Senate
3 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- ALIENATION OF LAND
QUESTION
- POSTAGE STAMPS
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

The President toot the chair at 2.30 p.m.,and read prayers.

page 1895

PETITION

Senator KEATING presented a petition from 10,448 citizens and ratepayers of the State of Tasmania, praying the Senate to reject clause 54 of the Post and Telegraph Bill.

Petition received.

page 1895

QUESTION

ALIENATION OF LAND

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, uponnotice -

Is it the intention of the Government in any” Bill providing for the acquisition of lands to insert a clause preventing its future alienation ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– Only in very exceptional cases. In a measure generally applicable such provision will not be made ; but in any measure dealing with the federal territory such provision will be made.

page 1895

QUESTION

POSTAGE STAMPS

Can he indicate when federal postage stamps, will be issued ? .

Does he (icem it desirable that postagestamps in use in the Commonwealth should bear1 some indication that Australia is federated ?

Can he say whether it is intended to establish inter-State penny postage, and, if so, when ?

Is it intended that the Commonwealth shall obtaiu the benefits of universal postage, and, if so, when ?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answers are as follow : -

Not at present. Federal postage stamps will probably not be issued until after the expiration of the bookkeeping period prescribed by sections 89 and 93 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act.
It is not considered desirable to overprint the postage stamps of the several States, hut when the issue of any new stamps is authorized, such an indication will be considered. 3and 4. These are matters of policy which have not yet been determined.

page 1896

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 28th June, vide page 1811) :

Clause 77 -

The Postmaster-General shall have the exclusive privilege of erecting and maintaining telegraph lines and of transmitting any message or other communication by telegraph within the Commonwealth and performing all the incidental services of receiving collecting or delivering such messages or communications except as provided by this Act or the regulations :

Provided that the Government railway authorities of each State shall have authority to erect and maintain within the railway boundaries telegraph lines required for the working of the railways, but except by authority of the Postmaster General no such telegraph line shall be used for the purpose of transmitting and delivering telegrams for the public. Where such authority is obtained the revenue derived from such telegrams shall be divided between the department and the railway authorities in such proportions as may be mutually arranged.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– The difficulty has arisen.

Senator DRAKE:

– But where a telegraph line crosses a main road it is desirable that it should be under the control of the Government, and not of a private person. I move -

That Part 4, clauses 77 to 90, be postponed.

– I propose to amend that by adding the words “ for the PostmasterGeneral or for his own use.”

Motion agreed to ; Part A postponed.

Clause 91-

The Governor-General may make regulations for the following purposes or any of them : . . .

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I should like to know whether the PostmasterGeneral would consent to the paragraph of this clause being dealt with seriatim. The regulations are very numerous, very important, and very serious.

Senator Drake:

– I have no objection to that course being followed.

Paragraph (a) -

Providing for the establishment and management of post offices and telegraph offices and the receipt, despatch, carriage and delivery of postal articles and telegrams, and for the conduct and guidance of all postmasters and other officers and servants of the department.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted in the clause : - (a) For the age at which persons shall be employed under this Act.

There is an impression abroad that the Public Service Bill deals with this question, but I find that junior messengers are specially exempted from the provisions of that measure. Under clause 28, which deals with the age of new appointees, it is provided that nothing contained in that section shall be taken to prevent the appointment of boys of any age as message boys or junior messengers. Honorable senators must have noticed that in this State, at all events, boys who are considerably less than thirteen years of age are working in the post-office. I think we ought to resolutely set our faces against the employment of child labour in any part of the federal service. Thirteen years should be the minimum age. This amendment will allow the age to be determined by regulation, and the regulation will of course have to come before the House.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I entirely agree with the suggestion that this amendment deals with a matter which is part and parcel of the Public Service Bill. I would point out to Senator Pearce that the words he has used here go a good deal further than he intends, and may conflict with clause 1 which we have already passed. The amendment refers to the age at which persons shall be employed. I suppose what the honorable senator means is that regulations should be made fixing the minimum age at which persons shall be employed. It would be wise for the honorable senator not to press his motion. He should deal with it when the Public Service Bill is before us, and then I shall be prepared to support him.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - If the Senate is of opinion that the matter can be dealt with under the Public Service Bill I will withdraw my amendment. The fact that the other House allowed clause 28 of that Bill to go as it did, induced me to bring this matter forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph (b) -

Fixing the rates payable to masters of vessels and private railway and tramway authorities for the carriage of mails.

Senator WALKER:
New SouthWales

– It will be found that in clauses 64 and 66 vessels are required to ‘ deliver and take delivery of mails at the wharf nearest to the post-office. Under this paragraph, however, the Minister has sole power to fix rates for carrying such mails. I would suggest to the Postmaster-General that it would be better to have a schedule of rates for carriage of mail matter, the department taking delivery from and giving delivery to a vessel wherever she may be lying. Under this law the department could deliver mails anywhere. That would be very inconvenient. The suggestion I have made comes from the Chamber of Commerce.

Senator Drake:

– We can fix that by regulations. We can decide that a certain rate shall be paid if the mails are taken at the wharf or at the ship’s side.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– It appears to me that this is a very arbitrary power. We provide in a previous clause that where the Postmaster-General cannot agree with the railway authorities the matter shall be determined by arbitration. This clause, however, definitely gives the Postmaster-General the power to fix rates and to make the carriers accept any rates he may fix.

Senator Drake:

– No; they need not accept them under clause 17.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I really do not think we want this provision. It must be a matter of private bargain and the rates must differ in every case. The PostmasterGeneral cannot fix rates arbitrarily as far as they relate to private railways and vessels. If he cannot do it arbitrarily, and if the carriers have the right of arbitration and will not accept the rates we are willing to give, what is the use of this paragraph ? I do not think we want this power. This proposal appears to me to be useless, because unless they are willing to accept the rates the power will never be acted upon.

Senator DRAKE:

– We have already decided that ships must carry the mails at prescribed rates, and this provision gives the power to fix those rates. With regard to State or private railways, we have passed a clause providing that mails must be carried by private arrangement if possible, as to the amount to be paid, and if not the amount to be paid must be fixed by arbitration. We must have the power in that case by regulation to fix the rates we will offer in the first place. We will have a regulation stating what we are prepared to pay for the carriage of mails by railway, and if the State concerned is not prepared to carry the mails at that rate then the matter is to be referred to arbitration. But I think we should have the power, in the first place, to prescribe a uniform rate for the Commonwealth.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - Does not the Postmaster-General see that the rates must vary as the distances vary, and on different lines of railway 1 Ships may have to carry mails, and we cannot enforce a uniform rate that will be fair to all. Under the circumstances, I think we had better strike out this provision altogether. . In both cases we shall have to make a definite offer to people, which they can accept or reject, as they think fit; but if we fix the rates payable to masters of vessels, the Postmaster-General may deliberately say to those people that they must accept the rates offered. If these rates, fixed as proposed, are to be subject to arbitration subsequently, we ought to say so definitely in the clause, but if they are to be fixed rates, then they will be the only rates which the Postmaster-General will agree to pay.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– Will it not be a guarantee that every one will be treated alike if the rates are fixed as proposed 1

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The PostmasterGeneral cannot treat every one alike, because the circumstances will vary. Where the distances vary, how can every one be treated alike?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– This is, as Senator Playford has said, a very arbitrary power. Of course the difficulty is that it is meant to apply to accidental or emergency cases, and it is impossible in such cases to say how the rates to be paid can be fixed by regulation, which is for all time, unless revoked in a formal manner. All contracts are of course expressly excepted. A difficulty is that we have passed clause 67, which obliges any vessel to cany a mail upon payment therefor of such rates as may be prescribed, and in order to meet that clause and make it workable it is necessary to prescribe some rates.

Senator Drake:

– That must go in.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It must go in unless we take it out of clause 67. I suggest to the Postmaster-General that it would be very much better to strike out paragraph (6) of this clause, and we can recommit clause 67 and strike out the provision there also.

Senator Drake:

– Not the whole of it 1

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No, only the portion applicable. The PostmasterGeneral would then be in the position of being able to insist upon mails being carried, of course, paying a fair rate according to the particular circumstances. If, for instance, a vessel was going to stime of the islands, it would be impossible by regulation to have fixed rates applicable to a case of that kind, and also applicable to the case of a vessel going, say, to Java. We have no contract for the carriage of mails to Java, or to some of the other islands, and if we laid down one hard-and-fast rule, we would find it impossible to apply it under different circumstances. Another point to which Senator Playford has drawn attention is that arising under clauses 1 6 and 17. In the matter of the carriage of mails on railways, provision is made for justice being done by a reference to arbitration. A ship carrying mails in a case of emergency would be placed in a far worse position than the mail contractor .or the authorities of a State railway obliged to carry mails under clause 16, who would have an opportunity of having the rates fairly adjusted in the event of a difference with the Postmaster-General. The real difficulty in this matter arises because the provision is applicable to cases of emergency, and although this provision may be adopted, it will be found to be quite unworkable through the impossibility of framing rates applicable to all. cases. .

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– It is. clear that if in one clause we sa)’ that a contract for the carriage of mails can be entered into by arbitration, we cannot also by regulation say that the Governor-General may fix rates for the carriage of mails. It appears to me, therefore, that paragraph (6) has nothing to do with clauses 16 and 17. Paragraph (J) deals with private railways. It is inconsistent with clause 15, which says -

The Postmaster - General, or any person authorized, in that behalf by the GovernorGeneral, may enter into contracts, in writing, on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth, for, or in respect of the carriage of mails by land and sea.

That I take to mean by sea, and by private railways or coaches. This clause provides that contracts may be entered into, and a contract assumes that both parties to it are of one mind, and have entered into an agreement, and it is therefore inconsistent, I think, to say that, with respect to these contracts, we shall by regulation give the Governor-General power to fix the rates.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– I cannot agree with the opinion expressed by the honorable senators who have just spoken. Clause 15, in my opinion, deals with an altogether different set of circumstances to those dealt with in the clause we are discussing now.

Senator Charleston:

– Clause 15 was postponed. Why discuss it now 1

Senator GLASSEY:

– I am only showing the difference, in my opinion, between the powers conferred on the PostmasterGeneral by clause 15, and by clause 91. Under clause 15 the Postmaster-General may enter into arrangements with shipping companies, trading vessels between centres of population, frequently and regularly; and in the same way he may make arrangements with railway authorities carrying mails between large centres of population. But the part of clause 91, which we are now discussing, deals with a different set of circumstances. Take, for instance, the case of vessels going from

Queensland to the islands of the Pacific. How can we lay down any hard-and-fast rule that the Postmaster-General shall pay so-and-so according to any provision to be found under clause 15 with regard to vessels trading from the different ports of Queensland. I think it is necessary that the Postmaster-General should have the power to say that such vessels shall carry . mails. I believe that the quantity of letters, newspapers, packets, and other correspondence likely to be carried, will be so trivial that it is not worth while contending very much upon the hardship likely to be inflicted on owners in being obliged to carry mails. I have had some little experience in this matter, and I know the mails going from the town I have represented for some years, have never been very heavy, and masters or owners of vessels trading from our ports to the Polynesian Islands are not likely to haggle with the PostmasterGeneral with regard to the price to be paid for the carriage of such mails. The Postmaster-General must have a definite power for the public convenience to say that vessels trading in that way must be compelled to carry mails.

Senator McGregor:

– Hehas got it under clause 67.

Senator GLASSEY:

– If clause 67 be sufficiently clear on that point that is an end to it. Meantime, I would urge the Postmaster-General strongly not to relinquish his power to insist upon persons owning vessels carrying mails for the public convenience to wherever they are trading.

Senator HARNEY:
Western Australia

– I agree with other senators that this paragraph should be struck out. At the same time, Senator Dobson is not quite right in saying that clauses 16 and 17 are not applicable. As they stand, they would not be ; but there has been an amendment made in clause 1 7 making it applicable to private railways, and this paragraph therefore does apply in the case of that clause. Assuming that it does apply we are in this position. We have a clause in one part of the Bill providing that both railway and shipping proprietors may carry mails; and while we have also a provision that the Postmaster-General may enter into contracts with them as regards the price, yet we have a clause here which says that a regulation shall be made fixing the rates. If a regulation is made fixing the rates in pursuance of this clause the rates so fixed are to have the force of law. We have therefore one part of the Bill providing arbitrarily, with the force of law, the fixing of the rates, while we have another clause in the same Bill saying that the rates shall be fixed by contract.

Senator Stewart:

– The rates will be fixed by a mutual arrangement.

Senator HARNEY:

– It says the regulation shall fix the rates. It is not a regulation for the purpose of determining how the rates shall be fixed, but a regulation fixing the rates. It has been said, and I daresay it is true, that this sub-clause is aimed at a set of circumstances entirely different from those contemplated in the clauses to which I have referred. Those clauses have to do with permanent contracts for the regular carriage of mails, while this clause has to do with isolated cases where no permanent contract could have been or has been entered into. That may have been in the mind of the draftsman, but it. does not alter the difficulty pointed out by Senator Playford.

Senator Playford:

– Why did he put in private railways ?

Senator HARNEY:

– In any way it does not remove the difficulty pointed out by me, for this reason, that when a clause says that contracts may be made, it implies, if we are going to have mails carried in any of these exceptional cases, we must have the rate fixed by contract, and if we have a regulation fixing them anterior to the possibility of any contract, then either the contractual section must go or this section must go. So I think that if we are to give effect to the preceding clause we should strike out this sub-clause. I move -

That paragraph (6) be omitted.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– There is a misapprehension in the minds of some honorable senators with regard to the effect of clause 15. It will not meet the case which these regulations are contemplated to deal with, because it contemplates a contract being entered into, and with the contract there must be a mutual agreement by the two parties. But we take power beyond that to compel the master of any vessel to carry mails. There is a provision in clause 66 that the master of anyship is to carry mails if it becomes necessary for postal purposes. This would simply be in isolated cases where it would not suit the

Postmaster-General to enter into a regular contract with the owners of ships for the purpose of carrying mails. And having determined that where a casual or an occasional mail is to be carried by the master of a ship there must be some provision made for fixing rates. It should be borne in mind that it is not a contract between the Minister and the master of a ship. It is something which the law says the master of a ship shall do, but, the Postmaster-General, in order to deal fairly and honestl y with him is prepared to pay him some reasonable sum for carrying the mails, and therefore the regulation comes in enabling him to fix the rates to be paid. But, supposing for the sake of argument, we do not pass this clause but say that it shall be a matter of contract. He says to the master of the ship - “ I want you to carry this mail to the islands “ ; the master says - “ I want £100 for the service” ; the Minister says - “ £5 is ample remuneration”: the master replies - “I shall not carry the mail unless you pay me £100.” Where is the Minister then? He says he can make the master carry the mails, but the master can make him pay whatever demand he sees fit to make for the carriage of them. Therefore, we want to bring this particular case within the regulation enabling the PostmasterGeneral to fix a reasonable rate which will be paid to those who are compelled to carry a mail. If we shall have some absolute power like this, we shall place the Minister in the hands of master of a ship, and, practically, our legislation willbe nugatory, if that man sees fit to make it so by demanding an excessive amount to be paid. Are we going then to turn round and say - “We shall allow you to try and make a contract, and if you cannot, you must go to arbitration and settle the whole thing.” We do not want to break a butterfly upon a wheel. We want to deal with a thing like this in a reasonable manner. Where it is confined to matters of this character, it is reasonable to leave the ultimate power in the hands of the Minister. If he chooses to abuse the power, there is the Parliament to bring him to book. If it is found that he is consistently acting unjustly and unfairly towards the masters of ships, the Parliament will protect them. Surely it will not allow the masters to be ridden over, rough-shod, but it expects them to do a reasonable thing when it is necessary in the interests of the State that they should be compelled to carry mails.

Senator DRAKE:

– I wish to supplement the arguments of Senator Gould by looking at the matter from another point of view. I have been twitted once or twice during this discussion with trying to act as a despot, and wanting to get additional powers, and so on. Is the Senateprepared to let the Postmaster-General pay anything he thinks fit to the masters of vessels, because if we do not make a provision that the rate to be paid is to be fixed by regulation then it must be fixed by the Minister, and he can pay a master anything he likes ? Is that what the Senate desires ?

Senator Glassey:

– Yes, but under the clause the master does not need to carry.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes, he does. ‘We have power under clause 67 to compel the master of a vessel to take a mail. Either the rate of remuneration is to be fixed by regulation, or it must be fixed by the Minister, and if this clause is omitted it will leave the Minister to pay the master anything he likes. I think it is necessary to he able to fix a rate by regulation for tramway authorities. I am perfectly prepared to strike out the words “and private railway,” for the simple reason that we have amended clause 16 in such a way as to provide that in the case of a private railway we are to enter into a contract with the owners, and if we cannot come to an amicable ar range ment, the matter of remuneration is to be fixed by arbitration. I do not think it is necessary that we should have this power in regard to private lines. I intend to move the omission of the words “ and private railways.”

Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - What . I was going to suggest was that instead of retaining the word “ fixing,” we ought to say “ providing for the rates to be paid to masters.” That would leave the Minister all the power, and it would not fix anything. Clause 67 gives power to prescribe rates, and this provision would enable him to make the necessary regulations. If we omit the words “ private railway,” it would come to the same thing, because the. matter is open with reference to ships.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the words “private railway “ be omitted.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - We vest in the Minister compulsory power to enjoin that all casual mails shall be carried, and if some rates are not fixed by regulation it is undoubtedly as he may determine at the time ; otherwise the unfortunate ship-owner will get nothing. I was going to suggest, to make it still clearer and to avoid the difficulty with regard to mails under contract, that we should insert some such words as “for the occasional or casual carriage of mails.” It has been suggested that there should be some provision added to clause 15 with regard to arbitrations in connexion with contracts. It is obvious that that would never do. Clause 15 deals with the powers of the Postmaster-General to enter into contracts, and to provide that he could not fix a rate by contract if the other party disagreed without entering into an . arbitration would be a new way of making a bargain. Clause 91 deals with a different matter altogether. It relates to what may be called the emergency carriage of mails - that is, with cases where there is no contract entered into. An amendment such as I have suggested would differentiate quite clearly as to the inapplicability of this to contracts, and show what was meant, namely, that this was a power vested in the Postmaster-General, by means of which he would be able to put a mail on board a ship which was going to an island at an odd or. occasional time, and would enable him to fix a rate of payment per pound of mail matter.

Senator Playford:

– The payment is so much per letter generally.

Senator Drake:

– The regulations would not deal with cases fixed by contract.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - The Postmaster-General proposes to leave in the word “ tramway,” but the amendment made in clause 17 introduces the word “ tramway.”

Senator DRAKE:

– Then I propose, with the permission of the Senate, to amend my amendment. I move -

That the words “ private railway and tramway authorities “ be omitted.

Senator EWING (Western Australia). - May I suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should make it clear that this provision only applies to casual cases in regard to which jio contracts exist. He might insert the words “Fixing the rates payable under sections 66 and 67.” Those clauses contemplate extraordinary as distinct from regular contracts. It should be made clear that this power does not apply to those cases where contracts are going to be entered into.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Would not the insertion of the words “ occasional or casual “ meet the case.

Senator EWING:

– I think so.

Senator O’Connor:

– A lawsuit would probably arise in regard to the settlement of the meaning of “occasional or casual.”

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the following words be added to the paragraph, “in cases not provided for by contract. “

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - I do not think the amendment; is necessary. In cases where contracts are provided for, it is not necessary to make regulations.

Senator Drake:

– I think the amendment is quite harmless.

Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - The words proposed to be inserted by Senator Sir Josiah Symon are really necessary. Clause 15 gives power to make contracts for the carriage of mails by land or sea ; therefore there is power to make contracts for the carriage of mails by sea. If the rates are arbitrarily fixed, the clause as it stands might have the effect of over-riding the rates fixed by contract. It is safer to make the amendment.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Would not tins provision have the effect of enabling the Postmaster-General to refuse to make a contract, and to rely upon rates fixed by regulation 1

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– He would not do so ; you must trust him.

Senator DRAKE:

– The PostmasterGeneral has power to compel the carriage of mails in certain cases! Masters of vessels must carry them whether there is a contract or not. It is desirable to have power to fix regulations for the carriage of such mails. If, for instance, a contract is made with a large shipping company for the regular carriage of mails this provision does not. apply ; but where no contract has been made, in the case of what Senator Sir Josiah Symon has called an occasional mail, the amount to be paid is fixed by regulation.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - It seems to me that under this provision, the Postmaster-General would be able to refuse to make a contract, and having done so might compel owners or masters of vessels to carry the mails at rates fixed by the regulations. Thereby the previous clause would be overridden.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - I expect that in a few years’ time the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth will be able to dispense with the making of contracts altogether. In the United States of America mail contracts are not made, but the Postmaster-General takes advantage of any vessel that is going to any port, and puts the mails on board that vessel, which carries them at a fixed rate. I think the charge is so much per letter. I anticipate that in a few years’ time the PostmasterGeneral of Australia will be in a position to make some such arrangement as that.

Amendment agreed to.

Paragraph (b), as amended, ageeed to.

Paragraph (c) - “Prescribingrates of postage and fees to be charged and collected upon postal articles,” be omitted.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That paragraph (c) be omitted.

Paragraph (d) agreed to.

Paragraph (e) -

Providing for -

1 ) Transmission and delivery of parcels ;
The conditions under which parcels may be received, transmitted, delivered, returned to the senders or otherwise disposed of ;
The maximum weight, rates, or fees to be charged for the transmission, delivery, return, insurance, or registration of parcels; and
The manner in which such rates or fees are to be paid, and the arrangements as to the collection of any customs duties, or any other duties or fees which may lawfully be payable in respect of an y parcel.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– This paragraph consists of four parts. I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to omit the third one, which provides for regulations in regard to the maximum rates and fees to be charged for the transmission, delivery, return, insurance, or registration of parcels. Then I imagine, if that were omitted, the PostmasterGeneral would also agree to omit paragraph (f) and part of paragraph (n).

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I do not propose to omit the third part of paragraph (c). It is very necessary to have power to fix the maximum weight of parcels. It is not worth while putting such a matter in an Act of Parliament. If we fix those details by statute we can only alter or amend them by statute. I have already. admitted that the matter of postage rates for letters is important, but this paragraph only concerns the transmission of parcels, which is a comparatively unimportant matter as compared with the transmission of letters.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is twenty times as important as the customs duties which the Government will be asking Parliament to deal with shortly.

Senator DRAKE:

– “Time to bid the devil good-day when you meet him.”

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I had an amendment to move to the effect mentioned by Senator Pulsford, but on looking at the clause more closely I think this is a power that we must leave to the Postmaster-General.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs (f) to (k) agreed to.

Paragraph (I) -

Prescribing the persons by or through whom and the places where and the times when and the manner and form in which money orders shall be issued, and the persons in favour of whom and the places where and the time when and the manner and form in which money orders shall be paid and the length of time after which they shall become void and the mode of forwarding messages or advices of transmitting moneys and of managing credits accounts and other matters and things necessary to be forwarded transmitted or managed in reference to money orders whereby the public may be enabled promptly and safely to remit small sums of money through the department.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– But as I have pointed out that is not a large sum of money.

Senator DRAKE:

– It may be a large sum to one person, and a small sum to another. That is why I am not reluctant to allow this word to be struck out.

Amendment agreed to ; paragraph as amended agreed to.

Paragraph (m) agreed to.

Paragraph (n) - .

Prescribing the fees, rates, and dues to be received for -

1 ) the transmission and delivery of any telegram by any telegraph line, and for copies of any such telegram ;
any conversation on any telegraph line or on any telephone exchange or private telephone line ;
rent or hire for the use of any Such exchange or private telephone line ;
generally themanagement, working, and maintenance of any or all such telegraph lines.

Senator DRAKE:

– I move -

That sub-clause (1) be omitted.

Senator Major Gould:

– I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has any power elsewhere to fix the rates for the transmission and delivery of telegrams 1

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Drake:

– We cannot do that, because we are in the middle of the clause, but I will recommit it.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL (Victoria). - This provision has been framed as the result of practical experience. Let us consider a case in which it would be necessary. Suppose, for example, a man had a very large estate, and wished to establish telephonic communication between the homestead and the railway station, it might be necessary for such a line to cross three or four public roads, and to pass close to a township. If this clause were eliminated and the Government had no power over private telephones the department might be confronted with opposition from that private telephone line. The owner would be able to collect fees and the department would suffer. Where a man has a telephone on his own property, and it crosses no road whatever, this clause would not apply. It is .simply framed to protect the department against the designs of unscrupulous men. If the committee is not careful in making these alterations, the department will be faced with great difficulties and the Bill will be practically unworkable.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).The point raised by the honorable senator is that the clause is necessary because of the liability to fraud, lt must be remembered, however, that fraud is liable everywhere under existing conditions.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– There is no necessity to make it easier.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not desire to do so, but where a man has his own telephone within the four corners of his own property he surely has a perfect right to use it without being called upon to pay anything to the Postal department. I move -

That the words “ used in conjunction with any public telephone” he added to sub-clause (2).

Senator DRAKE:

– I hope the committee will not agree to that amendment. Surely the department can be trusted.

Senator Sir Frederick: Sargood:

– It cannot be trusted in these matters.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think the amendment would be unworkable. How are the words “used in conjunction, with any public telephone “ to be interpreted by any PostmasterGeneral ?

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I would ask the Postmaster-General whether it would not be possible for him under this Bill to allow a person to construct a telephone line on condition that the public be permitted to use it on certain terms. For instance, a tramway company might be allowed to construct a line along its tramway, and the department might see fit, under this Bill, to impose a condition that the public should be allowed to use it on payment of certain charges. If we put in here the words “ or for the use of a private telephone by the public “ that would make some sense of the thing. Then it would read-

Any conversation on any telegraph line, or on any telephone exchange, or on any private telephone line, or for the use of a private telephone by the public.

If we authorize a company to build telephone lines for its private purposes, and make it a condition that the public shall be allowed to use it, this would give the power to provide the fees to be charged to the public for the use of it, and that is, I suppose, what is really wanted.

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA

– I happen to be connected with several telephone lines, and amongst others with one at Barringgun, on the border of Queensland and on the Warrago. We have gone to great expense in building that line, a distance of 25 miles. Of course we facilitate business going to the office. We do not object to that. We send innumerable telegrams which would not otherwise be sent. We save the shareholders money,and God knows they want it ! I would support the Government in every way by protecting and increasing the revenue, but in the case of a telephone which is entirely a private affair, a line merely from one portion to another portion of the same holding, and having no connexion whatever with the Telegraph department, I should expect that we should not be handicapped by any Government.

Senator Drake:

– As a matter of fact they are not, are they ?

Senator FRASER:

– There are difficulties about the crossing of roads and various other things.

Senator Drake:

– The crossing of roads is another question altogether.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– The honorable senator does not want to make a monopoly out of it.

Senator FRASER:

– There can be no monopoly where the line is used merely to serve our own purposes. I know of one telephone line, which is only 300 yards in length, across the Edwards River, in New

South Wales, and there are two or three roads, or proposed roads there, that are never used by man or beast except for grazing. There is no traffic whatever upon them, and no possible danger can arise from the existence of that line. Notwithstanding that I am willing that the department shall make provision that where a line crosses roads every protection shall be given. I only wish to say that the Government ought to facilitate that kind of work. These telephones are increasing rapidly and, as they save an immense amount of labour and difficulty of management they ought to be encouraged. The trouble is that the department, if they think fit, can under this clause handicap these people. I am sure that with the present Government and the present Minister there would be no difficulty, but we do not know who may come after them, and it will be just as well to put it out of the power of any factious Minister to interfere with these private telephone lines, when they do not in the least degree retard the development of the Postal department. - , Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - Imove -

That the following words be added to subclause (2) : - “ Over which the Postmaster-General is by this Act authorized to exercise control.”

– I understand the point clearly, but I think the Senate is willing to allow this to go for the present until we have had a discussion on Part 4, when, if it is necessary, we can recommit this clause.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the word “and” be added to sub-clause (3).

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).. - There will be a slight alteration required consequent upon the introduction of the word “ and.” The Minister will see that paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to two different things, and that the effect of bracketing them together will be to create confusion.

Senator Drake:

– I think that paragraph (n) will have to be recast.

Senator MILLEN:

– Withdraw the amendment.

Senator DRAKE:

– I shall withdraw the amendment if there is any opposition to it, because the intrepretation clause only interprets “telegraphs,” and under that word is. comprehended all telegraph lines and telephone lines. I am not quite sure but I think the word “ telephone “ in this sub-clause is entirely unnecessary. I do not want to express a positive opinion, because it speaks here of telephone exchanges. “ I am inclined to think that the word telephone can be omitted.

Senator WILLIAM ZEAL (Victoria).Clause 3 provides that the word “telegraphic” includes the word “telephonic,”’ and it says that “ telegraphic line “ means so-and-so.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I presume that the Minister is willing to recommit this clause later on, and it is understood that we can then discuss such matters as are provided for in paragraph (o), because that really opens up the same question.

Senator DRAKE:

– We have postponed Part 4, which deals with telegraphs. We have not discussed it yet. Possibly in discussing that part some amendments may be made, and if it becomes necessary to make any alteration in clause 9, I shall recommit it at the desire of any honorable senator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs (o), ( p), and (q) agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following be inserted as a new paragraph to follow paragraph (q) : - (r) For the purpose of providing for the payment of a minimum rate of wages and fair working conditions in all contracts under this Act, such rates of wages and conditions to be those recognised by the trades unions in the locality in which the work is carried out.

– That is what we want to do.

Senator DRAKE:

– But look at the machinery that would have to be provided. Senators who have had experience of the working of factory legislation in Victoria, in Queensland, or in other States know that an enormous amount of machinery is required. I do not see how in any State where there is no factory law we can introduce regulations which will practically mean enacting factory laws.

With regard to the erection of post-offices, Senator Pearce answered himself in the course of his remarks. The erection of such buildings has nothing to do with the Postal department. All that that department does is to approve of the erection of a building. The matter then passes into the hands of the Works department. I do not know how it may be in the case of the Commonwealth Government, because no post-offices have been erected since this Government came into existence.

Senator Playford:

-The Government must have a Works department for carrying out repairs and so forth.

Senator DRAKE:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator EWING:

– Would it be the rate of wages fixed by the Western Australian Seamen’s Union or by the Seamen’s Union of London ? It seems to me in such a case that it would be impossible to fix what would be a fair rate of wages. Are we going to say that the P. and O. Company shall pay the Australian wages ? Senator Pearce provides in his amendment for a fair rate of wages and fair conditions “ in all contracts under this Act.” Does the honorable senator mean what he says? If he will limit it to that which is practicable I am with him, but he says “ all contracts under this Act,” and therefore, in the case suggested, the P. and 0. Company contracting to carry a mail must pay - what rate of wages ? The

Australian standard rate of wages, or what rate of wages is it suggested by the honorable senator, should be paid? I am heartily in accord, with the intention of the amendment that a fair standard rate of wages should be paid in the various localities where the work is to be done ; but I think the amendment is too comprehensive altogether. If he were to say that all public works carried out in various localities for the Postmaster-General shall be carried out under the standard rate of wages, I should be heartily in accord with him, but I do not see that the wide language of this amendment can possibly be accepted, because it would mean that he would have the P. and 0. Company-

Senator McGregor:

– Oh !

Senator EWING:

– Senator McGregor says “ Oh ! “ I suppose he is exclaiming because he is unable to see the extent of this provision, or perhaps he was surprised to find when it was brought in that it was wider than he thought.

Senator McGregor:

– lam surprised at the honorable senator knowing so little about it.

Senator EWING:

Senator HIGGS:

State where there’ was no social legislation in existence? Put the condition I have asked for in Government contracts, and you may safely leave it to the working men who are employed under those conditions to see that they are enforced. The men will soon let you know whether the conditions are being complied with or not. Senator Harney will ask me perhaps, “What would you do if the conditions were not “complied with ? You could not make the employer do it.” Let Senator Harney ask Senator Sir Frederick Sargood whether the employer cannot be compelled.

Senator Harney:

– Do not pay him - is that what the senator means?

Senator McGREGOR:

– No ; but the Government could cancel the contract, and could also make it a condition that the employer might be fined £1,000, or any other sum that might be fixed, if he did not observe the labour conditions. There is not the slightest difficulty about enforcing the conditions, and it is really useless to argue the point any further. This amendment which has been moved by Senator Pearce - it is suggested to me that it is really the amendment of Senator Sir Frederick Sargood, but I do not believe that - is only for the purpose of giving the Postmaster-General power to insert the condition asked for in the contracts of his department, and a contractor who does not carry it out should be penalized by being fined or having his contract cancelled. With regard to Cobb and Co., [ know nothing about the business of that firm. In South Australia it is Hill and Co. who carry the mails. That firm have always been very fair to their employés. Hill and Co. have given them fair wages as far as I have ever heard. Does the Postmaster-General mean to bring about a condition of tilings that would make it necessary for Hill and Co., or Cobb and Co., .or any other company to compete with people who would, as soon as they got a contract, be prepared to grind down those who worked for them to the lo.west level ? Surely in the interests of the humane employers - I believe they are the majority - who are anxious to carry out a fair and faithful bargain with the Government, and to treat their employes humanely, the Minister should agree to the insertion of a power in the contracts of his department that will enable the employes to be fairly treated. Iri another place a resolution has been carried, with the consent of the Government, that in all Government contracts the principle here contended for shall be recognised.

Senator Playford:

– Then you do not want it in this Bill.

Senator McGREGOR:

– But the Postal department, as the saying is, will generally go “ on its own.” We find that that is the case in other States. It will be safer to insert the provision in this Bill. It can do no harm, and will only be in accordance with the resolution passed in another place. Therefore I hope the committee will agree to the amendment, and that instead of merely expressing their sympathy, senators will give practical effect to it by doing something for the good employers who are willing to treat their fellow-creatures fairly, as well as for those individuals for whom so much sympathy is expressed.

– If the honorable senator knew the

Factories Act as well as I know it he would not say that. The point we have to consider is whether the union rate of wage is to be recognised. I am strongly in favour of the standard wage in the locality in which the work is being done being recognised on all occasions ; but I do not think it wise for the country to bind itself down to accept a rate of wage decided upon by any class of men - I ‘ do not care whether they are unionists or not.

Senator Pearce:

– What is a standard rate of wage 1

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– There is always a standard rate of wage in every locality.

Senator Pearce:

– Who would the honorable senator accept as an authority on the subject-

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD.I do not think I am compelled to go into all these details at the present time. I favour the principle advocated by the mover of the amendment, but I do not think that the amendment is in the right place. It cannot be carried out until there is factory legislation in every State. That, I trust will take place as quickly as possible. Personally I should like to see the Commonwealth intrusted with the power of passing factory legislation, and I would be prepared to render hearty assistance in that direction. Reference has been made to the manufacture of uniforms. That is a very small matter. The number of uniforms required every year, would be comparatively trifling, and they would be manufactured in many places in each State. To appoint an inspector to watch their manufacture under each of these contracts would involve a very large amount of extra cost. I may inform Senator McGregor that it is not the practice to inspect clothing during the course of manufacture. The clothing is delivered, and then it is ascertained by examination whether it is up to the standard, or not. In no instance that I know of. is clothing inspected during the process of manufacture. An inspector therefore would have little or nothing to do.- I need hardly go into the question of enforcement as I do not see how it could be enforced until we get factory legislation.

Senator McGregor:

– Cancel the agreement.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not think we could carry it out then. I shall be glad to support wise factory legislation whenever it is introduced, but I cannot see my way clear to support this amendment which has practically nothing to do with the Post-office Bill.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I should have much preferred to see this motion brought forward apart from the Postal Bill, but as it has been tabled, and as my sympathies with it will cany me a little further than the sympathies of other honorable senators appear to have carried them, I am anxious to make a suggestion the acceptance of which would enable me to vote for it. I have listened very carefully to the objections that have been raised, and I must admit that many of them are the result of fear or imagination. I have heard similar objections raised with regard to nearly every reform dealing with social and industrial legislation. Nevertheless, I think I can see one or two objections to the adoption of the amendment in its entirety. It makes two distinct proposals. The first is that in all contracts under the Postal department provision shall be made for the payment of a fair rate of wage and for fair working conditions. I agree absolutely with that. I see no objection to requiring £he Postal department to insure that being done, and I see little difficulty in maintaining that position. When it goes on to stipulate, however, how we are to ascertain these conditions, I think it creates a difficulty. I do not wish to see the Postmaster-General made a. party to a strike,- for instance, and yet if we adopt the amendment in its present form we might under these regulations force him to take sides in an industrial dispute. There is no necessity for that. Let me illustrate what I. mean. Supposing trouble occurred with the railway employes, and they, through their union, demanded a higher rate of wages- than they were receiving. The mails have to be carried ; they could not be stopped pending the adjustment of this trouble. What, then, would be the position of the Postmaster-General ? He insists, under this Bill, that the mail’s shall be carried, but, in the event of a dispute, the railway authorities might perhaps be forced to say that they must stop the running of their trains rather than concede the demands of the men. In such an event, what would the Postmaster-General have to do ? Should he say “ You are to pay the rate of wages which the union demands, and not the rate previously given” ? Yet such a difficulty would possibly occur not only in regard to railways, but in relation to the carriage of mails by other means. I would, therefore, ask the proposer of the amendment to omit -the last lines, altering the word “minimum” to “ reasonable,” and making the paragraph read - ‘

For the purpose of providing for the payment of a reasonable rate of wages and fair working conditions in all contracts under this Act.

That is not only an affirmation of the broad principle that in the carrying out of the department’s work we wish to treat fairly those who are discharging that work, but it brings the machinery into play by which the regulations can be enforced. It certainly would throw upon the Postmaster-General occasionally the difficult task of determining whether the wages were fair or not, but in 99 cases out of 100 he would adopt the union rate. It would also relieve hun from the obligation of taking sides if such trouble as that to which I have referred did occur. If the suggestion I have made is adopted, or something in that direction, I shall be prepared to give the motion my vote, as I now give.it my cordial support.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland). - I wish to add a word or two in regard to the question of the inspection of uniforms in course of manufacture, to which reference has been made. Senator Sir. Frederick Sargood, who has had large experience in these matters, says there is no such thing as inspection of clothing in the process of manufacture. That we may take as a fact. Assuming, however, that the post-office insists upon inspection, does it follow that it will be necessary to have an inspector travelling from place to place ? I do not think so. I think the difficulty can be overcome very easily. Supposing that a contract for the manufacture qf uniforms for the postal authorities of Victoria is let, could not the Postmaster-General arrange for some person who is particularly well up in this kind of work to superintend the manufacture of the uniforms at a moderate fee ? Where is the difficulty ? The income tax in the old country is collected by local people, who are thoroughly conversant with the various persons and matters in their respective localities. In Queensland, which is an enormous territory with a sparse population, the contracts for these uniforms are usually let in Brisbane. The clothing is manufactured according to measurement and sent to postal employes all over the State. I was in the Postal department at Brisbane for a little while, and know something about the matter. I am acquainted with a number of contractors in Brisbane who have made uniforms for the Railway department, the Postal department, and for the police, and I can say that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a thoroughly competent person in any of the large centres to see that the uniforms are properly made. Their services could be obtained for a very small fee, so that so far as the appointment of travelling inspectors is concerned there need be no anxiety over it at all, and it simply wants a little arrangement. In the way I suggest we may easily overcome any difficulty in the way of inspection. If we have a desire to put these very humane provisions into force we will find that the difficulties raised will vanish into thin air when we come to the practical working of the question.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).- The PostmasterGeneral mentioned Cobb and Co. some time ago, and he also asked whether if two contractors tender, one at £150 and one at £200, we should accept the tender at £150.

Senator Drake:

– That was in consequence of a remark made by Senator De Largie.

Senator HIGGS:

– I would just like to say, with respect to Messrs. Cobb and Co., that their tenders for the mail services in certain parts of Queensland are higher than the tenders sent in by some other, contractors, but, inasmuch as Messrs. Cobb and Co.’s tenders, taken as a whole, give a lower average than the others, they get; the whole of the contracts.

Senator Drake:

– They lump them together and take 20 per cent. off.

Senator HIGGS:

– I do not think that is righ t. The people in the different localities ought to get a fair chance. Messrs. Cobb and Co., by the system adopted, are getting practically a monopoly in Queensland.

Senator DRAKE:

– With regard to Cobb and Co’s. contracts, I know a little 0f the subject, but I do not know whether it would be advisable generally to adopt the ‘Queensland system. I believe that the custom with Cobb and Co., in tendering for mail contracts in Queensland’, is to send in a tender for each separate contract, and then, say that if all their tenders are accepted, they will take something off the total, either 10 or 20 per cent. I think that is what Senator Higgs is referring to.

Senator Higgs:

– Yes ; and the fact that allowing them to tender in that way di-ives out other tenderers, and kills competition.

Senator DRAKE:

That in the opinion of the House provision should be made in all Government contracts for the payment of a minimum rate of wage, such rate to be in accordance with the ruling rate of wage in the district in which the work is to be carried out; and for the fixing of a maximum number of hours of labour.

That received not only the express assent of the Prime Minister, as representing the

– Make them compulsory, like the lawyers union.

Senator Major GOULD:

– The honorable senator wants to see the Government make every man come into a trades union or starve. Lawyers do not do anything of that kind.. So long as a man is respectable and can pass the prescribed examinations he can become a lawyer. I object to any outside body dictating to the Government the terms on which people shall be employed. The Government can fix what terms they consider fair and reasonable, and if they are not prepared to deal fairly and reasonably with the people of the country, then the two Houses can make them do so.

– Their wages will be fixed in the Public Service Bill.

Senator KEATING:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not think so. There is no reference to regulations in this amendment. This is a distinct proposal that it shall be competent for the Postmaster-General to require certain rates of wages to be paid by contractors. I donot care who fixes them. It seems to me that we impose a double interference. First of all we say that the railways shall carry the mails and now we are asked tosay that the Commonwealth Government shall fix the rates of wages to be paid to those who cany the mails upon the railways. A train may be carrying only half-a-dozen bags of mails, but this provision will compel the Commonwealth Government to fix wages for every one engaged upon that train. That is a serious difficulty. If the committee is determined to pass such an amendment I would venture to make a suggestion that would meet some difficulties that have been raised. I would suggest the introduction of the word “generally” before, the word “recognised,” and would then omit the words “ by trades unions.” The clause would then read -

Such rates of wages and conditions to be those generally recognised in the locality in which thework is carried out.

Senator Drake:

– Who is going to interpret that ?

Senator Sir Josiah SYMON:

– The honorable senator is introducing a qualification of the first provision of the amendment - the minimum wage.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– .1 do not like to give a vote that looks like implying a desire’ that men shall be employed at improper rates, or wages that are below the proper standard ; but, on the other hand, if this clause werepassed in its present form, it would be an improper interference with the railway management of the different States.

– It is a minimum wage as far as able-bodied men are concerned. It is not fair to lay down the hardandfast rule that every man shall be paid a certain wage. All men are not constituted alike, either physically or mentally, nor can you place all men in the same category. Therefore our Government have recognised, with the full consent of the trades unions of South Australia and of the working men’s representatives in Parliament, that under certain circumstances less than the minimum may be paid where men are not capable of fairly earning the minimum wage. I do not think we should pass the amendment - in its present form, at any rate. I would strike out two things at least.. In the first place I would strike out. all reference to a minimum wage. Let the Government put that in their regulations if they like. In the second place I would strike out the reference to trades unions. It is a great mistake to say that the trades union rate shall be the rate paid. It might be that the trades union rate was not a fair rate in a certain neighbourhood. If those two provisions are struck out the amendment will read as follows -

For the purpose of providing for the payment of a rate of wages and fair working conditions in all contracts under this Act, such rates of wages and conditions to be the rates recognised in the locality in which the work is carried out.

Senator O’Keefe:

– There will be nothing left if those alterations are made.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– If the object of those who support the amendment be not to get fair conditions for the labourer, and to prevent unfair conditions being imposed, but to impose some special minimum wage fixed by trades unions, that would be grossly unfair. I do not think there is any one in South Australia, except Mr. Charles Cameron Kingston, who has been more favorable to the working men than I have. I introduced the eight hours’ principle in connexion with Government works, and I have assisted to improve the conditions of my fellows in every way I could. But I am not going by Act of Parliament to recognise trades unions in the way proposed by this amendment. The members of trades unions are, after all, a minority, although they are a most intelligent minority. They are the aristocracy of labour. If I were a working man I should belong to a trades union. But at the same time they are irresponsible bodies, and we should not recognise them in an Act of Parliament. Unless the amendment be altered in the way I have suggested, I shall certainly be unable to vote for it.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– A number of honorable senators have pointed out that the proposal before the committee is impracticable; but I doubt even yet if the committee understands how thoroughly impracticable it is. There is no department of the Government so widely extended as thepost-office. Ourinland post-offices are in many cases hundreds of miles from any important centre. 1 suppose that out of ten contracts in connexion with postoffices which might be let by the Government, eight or nine at least would be for work in districts where there are positively no such things as trades unions, and where it would not be possible to carry out the terms of the amendment. The same remark applies to the construction of telegraph-lines, to contracts for the conveyance of mail matter along the inland mail routes, and also to the conveyance of letters by foreign and coastal vessels. There is altogether an absence of all power by which it would be possible to work the amendment. If the committee would grasp the position put by the Postmaster-General as to the absolute impossibility of carrying out the amendment, the discussion would be ended at once and the question resolved in the negative.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia).. - I have been much impressed by the force of the arguments of Senator Playford, and in deference to the strong expression of opinion on the part of several senators, I ask leave of the committee to amend the amendment so as to make it read -

For the purpose of providing for the payment of a rate of wages and fail working conditions in all contracts under this Act, such rates of wages and conditions to be those recognised in the locality in which the work is carried out.

I think the amended amendment cuts the ground from under the feet of those who have objected to the use of the phrase “by the trade unions.” It provides a practical way of bringing into force the resolution which the House of Representatives has agreed to with the consent of the Government.

– SYMON. - Yes, but it does not say so. We will be able to deal with that matter when the amendment proposed by Senator Glassey comes on, because it will involve the question of signing on. We are now talking of this amendment with the spirit of which so much sympathy has been expressed, and the difficulty is to say who under a contract is to determine the rate of wages. Where the work is carried out oversea between England and Australia, who is to determine what the “ recognised “ rate of wages shall be? It seems to me that Senator Pearce would have done better if he had not accepted the latter part of the advice given him by Senator Playford, and it would have been better if he had accepted the first part of Senator Playfords advice, and had withdrawn the amendment altogether. Really this is a principle which, if it is to be applied at all, should be applied all over the Commonwealth, and it should be applied uniformly, and not to one specific part of the Government services. It should be applied to all. Government services, and to all contracts under Government. That could be better effected in a general Bill like the Public Service Bill, in which we could lay down the rules definitely and clearly. I am sure that my honorable ‘ friends on the left could effect their desire better in that way than by introducing such a proposition as this into an Act of Parliament dealing with only one department of the public service. The regulations suggested would be impracticable, and more impracticable under the present amendment than under the previous one. It was definite before, though open to the objection raised as to the rate of wages and the conditions being determined by the trades unions. Still, having eliminated that we leave the whole thing at large, to do what would’ probably be beneficial for the profession to which I belong, unfortunately promote litigation, or render it impracticable to frame any regulations which would have a beneficial effect upon contracts entered into under this Bill.

– I think the Postmaster-General can easily do that when ne is in possession, as he may easily be, of the rates ruling in any locality in which he has work to be done. 1 am not at all par- ‘ticular how it is done, but it is our duty to see that the conditions of the people are according to their capacity for producing wealth. While we have control of these things it is right that we should stipulate that work done for the State shall be done under- conditions ‘worthy of the nation to which we belong.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland). - I must really go back to the imaginary difficulties again. Much has been said about the difficulty in letting a contract for the carriage of mails oversea from one end of the world to another. That point was raised by Senator Sir Josiah Symon, who wished to know what rate could be fixed in such a case. Surely there is not much difficulty about that. If the’ Postmaster-General enters into a contract with the P. and O. Company, the question to consider is, where the men working for that company sign articles.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– My difficulty is that the amendment says “ in the locality where the work is carried on.” Not where the men sign on.

Senator GLASSEY:

– Quite so ; but we are not going to stop at a few words, and there need be no two meanings in regard to this proposal. If the Postmaster-General enters into a contract with the shipping companies, whose men sign articles in Melbourne, the rate of wages will be those paid in this locality, and it will not follow that because the men on the ship carrying the mails go to other parts of the world they will have a different rate of wages when they are in those other parts of the world. What is there to hinder the Postmaster-General from saying, when letting a contract, that such and such wages shall be paid to the men engaged in carrying out the contract.

Senator Drake:

– That is not the present proposal.

Senator GLASSEY:

– It is a matter which has been referred to by Senator Sir Josiah Symon, and I briefly allude to it. Take another locality as an illustration. Supposing there are 10 or 20 miles of telegraph line to be laid down at Bat larat, for instance, the postal authorities and most other persons will surely know the usual wages paid in that locality to persons engaged in that particular work. Supposing -a man is engaged in cutting poles there can be no difficulty in finding out what is the usual rate of wages paid for that work.

Senator Drake:

– What is the recognised rate of wages at Boulia- -for carrying mails.

Senator GLASSEY:

– lt is well known that there are persons owning coaches and contracting for the carriage of mails in that locality, and the usual rates paid for that work in that locality are known. Whatever they are, the condition of the contract should provide for the payment of those rates. All these are imaginary troubles which will never arise, and the great question after all is : are we desirous of doing what is proposed 1 If we are, there is no locality in the whole of Australia where there is not some recognised rate of wages which is well known, even if it be only a portion of the country where people are clearing the scrub. I may be pardoned for saying that honorable senators are raising obstacles which exist only in their own imagination. I do not myself believe in this- vague statement as to a “ recognised” rate. In order that all contractors may have an opportunity of tendering, I want the Postmaster-General to lay down in his conditions of contract that the contractor shall pay so and so for the different kinds of work that he performs. There should be no vagueness about it, nor do I see that there will be the slightest difficulty in framing regulations to meet the suggestion proposed.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator Fraser:

– What would be the honorable senator’s maximum fee for a lawyer ?

Senator STEWART:

-Six and. eight pence ! I have no objection to the fixing of a minimum wage. As to trades unions, I do not see why honorable senators should be so much afraid of them. We find the influence of trades union legislation in every branch of industry and commerce. The lawyers have a trades union. One honorable senator has repudiated that idea.

Probably “ trades union “ is not the technical term used by lawyers.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– They call it the Law Society.

Senator STEWART:

– Then we find that the banking institutions are incorporated in a union. In. fact, almost every industry that can be mentioned has its union. If the industries and professions do not have unions formally they do so informally, which means almost the same thing. If the different branches of industry are banded together for defensive and offensive purposes

Senator Walker:

– Even Members of Parliament.

Senator STEWART:

– Even Members of Parliament have a kind of trades union. We should resent any interference with what we considered to be our privileges. Some people think we are continually trying to extend them. Therefore, to that extent, we may be said to have something in the nature of a trades union. I do not understand why the words “ trades union “ should be like the proverbial red rag to a bull to some honorable members. Trades unions cannot fix wages at a higher rate than the market value in the particular locality. As Senator McGregor has explained, the wage fixed by a trades union is the result of a compromise between the employers and the employes in every case. If it is not the result of a formal compromise, it is the result of an informal one. No trades union can fix or enforce a rate of its own. Wages are commonly arranged as between the buyer of labour and the seller of it. Therefore, as far as I can see, there need be no’ difficulty about accepting the rates fixed by trade unions in any locality. I should like to hear something more substantial than mere professions of sympathy for working men. I suppose honorable senators have all heard of the Yankee who was going along a street, when, he came across a woman, who had been knocked down by a cab and injured. All the bystanders were sympathizing with her, but he jumped into the centre of the crowd and said - “ I sympathize a dollar!” Are the sympathies of senators strong enough to impel them to vote for this amendment 1 If not, I can only come to the conclusion that their sympathy is not likely to advance the cause of the more lowlypaid workers of the Commonwealth very much.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. Committee divided -

Ayes … … … 14

Noes … … … 14

The CHAIRMAN:

– I record my vote with the ayes as a casting vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Harney:

– I rise to a point of order. I should like to ask the Chairman by what right he gave a vote on this question? We have not yet passed our standing orders !

Senator Playford:

– We are acting under the South Australian orders, and the Chairman has a right to give his casting vote.

Senator Higgs:

– Senator Harney knows the Constitution better than that.

Senator Harney:

– It is not a question of the Constitution. W e are acting under the South Australian standing orders and we must be bound by them whatever they say.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Standing Order 214 is as follows : -

In case of an equality of votes the Speaker shall give a casting vote and any reasons stated by him shall be entered in the votes and proceedings.

Then rule 215 says -

The rule as to voting and demanding and taking divisions shall be the same in committee us in the House itself.

Senator De Largie:

– I also rise to a point of order. I ask if the President was in order in voting for the noes when he was occupying a seat on the right of the chair ?

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– I think the rule in connexion with casting votes is that the vote should be given so as to keep the subject alive. By your voting with the ayes, Mr. Chairman, you havepractically settled the matter ; but by voting with the noes you would have kept the question alive.

I do not profess to know the South Australian rales, but certainly that has been the practice inVictoria, and I think it is also so laid down in May.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have been asked whether the President was in order in remaining on the right side of the chamber and voting with the noes. In my opinion, as the President gave his name to the tellers as voting for thenoes, his vote cannot be challenged.

Paragraph (r) agreed to.

All such regulations and alterations thereof shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if the Parliament be then sitting, or if not within fourteen days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I understand that the PostmasterGeneral has an amendment upon the paper with regard to the latter part of this clause.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think we should have some assurance with regard to the matter if it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the amendment, of which notice has been given.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– A new clause was submitted with a number of other amendments, but honorable senators will remember that, after some discussion, I decided to make an alteration in clause 19 dealing with the matter. The proposal I put before the Senate was accepted, and as this is already dealt with in clause 19, we do not require it now.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I move -

– I would not like that the Senate should be hurried into stultifying itself. I have no objection to the clause if Parliament happens to be sitting, because we will then have a chance of approving or disapproving of whatever regulations are brought before us ; but if Parliament is not in session the Government may make any regulations they please, and they willcontinue until Parliament has an opportunity of reviewing them. As this clause does not provide for fixing of fees, I do not press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Harney:

– I rise to a point of order. I asked before under what authority the Chairman had given his casting vote.

Senator Stewart:

– That is settled ; the honorable senator is too late.

Senator Harney:

– It was then stated that it was under the South Australian standing orders the Chairman had given a casting vote. I. wish to point out that in section 23 of the Constitution Act it is provided that -

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote–

Senator Higgs:

– The Constitution overrules the standing order.

Senator Ewing:

– That is so. The South Australian standing orders take away his vote, otherwise, if he remained in the chamber he would have to record his vote. Here he is in the chamber with the Constitution giving him a vote whether he is in the chair or whether he is not, and he has to cast it on one side or the other. Whether he should have done so a few moments before he did seems, to my mind, beneath the consideration of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Standing Order 152 says-

If any objection is taken to a ruling or decision of the Chairman of Committees, such objection must be taken at once ; and having been stated in writing, the Chairman shall leave the chair, and the House resume, and the matter be laid before the Speaker ; and ha ving been disposed of the proceedings in committee shall be resumed where they were interrupted.

– I insist that he is out of order.

Several Senators. - Chair, chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will Senator Higgs be good enough to resume his seat ?

Senator Higgs:

– I am only anxious that the proceedings shall be conducted in an orderly way. The standing order is quite clear. The objection must be stated in writing, and there can be no explanation, but the honorable and learned senator is using an argument. I submit, sir, that you should leave the chair, and allow this discussion to take place in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So I shall as soon as I receive the point of order.

Senator McGregor:

– It is not in order ; you ought to have received it long ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Honorable senators have heard the objection which has been token by Senator Harney. It has now been handed to me, and I shall leave the chair and report the matter to the President.

Inthe Senate :

Senator Best:

– Mr. President, I have to report that a point of order has been raised in Committee, as follows : -

That the votes having been declared to be equal, the question should have passed in the negative, and the Chairman of Committees had no power to determine the question by a casting vote, and in so doing acted contrary to the Constitution.

Senator Harney:

-Section 23 of the Constitution Act provides -

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall, in all cases, be entitled to a vote ; and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative.

– I take it that under section 23 of the Constitution every senator in the Chamber would, in the absence of anything overruling that section, be entitled to exercise one vote. Accordingly, Senator Best, when in the chair, would have been entitled to vote ; and if he had voted the result would have been fifteen senators on the one side and fourteen on the other But, apparently, according to the standing orders, the effect of a member of the Senate being in the chair is to deprive him of a vote, because the standing order which has been quoted, says - ‘

In case of an equality of votes the Speaker shall give a casting vote, and any reasons stated by him shall be entered in the votes and proceed,ings

Then rule 385 says -

Every question in committee shall be decided in the same manner as in the House itself, the Chairman having only a casting vote.

I take it that the meaning of that standing order is this : Had we no standing orders, the mere fact of the Chairman being in the chair would not have deprived him of his deliberative vote. But we have adopted the South Australian standing orders, and the effect of those standing orders is that when the Chairman is in the chair he has only the character of vote that arises out of the performance of his functions in the chair, namely, a casting vote. Accordingly, when Senator Best gave his vote On this occasion he must have given it as a casting vote ; otherwise he must have disobeyed the standing orders. He could not have given it as a deliberative vote. If Senator Best had stated that he gave his vote as a deliberative vote the only question, as I take it, for you to decide, Mr. President,’ is whether he lost his deliberative vote by sitting in the chair. If Senator Best had stated in the chair that he gave a deliberative vote, the first and only question for you to decide would be - did he lose his deliberative vote by sitting in the chair? But Senator Best has assumed that he lost his deliberative vote. He has made the declaration that the voting was equal. Senator Best having made that declaration, we must come back to the Constitution. The voting being declared to be equal the question should have been passed in the negative. How are we to know when the votes are equal ? By the declaration of the Chairman and by nothing else. We must take the votes to have been equal ; and the question is, the vote having been equal, was it open to any one under our Constitution to determine the question by a casting vote and not pass it in the negative ? There are two very important’ points that arise. The first is - does the Chairman of Committees lose his deliberative vote by virtue of the standing orders ? If he does not lose his deliberative vote, is he bound like every other senator by his own declaration that the votes are equal? If he is bound’ by his own declaration that the votes are equal, can he determine the question in any other manner than that set forth in the Constitution Act, namely, that the question passed in the negative ?

Senator O’Connor:

– I submit that there is no substance in this point of order. I take it that the principle which will guide you, Mr. President, in determining the question is ( this - it is clearly intended by the Constitution of this Senate, in which the States are represented, that every State in every division shall be represented by its full number of members if they are present, and that no State shall be deprived of its representation by reason of one of its representatives being in the chair. I take it that that is the principle which is embodied in section 23 of the Constitution. I take it also that in deciding this matter, you will look at what took place substantially. What took place was this : - The Chairman sitting in the chair declared that the votes were equal. He then gave his vote. It must be quite clear to all senators who have had Parliamentary experience that Senator Best’s vote was a deliberative vote.

Senator Millen:

– Why is it not in the division list then ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– The parliamentary rule is that when a Chairman gives a casting vote, it is to be given so that the matter under discussion may be again discussed. I therefore contend that the Chairman gave a deliberative vote, because he gave his vote with the ayes. But whether he did that or not he gave a vote which carried the question in the affirmative. To my mind that shows that he gave a deliberative vote. Then comes the question in regard to the standing orders. I submit that those standing orders are applicable only in so far as they do not conflict with the Constitution, and that it would be inconsistent with the Constitution to put the Chairman in such a position that he would be deprived of his vote, and that consequently the State he represents would be deprived of a vote. There is no portion of the. standing orders . or of the Constitution which decides at what time that vote is to be given. I submit that although the Chairman waited until the votes were found to be equal, he was in time to give his vote, and therefore that his vote was properly given. For these reasons, I submit that there is nothing in this question of order, and that the vote of the Chairman was properly given.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I think that there can be no doubt whatever that the Constitution does override the standing orders. If that be the case we have to rely entirely on section 23 of the Constitution, which is as follows : -

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall in all cases be entitled to a vote, and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative.

That being so, surely the Constitution also overrides anything Senator Best may say. If the Constitution says that Senator Best shall have a vote, and shall exercise thatvote, then by no word of mouth of his can he override the Constitution. The contention seems absurd. If I had been voting on the ayes side of the chamber, and had said when the teller came to me that I was giving a casting vote, could it be contended that I could thus have overridden the Constitution, If I was in the Chamber I must have voted. It does not matter whether Senator Bestsaid he gave a casting vote or a deliberative vote ; he cannot override the Constitution and must have given a” deliberative vote.

Senator Major Gould:

– I should like to point out, in addition to what has already been urged in reference to this matter, that even under our standing orders it is provided in rule 214, that in case of an equality of votes,’ the Speaker shall give a casting vote. That is to say, the Speaker is not supposed to give a deliberative vote.

The PRESIDENT:

– We did not adopt, that standing order.

Senator Major Gould:

– Standing Order 385 provides that- -

Every question in committee shall be decided in the same manner as in the House itself.

That, I presume, has not been left out . of the standing orders. The standing order goes Orr to say that -

The Chairman, having only a casting vote, any reasons stated by him shall be entered in theVotes and Proceedings.

That is merely an amplification of a rule that has already been referred to- - that the Speaker having only a casting vote, thequestion shall be decided in the same manner in committee as in the Houseitself. There is no question about that. Apart from that the standing orders would prevent the Chairman of Committees from giving his casting vote. The point raised by Senator O’Connor is thatSenator Best was actually acting within his rights when he gave his vote with the ayes, and that the vote he gave was a. deliberative vote. I submit that the vote cannot be regarded as a deliberative vote. Lists were prepared by the tellers, and those lists show that fourteen senators voted ‘ on either side. Whether the Chairman voted or not is beside the question. The division lists are not challenged in any way. They are accepted as accurate. After the result of the division was declared, Senator Best said - “The votes being equal, I shall givemy casting vote with the ayes.” I submit that Senator Best was unable to give that. vote with the ayes, and consequently was unable to give a deliberative vote after the division list had been closed by the tellers and the Chairman had declared the result of the division.

The PRESIDENT:

– It does not appear to me that this point of order is a question of very great substance. Undoubtedly any standing orders which we have made that are contrary to the terms of our Constitution are null and void. But the first question is - “What does section 23 of the Constitution mean ‘! It says -

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall, in all cases, be entitled to a vote, and, when the votes are equal, the question shall pass in negative.

Does that apply to every committee appointed by the Senate ? If it applies to a committee of the whole, it will also apply to a select committee ;° “because a committee of the whole is in no different position to a select- committee. It is a committee appointed by the Senate. I have grave doubts as to whether that section means that “questions arising in the Senate” shall include “ questions arising “ in every committee appointed by the Senate. It is contended - or it seems to me to arise from a contention which has been made - that the Chairman of Committees can have no vote at all, because if he did not give a casting vote he could not give a deliberative vote. If our standing order is contradictory of our Constitution, then undoubtedly the Chairman could not have a casting vote but must have a deliberative vote. But he could not exercise his deliberative vote without over-riding the standing orders, because they clearly give the Chairman a casting vote. Of course that brings us back to the same question - are the standing orders in this respect contradictory of the Constitution 1 If that be the case they have no effect. I do not think it makes very much difference whether the Chairman said, he voted by giving a casting vote, or a deliberative vote. He gave a vote ; and if under this new procedure any of our standing orders have not been properly fitted into our Constitution, and a mistake such as this is made, I do not think any further notice should be taken of it. My ruling is that the Chairman was quite justified in the vote he gave.

In Committee :

The CHAIRMAN:

– -May I be permitted to say that I thought I was following the usual constitutional practice in voting as I did, and I still think so. In order that a further opportunity might be afforded for the consideration of the matter at a subsequent stage I voted with the ayes.

Senator Major Gould:

– Does not that declaration by the Chairman distinctly show -that his vote was given as a casting vote 1

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The statement just made by the Chairman raises a very important point. Under the standing orders a reason must be stated.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Is there not a clause before the committee 1

The CHAIRMAN:

– The concluding paragraph of clause 91 is before the committee.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I draw attention to the last paragraph of clause 91. I thought the Postmaster-General had an amendment to move upon it, but as I see he has not, I raise the question as to how these regulations are to be made, and when they are to have the force of law. It is, I think, very important to provide-that before these regulations shall have the force of law they shall be submitted to and approved of by Parliament. I move -

That the following words be added to the clause - .”but shall not have force of law until approved of by Parliament.”

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– It was originally intended to put into this clause the power to make regulations fixing rates of postage, and letters, and other postal matter, and the amendment to which the honorable senator has referred was framed with a view to amending this particular clause in order that the regulation giving that power should be laid on the table of the House, and should not become law until it had been so many days on the table, and then only ‘if it had not been disapproved by either House. We have dealt with that now in clause 19 entirely, and having taken the power to fix rates out of this clause 91, the subjects that remain as subjects for regulations are, comparatively speaking, unimportant. . They are of importance, but they may be safely left to the Government, subject to this provision, that the regulations shall be laid on the table of the House. I cannot approve of the amendment moved by Senator Charleston, for the reason that itwill be necessary in some cases to get these regulations made when Parliament is not sitting. If his amendment were adopted, it would mean that we could not make a regulation or alteration of a regulation with regard to any of these matters du ring a recess, and no matter how urgent the necessity might be, we should have to wait five or six months or even longer until Parliament met, before we could deal with it. If honorable senators look at it fairly, I feel sure that they will see that the matters remaining to be dealt with by regulation under this clause, although certainly important, are not matters upon which Parliament should be called on to pronounce.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– The amendment I had circulated was framed with a view to the retention of paragraphs (m) and (n), but as they have been eliminated from the clause, I entirely agree with the Postmaster-General that the amendment moved by Senator Charleston is not wanted, and that the regulations provided for are such as might become law at once.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I have looked back over the Bill and find that the rates of postage are provided for by clause 19 as amended, and on going through the other regulations provided for under clause 91, other than those which have been struck out, and which were of a very important character, I do not desire to press my amendment.

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– The suggestion is made that, as the debatable matter has been cut out of the clause, the regulations provided for should be allowed to have the force of law immediately on gazetting, but I think the Senate should not forget that we have passed a most important provision at the suggestion of Senator Pearce. It seems to me that that involves a very important question in the fixing of the rate of wages.

Senator Harney:

– What does it mean now that the word “minimum” has gone?

Senator EWING:

– I understand very well, if other senators do not, what the intention of the honorable senator was. The Postmaster-General may now make regulations under which contracts are to be carried out, and surely that is a very important matter, and it is very desirable that Parliament should itself see any such regulation before it has the force of law. I suggest to the committee the desirability of hesitating, because, Western Australian senators will be able to agree with me that, a provision of this kind, which looked quite innocent in the Western Australian Mining Act, brought about a very serious condition of” affairs. If we give the Government power to frame a regulation as to the method of carrying out contracts, it is surely desirable that Parliament should approve of such a regulation before the Minister exercises it with the force of law. If Senator Pearce’ s amendment had not been put into this clause, 1 would fall in with the view expressed by other senators, that the debatable matter had been cut out of the clause. However, that amendment having been made it opens up a very important matter, and it should lie in the hands of Parliament to approve of the regulations dealing with it.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– Senator Ewing is unnecessarily alarmed. I do not think he understands yet the effect of the amendment which has been passed. I think those senators who so bitterly opposed it, and made

Such a gallant fight, when no One was going to hurt them, should show a little more consideration for the committee now. All this really means is that the PostmasterGeneral is to have power to make a regulation under which he will provide for the conditions to be observed in a contract. Is every contract to be made under such a regulation to be put before Parliament ? If the Postmaster-General enters into a contract for the supply of 100 telegraph posts, and puts the condition provided for by the regulation into the contract, is he going to wait for the telegraph posts until Parliament has met and. approved of the matter ? The thing is too ridiculous. If Senator Ewing will allow us to proceed with the rest of the Bill it will be better for us.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I do not think that Senator Ewing need concern himself about having this matter submitted to Parliament. Though put rather strongly by the last speaker, this will only deal with the question of rates to be paid to people under contract with the Government, and I take it that it might fairly be left in the hands of the PostmasterGeneral to frame the necessary regulation. He can act upon it unless Parliament exercises its right to dissent from whatever may be done when the regulation is subsequently laid before us. Parliament will have an opportunity later to deal with “the matter if it is found that anything unfair is prescribed under the regulation adopted. I think it would be much better under the circumstances to leave the clause as it stands.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I wish, as I said before, to withdraw my amendment, as I am satisfied that the matters now left in the clauses to be dealt with by regulation are practically matters of administration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 92 -

The Postmaster-General shall have power to inflict fines upon officers employed in the department for any neglect of duty or irregularity in the conduct of the business of the department, in accordance with regulations and scale of fines Approved by the Governor-General.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– This clause gives the PostmasterGeneral unlimited power to inflict fines to any extent.

Senator Drake:

– By regulation, and on a scale of fines approved by the GovernorGeneral.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– In accordance with regulations, and on a scale of fines drawn up by the Minister,’ not looked at by his colleagues, and passed as a matter of course. It might be limited, I think, to an amount not exceeding £5. The Public Service Bill has now nearly been passed in another place. It will deal with the public servants in various departments, and I think the PostmasterGeneral will find that it limits the amount of the fine that can be inflicted by any head of a department with the consent of a Minister. The Victorian Act limits the power of the head of the department with the consent of the Minister to a fine of £5. If we pass the clause now in its present form, we shall find it conflicting with the Public Service Bill. I suggest that we should postpone this clause now, until we see what the Public Service Bill contains. I move, with the consent of the Minister -

That the clause be postponed.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19010703_SENATE_1_2/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 July 1901

PETITION

QUESTION

ALIENATION OF LAND

Senator MCGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator Drake:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council. · Protectionist

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:VICTORIA · FT

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Drake:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Ewing:

Senator Drake:

Senator Ewing:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Drake:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

Senator Pearce:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Keating:

Senator Drake:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator WALKER:New SouthWales

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator DRAKE:

Senate
3 July 1901

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council. · Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
VICTORIA · FT

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator WALKER:
New SouthWales

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator HARNEY:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales