House of Representatives
5 October 1922

8th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3237

QUESTION

DATE OF THE ELECTION

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the uncertainty in the public mind regarding the Government’s intentions about the election, will the Acting Leader of the House state definitely whether an election is to be held this year, and, if so, in what month, and, approximately, on what date?

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

– The Prime Minister has given to the House a list of the measures which the Government desires to have passed before the prorogation of Parliament. We hope to be able to conclude the business of the session by to-morrow week. I do not suppose that honorable members wish to remain here, sitting morning, noon, and night, longer than is absolutely necessary, and therefore we ask their co-operation in dealing with the legislation that it is necessary to pass before we can rise. It is the intention of the Government to proceed to an election before Christmas, though I do not feel justified in giving any definite date. Honorable members are in as good a position as I am to form an opinion on the subject.

Mr Charlton:

– The election will probably be held in December «

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

– Yes. There is ons qualification that I must add, and it is a qualification which was mentioned by the Prime Minister when speaking on this subject a few days ago. Honorable members know that the situation in the Near East is not altogether satisfactory. Within the last few days we have been very close to a renewal of hostilities. I am glad to be able to say that the position appears easier now, although there are factors which, might bring the Empire again to war, or to the verge of war, ‘and the Government feels that if the situation so developed after the rising of Parliament that members should be called together immediately to consider it, we should not proceed to an election, but should immediately re-summon Parliament.

Mr Brennan:

– That is quite unlike this Government.

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

– It is in consonance with the general policy of the Government. When, in 1914, the Empire became involved in the Great War, this Parliament had been dissolved, and there was no means of re-summoning it. Ministers are most anxious that that position should not arise again. We think that the situation in the Near East will clear up satisfactorily, and we certainly hope so ; but we feel it necessary thus to qualify the ‘announcement about the election that I have made to the House. Subject to the contingency I have mentioned, it is the intention of the Government to proceed to an election before Christmas, and we ask the co-operation of all sections of the House to enable us to finish the programme that we have announced, or so much of it as is possible, by Friday week, so that honorable members may then be free to leave for their electorates.

page 3238

QUESTION

LICENSING OF LANDLORDS

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– In the unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister through ill health, I ask - the Acting Leader of the Government whether, as so many landlords insult true religion and Australian natives by debarring Australian children from shelter, in refusing ito accept their parents as tenants, will he bring under the notice of the Government the need for introducing a Bill to licence landlords. If that cannot be done during the lifetime of this Parliament, will the Prime Minister, if returned at the forthcoming election with a majority, bring in a Landlords Licensing Bill next session ?

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

– I am glad to hear, in the concluding part of the question, a forecast of the result of the election. It appears to me that the legislation which the honorable member asks the Government to introduce is beyond our constitutional powers, and wholly within the province of the States. However, I shall submit the question to the AttorneyGeneral, and get his opinion on the point.

page 3238

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF RABAUL

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In this morning’s Age there appears a paragraph in which, it is stated that the Treasurer of the Royal Australian Historical Society (Mr. Welsh), who recently visited Rabaul, thinks that the administration there is most unsatisfactory. He says that -

When Australia rushed in, many of the staff men sent to Rabaul were poorly qualified for the work. Chinatown was the favorite part pf Rabaul, but sanitary conditions were so bad that the Government Surveyor could only get his men to work there for two hours at a time. Taxation was excessive, and lack of proper water supply and bad hospital conditions were complained of.

I ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for External Affairs if he has had his attention drawn to this matter, and, if so, whether he has any explanation to make to the House on the subject!

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I had not seen the paragraph until the honorable member drew my attention to it a -few moments before tie House met. Generally, I deplore statements framed like those of Mr. Welsh, because I know where such comments on our administration get to, and the bad use that is made of them. We have no knowledge at this end of a state of affairs such as is spoken of ; but

I shall get into touch, at the earliest moment, with the Administrator of New Guinea, and ascertain the position. Naturally, in a large Public Service, such as that at Rabaul t we have had disappointments; but the men who have not suited have been sent back, and others have taken their places. The utmost care is taken at this end to see. that proper men are sent to Rabaul. I paid only one visit to Chinatown, and was surprised at the cleanliness and good order that prevailed. The new buildings put up by the Chinese there are equal to anything erected in the provincial towns of the Commonwealth. The question of water supply and sewerage is receiving the attention of the Administrator, but we have not had for some time any report in regard to it. I can assure the honorable member, however, that we shall get into touch with the Administrator and ascertain exactly what is being done.

page 3239

QUESTION

ROWAN COLLECTION

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister in charge of the House state, before the session rises, whether it is the intention, of the Government to purchase the Rowan collection ? Mrs. Rowan is in bad health, and would like the matter to be finalized without delay.

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

– I am sorry to heaT of Mrs. Rowan’s illness. If the honorable member will give notice of his ques-tion I shall endeavour to supply him with an answer to-morrow.

page 3239

QUESTION

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION” AT CANBERRA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Works and Railways afford the House any’ information as to the progress that is being made with contracts for the construction of buildings and other works at Canberra?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Minister for Works and Railways · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– A contract for the erection of a public school as well as one for the erection of fourteen residences at Canberra was recently let. There is also proceeding the erection of six other residences. Tenders are being called for the erection of the Hostel.

Mr Riley:

– Have tenders jet been invited by advertisement for the erection of the Hostel?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I am not sure whether tenders have yet been invited by advertisement, but preparations for advertising are on. the way. Something like three months will have to elapse before tenders will be in.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What about the erection of Parliament House?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– It is impossible to invite tenders for the erection of that building until the proposed work has been inquired into and reported upon by the Public Works Committee.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– When will that be done?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I propose before the House rises to lay on the table for the information of honorable members plans that have ‘been completed by my Department for certain works at Canberra, and move for approval of certain postal works in other parts of the Commonwealth.

page 3239

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Railway Extensions: Mataranka to Daly Waters: Oodnadatta to Alice Springs

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– On behalf of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I beg to present a report, together with minutes of evidence and appendices and plans, relating to the following proposed railways: - (1) Northern Territory railway: Extension from Mataranka to Daly Waters, and (2) Extension of the Port Augusta-Oodnadatta railway from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs. I move -

That the paper ‘be printed.

Reference has been made in the House to the cost of printing reports of this description. To those who object to the printing of such papers I would point out that the proposed works to which this report relates will involve an expenditure of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. I think we might very well spend a few pounds on the printing of it, so that honorable members may be able to fully inform themselves of the proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3240

QUESTION

EX-ENEMY PROPERTIES

Mr PRATTEN:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– A week or two ago I asked the Prime Minister some questions concerning the amount of money in hand from the sale of ex-enemy properties in Australia and in the Mandated Territories. I ask the Minister in charge of the House to take a note of the matter, and, if possible, to let me havesome time next week a reply, preferably in the form of a balance-sheet.

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

– I shall endeavour to furnish a reply as requested.

page 3240

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Requirements for National Security ofaustralia.

Mr CHARLTON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the adoption of the fourth resolution of the Disarmament Committee’s report to the Assembly of the League of Nations that all nations be invited to supply returns of their requirements for national security, the report explaining that twenty-six out of fifty-one nations represented on the League had supplied this information?
  2. Is Australia one of these twenty-six members represented on the League who have supplied a list of requirements for national security?
  3. If so, willhe, in view of the determination of the League of Nations, to adopt open instead of secret diplomacy, say what those requirements are?
  4. If Australia has not yet sent inthe list will he give the House the opportunity of expressing its opinion as to what those requirements should be?

Mr. GREENE (for Mr. Hughes).The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. Yes.
  2. All possible information has been forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations concerning the Defence Forces of Australia, including the following: -

Naval Defence Acts and Regulations.

Defence Act.

Australian Military Force Lists.

Naval Force List.

Estimates of revenue and expenditure for years 1913-14 and 1921-22, and extracts from Parliamentary Debates for 1913 and 1921, relative thereto.

It is impossible to say definitely what the requirements for the national security of Australia may toe,, but the announcement by the Prime Minister in the House on loth May, 1922, sets out the Defence policy of the Com monwealth, and indicates clearly the minimum Defence establishment that this Government considers necessary.

page 3240

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ARBITRATION COURT

Statement by Sir H. N. Barwell.

Mr MAKIN:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the statement made by Sir H. N. Barwell, Attorney-General of South Australia, on Tuesday, 26th September, in introducing the Industrial Disputes Bill, viz.: - “The Federal Arbitration Court is doomed, and the sooner it comes to an end the better. Even the Prime Minister recognised that, and he was until only recently such a strong advocate of industrial arbitration,” correctly interprets the intentions of the Prime Minister?
  2. What were the terms of the agreement effected between the several State Governments and the Commonwealth Government regarding industrial legislation?
  3. Will the Prime Minister make a statement to the House setting forth the future intentions of the Government regarding the Commonwealth Arbitration Court?

Mr.GREENE (for Mr. Hughes).The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. No.
  2. The decisions of the Premiers’ Conference of October-November, 1921, on this and other subjects were laid on the table of this House on11th November, 1921, and havebeen printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper, No. 156, of 1920-21,
  3. Yes, at the appropriate time.

page 3240

QUESTION

GIFT AEROPLANES

Mr.FOLEY asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has the British Air Ministry passed a regulation that aircraft constructed prior to 1919 shall not be granted a certificate of airworthiness?

Is it a fact that, in order to prevent wastage of the gift machines from the Imperial Government, the Dominion Governments of Canada, India, and South Africa have been distributing these military gift machines amongst approved commercial aviation companies?

Is it a fact that over 100 gift aeroplanes are deteriorating in AustralianAir Force depots, whilst companies anxious to take up aerial mail services in Australia are being delayed through not being able to procure the necessary machines, and out-back Australia is crying out for aerial communication?

Will the Minister give consideration to the question that these machinesnow deteriorating in their cases in Australia shall be distributed amongst approved companies engaging in commercial aviation in the Commonwealth ?

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

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

  1. At the conclusion of the war, machines surplus to requirements of the Royal Air Force were handed over by the Air Ministry to the Aircraft Disposal Company. It is believed that all machines handed over in this way were constructed prior to 1919, many some years before. These machines were not in cases, and the company did not have adequate facilities for storing, consequently a considerable deterioration took place. As a result the Air Ministry decided not to give certificates of airworthiness for these machines for civil aviation purposes until they were overhauled.
  2. In 1919 India received a certain number of gift machines from the Imperial Government. These machines were surplus to the requirements of the Royal Air Force in India, and were presented to individuals and companies. Those machines which were used were mostly employed in joy-riding. Recently certain other of these machines which were suitable for Air Force work were handed over by the Indian Government to the Royal Air Force in India. So ‘far as is known, no machines received by Canada as a gift from the Imperial Government were handed over to individuals or companies, but some of the machines were used for civil purposes, such as forest patrols, &c., by the Canadian Government itself - not by private companies. So far as South Africa is concerned, it is believed that the whole of the machines and gift equipment have been devoted to the uses of the South African Air Force.
  3. The gift aeroplanes received by Australia from the Imperial Government were not portion of the equipment handed over to the Aircraft Disposals Company, but were received from Royal Air Force depots. They are well packed in cases, and when unpacked for use are given the normal overhaul; they have invariably been found to be in very good condition. One of the objects hoped to be achieved by the establishment of aerial mail services was the introduction of the latest type of commercial aeroplane. Some applications have already been received from successful tenderers for the loan of military type of machine, but so far it has not been considered advisable under the circumstances to accede to these requests.
  4. The Minister is prepared to give consideration to any application of this nature where it canbe shown that the circumstances are of an unusual nature.

page 3241

QUESTION

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE: ADELAIDE WEST

Mr MAKIN:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice-

  1. Whether the telephone exchange proposed for the Adelaide West suburban district will be included in the list of works to be undertaken by the Department this ‘financial year?
  2. If no decision has been made concerning the inclusion of this item in the list of urgent works, will the Minister consider the merit of this as an urgent work?
Mr POYNTON:
Postmaster-General · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

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

  1. No provision was made in the Estimates for the current financial year for the establishment of the West Adelaide Telephone Exchange, but provision has been made for the purchase of a site on which to erect the building.
  2. Data in connexion with the establishment of this exchange are being prepared.

page 3241

EXPORT OF FRUIT

Reduction of Inspection Fee

Mr PROWSE:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for

Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the fact that fruit-growers have had such an unprofitable export year, will he reduce the inspection fee of½d. per case?

Mr. GREENE (for Mr. Rodgers).Assuming that reference is made to fresh fruit, no inspection fee has yet been imposed, the question still being under consideration.

page 3241

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MAKIN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister forRepatriation, upon notice -

  1. Whether an agreement has been effected between the State Bank of South Australia and the Commonwealth Government for the building of War Service Homes in that State?
  2. If so, will the Minister submit a copy of the agreement to the House?
Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Assistant Minister for Repatriation · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have pleasure in saying that the reply to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1 and 2. The terms of on agreement have been arrived at, and the document is being prepared for signature. It will be tabled in due course.

page 3241

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 4th October, vide page 3197) :

Clause 55 -

An officer (other than an officer in the First or Second Division) who -

having made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in the form in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to such punishment as is determined upon under the provisions of this section.

If the Chief Officer, or any officer prescribed as having power to deal with minor offences, has any reason to believe that an officer has committed a minor offence, he may call upon the officer for an explanation as to the alleged offence, and if, on consideration of the explanation, he is of opinion that the offence has been committed, he may caution or reprimand the offending officer or fine him a sum not exceeding Five shillings. Any caution, reprimand, or fine by an officer other than the Chief Officer shall be forthwith reported to the Chief Officer, and where the offence has been punished by a fine, the officer affected may appeal to the Chief Officer within fortyeight hours of the notification to him of the punishment.

Where there is reason to believe that an officer (not being an officer of the First or Second Division) has committed an offence, other than a minor offence punishable under the provisions of the preceding sub-section -

Upon a charge being laid against an officer, he shall forthwith be furnished with a copy of the charge, and shall be directed to forthwith reply in writing, stating whether he admits or denies the truth of the charge, and to give any explanation he desires in regard thereto. If a reply is not made by the officer within forty-eight hours of his receipt of the charge, the officer shall be deemed to have admitted the truth of the charge.

Appeal may be made on the ground of innocence of the charge, or excessive severity of the punishment, and the Appeal Board may confirm, annul, or vary the decision appealed against, and ….

An Appeal Board constituted under this section shall comprise -

a permanent chairman, who shall be an officer of the Commonwealth Service, and shall have the qualifications of a Stipendiary or Police Magistrate, and shall be appointed to the office by the Board of Commissioners, but shall not while sitting as chairman of an Appeal Board be subject to direction by any person or authority under this Act;

an officer of the Department to which the appellant belongs (not being an officer concerned in the laying of the charge against the appellant), appointed by the Chief Officer for the purpose of the particular appeal to be heard;

the elected representative of the division to which the appellant belongs in the State or part of the State in which he performs his duties.

Any two members of an Appeal Board may exercise all the powers of the Board for investigation and decision.

On which. Mr. Blakeley had moved -

That paragraph(g), sub-clause (1),be left out.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I cannot accept the amendment. One of the conditions governing entrance to the Public Service is that an oath or affirmation shall be made or subscribed in the form contained in the fourth schedule. If an officer has done or said anything in violation of his oath, it is only right that he, should be deemed guilty of an offence, and so become liable to punishment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- Under sub-clause 2, in the case of an officer appealing against the infliction of punishment for an alleged offence, he is given forty-eight hours in which to frame and present his appeal. In my opinion, that period is inadequate and should be extended to seven days.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– Sub-clause 2 refers only to minor offences, and the amount of fine which may be inflicted does not exceed 5s. I intend to move to amend paragraph c of sub-clause 3, which deals with more serious charges, my purpose being to substitute seven days for the provision of forty-eight hours in which an officer may reply, admitting or denying the truth of the charge against him, or make any explanation he desires to offer.

Clause verbally amended.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That, in sub-clause (3), paragraph (c), the words “ forty-eight hours “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ seven days “.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- My objection to the proposed amendment is not in respect of the extension of time, but is due to the fact that it does not seek to make any alteration in the provision that, if an officer who has been charged does not make reply within the period mentioned, he shall be deemed to have admitted the truth of the charge. The general principle in matters of plea is that, where a person does not plead, or where his plea is equivocal or of doubtful meaning, he is given’ the benefit of the doubt, and is taken to have pleaded not guilty.

Mr Maxwell:

– If he refuses to plead the jury tries whether or not he is mute of malice.

Mr BRENNAN:

– There may be reasons, such as accident or carelessness, why a reply has not been furnished. We are enacting severe legislation, however, when we provide that, because an officer’s plea has not come to hand within a specific time, he is to be taken, without question by the Board, to have admitted the truth of the charge against him. The officer concerned, when the matter comes up for final consideration, may wish to explain why his plea or explanation has not been furnished; but the officials dealing with his case would be precluded from accepting the excuse, on the ground that they were bound by the Statute to hold that he had admitted the facts. No person should be declared, by Act of Parliament, to have admitted an offence merely because, through some oversight or omission, or from any cause, he ha3 not complied with the condition that he must furnish a reply. The proposal of the Attorney-General to extend the time limit, of course, offers some measure of relief; but that mere extension does not affect the principle. I suggest that the person concerned should be required to reply ; or that, if he has not replied, it would be quite competent for the Government to frame a regulation setting out the procedure by which his case should be considered. One of the readiest means would be to proceed to try him upon the charge, and to test the facts. At all events, I do not desire that any person should be adjudged guilty by an Act of Parliament owing to a mere accident or oversight. If the Minister will not agree to consider the re-drafting of this paragraph, I shall move for the omission of the objectionable words.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I draw attention to sub-clause 4, which provides that appeal may be made on the ground of innocence of the charge, or of excessive severity oi the punishment. I also remind honorable members that, under the existing law, a person is required to state forthwith, in writing, whether he admits or denies the charge against him. The Government do not propose to make this measure so rigid; and, in addition, I have already moved for the extension of the time.

Mr Brennan:

– If an officer’s explanation is not furnished is he taken, under the existing Act, to have admitted the offence? o

Mr GROOM:

– The present law does not contain a corresponding provision. It is not unfair to ask a man who is charged with an offence to say whether or not the charge is true, and it is not unusual to have a time limit fixed in which notice of defence shall be given. These charges are not made on mere verbal statements, but generally after inquiry, and on the strength of reports, which must, be considered by the Chief Officer.

Mr Maxwell:

– But the fact of the man not replying is taken as an admission of has guilt.

Mr GROOM:

– The Chief Officer, as I have pointed out, acts on reports which have been furnished to him.

Mr Maxwell:

– Does the Minister imagine that if there is a failure to reply, that that must be taken as an admission of an offence.

Mr GROOM:

– The whole case will be looked into, and there must be some time fixed within which the man charged has to reply.

Mr Maxwell:

– If the man fails to reply, why not let the Chief Officer go ob with the inquiry!

Mr GROOM:

– This is the case of a man who has had the charge brought to his knowledge, and yet neglects to send an answer.

Mr Maxwell:

– Then let the case be gone on with.

Mr GROOM:

– The case is gone on with, but there is the added element of the failure to reply, which is deemed to be an admission of the offence.

Mr Brennan:

– What the Minister says is that a man who, by an act of neglect, fails to send a reply, is recorded as a person who admits the commission of, possibly, a serious criminal offence.

Mr GROOM:

– He has admitted his offence by neglect to reply, knowing the consequences of such neglect.

Mr Brennan:

– You are mixing two. things !

Mr GROOM:

– We must have provision. for a reply, and if there is failure to furnish one there are certain consequences.

Mr Maxwell:

– Let the consequence be that the case is gone on with; do rot regard the failure to reply as an admission of guilt.

Mr GROOM:

– As I say, the failure to reply is only one element in the case, all the circumstances of which have to be considered by the Chief Officer.

Mr Brennan:

– The failure to reply does not affect the man’s guilt or otherwise of thecharge.

Mr GROOM:

– No; but the charge is brought to his knowledge, and he must be called upon to furnish a reply.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– A man charged with a misdemeanour is asked to admit his guilt or otherwise within seven days. The Minister (Mr. Groom), as a lawyer, knows that in many cases a man may hastily plead guilty when on investigation he would have been acquitted, while, on the other hand, a man who pleads not guilty may thereby increase his punishment. Under suchcircumstances a layman scarcely knows what to do, and, naturally, consults a lawyer, who, quite as naturally, does not give his advice straightway, for the simple reason that if he did his emoluments would not be so great. It seems hard that a man who does not reply within a period of seven days should be deemed guilty of the charge against him.

Mr Brennan:

– The failure to furnish a reply is in itself another breach of the regulations, but it does not prove that a man is guilty of the original offence.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Quite so; that is what I am trying to impress on the Minister.

Mr.GROOM (Darling Downs - AttorneyGeneral) [3.8]. - In view of what has been said I am prepared to amend the clause so as to provide that the reply shall be within seven days or such further extended time as the Chief Officer allows.

Mr Maxwell:

– That does not meet the objection to the failure to reply being deemed an admission of guilt.

Mr GROOM:

– Here is a man in public employ who is charged with an offence, and fails or neglects to furnish a reply to that charge. Under such circumstances the natural inference is that there must be some grounds for the charge, and, in view of his failure to reply, he is deemed to have admitted it. We must not forget that before the charge is made the Chief Officer must have reports and other data before him. Of course, if a definite time is mentioned in an Act there is no power to extend it; and, admitting the possibility of hardship arising from some special cause, such as illness, I amquite prepared to add the words, “ or such extended time as the Chief Officer allows.”

Mr Wise:

– Why not provide as in clause 61 that if within the specified time no answer is received, the officer shall be deemed to deny the truth of the charge, which may then be dealt with in his absence?

Mr GROOM:

– Clause 61 relates to the procedure when the officer does not receive the notice that a charge has been made against him. The clause now before the Committee relates to an officer who actually receives the notification, and knows that he is charged but makes no reply.

Mr Wise:

– If a man is proceeded against by summons for any offence, and he does not appear in Court, the complainant has still to prove his case.

Mr GROOM:

– Yes, the case is heard ex parte.

Mr Maxwell:

– It is a vicious principle to accept absence or neglect as proof of guilt.

Mr GROOM:

– We are dealing with an officer who will not bother to answer the charge made against him. In ordinary circumstances, if a man will not answer a charge, especially when it is supported by primâ facie evidence, it is natural to assume that he has committed the offence.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The amendment suggested by the AttorneyGeneral does not improve the position. If failure to reply in seven days is to be taken as an admission of guilt the inquiry will be futile, because the officer charged will have been prejudged. In the absence of a reply from the officer the inquiry could proceed in the ordinary way. The proceedings need not be delayed at all.

Mr Groom:

– I do not press my objection. If there is the slightest fear that this wording may lead to injustice I shall move to substitute other words.

Amendment agreed to.

Paragraph c of sub-clause 3 further amended to read -

If a reply is not made by the officer within seven days of has receipt of the charge, the officer shall be deemed to deny the truth of the charge.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That sub-clause (4) be amended to read - “ Appeal may be made on the ground of innocence of the charge or excessive severity of the punishment, and the Appeal Board may confirm, annul, or vary the decision appealed against by imposing any other punishment specified in the last preceding section “. . . .

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- I move -

That in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (5) the words “ Chief Officer “ be omitted, and the word “ Board “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Almost invariably the person charging misconduct against an officer will be the Chief Officer, and the clause provides that he shall have the right to appoint a representative to the Appeal Board. In order that the inquiry shall be quite impartial this appointment should be made by the Board of Commissioners. Ifthe amendment be agreed to, both the officer making the charge and the person charged will have confidence in the impartiality of the tribunal.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I ask the honorable member not to press the amendment. The clause provides that the tribunal shall consist of a permanent chairman, an officer appointed by the Chief Officer of the Department to which the appellant belongs; and an elected representative of the division to which the appellant belongs. There can be no doubt as to the impartiality of the Board that will hear the appeal. I do not think it would be wise to ask the Board of Commissioners to appoint some one to represent the Department or branch of the Service in which the appellant is working. In any case, if it were obliged to do so, the Board would necessarily accept the recommendation of the Chief Officer of the Department. Nor would it be wise to expect the Board of Commissioners to attend to all these details. It must not be forgotten that the Chief Officer, although he would make the charge against the subordinate, would not be in the position of a complainant.

Mr Makin:

– But he would be laying the charge.

Mr GROOM:

– Only in a formal way, because of his position. He would not be an active participant in the proceedings. Surely the honorable member would not imagine that an officer appointed to represent the Chief Officer would act as his puppet. The principal objection to the amendment is that it would create cumbersome procedure.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Makin’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 34

Majority .. ..17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That in sub-clause (5), paragraph (c), the words ‘” officer who is “ be inserted before the words “ the elected “.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

– I move -

That in sub-clause (5), paragraph (c), the words “ organization, if any, otherwise the “ be inserted before the word “ Division “.

The sub-clause would then read -

The officer who is the elected representative of the organization, if any, otherwise the Division to which the appellant belongs in the State or part of the State in which he performs his duties.

Under the proposed system of classification, a division will compose officers who have no common bond in regard to the nature of the work they are performing. For instance, a postmaster might have to

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- I move -

That in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (5) the words “ Chief Officer “ be omitted, and the word “ Board “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Almost invariably the person charging misconduct against an officer will be the Chief Officer, and the clause provides that he shall have the right to appoint a representative to the Appeal Board. In order that the inquiry shall be quite impartial this appointment should be made by the Board of Commissioners. Ifthe amendment be agreed to, both the officer making the charge and the person charged will have confidence in the impartiality of the tribunal.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I ask the honorable member not to press the amendment. The clause provides that the tribunal shall consist of a permanent chairman, an officer appointed by the Chief Officer of the Department to which the appellant belongs; and an elected representative of the division to which the appellant belongs. There can be no doubt as to the impartiality of the Board that will hear the appeal. I do not think it would be wise to ask the Board of Commissioners to appoint some one to represent the Department or branch of the Service in which the appellant is working. In any case, if it were obliged to do so, the Board would necessarily accept the recommendation of the Chief Officer of the Department. Nor would it be wise to expect the Board of Commissioners to attend to all these details. It must not be forgotten that the Chief Officer, although he would make the charge against the subordinate, would not be in the position of a complainant.

Mr Makin:

– But he would be laying the charge.

Mr GROOM:

– Only in a formal way, because of his position. He would not be an active participant in the proceedings. Surely the honorable member would not imagine that an officer appointed to represent the Chief Officer would act as his puppet. The principal objection to the amendment is that it would create cumbersome procedure.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Makin’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That in sub-clause (5), paragraph (c), the words ‘” officer who is “ be inserted before the words “ the elected “.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

– I move -

That in sub-clause (5), paragraph (c), the words “ organization, if any, otherwise the “ be inserted before the word “ Division “.

The sub-clause would then read -

The officer who is the elected representative of the organization, if any, otherwise the Division to which the appellant belongs in the State or part of the State in which he performs his duties.

Under the proposed system of classification, a division will compose officers who have no common bond in regard to the nature of the work they are performing. For instance, a postmaster might have to

Ayes . . . . . . 17

Noes . . . . . . 34

Majority .. ..17 represent a clerk and an engineer as well as a member of his own particular branch of the Service. Then, too, the machinery for elections provided by the amendment will be simpler. In these days, when the Public Service is - very properly, I think - highly organized, there is always available an appropriate organization which is the guardian of the interests of its members, or of any one of them. At present we do not know who are to compose these divisions, but we know that they must of necessity include persons whose interests may not be in common, and who will not all be members of any particular organization. The object of the sub-clause is to enable the person charged with an offence to have upon the Board that tries his case one who understands the class of work upon which he is engaged, and from the nature of his employment is able to appreciate his point of view; but effect will not be given to that intention by the words as they stand. As the divisions will be composed of men whose interests will be identical, and of classes of persons whose employments are by no means similar, it is safe to say that the person chosen to represent any division may not be satisfactory to the members of an organization having interests in common. Where the person charged is not a member of an organization, or where there is no appropriate organization, I would be prepared to fall back on the arbitrary arrangement by virtue of which we rely upon the word “Division.” There are sound reasons why the amendment should be accepted.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I cannot accept the amendment. The honorable member seeks to make a change in the existing procedure, which the Bill adopts with a slight variation, in that it allows a representative to be chosen for the State or for the part of the State in which the person accused performs his duties. That makes for greater elasticity.

Mr Brennan:

-And is a recognition of the principle we wish to see adopted more fully.

Mr GROOM:

– No. The honorable member asks for the recognition of organizations in this matter. He asks the Committee to provide that if a man who is charged with an offence is a member of an organization, that organization shall appoint a representative to try him.

Mr Brennan:

– The members of the organization having a common interest.

Mr GROOM:

– The object of the clause is merely to constitute a tribunal to try, not questions of common interest, such as the regulation of wages and conditions of employment, but offences. A public servant maybe charged with disgraceful and improper conduct in his official capacity.

Mr Maxwell:

– It is simply a matter of weighing evidence.

Mr GROOM:

– Yes. The desire is to get a fair tribunal, and we propose to do that by appointing a chairman, the representative of the Permanent Head or Chief Officer of the Department to which the man belongs, and the divisional representative. If we accepted the amendment, instead of there being, as there is now, a representative elected for each State, who is continually hearing cases and thus acquires a knowledge ofprocedure, there would be a representative for every organization to which public servants might belong, and there might be thirteen or fourteen of these in a division. The honorable member says that it is not known who will be in the divisions provided for, but we know what the component parts of the divisions will be. At present we have the General, Professional, Clerical, and Administration Divisions, but when the Bill becomes law these divisions will be known as the first, second, third, and fourth. The Fourth will be similar to the present General Division. Our only desire is to get a fair judicial tribunal for the trying of offences.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Brennan’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That after the word “ duties,” sub-clause 5, paragraph («), the words “or an officer appointed in pursuance of sub-section (5a) of this section,” bc inserted.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- It is provided in sub-clause 5 that -

Any two members of an Appeal Board may exercise all the powers of the Board for investigation and decision.

I suggest to the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) that that “ provision defeats the whole principle of the Appeal Board. The Board is to consist of a police magistrate as chairman, an officer of the Department to which the appellant belongs, and the elected representative of the division of which he is a member. If, however, any two members of the Board may act, an investigation may take place, and a decision may be arrived at in the absence of the representative of the appellant, or, it may be, in the absence of the representative of the Department. The whole principle of the Appeal Board is thus defeated. I can see no reason for this provision. If the chairman and the officer of the Department were present, awd the elected representative of the division to which the appellant .belonged were unable owing to illness to attend, it would be an easy matter for the men in the division to provide a substitute. If there is anything in the principle laid down in the clause that all sections shall be represented, then we should take care that in respect of every investigation and decision tl at principle shall be observed. With only two members of the Board present, an investigation would not be as full and impartial as it ought to be. I ask the Attorney-General to agree to the omission of these words.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I do not wish to delete the words to which the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has taken exception. I have circulated a new sub-clause, which I propose to insert, providing that -

In the case of the illness, absence or suspension of an officer who is the elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs, or of there being no elected representative of that Division, or where the Board of Commissioners is of opinion that, by reason of his being personally interested in, or affected by, any matter which is the subject of appeal under this section, it is undesirable that the elected representative should act as a member of an Appeal Board, the Board of Commissioners may appoint another officer of the same Division to act temporarily as a member of an Appeal Board in lieu of an elected representative.

The new sub-clause will enable any vacancy occurring on the Board with respect to an elected representative of a Division for the hearing of an appeal to be filled.

Mr Scullin:

– Then there is no need for the provision to which I have taken exception.

Mr GROOM:

– That provision is necessary to enable an investigation to proceed or a decision to be arrived at when one of the members of the Board is unable to attend. An appeal ought not to be held up indefinitely.

Mr Scullin:

– But the proposed new sub-clause will meet that difficulty. These words in sub-clause 5 are unnecessary.

Mr GROOM:

– They are a necessary safeguard. The intention is, however, that every appeal shall be heard by three members of the Board.

Mr Scullin:

– Then why allow to remain in the sub-clause words that will defeat your own intention?

Mr GROOM:

– They will not. They are necessary to meet an emergency.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The proposed new sub-clause which the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Groom) has read will not meet my objection. It is designed merely to permit of the filling of a vacancy caused by the illness, absence, or suspension of an officer who is the elected representative of the division to which the appellant belongs. It does not meet my contention that if the words to which I have referred are permitted to remain in sub-clause 5, any two members of an Appeal Board may hear and determine an appeal. That is a very serious blemish. If it is agreed to, then the Appeal Board system will go by the board.

Mr Groom:

– Sub-section 4 of section 46 of the existing Act provides the very procedure to which the honorable member objects. It has been in operation for over twenty years, but in administering the Act an effort has always been made to insure the attendance of all three members of the Board.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The new sub-clause which the Minister proposes to insert will provide for the filling of a vacancy on the Board caused by illness, &c. Having provided for such contingencies we should not empower, the Board to proceed with the hearing of an appeal when there are only two members present. The intention of the Bill is that both sides shall be represented on the Appeal Board, and that there shall be an impartial Chairman. If the words to which I object are allowed to stand, however, there will be nothing to prevent the Chairman and the officer of the Department to which the appellant belongs investigating and deciding a case in the absence of the representative of the division to which the appellant belongs. The new sub-clause will not meet any deliberate attempt to exclude the representative of the men.

Mr Groom:

– No deliberate attempt could be made. The clause provides that the Board is to be constituted in a certain way, but it declares that if one out of the three members cannot be present the remaining two members may investigate and decide the case. We are making special provision to enable the Board always to be fully constituted.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Any two members of the Board might say, “ We will go on with the hearing of this case and will not tell the other member of the Board anything about it.” It would be possible for two members in such circumstances to arrive at a decision.

Mr Groom:

– A decision given in such circumstances could not stand. The Chairman, who will summon members of the Board to attend its meetings, will be an independent person.

Mr SCULLIN:

– If the honorable gentleman’s arguments are right there is no reason why these words should not be deleted.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– Is there not a possibility of a man wilfully absenting himself from a meeting of the Board?

Mr SCULLIN:

– That is provided for in the proposed new sub-clause. I would not object to the words “ or wilfully refusing to attend “ being added to it. This provision, as it stands, is not equitable. I therefore move -

That in sub-clause 5 the words “ any two members of an Appeal Board may exercise all the powers of the Board for investigation and decision “ be left out.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) will recognise the reasonableness of the proposal made by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr,. Scullin). Something might occur in, say, Sydney, Perth, or Brisbane, to prevent one of the members of the Board attending a meeting to hear an appeal, and under this clause, as it stands, it would be possible for the two remaining members to deal with it. We have made provision for a substitute in every other case, and we ought to do so in this instance. A member of the Board might be absent on duty.

Mr Groom:

– That could not occur. We have made provision for members to be relieved from duty in order to attend to these matters.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The right of appeal is of vital importance to the Service as a whole.

Mr Groom:

– The provision to which exception is taken is in the existing Act, and has not given rise to any discontent.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Under the existing Act we have not had such a Board as is now proposed. This matter of the right of appeal is of very great importance to members of the Service. Rightly or wrongly, they regard it as being almost their Magna Charta. I hope the AttorneyGeneral will accept the amendment, A man’s position in the Service may depend upon the outcome of an appeal, and, in the interest of a contented and satisfied Service, I think we ought to delete these words.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The honorable mem.mer for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) suggests tha.t if these words are allowed to remain they will give rise to discontent in the Service. A similar . provision has been in operation for twenty years, and has not caused any discontent. Let me explain very briefly the object that we have in view. If, during a lengthy and costly investigation, one of the members of the Board fell ill, why should it not bo possible for the remaining two members, if they are agreed, to give the finding of the Board ? This is only to meet emergency conditions. An investigation mighthave extended over thirty days and one of the members might fall ill. Without such provision as this it would not be possible for the other two members of the Board to conclude the inquiry and record a decision.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– It might be a very serious matter as far as the appellant was concerned.

Mr GROOM:

– It would be a serious matter to him if, after a lengthy inquiry, there was some failure in jurisdiction.

Mr Scullin:

– The Attorney-General says that no discontent has arisen under a similar provision in the existing Act. That is not so. As a matter of fact, the Service has raised an objection, and it cites a case where a decision of the full Appeal Board was upset by two of its members. The third member was not advised of the fact that they were going to meet.

Mr GROOM:

– I should like to have the facts of that case.

Mr Scullin:

– I shall endeavour to find out the name of the person concerned. I have given . the honorable gentleman the statement as made to us on behalf of the Service.

Mr GROOM:

– I would point out to the honorable member for Franklin that in the interests of all concerned we are providing for emergency cases.

Mr Scullin:

– But why provide for both investigation and decision by two members of the Board?

Mr GROOM:

– We require this emergency provision in respect of both investigation and decision. We are expressly providing, however, that the Board shall always be constituted of three members. If the words to which the honorable member objects were omitted the jurisdiction might fail. The important point is that this provision has been inserted actually in the interests of both parties. Certainly, it will preserve those of the appellant.

Mr Scullin:

– If one member of the Board should become ill during the hearing of a case-

Mr GROOM:

– It would be necessary, if these words were not in the Bill, to start the whole procedure over again; and, probably, neither party would desire that.

Mr Brennan:

– Then it would be well to adopt the procedure adopted in the Courts to-day, of the parties agreeing to the jurisdiction of the two.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- As it would be unfair, if a case were left to two members of the Board both to investigate and decide upon, I suggest that all reference to “ decision “ be deleted. An appellant would be scarcely likely to object to his case being investigated by two members of the Board, so long as he was safeguarded by the provision that any decision must be that of the full Board. I was once Chairman of a State Tramways Commission, and the terms of our commission required that every member thereof must be present at its meetings in order to form a quorum. Just as has been suggested as a possibility in this instance, one of our members became ill. and our investigations had to be delayed for a fortnight. Ultimately, however, after his return1, we were able to conclude and bring our labours to a successful issue. My objection to the verbiage of sub-clause 5 would be removed if it provided that two members of the Board could proceed to investigate, but that a decision could only be given by the full Board. The Attorney-General has pointed out that the provisions of the sub-clause are in the interests of the appellant himself.. I do not wish to impute unworthy motives to the Government. I am sure that they have no desire to injure ‘a public servant. For that reason, my suggestion should be acceptable.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- If sub-clause 5 is not amended much dissatisfaction will be created in the Service. Although the Attorney-General has said that there has not been any marked dissatisfaction with this phase of the present law, the very fact of its having been challenged in Parliament, and of the Government insisting upon the acceptance of the sub-clause as framed, will be apt to create suspicion. The object of composing the Board as it is to be composed is to satisfy the various classes in the Service that their point of view shall be understood by their peer on the Appeal Board - their associate inthe particular class of work concerned. Possibly, in the case of two members of a Board investigating a charge and coming to a virtual decision, the absent member might be the representative of the very class of which the accused officer is also a member. Clearly, even though such a case may not yet have arisen, if it did arise it would create grave dissatisfaction. The AttorneyGeneral has emphasized his view that the clause may be in the interests of the appellant himself. My answer to that is that, if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), he should be agreeable to the inclusion in sub-clause 5 of the words “ By consent of the parties concerned.” Such an amendmentwould get over all difficulties if, in order to save expense, delay, and anxiety, the parties themselves wished to go on with their case in the presence of two members.

Mr Groom:

– I will agree to accept an amendment of’ that nature.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Brennan) agreed to-

That, in sub-clause (5), after the word “may” the following words be inserted: - “ by consent of the parties concerned “.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That after sub-clause (5) the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (5a) In the case of the illness, absence, or suspension of an officer who is the elected representative of the division to which the appellant belongs, or of there being no elected representative of that division, or where the Board of Commissioners is of opinion that, by reason of his being personally interested in, or affected by, any matter which is the subject of appeal under this section, it is undesirable that the elected representative should act as a member of an Appeal Board, the Board of Commissioners may appoint another officer of the same division to act temporarily as a member of an Appeal Board in lieu of an elected representative.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.

Clauses 60 and 61 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.

Clause 64 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 66-

Any officer or officers of the Commonwealth Service aiding, fomenting, or taking part in any strike which interferes with or prevents the carrying on of any part of the public services or utilities of the Commonwealth shall be deemed to have committed an illegal action against the peace and good order of the Commonwealth, and any such officer or officers adjudged by the Board to be guilty of such action shall therefor be summarily dismissed by the Board from the Service, without regard to the procedure prescribed in this Act for dealing with offences under the Act.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- This is a somewhat drastic clause. If a public officer has been guilty of the enormity of aiding and abetting a strike by contributing a half-crown to strike funds, he “shall be deemed to have committed an illegal action,” and shall be “ summarily dismissed.”

Mr Groom:

– He would not be dismissed until he had been “ adjudged by the Board to be guilty.”

Mr SCULLIN:

– Even so, this is summary procedure; and apart from that feature the clause smacks of panic legislation. If it is agreed to, we shall be passing a. measure of the type of the Irvine Coercion Act. I do not know whether the Ministerclaims that there is a similar provision in the original Act. ,

Mr Groom:

– This is quite a new law.

Mr SCULLIN:

-When we on this side suggest any amendment in the Bill we are told that the particular clause has been in operation for years, and has caused no trouble. I think I may now, by way of retort, say that we have been able to get along hitherto without any such provision as this, and that there is no necessity for our adopting one now. This, to me, appears to be the beginning of a policy of repression in regard to the workers of this country. Instead of providing tribunals to give justice to the workers, there seems to be a movement to restrict the liberties of the men. I believe in. the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes by means of tribunals, but there does come a time when men must exercise their rights, and refuse to accept certain conditions. If that right is attacked, then the principle of enforced labour is affirmed. We see signs of re pression at the present time already in the States, and, probably, the Commonwealth Government are determined to get into line. But the Government will not gain by this kind of provision. If things reach such a pass that a strike takes place in the Public Service, the men will give assistance surreptitiously, if not openly. All that this clause does is to create a new offence, and I shall vote against it.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– It is true that this is a new enactment. The ex-Public Service Commissioner, Mr. McLachlan, says on page 24 of his report -

The experience of the United States Postal Administration has been to a considerable extent duplicated during the past six years in the administration of the postal service of Australia, and much that has been said in the report from which quotations have been made might readily have been written of the Commonwealth Public Service. It is essential in the public interest that limitations should be imposed on the activities of associations, while granting full consideration to representations submitted in a reasonable manner by these bodies. In framing amending Public Service legislation it is requisite, in my view, that specific provision be made for the treatment of strikes amongst public servants, whether members of officially recognised associations or otherwise, as illegal actions against the peace and good order of the Commonwealth -

Mr McWilliams:

– This clause goes a great deal further than that.

Mr GROOM:

– I shall show that it does not go , so far - and providing for the definite penalty of dismissal from the Public Service of any person or persons adjudged to be guilty of aiding or fomenting a strike against the Federal Government, or of co-operating or taking part in any strike. This punishment of offenders against the proposed law should be placed outside the scope of political action, and should be vested in the Public Service Commissioner.

Mr McWilliams:

– I have read that report very carefully, and I understood that torefer entirely to a strike of public officers against the Government.

Mr GROOM:

– I invite the honorable member to look at the wording of the clause itself, which says that no public officer shall aid, foment, or take part in any strike which interferes with or prevents the carrying on of any part of the public services or utilities of the Commonwealth.

Mr McWilliams:

– A coal strike does that !

Mr GROOM:

– If an officer of the Commonwealth takes part in fomenting a strike which has the effect of interfering with the carrying on of a public utility, then, of course, he must be held responsible.

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

– I only wish to know how far the clause goes.

Mr Scullin:

– It goes the whole way!

Mr GROOM:

– The carrying on of these public services and utilities is in the interests of the whole of the citizens of the nation; it is not in the interest of any financial corporation, of any particular industry or private person, but in the interests of the whole of the citizens to whom the services are impartially rendered. A strike which interferes with the carrying on of these activities is a. very serious matter indeed. There is no justification for the public servants taking part in a strike against the Commonwealth, or against the carrying on of public utilities. In the first place, they have the protection of the people’s representatives in Parliament, and, further, moat elaborate precautions are taken to provide them with reasonable conditions of employment, and with tribunals before which they can take their complaints. I always feel that if the right to strike is taken away employees should have some means provided for redressing their grievances. The whole tendency, and the proper tendency, of modern life is to define economic duties, and mete out economic justice as between man and man.

Mr Laird Smith:

– The Government, under this clause as the Opposition propose to amend it, will have the right of lock-out.

Mr GROOM:

– If there is a right to strike, there must be a corresponding right to lock out. This is only a protection of the public in the event of a strike. The sendees of public servants can be dispensed with only in a certain way.

Mr Blundell:

– They cannot have it both ways!

Mr GROOM:

– That is so. Of course, there may be a strike outside the Service equally effectual in preventing the carrying on of public utilities, but with such a strike this Bill does not deal. If, however, there are officers in the Department who take part in a strike which interferes with or prevents the carrying on of governmental activities, they must be held responsible.

Mr Scullin:

– This clause will interfere with an outside strike, too.

Mr GROOM:

– That is not so; the clause controls only our own officers. If, for instance, there is a coal strike which has the direct effect of stopping the carrying on of Commonwealth utilities, . we cannot interfere in any way; but if we find officers of the Commonwealth aiding or fomenting a strike which has that effect, they are not doing their duty to their country.

Mr Blundell:

– How would this clause apply to a public servant who, in the case, of a strike outside, subscribed to a fund for the women and children affected- by that strike?

Mr GROOM:

– Response to an appeal for starving women and children will not come under the clause, but if a public servant deliberately contributes to funds which are used for the purpose of creating and carrying on a strike, he will be liable.

Mr Riley:

– The Minister is doing very well. I am glad an election is coming on !

Mr Fenton:

– It is a case of “ legirons “ !

Mr GROOM:

– I do not think that the people of Australia would object to this clause, which applies only to public officers as such. There is justification for the clause, and I hope it will receive the support of honorable members.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- This is a new departure in our legislation. Up to the present no clause of this kind has been inserted in any Bill dealin? with the Public Service. I know of nothing which justifies the Government in passing legislation to meet a contingency that may never arise. It is well known that the members of the Public Service all endeavour to do their best, not only in the interests of the particular Departments to which they are attached, but in the interests of the community generally. I can see no reason why at this stage there should be introduced legislation of this kind - it is beyond my comprehension. This proposal is really an insult to an intelligent body of public servants, who have given the best that is in them for the welfare of their country. The Minister (Mr. Groom) has -urged that there is no justification for public servants taking part in a strike. The obvious answer to that is that they have never .done so; and there would, to my mind, have to be very strong grounds if they took a step of that kind. The Government are not dealing fairly with the public servants. It may be, though I do not know that it is so, that they realize that their action in taking away from all public servants in receipt of over £310 per annum the right to go to the Arbitration Court may lead to something in the matter of a strike. The Government are by no means clear as to their object in submitting this clause. Rights which the public servants achieved only comparatively recently, after a good deal of contention, are to be taken away.

Mr Brennan:

– It is a retrograde movement.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is. After a short experience of twelve months or so, the Government are deliberately depriving public servants of the right of appeal to the Arbitration Court, and now this Bill proposes fresh legislation for public servants. It is idle to say that this clause does not affect a public servant if he happens in any way to aid a strike, because there is no doubt that a public servant who gives a donation to any body of men who may be regarded as being on strike will come within its operation. I am sure that no exception can bc taken to that interpretation. Why should we deprive public servants of the right to aid women and children who are practically starving, because their breadwinners are engaged in a struggle with their employers, or, it may. be, the victims of a lock-out? Why should a public servant, because, under such circumstances, he contributes a £1 note, be deemed as aiding and fomenting a strike? The Attorney-General may say that the provision is not intended to apply in the way I have indicated, but the clause is so drafted that it will apply in that way. The decision is left to the Board, and the officer is given no right of appeal. A mistake on the part of the Board would be very unjust and disastrous to the officer charged. Suppose that, as a result of a dispute in one Department, the officers stopped work. Under this clause the head of. another Department not directly concerned in the dispute could say to some of his officers, “ For the time being you must leave your present work and do that of the men who are on strike. ‘ ‘ If they refuse to obey that instruction they will be guilty of aiding and abetting a strike. Clearly that is what is intended. Is it fair to put the public servants in that position ? In the last big railway trouble in New South Wales a large number of men continued at their work and had, up to a certain stage, taken no part in the strike; but a day came when they were told to leave their own occupation and to fill the positions of the men who had ceased work. Any person with a spark of manhood in him will resent such an instruction and will say, “ Whilst I am prepared to do my own regular work, I am not prepared to do the work of those others who are on strike.” Many men in the New South Wales railway service refused to take the positions vacated by the strikers and were dismissed.

Mr Considine:

– “ Scab “ or starve !

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is what it amounts to. Parliament should set a good example to private employers in regard to these matters, but we are asked to do the reverse. I do not know what has happened to the Government recently, but they seem to be resolved to take away the rights of the public servants without offering any legitimate reason for so doing. We should be proud of the Commonwealth Public Service. It has done excellent work, and we have no room for complaint. Yet the Government are introducing a clause which is practically an insult to every Commonwealth employee. As a rule, men in the Public Service do not think of going on strike, and they do not expect to be locked out. That, in itself, is a reason why no clause of this kind should be agreed to. The Government are backed by all the laws of the land when trouble does occur, and there is no need for this special provision.

Mr Riley:

– Why should we legislate to prevent public servants using their own funds as they choose?

Mr CHARLTON:

– This provision is intended for the purpose of overaweing men in the Department in the hope that at no time will they have sufficient manliness to assert their rights. If such a condition were brought about in the Service it would not be in the best interests of the country. We should make our employees feel that they are men and women, and that in matters vitally affecting their welfare they can assert their claims and get reasonable consideration. Nothing has happened in connexion with the public servants to warrant the introduction of this clause, and the AttorneyGeneral would be well advised to agree to its elimination. The Government are not likely to have trouble with the public servants unless they provoke them by coercive legislation of this character. The coercive legislation that was passed in certain States in years gone by never benefited the community in any way, but it caused resentment in the breasts of men against ‘ whom it was directed. The same result will occur in the Commonwealth Public Service if we attempt coercion. We have always had discipline in the Service, and there is already means of dealing with insubordination should it arise. This is a punitive clause, unqualified by any right of appeal. If circumstances should arise which led to the officers in certain branches refusing to carry out their duties would it be fair to instruct employees in other parts of the Service to step into the breach on pain of dismissal, and the loss of superannuation, and all other accrued rights?

Mr Blundell:

– The worst feature of this clause is that, if an officer subscribes 5s. in connexion with a strike in private employment, he may be dismissed.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Of course. The Committee will make much more rapid progress with the Bill if the AttorneyGeneral will agree to the elimination of this clause. We are anxious to expedite business,- but a provision of this kind must be resisted to the limit of our capacity. In connexion with the New South Wales railway trouble, men who had taken no part in creating the strike, but were drawn into it through heads of Departments instructing them to take up the positions of the men who refused duty, were dismissed. They had no right nf appeal; but there was an agitation for two or three years to get justice for them, and recently a few were restored to their positions, because they were proved to have done no wrong. But they had suffered through being out of their regular employment for some years. It is a very serious penalty to dismiss a man who has been in the Public Service for fifteen or twenty years. Once a man has specialized in a certain class of work for a number of years he becomes unfit to hold his own in other employments. This provision will leave the public servants entirely at the mercy of the Board. That men may be dismissed because they will not take the positions of men who are on strike is bad enough, but it is infinitely worse to punish them for giving a donation in connexion with any trouble outside the Service. The giving of donations to strikers and their families has been considered by the Arbitration Court many times. Thousands of people who, perhaps, are not in sympathy with the demands of strikers are yet unwilling to allow women and children to feel the pinch of necessity, and in that regard no section of the community is more generous-hearted than is the Public Service.

Mr Riley:

– During one strike Mr. Justice Higinbotham gave a donation of £25.

Mr McWilliams:

– Iknow of a very Conservative Minister of the Crown who contributed to relieve the distress during a strike

Mr CHARLTON:

– That has happened many times. Decent men will not allow women and children to starve, because of a difference between the breadwinners and their employers. I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill, but this clause must be eliminated. The words “ aiding, fomenting, or taking part in any strike” make it clear that no matter where trouble occurs in connexion with public utilities, if any members of the Service do not obey the instructions to do the work of the men who are on strike they will be liable to be dismissed. This is going to extremes. In the past coercive legislation of this type has caused more controversy in the States than has anything else. In New SouthWales the Wade Government suffered defeat on this account. The public will not stand for this class of legislation, nor for any party that seeks to enact it. This provision is intended to coerce a. large body of men.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It is not. The public will be satisfied it is not.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I say that it is.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Public Service will not regard it as such.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Minister cannot know the minds of thousands engaged in our Public Service. Although I am acquainted with a good many officers, they are very few in comparison with the total number; but I know this: They will resent legislation of this kind. As a matter of fact, representations in opposition to this clause have already been made to me by public servants.

Mr Riley:

– The Government cannot produce any evidence showing that the Public Service are in favour of it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– No, because they could not find any one who would be in favour of a clause which is such an insult to the Service. Our officers have always been loyal. During the war period they did extra work without asking for extra consideration for it. There is no necessity for applying legislation of this kind to a body of men who would rise to the occasion as our public servants did in the country’s hour of need. I can assure the Minister that if this clause is not eliminated very little progress will be made with the Bill. How can honorable members face their constituents and tell them that they allowed this kind of thing to go through without proper discussion? I am afraid that those who have inserted this provision in the Bill do not grasp its full significance. Many Ministers have never been in close touch with the workers, and, therefore, they cannot understand the principle which lies behind the clause, or realize that it levels an attack against their own employees in the Public Service. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) were present, we would not have had any trouble about the matter. He knows that there is a good deal in the contention raised by honorable members, as any one who has had experience in industrial circles would know. Clerical workers who formerly were opposed to arbitration have realized quite recently that it is only by this means that they are able to improve their position. Yet, just when the members of our Public Service have found it necessary to make use of the Arbitration Court, the Government have seen fit to deprive them of the opportunity of approaching that tribunal, and have followed up this prohibition by providing in this clause that if any trouble arises owing to the fact that the Commonwealth employees have no tribunal to which they can appeal, they must either submit to the conditions imposed upon them or go about their business. If they happen to cease work they are dismissed, and if any officer is called in to do the work of those who are dismissed, he also will have to go if he declines to do that work. The whole thing is against the first principles laid down in British jurisprudence. It will certainly not lead to contentment in the Service. Since Federation we have not had the slightest trouble in our Service. Everything has worked smoothly, and now, at this juncture and without any justification whatever, the Government introduce legislation of this kind.

Mr Foley:

– No road out is provided. A man is simply told that he is guilty and is “ sacked.”

Mr CHARLTON:

– Exactly. The consensus of opinion among those honorable members who have taken the trouble to listen to this debate is opposed to the Government’s proposal.

Mr Richard Foster:

– All the calamities which the honorable member predicts are not possible in the Government Service to-day.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then why do the Government legislate for them?

Mr Richard Foster:

– Because the provision will be there to meet odd cases if it is needed. The possibilities have been apparent for years.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Our Public Service is a credit to the Commonwealth, and the Minister agrees with me by admitting that these troubles are not likely to occur.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The conduct of the officers in our Service is such that the troubles the honorable member predicts do not exist, nor are they likely to exist.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then why should we legislate to hurt men’s feelings?

Mr Richard Foster:

– For possibilities. There are always odd cases for whom it is essential to legislate.

Mr CHARLTON:

– When the Minister refers to possibilities, does he mean to say that after the election the Government propose to make inroads on our public servants whose salaries exceed £300 a year?

Mr Richard Foster:

– No.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then it is a fair question to ask what the Minister refers to?

Mr Richard Foster:

– The greatest consideration isalways given to the Service, and decent men have never found any lack in that respect.

Mr CHARLTON:

– If we have decent men and good officers in our Service there is no necessity for legislating in this way. Do the Government expect that the men who have acted so loyally intend to refuse to carry out their duties?

Mr Foley:

– If the possibilities did come about they could be dealt with under the provisions which give an officer the right of appeal.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is quite right. Without this clause there is already plenty of power in the Bill for meeting such cases.

Mr McWilliams:

– The best thing the Minister can do is to postpone the clause and reconsider it.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I am not in charge of the Bill.

Mr Brennan:

– We ought to have the Attorney-General here. He is probably away ringing up Sassafras about the matter. So that we may have him in the chamber, I call attention to the state of the Committee. [Quorum formed.]

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– Now that the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) is here, I suggest that he should postpone this clause and reconsider it. because I am sure it goes a great deal further than he intended. The sidenote to the clause reads “ Officers taking part in strikes against Government “ ; and Mr. McLachlan’s recommendation was confined to the matter of officers in the Government Service striking against their own Government. I would agree with the provision if it were confined to officers striking against their own Government. The Government are entitled to do exactly what any private employer would do to his own employees. Put there is something else in the clause which I am sure the Minister did not intend, and to which I believe the Committee will not agree. Power is given to the Board to dismiss a man summarily, even without giving him notice.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member need have no fear on that score. I am having an amendment drafted to meet that point.

Mr Riley:

– Then the clause had better be postponed.

Mr Groom:

– There is no need to do so.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is scarcely worth one’s while to discuss the clause unless the nature of the amendment is intimated to the Committee; but I warn the Government. against extreme legislation of this kind. It will do infinitely more harm than anything else could possibly do. No State in the Union suffers through strikes more than Tasmania does. If the lock-out, or whatever it is called, which exists in New South Wales at the present time is continued for any length of time, the State will find itself once more isolated. For that reason I am opposed to any legislation which is calculated to create the very thing we are attempting to prevent. I am sure that this clause goes infinitely further than the Minister intended - even further than Mr. McLachlan has recommended. We must always bear in mind that a Statute is interpreted by the words as they appear in cold black type, and not in accordance with the intention expressed by any Minister. This clause places in the hands of the Board of Commissioners a power which I do not think any Parliament should give to such a body, and I hope that the Minister will postpone it for further consideration.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
Denison

.- I am totally opposed to direct action, and therefore do not advocate the elimination of this clause, but I have already asked the Minister to amend it. With the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Blundell), I interviewed the honorable gentleman on the subject, and he readily promised to consider our representations. I would ask him again now to consent to some amendment which would make it impossible to construe the clause to mean that if men contribute to a fund in aid of starving women whose husbands are on strike, they shall be deemed to be aiding and abetting that strike. I am sure that the Minister in framing the clause did not intend to punish such action as that. Members of the Labour party have very short memories. I do not wish to enlarge on the past, but I ask them to carry their minds back to something that took place when the late Mr. Frazer was PostmasterGeneral. In a communication which I have received from the public servants, they say: -

It is to bc noted that this clause as printed allows of no appeal against the finding of the Board of Commissioners that an officer has been guilty of taking part in a strike. It is quite possible that an officer may be summarily dismissed on wrong information that he has aided, &c, a strike against the Govern- ment. The clause -provides no opportunity for an officer to question any statement submitted to the Board. Surely an officer should have the right of denying allegations made against him. This is the only provision made in the Bill for summary dismissal, and in a time of high feeling it is felt that an innocent officer may be disposed of on entirely inaccurate reports to the Board. On the main point it is urged that there is quite sufficient power in the Bill to enable an officer who has actually committed an offence of the nature stated to be tried before the Board of Appeal and punished with the severity demanded by his offence.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– As there seems to be doubt in the minds of honorable members as to the meaning of the words “aiding and fomenting,” I intend to insert after the word “ Service “ . the word “ directly,” and after the word “ Board “ the words “after investigation and hearing.”

Mr Scullin:

– Does that mean the Board of Commissioners?

Mr GROOM:

– Yes. I propose these amendments merely to put the meaning of the clause beyond doubt, though I know that there was no intention to make the clause mean what some honorable members have said that it does mean. I move - -

That after the word “ Service “, line 2, the word “ directly “ be inserted.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- To my mind, the amendment which the Minister proposes to make will not improve the clause, under which not only a man who is aiding a strike, but even a man who is a member of a political organization, may be punished by summary dismissal if that organization is charged by the Government of the day with being actively engaged in fomenting disturbances throughout the Commonwealth. This charge is at the present time being made against certain political organizations. The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Laird Smith) and other members of his party will, no doubt, soon be telling their constituents that certain political organizations to which they are opposed are actively engaged in fomenting disturbances.

Mr Laird Smith:

– I have never during my political career abused either an individual or an organization.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member may have convinced himself of the truth of his accusations; he may not think that he is abusing any one. Cer- tainly, the mouthpieces of his party have accused the members of the Labour party and of other political organizations of actively fomenting industrial trouble; indeed, they have gone further, and have said that we are the paid agents of others who wish to have trouble stirred up. TI a member of the Public Service were a member of an organization so charged, the clause would afford a convenient way of getting him out of the Service. Honorable members know that during the war not only were persons of so-called enemy origin, that is, persons of German or Austrian parentage, interned, but others as well were put behind barbed wire on the whispering of interested persons. Those who were arrested and interned during the war were not told why they were interned, beyond being informed that allegations had been made against them, the names of those who were said to have made the allegations being withheld. The Government is certainly acting consistently with that policy in proposing this clause. No doubt, its secret service agents, or those who operate its Intelligence Department - I do not know why that name is given to them - will make investigations, and persons who, for other than the ostensible reasons it is desired to remove from the Public Service, will be charged with having expressed opinions in favour of men who are out on strike. Under the clause, the Board of Commissioners may become a very good imitation of the Inquisition, and its members can, if they so desire, make the life of an officer unbearable. Although the clause pretends to punish the aiding of strikes, and is said to have been framed for the purpose of preventing them, my opinion is that it will be productive of strikes. Any body of men of spirit would resent being called on by a Board to explain why a donation had been given to some other body of men who were striking for better conditions, or had found themselves locked out, as the miners of the southern collieries of New South Wales are at the present time. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) suggests that it is not improper that the Government should exercise all its powers in dealing with people who are striking against a Government activity. There is no force in that argument. We know very well that when the friends of the

Government of the day are getting the worst of a strike in, say, the mines, it is only necessary for the mines to be recognised as a “Government utility” and for the Government to take temporary possession of them, and to utilize them “ in the service of the nation,” &c, to afford an excuse for dealing with those who are supporting the strikers. Take the recent strike of miners at Broken Hill. For nearly two years the men put up a tremendous strike, and people in all walks of life contributed to their support, and that of their dependants. Would any supporter of the Government say that a public servant should have been dismissed, or that his action should have even been questioned, when he supported the miners at Broken Hill, who were struggling . against adverse conditions? No honorable member opposite would say anything of the kind, yet we find them proposing to vote for this clause. They are prepared to vote that a public servant, against whom an information under this clause is lodged, shall be summarily dismissed.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– Is the honorable member forgetting the amendment that has been forecast? It ought to be satisfactory.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– It is not satisfactory. This clause ought not to be in the Bill. A man who is engaged in aiding or fomenting a strike may be dealt with under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr Groom:

– But supposing the strike which a public servant was assisting did not extend beyond the limits of a State? The Conciliation and Arbitration Act deals generally with strikes extending beyond any one State. Here we are dealing with our own Public Service.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The Public Service of the Commonwealth extends beyond any one State, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act applies to members of the Service.

Mr Groom:

– It is necessary to have this provision in order to control the members of our own Service.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The Government, as it is, have complete control, and this clause is wholly unnecessary. Why have they not included in the Bill a clause providing that if a public servant is found in a gambling house, or some other objectionable place, he shall be summarily dismissed? Conduct of that kind, in the eyes of the Ministry, is, apparently, harmless. Obviously they have not in mind the punishment of public servants for breaches of the law; if they had they would incorporate in this Bill full power to deal with all breaches of the law on the part of members of the Service. Their object, in so far as this clause is concerned, is not to deal with a breach of the law, but to cut off supplies furnished by one section of the working classes to another section that is engaged in a strike. They think they have the power to intimidate the Public Service in. this way. From my point of view it is good business for the Ministry to pursue this policy. We have in the Public Service public-spirited individuals who will refuse to allow their manhood to be taken from them in this way.

The Government would have the public believe that their object in inserting this provision in the Bill is, by cutting off the source of supply, to make it more difficult for strikes to be maintained. The experience of Australia is that that cannot be done. Such attempts tend merely to create more strikes, and that will be the effect of this clause.If I were a public servant I should consider that in joining the Public Service I had not forfeited any of my citizen rights. If I thought that a body of men were putting up a fight for decent living conditions, not only would I assist them financially, but I should object to being muzzled. I would give expression to my feelings of sympathy with the men. Why should a man be muzzled and prevented from exercising the ordinary rights of citizenship because he chances to bea public servant?

Mr.Bayley. - A public servant has constitutional methods of redress that are denied men in private employment.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Constitutional fudge! The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Laird Smith) had such a high opinion of the constitutional rights of members of the PublicService that he speedily got out of the Service.

Mr Laird Smith:

– Public servants in Russia do not get much freedom.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The trouble is that the honorable member’s conception of freedom is absolutely wrong.

Mr Laird Smith:

– I am merely pointing out that in Russia the authorities shoot those who differ from them.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member is not unaware of what happens even in this Empire, of which he is, at times, so inordinately proud. Does he forget Amritzar; he forgets perhaps the seventy odd people who were suffocated in a train? They were not given much chance. Any public servant with spirit would resent this provision. It is utterly stupid to suggest that its effect will be to prevent strikes. I hold that it is directly calculated to cause more disputes. Public servants are in no respect different from any other body of workers. If one of their number is singled out for punishment under this clause, do honorable members think that industrial peace will be preserved? The chief cause of industrial trouble is the victimization of individuals; the making of “marked” men and the making of horrible examples in the industrial life of the community. How is this clause to conduce to an efficient Public Service? The Attorney-General knows full well that it cannot possibly have that effect. If it is to be operative, it will be productive of trouble. If it is not to be operative, then the only explanation for its presence in the Bill is that it is part of a political mozaic for electioneering purposes - it is to harmonize with the Prime Minister’s attack on the Red objective. If that is so, we can understand the position taken upby the Government. If the Attorney-General would tell us that this is , a purely electioneering matter for the benefit of his friends outside, and that the Government have no intention of operating the clause, we should save a lot of time. It is certain that if the Government are so foolish as to try to enforce the clause, they will bring a great deal of trouble on themselves. If that is their intention, I wish them every success.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- The amendment does not go far enough. The whole clause is objectionable ; the Bill would be only the better for its omission. When a person joins the Public Service he does not abrogate his rights of citizen ship. So long as ho gives the full amount of time required of him to his duties, and undertakes them to the satisfaction of those in charge, the Government have no right to look for more. They have no right to seek to control his actions in his own time, or to say what he shall do with the money he has earned. There are dozens of ways in which, under cover of this clause, a public servant might find himself implicated in a strike if the head of his Department had a grudge against him. I, as the father of a family, might be out on strike in connexion with the trade in which I am engaged. My son might be in the Public Service; but, if he were to contribute anything towards the upkeep of myself and my family, he might be dismissed.

Mr Groom:

– That is stretching the position altogether too far. The son could not be deemed to be directly aiding or fomenting a strike.

Mr.RILEY. - If, while I am in the Public Service, I see a family in distress because its breadwinner is out on strike, and if I give the wife a little money with which to buy food for herself and her children, am I to be subjected to the risk of summary dismissal?

When the great maritime strike occurred in Victoria the then Chief Justice, the late Mr. Justice Higinbotham, walked up to the Trades Hall every week and contributed £50 in the interests of the men who were striking for justice. A man who is not prepared nowadays to organize, and, if necessary, fight for his rights, gets nowhere. The Public Service has become highly organized, and, as a result,the rank and file are enjoying rights which they could never have won for themselves acting individually. A measure was passed some years ago through the New South Wales Legislature which is known as the Wade Coercion Act. It sought to prevent railway men from taking part in any dispute inside or outside of the railway service; and it contained the threat that if railway servants broke the law they would be deprived of their superannuation benefits. However, in the great strike which occurred in New South Wales a few years ago, the whole of the railway service left work. Those public servants were not to be intimidated by an Act of Parliament. If the Commonwealth Government import all sorts of penalties into this measure the Public

Service will still stand up for its rights. Individual officers will still find means of contributing to strike funds, if they consider that the strikers are in the right There are many ways in which an Act can be circumvented. In this instance, what could prevent a public servant from making his contributions through a private individual? In the circumstances, why should not the clause be omitted ? Nowadays, a provision of this character is like showing a red rag to a bull. Men will not be told that they shall not strike or show their sympathy for strikers. Nobody wants to strike, but sometimes there is no other way of securing justice. The Public Service will resent this clause; it will prove responsible for trouble, at any rate unless it is redrafted to provide that the Board shall have no power of control outside the hours of a public servant’s duties.

Mr Groom:

– The clause has reference only to strikes which may interfere with or prevent the carrying on of any part of the Public Service.

Mr RILEY:

– Practically any strike may do that. A shipping strike, or a tramway, or railway, or printers’ strike would interfere with the conduct of the Public Service. I cannot recall that there have been any strikes in the Commonwealth Public Service; and I do not remember that public servants, as a body, have participated in any strike. But they are more aggressive than they used to be. The Service has become more thoroughly organized, and, for that reason, obviously, this National Government have come along with the threat embodied in the clause under review.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I earnestly desire to know how far the operation of this clause extends. What would be the position if, in case of a strike anywhere, the executive of the various unions and’ guilds with which the captains, officers, engineers, seamen, firemen, and stewards on the Commonwealth boats are connected decided to make a levy of £1 per head? Would all those men come within the operation of this clause?

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

– They would not come under the clause at all. That is quite clear from the wording of the clause.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I should have no sympathy with members of the Commonwealth Public Service who came out on strike, because they have their arbitration tribunal, and, further, the strongest of all guilds in this Parliament, to which they may come for a final decision.

Mr Considine:

– What about the men employed on the Commonwealth Railways?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Quite so; all or most of the railway men are members of unions. What would be their position if a levy were made upon them in the case of a strike or a lock-out? Would they, by contributing, subject themselves to the penalty of instant dismissal ?

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

– Clearly not; it must be a strike which prevents the carryingon of any part of the public services.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– But our experience is that almost any strike interferes with the carrying on of the public services and utilities of the Commonwealth. If, unfortunately, the strike in New South Wales continues, Tasmania will be isolated, for all shipping communication with the mainland must cease. Similar results would follow a strike of wharf labourers, ships’ stewards or engineers; there is scarcely a strike that can take place on the mainland which would not interfere with the public utilities of Tasmania. Unfortunately, as an island State dependent wholly on water carriage, Tasmania, when a strike occurs “ gets it just where the chicken did - right in the neck.” I have not the slightest sympathy with strikers when there are arbitration and conciliation tribunals available, but we ought to know just exactly how far this clause operates. If strikes are to continue, it is about time we dispensed with our conciliation and arbitration legislation.

Mr Scullin:

– What about men who are prevented from availing themselves of the Arbitration Court?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is our duty, when penalizing legislation which affects the whole Public Service is before us, to ascertain its exact meaning. The explanation given by the Acting Leader of the House (Mr. Greene) is, in my view, quite different, or largely different, from that given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom). I gathered from the explanation of the latter that all the men I have mentioned would, under the circumstances I have suggested, come under this clause; but if the Acting Leader of the House is correct - and I accept his statement - I hope we will have words inserted to remove any ambiguity. I submit that the consideration of the clause should be post poned, in order that a fresh clause may be drafted by the Attorney-General and his advisers, setting forth the position plainly There ought to be no ambiguity, which can only lead to serious confusion and difficulty in the future. In a considerable percentage of cases, industrial troubles arise from misunderstandings; and I have advocated industrial peace legislation in preference to arbitration, because in the case of the former the parties concerned can meet around the table, and there is every chance of having misunderstandings removed. It would be a pity to pass legislation which does not state in plain language exactly what it means. I think that if my suggestion to postpone the clause were accepted it would result in a speedier passing of this measure.

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

– I am quite willing to omit the word “ aiding “ ; if there is any doubt, that amendment ought to clear it up.

Mr Riley:

– What is the meaning of “ taking part in “ ?

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

– It means that men must be actually engaged in a strike.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I am pleased that the Minister (Mr. Greene) has gone so far as to consent to remove the word “ aiding.”

Mr McWilliams:

– It is a fair compromise.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is not; though it does remove a difficulty. This Government, constituted as it is, might be expected to do something in the direction of this legislation - so much is looked for by the Conservative section of the community which keeps them in power. It is only another rung in the ladder which is reaching out to drag down the wageearning class.

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

– I think I have met the Committee fairly.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It seems to me that the Government are, step by step, building up an apparatus to assail the wage-earning portion of the community. The means of reaching the Arbitration Court are being whittled away both inside and outside the Public Service. Public servants, like the rest of mankind, have their difficulties and disadvantages. The word “ aiding ‘’ is to be removed, but the words “ taking part in “ are just as objectionable.

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

– Those words are meant to deal with those who take part in a strike.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Does not the honorable gentleman think that he might do better by hanging the leaders of strikes, or subjecting them to the effects of boiling oil or molten lead? There are many reasons why wage-earners go on strike, but when they do make that final protest against the conditions under which they labour, they are told, as they have been told for centuries, that they ought to go and find work elsewhere. However, we have now arrived at a stage of development when men refuse to go elsewhere, and when they determine to better the conditions where they are. Public servants have been told by governmental heads in Australia that they must accept and suffer whatever is “ coming to them,” and they must do this without demur. That was the tone of the Victorian Government when the public servants of that State attempted to improve their conditions. We all know that if the organizations of the public servants called them out on strike, the public servants would have to come out or forever be branded. I have been told by men who “ ratted “ in the great railway strike in Australia over twenty years ago that they would never have done so had they knownwhat the consequences would be, for they had since found their life a hell. The Minister might draw up a clause to deal with the leaders of strikes as the leaders of the Australian Workers Union were dealt with. That was a rational way of acting; but we should not say to some unfortunate in the Service, working under circumstances that he cannot control, that he must not resent his conditions. “ Fomenting” is an ugly word, and is very comprehensive. Will the Minister admit that the public servants have a right to differ from the views of those who control them?

Mr Groom:

– We are not finding fault with them for differing.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Half-a-dozen public servants may be discussing the conditions under which they are working, when some senior officer or “spotter” overhears them, lays a charge against them of fomenting a strike, and so brings about their dismissal.If the clause imposed punishment for taking part in a strike, it would be bad enough, but surely it is unnecessary to retain a word like “fomenting,” which may be construed to mean anything. The clause will give certain officers power to summarily dismiss subordinates without a trial. Men are not to be allowed to try to better their conditions. We heard a great deal of enthusiastic appreciation of the soldiers who left Australia to fight in the big war. A good deal of the stubbornness and tenacity for which the Australian soldierwas noted was acquired in Australia, where he lived in an atmosphere of determined resistance of unfairness. But whilst an Australian is lauded for stubbornness and persistence in one sphere, if he displays the same qualities in struggling for his rights in another sphere, he may be summarily dismissed, perhaps on the unsupported testimony of some officer.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– The public servant cannot have it both ways.

Mr MATHEWS:

-I admit that; but neither should the Department. The Government are depriving certain officers of the right to appeal to the Arbitration Court, and now they are forbidding them from even sympathizing with a strike. One would almost think that the public servants were not ordinary human beings. There is a good deal of talk about discipline, and there seems to be an endeavour to Germanize the Public Service. Germans will meet together at a club and drill and discipline each other because they like that sort of thing; but a Britisher, and especially an Australian, does not like to be disciplined unnecessarily. Our people claim the right to assert themselves when unfairness is imposed upon them. With my colleagues on this side of the chamber, I intend to resist this clause strenuously.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the word “ aiding “ be left out, and that after the word “ Board “ in line 9 the words “ after investigation and hearing “ be inserted.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- This clause is preposterous from beginning to end. I should like to know whether the genius of the Attorney-General was responsible for the drafting of it. A few nights ago he urged the Committee to adopt something because it had been in operation in the British Service for 100 years. This clause is not to be found in any Public Service law of any country in the world; it was not to be found even in Russia under the Czar. By this provision, the Government will be able to dismiss any man at their own sweet will upon any pretext. The framing of a clause of this character isan absolute disgrace, and the services of the person who concocted it should be dispensed with. What right has any employer to interfere with the liberty of an employee outside of working hours? The only authority which any employer, whether Government or private, has over employees is in regard to their employment. They have no right to interfere with him in any other respect. When a man leaves his work, having done all that for which he is paid, he has a right to speak for, or vote for, or aid anything that appeals to him, and there is no more justification for interfering with him because he supports a strike than there is for interfering with him because he is an opponent of a strike. The Government propose to penalize one shade of opinion. No public servant may sympathize with a strike. It is not proposed to penalize a man who simply plays the part of a “ scab,” or is hostile to the strikers. I suggest to the Minister that, in order that the clause might be made appropriately comprehensive, it should be framed in this way -

Any officer of the Commonwealth who is suspected of having, or of heing likely to have, an opinion which might lead the said officer to sympathize with, render aid, or contribute to any strike, in any industry, in any part of Australia, that might directly, indirectly, or remotely interfere with the carrying on of any part of the Public Service or utilities of the Commonwealth, shall be adjudged to be guilty of an illegal act by reason of the said suspicion, and such suspicion shall be sufficient reason, without production of evidence, for the dismissal of any employee the Board may wish to dismiss, without right of appeal, resort to law, or hope of mercy.

The clause, as amended at the instance of the Minister, does not give an employee the right of appeal in respect of this particular class of offence. Any scallawag, or “ spotter,” or spy in the Service may lay a charge against a man, and the Board may make use of this clause to dismiss him. In order to make the clause perfect the Minister might add-

All “ spotters,” spies, fizgigs, and informers will be properly rewarded, and duly promoted, and guaranteed against publicity.

Whoever concocted this clause, whether he was the Attorney-General or the head of his Department, is simply an agent of the employing class ; he is anti-labour, and hostile to the workers. He is building up a system of spies and fizgigs within the Service. He is laying it down that an accused man shall have no means of confronting the persons who lay the information against him, or of hearing any evidence; there is to be no Court or trial of any kind. If at any time the Government wish to dismiss a man, all they have to do is to arrange for an allegation to be made under this clause, and then dismiss him on the ground that he is suspected of having an opinion in favour of, or being in sympathy with, or actively fomenting, some strike in some part of the Commonwealth. There can be no strike in any part of Australia, not even a coal strike, that does not in some way affect the Public Service and the utilities of the Commonwealth, and any man in the Service in any part of the Commonwealth sympathizing with the strikers may be dismissed without the right of appeal. This is the most tyrannical provision to be found in any Public Service Act in the world. The AttorneyGeneral has told us that we ought to adopt certain procedure because it was in force in England 100 years ago.

Mr Groom:

– I said that the practice suggested here had been the practice in Great Britain, and I mentioned the fact merely in confirmation of our practice. The mere fact of age does not condemn anything.

Mr ANSTEY:

– No. But when a thing is blue-mouldy with age-

Mr Groom:

– Instead of being bluemouldy with age, it is a vital force.

Mr ANSTEY:

– If one could show that a contrary practice is 200 years old, the Minister’s argument would go by the board.

Mr Groom:

– That argument has not been produced.

Mr ANSTEY:

– One would not attempt to produce so absurd an argument.

Docs the Minister know of any other country that has inserted in a Public Service Act, even as late as ten years ago, a provision of such a character ? We give our employees the right of appeal in respect of every offence save that of being sympathetic with any working-class movement. No man should be dismissed without the right of appeal.

Sir Robert Best:

– Right of appeal, to whom?

Mr ANSTEY:

– Throughout the Bill the right of appeal exists, but a distinction is made in the case of a man showing any sympathy towards the workingclass movement. No such distinction should be made. If a man is charged with an offence, he should be entitled to hear what evidence there is against him, and to know his accusers. In this case the offender will know neither the Judge, nor the jury, nor the evidence. The tribunal will act in secret.

Sir Robert Best:

– No man can be dismissed until after investigation and hearing by the Board of Commissioners.

Mr ANSTEY:

– But if the Commissioners are satisfied that a man has been guilty of aiding in a strike they will dismiss him summarily. The provision is not to apply to a man who “ scabs,” or is hostile to a strike, or acts as a strike breaker. Why should not the punishment apply both ways? If it be a crime to assist in a strike it should also be a crime to oppose a strike - in fact, it should be a crime to participate in a strike either way. The creation of a distinction between one offence and another can only be justified on partisan grounds, and in order that this distinction shall not be made, and that the offenders against this provision in the Bill may have the right of appeal, I suggest that the provision should read -

And any such officer or officers shall not be adjudged by the Board without the rightof appeal to be guilty of such action.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

.-Surely the Minister would accept the suggestion. The greatest punishment we can inflict on our public servants is to prevent them from having the right of appeal against dismissal. . In this clause it is proposed that a man shall be summarily dismissed “ without regard to the procedure prescribed in this Act for dealing with offences under the Act.”

Sir Robert Best:

– In no portion of the Bill is any right of appeal given from a decision of the Board of Commissioners, and under this clause an officer cannot be dismissed except after investigation and hearing by the Board. In any case, how can an appeal be made to a subordinate body?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member says that there is no appeal from a decision of the Board, but the inclusion of the words ‘ ‘ without regard to the procedure prescribed in this Act for dealing with offences under the Act “ seems to indicate that in respect of offences covered by this clause the right of appeal which applies to all other offences is not to be allowed. If that is not the intention, why do these words appear in the clause ?

Sir Robert Best:

– The Board of Appeal provided for in the Act is a subordinate body to the Board of Commissioners. There could be no appeal from the decision of the superior Board to an inferior body.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Admitting that that is so, the words in the clause to which I have drawn attention must be superfluous. Evidently the purpose of their inclusion is to deprive an officer of a right which applies in the case of every other offence. For every other offence an officer may be suspended until his case is tried; but in. this case, after consideration by the Board, the officer accused may be summarily dismissed without resort to the remedy that he would have if he were charged with any other offence.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.- I hope that the Minister will withdraw the clause. It is too late in the history of this country to hope to pass legislation of this kind. Surely employees, whether they be the employees of the State or of a private person, have the right to decline to carry on their work under conditions of which they disapprove. If the public servants think that the conditions sought to be imposed on them are unjust, why should they not protest in the only way left to them, by declining to continue at work until those conditions are remedied? I hope that the Minister will not insist in depriving the public servants of a right which is possessed by the ordinary citizen. This Government proposes to amend the Arbitration (Public Service) Act by taking from certain public servants the right to bring their grievances to arbitration, and it tells thesame public servants that they are also to be deprived of the right to refuse to work when their conditions are unsatisfactory. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the public servants are not to strike, let them have arbitration. To take from them the right to submit their claims to arbitration, and at the same time to say that they shall not strike, is to deliver a deadly blow at their freedom and liberty. The Government knows that the public servants have realized that they belong to the working class and to the Australian Labour movement, just as do mechanics and tradesmen outside the service. Ministers know that the public servants have realized that they must join hands with the trade unionists. Now, the Government says to these men, “ If you link up with trade unionism, if you dare to connect yourselves with the Labour movement, or associate yourselves in any way with a strike or a stoppage of work, you will be immediately dismissed, without right of appeal, and will lose all your privileges.” It is too late to make such a threat. The public servants are alive to their interests. They realize that they are as much members of the working class as are boilermakers, engineers, carpenters, or other trade unionists, and that their salvation lies in linking up with trade unionism and with the Labour movement. When they have done that, and feel that they have a grievance in the conditions of their employment, they will be able to call to their aid the trade unionists throughout Australia. This is why the Minister tells them that if they assist those who are out on strike they will be dismissed. It is well to unmask this proposal, so that the public servants may know what the object of the Minister is. I hope that when they have the opportunity, they will vote for the party that will give them the same liberty as trade unionists possess. I protest against this clause as a relic of the old, dark, barbarous ages, and I hope that, if the Minister persists with it, he will not long persist as a Minister.

Mr LAMBERT:
West Sydney

– I wish to record my protest against the clause which the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) has just spoken against. It seems to me that the Government is out to rob the public servants of their liberty. It is preposterous to in troduce in a Bill like this, for the government of a large body of persons like the Public Service of the Commonwealth, objectionable limitations to their liberties. I am aware, of course, that one could talk from now till Doomsday without making an impression on the mindsof those who are governing the country at this juncture. No matter what arguments may be used, when the party whip is cracked the Bill must go through, right or wrong. Although the Minister is supposed to have given careful consideration to the drafting of this measure, we have had circulated a list of over 100 amendments that he intends to move. The circulation of this list of amendmentsreflects on his sense, capacity and capability. If he is unable, after having had time for reflection and calm consideration, to frame a Bill which does not need amending by him, he cannot be trusted to frame any Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Bill is not open for discussion The honorabe member must confine himself to the clause.

Mr LAMBERT:

– The Ministerhas already moved to amend the clause. I wish to show that he does not understand his own Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order in doingso.

Mr LAMBERT:

– Then I shall confine myself strictly to the question. The clause absolutely takes away the liberties of the public servants of Australia, and makes it unsafe for them to utter their thoughts. The present Ministers are the Government of the country to-day, but they will not be in office to-morrow, because they are filling positions which the people of Australia do not wish them to occupy. I remind them that those who filch the liberties of the people go down. It is an insult to me and to my countrymen, for a foreigner, leading a Government here to-day, to bring forward Bills in an Australian Parliament -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The application of the word “ foreigner “ to the Prime Minister is distinctly disorderly, and 1 ask the honorable member to withdraw it.

Mr LAMBERT:

– I withdraw it, because the rules of Parliament require me to do so. I stand here as an Australian, and not as an importee.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! That has nothing to do with the clause under consideration.

Mr LAMBERT:

– I crave your tolerance, sir, in order that I may express my sentiments as a representative of the people of Australia. I have not cast any reflection upon any one. I am merely cl aiming that Australia is my native land. I think I am entitled to do that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am loath to intervene; but I again ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Mr LAMBERT:

– I claim that, by means of this clause, my liberty as an Australian is being taken from me. That is the point up to which I have been working. You, sir, may call upon me to keep within the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure, but, despite what the Standing Orders may provide, you cannot crush my sentiments.What I desire to say will be said, if not here, at all events, outside. The clause follows the lines of the degenerate Imperialistic Conservative policy which has been enunciated by the Government in connexion with, not only this Bill, but many other measures they have passed. This clause takes away the liberty of the subject. I shall never stand for such retrograde measures. I shall never support the passing of any Bill that will take away the liberty of my fellow countrymen.

Mr Bell:

– But all laws are a restriction on the liberty of the subject.

Mr LAMBERT:

-With all due respect to the honorable member, I hold that the Committee has no authority to place restrictions upon the liberty of the people. This Parliament has no warrant to do such a thing, and as surely as the sun shines at midday, it will pass out for its transgressions against the liberty of the people of the Commonwealth. This clause is an insult and a slander upon the people. Evidently the war, which originatedin 1914 and terminated in 1918, has been responsible for the introduction of a militaristic spirit into the House of Representatives. Incidentally, it has foisted on the Parliament quite a number of what we call “ brass hats,” or, in other words, military gentlemen. I have nothing against them.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

– How does the honorable member propose to connect these remarks with the question before the Chair?

Mr LAMBERT:

– The clause is one result of the introduction of such men into the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The clause has nothing to do with “ brass hats,” “ copper hats,” or hats of any other colour. I hope that the honorable member will obey the ruling of the Chair.

Mr LAMBERT:

– I am quite willing to obey your ruling.

Motion (by Mr. Greene) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That the Committee have leave to sit again at a later hour this day.

Declarationof Urgency.

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- I declare the Public Service Bill to be an urgent Bill.

Mr Mahony:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member cannot speak at this stage.

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr. Speaker-

Mr Mahony:

– On a point of order, I wish to point out that I was on my feet before the Minister had risen ; and, before you had called upon him, I made known that I desired to speak. Am I to understand now that the Minister has replied?

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

– Certainly; I rose to reply.

Mr Mahony:

– Then, sir, on a point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! There can be no point of order.

Mr Blakeley:

– I take objection to your conduct, sir, as Speaker in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member cannot do so in the way in which he now essays. He must express his dissent from my ruling - if that is what he wishes to do - by way of a specific motion, of which written notice must be given.

Mr Blakeley:

– I shall do so in this way-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will the honorable member please resume his seat?

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not enter into an argument with the Chair. It is quite out of order for any member to get up in his place and challenge the Chair in the way in which the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) has done. There is only one way in which honorable members may express their disagreement with the conduct of the business of the House by the Speaker, and that is to give written notice of their intention to dissent from his ruling.

Mr Mahony:

– On a point of order, sir-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will please resume his seat.

Mr Blakeley:

– I desire to give notice that I dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must present his notice of motion in writing.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Written with pen or pencil, sir ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If honorable members refuse to obey theChair, I shall be compelled to take a certain course of action. The honorable member’ for Darling will not be in order in debating the matter of his proposed dissent at this stage; he may do so on the motion itself when it is before the House in the regular way.

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member please write his notice of dissent and hand it to the Chair? He may not rise at this stage and explain why he proposes to dissent from my ruling.

Mr Mahony:

– May I direct a question to you, sir?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is not question time.

Interruption.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call upon honorable members to resume their seats.

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

– I move -

Mr Riley:

– I move -

That the Minister for Defence be no longer heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! There is a motion already before the Chair. For the moment I am waiting to receive from the honorable member for Darling written notice of dissent from my ruling.

Mr Riley:

– I moved a motion, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Does the honorable member for Darling intend to proceed as he has indicated?

Mr Blakeley:

– I am reluctant to cause you any pain or worry, sir; but I must protest against the attitude which you have adopted to-night. It is altogether unprecedented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have already informed the honorable member that he may not debate his proposed motion of dissent. He must comply with the forms of the House. I have no objection to his moving that the House dissent from my ruling, but the honorable member must proceed in the proper way. It would not be seemly, in keeping with the dignity of the House, or consonant with the Standing Orders, if the Chair became involved in argument. If the honorable member feels himself aggrieved by anything which the Chair may have done, I have already apprised him of the manner in which he may proceed to remedy his grievance. If he is not prepared to follow the proper procedure, the incident must close, and I shall proceed with the business before the House.

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr Blakeley:

– Surely honorable members have some rights in this House !

Interruption.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will honorable members resume their seats?

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr. Speaker-

Mr Charlton:

– I wish to raise a point of order, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There can be no point of order at the present stage. The Minister having replied, I must put the question. There is a question before the House which has yet to be settled.

Mr Charlton:

– It is to that question that I am endeavouring to speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not do so now. He has lost his opportunity, the Minister having already replied.

Mr Charlton:

– While other members were on their feet, endeavouring to address themselves to the matter before the Chair, you called upon the Minister for Defence, and now you declare that the debate is closed.

Interruption.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Mathews:

– The Minister is on his feet again, sir. I am afraid you will have to put him out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The only motion before the Chair is that the Committee have leave to sit again at a later hour this day.

Mr Blakeley:

– But the Minister for Defence has not replied, despite the fact that you have said so, sir; and you have prevented other members who were on their feet from speaking to the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call upon the honorable member to resume his seat.

Mr Charlton:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have no desire to defy the Chair. The Minister for Defence moved in a certain direction, and, when several members rose to speak to that question, the Minister for Defence also rose to reply. He did not say anything. But you, sir, announced that he had replied.

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I shall be compelled to name honorable members if they continue to interrupt.

Mr Charlton:

– What I was about to say was that the Minister was moving a second motionbefore the other had been decided, and now, Mr. Speaker, you agree with me. That is all to which I wish to direct attention.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I can well understand that in the babel it was quite possible the Minister may have been confused. The question now is that the Committee have leave to sit again at a later hour this day.

Mr Blakeley:

– The Minister had not replied, and you had no right to prevent honorable members from speaking !

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member will persist in interrupting I shall name him.. I have asked him two or three times to desist.

Question - That the Committee have leave to sit again at a later hour this day - put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– May I intervene just to say that, possibly, during the last twenty minutes there has been such confusion as to make it difficult for honorable members to follow what was going on.

Mr Considine:

– That is your fault!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I shall name the honorable member who next interjects.

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

– I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) if he can give me an assurance that we shall be able to get this Bill through to-night. If the honorable gentleman will give me such an assurance I am perfectlyagreeable to let the business proceed in the ordinary way. We have been here a long time to-day, and I wish to get on with the business. It appeared to me that means were being taken to prevent our getting on with business, and the Government could not permit that to contime. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, and honorable members opposite, to co-operate with the Government in trying to get the business through. I make this appeal to the honorable gentleman, and, as I say, if he is prepared to give me an assurance to the effect I lave indicated, I am prepared to allow the business to proceed in the ordinary way. That is what the Government desire, and what I desire.

Mr CHARLTON:
by leave

-In response to the appeal made by the Acting Leader of the House (Mr. Greene), I wish to say that a statement that honorable members on this side were obstructing the business is quite unwar- ranted. The principle involved in the clause that was before us is a very important one with our party. This is the first time since I have been a member that a clause of the kind has been incorporated in a Bill, and it is sought to apply it to the public servants, who have always been loyal to this country. There has been nothing in the nature of obstruction, but we feel it our duty to express our views, and, in doing so, we were not going beyond reasonable limits. We were just about to take a division on that clause; and as to the remaining clauses, there is no intention of holding up the Bill, beyond the time necessary to introduce some reasonable amendments. Our object was to get through this Bill to-day; and as to the unpleasantness that has occurred, the Minister, by attempting to apply the guillotine, has only himself to thank for the. interruption. I understand now that the Leader of the House is prepared to go no further in that direction if we will give reasonable despatch to business, and get the Bill through. I think that every man on this side will agree that it was our desire to get the measure through to-night, and the feeling aroused has been engendered by the action of the Minister himself. I can only say that if the honorable gentleman adopts another course, and is prepared to allow reasonable discussion, he will probably find himself in a much better position at the end of next week than he otherwise would.

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

– In view of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Charlton) has said, I am prepared to allow the Bill to proceed in Committee, and I trust that the unpleasantness experienced during the last few minutes will pass away.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I regret very much the heat shown a few minutes ago. Honorable members can see that if that sort of thing is permitted, it will be impossible to carry on public business. Particularly I ask honorable members to remember that when an honorable member is requested to resume his seat he should do so immediately ; for him to remain standing is to reduce the proceedings to a. state of disorder. If it is desired to take exception to anything that is said or done, there are forms of the House by which action can be taken. So far as I am concerned, there will always be opportunity to ventilate matters in a proper way.

In Committee (Consideration resumed, vide page 3266) :

Clause 67 -

If an officer appears to the Board to be inefficient or incompetent or unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging the duties of his office efficiently, the Board may retire the officer from the Commonwealth Service from a date to be specified by the Board, or may transfer him to some other position, with salary appropriate to such other position.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That after the word “ Board,” line 1, the words “ or the Chief Officer “ be inserted.

Later on I intend to move a further amendment, to insert the words after the word “Board,” where second occurring, the words, “ after report from the Chief Officer, and after investigation into the circumstances.” That is to provide that there shall be an investigation into the case.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I do not think this clause is quite as fair to the public servants as it might be. I suggest that the Minister substitute the words, “upon report from the Board of Appeal.” My object is to give the public servants the right of appeal, and the words the Minister proposes to insert have not that effect. I urge this, because the officer will have the right to go to the Board for leave to appeal. It should not be left to the Board to say that he is inefficientand the matter end there. The man may have been a considerable time in the service of the country, and he would suffer a hardship if he were put out in the way I have indicated.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– Ordinary offences are already dealt with. This clause relates to only very extreme cases, and the Board would never operate it unless with very good reason. A man might be inefficient or unfit to discharge his duties on account of ill-health, but action will be taken only after full inquiry. I am amending the clause to provide that nothing shall be done without full investigation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That after “ may in , line 4, the words “ after report from theChief Officer and after investigation into the circumstances “ be inserted.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I suggest to the Minister that he might add a new sub-clause to provide -

When an officer at the date of retirement is receiving a reduced salary as a result of action token under this section he shall, for all purposes of this Act, be considered to be receiving the salary paid to him immediately prior to such reduction.

That is a reasonable proposal. A man may have reached the age of fifty-seven or fifty-eight, and because of that be no longer efficient for the work he has hitherto performed; he is, therefore, appointed to another position at a lower salary. Because of that he suffers on his retirement. The amendment I suggest would insure that, for the purposes of superannuation or any other privileges, he should retire at the salary he was receiving prior to being declared inefficient.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The proposal is not reasonable. A man’s salary has been reduced on account of inefficiency, but he remains in the Service for another ten years. On his retirement he is entitled to six months’ or twelve months’ furlough, as the case may be, or its equivalent in salary. Theamendment means that he would be able to draw pay in lieu of furlough on the basis of the salary he had drawn prior to being reduced. I remind the honorable member that furlough is not compensation to a man because he has been reduced.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 -

  1. . . .
  2. In granting leave of absence for recreation the Chief Officer may, in determining the duration of the leave to be granted in any year to an officer under the last preceding subsection, take into consideration any prolonged period during which that officer was absent from duty in that year.
Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That after the word “ consideration “ in sub-clause (2) the words “as is prescribed “ be inserted.

The amendment is only intended to enable deductions for recreation leave granted in the same year to be governed by regulations in order to secure uniformity in the Departments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Charlton:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral agree to the insertion of the words “ leave of absence in case of illness shall not be reckoned as or included in leave of absence for recreation ‘ ‘ ? Those words appear in the Bill as originally submitted to the Senate, but for some reason, of which I am not aware, were omitted.

Mr Groom:

– Provision has been made to give proportionate leave.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 -

  1. The Chief Officer may grant leave of absence with pay to any representative of an organization required to attend any proceeding before the Arbitrator under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920.
  2. The Chief Officer may grant leave of absence without pay … to any representative of an organization. . . .
  3. The periods during which any officer - shall for all purposes be included as part of the officer’s period of service.
Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– This clause provides that the Chief Officer may grant leave of absence with pay to any representative of an organization required to attend any proceedings before the Arbitration Court. It is usual for two representatives of an organization to appear, and I therefore move -

That in sub-clause (1) the words “ any representative “ be omitted, and the words “ not more than two representatives “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- Sub-clause 2 provides that the Chief Officer may grant leave of absence, without pay, for prescribed periods to any representative of an organization for the purpose of preparing evidence for submission on behalf of the organization in any arbitration proceedings. I ask the Minister to amend this sub-clause also, so that two representatives of the organization may have leave to prepare evidence without loss of pay. In many industries to-day the representatives of organizations and witnesses receive pay while attending arbitration proceedings.

Mr Groom:

– The witnesses will receive their pay.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is fair that the representatives engaged in preparing the case for the organization also should receive their pay while thus engaged.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I cannot agree to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. Surely the sub-clause goes far enough in allowing the representative of the organization to be absent from his ordinary duties in order that he may prepare a case for the benefit of himself and his fellow members. All witnesses who are called to give evidence before the Arbitrator, however, will receive their pay.

Mr Considine:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral agree that leave of absence to prepare evidence may be given to “ the representatives” instead of “any representative” of an organization?

Mr GROOM:

– Yes. I move-

That the words “ any representative “ in sub-clause (2) be omitted, and the words “ the representatives “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That in sub-clause (3), the words “ all purposes “ be left out and the words “ such purposes as are prescribed “ inserted in lieu there of.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 -

  1. On the application of any officer, the Board may grant to the officer leave of absence, without pay, for any period not exceeding twelve months.
  2. The period during which any officer is absent on leave granted pursuant to this sec tion shall not for any purpose be included as part of the officer’s period of service.
Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

. - I move -

That in sub-clause (2), after the words “shall not”, the words “unless otherwise ordered by the Board “ be inserted.

I trust that the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I am rather inclined to think that the inclusion of the words will throw on the Board the obligation to make a special order in regard to every case of absence on leave without pay, but I will accept the amendment provisionally for the purpose of giving it further consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 -

  1. When an officer has continued in the Commonwealth Service for at least twenty years, the Board may grant to him leave of absence for a period not exceeding one month and a half on full salary, or three months on half salary, in respect of each completed five years of continuous service:

Provided that an officer Shall not be granted leave of absence to exceed a continuous period of twelve months at any one time.

  1. Where any person has become transferred from any position of a permanent nature in the Naval or Military Forces of the Commonwealth, either directly or through the Public Service of a State, Ms service in the Naval or Military Forces shall for the purposes of this section be reckoned as service in the Commonweal th Service.
Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I suggest that in sub-clause 1, the words “ the Board may grant to him “ be left out, and the words “ he shall be entitled to “ inserted in lieu thereof, so that it would be mandatory on the Board to grant furlough for a period not exceeding one and a half months on full pay, or three months on half pay, in respect of each completed five years of continuous service performed by an officer who has been in the Commonwealth Service for at least twenty years. I think it is inexpedient to leave the matter to the discretion of the Board.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The granting of furlough is a discretionary matter, and should not be given as an absolute right. It is always granted after the requisite, period of service, if the officer has served with the ordinary average good behaviour, and only very strong reasons would actuate the Board in refusing it.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– This clause provides, among other things, that any officer retired from the Commonwealth Public Service after the 30th November, 1919, is entitled to the furlough provided for in the Bill, but, on the second reading, I pointed out that a considerable number of officers had retired after serving upwards of forty years, and in some cases even fifty years, and had not taken the double furlough to which they were entitled. At the end of their term of service, to their great surprise, they were only granted single furlough, or six months’ pay in lieu of dual furlough. The law in regard to their rights has been somewhat nebulous. One Commonwealth Attorney-General has given the opinion that these men were entitled to double furlough at the end of their second term of twenty years, provided that they had. not taken any furlough during their period of forty years’ service, but another AttorneyGeneral has given a different opinion. The distinct spirit of the law is that a man who serves a double term of twenty years without taking his furlough is entitled at the end of that period to double furlough. It is laid down that if a man at the end of his first period of service takes his furlough of six months he is entitled, after a second term of twenty years’ service, to another period of furlough, but there have been many cases where officers, at the request of the heads of their Department, and in the interest of the Public Service, have remained at work for the full period of forty years without taking furlough, with the result, under the interpretation of the law as laid down by the AttorneyGeneral, that they found, to their great surprise, they were only entitled to single furlough. That is manifestly unjust. If they had chosen to take their first furlough at the end of the first period of twenty years, they would have been entitled to a second furlough at the end of their second twenty years, but, because, in the interest of the Public Service, and having regard to their responsibilities in the offices they held, they continued at work without taking furlough till the end of forty years, they found themselves entitled only to six months’ furlough, although the spirit of the law is that an officer in the Commonwealth Service is entitled to six months’ furlough for every twenty years of service. On the second reading I made the suggestion to the Minister for Defence (Mr. Greene), who was in charge of the House at the time, that those retired officers of the Commonwealth Service who are still alive, and have forty years’ service to their credit, should at least be entitled to compensation in lieu of the second period of furlough which they did not receive. I understood from the Minister that the matter was to receive the attention of the Government. Strictly speaking, following on the principle laid down in this Bill, I had contended that even where men had retired with only thirty-five or thirty-six years’ service they were entitled to a proportion of the second period of furlough, but, asI was told, that proposal could not be entertained. I then suggested that all those who were still alive, and who had forty years’ service to their credit, should be entitled to their second furlough or six months’ pay in lieu thereof. The date fixed in the clause, namely, the 30th November, 1919, is an arbitrary one, and I suggest that it should be omitted, and that those who are qualified in the way I have indicated should be entitled to their second furlough.

Mr BAYLEY:
Oxley

– I have in my possession several letters from former public servants who have served for upwards of forty years in the State and Commonwealth Service. The majority of them received only six months’ furlough at the end of their term of service.

Mr Gabb:

– I call attention to the state of the Committee.[ Quorum formed.]

Mr BAYLEY:

– In one or two instances men have ‘been granted twelve months’ furlough at the conclusion of forty years of service, but, unfortunately, the Government have not regarded those casesas establishing a precedent, and have not granted the same privilege to others who have served for the same or a longer period. I have in mind the case of a man who, having served for forty-seven years, was retired on the 2nd November, 1919, only twenty-eight days before the arbitrary date fixed in the Bill.

Mr Maxwell:

– And with seven years to the good.

Mr BAYLEY:

– Yes. It seems to me that there can be very few men alive today who could take advantage of the concession for which I ask, if it were granted. I should like the Minister, if he can do so, to give the Committee some information on the point, so that we may arrive at some conclusion as to theprobable cost to the country of abolishing the date that hasbeen arbitrarily fixed, and giving the concession to all who have served for forty years and upwards, without regard to the date of their retirement.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

. The Bill has been made retrospective so far as we could justly make it so. Its operation will go back to practically the date when it was promised that it should have effect. The honorable member has asked how much it would cost to give the concession which he advocates. I have had the matter investigated, and I am informed that there are no fewer than 144 men who have served for forty years and upwards, and to grant this concession to them would cost the country £22,867. Those who have retired after a service of from twenty-five to thirty-nine years number 126, and if the concession were given to them it would cost £7,959; or, for the whole number of 270 persons, the cost would be £30,826. A limited number of these persons are drawing pensions.

Mr Riley:

– But the expenditure would not be recurrent.

Mr GROOM:

– That is so.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- My attention has been drawn to the position of men who left the Service just prior to the date named in the Bill, and I do not agree with the Minister that, because it would cost £22,000 to do them justice, they should.be deprived of their rights. The honorable gentleman would be well advised if he would act differently. Some of these persons have retired without any compensation. I shall do all I can to get justice for these cases.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the following proviso be added to subclause (.1) : - “Provided further that in the ease of any person becoming an officer of the Commonwealth Service after the commencement of this Act,, the service which shall be taken into account for the purposes of this section shall not include any service in a temporary capacity.”

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- By sub-clause 3 the Board may authorize the payment to the dependants of an officer who, at the date of his death, was eligible for leave of absence, of a sum equivalent to the salary which could have been granted to him had he retired immediately prior to the date of his death. I would suggest to the Minister the insertion after “ dependants “ of the words “ and if he has no dependants, to his legal representative.”

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– We are really making concessions in the case of dependants, and I do not think it would be wise to add the words that the honorable member suggests, because it might mean the making of a payment to some person who was an absolute stranger to the deceased officer.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That sub-clause (5)be omitted.

Clause further amended verbally and agreed to.

Clause 74-

  1. Where an officer, who is less than sixty years of age, retires from the Commonwealth Service, after less than twenty years’ service, and produces to the Board satisfactory evidence that his retirement is due to ill-health, the Board may grant to the officer a sum equivalent to the salary for the period of leave for which, had he attained the age of sixty years, he would have been eligible…..

Clause verbally amended.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That after the words “ ill-health,” sub-clause (3), the words “and that such ill-health is permanent and is not due to misconduct or to causes within his own control.”

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (5) The official conduct record of an officer shallbetakeninto consideration in determining whether the whole or any portion of the leave of absence or pay provided in this section may he granted.”

Mr Charlton:

– That provision is already in clause 73.

Mr Groom:

– Yes; but I am applying it to another class of cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 agreed to. (Clause 76-

  1. The following days . . . shall be observed as holidays ….first day of January . . . the 25th day of April, and
  2. Whenever any of the said days falls upon a Sunday, the nextfollowing Monday shall be observed as a holiday.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That after the word “days”, sub-clause (2), the words “ except the 25th day of April “ be inserted.

Theobject of the amendment is to insure that Anzac Day shall be observed on its due date.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 77 to81 agreed to.

Clause 82-

  1. Any person temporarily employed for a continuous period extending beyond twelve months may be granted by the Chief Officer leave of absence on full pay for recreation, or on account of illness, on such terms as are prescribed. No leave of absence for recreation shall be granted unless the services of the employee are required after expiration of the period of leave.
Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- It seems to me that it would be advisable to make mandatory the provision in subclause 8 that any person temporarily employed for a continuous period extending beyond twelve months “ may “ be granted leave of absence for recreation or on account of illness. I suggest that the word “shall” be substituted for the word “may”. If a man has served twelve months continuously he should be entitled to a holiday as a matter of right. The sub-clause as it stands leaves it to the Chief Officer to determine whether or not he shall be granted leave.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– We have just agreed to a similar provision with regard to permanent officers. Some discretion must be allowed the administrative officers, because there might be occasions when it would be inconvenient or undesirable to grant this leave. In nearly all cases, however, leave is granted practically as a right.

Mr Riley:

– As long as unfair advantage will not be taken of this discretionary power, well and good.

Mr GROOM:

– It will not be improperly exercised.

Amendments (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the words “ on full pay”, sub-clause (8). be left out.

That the words “ No leave of absence for recreation shall be granted unless the services of the employee are required after expiration of the period of leave “, sub-clause (8) be left out.

Clause further verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause83-

  1. The employment of a returned soldier shall not be terminated for the purpose only of creating an office to be filled by the promotion of a telegraph messenger.
Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That sub-clause (4) be left out.

This provision is unnecessary, because no such office is created in the way set out in the sub-clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BLUNDELL:
Adelaide

.-I move -

That the following proviso be added to the clause: - “Provided that any returned soldier who has been employed continuously for a period of not less than two years may be permanently appointed without examination if the Chief Officer certifies that the duties of such returned soldier have been performed in a satisfactory manner, and that such duties are of a non-clerical character.”

I submit this amendment for the reason that a number of returned soldiers who have to their credit long periods of employment in the Service, and are discharging to the entire satisfaction of their superior officers duties calling for no special clerical knowledge or ability cannot be placed on the permanent list because, while they are thoroughly competent to discharge the duties allotted to them, they are unable to pass the prescribedexamination. Honorable members will realize that a man of forty years or upwards whose education has been limited, and who has been struggling for years to maintain his wife and family, may find it very difficult to pass the prescribed examination. There are quite a number of people occupying good positions outside the Service who might find it very difficult to pass some of the Public Service examinations. Men of forty years and upwards, in the circumstances I have named, could scarcely be expected to comply with such a condition. The services allotted to these men do not call for special knowledge. Many of them are drivers, office cleaners, assistants in the mail branch of the Postal Department, and letter carriers. I am not asking that this provision shall apply to those who have only been temporarily employed in the Service for a short period. I confine my proposal to returned soldiers who have not less than two years’ service to their credit, and are declared by the heads of their Departments to have carried out their duties in an entirely satisfactory manner. I make the further proviso that the work shall be of a non-clerical character. It may be said that this would be unfair to returned men outside the Service who are waiting to get in, but Mich men could only obtain employment on the discharge of returned soldiers already in the Department. The passing of this provision will not prevent men outside the Service from entering it. Some of the men to whom my amendment would apply have been temporarily employed for seven or eight years, and in ordinary circumstances may continue in the Service for another ten or twelve years. The trouble is, however, that they are liable at any moment to be discharged. No objection to this provision can reasonably be offered by men already in the Service, because it will apply only to returned soldiers who have been temporarily employed for at least two years. We have already agreed to clause 38, which declares that a man who has served in the Navy, and has a satisfactory record, may be appointed without examination to any office in the Fourth Division in the Department of Trade and Customs. We have made that provision for men who have served in the Navy, and there is no reason why we should not place in the same position men who have served in the Australian Imperial Force. We ought not to make distinctions between the two classes of service. Some of these men were temporarily employed in the Public Service when the war broke out. They are still on the temporary list, and can be discharged at a moment’s notice.

Mr Riley:

– That applies to a lot of people in this country.

Mr BLUNDELL:

– It does, but since the policy of the Government is preference to returned soldiers, I think we ought to give the returned men who have been in the Service for not less than two years, and who are performing their duties to the satisfaction of the heads of their Departments, an opportunity to become permanent employees. I hope the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) will accept the amendment.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- I desire to associate myself with the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Blun dell) in this amendment, but I do not propose to speak at length or to repeat what he has so well said. I would draw the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) to the fact that, while these men are described as temporary employees, and have been employed in the Service two years and upwards, the work they are performing is not of a temporary character They are doing the ordinary work of the various Departments, and it is simply the tenure of their position that can be regarded as temporary. They are liable, as the” honorable member has said, to be dismissed at any time. It seems to me that these returned soldiers deserve consideration, and the fact that for two years and upwards they have been doing the ordinary regular work of the Departments in a manner that commends itself to their departmental heads should be a sufficient guarantee that they would make efficient officers of the permanent Service.

Mr LISTER:
Corio

.- I support the amendment. There are many returned men in the Public Service working as temporary employees who have been incapacitatd as a result of their war services. They do not receive sufficient by way of pension to enable them to provide for themselves and their families, and they do not desire to be a burden upon the community. I may cite the typical case of a man who lost a .leg. Before the war he had been a labourer. After his discharge from a military hospital he obtained employment in the Postal Department, and worked in a mail room. In the course of several years’ service as a temporary hand he has given every satisfaction. But periodically he is informed that, his temporary term having ended, his services will be no longer required. On more than one occasion I have had to go to the PostmasterGeneral and ask that this man be employed for a further period. It is not fair, seeing that the incapacitated man has given every satisfaction, that his position should be taken’ from him, even though it is to be filled by another exsoldier.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The amendment has raised a problem of so difficult and involved a character that I cannot accept it. If the Government were to be consistent and give the same concession to clerical workers as to non-clerical employees, about 400 former soldiers who have passed a competitive examination, and have made themselves eligible for employment in the Commonwealth Service, would be affected merely because certain other returned men had had the good fortune to get in ahead of them and secured temporary employment. All returned men should be put upon an equal footing. The Act specially provides for that. If returned men occupying temporary positions are made permanent employees, the Government will be setting up a special class of ex-soldiers to the exclusion of all other former soldiers. When temporary positions are about to be made permanent, the canons of fair play demand’ that these posts shall be thrown open to all returned soldiers who have rendered themselves eligible for permanent employment in the Public Service.

Mr Blundell:

– Why are naval men admitted to certain permanent positions in the Customs Department, for example, without being required to undergo an examination ?

Mr GROOM:

– That special provision covers only certain men who possess special marine qualifications.

Mr Wise:

– The Government have gone a long way towards getting over the difficulty which some honorable members foresee by leaving out sub-clause 4.

Mr GROOM:

– I do not think honorable members can have real cause for complaint as matters stand.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the position. A returned man who has given satisfaction in a temporary post, in the course of two or three years of unbroken service, should not be called upon to stand down for another returned soldier merely because the latter has succeeded in a competitive examination.

Mr Groom:

– The man in occupancy of a temporary position has also the opportunity to qualify himself by passing the same examination.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Men in the temporary positions are at work all day in the Government service. What time have they to “ stew “ for an utterly unneces sary examination ? How many members would be prepared forthwith to undergo this examination ? I would not care to do so, at any rate, and if these returned soldiers in temporary positions were called upon either to pass an examination or “stand down” the great bulk of then would have to leave. What would be the use of that? Where would the fairnes come in, seeing that the vacancieswould be filled by other returned men ?

Mr JOWETT:
Grampians

– I heartily support the amendment of the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Blundell). The Attorney-General does not seem to me to have given a convincing reason why the amendment should notbe accepted. Why should not returned men who have satisfactorily worked in temporary positions be permitted to retain them permanently ? Why should they be called upon to give way to other returned soldiers who happen to have qualified by passing an examination ? My sympathies are certainly with those other returned soldiers who have fitted themselves to enter the Service, and are waiting; but, surely several years of satisfactory work on the part of those returned soldiers who are temporary employees must be taken as an adequate offset to passing an examination!

Question - That the proviso proposed to be added (Mr. Blundell’s amendment) be so added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 84-

In the making of appointments to the Commonwealth Service from among persons who have successfully passed the prescribed examination, the Board shall give preference to returned soldiers.

In making any appointments under section thirty-eight or thirty-nine of this Act preference shall, subject to” competency, be given to returned soldiers.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a returned soldier who prior to enlistment was dismissed from the Commonwealth Service, or whoso resignation was enforced, may be appointed by the Board, and if the Board thinks fit the appointment may be without probation or without compliance with the life assurance provisions of this Act.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a returned soldier on being recommended for appointment to the Commonwealth Service shall only be required to pass such medical examination as will show that he is fit to perform the duties of an officer.

Amendments (by Mr. Groom) agreed 10 -

That the words “ or thirty-nine”, subclause (2), be left out, and the words “ thirtynine or forty-six “ be inserted; that in sub-clause 7, the words “ or without compliance with the life assurance provisions of this Act” be left out.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (8), the words “on being recommended for appointment to the Commonwealth Service shall only be required to pass such medical examination as will show that he is fit to perform the duties of an officer” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ may be appointed to the Commonwealth Service, although not free from physical defects due to service in the war, if it is certified by a medical practitioner approved by the Board that the soldier is free fromsuch physical defects as would incapacitate him for the efficient discharge of the duties of the position to which he is to be appointed”.

At present, such a man has to he fit “to perform the duties of an officer.” We do not now propose to make the qualification so wide, hut merely to provide that he must be physically fitted to carry out the duties of the office to which he is appointed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 85 to 91 negatived.

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clause 93-

When an officer has attained the age of sixtyfive years and in the opinion of the Board it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the officer should continue in the performance of the duties of his office, and the officer is able and willing to do so, the Board may direct the officer to continue in his office for a fixed time not exceeding twelve months, otherwise every officer on attaining sixty-five years of age shall retire from the Service:

Provided that in the case of an officer who is not entitled to pension or superannuation allowance, and who desires to continue to be, employed in the Commonwealth Service, the Board may direct that the officer be retained in the Service subject to . the following: -

That the officer shall be employed in an office in the lowest class of the Third Division, or, in the case of an officer of the Fourth Division, in a junior position open to adults of that Division ; . and

that the salary to be paid him. shall be within the limits prescribed for the office or position; and

that he is competent to satisfactorily perform the duties of the office or position, and at intervals of not more than twelve months is certified by the Board after inquiry to be still so competent; and

that he is not retained in the Service after reaching seventy years of age; and

that, notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 of this Act, any grant of salary payable to him under this Act upon retirement, or to his dependants in the event of his death, shall be ‘based on his period of service and his rate of salary at the date when he attained the age of sixty-five years.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the proviso be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 94 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clauses 95 to 99 agreed to.

Clause 100 (Provisions on expiration of Defence (Civil Employment) Act 1918).

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I ask the Committee to omit this clause. It is no longer necessary, in view of the proposal to determine the Defence (Civil Employment) Act. In the definition clause we make provision for the transfer of all these officers to the Public Service.

Clause negatived.

Clause 101 agreed to.

Clause 102-

The Board may, with the approval of the Governor-General, make regulations, . . .

for regulating the respective powers of Permanent Heads and Chief Officers in regard to promotions or transfers within or to the several Divisions of the Commonwealth Service or the classes thereof; (b)for prescribing the lowest amount for which the lives of officers, having regard to their annual salary, shall lie assured, and other matters in connexion with the (provisions of this Act relating to life assurance:

Clausa verbally and consequentially amended.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom.) agreed to -

That paragraphs (a) and (s) be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 103 to 105 agreed to.

Clause 106-

  1. The right to receive an increment in any year shall depend upon the good and diligent conduct and efficiency of the officer to whose salary the increment is attached, anil if in the opinion of the prescribed responsible officer, the officer is not entitled thereto, the responsible officer may issue an order ‘in writing to deprive the officer of the increment for such time as is considered justified, and in that event the increment shall not be paid.

Clause verbally amended

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That after the word “ attached “ the following words be inserted: - “and the period of his attendance for duty during that year.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 107 to 110 agreed to.

Clause 111 (Appointments of Commonwealth officers to Provisional Service).

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section, an officer to whom this section applies shall be entitled to be dealt with, as regards offences, in thesame manner as is provided by section fifty-six of this Act.”.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Tasmania

– I would like to know what is the position under the provisions of this clause of the men who were taken over from the States?

Mr Groom:

– This clause deals only with the Provisional Service.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to.

Postponed clause 50 (Promotions).

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

. - Last night we had a long discussion on the subject of promotions and transfers. The Committee was of opinion that all promotions and transfers should be made by the Board of Commissioners instead of by the heads of Departments; and also that promotion should not be within watertight compartments as under the existing Act., but should extend over the whole Service. A new clause has been drafted which substitutes the Board for the Permanent Head of the Department, and enacts that the Board, in making promotions, shall pay first regard to relative efficiency. A promotion will he only provisional, and ‘ all officers who are affected may appeal against the decision of the Board. Instead of the cumbersome and costly method of appeal under the present Act, the new clause provides for a personal conference so that the case may he heard and disposed of quickly. When an appeal is disallowed, the provisional appointment will be confirmed.I move -

That clause 50 be omitted, and the following be inserted in lieu thereof : - “ 50. ( 1 ) Whenever a vacancy occurs in any office other than in the First Division, and it is expedient to fill that vacancy by the transfer or promotion of an officer, the Board may. subject to the provisions of this Act, after report from the Permanent Head of the Department in which the vacancy occurs, transfer or promote an officer to fill the vacancy, consideration being given first to the relative efficiency, and in the event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers, then to the relative seniority of the officers available for transfer or promotion to the vacancy.

In this section ‘efficiency’ means special qualifications and aptitude for the discharge of the duties of the office to be filled, together with merit, diligence, and good conduct, and., in the case of an officer who is a returned soldier, includes such efficiency as, inthe opinion of the Board, he would have attained but for his absence on active naval or military service.

Any promotion made in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section shall be provisional and without increased salary pending confirmation, and shall be notified in the prescribed manner, and shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Board.

An appeal under this section shall be made in such manner and within such time as is prescribed, and may be made by any officer who considers that he is more entitled to promotion to the vacant office than the officer provisionally promoted, on the ground of -

superior efficiency, or

equal efficiency, and seniority.

An appeal under this section shallbe considered, as prescribed, by the Board in conference with a representative of the Permanent Head of the Department to which the provisional promotion has been made, and with the appellant, or. if he so desires, with a nominee (who is an officer) of the Public Service organization to which the appellant belongs, or with an agent (who is an officer) of the appellant, and following upon such conference the Board shall determine the appeal.

Where an appeal is upheld by the Board, it shall promote the appellant officer to the vacant office and cancel the provisional promotion.

Where an appeal is disallowed in pursuance of this section, or no appeal is lodged within the prescribed time, the provisional promotion shall be confirmed by the Board.”

Mr Jowett:

– Will the new clause facilitate promotion by efficiency rather than by seniority?

Mr GROOM:

– Yes; it requires that consideration shall be first paid to relative efficiency.

Mr Laird Smith:

– As one who took a prominent part in the discussion last night, I am satisfied with, and grateful for, the amendment.

Amenment agreedto.

Postponed clause 51 agreed to.

Postponed clause 52 (Officer may decline transfer).

Consequential amendments (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That the words “ Chief Officer “ be omitted and “ Board “ inserted in lieu thereof, and that the words “Chief Officer or Permanent Head “ be omitted.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– A number of men joined the Lighthouse Service after Federation. Later, they were compulsorily transferred to the Commonwealth. What are their pension rights?

Mr Groom:

– Transferred officers generally take over with them their existing rights.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– But which authority is responsible for the payment of their pensions?

Mr Groom:

– I think the liability is shared by the State and the Commonwealth in proportion to the length of service of the officer under each authority.

Mr.RILEY. - A number of men in the Explosives Department were transferred from the State to the Commonwealth. Will they come under the superannuation scheme ?

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

– If they are permanent employees, yes.

Mr.Riley. - They have been in the Service for over twenty years.

Mr Groom:

– Everything depends upon the tenure of their office. If they are per-‘ manent employees within the definition of the Act, they will come under the superannuation scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the following new clause be inserted: - “ 5a. Where a person has been appointed before the commencement of this Act for a term of years to a statutory office under any Act repealed by this Act, he shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed, so long as he continues to be employed in theoffice (whether during or after the term for which he was appointed) to continue to he an officer of the Commonwealth Service, and the service of that person in that office shall be deemed to be service in the Commonwealth Service.”

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move that the following new clause be inserted: - “27a. (1) The Board shall, within three months after the commencement of this Act and thereafter at intervals of not less than three months, investigate the cost of living in order to ascertain whether, by reason of the decrease or increase of the cost of living, an alteration should be made in the amount of any allowance then payable, in respect of the cost of living, to officers in receipt of salaries exceeding £310 per annum.

  1. Where the Board considers that an alteration in the allowance should be made it shall determine the amount which should be paid and, notwithstanding any determination of the Arbitrator, that amount shall, as from a date fixed by the Board, become payable in lieu of the amount payable at the time the investigation is made.”

The cost of living allowance is fixed by regulation, and this amendment will give the Board power, in relation to officers receiving upwards of £310 per annum, to automatically increase or decrease the allowance at intervals of not less than three months.

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I enter my protest against this clause. I cannot understand why the Government should propose to take from public servants in receipt of a salary of £310 a year and over the right of having this matter settled by the Public Service Arbitration Court. We provide for certain living allowances, and they have to be determined by the Board, who, I suppose, will be guided by the Statistician’s figures.

Mr Groom:

– If the honorable member will allow me, I do not intend to press the clause at this stage, and will ask leave to withdraw it.

Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That the following new clause he inserted after clause 44: - “44a. Where any officer of the public railway or other service of a State, whether or not he was an officer of that service at the date of the establishment of the Commonwealth, was transferred to the Commonwealth Service before the commencement of this Act, he shall preserve all his existing and accruing rights, and shall be entitled to retire from office at the time, and on the pension or retiring allowance, which would be permitted by the law of the State from which he was transferred, if his service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of hie service with the State.”.

This clause deals with the right of transferred officers, and is intended to preserve existing and continuing rights.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That the following new clause bc inserted after clause 09: - “ 99A. Any officer who has been a member of any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1913, and who, except in pursuance of leave granted under this Act, or the Acts repealed by this Act, is absent from duty for twelve months, subsequent to his ceasing to be a member of that Force, shall be deemed to have forfeited his office upon, the expiration of that period of twelve months.”.

This clause is intended to deal with forfeiture of office in the case of a man who is away from duty on leave of absence, or on leave of absence from duty for twelve months after he ceases bo be a member of the Australian Imperial Force.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted after clause 101: - “ 101a. Where, under any Act repealed by this Act, deductions have been made from the salary of any person unable to assure his life as required by that repealed Act, and have been invested and accumulated by an officer or authority appointed in pursuance of that repealed Act, those deductions shall remain so invested and accumulated for the purposes and subject to the conditions prescribed in the repealed Act:

Provided that any such person may at any time prior to his retirement, by notice in writing to the officer or authority by whom the deductions are invested or accumulated, require the total amount deducted from his salary together with interest accumulated thereon to be repaid to him, and the officer or authority shall repay that amount and interest to that person accordingly.”

Mr RILEY:
South .Sydney

.- Officers of the Public Service are being compelled to insure, and if their insurance premiums are not paid up, they will lose everything.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The matter is dealt with in the Superannuation Bill, which provides that an officer who has taken out an insurance policy can hand it over to the Board, and the Board will pay the premiums until the policy matures, when the premiums and interest will be deducted and the balance will be handed to the officer.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Mr GROOM:
General · Darling DownsAttor. ney · NAT

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted after clause 101a. “ 101b. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions relating to life, assurance contained in any Act repealed by this Act shall cease to have effect upon a date to be fixed by proclamation, whether before or after the commencement of this Act.”

This clause is intended to ‘keep in operation the insurance provisions of the law up to the date when the Superannuation Bill comes into force.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

First Schedule -

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the words “ Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1918- the whole “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof - “ Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1902 . . . . . . The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Amendment Act 1903 . . The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1909 . . . . . . The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1911 .. .. .. The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1913 .. .. ..The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1915 .. .. .. The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1916 .. … ..The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1917 .. .. .. The whole

Commonwealth Public Service

Act 1918 .. .. ..The whole.”

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second to Fifth Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3281

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business - Public Service and . Superannuation Bills - Mr. Speaker’s Ruling - Operation of Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

The Government propose to go on with the Income Tax Assessment Bill tomorrow. I should like to express my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition and his party for the assistance they have given in passing the Public Service Bill.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I desire to make my acknowledgments to the officers who were concerned in the preparation of the Public Service Bill. It required a very great deal of care and consideration. I have also to acknowledge the services of the officers concerned with the preparation of the Superannuation Bill. They also gave a great deal of thought and care to the work. I think that it is right, when our officers do their work thoroughly and well, that we should express our appreciation. I also desire to thank honorable members generally for the assistance given me in passing the Public Service Bill.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– Before putting the motion, I wish to refer to an incident which occurred earlier in the evening, in connexion with which I am inclined to think that I made a mistake. There was a great deal of confusion, at the time, and a number of interjections, and I am inclined now to think that I was in error in assuming, when the Minister rose to move another motion, that he rose to reply to the de- bate, and that is the reason I regarded the debate as closed. I make this explanation to the House, and express my regret if I was in error in supposing that the Minister had spoken in reply.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– I wish to bring under the notice of the House an incident which has occurred in connexion with the administration of the Anti-Dumping Act, and to suggest that it is time some different methods were adopted by the Department concerned. Latethis afternoon a special messenger from the Customs Department informed the importers of an Italian motor car chassis that they must not go on with the assembling of the car, just landed and released by the Customs on payment of duty, because the Minister had decided to apply to the chassis the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Act, and would advise them in due course of the penalty to be inflicted. There are upwards of ten business houses in Melbourne, and a number of firms in the other State capitals, seriously affected by this decision. The action taken in this case apparently indicates the course which the Minister for Trade and Customs intends to follow in the future.

Mr Charlton:

– If importers are dumping their chassis, the Act should be applied to them.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– These are Italian, French, and Belgian chassis, and are of higher value than English chassis of similar make. There is nothing to indicate that they are being introduced at below their cost price. I am informed that the total imports from the companies of France, Belgium, and Italy were 31/2 per cent, less during the six months of this year than they were in the pre-war year.

Mr Riley:

– Surely the Customs officials know what they are doing in the matter.

Mr Pratten:

– These chassis come from countries where there is a depreciated currency.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– I understand that the anti-dumping duties are imposed for the purpose of preventing the destruction of Australian industries, but there is no motor chassis industry in Australia, and the only effect of using the Industries Preservation Act in the manner I have described is to destroy the motor car body-building in Australia, because these chassis cannot be unloaded and taken to the body-builder’s establishments.

Mr Pratten:

– But is not the revenue to be protected also?

Mr Scullin:

– The chassis are not built here.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– No, and as the importers are not able to determine what duty will be charged upon chassis, it is impossible for them to quote prices for cars. They have endeavoured to bring the matter before the Tariff Board for some time past, and when this action was taken to-day, as the Minister (Mr. Rodgers) was out of Melbourne, and the Tariff Board was in Western Australia, they could get no satisfaction. Since many of them were committed to orders before this action was taken and even before the Bill was passed the other day, they find themselves in a very difficult position. It is certain that many men employed in the motor car body-building trade in Australia will be thrown cut of work.

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I know nothing of the circumstances of the cases which the honorable member has brought up, and all I can say is that the Act requires that the Minister can only take action after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board.

Mr Scullin:

– Does the Act deal with goods not produced in Australia?

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

– Yes. One section of the Act is designed to protect the preferential incidence of the Tariff in favour of Great Britain, and it is distinctly laid down therein that if after inquiry and rV port by the Tariff Board, it is shown that goods are being imported into Australia fromcountries under depreciated rates of exchange at a price which is unfair to the British manufacturer, the Minister cas impose dumping duties.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– But the prices charged for these chassis are practically all higher than those charged for British chassis.

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

– I know nothing about that. I am. merely indicating what I believe to be the law on the matter. The honorable member took some exception to the suddenness of the action of the Customs Department, but all such actions of that Department must be taken suddenly. When the Department has decided to impose a duty, it must come down with the axe at the psychological moment, and that is generally after 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the particular day on which action is taken, which fact would probably account for the hour at which the firms were notified to-day that the new rates of duty had become operative.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Has the Tariff Board reported on the matter?

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

– I do not know, but my recollection of the Act is that the Minister cannot take action until after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– The firms wrote to the Tariff Board on the 14th September last, and have not received a reply.

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

– I do not think that the Minister would take action without reference to the Tariff Board. At least that is my recollection of the provisions of the Act. But I promise the honorable member that I will bring the matter under the notice of the Minister (Mr. Rodgers) as soon as he returns to Melbourne, andsee what the position is.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 October 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1922/19221005_reps_8_101/>.