Senate
29 November 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPERS
APPROPRIATION BILL

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

PETITION.

Senator TRENWITH presented a petition from 2,155 employes in the manufacture ofstripper-harvesters, praying the Senate to impose such substantial duties on imported stripper-harvesters as would shield them from the great danger by which they were threatened by such importation.

Petition received and read, and ordered to be printed.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at10.30 o’clock.

This motion is moved in order that if, unfortunately, we should not complete the consideration of the Estimates to-night, we might have afew hours at our disposal’ tomorrow before the other House meets. Of course, if the Estimates are dealt with at this sitting, the Senate will meet at the usual hour to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

PUBLIC SERVANTS : CIVIC POSITIONS.

Senator PEARCE.- I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, the following questions: -

Have the Government yet given consideration to the question of public servants having the right to stand for election to municipal and other local governing bodies, subject to the consent of the Governor-General, and, if not, will they give it consideration at an early date?

Senator PLAYFORD. - The matter has not yet been considered by the Government as a whole, but it will be considered’ in Cabinet at a very early date.

TROPICAL AUSTRALIA: WHITE LABOUR.

Paper by Dr. Elkington.

Senator HIGGS asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice-

Have the Government observed the report in the Launceston Daily Telegraph of23rd November, that, at the last meeting of the Royal Society in Hobart, the Chief Health Officer of Tasmania, Dr.Elkington, is reported to have read a paper entitled “ Tropical Australia : Is it Fit for a Working White Race?”

a. Will the Government obtain a copy of the paper, and lay it on the table of the Senate?

Senator PLAYFORD. - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
Yes.

ALBANY GARRISON.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it true that the present garrison at Albany is below the strength advocated by MajorGeneral Button in his scheme of Commonwealth defence ?
Is it true that a portion of the present garrison is to be removed to Fremantle?
If so, will the Minister state why the garrison at this important strategic base is to be reduced?

Senator PLAYFORD. - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes. The voted provision is for 2 officers and 34 men. Major-General Hutton’s proposal was for 2 officers and 38 men. 2 and 3. On the completion of the defences of Fremantle, the question of the upkeep of two fortified harbors within a distance of about 300 miles of each other will require consideration.

REPRINTING OF SPEECHES.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH asked the Minuter representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

If members desire to have their parliamentary speeches printed in pamphlet form by the Government Printer, has the Minister any objection to the speeches being “broken out,” so as to show the headings of the principal subjects touched upon, provided the speech is an exact verbal transcript of Hansard, and provided the member whose speech is being printed defrays the cost of same?

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

After consultation with the President, and the Speaker, it appears that there is no objection, provided the headings are informative only, and contain no personal reference. It may be suggested that if any arrangements of the kind are to be adopted, the headings must be subject to the approval of the Chief Parliamentary Reporter.

page 5901

PAPERS

Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following papers : -

Statement showing : - 1. How much has been expended in each of the financial years ending 30th June, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904,1905 in the purchase of - (a) New Rifles; (b) Maxim guns; (c) field artillery. 2. The distribution among the several States of the Commonwealth.

Return showing strength in each of the several States of the Commonwealth of the Permanent, Militia, and Volunteer Forces, and Members of Rifle Clubs, on the 1st July, 1901, and on the 1st day of July, 1905.

Ordered to be printed.

Provisional Regulations under the Defence Acts 1903-4. - Statutory Rules 1905, No. 74.

page 5901

APPROPRIATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 28th November, vide page 5851):

Second Schedule.

Treasury - Auditor-General’s Report: Auditor-General’s Staff: Government Printing: Linotype Operators.

Divisions 27 to 32(The Treasurer),

£317,937.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Last year the report of the Auditor - General was not issued until the 13th December, so that practically it was of no valueto honorable senators when the Estimates were being considered. Will the representative of the Government give the Committee an assurance that for the future the report will be available for that purpose?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Recently I informed the honorable senator that the Auditor-General is a servant of the Parliament, not of the Ministry. He does not take any command from the Ministry, he is in a perfectly independent position. I have inquired why his report for the past financial year has not been issued. I have been informed that it is because, in some cases, the necessary vouchers to show the accuracy of the statements issued by the Treasurer have not been forthcoming in time. There is very great trouble at times in getting necessary vouchers from outlying parts of the Commonwealth. Although the Treasurer bases his statement on what he believes to be accurate information, still that information has not been checked with the necessary documents. The Auditor- General waits for the whole of the documents to come in from the Departments, and if one Department is a little lax in that regard, it tends to delay the compilation of his report. I know that the Treasurer has done all that he possibly could to expedite the supply of the necessary information to the Auditor-General, so as to enable his report to be prepared. Everything is being done on the part of the Ministry to help this officer. I fear, however, that if the Treasurer delivers his Budget early in the financial year, say, in July or August, it will be impossible for the Auditor- General to be supplied with the information in time to enable him to make a report which will be available for, at all events, the House of Representatives, when the Estimates are being dealt with. At the same time, I think that matters might be expedited, so that before the Senate considers the schedule to the Appropriation Bill, the report may be furnished. We will do all we possibly can next year to secure the accomplishment of that very important object.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- It is reported in the newspapers that Mr. Israel, the Auditor-General, insists upon having his own staff in each State. He says that there must be no divided allegiance, and that the officers who do auditing for the Commonwealth must be Commonwealth servants.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is rubbish.

Senator STEWART:

– It appears to me to be rubbish, and unless strong reasons are given why such a course should be adopted, I shall oppose it. It amounts to duplicating audit staffs all over the Commonwealth. In each State there is an Auditor-General, with his staff who, previous to Federation, audited the accounts of the Post Office, Customs Department, and the Defence Department. Why should they not continue to do that work under the supervision of the Commonwealth AuditorGeneral ? It is all very well for the Federal Auditor-General to say that he must have his own staff. I have no doubt that he would like that to be the case. So, probably, should we. But we must have some regard) to the financial conditions of the States. We might very well proceed under the present system, at least for some time longer. The Minister of Defence says that it would not be possible to present the Auditor-General’s annual report in. July or August, when the Treasurer makes his financial statement. No one expects that. Probably the vouchers do not come in before the end of July. Certainly a month would not be sufficient for the preparation of the report. But this is not the month of August. We are now in November. The report, in all likelihood, will not be ready until December, when it will be of no earthly use to us in considering the schedule to the Appropriation Bill. One of the principal objects in appointing the Auditor-General was to insure correctness in the payments, and that the law was obeyed in all particulars. But under the present system we might as well have no such official. I trust that an effort will be made to hurry up the report in future.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I will read what the Auditor- General has to say in reference to this matter -

At present in States other than Victoria the. audit is performed by the State Audit Staff, the State Auditor-General acting as deputy for the Commonwealth Auditor-General, for which service he receives an allowance of£100 per annum. . . . The Auditor-General has reported that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory, as the tendency is to subordinate Federal for State work, and in some States the audit had been allowed to get considerably into arrear. Mr. Israel estimates a saving in Commonwealth expenditure under the new system of £2,000 per annum. He also considers that a more effective system of audit will be secured.

We pay the States for services, which their auditing staffs render, the following amounts : - New South Wales, . £2,325 ; Queensland. £1,928; South Australia, £1,000; Western Australia, £1,497 ; Tasmania, £400; making a total of £7,150. In Victoria we do not use the State staff. The work is done by the Auditor-General’s staff. Of course, if the present system is altered, these allowances will cease, and their place will be taken by salaries and travelling expenses ; but the AuditorGeneral anticipates that there will be a saving of £2,000

Senator Stewart:

– Does he give an estimate of salaries?

SenatorPLAYFORD.-No; it would be impossible to do so at this stage.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– In connexion with the vote for the Government Printing Office, I wish to bring under the notice of the Government a matter which requires serious consideration. The Commonwealth has purchased a number of linotype machines for use in the Government Printing Office. Operators have been engaged to work them. So far, those men have been given no definite status. The rights of other public servants are conserved by the Public Service Act and the regulations. But these men, who fill responsible positions, have no status whatever. They may be dismissed at a moment’s notice. In addition to that, they are doing their work at lower rates of pay than are received by men who are doing a similar class of work outside. Furthermore, they do not know, according to the statement of the Treasurer, whether they are working for the State or for the Commonwealth. On the nth of September, the operators, very properly desiring a settlement of the questions relating to them; formed a deputation, which was introduced by Mr. Tudor, a member of the House of . Representatives to the Commonwealth Treasurer. In the case which they placed before the Treasurer, they asked first-

That all operators engaged on day work be paid at the rate of £4 per week ; those employed on night work to be paid at the rate of £4 10s. per week.

Let me point out that these are lower rates than are currently paid in outside offices to men who are doing the same class of work. In some offices, linotype operators are paid £5 per week. Why should not the Commonwealth pay those who are doing its work a similar rate? The next request which they put before the Treasurer, was -

That overtime work be paid for to all operators after completing an ordinary day’s (or night’s) work.

– But they are working our machines and doing our work. It appears that they are to be kicked from pillar to post, simply because the Minister shelters himself behind a plea of divided authority. That is not a proper position for the Commonwealth Government to assume. We are responsible for employing them, and should see that they are properly treated. Another reason which they put before the Treasurer was -

That the position of all operators be properly defined, and an endeavour made to be gazetted as permanent employesin a similar manner to all other branches of the Federal Public Service.

That was an eminently reasonable request to make. But after an interval of six weeks, during which Sir John Forrest was incubating the matter, he hatched out the following reply: -

Department of Treasury, Melbourne,

Sir, 27th October, 1905.

In reference to the requests made by a deputation which you recently introduced to me respecting the position of the linotype operators employed in the Government Printing Office, I beg to inform you that, after giving the matter very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to place these men on the permanent staff, and, further, that I can make no alteration as regards their rate of wages, and the matter of overtime.

He does not give any reason, except that he cannot do it. The letter goes on -

With respect to the question of holidays and vacation leave, the Government Printer informs me that these men will not be called upon to perform night work longer than about six months in each year, and, further, that arrangements have lately been made which will obviate their working more than the usual hours at night.

It has also been represented to me that to grant vacation leave, as asked for, would seriously embarrass the State Government in the administration of the Government Printing Office - possibly to the extent of constraining that Government to reconsider its arrangement with the Commonwealth.

For your information, I may explain that cue of the arrangements between the two Governments is that each permits the other the use of its machinery. This being the case, the linotype operators are not distinctively Commonwealth employes, because they also work for a State, and are also paid for such work by the State ; hence, they are practically only partially Commonwealth employes.

But the Commonwealth pays them.

Senator Playford:

– The State pays a proportion of the wages.

Senator GIVENS:

– But Senator Playford told us a little while ago that these men are not Commonwealth employes at all. Whom are we to believe - Sir John Forrest or Senator Playford? The letter proceeds -

I am also informed that these operators already enjoy the same privileges as State temporary employes, which are greater than the privileges enjoyed in private establishments.

The privileges are nothing of the kind. In private establishments, where the pay is higher, the work is not so arduous, and, in regard to overtime, the Commonwealth employes are distinctly worse off. The letter concludes -

Having given all these questions consideration, I regret being unable, under existing circumstances, to meet the wishes of the deputation which you introduced to me.

I have the honour,&c.,

The memorandum which I hold in my hand states that when the, linotypes were first installed by the Federal Government, in July, 1903, operators were engaged in accordance with the following advertisement, which appeared in all the daily newspapers : -

Wanted, thoroughly competent linotype operators, who can set at least 6,000 long primer corrected matter. Constant employment offered. Robert S. Brain, Government Printer, Melbourne.

- Mr. Brain informed me that they are really State employes. We have an arrangement by which we pay the State for the work done.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are the men fairly paid ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– That is rather a question to be considered by the State Government, who contract with us to do our work at a certain rate, and employ the men. We repay the State for the work done.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- The information which has just been furnished by Senator Playford is satisfactory, because it helps to clear up the question. I have no desire to interfere with the working of the State Printing Department, and now that it is clearly understood, on the authority of Senator Playford, that these men are not Commonwealth employes, it will be satisfactory to the men themselves, inasmuch as they will know to whom to look for the redress of any grievance. In the circumstances, I do not intend to press the matter any further, though I think it would be well within the right of the Commonwealth to ask the State Government to see that the men who are partly employed on Commonwealth work should not be required to work unduly long hours1, or to submit to any worse conditions than those to which they would be subjected in doing similar work outside. If it should cost the Commonwealth a little more to get its work done in a satisfactory way, I feel sure that it would be willing to pay the additional sum. I intend to vote for the request in order to express my disapproval of men being compelled to work fourteen hours at a stretch without getting paid for overtime.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- If it be correct, as the Minister says, that these men are the servants of the State, and that the Commonwealth has nothing to do with them. I would point out to him that the estimate is wrongly framed. What are the items which we are asked to vote?

Wages and overtime : -

If the Minister’s statement be correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, the Estimates, ought to have been framed in quite a different fashion. Instead of being asked to vote the wages of compositors and others, we ought to have been asked to discharge an account to be rendered by the State Government for work done.

Senator Playford:

– The amounts are based on work done, and wages earned in doing the work.

Senator STEWART:

– This division is a jumble of the most comprehensive character. When it suits the Government, it is one thing; but when it does not suit them, it is something else. It is most adaptable in its character. It is almost anything which the occasion may demand. In any case, I suppose that it is not worth while to pursue the subject; but I shall call for a division on the question of overtime.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - In order to get the matter fully cleared up, I would ask Senator Playford to say whether, when pay-day comes round, the money to pay these men is drawn by a cheque on the -Commonwealth’s bank or by a cheque on the State’s bank? If the money be drawn from Commonwealth funds, undoubtedly the men are Commonwealth employes, otherwise they are State employes.

Senator CROFT (Western Australia).I wish to ask whether the operators sign a Commonwealth pay-sheet or a State paysheet? I insist that they are Commonwealth employes. I am surprised that a better business arrangement is not made.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - The operators sign a double pay-sheet, showing the work done for the Commonwealth and the work done for the State. They are, therefore, jointly employed by the State and the Commonwealth, and my previous statement was not quite accurate.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are they paid under the same conditions as are other men who do work for both State and Commonwealth ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes ; exactly the same.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I do not see that it is possible for me to support the request moved by Senator Stewart, because the men mentioned by the Minister are employed in the first place by the State, and are doing work for the State. If, however, they do work for the Commonwealth, they are paid by the Commonwealth at the same rates as are paid by the State. If we determine that they are not paid sufficient for the work done for the Commonwealth, the only practical course is for the Commonwealth to establish its own. printing office and fix its own rates of remuneration. I suppose that when operators are doing work both for the Commonwealth and State, the time when they are employed on Commonwealth work is taken, and they are paid for that time at the same rate as when they are doing work for the State. If we say that they shall be paid more for doing Commonwealth work, the position which we shall create will be that the men in the Government Printing Office doing work for the Commonwealth must” be paid in accordance with one standard of wages, whilst the men doing work for the State must be paid at a totally different rate. There is no way out of the difficulty unless Parliament is prepared to establish a Commonwealth printing office. In connexion with all contract work for the Commonwealth, a rate is fixed below which men cannot be employed. I take it that there is a rate below which the men working in the Government Printing Office who are doing Commonwealth work cannot be paid. I cannot support the request, because I do not see that any benefit can accrue from it.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- My motion is intended to be an intimation to the Government that when the linotype operators are employed for longer than seven and a half hours in any day on Commonwealth work they shall be paid overtime. I am anxious that the good name of the Commonwealth shall be maintained, and that we shall not be written down as a lot of sweaters. If the men are compelled to work ten hours consecutively on Commonwealth work, they should be paid overtime rates for the extra two and a half hours.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item “ Allowance to Mr. R. S. Brain, for services rendered in connexion, with printing for Parliament, £150,” by £1 - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Trade and Customs : Increases of Salary.

Divisions 33 to 41 (Department of Trade and Customs),£269,620.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I understand that certain officers of this De partment have been granted increases during the present year, and that others to whom increases have been promised have not received them. Can the Minister give us any information’ as to whether the increases in the cases I have referred to are to be paid?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– A certain number of officers are awaiting the sanction of the Government to the classification scheme of the Public Service Commissioner, when they will receive the increases that he has recommended. Honorable senators may notice a number of items in the . schedule, in which increases of salaries are put down as lump sums. The object is to provide increases to officers whose salaries are voted elsewhere; but the increases cannot be shown against the votes for the salaries in question until the Commissioner’s scheme is adopted.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I was referring to those officers who are not under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– What does the honorable senator mean by his reference to people outside the Public Service?

Senator Mulcahy:

– I mean officers who are not under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commissioner.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– So far , as I understand, all the public servants are under the Public Service Commissioner, except, it may be, some casual employes.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I mean heads of the Department, such as Collectors.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Collectors are undoubtedly under the Public Service Commissioner. Some of the heads of the Department, including, I think, Dr. Wollaston, are not under the Public Service Commissioner. I do not quite see the point which the honorable senator is raising.

Defence : Military Clerks : Military and Naval Defence: Compulsory Drill : Cadets : Militia : Volunteers : Goode Island : Accident Insurance : Labourers, examination and fees : Rifle Clubs.

Divisions 1 to 147 (Department of Defence)£589,981 .

Senator BEST:
Victoria

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– Exactly. If we adopt compulsory military training it will mean the equipment and preparation of something like 500,000 or 750,000 men. We are told by the highest authorities that it is exceedingly improbable that any attack will be made on Australia by a large military force. We should therefare have armed, say, .three-quarters of a million of men, whose Tides and accoutrements alone would cost ^4,000,000 or £5,000,000, and _ should thereby negative the possibility of being able te devote any considerable sum oF money to naval defence- I am quite in accord with Senator O’Keefe when he urges that

Ave should encourage the rifle clubs in every way.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– They are doing very well.

– I think they do. The information so obtained is all tabulated. If our defence’ scheme were complete - if we had an effective scheme, effective guns, and an efficient force - it would not matter very much if foreigners knew all about it. But when our guns are obsolete - or as Senator Playford said, “obsolescent” - and our defence scheme is incomplete, it is foolish to point out all our deficiencies for the benefit of foreign nations. I have before me a letter from a German gentleman who. occupies a position of some importance. I should like to read an extract from it, as bearing upon the important matter to which I have just referred. He says -

In reading your Australian papers and the speakers in your Legislative Assemblies, I have’ for many years been struck with the frankness with which you debate your military matters. In speaking with officers of different foreign nations, I have always found that they shared my opinion. Military matters such as you debate in Parliament or in the Senate are in other countries kept dark. One only has to read Hansard to know how many guns you have - if they are oi any use or not, what ammunition you have got, how your fortifications are manned, and by what class of soldiers, and so on. I think there should be a little more secrecy in the matter. A few years ago, when the war vessel called here, I. came in conversation with the Commander. Talking about Sydney Harbor, he laughingly told me that he had made a plan of Sydney Harbor, where all the details were marked. Asking him how be had been able to do this, he pointed to a bottle of champagne, and said, “ This is my informant.” Where so many are in the secret there is no secret. A German Commander some years back told me, “ If only the people (in Sydney) would talk less of their fortifications, and their military matters, it would be a great deal pleasanter to stay there. We do not want to spyaround, but they make me sometimes feel like a spy in honouring me with their unwarrantable confidence.” I write you this to show how other people think about such matters, and you may be sure that all such communications are taken notice of. In this matter you might learn a little from

Senator DOBSON:

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - In Queensland there are a little over 200 naval cadets, but we expect to increase the number.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- I desire to ask the Minister of Defence why it is that in the case of New South Wales - a State which is preeminently fitted for the training of naval cadets - no provision in that direction is made on these Estimates? For naval cadets in Queensland some provision is made, but none in New South Wales.

Senator Playford:

– Nor in the other States.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Will the Minister give some consideration to the question of inaugurating a system of naval cadets in New South Wales? I can conceive of no better part of the Commonwealth in which to make an experiment.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - When the Military Forces were taken over by the Commonwealth there happened to be some naval cadets in Queensland, which had two special boats. We took over and provided for these naval cadets, and now propose to increase the provision for them. In none of the other States were there any naval cadets. We have made no provision for inaugurating a system of naval cadets for the Commonwealth, but I hope to be able to bring before Parliament next session a proposal whereby we shall have naval cadets in all the States.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– The Minister has stated that there are no naval cadets except in Queensland, but only the night before last I saw naval cadets marching in the streets at St. Kilda in this State.

Senator Playford:

– They are not Commonwealth, but private cadets.

Senator CROFT:

– I understand that the naval cadets I saw were organized privately. I wish to know if the Department arms these lads, or pays for their uniform, or recognises them in any way?

Senator PLAYFORD (South’ AustraliaMinister of Defence). - There is a private company of naval cadets at St. Kilda. They have no connexion with the Commonwealth Forces, and therefore we have no authority over them. They are clothed and drilled, and, I believe, were organized, by a Presbyterian Church.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- On page 67, under the head of New South Wales Naval Forces, I observe an item of £1,000 for continuous training in the gunboat Protector. Is she in New South Wales now ?

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - The Protector was sent from South Australia, first to Victoria, and next to New South Wales, in order to train the men of the Naval Brigade, because no other boat was available. This vote is required to defray the expense of her visit to New South Wales. I think that a smaller item for the same purpose will be found under the head of Victorian Naval Forces.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if he can give the Committee any information abouti the Council of Defence. I noticed the other day that his representative in another place said that he was not sure how often the Council of Defence had met, if it had met at all, but that he would make inquiries. As the Minister is a member of the Council of Defence, no doubt he knows how often it has met, and how it is managed. I hear that it has given rise to very great dissatisfaction, and I hope that the Government will devise some way of making iti a more effective body than it is. I also wish to draw the attention of the Government to the want of fortifications at Hobart. Although this is one of the most important sea-ports we have, still it is one of the weakest in its “defences.. I certainly think that if we are to have any fortifications our best ports should be properly fortified.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - We have not yet reached the items relating tq Hobart, but I am only too willing to answer the questions asked by Senator Macfarlane. I made a statement a day or two ago as to the Council of Defence. I will repeat it for honorable senators’ information. The Council has met twice. One meeting, at which questions of defence were discussed, was rather important. The second was in regard to a matter which was not very important. The Council consists of the Minister for the time being, the Treasurer, and a number of officers, naval and military. It is called together when the Minister needs its advice. At the present time I do not see any utility in calling the Council together, but there will be a meeting before the scheme, which I hope to be able to lay before my colleagues, is ready. The Council will be able to criticise it before it is placed before the Government for approval or disapproval. The defences of Hobart have not been neglected. We are spending money just below Hobart now. We are manning a - very effective gun to protect that very interesting little city. True, it is but one gun, but it is up to date and efficient.

Senator CROFT (Western Australia).In respect of the defences of Queensland, I wish to ask what has become of the gunboats Gayundah and Palumah ? Are they still being used ?

Senator Playford:

– The boats referred to are in Queensland, and are being used for the purpose of training the naval

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– There is an item of £300 for pay for Queensland naval cadets. Do we pay them ?

Senator Playford:

– When they are taken away from their work for training purposes they are paid.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- The item £61 for the pay of one sublieutenant and twelve able seamen of the Tasmanian Naval Forces is interesting because of its size. The peculiar fact is that the force is administered by the military authorities of the State. The Minister will, perhaps, excuse the interest which I take in this subject. I am rather keen about the Navy, and I object to naval men being officered or managed by military officers.

Senator Dobson:

– Let us appoint an Admiral at once !

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is not the question. I wish to know whether this force really exists. Is it to be seen? What do the men do? What is the duty of the sub-lieutenant? What training do the able seamen receive ? Why is the force being administered by military officers?

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - This is a new item. The Tasmanian naval militia was not previously in existence. We are doing something in the direction which Senator Clemons advocated earlier in the sitting, though, certainly, the beginning is a modest one. It will be noticed that in the portion of the schedule dealing with the Western Australian Forces there is provision for twenty-four able seamen and two sublieutenants. This, of course, is merely a beginning. The men in Tasmania have had the benefit of training on the Protector.

Senator Clemons:

– The footnote “Administration by military authorities in State “ puzzles me.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– We had to appoint some officers to supervise the administration of the force. In Tasmania there were no naval authorities to undertake the duty. For the time being, and as a makeshift, they were put under the military authorities.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– Is not this Tasmanian naval force the old crew which manned the torpedo boat?

Senator Keating:

– No; there was. an engineers corps for that purpose.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is high time that naval reserves were established throughoutthe Commonwealth. I believe an attempt has been made to recruit by sending the Protector round. Senator Dobson has suggested that we shall be able to recruit a considerable number of seamen, not only to serve in our own Defence Force, but to assist the Imperial Navy if necessary. He has said that it will be better to assist the Imperial Navy by means of men than by money. In England,no matter how much money Parliament is prepared to vote for naval purposes the trouble is to enlist men to man the fleet. I believe that it is our duty to do something to assist in manning our own coastal defences, and that therefore the recruiting of naval reserves should be pushed forward vigorously. It has been said that England is prepared to let us have ships of war. What is the use of having those vessels if we have not men to man them ? There are men on the Australian coasts who would be prepared to render this service if they were trained. But the encouragement given is very small. Let honorable senators realize the fact that we spend over £600,000 in land defences, and only about £45,000 in naval defence. A considerable sum is spent in harbour defence, which should be undertaken by trained sailors. My own opinion is that the whole of the harbour defence of Australia should be under one command, and that a naval command. The men at the guns on shore would have to fight in conjunction with the seamen, and the officers on board the ships ought to know everything about the guns at the forts. I trust that the Government, in considering the defence scheme during the recess will be able to propose something definite in this regard. There is plenty of room for economy ; and if I am in order, I should like to draw attention to another matter. A whole company of men are withdrawn from the Queenscliff forts every week to do duty at Government House. I regard this as an absolutely useless expense, seeing that these men are not provided with any ammunition, and could not afford us any protection whatever, not even having the power to arrest an offender. Their whole duty is to walk up and down at Government House, and be relieved every four hours. A fresh company is brought from Queens- cliff each week by train at a cost of about 15s. per man. The time occupied on the journey is seven hours, whereas these men could very well travel by steamer at 2s. 6d. a head in two hours and a half. Surely some economy could be exercised in this connexion, instead of reducing the force for the coastal defence of a State to twelve men.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- Was any call made for these naval reserve men in Tasmania, and if so, was twelve the total number that could be obtained ? Is there any relation between that number and the numbers of naval reserve men in the other States? I see that there are twenty-four naval reserve men in Western Australia, twelve in Tasmania, and eightytwo in South Australia. Is there any rule observed in this matter?

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - So far as I know, these twelve men were obtained in Tasmania, but I do not know why that is the number, or why any particular number is selected for any State. These arrangements were made before I took office, and I found these items in the Estimates. I can see no reason for the particular numbers, except, perhaps, that they may have been arrived at on a population basis.

Senator Clemons:

– I cannot see how the number is arrived at on a population basis.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– There are 1,050 naval reserve men in the Commonwealth,

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote, Thursday Island, “ Militia, £2,088” by £1.

My object is to get an expression of opinion as to whether the Militia Forces should be continued. My own impression is that wewould get a much more effective and certainly a more numerous force, if the money at present spent on the militia were diverted to the support of the volunteer system. In the Militia Force we have 16,540 men. whereas there are only 5,850 volunteers. The volunteers, in direct payments, cost £2 per head per annum, while the militia cost £9 per head ; so that if the whole of the money spent on both branches were devoted to volunteers,we should, as I say, have a much larger force. Of course, the question of efficiency arises; and I should like an expression of opinion as to whether the extra drill to which the militia are subjected, is a compensating advantage for the expenditure. To my mind it is not a compensating advantage. We ought to specially encourage rifle shooting in the land forces. The drill of the barrack-yard does not appear to be of much consequence in modern warfare, and certainly would not count for very much in the defence of Australia. The mere ability to perform certain evolutions, so far as I can gather, is of very little moment on the battlefield of to-day ; what is wanted principally is the capacity to shoot well, and the power to march, and to endure hunger and fatigue. We are much more likely to get a good class of men in the volunteers than in the militia. I know a number of men who would not be in the militia, but for the money inducement. What we want is not a comparatively small number of men able to go through certain evolutions, but a comparatively large number of men able to shoot well. Honorable senator after honorable senator addresses himself to the subject of defence, but we do not seem to make any progress towards, a definite defence system. I advocate the abolition of the militia, and the substitution of a small permanent force, with a comparatively large volunteer force. We should spend the money much better in encouraging volunteers by offering prizes for shooting, and providing ammunition, ad libitum, if it be desired. In that way we should train up a nation of sharpshooters, who would be able to give a good account of themselves, if Australia ever had the misfortune to be invaded. We could, I believe, by this means raise an Army of 50,000 men equal in every particular, to the 22,000 who now make up the militia and the volunteers.

Request negatived.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I should like some information regarding the item of £579 set down as a contribution towards the maintenance of a telegraph station at Goode Island, and cable communication with the Prince of Wales group of Islands, Torres Straits. A short time ago it was reported that the Colonial Defence Committee had recommended a fortification at Goode Island. I should like to know from the Minister whether it has been finally decided to fortify Goode Island, and whether the vote to which I have referred is asked for in order to give effect to that decision?

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - No. A similar vote was passed last year, before the suggestion with respect to the fortification of Goode Island was made. Last year we voted £838 for this purpose. The provision is necessary for the maintenance of the cable between the groups of islands in Torres’ Straits, and particularly in order that Thursday Island may be in cable communication with the mainland in time of war. The vote has nothing to do with the fortification of Goode Island. On that subject we have only some memoranda forwarded by the Colonial Defence Committee and a report by an officer who was asked to investigate the matter. Unfortunately, it has been found that the port at Thursday Island is silting up with very great rapidity. It is a question whether it would not be better to have the coaling station and fortifications at Goode Island rather than at Thursday Island ; and if that is the case, of course an unfortunate mistake was made in the selection of Thursday Island in the first instance. No definite request has been made in connexion with the matter, and at the present time there is no necessity for immediate action.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - I wish again to direct the attention of the Committee to the amount spent on the paid forces and their number, and the amount spent on the Volunteer Forces and their number. In the Permanent Forces in New South Wales we have 505 nien, who mop up £70,776; 5,127 militia, or partiallypaid men, who cost us £45,726 ; and 2,490 volunteers, who cost £6,357. The volunteers cost a little over £2 per head, the militia, or partially-paid forces, £9 per head, and the Permanent Forces £150 per head. I do not know whether honorable senators have given this aspect of the question the consideration which it deserves, but it appears to me that it would be very much better for the Commonwealth if we disbanded the militia and partially-paid forces and spent the £51,000 now spent on those forces and on the Volunteer Forces entirely on the volunteers. We should then have a verv much larger force, and, in my opinion, it would be as efficient as the present force. The number of men at the service of the Commonwealth might be doubled, or more than doubled, for the same money, and that ought to have some influence with the members of the Committee. If honorable senators are determined on continuing militia, or partially-paid forces, I shall be compelled to move a reduction on the amount set down for the Volunteer Forces, with the object of getting an expression of opinion as to whether honorable senators desire that those forces shall be continued. My own opinion is that we cannot have the two forces running side by side successfully. Men who desire to be paid will not join the volunteers, but very many men would certainly join the volunteers if there were no paid branch of the service. They are not willing to volunteer while there is a paid branch. They very reasonably say : “ Why should we give our services for nothing when these other men are paid?” It is an absolute waste of money to have these two arms of the service maintained side by side. If the Committee determines to keep the militia, or partially-paid force, they should disband the volunteers, and spend all the money available on the rifle clubs and cadet corps. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote, New South Wales, “Volunteer Forces, ^6,357,” by the sum of £1.

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I admit that.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Then the honorable senator has to admit that a very large proportion of the drilled men cannot shoot, and that a very large proportion of the rifle men can shoot.

Request negatived.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if the Department has thought pf a system by which, upon paying a premium to an accident ‘insurance company, they could get the necessary compensation for injuries done to men while on duty ? I find that as compensation for injury suffered by men on duty, we are asked to vote £300 for New South Wales, £250 for Victoria, and £100 for Queensland.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - The Military Forces are in this respect in exactly the same position as the buildings of the Government. It is a great deal better for a Government to be its own insurer, than to pay annual premiums to a private company, because in the long run it will cost a great deal less. When I was Treasurer of South Australia, I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to insure any public buildings.

In ten years we had paid £8,000 or £10,000 for insurance, but we had received only £1,000 or £2,000 from the companies for compensation for fires which took place. With a big military force such as we have, it is a great deal cheaper to be our own insurers than to pay a company, who would charge sufficient to cover all risks, and to leave a profit. I think we had better keep the profit for ourselves.

Senator Walker:

– I am much obliged to the Minister for the information he has given.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - A short time ago the Defence Department in Victoria advertised for the services of a labourer - a packer. I understand that the candidates had to put in three days’ work for nothing, to pass an examination, and to pay a fee of 7s. 6d. There were eightyfour candidates to fill one vacancy, so that the imposition of the fee yielded a very nice sum. I do not know whether the candidates had to be examined in subjects other than arithmetic. I shall read the paper on arithmetic. In view of the fact that the occupant of the position would probably never be asked to do anything but pack away stores, I should like honorable senators to say whether they approve of all this superfluity of examination. The paper reads as follows: -

Arithmetic.

Time allowed : Two hours.

N.B. - Show the whole of your working,

Divide 65358547823 by 5578.
Multiply seventeen millions three hundred and seventy-six thousand eight hundred and seventy-two by Ninety-six thousand and seventyeight.
In a game of cricket, A, B, and C together score 108 runs; B and C together score go runs; A and C together score 51 runs. Find the number of runs made by each of them.
In a division sum the divisor is 8274, the quotient is 94907, and the remainder 65. What is the dividend ?
Divide £21s. 8d. amongst three persons, A, B, and C, so that for every penny A has, B may have threepence and C sixpence. 6- A man bought 25 baskets of fruit at 4s. 6d. each. Five baskets proved to be bad and were thrown away. Find at what price per basket he must sell the balance so as to get back his original outlay, and also make a profit of one guinea on the whole transaction.
A hospital collection consisted of 220 sovereigns, 401 half-sovereigns, 508 half-crowns, 716 shillings,808 sixpences. This is divided amongst four hospitals, three of them receiving equal amounts, but the fourth receiving twice as much as each of the other three. What do they each receive ?
The National Debt on 31st March, 1890, amounted to Six hundred and ninety millions six hundred and sixty-four thousand pounds, and has since then been gradually reduced at the average rate of Seven millions nine hundred and sixty-five thousand pounds a year. If this rate was maintained till 31st March, 1900, state in words the amount of the debt at that date.
The double and the third part of a number, added together, give as a result 140. What is the number ?
Find the cost of 247 articles at£23 16s. 13/4d. each.

Is it not utterly absurd to ask a candidate for a position of labourer in the Defence Department to pass an examination of that kind?

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– We wanted a labourer in the Department, but he could not be obtained except through the Public Service Commissioner. An advertisement was published, and I think eighty-four applications were received. In order to decide who was the most fit and proper person, an examination was held. I do not hold either myself or the Department responsible for this tom-foolery. There was no necessity for holding an examination, when we merely wanted a labourer for packing stores in the ordnance branch. But that is the way in which the Public Service Commissioner treated the applicants. It certainly would not have occurred if we had been able to obtain the services that we required ourselves.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I certainly think that the fee of 7s. 6d. ought to be returned to the eighty-three men who were turned away.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Does the Minister of Defence mean to tell the Committee that under the Public Service Act the Commissioner had power to enforce that examination ?

Senator Playford:

– I did not inquire whether he had the power or not; I only know that he did it.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I think that the matter is worth inquiring into by the Minister. I can understand that, when the Commissioner had to select one out of eighty-four applicants he thought that this would be a fair way out of the difficulty, but it is not one of which we can approve for a moment.

Senator Dobson:

– No man can enter the Public Service now without (passing an examination.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I think it is a monstrous thing that such an examination should be held .

Senator Playford:

– My officer does not know what the Act provides.

Senator CROFT (Western Australia),I think that some step should be taken to refund the fee of 7s. 6d. to the eightythree applicants who were turned away. It is a scandalous thing, I think, that the money was collected.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - The applicants had to payafeeof7s6d., whichwas handed over to the Public Service Commissioner, and withwhich the military authorities had nothing to do. I do not know, but I should imagine that it would be returned to all but the successful applicant.

Senator Pearce:

– It was not.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It will be very unfair if it is not returned.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– It seems from the regulations that all the fees are forfeited. Indeed, it is regarded as creditable to the Public Service Commissioner that the fees form a considerable item of revenue.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– In connexion with the votes for rifle clubs and associations. I observe that New South Wales receives £2,000 ; Victoria, £1,375; Queensland, £1,500; South Australia, £200 ; Western Australia, £350; and Tasmania, £150. This affords an opportunity for Senator Stewart to exercise his craze for economy. The State which he represents appears to dip alts hand info the Commonwealth purse more deeply than does any other State in proportion to the number of riflemen. On the strength of her rifle clubs she is only entitled to something like£500.

Senator Drake:

– Perhaps she has encouraged rifle shooting more than any other State.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– As a matter of fact, the number of riflemen in Queensland is just about the same as in South Australia; that is to say, there are 2,918 in Queensland, and 2,803 in South Australia. Yet South Australia receives only £200, andQueensland receives £1,500. Senator

Stewart and Senator Givens have been doing their best to economize in many directions. Now they have an opportunity. Queensland is getting more than she is entitled to get. I am satisfied that Senator Stewart will not be a party to anything of that kind.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - This is one of the matters we took over from the States. Queensland had divided her territory into a number of districts, in which rifle associations had been formed. We do not think it right to diminish the amount formerly paid by the State Government. And as was admitted to me by a gentleman in Adelaide, who is connected with military matters and rifle associations, with whom I was talking over the matter, there is some justification for a larger amount being paid in Queensland. She has an immense territory, with a population extending along a coast-line hundreds of miles in length. Each district has its own. rifle association. We are only too pleased to give these associations money to encourage them to perfect their rifle shooting. But there is no doubt that the amounts voted to South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and New South Wales are not on a fair basis, My attention was not called to the subject until I had been Minister of Defence for some time. I have since looked into it, but I do not wish to decrease the amount voted to Queensland. She is entitled to much consideration on account of her peculiar position. But in justice to the other States, we must increase the amount voted to them, and if I have the honour to draw up the Estimates next year, honorable senators will see a change made in this direction.

Senator Givens:

– It is transferred expenditure; Queensland is paying the money.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Of course Queensland pays for it; butwe ought to encourage rifleshooting in the other States on the same lines.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I do not know why honorable senators representing other States should object to Queensland contributing an extra large amount in aid of the rifle clubs. This item is large because Queensland, prior to Federation, did her duty as to national defence. If the other States had done their duty also, Ave should not have had Senator de Largie twitting Senator Stewart and myself with not being in favour of economy because we do not move for a request to reduce this vote. I enter my protest against the mock indignation of those who object to Queensland maintaining her- rifle clubs in a state of efficiency. I shall be pleased if the other States will contribute an equally large amount for the defence of Australia.

Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia) - To test the sincerity of my impetuous friend who has just sat down, in the cause of economy, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, Queensland, “ Rifle Clubs and Associations, ^4,679,” by ?1.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I trust that the honorable senator will not proceed with this extreme economic course. We shall be saving too much by reducing the item’ by ?1. It cannot possibly do any good.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- Perhaps the Minister of Defence will tell us how many men there are in the rifle clubs.

Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia). - I can furnish an answer to that question. In New South Wales there are 4,491 riflemen, and the amount voted is ?2,000. In Victoria there are 16,632 riflemen, and the amount on the Estimates is ?r>375- Queensland has only 2,918 riflemen, and she has ?1,500 on the Estimates. In South Australia the number of riflemen is 2,803, for whom grants amount: ing to ?200 are provided on the Estimates. In Tasmania the number of riflemen is 250, and in Western Australia 208.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- All the evening I have been advocating an increase of the subsidy for rifle clubs and volunteer corps, but have been unable to get any support from honorable senators. I have no intention to support any reduction in this vote, which I regard as money well spent. I am sorry that the other States have not been as generous to their riflemen as has Queensland.

Senator Trenwith:

– -In the other States assistance is not required to the same extent as in Queensland, where travelling is more expensive and difficult.

Request negatived.

– That is so, by reason of the fact that the ordinary annual increments would have to be paid if the Departments had remained under the control of the States. The revenue from this Department is very satisfactory, whilst very great improvements have been effected since the establishment of Federation. Very considerable reductions have also been made in the charges made to the public, especially in connexion with telegraphy. I suppose that there is no part of the civilized world to-day where it is possible to send more matter over a longer distance by telegraph at a cheaper rate than in the Commonwealth of Australia. The rates now charged in Australia are remarkably low, and lower than those ever previously charged ‘by public or by private enterprise in any other part of the world. The reductions made have been surprising. A telegram which, before Federation, cost from 3s. 6d. to 4s., can now be sent in the Commonwealth for is. We have that balance of great advantage to set against any depletion of revenue, and when the figures submitted by Senator Stewart are considered, it is found that the revenue has not suffered very considerably.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– The other day I asked a question with respect to the item “ gratuities for the conveyance of mails by non-contract vessels.” A similar item is found in the division for each of the States. I was told, in answer to my question, that these gratuities represented1 the amount paid as poundage rates. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the wrong term is used. If we are paying for the carriage of mails at per lb., it is misleading to describe the charge as a gratuity.

Senator Drake:

– That is a technical term used in the Post-office.

Senator CROFT:

– As we go along we are getting rid of red-tape, and we might decide to use common-sense terms. Some alteration of this item should, I think, be made, so that the ordinary reader may understand what it means.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Honorary Minister). - After this matter was mentioned by the honorable senator last week, I caused inquiries to be made, and I find that postally the word “ gratuity “ is used in a technical sense. It means the payment made to non-contract vessels as distinguished from subsidies paid to contract vessels. In several State Post and Telegraph Acts the word appears, and in the Estimates of Expenditure of those States it was invariably used. When this Department was transferred’ to the Commonwealth, and Estimates, were framed in connexion with each of the States Postal Departments, the word “gratuities” was retained, and I think rightly, because it serves to indicate to those concerned with State finances what particular sums are being expended in this way. I have received a memorandum on the subject, in which it is said -

The same wording has been continued in the Estimates of Expenditure for the Commonwealth, but arrangements will be made in connexion with the 1906-7 Estimates to amend the wording so as to make it clear that these payments are payments at poundage rates.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - In reply to a question put in another place a day or so ago, the astonishing information was given that big places of business like the Hotel Australia, in Sydney, and the Grand Hotel, in Melbourne, have an attendant all to themselves in the telephone exchanges, and the cost of this attendance comes to more than the total receipts received from these hotels for the telephone services they enjoy. That is altogether wrong. There are other expenses in connexion with these telephones, such as the expense of putting the lines to the hotels, and of fitting up telephones in them; and if all the figures were supplied, I suppose it would be found that these two hotels secure complete telephone services for half, or less than half, the amount they cost the Commonwealth. That should! not be tolerated. I understand that there is a special rate for hotels, but it should be differentiated in some way, and the charge made according to accommodation. If, for instance, an hotel can accommodate twenty guests, it might be charged the minimum charge, but if it can accommodate 200 guests, it should be charged accordingly on some ascending scale, so that the actual cost of the service shall not be about twice as much as the total receipts from it.

Senator Keating:

– The whole matter of abolishing or modifying the present flat rates is being considered.

Senator GIVENS:

– I am very glad to hear it. It is, at any rate, desirable that the matter should be mentioned, because the taxpayers of the Commonwealth have a right to expect that when they provide a first-class service for people who enjoy the greatest possible advantage from it, they should receive some remuneration in proportion to the cost of the service provided.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - A great many complaints have been made about reductions of salaries of Victorian employes of the Post and Telegraph Department. For the information of honorable senators, I propose to read a list of increases which have been granted to men in the more highly paid positions in the service. This list gives the salaries of particular officers on the 26th December, 1900, and the salaries of the same officers as classified by the Public Service Commissioner -

In nearly every one of these cases the men had already been receiving what might be termed a fair salary. In some cases the salaries were increased by 20 per cent., in others by 30 per cent., in others by 50 per cent., and in others by up to 100 per cent. ; indeed, in some instances, fairly high salaries have been exactly doubled. While the Commissioner has been increasing the salaries of the comparatively highly-paid men, he has been doing everything he possibly could to screw down the emoluments of the men in the lower grades. Last night

I tried to induce the Committee to intervene on behalf of those men, and to get the Commissioner to re-open the whole matter, but I was unsuccessful. I do not intend to dwell upon the matter, but merely to point out that the more highly-paid men are getting increases habitually.

Senator Guthrie:

– Yes, but the State itself made a number of these increases.

Senator STEWART:

– No doubt the State increased the number of salaries at. the very last moment.

SenatorMulcahy. - In this table there is a column showing the difference between the salary on the 26th December, 1900, and the salary proposed by the Commissioner.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why nottake the salaries as they stood on the 27th December, 1900?

Senator STEWART:

– The salaries were jumped up for a particular reason, but the Commissioner was not satisfied, and he had to give them another hitch up. Apparently, while increasing the salaries of the more highly-paid officers, he has set himself assiduously to cut down the remuneration of the more lowly-paid officers. Of course, if the Committee approve of that policy, I have no more to say.I gave them an opportunity yesterday of saying whether they did or not. They decided that they did, and now it will go forth to the people that the Commissioner is supported in this policy by the members of the Senate.

– That is the most extraordinary answer I have ever heard. If the salary was artificial then, it is artificial now, and a dozen examinations would not make it real. The men are doing exactly the same work now as they were doing previously. They were not able to pass some fancy test to which they were subjected bv the Commissioner. The Minister says that the salary is artificial. If it was artificial in the one case it was artificial in every case. If these men are not doing their work properly, they ought to be dismissed. If they cannot earn the salaries which they are receiving, they should get their walking ticket. It seems to me to be an extraordinary method of “ cutting down men’s salaries, more especially those in the lower grades of the service, who are getting very poor remuneration at best. And1 if these men were subjected to a test, why were not officers in the other States subjected to the same test? We hear a great deal about uniformity. Why did not the men in the other States have an opportunity of showing whether they were capable of earning the increases which had been given to these officers? ‘ It appears to me, speaking without prejudice, that the whole thing is a complete jumble, and that the service is seething with incapacity from top to bottom. I have a word or two to say 1 with regard to Queensland. It will be fresh in the recollection of honorable senators that a few days ago I put a few questions to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Replies were given. But probably honorable senators do not know the inner history of those questions. I propose to give some information on the point. At the end of January last, an employe” in the Brisbane Post Office was found to have stolen a sum of £8 belonging to the Department. I understand that on the discovery of the theft he was told to go home. In the beginning of February he was tried in Brisbane, convicted of larceny, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. But he was liberated under the First Offenders Act. On, the 24th of June he received a letter, informing him that he had been suspended on the charges that he had absented himself from duty without leave; that he had failed to account for the sum of £8 odd ; and also that he had been convicted at the Police Court in Brisbane on this charge, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. This letter, be it noted, was sent on the 24th June, about five months after he had been convicted and sentenced. He had left the office at the end of January, had been convicted of larceny at the beginning of February, and was suspended on the 24th June. He was called upon to answer the charges in writing. He saw the Deputy Postmaster-General, who asked him to resign. But meanwhile some kind friend had whispered in his ear that, not having been suspended or dismissed, he could make a claim for his salary. He did make that claim, and the sum of £83 and some odd shillings was paid to him for which he never did a single hour’s work. These facts disclose a most extraordinary state of affairs. Here is a man discovered in an offence at the end of January. He is told - I suppose by his superior officer - to leave the office. In the beginning of February he is charged and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, but is liberated under the First Offenders Act. He was ultimately dismissed, I believe, some time in August; but the Department had to pay him£83 - his salary from the date in January . when he left the office until the date when he was suspended. I want to know why he was not suspended the moment the offence was discovered, and why he was” not dismissed the moment he was sentenced? I want to know, further, what officer was responsible for this neglect of duty ? That officer, I submit, ought to have two alternatives placed before him - either to pay the £83, or to leave the service. The facts disclose a state of affairs which is really lamentable. How can we place any reliance upon an Administration which conducts its affairs in this slipshod fashion? If the interests of the Commonwealth are neglected in these particulars, how are we to know that the whole of our Post and Telegraph business is not going to rack and ruin ? I shall be glad to hear whether Senator Keating has any information to give.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania - Honorary Minister). - -The matter to which Senator Stewart has referred was brought up by means of a question put to me one day last week. Since then I have been making inquiries, and I find, as he has pointed out, that the case first arose in January last. The officer in, question, Butler, was guilty of the larceny of £8 14s, 3d. He was brought before the justices and convicted. He was dealt with, however-, as a first offender, and liberated under the provisions of the State First Offenders Probation Act. Then the question arose as to how far he had forfeited his office. Under the Public Service Act, section 66, it is provided that -

If an officer is on an indictment or presentment convicted of any offence he shall be deemed to have forfeited his office, and shall thereupon cease to perform his duties or receive his salary.

The question had been submitted to the Crown Solicitor - I do not know whether it was an abstract question or whether a concrete case was mentioned - as far back as October, 1903, whether an officer convicted of an offence on an information - as compared with the word “ indictment,” used in the Public Service Act - could be deemed to have forfeited his office. It was pointed out that the word “ indictment,” under section 27A of the Acts Interpretation Act, included “ information.” An opinion was given by the Crown Solicitor to the effect that a conviction on an information would not necessarily cause an officer to forfeit his office, because he might be convicted, for instance, upon an information for riding his bicycle without a light. When this particular concrete case arose, in the early part of this year, I find that what was done by the then Government was that the matter was referred for advice as to whether the conviction of Butler brought him under section 66 of the Public Service Act. That was immediately after he had been released under the First Offenders Act.

Senator Stewart:

– Did not the authorities know what to do with him?

Senator KEATING:

– They did not know as a matter of interpretation whether he had lost his office. He had been convicted before two justices.

Senator Clemons:

– The matter submitted to the Crown Solicitor was a very vague reference.

Senator KEATING:

– I donot know whether, in the earlier instance, a concrete case or an abstract case was submitted. I am informed that this subject was brought under the notice of the Government at the time, and was referred for advice as to whether the conviction brought Butler under section 66 of the Public Service Act. The Crown Solicitor forwarded the papers to the AttorneyGeneral, and he gave an opinion upon the case which runs as follows : -

Butler was” charged with, an indictable offence, but apparently was dealt with summarily under the State Justices Act. The question is whether he was convicted on an indictment or a presentment within the meaning of section 66 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902. Section 27 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that in any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, the word “indictment” shall include information. The Crown Solicitor has previously advised that summary conviction for an offence which is not indictable is not a conviction on indictment or presentment. My view is that information in section 27 of the Acts Interpretation Act means an information in the nature of an indictment, and does not include an information before justices; and consequently that the officer in this case was not convicted on “ indictment or presentment.” “ Indictment “ in English law means an indictment by a Grand Jury. In Australia indictable offences are mostly prosecuted by information or presentment of the Attorney-General or other Crown Law Officer- and it is submitted that the intention of the Acts Interpretation Act is merely to make the word indictment extend to this procedure.

– All this took place during the last Administration.

Senator GIVENS:

– The official explanation offered may be characterized as a mere mass of irrelevant verbiage - like the inky fluid which the cuttlefish exudes to cover his retreat. The Public Service Act distinctly provides that if an, officer is merely charged with misconduct of this description, he may be suspended, and, if proved guilty, dismissed. If that plain, straightforward course had been taken, a disgrace ful blunder would not now be recorded against the Department, and this £83 would not have been paid as a premium on crime. A disgraceful want of proper organization has been displayed, and whoever is responsible ought to be severely “ hauled over the coals.”

Senator CROFT (Western Australia).- I agree with the contention raised by Senator Stewart, but I should like to know from Senator Keating whether, after this experience, gained at a cost of£83, the Department is now in a position to cope with any similar case?

Senator Keating:

– I think so, undoubtedly.

– That is a good thing, also.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - The Public Service Act is quite clear on the matter, and there should have been no difficulty in connexion with this man’s suspension, and no necessity to refer the matter either to the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General. Section 46 of the Act provides -

If any officer is guilty of a breach of the provisions of this Act or any regulations thereunder, or is guilty - of any disgraceful or improper conduct; then such officer shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to such punishment as may be determined upon under the provisions of this section.

Then sub- section 2 provides that -

Any officer (not being an officer included in the administrative division) charged with the commission of an offence -

for any such offence whatever may be tem porarily suspended by the Chief Officer or in emergent cases by any officer prescribed as having power to suspend officers in the office or place in which the offending officer is employed, in which event such suspension shall be immediately reported to the Chief Officer.

1– –

Senator Givens:

– It is a disadvantage to Tasmania that she should not have as cheap communication as the other States have.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It must be obvious that Tasmania is suffering under a disadvantage in this respect. Her people have to pay more for cable communication than have the people of any other State. I say that we are prepared to put up with that.

Senator de Largie:

– Tasmania is very sweet on private enterprise, and this is a private enterprise concern.

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator KEATING:

– No, I think not. In the letters patent of 17th June, 1880,. issued under the great seal of the UnitedKingdom to Sir Frederick’ Weld, asGovernor of Tasmania, Tasmania was described as “the Island of Tasmania and all the islands and territories lying to the south* of -Wilson’s Promontory in 39 degrees 12 minutes of South latitude.” Tasmaniaclaims, as against Victoria or other States, jurisdiction to within three miles of Wilson’s Promontory. One of the nets in the particular case to which I have referred was alleged to be six miles long, so that it alone would have extended to a distance beyond three miles of the coast. My point is this : So far as Tasmania is concerned, it could never be suggested that the original contract for £6,000 was not a transferred’ obligation. How far the increased cost is due entirely to the new service - disregarding the interests of Tasmania - and how far it is due to the maintenance of the Depart* ment as at the time of transfer - having regard, of course,, to the necessities of extension and development - is difficult to determine. But, so far as the Government are concerned, they propose to re-organize the whole system of the allocation of the cost of Inter-State mails, whether they be carried by land or sea, and they intend to follow a uniform principle. When I ask honorable members not to agree to place this £11,000 in the column “ other “ or “ new “ expenditure, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do so, not because I think that Tasmania is not entitled to claim that a certain portion of the amount should be treated as Commonwealth expenditure, but in order that the new arrangement may be carried out comprehensively, systematically, and uniformly. I do not think that any one could fairly urge that Tasmania should be relieved entirely of the obligation that attached to her, in common with the other States, prior to Federation, to forward and receive her mail matter. It we had not been federated, Tasmania would still have been under the obligation to send her own mails out. Previously she was paying £6,000 for sending the mails out of Tasmania and conveying the English mails in. I think that a substantial portion of the £11,000 should be debited to the Commonwealth, but as to what that proportion should be, I am not in a position to advise the Committee. The Government are considering the matter, and are obtaining the fullest information, with a view to treating all similar services throughout the Commonwealth upon uniform and systematic lines.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). > - I have taken considerable interest in this matter, and I agree to a large extent with what Senator Clemons has said. But I would point out that there are other services in the Commonwealth which are ora a similar footing, and which should be dealt with on the same basis. The other items to which the Minister has referred are so embedded in the vote that it is impossible to find them. Senator Drake will bear me out in saying that if it had not been for the representations made by the Select Committee, of which Senator Keating was the Chairman, a much cheaper service might have been arranged - that is, if tenders had been called merely for the conveyance of mails, apart from any consideration as to the facilities offered for passenger traffic.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I think that Senator Keating will admit that I am one of those who have so consistently urged that fair play should be given to Tasmania in regard to this matter. When I asked him in August last, if the Government would take measures to have more equitable treatment meted out to that State, his reply was -

It is not considered that an inter-State mail service by water differs materially from a similar service overland, or that it could be treated on the same basis as an ocean mail service, without a reconsideration of the whole of the arrangements under which inter-State postal services are carried on throughout Australia.

I understood from him at that time that the question was being reconsidered. I desire to know what progress has been made in thatdirection, and whether he can give me any assurance that the matter will be dealt with at an early date. Needless to say, I shall vote with Senator Clemons, because I regard the proposed vote as new expenditure, inasmuch as it is being paid under a new contract.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is admitted that part of it is added expenditure, as the result of Federation. The question at issue is, how much of the total amount is new expenditure, and upon what principle should it be dealt with?

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator Clemons:

– I do not care whether Tasmania comes best or worst out of the bargain. What I want’ is justice.

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator MULCAHY (Tasmania).- Am I in order in proposing an amendment to the request that the House of Representatives distribute £5,000 of this expenditure on a per capita basis ?

Senator Clemons:

– I have already intimated that I intend to move a request to that effect, if the request before us is negatived.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I asked the question because I cannot support the proposal that Senator Clemons has laid before us.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item “Conveyance of mails per Union S.S. Company’s vessels under contract from and to Tasmania and Victoria, £11,000,” by distributing the amount upon a per capita basis - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Conveyance of mails per Union S.S. Company’s vessels under contract from and to Tasmania and Victoria,£11,000,” by distributing£5,000 of the amount on a per capita basis.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - I voted for the request moved by Senator Clemons, because I think it is a good Federal principle that all mail carriage within the Commonwealth should be a Federal charge. I know there are similar cases elsewhere, with which we have not attempted to deal ; but the fact that we have missed our opportunity in respect to these, does not absolve us from doing what is right in the case of Tasmania. For that reason, although Queensland and Western Australia suffer, I am still prepared to extend this amount of justice to Tasmania. However, I rise to say that, in my view, either the whole amount should be a per capita charge, or no part of the amount. For that reason I cannot support the request submitted by Senator Mulcahy. The honorable! senator may laugh, but I think my position is perfectly logical.

Why should this £5,000 be placed on the Estimates as a per capita charge? Simply to provide better passenger accommodation, from which Tasmania benefits.

Senator TRENWITH (Victoria).- We are all agreed that the cost of mail services, and every other Federal service, should be distributed on a per capita basis between the States. That is the principle underlying the Federal movement, but in order that there should be no great dislocation of existing arrangements, it was provided that during a certain period which has not yet expired, certain bookkeeping should be maintained. That is why this vote does not appear as new expenditure distributed on a per capita basis. With reference to the proposal to make £5,000 of the vote per capita expenditure, I point out that while I agree that some portion of the vote should be distributed per capita since it is in no sense transferred expenditure, but added expenditure, it is very difficult’ to know what portion of the vote is added expenditure.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I do not think that Senator Trenwith has quite disposed of this matter. The. honorable senator admits that there is an injustice in the vote as submitted, but he desires that it should “be left to Ministers who have promised to look into it.

Senator Trenwith:

– Ministers and Parliament.

Senator DOBSON:

– I was just going to say so. I have more confidence in the Senate, to which I belong, than I have in Ministers who are at present engaged in trying to push down people’s throats legislation for which they have no authority. With the item, and the facts before us now, we are as capable of laying down a just rule as are Ministers. There is some logic in the request moved by Senator Mulcahy, and, in default of a. better proposal, I intend to support it. I supported the request moved by Senator Clemons, because I think that all these mail subsidies should! be dealt with as per capita expenditure. The present request, if agreed to, will come before another place, and the principle involved may be adopted. I desire to admit quite candidly that Tasmania! asked for the new service, principally because she desired better accommodation for the tourist traffic. Still, whatever advantage Tasmania has derived, it must be admitted that the Commonwealth also derives some advantage,’ and I am, therefore, prepared to vote for the ‘request.

Senator MULCAHY (Tasmania).- Having considered the matter further, I think it would hardly be consistent with my first speech on this subject, if I were to persevere with the request I have moved. With the consent of the Committee, I should like to withdraw it. I hope that the next time the matter comes to be dealt with in the Senate we shall consider it as gentlemen dealing with gentlemen.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I am disappointed that the request should have been withdrawn. When speaking before, I indicated that if the whole sum of £11,000 was not treated as per capita expenditure, at least the increase of £5,000 should be so treated. I do not believe in moving a request, and immediately afterwards withdrawing it. I propose to give honorable senators, who think that £5,000 of this subsidy should be treated as per capita expenditure, an opportunity to vote in that direction. I, therefore, move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Conveyance of mails per Union S.S. Company’s vessels under contract from and to Tasmania and Victoria, £11,000,” by distributing£5,000 of the amount upon a per capita basis.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- It has been urged that it is illogical to ask, not that the whole of this amount should be allocated on a per capita basis, but that a portion of it should be so treated. There is nothing illogical in the request, and nothing that is not warranted by what has already been sanctioned in the schedule. The Committee has already sanctioned, in regard to the mail service to the Pacific Islands, an arrangement analogous to that which Senator O’Keefe wishes to have made in connexion with Tasmania. Three thousand six hundred pounds is provided under the head of transferred expenditure for a subsidy towards the mail service between New Hebrides and other Islands, while three other amounts - for additional subsidies on condition that black labour is not used, for the extension of the service, and for its improvement - are provided under the heading of “other” expenditure.

Senator Givens:

– That is, an external service.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is not wholly an external service, seeing that it is a service in part to a Territory of the Commonwealth. The honorable senator in connexion with the vote for that service has approved of an arrangement analogous to that which Senator O’Keefe now suggests.

Senator Givens:

– I disapprove of that contract altogether.

Senator CLEMONS:

– At any rate, the Committee has agreed to it, the circumstances being almost identical with those surrounding the Tasmanian service, which, in the first place, has been improved, and, in the second place, is new, and for which an increased amount has been granted. If the request is insisted on, the Tasmanian subsidy will be paid on the same basis as the subsidy for the mail service to the Pacific Islands.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

First schedule and the title agreed to.

The Senate : Travelling Expenses : Sydney Government House.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– I would ask honorable senators to agree to the reconsideration of the two items with regard to which it has been decided to prefer requests) to the House of Representatives. In connexion with subdivision No. 1 of division No. 25, relating to Government House, Sydney, the Committee decided to request that the vote be reduced by £1,000. I am now in a position to tell honorable members that, so far as the Government are concerned, this line shall never appear on the Estimates again. If any arrangement is made in the future with regard to the occupation of Government House, Sydney, by the GovernorGeneral, it will have to be embodied in a Bill, and discussed on its merits, altogether apart from the Estimates. I would point out to honorable senators that this vote has been struck off at a moment’s notice, and without any warning to the New South Wales Government, and that, if we insist upon our request, we shall lay ourselves open to the charge of having acted cavalierly towards the State authorities. I feel quite confident that, if I had been able to say last night what I am able to announce this evening, the request would not have been agreed to, and I would therefore ask honorable senators to agree to the reconsideration of the item and the withdrawal of the request. I also desire that the request with regard to the reduction of travelling expenses for members of the Senate should be withdrawn. Honorable senators know that they have already accomplished all that they desired, because the expenditure to which they objected will not be again incurred. If honorable senators will agree to adopt the course I have suggested, the Bill will become law to-morrow, and the public servants of the Commonwealth will receive their salaries at the usual time - on the last day of the month. If, however, the Senate persists in its requests, the payments to public servants of their monthly salaries will be delayed. I therefore move -

That division 1, sub-division 2, item 7, “ Travelling Expenses,” and division 25, sub-division i, “ Sydney Government House “ be reconsidered.

Senator PEARCE:
Western. Australia

– Might I suggest that this would be a convenient time at which to adjourn for halfanhour ?

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think that it would be much more reasonable if we adjourned until 10.30 to-morrow morning.

Senator Playford:

– If that were done, we should not be able to pay the public servants at the usual time.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Surely the Minister must know that he is not correct in making that statement. If we met tomorrow morning at half-past 10 o’clock we should be able to dispose of the Bill and send it on to the House of Representatives in time for the meeting of that Chamber at

30 in the afternoon, and it seems to me that there would be no practical difference between adopting that course and continuing this discussion until, an unreasonable hour.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Does the honorable senator think that any succeeding Government would feel bound by a promise given in this way ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– Decidedly. Sometimes Ministries leave office on account of their policy, and that policy is reversed by an incoming Government. But we are now deciding that, in the opinion Of the Senate, it is undesirable that the present method of maintaining two Government Houses should be continued. We have technically decided that the vote for that purpose shall be reduced in the future. We have achieved our object by what we did last night. The question now is whether we can proceed in a way that will prevent friction. I think the way now proposed will have that result. Senator Givens has said that there is bad feeling between Melbourne and Sydney. I have always felt that there has been no bad feeling on the part of Melbourne in this matter. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but. at any rate, there is too much of an un-Federal spirit somewhere. If we can achieve our end without causing undue friction, surely it cannot be said that by doing so we have changed our opinion. It is merely a change of method for the achievement of the same object. I earnestly hope that the second schedule will be reconsidered for thepurpose of proceeding in that way. We shall have the assurance that what we desire will be attained, but at the same time the undertaking in regard to Sydney Government House will not be terminated in the middle of the arrangement. That is the feature of it that is objectionable. If we terminate the existing agreement at the end of the year, and simply discontinue it for the future,, there will be. less cause of complaint on the part of New South Wales. I have always felt that there has been a great deal too much un-F’ederal spirit since Federation was effected. I am not astonished at that. Such has been the history of all Federations. We have not been unusual in that respect. The great American Federation, which is now work.ing so smoothly, had to contend with a great deal of un-Federal spirit, and with much more severe friction than we have had, in its early years. All true Americans, however, wished1 that that friction should be removed, and I am sure that all true Australians are anxious that such means as are possible shall be taken to remove every cause of ill-feeling in this country. For the mere dread of seeming to change our minds, or being labelled as fickle and unstable, we ought not to be afraid of reversing our decision, or rather of driving home our position in a less objectionable way.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator CROFT (Western Australia).Last night by my vote I expressed my objection to keeping up a Governor-General’s residence in Sydney. I desire to be consistent to-night, and in order to do so, I find it necessary to vote for a reconsideration of the subdivision dealing with that matter. I supported the request for the reduction of the vote by £1,000. I am satisfied that Government House, Sydney, might be kept up as a residence for the GovernorGeneral, even though the vote should be cut down in the way proposed by honorable senators. The leader of the Government in the Senate has promised, with the consent of all his colleagues, that the vote will never appear again in an Appropriation Bill and that if any new arrangement is proposed as to where the Governor- General shall reside until the Federal Capital is established, we shall be given an opportunity to record a vote upon it in a specific Bill. Let us look at this matter as practical men, not allowing its consideration to be affected by personal spleen. We have already spent about half the sum set down in the Bill, and to reduce the vote by £1,000 would not prevent the Governor-General from going to Sydney to reside, if he wished to do so. Besides, we ought to give notice of our intention to quit. I should like to deal with this matter by such a Bill as the Minister of Defence has spoken of.

Senator Playford:

– Let the will of Parliament be fairly expressed in a Bill.

Senator Clemons:

– We do not know what proposals the Government would make in any Bill of the kind.

Senator CROFT:

– The will of the Senate has been expressed, so that the Government would not dare to bring in a Bill to do other than provide that the GovernorGeneral shall live only at the Seat of Government, and to make it unnecessary to maintain two residences for him.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– I am very glad that honorable senators consider that the Bill should be recommitted for the reconsideration of the subdivision relating to Sydney Government House. I recognise that a number of them are opposed to the maintenance of two houses for the Governor-General, and, as a representative of New South Wales, I shall be glad to have the whole matter settled clearly and definitely by means of a Bill. Such an arrangement would put an end to the long and acrimonious discussions which arise when this matter comes before us in the Appropriation Bill each year.

Senator Givens:

– The New South Wales Premier has told us that he will give us notice to quit.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– This item was on the Estimates before we took office. Besides that, the honorable senator would know-, if he had ever been in a Government, that a Minister has to give way to a majority of the Cabinet.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is true that I have not been in a Government, but I was closely connected with a Ministry in, the Senate, and I refused to go with that Ministry on several occasions. Senator Keating proceeded, in the speech from which I am quoting, to say -

I do not agree with Senator Givens, that it is practicable for the House of Representatives to reduce this item now. As pointed out by Senator Trenwith and Senator Turley, it would be extremely awkward and inconvenient to do so. We should be disturbing the arrangement made with New South Wales, which has incurred considerable expense in connexion with the Sydney Government House. I am perfectly satisfied with the views expressed by the Attorney-General, and I am not prepared to do anything which may be impracticable in making a request to the other House, to which effect cannot be given. The House of Representatives will be compelled to recognise that a change in policy cannot be made immediately.

There is no more opportune time than the present for making this change, because the arrangement now in existence will terminate at an early date. Senator Keating concluded as follows: -

I trust that the Government will recognise what the feeling is, and that in future there will be only one Governor-General’s residence in the Commonwealth.

– As I have pointed out, we have, accomplished what we set ourselves to do. I am prepared to accept the climb-down of the Government, who have accepted our terms.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I do not like the course, which we have now adopted on several occasions, of coming to a decision on one day and reversing it the next. On the 17 th June, 1902, Senator Matheson moved the reduction of the vote for the rent, repairs, and maintenance of Sydney Government House by £1, with a view to expressing the opinion of honorable senators that the expenditure was unnecessary, and next day we reconsidered our decision and withdrew the request. Of course the position has altered greatly, since then, bv reason of the deliberate statement of the Minister of Defence that he can promise, with the consent of his colleagues, that the item shall not appear again in the Appropriation Bill. Therefore, if we sent the request to the other House, and it refused to accept it, we should not be in such a strong position as we are in now. We have objected to the expenditure, and I hope will always object to expenditure which’ we consider unwise ; but I think that our object will be secured if we do not press matters further. I am sorry that so much has, perhaps inevitably been made out of the expenditure bv the President of £10 10s. on sleeping berths. It would have been better if we had intimated our own views on the subject without the lengthy newspaper reports which’ have appeared ; but I think that the vote come to the other night shows the opinion of honorable senators, and it will not be necessary to send the request to the other House to have it complied with.

Question - That division1, subdivision 2, item 7, “Travelling Expenses,” be reconsidered - put. The ‘ Committee divided -

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That division 25, subdivision 1 , “ Sydney Government House,” be reconsidered - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the request “That the item, the Senate, Travelling expenses, £50’ be reduced by £10 10s.” be not made.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- It is perfectly childish that we should be asked to vote money that every one knows is not required. No honorable senator would act in this way if his own money were involved, and we should not be asked to go back on our previous vote

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I maintain that there is nothing childish about the course which honorable senators are being asked to adopt, because our object is to pass the Bill at the earliest possible moment. If. we insisted upon our request, the Bill would have to be sent back to the House of Representatives, where it would require to be considered in Committee. That would involve delay, which would result in serious inconvenience to the whole of our public servants whose salaries would not be paid upon the usual date, namely, the last day of the month’. But for the delay that would be involved. I should never have asked honorable senators to reconsider the matter, because I am quite certain that, the vote being one connected with the Senate, honorable members in another place would have readily agreed to our request.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Some honorable senators, including myself, were not here upon the former occasion, and, therefore, we cannot be accused of having gone back upon what we had formerly done.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I cannot allow the remark of the Minister of Defence to pass without comment. He has told us twenty times before that it is of the utmost importance to pass the Bill without delay. He has now gone further than ever before, inasmuch as he has stated that if the question of paying the salaries of the civil servants at the usual date were not involved, he would not ask honorable senators to reverse their previous decision.

Senator Playford:

– Not upon this point.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Every time that Senator Playford makes that statement he deliberately implies that the fault rests with ourselves. Does he allege that I am in any way responsible for the delay which has occurred ?

Senator Playford:

– No.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am very glad to have the Minister’s admission, even at this late stage of the sitting.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the request, “ That the vote ‘ Sydney Government House, £2,585, be reduced by £1,000,” be not made.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported without requests. Report adopted-

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That somuch of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill passing through its remaining stages without delay.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 4.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 November 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051129_senate_2_29/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate29 November 1905

PAPERS

APPROPRIATION BILL

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Stewart:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Stewart:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Playford:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Playford:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Playford:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Playford:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Croft:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator CROFT:Western Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Croft:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

Senator Croft:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Playford:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator TURLEY:Queensland

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senate
29 November 1905

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Victoria

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania