports) (11.46]. - I desire to know whether in his Supplementary Estimates the PostmasterGeneral has made provision for widows of officers or any persons who during their lifetime were employed in his Department?

Mr Frazer:

– To-morrow we propose to introduce Supplementary Estimates providing gratuities for certain relatives pf deserving officers of the Department.-

Mr MATHEWS:

– I noticed that the provision in these Estimates for compensation to widows for injuries did not include the case of the widow of an officer of his Department. I shall defer what I have to say on the case until I see the Supplementary Estimates.

Proposed vote agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the pleasure of the Committee that I put the whole of the remaining Estimates?

Mr Mathews:

– I object. Let them be taken line by line.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that the subdivisions on pages 168 to 203 inclusive be agreed to.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

.- I must object to this procedure being followed. AVe listen for a day to a discussion on one line of the Estimates. I took the punishment like a bar of iron or a bar of soap, and now we are asked to put the remaining Estimates through in globo. In my opinion that is not fair. I consider that the Opposition ought to get a taste of their own gruel. Perhaps, if they get these Estimates line by line, they wil” appreciate what I had to suffer last night. Therefore, I must object to this proposal, unless, of course, they promise not to do this thing any more.

Sit Robert Best. - Oh, don’t.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Very well.

Division 107 (Cables), £20,000 ; division 108 (Mails via Suez), £170,000; division 109 (New South Wales), £1,518,752 ; division no (Victoria), £968,975; division in (Queensland), £635,281; division 112 (South Australia), £333,047; division 113 (^Western Australia), £406,080; division 114 (Tasmania), £160,022 ; division 115 (Northern Territory), £19,212 - agreed to

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the following resolution be reported to the House : - That, including the several sums already voted in this present session of Parliament for such services, there be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1912-13, for the several services hereunder specified, sums not exceeding in each case the following amounts, viz. : -

Further Supplementary Estimates, 1910-n.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the following further sums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1910-11, for the several services hereunder specified, viz. : -

Further Supplementary Estimates for Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1910-11.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1910-11, for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c., a further sum not exceeding £58,492.

Resolutions reported.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the remaining stages to be passed without delay.

Resolutions of Ways and Means covering resolutions of Supply adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hughes do prepare and bring in Bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 7504

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES

Motion (by Mr. King O’Malley), by leave, proposed -

That the House of Representatives approves of the fresh distribution of the State of New South Wales into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs. F. Poate, H. Langwell, and J. G. McLaren, the Commissioners for the purpose of distributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before Parliament on the 18th day of December, 1912.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– It seems to me that we are being required to act very hastily in this matter. In the dying hours of the session we are asked to agree to a redistribution of the electoral divisions of New South Wales before the report of the Commissioners is in our hands. I have had an opportunity of looking at the maps, but I have not been able to peruse the report until this moment. I find that in clause 4 the Commissioners say -

In making the proposed distribution, your Commissioners have complied with those provisions of the law which require that - “ The Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Community or diversity of interest;

Means of communication ;

Physical features;

Existing boundaries of Divisions ;

Boundaries of State electorates.”

I unhesitatingly say that the Commissioners have not paid proper regard to the considerations set out in their report. If honorable members like to allow any set of men to flout and insult this Parliament, they must take the responsibility. I contend that the report is an insult to Parliament. What is the history of these proposals? In the first place it was necessary to re-arrange the electoral boundaries of all the States, and in every case except that of New South Wales, reasonable time was allowed to the representatives of the people to consider the recommendations of the Commissioners. The reports in regard to the other States were made available months and months ago ; whereas the report with regard to the distribution of the New South Wales electorates was not presented until the very last moment.I should like to know why this treatment has been metedout to the most important State in the Federation. For some reason best known to themselves, the Commissioners did not get to work as soon as they should have done, and when they did enter upon their duties, they performed their functions in such a manner as to please no one.

Honorable members, in their hearts, know that this redistribution is absolutely unjust. It was the intention of the Act that community of interest should be studied as tar as possible. The idea was that more particularly commercial interests - whether connected with the mining, pastoral, or agricultural industry - should be kept in. view. I venture to say that the mandatory provisions of the Act in this connexion have been absolutely disregarded. The same remarks apply to the matter Of communication. It is required that due consideration shall be given to boundaries of State electorates, the object being to sa.ve expense to the taxpayers by permitting of the use of one roll for both State and Federal purposes. On a previous occasion I showed that these conditions could be complied with by extending the Barrier division eastwards, so as to make it embrace Mount Hope, Gilgunyah, and other places. I pointed out that the Parliament of New South Wales had already authorized the construction of a line through that country to Broken Hill, so that means of communication could have been preserved. Yet the Commissioners have simply flouted this Parliament by sending back the very scheme that it rejected, with a miserable alteration which affects 180 votes in George-street, Sydney.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The scheme was accepted here.

Mr CHANTER:

– But it was rejected by the Senate. This House made a .request -

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It made no request.

Mr CHANTER:

– It did, and it must be within the knowledge of honorable member that before the system was adopted of appointing three Commissioners, the redistribution of electoral boundaries was in the hands of a single Judge. What did he do? Immediately he was appointed as Commissioner he sent a circular to every member of this Parliament asking him to confer with him. A similar circular was sent to every municipal body throughout the State. He laid maps upon the table, and asked for certain information, with the result that there was no demur against the redistribution which he proposed. It was accepted by Parliament, because the people, through their representatives, had had an opportunity of laying before him the real conditions of the country. Have the elec tors of New South Wales no right to determine what shall be the boundaries regulating their own electoral powers? The Act distinctly provides that after plans of the proposed electoral divisions have been prepared, a copy of them shall be forwarded to every’ post-office in the State affected, and that they shall be exhibited there for thirty days, during which period objections may be lodged to the Commissioners’ proposals. What is the idea underlying that provision of the Act? It is a recognition of the electors. But, in the present instance, a plan has been placed before the House, and the electors have no opportunity of seeing or considering it. This is a matter which ought to be treated absolutely from a non-party stand-point. Whether it will be so regarded, results will show. I say that this Parliament has already rejected the scheme which is now presented to it. Yet the Commissioners have no hesitation whatever in flouting the will of Parliament by throwing it upon the table and saying, “Take it or leave it.” As the representative of Riverina, I say that the portion of that electorate which the Commissioners propose to cut out of it is wholly agricultural and pastoral. There are no mining interests in it. Practically, it runs from a line at Tootoomurra - which is situated on the Murray, 180 miles from where I am standing, and 560 miles from the electoral centre of the Barrier - northerly by the Murrumbidgee, and thence westward by that river until the Murray is reached. Under this scheme the extreme portion of southern New South Wales is to be added to the most remote northern’ portion of that State. The redistribution is an outrage on common sense, and a flouting of the requirements of the Act. When we were asked to accept it previously, the Commissioners solicited objections. They received them from practically every one of the 12,000 electors in that portion of the country which they propose to carve out of the Riverina division and to add to the Barrier. There was not one representative body within that large area which did not send to them direct objections to the scheme on the very grounds which I am now stating. Those electors do not know to-day that this scheme is again before Parliament. Is that fair to the electors ? It has been said that the Commissioners are masters of the situation, and the truth of the allegation is to be found in the fact that they have sent us back the very proposal which we previously rejected. I ask the Prime

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7511

INSCRIBED STOCK BILL

Motion by Mr. Fisher (by leave) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911.

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher and read a first and second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– In two sections of the Inscribed Stock Act of 191 1 there is a reference to½ per cent., and the aggregate amount is 1 per cent. The inten tion of Parliament, and the policy of the measure, was to have a½ per cent. sinking fund, and the object of this measure is to give effect to that intention. Section 45, as amended by this Bill, will read -

The Treasurer shall on the last day of March and on the last day of September in each year pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated for the purpose, into the Trust Fund, under the head of the Stock Redemption Fund, such sum as if fixed by any order directing the sale of any stock, being not less than ros. per centum per annum on such stock.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7511

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I desire leave to introduce a Bill of one clause to validate certain Orders in Council dealing with the acquisition of property. The Crown Solicitor has informed the Government that the acquiring of property for the general purposes of the Commonwealth is not strictly in accordance with the law. Therefore, this measure provides that the acquisition of lands shall be for postal and other purposes, and validates the acts of the Executive Council up to that point. I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to validate certain notifications of the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

page 7511

ADJOURNMENT

Compensation Cases

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

There is a Bill prepared to deal with a number of cases of compensation, which, though not strictly legal, were equitable, and have been accumulated under more than one Government - two or three, I think. Now that we have a Commonwealth Workmen’s Compensation Act, I think it is about time that we cleared up these cases as far as is practicable. It will be introduced under a Governor-General’s Message at the next sitting of the House, and I presume that there will be no difficulty in passing it. Honorable members are very anxious, I know, to meet at half-past 2 o’clock to-day, but I should like them to meet at half-past 10 o’clock, so that we may be able to complete the business. I hope that they are willing to make the sacrifice, because we have a good deal of work to do, and I feel sure that the other House will cooperate with us as far as practicable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 1.16 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 December 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19121218_reps_4_69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives18 December 1912

PAPERS

MR. CHINN’S APPOINTMENT: POWELLISING CONTRACT

Mr FISHER:Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr Fowler:

Mr FISHER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WEBSTER:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

BRITISH AND GERMAN RELATIONS

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr ROBERTS:Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

SYDNEY CUSTOMS HOUSE

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Mr GORDON:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGNS

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr FULLER:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr Fuller:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS: NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr FRANK FOSTER:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

QUESTION

LAND TAX

Mr PALMER:ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:ALP

Mr RYRIE:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:

Mr HOWE:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr THOMAS:Minister of External Affairs · Barrier · ALP

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr Deakin:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr FULLER:

Mr FISHER:ALP

Mr Fuller:

Mr FISHER:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Sir JOHN QUICK:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:ALP

Sir John Quick:

Mr FISHER:

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr Fisher:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr FISHER:ALP

Mr Harper:

Mr FISHER:

Mr HARPER:

Mr FISHER:

NAVIGATION BILL

Mr TUDOR:Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

Mr J H CATTS:Cook

Mr Tudor:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Tudor:

House of Representatives
18 December 1912

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOWE:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THOMAS:
Minister of External Affairs · Barrier · ALP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917