Senate
23 January 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
- Senate
- Thursday, 23 January, 1902
PETITIONS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS TO SENATORS
QUESTION
- WAR-OFFICE CONTRACTS
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
QUESTION
- REVENUE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- TATTERS ALL’S SWEEPS
PREVENTION AND SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL
QUESTION
- MONTHLY REVENUE RETURNS
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
PAPER

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

page 9105

PETITIONS

Senator Lt.-Col. CAMERON presented a petition from four residents of the Commonwealth of Australia, praying the Senate to reject the Matrimonial Causes Bill.

Senator BEST presented a similar petition from residents of the parochial district of Beeac, in the State of Victoria.

SenatorFRASER presented a similar petition from members of the Church of England residing at Hawthorn, in the State of Victoria.

Senator PEARCE presented a petition from 800 residents of the Commonwealth, praying for the recall of the Australian contingents in South Africa.

Petition read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the petition is in order. It is perfectly competent for any citizens of the Commonwealth to send in a petition so long as it is respectfully worded, and to make allegations relevant to the prayer of the petition which may or may not be correct. I may add that after a petition has been presented it is for the Senate to say what shall be done with it.

SenatorFRASER. - I have a petition to present.

The PRESIDENT:

– Has it been certified to as correct by the Clerk ?

SenatorFRASER. - I assert that it is in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– According to the practice which has been adopted - I do not say it is in pursuance of our standing orders - no petition ought to be presented unless it has been lodged with the Clerk, and he has certified that it is in accordance with the standing orders. If that practice is to continue - and I think it is a wise one - the honorable senator cannot present the petition. He must wait until to-morrow.

Senator Best:

– May I submit to you, sir, that we are regulated only by our standing orders, quite irrespective of practice? Of course we know that practice, from time to time, acquires the authority of law ; but the Senate has hot existed for a sufficiently long time to justify anything of that sort. I would submit, with great respect, for your consideration, whether honorable senators should not be bound by the standing orders, which are specific on this point.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think there is any specific rule on the point. The standing order does not refer to it ; it does

Senate

Thursday, 23 January, 1902

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

page 9105

PETITIONS

Senator Lt.-Col. CAMERON presented a petition from four residents of the Commonwealth of Australia, praying the Senate to reject the Matrimonial Causes Bill.

Senator BEST presented a similar petition from residents of the parochial district of Beeac, in the State of Victoria.

SenatorFRASER presented a similar petition from members of the Church of England residing at Hawthorn, in the State of Victoria.

Senator PEARCE presented a petition from 800 residents of the Commonwealth, praying for the recall of the Australian contingents in South Africa.

Petition read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

SenatorFRASER. - I have a petition to present.

The PRESIDENT:

– Has it been certified to as correct by the Clerk ?

QUESTION

QUESTIONS TO SENATORS

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I beg to give notice that to-morrow I shall ask Senator Neild -

Whether it is correct, as reported in the Argus of this date, that during the debate on the contingent yesterday he referred to certain newspapers in the library as seditious and scurrilous rags-

Senator STEWART:

– The question which I desire to ask Senator Neild is as follows : -

Whether it is correct, as reported in the Argus of this date, that during the debate on the contingent yesterday he referred to certain newspapers in the library as seditious and scurrilous rags 1
1. If so, will he be good enough to name the newspapers to which he referred ?

page 9108

QUESTION

WAR-OFFICE CONTRACTS

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, ‘upon notice -

If he has noticed a cable message in the Argus of the 22nd instant stating that a large contract for the supply of meat to the British Army in South Africa has been accepted by the War-office, and that, despite the representations made by the Agents-General foi- Australia, Australia is not a participant therein ?
Is it the intention of the Government to vigorously protest against Australia being ignored in this matter ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

My attention has been drawn to the cable message referred to. It is not clear, however, from the cable that Australia is not a participants in the contract referred to, and I am unofficially informed that the facts are that all the tenders recently sent in for the supply of meat have been declined, and that an arrangement has been entered into between the firms named in that cable, some of which are very largely interested in the handling of Australian meat, and the War-office for the supply and distribution of meat. It is believed that the bulk of the meat required will be supplied from Australia, and that the provision as to the right of supplying a proportion of Argentine meat has been inserted to prevent the possibility of supplies from Australia failing in consequence of drought or other causes.
1. It is my intention to shortly lay on the table of the House papers which will show clearly that the interests of Australia have been Garefully safe-guarded by the Government.

page 9108

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice - ,

Whether the Government have taken all reasonable means within their power to notify all shipping companies trading to Australia of the existence and provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

The Government does not recognise any duty of this kind. Shipping companies trading to Australia have agents within the Commonwealth whose business and duty it is to notify their principals of changes in the law affecting their trade. If the Government undertook to notify changes in the numberless branches of the law to all affected by them outside the Commonwealth, the work, would be interminable and the expense enormous.

page 9109

QUESTION

REVENUE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

With the view of having the figures of the Federal Tariff revenue as correct and clear as possible, will the Government have the revenue collected in Western Australia under the local State Tariff published separately from that collected under the Federal Tariff in all accounts under the heading of “ Special,” “local,” or some other approved term ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

The revenue for Western Australian accounts are kept under the separate heads of “State Tariff” and “ Federal Tariff.”

page 9109

QUESTION

TATTERS ALL’S SWEEPS

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice : -

Is he aware that letters are being addressed to a person in Tasmania in connexion with sweeps as described in section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act, 1901 ?
Does he intend to exercise the powers conferred by sections 57 and 58 of that Act to prevent the Post-office being used as a medium for gambling?
Does he intend to put sections57 and 58 of the Act in operation in all cases ?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

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

The Postmaster-General is aware that letters are being addressed to “Tattersall,” care of George Adams, Hobart, Tasmania. 2 and 3. The matter is under consideration.

page 9109

PREVENTION AND SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL

Senator O’KEEFE:

asked the Vice-Presir dent of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, during the present session, a Bill to provide for the Prevention and Settlement of Industrial Disputes ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

The answer to this question depends entirely on the progress of public business. Better progress will have to be made before there can be any certainty of the introduction of the Bill named, but the Government are anxious to introduce it.

page 9109

QUESTION

MONTHLY REVENUE RETURNS

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive-Council, upon notice -

With regard to the promise made by Senator O’Connor on 5th December, in reply to a question by Senator Pulsford, that the monthly revenue returns should in future show the sums which each State had to credit to all other States for Tariff revenue so that the net revenue belonging to each State could be known, will the Minister state when his promise will be carried out?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– In answer to the honorable senator’s question, I have to state that the reports are ready but are not yet certified for publication. I shall be glad to let the honorable senator see them, as in the course of a day or so I believe that they will be in a condition to be published. I have them here.

page 9109

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Resolved (on motion by Senator Best) -

That leave of absence for fourteen days be granted to Senator Sir F. T. Sargood on account of urgent private business.

page 9109

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 22nd January, 1902, vide page 9054).

Clause 50 -

Any officer feeling dissatisfied with any report or recommendation made under this Act affecting such officer’s position in the service or his pay or any promotion or transfer, may appeal to the commissioner in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I see that by clause 46 a tribunal is created to inquire into charges made by superior officers against civil servants, but there is no appeal board appointed to hear complaints made by members of the civil service against the actions of their superior officer. I desire to move -

That all the words after the word “officer,” line 1, be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “Aggrieved by any decision of a superior officer refusing to recommend promotion, transfer, or increased salary, to which such officer claims to be entitled, may appeal against such refusal to an appeal board consisting ot three persons - the inspector, the permanent head or chief officer, and a representative of the division to which such officer belongs, to be chosen by. the officers of that division in manner prescribed.

I think the appointment of an appeal board by which civil servants can have their grievances properly looked into is absolutely necessary if we wish to create a proper esprit de corps and have an efficient public service. If we wish to guard against bias, unfairness, or neglect, which- is sometimes shown by superior officers, and also to counteract the baneful effects Of the exercise of social influence, we must have a provision of this kind. In speaking on the second reading of the Bill, I mentioned that I thought that for one case of political influence we should probably find there would be at least ten cases of the exercise of social influence. That is, I think, rather a-n under estimate of the probable results, without such a clause as I propose. We have provided very elaborate and expensive safeguards against the exercise of political influence in this Bill ; but there is nothing which I can see except an appeal to Caesar in the shape of the commissioner himself when any injustice is done to a civil servant. Every petty officer throughout the service has his favorites. Every postmaster may have certain clerks whom he favours, and there may be others against whom he may have some grudge. He may have relations under him or there may be some friend of his or influential man in the town who desires to have his son promoted as rapidly as possible. There is always a great danger of those who have influence getting the preference over those who are equally capable, but without the influence to push them ahead. The appeal board which I suggest will, I think, counteract the evil exercise of social influence in the service, and under it the service may be worked more satisfactorily. Unless some such course as I suggest is adopted, I am quite certain there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the service. We must bear in mind that shortly we shall have a reclassification of the whole service, and we know that altered conditions always create some dissatisfaction. In connexion, for instance, with the Tariff, where people have lived in a certain State under a certain system for a number of years, they consider that system the best in the interests of their State, and they necessarily feel a certain amount of annoyance at having a new system thrust upon them, though it may be considered best in the interests of the whole of Australia. A similar change is taking place in connexion with the public service. We are abolishing the Public Service Acts which have been in force in the different States, and substituting for them one Act, which is to apply throughout the Commonwealth. In the reclassification which must be made, though the officers will, no doubt, endeavour to be fair in every recommenda*tion they make, it is certain that some injustice or supposed injustice will become apparent. It is quite certain also that unless we have a satisfied civil service the public interests will suffer. My proposal is for the appointment of a board of appeal, consisting of the permanent head or chief officer in each State, the inspector, and a third man appointed by the civil servants themselves, in order that their case may be fairly brought before the board. I do not propose that the decision of this board will be final, but that the board shall have the power of recommendation. Their recommendation, along with copies of the evidence taken in each inquiry, will be placed before the commissioner, whose decision will be final. This system has been adopted in other places in Australia, and has proved eminently successful. I find that in December, 1900, the New South Wales Government Railways Act was amended to make better provision for the hearing and determining of appeals by the employes. The powers of the commissioners to hear and determine appeals, except with regard to the right to promotion, were transfered to a board consisting of the secretary to the commissioners, the chief accountant, the chief mechanical engineer, the engineer-in-chief for existing lines, the chief traffic manager, and an elected representative of the employes. Three of these members formed a quorum, and every decision of the board was final and conclusive. I find, also, that in New Zealand in October, 1894, an Act, entitled the Post and Telegraph Departments Act 1894, was introduced. This Act established a board of appeal, to which is referred all appeals relating to any question of classification, status, or salary, arising under the Post and

– I also have circulated an amendment, and my case is very much stronger than that of Senator Neild, because if the amendment now moved by Senator Smith be negatived, my amendment cannot be carried. The object of my amendment is, in the first place, to enlarge the scope of the clause by allowing an appeal. The clause, as it stands, reads -

Any officer- feeling dissatisfied with any report or recommendation made under this Act affecting such officer’s position in the service, or his pay, or any promotion or transfer -

I propose to make it read as follows : -

Any officer affected by any report or recommendation made under this Act.

If my amendment is carried, then any officer who is disaffected in any way with regard to a report or a recommendation made under the Act may appeal. I think it would be as well if Senator Smith would allow me to move my amendment first.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– That amendment does not go quite far enough, I think.

Senator DRAKE:

– It does not interfere with the honorable senator’s. I wish to speak afterwards with regard to the constitution of his board.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - There are a large number of civil servants living in outback places who will not be affected under the Act, but who are suffering under serious grievances. I wish all those officers to be included in this provision, so that they may be able to appeal.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It will be my duty to state the question in such a way that all three amendments may have a fair hearing. The amendment of the PostmasterGeneral is to strike out the words “feeling dissatisfied with,” and so far as their omission is concerned, he and Senator Smith are in accord. Then Senator Drake desires to substitute certain other words, and those who favour the scheme as submitted by Senator Smith in his amendment will of course vote against their insertion. If Senator Smith desires his scheme to be inserted as against that of Senator Drake, he will vote against that amendment. If on the other hand he desires to accept the amendment, then he will not proceed with his own.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– I intend to support the amendment of Senator Smith. I also intend to support that of Senator Drake, because it widens the scope of the appeal. I do not think it will come into very serious conflict with the scheme of Senator Smith. If I had to choose between the two schemes, I should prefer that of Senator Smith, but I think that both can be accepted. First of all we can accept the scheme of Senator Drake, which is an improvement, inasmuch as it widens the scope of appeal, and then those who favour Senator Smith’s scheme can support it.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– It all depends upon whether the statement is accurate that it widens the scope of appeal. I contend that it limits the scope of appeal in the most unmistakable way to what occurs under the Act.

Senator DRAKE:

– My amendment does not affect it in that respect.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Then the Minister is actually limiting the scope of the inquiry ?

Senator DRAKE:

– In the Bill the reference is to what is done under the Act. I am widening the area of appeal because I am giving the right to appeal to any officer who is affected by any proceeding under the Act. As the clause stands the right of appeal is confined to an officer who is aggrieved at something done in regard to his position or pay.

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

– The Postmaster-General wishes to leave in the words which practically limit the right of appeal to things occurring under the Act, and Senator Smith desires to broaden the scope of appeal. The amendment of Senator Drake still leaves in objectionable words. Senator Glassey will accomplish his object, not by voting with Senator Drake, but by supporting Senator Smith.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - I think that the Postmaster-General would, if he carried his amendment, unconsciously do a great wrong to certain civil servants, because it is in direct conflict with mine. He proposes that any officer affected by a report under the Act shall have the right of appeal. Supposing that an officer who has been living in the centre of Australia for years is not affected by any report under the Act, but is suffering under a great injustice. My proposal is that, if he asks his superior officer that he may be removed, and his request is refused, he can appeal to the board against such decision. Nothing can be wider than my proposal.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That the words “feeling dissatisfied with,” line 1, be omitted.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the words “affected by” be inserted after the word “officer,” line 1.

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

Ayes … … …8

Noes … … … 15

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The proposal of Senator Smith will have to be put to the committee in two amendments, so that if the first one is defeated Senator Neild may have an opportunity to move the amendment of which he has given notice.

Amendment (by Senator Staniforth Smith) agreed to-

– That can be provided by regulation.

Senator EWING:

Senator DOBSON:

– I did not read it so; but when I heard the Minister’s speech it appeared to me that it might be read in that way, and if it is it will supersede the whole framework of the measure. I understood that the decision of the commissioner would be final as regarded any right of complaint between the commissioner and the officer, but that it would not take away the power of the Governor-General to adopt or decline the advice of the commissioner.

Senator STYLES (Victoria). - I disapprove of any deposit being made by the appellant officer.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I mean to withdraw that part of the amendment.

Senator STYLES:

– I also disapprove of the proposal of Senator Neild that the Minister should be a member of the board. Would it not be peculiar for the Minister to sit on the board, and for the officer to appeal to the commissioner against its decision? I would suggest that in each State a board could be constituted of the Secretary to the Defence department, the Sub-collector of Customs, the officer in the Postal department next in rank to the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, and an officer appointed from the division to which the appellant belongs.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - Does the honorable senator wish to have a board of four persons ?

Senator STYLES:

– Yes ; but the chairman would have a casting vote. In the Railway department of Victoria six members comprise the board of appeal, and it frequently happens that only four of them sit. A chairman is elected for each case, and he has a casting vote. If my suggestion were adopted there would be on the board two officers belonging to the department in which the appellant was employed. The other two members would be pretty well informed after listening to the evidence, and practically they would decide the case. If there is to be a board in every department in each State, the Commonwealth will be full of boards. Surely one board for each State will be sufficient ? Its decision should be sent direct to the commissioner.

Senator Playford:

– Not to the commissioner.

Senator STYLES:

– If an appeal were made to the commissioner, he would have all the evidence before him. I do not know how many scores of cases have been decided by our Railway Commissioner. In some cases he reverses the decision of the board, and in others confirms it, but a man always has a chance of appealing to the commissioner. I should be inclined to vote for the amendment of Senator Smith if he would constitute a board of appeal on those lines.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– In nineteen cases out of twenty the commissioner would be the person against whose decision the officers would appeal, and yet the Government proposed that he should be the judge as to whether he had done his duty. That was wrong in principle, and therefore I voted against it. I prefer to have a board, but not the board which Senator Smith has proposed. I do not prefer a board which includes the permanent head of a department, because very likely he will be the officer who has made the recommendation, and the commissioner will have agreed to make a certain appointment or overlook certain claims, and therefore he will be implicated in the case. I think the majority of the committee will agree that a board is preferable to the commissioner. It is impossible for us on the spur of the moment to frame a good, intelligent working clause, but if the Government will accept the decision of the committee, the draftsman could frame a clause, doing away, of course, with the deposit, constituting a board in each State, with the right of appeal for final decision, not to the commissioner, but to the Governor-General in Council. Do not take away the Ministerial responsibility.

Do not require the commissioner to review his own work after receiving the report of a board which may be antagonistic te him and his views. I think it would be a great deal better for the Minister to postpone the clause.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– We cannot postpone the clause, because it has been amended.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Then it might be passed pro formâ It will have to be reconsidered, anyhow.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I am very glad to see that a majority of the committee are in favour of an appeal board. As to its constitution, I am not particular what amendments are made so long as it is a board which will carefully hear the cases. It was my intention that such a board should exist in each State, and my reason for using the words, “the permanent head or chief officer,” was that if the case arose in Victoria it would be the permanent head, or if it occurred in Western Australia or South - Australia, the chief officer. I desired the evidence to be taken locally, and the recommendation of the board sent on to the commissioner. If it is to be sent on to the Governor-General in Council, political patronage will be introduced. Influence may be brought to bear on the Minister or the Governor-General in Council by persons in the public service, and the Minister will practically be the one to settle a dispute right over the head of the commissioner and the permanent head. I think it is inadvisable to let the Minister decide the appeal. ‘I know that Senator Playford is in favour of Ministerial control, and therefore is in favour of an alteration to that effect. Senator Drake raised no arguments against the appeal board, but simply confined himself to one or two quibbles as to what the amount of the deposit should be. The amendment provides that it shall be fixed by regulation, but he considered that it would be a great undertaking for the Ministry to say what it should be. I understand that Senator Neild is going to propose the deletion of the words in my amendment requiring that a deposit shall be lodged. I shall support that proposal. The Postmaster-General simply opposes this amendment because it makes an alteration in his Bill. He seems to look upon this measure as a kind of inspired collection of laws that no one should alter - a sort of modern Koran, which none but the faithful should touch. When an amendment is proposed on a clause, the PostmasterGeneral says at once that the clause as it stands is the best. The only reason which he has brought forward against the passing of my amendment is that it would be a very great hardship to impose on the Ministry the duty of determining what the amount of the deposit should be. I shall be glad, therefore, to relieve his mind of that trouble by supporting Senator Neild’s amendment. As the Postmaster-General has raised no other objection, I presume he will be satisfied with the clause in that amended form. I think that the clause can be passed in that form, and the Minister can agree that, if desired, the clause will be recommitted, so that an alteration may be made if required. There is a general desire that there shall be a board, and in order that we may push on with business, I would ask honorable senators to vote for my amendment, as proposed to be amended by Senator Neild, upon that understanding.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think that the wishes of the committee will be met if Senator Smith withdraws his amendment on the understanding that we will allow the clause to be passed as it stands with only two words in it, namely, “Any officer.” Senator Smith will thus have an opportunity to get his amendment properly drafted, and when the clause is reconsidered he can move whatever he pleases. In the meantime. I will consult the Parliamentary Draftsman, and put into shape the ideas held by the Government as to the way in which the clause should be dealt with. That will secure the passing of a properlydrafted clause.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - I wish to move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the words “ of his superior officer refusing to recommend promotion, transfer, or increased salary to which such officer claims to be entitled.”

That would simplify the clause, so that it would read- -

Any officer aggrieved by any decision may appeal - and so on. Where is the necessity for labouring the clause by providing that -

Any officer aggrieved by any decision “of his superior officer refusing to recommend promotion, transfer, or increased salary to which such officer claims to be entitled “ may appeal and by inserting also the words referring to the lodgment of a deposit? Why not simplify the clause ?

Senator Drake:

– Why not allow the whole of this amendment to be withdrawn for the present?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I am always so good-natured in giving way to every one and obtaining nothing in return. I must play my own hand just as well, as other honorable senators do. I think the omission of the words I have named would make the proposed clause much more workable. There are many subjects other than those named in the amendment upon which an officer may desire to appeal, and if we specify with too much preciseness the subjects on which an officer may appeal we shall limit the right. The right of appeal was wider under the clause as originally presented.

Senator Drake:

– Yes. I proposed to make it wider, but there was a misapprehension on the part of some honorable senators who voted against my proposal. Senator Smith wishes to withdraw his amendment for the present.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– If Senator Smith wishes to withdraw his amendment it would be useless for me to move my amendment now.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - Before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to say that undoubtedly very great difficulty is felt by honorable senators in regard to the constitution of the appeal board. It is a very important matter. I am glad, that the Minister is ready to point a way out of the difficulty, by saying that if I withdraw my amendment the blank created in the clause will be left, and an opportunity given subsequently to insert words therein.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That the words” the commissioner in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed” be omitted.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 51 -

This part of this Act shall not apply to any persons who at the timeof the transfer to the Commonwealth of a department of the public service of a State were officers of such department or to any person in the public service of a State who is appointed an officer or to any person temporarily employed.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– This clause will preclude any officer transferred to the Commonwealth from the public service of any of the States from compulsory insurance. I have had a return prepared which shows that less than 1,600 of the 11,000-odd civil servants taken over by the Commonwealth have any right to pensions or superannuation allowances. We are deliberately proposing by this clause that the rest shall not be compelled to effect assurances on their lives, but that only those who have been directly engaged by the Commonwealth shall be compelled to take out premiums. I think that is a very great mistake. Every one agrees that it is right that civil servants should be assured. If that is so, why should nine-tenths of our employes be left out of this provision, and only those directly employed by the Commonwealth required to assure ? Some alteration should be made in the clause whereby officers transferred from the service of any of the States to the Commonwealth will be forced to assure their lives, provided that they are under a certain age and are not entitled to any insurance pensions or superannuation.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The reason for the exemption of these officers is that, on being taken over from the service of the various States, they retain all their rights and privileges. Practically we take them over without putting them under any disability.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– They are amenable to Commonwealth laws.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes ; but Senator Smith proposes that an officer who has been in a State department, and whilst in that employ has not been compelled to assure his life or to contribute to any superannuation fund, shall be required to do so upon transfer to the Commonwealth; That, to a certain extent, seems to be an interference with these officers. The idea of the Government in making this provision is that new officers taken into the service of the Commonwealth shall ‘be required to assure their lives.

Senator Ewing:

– An officer transferred from a State service might be aged, and he would require to pay an enormous premium on a life assurance policy.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes. There are cases in which an officer while in the service of a State may have subscribed to a superannuation fund for a long time, but in consequence of an Act of the State

Legislature, had his money returned to him, the Legislature compelling him to take his money back. That was the case in Queensland. Would it be just, after that officer had endeavoured to make provision for old age, and the Legislature, without consulting him, had compelled him to take back his money, to transfer him to the Commonwealth service, and compel him to assure his life ? The object of the clause is to make sure that young men who come directly into the service of the Commonwealth, and voluntarily under the laws of the Commonwealth, shall assure their lives. It is considered that there would be an element of injustice in compelling men taken over with the transferred departments, without being consulted in the matter, to assure their lives, without regard to their age.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think some provision should be made to bring within the requirements as to insurance the large number of civil servants taken over with the transferred departments. The objection that there are a number of old men in these departments is met by Senator Smith’s proposal that a certain age within which an officer shall be required to insure shall be specified. A subsequent clause provides that all those who enter the service henceforth shall be insured. We are told that there are only some 600 of the civil servants taken over by the transferred departments who have any right to pensions or superannuation allowances. The great bulk of them have no policies over their lives, and I cannot see what penalty will be inflicted upon them in applying to them the rules which apply to all who enter the service directly. It may be said that to require a civil servant to insure his life amounts really to a reduction of his salary, but the compensating advantage is that it provides a pension for his old age. I do not think that there will be any opposition to this proposal on the part of civil servants, unless it is provided that an officer who cannot pass the medical examination shall leave the service: With such a proposal as that I would not agree, but any officer who can pass the necessary examination should assure his life under the clause subsequent to this.

Senator DRAKE:

– If any individual officer has no objection to assuring his life, how will this clause stand in his way ? If he does not object he can assure, and there is nothing in the clause to prevent him from doing so. The only object of the clause is to compel a man to do something which he is not willing to do. I would ask honorable senators to look at clause 58, which provides that where an officer was compelled in the State service, from which he was transferred, to assure his life, or to contribute to a superannuation fund, he shall be required to continue his payments.

Senator Sir John Downer:

– That was the principle upon which the Constitution was framed.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes. We take such an officer over under the State laws, and make him liable to continue the payments that he made under the State laws. If he had to contribute to the superannuation fund, in the State, he has now to continue paying a like amount into the Treasury of the Commonwealth.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– The proposal to apply the obligation to insure to all the members of the different State departments taken over would, I hold, be a contravention of section 84 of the Constitution Act. I remind honorable senators that that section distinctly provides that members of the transferred services are to retain all their existing rights. If we say to them - “ You shall not retain your position unless you do something that you have never previously been required to do,” we shall certainly interfere with the integrity of section 84 of the Constitution Act. On that account I think the proposal is not arguable.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– I do not agree that the question is not arguable. I remember that in. Queensland we had very great difficulty over this superannuation question.

SenatorLt..-Col. Neild. - It is the Constitution Act which stands in the way here.

Senator GLASSEY:

– That is just where we may differ. Does the Constitution Act say that this Parliament shall not stipulate that civil servants shall in some way make provision for old age or for death? I do not think it does. As Sena tor Smith has said, there are onlysome600 out of a service of over 11,000 who have any provision in the shape of pension or superannuation allowance. Surely it is the bounden duty of this Senate and of this

Parliament to make some provision insisting upon assurance of some kind by the persons employed by the Commonwealth 1 I can conceive of nothing more melancholy or painful than the appeals which are made on behalf of the widows or helpless children of civil servants who have died without making any provision for those dependent upon them. I have been appealed to again and again in such cases to induce Parliament to make some monetary grant. In Queensland, some years ago, the young members of the public service created a tremendous stir, and were sufficiently strong to induce Parliament to repeal the superannuation sections of the Civil Service Act, and return the money which had been contributed under them. I venture to say that if numbers of those persons were to-day asked to alter their decision, they would admit that it had been an exceedingly unwise one. I gave a’ vote on that occasion for altering the law and giving, back the money contributed, and 1 have never ceased to regret that vote.

Senator Stewart:

– It is a good job for Queensland that it was done.

Senator GLASSEY:

– It may have been of some value to the State, but I venture to say it was of not much value to the civil servants or to their dependants. The object aimed at by Senator Smith in insisting that there should be some provision in this Bill under which civil servants would be compelled to make provision for those dependent upon them is an extremely wise object. The Postmaster-General says that these public servants have the right to assure if they wish to do so, but there are numbers of persons who will neglect this duty, and it is not wise that Parliament should stand on one side and allow them to continue to neglect it. It is the duty of Parliament to step in and prevent the terrible calamity of poverty overtaking the dependants of these civil servants when they are gone. Women have . come to me and . have said - “ My husband was in the public service for many years, but the salary he drew was altogether inadequate to make provision for his family, and we are now in a state of destitution. Will you help us 1” I have given a willing ear and a willing hand to induce Parliament to make a grant in such cases, but we do not want these appeals to be continued. We now have an opportunity to insist upon public servants making some provision for their dependants, and such a clause should be inserted in the Bill.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– I should like to remind Senator Glassey that we are not considering at the present time the expediency of civil servants insuring their lives. The Bill itself says that it is an expedient thing to do, and that it shall be done. But it also says that this provision shall not extend to officers of the transferred departments. That was the distinct understanding upon which the Constitution was passed, and 1 it is embodied in the Bill. The transferred departments were taken over with all their liabilities. The superannuation allowances accruing from day to day to civil servants are to be preserved and continued. If we have most industriously provided that the transferred departments shall be transferred just in the condition in which they were, and that the officers in them shall continue to have all the rights they had before, will we not be doing an act quite inconsistent with that understanding, and with the provisions of the Constitution if we say to those officers - “The Government will now put a burden upon you which did not exist in your service before your transfer1)” That would be distinctly unfair, and it is admitted by Senator Smith, in reply to an interjection made, that an officer transferred might he of an advanced age, and might be absolutely ruined if required to affect any substantial insurance.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– He might not be able to effect any assurance at all.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– That is so, and that would apply irrespective of age. We should then have two classes exempted from this proposal - those whose health is such that no insurance company would take them, and those who are too old to make it reasonable of us to ask them to assure their lives. To meet the difficulty, Senator Smith has suggested that the provision should only apply to persons under a certain age. Why ?

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Because for a man of fifty years of a.ge the premium would be too high.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– The probability is that the older a man is the greater are the obligations upon him, and my honorable friend recognises the impracticability of compelling the older men to insure their lives, and proposes to leave them out. I agree entirely with what has been said by Senator Neild, that under the Constitution the officers of the transferred departments were to be taken over just as they were. They were to get all the advantages they had before they were transferred, and if we impose fresh obligations upon them which did not exist in their original service, they will not be getting all the advantages they had before, because we shall be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I agree entirely with the proposal of the Government.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I was at first strongly in favour of the views held by Senator Smith, but from the remarks made by Senators Neild and Downer, it seems to me that the 84th section of the Constitution forbids us from doing what some of us would like to see done, and I therefore suggest that Senator Smith should not press his proposal.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - My suggestion was that only persons of a certain , age, who were not insured, or were not entitled to a pension or a superannuation fund, should be placed on the same footing as new officers joining the Commonwealth service. I know that the rights of transferred officers are conserved, and I have no wish to interfere with any of their rights. We should be abrogating no right which they have by saying that they shall be compelled to assure their lives. Honorable senators might just as well say that they should remain under the same Civil Service Act as before, and should not be obliged to come under the Bill we are now considering. The people of Australia have established rights, hut it is quite competent for this Parliament - and I hope it will be done - to establish compulsory insurance. I believe that the objections raised are only quibbles, and that the intention is to prevent the establishment of a system of State compulsory insurance except upon a ridiculously small scale. We know that the new officers brought into the Commonwealth service number only a few hundreds, and we are going to establish a system of Commonwealth assurance, or compulsory private assurance, in the case of those few, while pver 11,000 transferred officers will not be affected.

Senator O’Connor:

– Butyearby year more new men will be coming into the service, and these transferred officers will disapear in the course of time.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– The majority of the transferred officers are men, of from 20 to 40 years of age, and, unless carried off by death, they will continue in the service until they are 60 years of age. I say that they should be placed in the same position as those who are newly engaged in the service.

Senator O’Connor:

– No. In saying that we will make this assurance compulsory, we are putting a new obligation upon them.

Senator STANIFPRTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I am glad that Senator O’Connor has used the expression “new obligation.” We are . conserving all their rights, but we say that we have the same right to insist that these men shall assure their lives as we haveto insist that they shall obey the provisions of the Bill we are now considering. Weare making stipulations under every clause of this Bill which these people must obey, and we will only be doing exactly the same thing if we say now that one of these stipulations shall be that these people must have their lives assured . It is a very poor argument to say that constitutionally we cannot insist on their assuring their lives because all the privileges which have accrued to them in the State services areconserved. I sincerely trust that those officers under 30 or 35 years of age who have not made provision for their old age will be placed on the same footing as civil servants of the States, who are compelled to assure.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 52 -

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every probationer before the confirmation of his appointment, and every officer, shall effect an assurance on his life, either with some approved mutual life assurance company or society having its head office in Australia, and registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or as may be prescribed, providing for such benefits as may be prescribed, and for increasing from time to time the amount assured.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the words after the word “Act” (line 1), down to the word “prescribed,” (line 8) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ Every officer on the confirmation of his appointment shall effect with the Government of the Commonwealth an assurance on his life.”

In this amendment I am not asking the Commonwealth to inaugurate any experimental legislation or any new system that has not been tried and approved in other civilized countries. It is a principle that has been’ almost universally adopted in the countries of Europe, and especially by Great Britain and its dependencies. I believe that we are practically agreed that the lives of civil servants in the Commonwealth departments should be assured at the expense of the civil servants themselves. The point that arises is whether we should force those officers to assure with private companies, or whether the Government should assure them. If the Commonwealth is to assure its officers, undoubtedly now is the time to do it, when we are inaugurating a civil service system for the Commonwealth. If we decide now that civil servants are to be assured in private companies, it will be difficult for us to retrace our steps, and we shall afterwards find greater difficulty in inaugurating a system of Government assurance than if we started at once. I wish to read one or two extracts as to the systems adopted in some of the leading countries of the world : -

In Germany old-age State insurance was inaugurated in 1889. Half of the premiums were paid, by employers, half by employes, to which the State added to each paid annuity a yearly subsidy of 50 marks.

In France there is a national fund for old age established in 1850, of which all employes of the Government receiving a certain salary must become members. In 1862 there were 37,500 of these enrolled. The minimum annual deposit is 1 franc, the maximum 500 francs. The rate of interest in 1890 was 3J percent., but the rate varies with the state of the funds, and is fixed by annual decree.

In Great Britain provision’ was made b3’’ the Government for superannuation allowances as far back as .1809. In 1859 it was provided that, after ten years service, a retiring allowance was made of ten-sixtieths of the salary, with an increase of one-sixtieth for every year of service up to 40 years.

In the Indian civil service 4 per cent, is deducted from the salaries of the officers. The public servants compulsorily retire at the age of 55 or 60 years, and draw pensions varying in

Amount according to the positions they occupied.

In Cape Colony a gratuity may be granted to any person whose service for pension purposes is at least a year, but not less than ten, amounting to not more than one month’s salary for each year of service. Any person who has served ten years receives on retirement ten-sixtieths of such salary, and a further addition of one-sixtieth for each year up to 40 years. The rate of contribution is 3 per cent of salary or wages.

In the Canadian Superannuation Act of 1886 it states that any one in service ten years or upwards, or who has attained the age of 60, or is incapacitated by bodily infirmity, is entitled to a superannuation allowance based on his average’ yearly salary during the then lust three years. If” he has served ten years, he is entitled to an allowance of ten-fiftieths of such average salary, and for eleven years to eleven-fiftieths, and so on up to 35 years of service. A deduction towards, making good the superannuation allowance of 2 per cent, per annum shall be made from the salary of every civil servant receiving 600 dollars or upwards, and lj per cent, if less than G00- dollars.

In New Zealand an example has been set in State insurance that we might well follow. They not only insure the lives of their civil servants, but of the general public as well. This was instituted iri 1870. They have received £8,000,000 in premiums, have pud £1,260,000 in bonuses, and though the New Zealanders are the most heavily insured people in the world, where insurance is-“ not compulsory, the Government hold 39,366 policies out of the 75,692 in existence, or morethan one-half of the total life insurances held.

These particulars are taken from official books. It will be seen that in the principal civilized countries of the world, and especially in Great Britain and her dependencies and colonies, the Governments have inaugurated funds to be used either for superannuation or assurance. Many of the1 systems I have mentioned have been in’ force for twenty years or more, and in nocase has there been a failure. It may besaid that some of these are assurance and some superannuation funds. I contend that’ there is no fundamental difference between an assurance fund and a superannuation fund. In each case the assurer pays regularly intoa certain fund and receives back his premiums with compound interest accruing at a certain period. The only difference i» that in the one case he receives the stated amount for which he assures, and. in the> other case he receives either at death or retirement the actual accumulated amount of his instalments and interest. The great principle is the same. It is that the Go=vernment itself controls the fund which is intended to secure to its officers a means of livelihood in their old age, or to allow a sum for the relatives of those who diewhile in the service of the Government. Surely Australia, and its Parliament which boasts of the progressive legislation it enacts, are not going to be behind thé countries of Europe and the colonies of Great Britain in establishing a pension for the old age of our civil servants ! Surely it is not necessary for us to shrink from what little responsibility there is, and toreverse the policy that has existed in (Australia. In “Western Australia any civil servant who has been employed for ten years gets a retirement allowanceof tensixtieths of his average salary for the preceding three years. In Victoria a pension is given to officers appointed before the 24th of December, 1881, of onesixtieth of the salary for each year’s service up to 40 years, and officers not entitled to pensions must assure their lives. In New South Wales civil servants pay 4 per cent, of their salaries to a superannuation fund if they desire to do so ; if compulsorily retired they can withdraw the premiums paid, with 3 per cent, interest added.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– That fund is “stony broke.”

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I am perfectly aware that it is not in a very plethoric state. That is not the fault of the system, but the fault of the management.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– And of the system too.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I cannot do better than read an extract from a very high authority on the subject in New South Wales. Speaking of this fund on the 10th of October, 1895, Senator Neild said -

That fund has been depleted, has been poached upon, has been made the subject of all kinds of piratical attacks in the interests not of the civil service, but of Ministers and commissioners, frantic to cut down expenses, and impressed with all the mysterious virtues of retrenchment.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– A very sound proposition.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– The honorable senator went on to say : -

I find the case of an officer only 30 years of age being thrown upon the pension fund, with this effect - that the salary he would have drawn had he remained in the service until the statutory age, is estimated in round figures to be £8,000, while on the other hand the pension fund is attacked to the tune of over £2,000 ; that is to say, £2,000 will have to be paid to this man from the fund before he is 60 years of age.

That is really as a superannuation fund -

The annual premium to assure £00 from entry, age 20, payable at the age of 60j or previous death, is £1 17s. 2d.

If we turn to Coghlan’s Seven Colonies we find that the average premium required by a private company on a life assurance policy fbr £100 is £3 12s. lOd. Of course I know that is not a fair comparison, because it relates to policies issued in respect of persons of various ages, but at the same time it shows that the Commonwealth Government could obtain as good a return on the premiums paid as would a private company. “We would have a less costly System of conducting our business. Mr. Owen’s letter continues -

The mean after life time of a male aged 60 is 13 4-5 years.

– What did he say afterawards in committee ?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator PULSFORD:

– It is folly for any State to pay such premiums, because if a company can afford to run the risk the State can do so. If the time comes when it seems opportune to go into the whole of this matter, I can assure the honorable senator that I shall be prepared to consider his proposals very carefully. I do not view any proposal for the State to run an insurance business of this character in any very adverse spirit. But at the present time I suggest to the honorable senator that it would be advantageous to the service, and to public business, and in the interest of the Senate generally, for him to withdraw his amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Senator Pulsford seems to think that the functions of the State should only he extended to those operations that cannot be performed by private firms. I know no reason under heaven why the Government should not go in for profitable as well as unprofitable undertakings. I do not know why the Government should not build offices and let them, just as they do a number of other things. There is no reason why a Government should not be a landlord, and own houses as well as post-offices and railways. ‘ If assurance companies can profitably utilize the money they receive, surely the Government of the Commonwealth could do so just as well. Therefore, so far as concerns the renting of offices and the making of profit in that direction, there is no obstacle to get over. The matter is plain sailing. As regards the Bill before us, we have to consider that there are clauses in it which insist upon civil servants assuring their lives. If we insist upon that, it is quite proper that we should provide the means of assurance, and should give the best possible guarantee of safety. I do not think there is any honorable senator who “will challenge the statement that the State can give better security than any private company. There is no security equal to a Government security. That being so, when we insist upon our civil servants being assured, I hold that it is our duty to provide them with the means of assuring. Senator Smith has shown how the Federal Government could manage a business of this kind better and more economically than private firms can. Therefore I shall not traverse that aspect of the question. I agree with all he has said. He has made out a very good case. But some challenge has been thrown out as to the constitutional aspect of the question. It has been doubted whether we have power under the Constitution to pass legislation for assurance purposes. I hold that the Constitution is very clear on the point. Section 51, sub-section (14), reads as follows : -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and. good government of the Commonwealth with respect to . . . insurance other that State insurance ; also State insurance extending beyond, the limits of the State concerned.

I have never had any difficulty as to what that part of the Constitution means. I think it gives us full power to make laws bearing upon assurance, managed either by the Federal. Government or by private companies.

Senator Drake:

– Suppose that to be admitted ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am glad that the Postmaster-General adopts that view of the question. I hope the Government will see their way to -accept Senator Smith’s proposal ; or else let them knock out other clauses providing that civil servants must assure. If we insert those clauses we ought to legislate in this direction. If we do not, and if in the future we wish to legislate upon the subject, it will be difficult to overcome the objection with regard to transferring those civil servants who are privately assured into the Government concern. Consequently, in fairness to those senators who are in favour of Government assurance, I hold that we should either knock out the clauses to which I have referred’ or legislate in the direction proposed by this amendment.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– It is my intention to .support the clause as it is, provided that the PostmasterGeneral can see his way to delete the words “ having its head-office in Australia,” so as to give a larger choice to officers. I am going to propose that amendment with the intention of otherwise supporting the clause as it is.

Senator Drake:

– Another honorable senator has given notice of that amendment.

Senator WALKER:

– I shall be glad if the Government can see their way to insert after the word “Act” the following words : - “Or until a Commonwealth Government civil service superannuation scheme has been established.”

I am strongly in favour of in time having a superannuation scheme in connexion with the civil service. Any one who has had experience of these States for many years knows how very desirable it is that in every public service some provision should be made for old age. If the officers contribute on a thoroughly safe actuarial basis, I cannot see any objection to the Government having a civil service superannuation scheme, but to establish it at once, I think, would be premature. We cannot, without their consent, impose on transferred officers greater obligations than they have, though in some respects I wish it were otherwise. I have heard a good deal about State life assurance. I am not going into the subject at the present time, because we are not met for that purpose.

Senator De Largie:

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

-Before taking a vote upon the amendment I should like to refer to something which occurred to me when other honorable senators were speaking upon this question.

Senator Walker referred to an aspect of the case which was overlooked by most of the other honorable senators who have spoken. I think the position as put by Senator Walker should receive most serious consideration. The honorable senator says he would advise all civil servants who were going to assure their lives to effect the assurance with companies of a reliable character who paid the highest surrender value for the policy. What did that mean t It means that if we do not to-day do something of the kind indicated in Senator Smith’s amendment we shall be maintaining for years to come just the same position that we are in now. As Senator Higgs has said, it is only intended to assure those who are coming into the service now, because we cannot interfere with those who are already assured with other companies. That is the great difficulty that exists. If we were taking over the 11,000 public servants of the Commonwealth, and they were not assured in any office, we should have the most splendid start that any assurance company ever had in this world. Seeing that we cannot do that, are we to maintain that difficulty by compelling every young man or young woman who enters the federal public service to assure in some other public company, so that in ten, twenty, or 100 years, when we do come to our senses and arrive at the conclusion that it is time we were doing something in this direction for ourselves, we shall have to face the same or a greater difficulty, because we shall not be able to take those public servants in then. The proper thing to do is to commence now, and have every public servant brought into the Commonwealth service at once assured on a proper basis according to the position he occupies in an institution provided by the Federal Government. Thesystem will, in the course of a very few years, grow from a public service assurance institution to a very respectable institution on its own account, and it will be one of the best foundations we could have for a Commonwealth State assurance business. I have heard honorable senators express themselves favorably, so far as State assurance is concerned. Senators Walker and Neild have said that they are in favour of it. But those honorable senators are invariably in the. position of men I have known in the State Parliament who were always in favour of something until it was on the point of accomplishment, and who then voted against it because the time was not opportune. Enough has been said to show that in establishing this system the Commonwealth will run no risk, the public servants will get greater security, and there will be far less of the “leakage,” whatever that may mean, referred to by Senator Neild, in a State assurance business than in any private assurance company existing in Australia. I hope the amendment will receive favorable consideration, and that honorable senators will put the Commonwealth Government in a position to create an institution creditable to itself and beneficial to its public servants.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - I wish to say, by way of explanation, that I am not aware that I expressed myself in favour of State life assurance. I said that I believed in the State having a superannuation fund, but I do not look upon that as a State system of life assurance in any sense of the term.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.- I propose to divide the amendment, and the question I shall now put is that all the words after “Act “ down to and including the word “ some” proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 12

Noes … … … 12

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator Higgs:

– I should like to know where we are? I take it that the question passed in the negative, and that Senator Smith now has to move the insertion of his amendment.

Senator McGregor:

– The next question that ought to be put, according to the practice of the Senate, is that the words proposed bySenator Smith be inserted. The vote just taken was resolved in the negative, and every honorable senator knows that it is our practice, and in accordance with the Constitution, that when the votes are even, the question passes in the negative. The negative of the question upon which the committee divided had the effect of striking out certain words.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Senator Dobson). - The real question before the committee was Senator Smith’s amendment, but the parliamentary way of putting the question was that certain words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause. That, however, does not seem to me to alter the meaning of what was dene. It seems to me that as Senator Smith failed to gain a majority his amendment passes in the negative.

Senator Stewart:

– I think we should have the President’s ruling on the question. Your statement of the situation, sir, is quite contrary to parliamentary procedure.

Senator O’Connor:

– Before the Acting Chairman gives a final ruling, which I understand has not yet been done, I wish to say a word. Although the Chairman’s opinion happened to be in favour of the view of the Government on this question, the point of order is so very important as affecting the practice of the Senate that it should be properly settled in accordance with the Constitution. The practice the Chair has followed hitherto in a case of this kind, where the question before the committee is whether certain wordsshall or shall not stand, and the votes are equal, has been to rule that the words do not stand. That is to say, the question is resolved in the negative. That is the practice that has been followed on a good many occasions, and it is a practice which really has the proper construction of the Constitution behind it. The Constitution says that when the votes are equal, the question shall pass in the negative. What is the negative of the question, “ That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause? “ It is that the words do not stand part of the clause. I therefore submit, before you give a final ruling, that that view is in accordance with the practice of the Senate, and in conformity with the Constitution.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - Technically T feel that Senator O’Connor is quite right, but when I spoke previously I was guided by the merits of the case, remembering what the purport of Senator Smith’s motion was. As the practice of the Senate has been what Senator O’Connor has intimated, I propose to rule that the words in question be struck out of the clause.

Senator Clemons:

– I quite agree with the Vice-President of the Executive Council that the true reading of the situation is that the words upon which the vote is taken do not stand part of the clause, because the question was resolved in the negative. Therefore, although your ruling is against myself, as I had a subsequent amendment, I think that the ruling ought to be in that direction. The result of the last vote was to create a blank.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - We have struck out the words from the word “ every “ down to the word “some.”

Senator O’Connor:

– The amendment which has just been carried was an amendment to strike out the words from “ every” down to the word “ some “ inclusive. That leaves the clause from the word “approved” down to the end of the clause remaining. Therefore the first thing to be done is for Senator Smith to take a vote on the question of the insertion of the words he wishes to have inserted.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - The question is that all the words from the word “ approved “ down to the word “ prescribed “ be omitted. .

Senator Higgs:

– I submit, sir, that that is not the usual method of procedure. An amendment has been carried to strike out certain words, and it is the intention of Senator Smith to move an amendment to fill up the blank. I take it, sir, that you should now submit to the committee the words with which he proposes to fill the blank.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.- As I put the amendment “in two parts in order to safeguard Senator Clemons’ amendment, it seemed to me my duty to give Senator Smith an opportunity of striking out the rest of the words which must come out before other words can be put in, in order to make the clause read.

Senator Higgs:

– If Senator Clemons has an amendment to move which comes before Senator Smith’s, now is the time for him to move it ; but, inasmuch as it does not, then I submit that Senator Smith’s should befirst put to the committee. We should not consider, at this stage, amendments which, are to come in after Senator Smith’s.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.- I was not aware that my way of putting the question gave any disadvantage to Senator Smith. The majority which gave’ him a victory just now can give him a victory again.

Senator Pearce:

– I submit, sir, it is not a question of whether it gives Senator Smith any advantage, but a question of whether thewords which you have named can be struck out after his amendment has been voted on..

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - I amquite aware of that, but they can also be struck out before it is voted on, and if they are it will make the clause read.

Senator Pearce:

– You are acting on the asssumption that his amendment will becarried, but if it is not carried there will beno need to strike out those words.

Senator Ewing:

– Surely the blank occurs before the words which are proposed subsequently to be struck out. The blank ought to be filled before the wordsare removed.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Theamendment of Senator Smith is to insert in place of the words omitted the following words : - every officer on the confirmation of his appointment shall effect with the Government of the Commonwealth an assurance of his life.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– I was told just now, sir, that certain words 3had been dealt with, and that I could not move an amendment ; but now I find it is proposed’ to put in those very words. Will you kindly indicate where those words are tocome in 1

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - Thehonorable senator wanted to move his amendment supposing that the other words stood ; but they have been struck out.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– We have struck out the words “ every officer,” but now it is proposed to re-insert them, which I submit cannot be done. I wish to know what words are in the clause.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.- The committee has created a blank from the word “Every” down to the word “some” inclusive.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I take it that the question before the committee is whether the blank should be filled by the insertion of the words of Senator Smith’s amendment, and I do not think we need, spend any more time over the matter. I hope that all those who voted on the last occasion with the Government will vote against the insertion of these words.

Question - that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 13

Noes … … … 12

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment (by Senator Walker) proposed -

That, after the word “life,” the following words be inserted : - “or until a Commonwealth Government superannuation scheme has been established.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I move-

That the words “or until the establishment of Government life assurance, shall effect an assurance on his life with some” be inserted after the word “life.”

Senator DRAKE:

– Three-fourths of which is to go back to the States; but, of course, that is a mere detail.

Senator GLASSEY:

– Grant that. But supposing we have 150 or 160 persons entering the service as probationers in the year, does the honorable and learned senator imagine that all those young people are going to die in the course of a year 1 If the Commonwealth Government allot only £l ,000 to form the nucleus of an assurance fund, do honorable senators think that the whole of that £1,000 is going to be swallowed up by the deaths of probationers who may enter the service during the year ? The statements with regard to the sum of money involved in this matter are absolutely unworthy of responsible Ministers. I think we have come to a deplorable pass if we cannot furnish a few paltry pounds to be set aside to meet an emergency that may arise in the case of some of these young officers dying at an early period. The contributions of these persons will be coming in constantly, and should be more than sufficient to meet the interest on the few pounds set aside for the purpose. I must honestly say that a more flimsy, hollow, frivolous, and useless argument could scarcely be advanced with a view to setting on one side a matter of such moment, than has been advanced with reference to this question.

I am not in the least afraid of the finances of the country being affected to any considerable extent.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Senator Glassey claims credit for having kept silence for a time. He would have been entitled to still greater credit if he had kept silent for a longer period. If he has shown us anything, it is that he does not know how many beans make five. He makes no calculation as to how terms are to be arranged. He .is not at all instructed by the fact that a great superannuation fund in New South Wales broke down, and that there is a huge deficiency on account of it.

Senator Glassey:

– We are not proposing a superannuation fund.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I suppose the honorable senator desires that the assurance fund, when started, shall be established on absolutely sound lines. There may be one or two honorable senators in this chamber who would undertake before they went to bed to-night to prepare a scheme which they would think sufficient. But it might not prove to be perfect. I hope that when the Government bring forward a scheme, the actuarial work in connexion with it will be perfectly done, and of such a character as will stand the test of experience. But that means a little time. It cannot be done to-day or tomorrow. Every one knows that the Government have undertaken too much work already, and it will be desirable to allow them a little time in which to prepare a scheme such as this. Pending the completion of such a scheme, arrangements ought to be made whereby the assurance which it is expected that the servants of the Crown will undertake shall be undertaken. I gather that that is all which is sought to be brought about by what is proposed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I hope the committee will not accept the amendment moved by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I regret very much that he has referred to what I shall call the bogy of expenditure, which it appears to me has been introduced for the express purpose of frightening honorable senators from carrying out the principle they have affirmed in the vote given earlier in the evening. As Senator Glassey has pointed out, the object of the amendment is simply to provide that the lives of those who will enter the service hereafter shall be assured. In these matters I fancy that the Government would act as ordinary private companies act in such matters, and would find out what was the value from an insurance point of view of each life assured. It is unreasonable to assume, as the VicePresident of the Executive Council appears to assume, that during the early years of the system there would be amongst those assured by the State a larger proportion of deaths than there would be in an ordinary life assurance society. Here is the position of the State : - The State has a certain number of individuals who must assure with it, but a private company that might start operations at the same time as the State would not have that advantage, and would have to find its clients from amongst the general public, in competition with other companies. The State would have an absolute monopoly of life assurance amongst a certain class of individuals. One would think, to hear some of the arguments that have been used, that it would be necessary for the State in carrying out the principle of Senator Smith’s proposal to follow on exactly the same lines as private companies have followed, and to erect great buildings such as some companies have erected. But we do not need to erect for the purposes of State life assurance a building such as the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States have put up in Melbourne, or such as the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York have erected in Sydney. What additional expense of a large character will the State be put to in order to carry out this principle ? 1 It is all very well for the PostmasterGeneral and the Vice-President of the Executive Council to talk in vague general terms about the enormous expenditure to which the State would be put in carrying this principle into practice, but I hope that honorable senators will not be frightened by such remarks as that. Speaking generally, what is the new expenditure to which the State would be put in carrying into practice this principle? Shall we have to erect new buildings, advertise extensively, or have a large staff of officers and an army of canvassers to look after nothing but the insurance business of a comparatively few individuals, or will the clerical work be of such a character as to involve a considerableexpenditure ?

Senator O’Connor:

– There is a special department in New Zealand which looksafter life assurance.

Senator KEATING:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council knows very well that in New Zealand the Government does not confine its operations to the lives of civil servants, but assures private individuals whether living- in New Zealand or out of that country. One may meet people even in this city who have never at anytime had any connexion with the civil service of New Zealand, but whose lives are assured with the Government of that country. Life assurance is one of the matters which the Government can very well take up.

Senator O’Connor:

– I suppose the honorable senator would not restrict it to civil servants.

Senator KEATING:

– So far as this particular proposal is concerned, it is restricted to civil servants. We cannot go beyond that by means of this measureThe expense involved in carrying it out cannot possibly be of the magnitude suggested. If the Commonwealth Government intends to ever take up the work of assuring lives as a general matter outside its own public service, it could not make a better commencement than at this juncture, because it will have a monopoly so far as certain individuals are concerned. That is to say, it will have a monopoly in respect of the livesof those individuals who enter the public service in the future. I will not say that the Vice-President of the .Executive Council has moved his amendment designedly to nullify the effect that would be produced by the passing of Senator Smith’s, proposal, but certainly if the amendment be’ carried the Commonwealth Governmentwill be able to say - “ We will not establish anything in the nature of a system of life assurance with regard to our civil servants, at any rate during the next five or ten years, if we can possibly avoid it.” This will mean that those who enter the service during those years will be unable to assure with the Government, but will be compelled to assure with private companies, so that when we do commence this business by the State, if we ever commence it - and I takeit from expressions of opinion that have fallen from honorable senators to-night that there is a strong feeling in the Senate.- that the Commonwealth should establish sucha system - the difficulties we are now encountering will be still greater, because in the course of years the newcomers into the service will be comparatively small, and all those already in it will have assured their lives with private concerns. The effect of the amendment will be to nullify what the committee has already done, and I trust that it will be negatived.

SenatorO’KEEFE (Tasmania). - A radical objection to Senator O’Connor’s amendment is that it will be unfair to those who are to enter into the public service, for the reason that they will be compelled, when the Commonwealth establishes an assurance fund, to assure in it, whilst in the meantime many of them will have assured with private companies. Consequently their money will have been thrown away.

Senator O’Connor:

– They would not be compelled to assure twice over.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– But an injustice will be done to the civil servants who wish to enjoy the additional advantages of assurance in the Commonwealth fund, and who in the meantime will, have paid into private companies. The question of expense is a bogy. Where is the expense going to be caused ? What is to constitute it ? If there is any force in Senator O’Connor’s argument we must believe that a large proportion of the civil servants who would be assured are going to die right off. I hope that the amendment will not be carried.

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

Ayes … … … 13

Noes … … … 13

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– If an opportunity is now afforded to me I should like to move the amendment of which I gave notice some time ago, to add the words “ shall effect such assurance.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– They would not read grammatically if inserted now.

Amendment (by Senator Staniforth Smith) agreed to-

That the following words be omitted : - “ approved mutual life assurance company or society, having its head office in Australia, and registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or us may be prescribed.”

Question - That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, negatived.

Progress reported.

page 9149

PAPER

Senator DRAKE laid upon the table the following paper : -

Supply of Australian meat to the War OfficeMinutes of the Prime Minister.

Ordered to be printed.

Senate adjourned at 9. 56 p. m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 January 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020123_senate_1_7/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 January 1902

PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senate

Thursday, 23 January, 1902

PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Sir John Downer:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator Best:

Senator Charleston:

Senator O’Connor:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’Connor:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Fraser:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Fraser:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:

Senator McGregor:

Senator FRASER:

QUESTION

QUESTIONS TO SENATORS

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator O’Connor:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Stewart:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

WAR-OFFICE CONTRACTS

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

REVENUE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

TATTERS ALL’S SWEEPS

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

PREVENTION AND SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL

Senate
23 January 1902

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania