6th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 8327
– Will the Min ister cause a cable to be sent to the War Office, London, to ascertain what is being done to supply steel helmets for the use of Australian troops in France?
– We have received a cable from the War Office stating that steel helmets have been issued to our troops in the same proportion as to other troops engaged at the front.
page 8327
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General been drawn to a cable from London on 20th May stating that Australian nurses in France complained that they have not been receiving their mails since they left Egypt?
– A question was asked in the Senate on that matter yesterday, and I promised then that inquiries would be made.
page 8327
Appointment of Consulting Engineer
– In view of the statement that Mr. Oliver has not yet been appointed Consulting Sanitary Engineer for Canberra, and that no money has yet been expended in that direction, will the Acting Prime’ Minister give an assurance that no appointment of the kind will be made until the report of the Royal Commission on the Home Affairs Department is presented?
– I do not feel that I can give such an undertaking without knowing the facts. The honorable senator might later in the day, on the Supply Bill, put me in possession of some of the reasons why the appointment should not be made until the Commission has reported. In the meantime I shall endeavour to get into consultation with the Minister of Home Affairs, and see the file, to ascertain if the action the honorable member suggests is proper to be taken.
page 8327
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act-
Copy of an Order dated the 25th day of October, 1915, varying the Award dated the 8th day of April, 1915, made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Australian Letter Carriers Association; Statement of the laws and regulations with which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court, the Order is not or may not be in accord ; and Copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Deputy President.
Copy of an Award dated the 4th day of May, 1916, made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association; Statement of the laws and regulations with which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court, the Award is not or may not be in accord; Memorandum by the Acting Public Service Commissioner in connexion with the Award; Copy of the Seasons for Judgment of the Deputy President; and opinion of the Acting Attorney-General.
Copy of an Order dated the 17th day of May, 1916, varying the Award dated the 19th day of April, 1915, made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Small Arms Factory Employees Association; Statement of the laws and regulations with which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court, the Order is not or may not be in accord; and Copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Deputy President.
Opinion of the Acting Attorney-General in connexion with an Order varying an Award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Postal Sorters’ Union of Australia.
Opinion, of the Acting Attorney-General in connexion with an Order varying an Award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Letter Carriers Association of Australia.
Opinion of the Acting Attorney-General in connexion with an order, varying an Award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by employees in the Small Arms Factory.
Copy of an Order dated the 13th day of October, 1915, varying an Award dated the 11th day of June, 1915, made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and. Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Postal Sorters Union of Australia; Statement of the laws and regulations with which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court the Order is not or may not be in accord ; and Copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Deputy President.
Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired under, at Tighe’s Hill, New South Wales - for Postal purposes.
Naval Defence Act 1910-1912.- Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1916, No. 95.
Pont and Telegraph Act 1901-1913.- Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1916, No. 79.
Public Service Act 1902-1915. - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1916, No. 86.
page 8328
– By leave, I wish to make a persona] explanation. In the Age this morning a rather illuminating speech that I made last night is described as a long, rambling speech, and my effort is dismissed in about three lines.
– The honorable senator is not making a personal explanation.
– I am so much concerned about the status and dignity of the Senate that I was in doubt whether the implication that you permitted me to make a long, rambling speech, did not sail perilously near contempt of this Chamber, or of yourself.
– There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prohibit a speech being either long or rambling, and therefore for a newspaper to say that a speech was either or both is no reflection on myself as presiding officer, or on the conduct of the business of the Senate.
– The ordinary acceptation of the word “ rambling “ conveys the idea that the speaker roamed at will over the widest fields of discussion, and I thought there might be in the use of that term an abuse of the privileges whichthe representative of the journal in question enjoys in the gallery of this Chamber. So far from my speech being long and rambling it included five important points, three at least of which were original. The first was a suggestion that the Commonwealth Government should meet portion of the interest on the cost of constructing the railway line to connect Kalgoorlie with the sea, this forming the western link in the trunk line across the continent from Port Augusta. The next was that the Government should subsidize the Commonwealth Bank to enable it to lend money at low rates of interest to rural producers in order to encourage Australian industries.
– The honorable senator, instead of making a personal explanation, is merely reiterating the points in his previous speech. If he has been misrepresented he is entitled to explain in what way that has been done.
– I am pointing out the injustice done to this Chamber by those who enjoy the privilege of attending here to report the debates: Four of my five important points were replied to by the Minister. Three of them opened up original matter, and I question whether they were ever raised in the Senate before. My last point was the necessity of maintaining a large vote for developing our telegraphic and telephonic facilities. In view of the fact that the Minister replied to four of my points, I submit that the Age is not entitled to refer to my remarks in the way it has done.
-The standing order relating to personal explanations provides :
By the indulgence of the Senate a senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no question before the Senate; but such matters may not be debated.
The honorable senator is simply proceeding to make his speech over again, which he is not entitled to do. A mere complaint against a newspaper, unless the honorable senator can show that it has misrepresented something he said, does not come within the scope of a personal explanation.
– The whole report is a misrepresentation. Another speech made here yesterday was strongly spiced with personalities, and was given a position on the front page of the Age.
– That is not a subject for a personal explanation so far as the honorable senator is concerned. The honorable senator will have plenty of opportunities to deal with this matter later, or can move a specific motion concerning it.
– Since I threatened the daily newspapers on a previous occasion they have behaved themselves a little better. I shall take your advice and move a specific motion if they do not improve. They are getting incorrigible, and I shall move for the expulsion of their representatives from the galleries if they continue to abuse the privileges afforded to them.
page 8329
The following Billswere read a third time: -
page 8329
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
It is necessary under the Representation Act to have a re-subdivision of the electorates for the House of Representatives after the taking of every ten-year census, and once in between, at every fifth year. That Act should automatically come into operation this year, but it is found that a re-casting of the membership would bring about this result: no State would get an increased representation, but South Australia would lose one member by the merest fraction, and as the fraction by which she would be deprived of her present representation is so small, and, as so many men are absent from that State at the war, “ it is doubtful whether it would be fair to proceed with the enumeration now. . Consequently, the Government have decided to suspend the operation of a section of the principal Act. No injustice will be done to any State by permitting the representation of South Australia to remain as it is at present. Indeed, it is quite possible that if South Australia were deprived of a representative now, she would regain the required quota within, perhaps, the brief period of one month. In all the circumstances, the Government think that the course which they are now pursuing is a wise one.
– I wish to ask the Assistant Minister if it is not a fact that men enrolled in South Australia who are absent at the war retain their enrolment? In other words, are they not regarded as being present in that State? I would also remindhonorable senators that quite a number of lads serving at the front will come of age during their absence from their homes. Can the Assistant Minister devise some means by which these men may be registered, so that they may have their electoral rights conserved during their absence from Australia ?
– I would point out to the honorable senator that the electoral quota is determined, not by the number of voters upon the roll, but by the population of the States. All that is humanly possible has already been done to retain upon the rolls the names of men who have left the Commonwealth with our Expeditionary Forces. But I do not claim that we have achieved perfection in that respect. In ascertaining the population of a State, the practice which is ordinarily followed by the Statistician’s Office is to mark off the number of persons who leave it. Undoubtedly, the population of South Australia has declined by reason of the fact that quite a number of men have left that State for the front. To my mind, it would be ridiculous for us to alter the basis of representation now. I think that the honorable senator would have done well to allow the Bill to pass without criticism, seeing that South Australia is the only State which is vitally concerned in it.
– But soldiers at the front should not be regarded as absent from Australia.
– I take it that the statistical returns are compiled from the departures recorded by boats. When the troops from South Australia return from the war, they will again be counted as residents of that State. But the population of South Australia to-day, consequent upon the war and the recent drought, is so uncertain that it is inadvisable to alter the basis of representation.
– I did not suggest that it was advisable to alter it.
– If we paid strict regard to the population of South Australia to-day, that State would lose a member in the House of Representatives. But, owing to the shifting character of the population, we do not think it would be fair to take action in the direction suggested, and in this Bill we are asking Parliament to indorse our view.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.
page 8330
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This measure is very like an old friend, but its provisions assure much more liberal treatment to our returned wounded and invalided soldiers than has hitherto been extended to them. Indeed, there is no legislation on the statute-book of any country which provides for such generous treatment both to men who have been maimed in battle and to the dependants of those who have fallen. At the same time, ‘ there are no new or revolutionary principles embodied in it. The pensions payable under the principal Act have been liberalized in many directions. In the first place, a widowed mother who has lost a son upon whom she was dependent has been placed on the same plane as a widow. Then the pension of persons totally incapacitated has been increased from £1 to 30s. per week. It was generally recognised that a pension of £1 per week to a man who had been maimed for life and who prior to enlisting was in receipt of perhaps £3 per week, was altogether too low. A genuine effort has been made to overcome this difficulty, and the only question which we now have to consider is, not whether the new rate is too liberal, but whether it is liberal enough. As a matter of convenience the Bill sets out the amount of the pensions, which are to be paid fortnightly instead of weekly. Under the Act at present operating an allowance of £13 per annum is made in respect of a child whose father has fallen at the front. In this Bill it is proposed to increase this amount to £1 per fortnight in the case of the first child, 15s. per fortnight in the case of the second child, and 10s. per fortnight in the case of the third and each subsequent child. It will be seen, therefore, that a widow who is left with two children will be granted 17s. 6d. per week for their maintenance. That, I think, is a very just extension of the principle underlying the Bill with which . honorable senators will agree. In the case of orphan children the pensions provided under this Bill are £1 per fortnight for a child not more than ten years of age, 25s. per fortnight for a child between ten and fourteen years of age, and 30s. per fortnight for a child between fourteen and sixteen years of age. In fixing these amounts we have paid due regard to the fact that a growing child is practically as costly to keep as is a man. The Bill further provides that the pensions payable to members of our Expeditionary Forces are not to be reduced within six months from the date of their commencement, irrespective of the amount which an injured soldier may earn as the result of employment in any capacity. Under the principal Act pensions are payable to female dependants, but these cease upon their marriage or re-marriage. The Bill provides that in the case of female dependants the pensions may be continued for two years after marriage or re-marriage. I do not know that there is any particular virtue in this amendment, apart from the fact that it recognises that the pension is paid for the loss of the husband at the time of his death. Most of the matters dealt with in the Bill can better be discussed in Committee.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.
Sitting suspended from3.17 to4.20 p.m.
page 8330
Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.
Ordered -
That the message be taken into consideration in Committee forthwith.
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :
Clause 2- “The State War Council” means in regard to each State the body appointed or recognised by the Governor-in-Council of that State as the State War Council.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Add after the word “ Council,” line 4, the words “ and approved of by the Governor-General.”
– The object of the amendment is that the Stats War Councils, which will be appointed or recognised by the Governor in Council in each State, shall be approved by the GovernorGeneral in order that they may be brought into conformity with the purpose of the Bill. Their approval by the Governor-General being required will indicate that this is a Federal matter, for the carrying out of which we are using State aid.
– Will the GovernorGeneral in Council have power to say whether he will or will not approve of a State War Council?
-Yes. The honorable senator will see that that is necessary, because the members of a State War Council might takeit upon themselves to refuse to act in conformity with the general scheme. The Governor-General in Council must have some reserve power to secure uniformity of action. Without making provision for this approval of State War Councils by the GovernorGeneral, we should be unable to control them for the fulfilment of the purposes of the fund. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 6-
The trustees shall be charged with the duties of-
investing in securities of the Commonwealth or a State, or on fixed deposit in any bank incorporated or carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or in current account in the Commonwealth Bank, such part of the fund as is not immediately required for the purposes for which the fund has been established;
Mouse of Representatives’ Amendments. - After “ deposit “ insert “ or on current account “-omit “ or in current account in the Commonwealth Bank.”
.- The object of these amendments is to enable the trustees not only to place money on fixed deposit in the Commonwealth Bank, and in other banks, but, if desirable, to place money on current account in banks other than the Commonwealth Bank. The Bill aimed at providing that the working account should be kept with the Commonwealth Bank. That aim will still be kept in view, but it has been represented that it may be necessary in some places to have a current account in some bank other than the Commonwealth Bank. Under the clause aspassed by the Senate, the trustees would be tied up so thatthey could not have a current account in any but the Commonwealth Bank. It is hoped that the ramifications of the fund will extend to every corner of she Commonwealth, and it would not be wise, therefore; to tie the hands of the trustees in that way. I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 (Distribution by State War Councils for the relief, assistance, and benefit of Australian soldiers and their dependants).
House of Representatives’ Amendment - Leave out “ relief.”
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
It was objected in another place that “ relief “ imported the idea of pauperism or charity, which is foreign to the purpose of the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 -
The report of each audit shall be made to the Prime Minister. . . .
House of Representatives’ Amendment - Leave out “ Prime Minister,” and insert “ Commonwealth Treasurer.”
. -I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The Prime Minister is, ex officio, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, but the Auditor-General’s report must be made to the Treasurer.
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported; report adopted.
page 8331
The following Bills were returned without amendment: -
Rules Publication Bill.
Patents Act (Partial Suspension) Bill.
Post and Telegraph Bill.
Public Service Bill.
War Census Bill.
Customs Bill.
Acts Interpretation Bill.
Trading with the Enemy Bill (No. 3).
Lands Acquisition Bill.
page 8331
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
It is in conformity with the usual practice of Parliament to vote a lump sum to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue to meet claims for invalid and old-age pensions. The proportions are about the same as in previous years, allowing for normal increases. The amount appropriated is £3,500,000, which can be spent for invalid and old-age pensions only.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.
page 8332
Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.
Ordered -
That the message be considered in Committee forthwith.
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :
Clause 2 -
Section 4 of the War Precautions Act 1914-15 is amended…..
House of Representatives’ Amendment -
After “amended” insert - “(a) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: - (1a.) The Governor-General may make such regulations as he thinks desirable for the more effectual prosecution of the war, or the more effectual defence of the Commonwealth or of the realm, prescribing and regulating -
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
It strengthens the original Act, and is made at the instance of the Crown Law Department, to avoid any possible attack on our existing legislation regarding alien enemies.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment inserting new clause fixing commencement and operation agreed to.
Resolutions reported; report adopted.
Sitting suspended from 4.48 to 5.30p.m.
page 8332
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a firsttime.
– In moving
That this Bill he now read a second time.
I desire to say that it appropriates £2,752,388 to provide two months’ Supply from the end of the current financial year. That appropriation is based upon the Estimates for the present year. Although the Bill provides for the granting of Supply for two months from the end of June, it does not necessarily follow that Parliament will be adjourned for that period. The motion which I shall submit at a later stage will give the Government an opportunity of calling Parliament together earlier if that course be necessary. Assuming that the Prime Minister returns - as we hope he will - on 24th July, we shall arrange to call Parliament together as soon after that date as possible.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 postponed.
Clause . 4 agreed to.
Abstract postponed.
Schedule.
– I desire to ask the President a few questions in connexion with this schedule. I should like to know -
The point I wish .to have made clear is whether any member of the parliamentary reporting staff has been debarred from reaching the highest post within the gift of this Parliament. I believe the .Committee will agree with me that every officer of this Parliament, no matter how humble his position may be, is entitled to apply for, and reach, the highest position in the parliamentary service. I merely put these questions to the President in order to elicit information.
– So far as I have been able to follow the questions raised by Senator Needham, he desires to know whether there is anything in the Public Service Act which would debar any member of the Barnard staff from appointment to any of the higher positions for which his capacity might qualify him. In reply, I would point out that there is absolutely nothing in the Public Service Act which would debar any member of the Hansard staff, or any officer in the Commonwealth Service, from attaining the Highest position in the Service. In regard to that general position I am fortified in the opinion I have expressed by the opinion of the Attorney-General’s Department. In reference to the specific questions put by the honorable senator, I have already pointed out that if members of the Hansard staff are fully qualified for any higher position, or any alternative position in any portion of the Public Service, for which applications are invited, they are eligible, and there is nothing to prevent them from being transferred to such positions. Not only is there nothing in the Public Service Act prohibiting them, from securing such promotion, but the Act expressly provides for opportunities’ being given to officers to obtain promotion. In reply to the question were applications called for the two most recent appointments made to the Senate staff, I would point out that no applications were invited, ‘because section 42 of the Public Service Act distinctly provides -
Whenever a vacancy occurs in any office, and it is expedient to fill such vacancy by the promotion of an officer, the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, subject to the provisions of this Act - appoint to fill such vacancy an officer of the Department in. which such vacancy occurs, regard being had to the relative efficiency, or, in the event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers, to the relative seniority, of the officers of such. Department,; or appoint to fill such vacancy any qualified officer from any other Department, &c.
The Act, therefore, definitely lays it down that if there be a competent and capable officer in any particular Department in which a vacancy occurs he shall have the first claim- upon such vacancy. It is only when we cannot get the highest ability in a Department that we ought to look outside of that Department for an officer to fill any vacancy that may arise in it. It has been the general impression that all our parliamentary officers are in one Department, and that every one of them has an equal right to aspire to any position which may become vacant in any portion of the parliamentary service. But I would point out that the presiding officers of Parliament - Mr. Speaker and myself - are helpless in this matter, because we are bound by the provisions of the Public Service Act. While we act as the head of the parliamentary Departments, we also occupy positions as Public Service Commissioners for those Departments. The Public Service Act distinctly constitutes five separate Departments in’ the parliamentary service. Sub-section 3 of section 14 of the Act says -
The officers of the Senate, the officers of the House df Representatives, the officers of the Parliamentary Library, the officers of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and the officers of the Joint House Committee, shall be deemed to constitute separate departments under this Act.
The only two vacancies that have occurred in any Department under my jurisdiction were those which occurred in the Senate Department recently, and there were two exceptionally competent officers there, who. in my opinion, had the first claim to promotion in it. Therefore, acting in strict accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, I, as Commissioner for the Department, and as officer in charge, promoted them to the vacancies without calling for any applications whatever. It has been represented to me -Senator Needham himself has represented to me - that the Hansard staff is an exceedingly capable one, and ought to get full opportunities and facilities for promotion. I agree with that to the full. The members of that staff are exceptionally capable, and. honorable senators owe a great deal to them for the ability which they exhibit in the discharge of their official duties. But I would point out further that they are under no disability, because the Public Service Act provides that they are eligible for appointment to any other position in the Service, provided they are fully qualified, and provided that there cannot be found an equally competent officer in the Department in which a vacancy has occurred. I would also remind honorable senators that whilst the rank and file of our Public Service start at something like £120 or £150 per annum, the members of the Hansard staff started at £500 per annum. That there is any special hardship imposed upon the members of a staff who start at £500 per annum when other officers in the service have to begin at £120 per annum, and to spend long years in working themselves ux to a higher position, with correspondingly higher emoluments, I fail to see.
– Some of them start at less than that.
– While we owe the Hansard staff every consideration and give its members every recognition, I think it may be said that, on the whole, this Parliament has been disposed to deal fairly by them. In regard to the question which has been raised about typists, I would point out that when we had permanent typists they were entitled to aspire to the highest positions in any Department in which a vacancy might occur, either in our Public Service or on the parliamentary staff. We have no permanent typists now connected with the Hansard staff, and, so far as my influence goes, we never shall again have permanent typists there. We had a very bad and very bitter experience with our permanent typists, because, notwithstanding that they were well treated, that they received ample leave to make up for any strenuous work which they had to perform, what did we find? That one of them, after getting nearly the whole session off on sick leave, under the plea that he was suffering from nervous breakdown owing to overwork, immediately this Parliament went into recess, accepted service with a State Government, and was actually receiving full pay from the State Treasury whilst also drawing full pay from us. In the case of another of these typists, all he was asked during the last recess was to do very occasional work, and to stand by for the remainder of the time, and he drew full pay for so doing. I am sure that there are hundreds of thousands of persons outside . this Parliament who would be very glad to get their living on similarly easy terms. Yet when this officer’s services were required in an emergency, he was not here, because he had gone away to Sydney without leave. He was suspended, and subsequently reprimanded and fined for his offence, and he has since left the service. So far as I am concerned I do not intend to employ any more . permanent typists, because the work is not of a permanent character. ‘ When we had permanent typists we had to transfer them during the recess to the control of the Public Service Commissioner, and that arrangement always proved very unsatisfactory, and was the cause of considerable trouble. Ab the work is of a temporary character, Mr. Speaker and myself have come to the conclusion that it is very much better to employ temporary hands. I think that I have now replied to all the questions put to me by Senator Needham, but if there is any further information that I can supply I shall be exceedingly glad to give it. We have every desire to treat with the utmost fairness, and to give valuable recognition to, the officers employed in all our parliamentary departments. We treat them well, and even generously, and, so far as I know, none of them has just ground for complaint.
.- I should like to learn from the President whether the staff of the parliamentary gardens have recently received any increments of pay to meet the increased cost of living. They have not complained to me, but I go through the gardens occasionally, and I know that the men employed there are carrying out their work to the best of their ability. I should like to know whether the wages they are paid are equal to the wages paid to men doing similar work in outside employment 1 I admit that they are not called upon to work under arduous conditions.
– They are good, workers.
– I agree that they are, because I have seen them at work. Perhaps the President will be in a position to say whether they are receiving such wages as they would be entitled to under an arbitration award, or the decision of a wages board. I know that, while there is not much trouble in securing increases for men in the clerical division, there is difficulty often in securing justice for the bottom dog.
– The honorable senator will find that that is not the case here.
– I was giving the honorable senator a cue to enable him to state exactly what is the position of the men to -whom I refer.
– I desire to give my meed of praise for the conscientious work done by the men employed in the parliamentary gardens. I know what work of the kind is. It has been my duty to see these men’ and their work, and I am glad to admit that the Commonwealth Parliament has a fine staff of men employed in these gardens. The honorable senator has stated that lower-paid men find it more difficult to secure increases of payment than do the higher-paid servants of the Commonwealth; but I may tell him that, during my term of office, the men employed in the parliamentary gardens have had two increases of pay. Their wages were increased soon after I took office, and they were further increased from 9s. to 9s. 6d. per day on the last Estimates. I proposed that increase after making many inquiries. There is no Wages Board decision affecting these men. My experience is that to-day, for gardeners’ work, men can be procured at 7s. per day. I find that the highest wage paid to first class gardeners in the Melbourne Botanic Gardens is 9s. per day. We are giving our men 9s. 6d., so that there is no justification for any complaint on the score of the rate of wages paid to them. They are deserving and worthy men. We treat them well, and they are given privileges that men outside never get. My sympathy is always with the man who has to work hard for a moderate wage, and I agree that these men are entitled to the generous treatment that this Parliament is always willing to extend to its deserving employees.
.- I am very much interested in the development of the oil-fields on the Valala River, in Papua. I recognise that the Government are probably doing what they can in the expenditure of the vote for the purpose; but if we intend to succeed in the proper development of the Papuan oil-fields, we must spend a large sum, or we need not bother with the matter at all. It is of no use “ to spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar.” The Papuan oil-fields have been reported upon by Dr. Wade and other experts. At present the Commonwealth is supplied with oil from Batavia and the United States of America. It would be well if the Commonwealth were self-contained in this matter. I have read Dr. Wade’s reports with the greatest interest. The more money that is spent in the development of these oil-fields the better eventually for the Commonwealth and the Territory itself. I know that private enterprise companies are only too anxious to get control of these fields. I am satisfied that if we developed the fields we should be unable, without an alteration of the Constitution, to sell the oil derived from them.
– We have not heard very much about them yet.
– Voluminous reports have been written upon them by Dr. Wade and others, which show that oil does exist in this part of Papua. Dr. Wade has stated that there are several ways which might be adopted of getting the oil to Australia. It is suggested that it might be conveyed from *he wells through a pipe from which it could be poured into the hold of a vessel standing off some distance from the shore, because the water close to the beach is very shallow. I have said that if we brought the oil to Australia we could not sell a pint of it to the people without an alteration of the Constitution.
– Our Navy could consume thousands of tons.
– I recognise that the Navy could consume it. I have been oyer that part of the Territory, and the oil can be seen bubbling up from the surface in the Valala River district. I believe that more oil will be produced there than our Navy could consume, and the Government might consider what could be done with the surplus, if there is any real intention to develop the field.
– First find your oil.
– The oil has been found. I am aware that Mr. Newdell has investigated, on behalf of a company, prospects of shale oil at Kangaroo Island and at Mount Gambier. At the close of the war there will be demands for oil from every part of the world. 1 trust that the Minister will say whether the Government have any policy for the development of the oil-fields of Papua for the benefit of the Territory and the Commonwealth.
.- There is not the slightest doubt that there is oil in Papua. The greatest compliment that could be paid to the work done in Papua by Dr. Wade and his small party is found in the fact that private enterprise in Australia is very keen to help us in the development of the oil-fields in the Territory.
– I want to prevent that.
– The honorable senator may accept my assurance that he need not worry on that account. Only yesterday we increased the staff under Dr. Wade. It is not a question of looking for oil in Papua. The experiments now being carried out are to ascertain the quantity of oil that is there. Until something is known of the quantity of oil to be tapped it is difficult to determine what machinery is required for the development of the field. As to the power of the Commonwealth to sell oil derived from the Papuan fields, I would ask Senator Blakey to have faith in the future. There is no doubt that for a number of years we shall be able to use for our own services all the oil that is likely to be produced. Let us get the oil in sufficient quantities and we shall soon discover a means of selling it to people willing to buy it.
– I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote for the Department of Defence by £1.
When honorable senators have listened to what I have to say, and the facts I will submit, I am sure they will agree that I have a case, and whether they will support me or not will then be a matter for them to decide. On or about 24th November, 1915, when I was in Perth, I rang up the District Commandant, Military Head-Quarters, Perth, to find out if I could get information upon three or four matters. I was informed that the State Commandant was not just then in his room. I was put on to the Chief Clerk, Lieutenant Schuler. I asked him through the telephone could he give me any information on the question of delayed pay of soldiers. Complaints had been made that there was a delay of two or three days in the payment of soldiers. I wanted to know the reason for this. I asked him to inform me, through the State Commandant, about the supplyof artificial limbs for maimed soldiers returning from the front. I asked also about the residence of a soldier named Luke Bannon. The Chief Clerk assured me that he would very shortly let me have the information for which I asked. I allowed two or three days to pass, and then rang up the Chief Clerk, Military HeadQuarters, again. I asked him if he had the information ready in reply to the questions I had put to him, and his answer, so far as the question of delayed pay to soldiers was concerned, was that he haddrafted a letter in reply to me, which he had submitted to Major Ralph - who, I understand, is now Colonel Ralph. He informed me that Colonel Ralph had said that it was not necessary to send that letter to me. I asked the Chief Clerk then whether I could speak to Colonel Ralph. This officer was not at the moment in the office, but later I succeeded in holding a conversation with him on the telephone. I asked him, first of all, if a lettertome on the subject of delayed pay for soldiers had been submitted to him by the Chief Clerk. He replied, “Yes.” I asked him if he had declined to send that letter on to me, and if it was correct that it was not necessary to send it to me. His reply was again, “ Yes.” I asked him why he had taken that stand, and he said that “ A telephonic inquiry should be met with a telephonic reply; “ that he was a busy man, and that all the officers in the Military Head-Quarters, Perth, were busy men. I said I recognised that was so, but that members of Parliament were also busy men, and occasionally used the telephone to make inquiries in order to expedite replies. I also told him that his superior officers at the Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, were just as busy, but that, on every occasion on which I had rung up Military Head-Quarters, St. Kilda-road, for information from any of the officers, from the Acting Secretary of Defence downwards, I had received a written reply the very nest day, or, at latest, on the second day afterwards.
– The officers at the Victoria Barracks, St. Kilda-road, are the soul of courtesy and promptitude.
– I quite agree. Major Ralph took it on himself to tell me that a telephonic inquiry should be met with a telephonic -reply. It was, as Senator Maughan interjects, like his cheek. There is something in the attitude of that officer typical of a military tyranny that may be growing up here, similar to that which it is costing us thousands of lives to crush out in Germany, and I hope it has no counterpart in the Defence Department in other parts of Australia. I told Major Ralph I would take further action. He said he would refer the matter to the State Commandant, and I told him that he could not shelter himself behind that officer, as he had taken certain action, and I did not care whether the State Commandant backed him up or not. Two or three days later I again rang him up and asked him if I could get the letter. His reply was that he had consulted the State Commandant, who had decided that he was right in his attitude. Faced with this serious position in which a departmental officer could dictate to a duly elected representative of the people, I sent the following lettergram to the Minister of Defence on 26th November, 1915: -
Sang Chief Clerk, Military Head-Quarters here, inquiring position re complaints about delay payment members A.I.F. Forces. He prepared letter in reply; but Major Ralph said it not necessary to send it to me. Have asked Major Ralph forward letter. He refuses. I ask you instruct him do so, otherwise appears departmental official defying duly elected representative . of people.
I received the following urgent telegram in reply from the Secretary of Defence on 29th November: -
Minister out of town. Will have immediate inquiries made regarding subject-matter your telegram twenty-seventh.
Secretary, DEFENCE
Not receiving a reply for a few days, I sent the following lettergram to the Minister of Defence on 7th December: -
No reply my complaint re refusal Major Ralph forward letter to me, reply certain inquiries. Am I to understand that he can refuse to forward letter to a member, when latter makes inquiries behalf of his constituents T
I further wrote to the Minister on 21st February of this year, and received the following reply from him, dated 25th February : -
I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st inst., with reference to the refusal of Major Ralph. Military Head-Quarters, Perth, to forward you certain information which you asked for. It is not correct, as you state, that no reply was forwarded to your representations. I have looked up the file, and the following is a copy of a telegram that was sent you on 11th December, 1915:- “ Your lettergram, 7th instant. Major Ralph has followed general rule which has been adopted to save conflict on matters of administration between head of Department and subordinate officers. This has been found necessary in the past, and am sure no discourtesy to you is intended in the matter. Requests for written information, as a rule, with the exception of purely routine matters, such as inquiries about individual cases of .delayed payments, should bc made to Minister or Secretary.
page 8337
11/12/15.” .
I cannot agree with your contention that departmental officers are to supply information to parliamentary representatives on any subject they .may wish to be informed upon. The fact is that the officers are forbidden to disclose some information, which is confidential; and I would, therefore, point out to you that requests for information should, as pointed out in above telegram, be addressed either to the Minister or the Secretary for Defence.
– Not in any sense of the term, because, at that time, the press all over Australia teemed with complaints about the late payment of soldiers, and the Minister had practically announced that he was preparing a new scheme to prevent the recurrence of late payments. I understood that he was going to place in the respective camps a paying or clerical staff. The Minister’s communication strengthens my position, because I was not asking Major Ralph for any of the class of information which the Minister says should be sought only from the Minister or Secretary. On 25th. February I acknowledged receipt of that letter, saying I would write further, as I was leaving for Perth, and on 2nd March I received the following reply : -
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th ult., in reply to the Minister’s letter of even date, respecting the non-supply of certain information desired by you from an officer on the Military HeadQuarters Staff, Perth.
On 3rd March I wrote to the Minister of Defence as follows: -
Further to mine of 2oth ult., in reply to yours of same date, re the refusal of Major Ralph to forward me a certain letter, I desire to say that, while I do not doubt that you despatched the telegram of 11th December, 1915, I repeat that 1 have not yet received it. It is the’ first time since I have been a member of the Senate that I have not received a Ministerial or departmental communication addressed to me, which, to say the least of it, appears somewhat strange.
The information I sought was in connexion with delayed payments to soldiers. The matter was being publicly discussed at the time, and surely it could not have been of any assistance to the enemy to have given me the information. However, I do not intend to pursue the matter further per medium of correspondence; but I do intend taking the first opportunity of bringing the matter before a body of men who are clothed with at least as much authority as a departmental officer, even although that officer is Major (or Colonel) Ralph.
I have not yet received that telegram of 11th December.
– As soon as you told
Us you had not received it we sent you a copy.
– ram not complaining of that, but the fact remains that I never received the original wire. The reply I received to that letter was an intimation that it had been “ Noted.” If I had been seeking from Major Ralph information’ that was private ‘or confidential, I should plead guilty to an offence against Ministerial orders, but I was asking only for information on a subject that was then agitating the public mind. I asked for it courteously through the telephone, as I have asked the Minister himself. On every occasion I have spoken to him through the telephone he has given me all the information he could and followed it up by an official letter. That is the experience of all members of the Federal Parliament. I have met with the same courtesy from all the officers of the central staff, and never in my nine and a half years of membership of the Senate have I received the same treatment from any officer in any Department as I have received from Major Ralph’. When I ring up any Department I get a courteous reply, followed by a letter, giving me the information I seek, not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the people who sent me here. It is not right that any departmental officer, no matter what his standing, should set himself up above the elected representatives of the people. If the Committee does not vote for the request I have moved, it will be practically backing up Major Ralph, and encouraging in Australia the growth of a military despotism, similar to that which it is costing us the lives of thousands of our best citizens to destroy in Europe.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.
– Just before the sitting was suspended, Senator Blakey interjected that honorable senators had not yet heard Major Ralph’s side of the question. It is quite true that that officer cannot have heard the remarks which I have made here. But I say emphatically that in the course of my observations I have uttered nothing about Major Ralph in connexion,with our telephonic conversations but what actually occurred. I have no desire to attack any man in his absence. I have merely placed the case before the Committee, freely, fairly, and frankly, and I appeal to honorable senators to support me in the request that I have moved, because, as I have already explained, I am fearful of a military domination being established in Australia. In his reply, the Minister will, doubtless, put his own case and that of Major Ralph before the Committee, because he has been made au fait with the position by lettergrams from myself and also by correspondence. I merely ask honorable senators to determine whether or not I have made out a fair case in connexion with the action of a departmental officer, who, to my mind, defied, and is still defying, a duly elected representative of the people, who is sincerely anxious to obtain for his constituents information to which they are entitled in common with’ the people of Australia.
.- The honorable senator did not inform me that he intended to bring this matter forward this evening, otherwise I should have brought up the departmental files in order that I might be in a position to deal with the details of the case.
– My letter of February last informed the Minister that I intended to raise the question.
– But surely the honorable senator does not expect me to carry about with me the file relating to the case. If the Committee is to be asked to pass judgment on this matter, nothing would bo lost by allowing it to hear both sides of the case. However, as I have not the departmental file with me, I intend to confine my reply to the matters that have been mentioned by the honorable senator. In the first place, he informed the Committee that when he rang up - not the District Commandant, but a subordinate officer - he asked that officer three questions. One of these related to the matter of delayed pay, another to the supply of artificial limbs, and the third to the residence of a soldier. The honorable senator afterwards read ‘ a letter from me, in which I intimated that the instruction had been given to the District Commandants that, whilst they might reply to inquiries in respect of matters of routine, all questions involving matters of administrative policy were to be referred to the Minister or the Secretary of the Department. A moment’s consideration will show the necessity for that. We have in Australia six District Commandants, who have under them a number of subordinate officers. If District Commandants were allowed to give decisions on matters of administration when requested to do so, either by members of Parliament, or by anybody else, it is obvious that we should get the most confusing decisions all over the Commonwealth - decisions for which the Minister would ultimately be held responsible. After a District Commandant had given a decision on a. matter of administrative policy it would be idle for me to plead, “ Oh, but that was given by the District Commandant in Western Australia.” The reply at once would be, ‘ You are responsible for the actions of your officers.” There is a distinction, I admit, between questions of administrative policy and questions of routine. Now, one of the three questions raised .by the honorable senator clearly involved a matter of administrative policy, another might easily cover a similar matter, whilst the third was obviously a question of routine. Seeking the address of a soldier is plainly a matter of routine, which does not need to be referred to the Minister. Let me deal, first, with the question of delayed pay. Senator Needham has said that at the time of which he speaks the press was full of statements in reference to deferred pay, and also that I was about to introduce a system which would overcome the difficulty. Let me assume that the Chief Clerk, in reply to a communication from the honorable senator, and knowing that his chief was about to introduce a new system to deal with the question of delayed pay, had taken it upon himself to inform the honorable senator as to what the policy of the Department was going to be. In such circumstances either the clerk or myself would have to leave the Department, and it certainly would not be me. Now, let me deal with the question of the supply of artificial limbs. At the time of which Senator Needham spoke, that very question was under consideration, because we had formed War Councils in all the States, and we had organized medical committees in conjunction with those councils. The question was being discussed through the Federal War Committee and the State War Councils whether we ought to continue the old system under which the Department supplied artificial limbs all of a standard type, or whether we ought to send the incapacitated soldier to one of these medical committees, which would take into consideration his occupation, and advise him as to the use of the artificial limb which would best enable him to earn a livelihood. There is a very important question of policy involved there, and how could the Chief Clerk in Perth tell the honorable senator what the policy of the Department in reference to it was going to be ? Honorable senators will see that the action of the Chief Clerk was wrong in that he had no right to “tell Senator Needham that he had prepared a letter for the signature of the District Commandant. I take it that honorable senators are just as much concerned in upholding the discipline of the Department as I am, and surely it is not right, even in response to a requisition from a member of Parliament, that a subordinate officer, who is not responsible for his particular branch of his Department, should impart the information that he has prepared something for the District Commandant which that officer may or may not indorse. If that sort of conduct were permitted, we should quickly have honorable senators who were dissatisfied with the decision of a District Commandant, getting information from subordinate officers that something else had been recommended by them, and quoting it in opposition to the decision of the District Commandant. There is another phase of this question to which I desire to call attention, namely, the right of a member of Parliament to demand a written reply to a telephonic request. I -ask honorable senators to put the position to themselves, and they will see that an officer has a right to take such action as will protect himself. Suppose, for example, that the written reply which a subordinate officer sent to a member of Parliament was unsatisfactory to the latter, and that he came to this chamber, and said, “ I asked that officer for suchandsuch information over the telephone, and this is his written reply.” The officer would have nothing with which to protect himself. He could not come here, and say,, ‘ ‘ The member of Parliament did not say that over the telephone. He said something’ else.” But if the member wrote for certain information, then the officer would be protected, because he would have the member’s letter. To urge, therefore, that an officer, in replying to a telephonic communication, should commit himself in writing is not fair. While claiming fair play for members of Parliament, we have a right to extend that fair play to officers of the Department, no matter how subordinate their positions may be. I hope that Senator Needham will not think, that this matter was in any way personal to himself. So far as I am concerned, it was not. But I have had many experiences of members of Parliament writing to District Commandants - cases in which the Commandants have replied upon matters of administrative policy, and when these- matters subsequently came before the central administration and before me a different decision was given. Then I found myself in this position : that the member would quote the opinion of the District Commandant against that of the Minister. That is a very undesirable state of things. In a Department like that of Defence we cannot have six heads. Somebody must be responsible, and that somebody must be the Minister for the time being. There have been cases in which members of Parliament have written to District Commandants on matters involving important questions of policy. I found that one of the Commandants was replying to these communications. I discovered it because the member in question,- in backing up a claim which he had made, used the letter which he had received f rom the District Commandant as his authority, anil quoted it against me. I at once issued an instruction to that Com- mandant, and sent out a circular to other District Commandants, that all matters of administrative policy in respect of which members of Parliament requested information were to be referred direct to the Minister or the Secretary of the Department to deal with. In the interests of honorable senators themselves, that is the only course which ought to be followed. In regard to the application by Senator Needham for information as to the residence of a soldier, the District Commandant ought certainly to have supplied that information, which could have been given over the telephone. Senator Needham has stated that ‘ he has frequently r.ung up the District Head-quarters in Melbourne for the purpose of eliciting information, and that the information which he sought has been given over the telephone, and afterwards confirmed by letter. But I may tell honorable senators that every letter that is forwarded to a member of Parliament, even though it may be signed by the Secretary of the Department, has previously come under the eye of the Minister. Obviously, however, that cannot take place at District Head-quarters. The officers there have not access to the Minister, and therefore cannot refer their replies to him. Moreover, where members of Parliament ring up Central Head-quarters, the decision which is given covers the whole .district, and consequently they do not get the conflicting decisions that they would get if decisions were given from the six District Head-quarters. I hope that when Senator Needham looks at the matter in this light, he will see that, behind the” apparently discourteous treatment to which he thinks he has been subjected, the officer concerned was merely obeying an instruction which he had received from me to the effect that he was hot to give decisions in writing on matters of administrative policy, but that such questions were to be referred to Head-quarters. But the honorable senator himself read a paragraph in which I stated that, in respect of matters of routine, the officers concerned were at liberty to supply the desired information. Two of the questions about which Senator Needham sought information palpably involved questions of administrative policy, which no District Commandant could settle.
– Does not the Minister think that a great deal of trouble would have been avoided if a clear explanation of the position had been given by the District Commandant by letter ?
– Yes; but in justice to myself, I would point out that, when we received Senator Needham’s first lettergram, we had no knowledge of the circumstances, and had to telegraph to Western Australia to find out what it was all about. Immediately we received a reply from the District Commandant, we forwarded the honorable senator- a lettergram, which he says that he never received. I accept his statementin all good faith. But there is in existence a “ flimsy “ record initialed by me to show that such a communication was sent. Moreover, when the honorable senator informed us that he had not received a reply, he was told that on a specific date an answer had been sent to him, a copy of which was also forwarded. I do not say that Major Ralph should have done it, but the District Commandant should have sent Senator Needham a letter informing him of the instructions that had been issued. There was some little carelessness on his part in not giving the honorable senator that information. If it had been given it would have prevented any idea on the honorable senator’s part that he was being discourteously treated.
– I have a word or two to say in reply to the Minister of Defence. I emphasize the point that I did not demand the letter. When Major Ralph put the question to me over the telephone, “Do you demand the letter?” I said “No; it is simply a request.” In connexion with the artificial limbs, I did not ask for a letter, because, so far as I know, no letter on that subject had been drafted.
– The honorable senator said that he asked for the information.
– The letter for which I asked was a letter in connexion with the irregular payment of soldiers, and I did not demand that letter, but requested that it should be sent to me. I desired to know from Major Ralph why he refused to send me the letter, and to this day he has not told me why he did so. The Minister of Defence admits that the District Commandant, if not Major Ralph, should have informed me of the reason why the letter was not sent. I do not blame the District Commandant, but I still blame Major Ralph for the discourtesy. I further contend that it was not a question of administration upon which I sought information, but a question of individual payments to soldiers, which, the Minister admits in his letter, was discussed by other District Headquarters in correspondence from officials. On that I stake my case. I am not a novice in politics, and if it had been a question of administrative policy I should have applied for information concerning it to the Minister or to Central Headquarters, Melbourne. It was simply a routine matter, and I wanted to know why individual soldiers were not given their pay on the due date. I agree that there is no personal feeling in this matter between the Minister and me, nor is there any personal feeling in connexion with it between Major Ralph and me. I have been led to move my request with a view to protect other members of this Parliament against what I consider to be a spirit that ought not to be encouraged. Major Ralph could very easily have told me over the telephone, “ I consider this a matter of administration, and I therefore cannot send you the letter.” He had not even the common courtesy to say that, and to this day I have not received the letter. In view of the admission of the Minister of Defence that the District Commandant or Major Ralph should have explained to me the reason why the letter could not be sent, and having ventilated the matter, I ask leave to withdraw my request.
Request, by leave, withdrawn.
– The experience of Senator Needham is not that of honorable senators representing the State of Queensland, because it is very pleasing to know that there we have a Commandant, supported by officers, who go to no end of trouble to make the work of the representatives of the people as easyas possible. I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister a matter connected with the transport of troops from Queensland to Sydney. I take no exception to the arrangements made and railway facilities provided by the railway authorities in Queensland; but the delay of troop trains caused by the New South Wales railway authorities demands some attention from the Minister of Defence. I have received many complaints from soldiers who have travelled by these troop trains of the undue time taken in transporting them from Wallangarra, on the Queensland border, to Sydney. The time occupied is beyond what is reasonable. In one particular case, the details of which I have no desire to give now, but which I can furnish to the Minister, it took no less than twenty-four hours to take a trainload of artillerymen from Wallangarra to Sydney. I consider that a scandal and disgrace to the authorities concerned. It is true that this occurred during showweek in Sydney, but honorable senators will support my contention that a troop train should take precedence of other trains.
– Was this not the fault of the State railway system ?
– I am not prepared to utter a general condemnation of the State railway system. It was the fault of the traffic authorities who had charge of the running of the trains. I bring the matter under the notice of the Minister of Defence in order that he may perhaps convey a friendly reminder to the Minister of Railways in New South Wales which will obviate undue delay in the future. The railway authorities should facilitate the transport of our troops in every direction. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that that is necessary.
– Were the men well looked after on the way?
– I have no complaints to make about the victualling of the men or their treatment on the way I simply complain of the time it took to take these trains from Wallangarra to Sydney. The accommodation provided at the Sydney end for tram transport was ample and excellent. My information is that the troop train had to stop on the slide of the track to allow of the passage of ordinary traffic. Speaking generally, I say that ordinary traffic should stand aside to make room for trains carrying our soldiers to their destination.
.- I certainly think that inquiries should be made in regard to the matter mentioned by Senator Maughan, and I shall be obliged to him if he will give me the details of the instances to which he refers. At the present time we are under no compliment to the State railway authorities, because we have to pay for the carriage of soldiers. We have a right, in the circum stances, to demand that they shall be carried expeditiously and properly.
– My request in connexion with this Department is for “ more light,” and I have no doubt that the Minister will be prepared to oblige me. I wish for some information concerning the enormous votes put down to contingencies. For instance, under the heading of the Cordite Factory, there appears a vote of £2,060 for contingencies, whilst the salary vote is only £600. The contingency vote in connexion with the Small Arms Factory is £50,000. The contingency vote for the Clothing Factory is £2,000 as against £300 for salaries. The contingency vote for the Harness, Saddlery, and Accoutrement Factory is £30,000, and for the Woollen Factory £10,000. For the Royal Military College there is a contingency vote of £7,500. These votes leave us without much knowledge, and as the Bill is before us for the purpose of passing these amounts the Minister might tell the Committee the reason for the great disproportion between the votes for contingencies and the votes for salaries under the same heading. The contingency would seem to be greater than the vote to which it is contingent.
.- I explained this matter to the Committee the other night when we were considering another Supply Bill. These Supply Bills are based on the annual Estimates, and if we were to put the contingency votes in detail in these Bills each monthly Supply Bill would be as large a volume as the annual Estimates. Honorable senators are in possession of the Estimates, the details of which are grouped together in the Supply Bill. If an honorable senator desires information concerning a contingency vote he has only to turn to his copy of the Estimates and he will find the details there. The items of the vote for the Cordite Factory are set out in detail on page 91 of the Estimates, including £2,060 to be paid to the credit of Trust Fund, Cordite Factory. The Trust Fund is the working account given to each of the Defence Factories. From it are paid the wages of the employees in the particular Factory. When cordite is manufactured, it is sold to the Department at so much a pound, and the money is paid into the Trust Account. When the account runs short, a. payment is made from the Treasury into the fund. Details of the other Factories are also to be found in the Estimates. It would be a waste of paper to print all the details of contingencies in every Supply Bill.
.- I received the following cable to-day from the Hon. James McDonald, M.L.C., of Tasmania : -
Already some discharged men returning from active service are unable to find suitable employment, swelling unemployed ranks, and using up their small accumulations. Hope before session closes their position will be seriously considered.
Mr. McDonald probably did not notice that the repatriation Bill was being put through this week. “Under that measure, provision will be made for such cases, and I hope effectively. As none of us desires to’ see even a few men wanting employment, will the Minister send a cable to Senator Long, the Tasmanian member of the War Council, asking him, as- a trustee of the Repatriation Fund, to look into these cases, so that, for the honour of the Commonwealth, the soldiers referred to by Mr. McDonald may speedily know that provision is made for their immediate and future welfare?
– The communication read by the honorable senator indicates that in all the States it has not yet been properly made known that the State War Council really exists to deal with these things. In Victoria, the State Council has an excellent system of dealing with returned soldiers, and has placed a large number of men in suitable employment through the employmentbureau. We wish to see that system adopted in all the States-, and I shall have much pleasure in bringing the matter under the notice of Senator Long, who, no doubt, will communicate with the Tasmanian War Council.
.- A great deal of friction arose recently in the Clothing Factory, Melbourne. Can the Minister state what condition of affairs exists there now? Are the men working amicably with the gentleman in charge, or are there complaints of pinpricks or friction that can be alleviated or removed by Ministerial intervention? “I ask this because there may still be a certain amount of discontent simmering there.
– The position at the Factory is reasonably satisfactory since the recent trouble. A board of reference has been, or is to be, constituted, and I trust that what are called little pinpricks will be obviated by reference to that body. I am not aware of any serious trouble at the Factory now, and if there were any, I should know of it.
– What is the proposal of the Government in regard to the extension of the wireless telegraphy arm of the Navy Department, for which a vote of £7,300 is asked 1 I understand that a wireless sub-Department- has been attached to the Navy Branch, and that a scheme of reorganization has been instituted.
– The wireless branch has been transferred from the Post Office to the Navy, and one of the steps the Minister for the Navy is taking is to secure a good administrator with a knowledge of wireless to take charge. That matter is not yet finalized. It is the Minister’s desire to make the system not only efficient for defence, but also of use to the commercial interests of the community.
– Who is in charge of the branch?
– I think EngineerLieutenant Cresswell is temporarily in charge.
– Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral tell the Committee whether the insulators required for the Commonwealth are being produced locally? What proportion is being bought from Australian factories, and what from the outside world! In the latter case, where do the imported articles come from? What was done in connexion with the large contract entered into some time ago with a Victorian factory for the supply of a certain proportion of the insulators required ?
.- There has been a growing agitation in Victoria for the Department to obtain all its insulators locally as far as possible. I have had the pleasure, with other honorable senators, of- going through an insulator factory in the Ringwood district. The insulators turned out at this place seemed equally as good and equally as likely to suit the services of the PostmasterGeneral as any of the imported articles. If they pass the test of the Electrical Engineer, it is immaterial if we have to pay a little more for these Australian goods, even to the extent of 25 per cent. We ought to do all in our power to assist Australian industries. There are two establishments of the kind in the environment of Melbourne, and, of course, there may be similar works in the other States. In the Melbourne case, the promoters have spent large sums, and they pay union wages, and comply with all the other requirements of the law. Their only market for insulators is the Post and Telegraph Department.
– It is a good Australian industry.
– It is, and it is carried out under proper hygienic conditions. The men who have entered into the business are good Australians, and those whom they employ have no cause for complaint. I shall ask the Government to take note of the remarks of Senator O’Keefe.
– There are other manufactures necessary to the Telegraph Department, such as glass jars for battery purposes, and I believe these were, a litle while ago, imported in large quantities. These can and have been made in the Commonwealth, but, tas we know, the Colonial article is sometimes rejected on very flimsy pretexts. In one case the manufacturer was put to much trouble in complying with suggestions made by the Department in regard to the quality of jars supplied, which were said to be not so clear as they might be, to be too thick, or not this,that, nor the other, and yet the goods corresponded remarkably well with the sample. When an Australian-manufactured article is up to sample, no difficulty should be placed in the way of trade development. The establishment and continuation of such works may be the basis of very profitable industries for Australia. We had to rely on what is now an enemy nation for much glassware, and we know that the action of that nation has cut off the supply of similar articles from an Ally. Theref ore, if by any means we can stretch a point - though not -to breaking strain - if we can meet the manufacturers, pointing out exactly what is required, and showing that we prefer local manufac tures, it will be the better for the country. “ Rome was not built in a day,” and there is not a prosperous industry here now which did not at its inception have to overcome many obstacles. This applies not only to the manufacture of insulators, but to that of many other articles. We have had to export our copper in order to have it converted into wire, and the war has very largely cut off the supply. Under the circumstances, there ought to be some inducement held out for the production of a proper copper wire in Australia, with a prospect of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department taking a great quantity. It is only by fostering the industries in existence, and also creating industries which could exist, that we can attain the desired end, and hope to become an independent nation. We are apt to look askance at Australian goods in favour of imported articles, forgetting that the labour abroad has to be paid for in cash, whereas the building up of industries means here increased population and the circulation of money within our own borders. Only by such means can Australia fulfil her destiny.
– It is the .policy of the Government and of the Postal Department to, as far as possible, give preference to local production. All that is possible has been done in this direction. It must, not be forgotten, however, that , the Department and the Government owe a duty to themselves and to the taxpayer. We do not care for men who come to the Postal Department, and expect to have their industries subsidized simply because they call themselves Australians. Just prior to the war we were procuring Australian insulators, and all went well for a time. When difficulties in importation arose in consequence of the war - when we were in a corner, as it were - this firm doubled the price. Here was a nice position for a Minister who believed in Australian industries! We pointed out to the firm that they had probably made a mistake in their quotations, and offered to cancel the contract so as to give an opportunity to others to tender. They were not in favour of this, and proved that they had used the war as a lever in an attempt to extract more money out of the Government by accepting a substantial reduction. So long as people are prepared to be reasonable’, preference will be given to Australians in these matters, but a free hand must be given to the Department to protect the taxpayer.
– This is useful information to the public.
– And the public ought to know it. As to copper wire, there is the old difficulty of being compelled to import, but I am glad to say that, as the result of the magnificent work by the Prime Minister, the day is not far distant when all our requirements in this direction will be manufactured in Australia by Australian labour.
– Some “months ago the Minister of Defence informed us that, in cooperation with the Postmaster-General, he had organized, a Postal Battalion for the purpose of serving our soldiers in Egypt’. Has that battalion been removed to France with our soldiers, or has a French battalion been formed? There is a good deal of doubt as to how letters are to be got to the Australians in France, and a pronouncement from the Minister would be very acceptable.
.- Part of the Postal Battalion goes to the base at the front, and part remains with what is known as the Home Base, which at present is in England, and the Postal Corps is divided between the two. I am sorry that I am not able to tell the public at present the address of our troops .in France, but one safe way of addressing a letter just now is to give the name of the soldier, his number, his company, and his battalion, and indorse the envelope “Austraiian Expeditionary Forces.”’ The Department will do the rest. When the British Government inform us of the correct postal address, it will be made public.
– Is it the intention of the Department to increase the Postal Battalion ?
– Whenever it is represented from the front that an increase is required, an increase is made, and I think a reinforcement is on its way now.
.- May I remind the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, and also Senator Maughan, that in nearly every post-office in Victoria in which I have recently been there is displayed in a prominent place a placard containing the information just given by the Minister of Defence. For this I give credit to the PostmasterGeneral, and to him, also, credit for the fact that there are now on sale stamped post-cards, in bundles of six, for 6d., and envelopes stamped with Id. stamp for ls. Id. a dozen; and on these, also is displayed the information given on the placard. These post-cards and envelopes are printed and sold by the Government at the small profit shown by the price. Senator MAUGHAN (Queensland) [9.0]. - I am obliged to the honorable senator for the information that he has supplied. To-morrow I shall secure some of those envelopes, but I remind him that Victoria is not Australia - eight Victorias could be dropped into Queensland and still leave something to spare - and that there are many in our outer districts who have not the opportunity- of becoming acquainted with the provision that is made by the Department.
Schedule agreed to.
Postponed clause 2 and 3, Abstract, Preamble, and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without request; report adopted.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) “proposed -
That this Bill be now read a third time.
– I wish to ascertain from the Minister representing the Attorney-General some information concerning the metal exchange which was formed at the instigation of the Prime Minister, and which has done splendid work not only for those concerned in the production of metals in Australia, but also for the Empire generally. I wish to know how the Depart1 ment of the Attorney-General keeps in touch with the transactions on the exchange - whether periodical reports of those transactions are furnished - and whether this exchange is carried on at any cost to the taxpayer. When the matter was first proposed by the AttorneyGeneral, many people, probably from interested motives, tried to make us believe that the proposed exchange would cost a lot of money, and that private enterprise should not be disturbed in its control over our metal industries ; but I consider that the formation of this exchange has been one of the greatest feats of statesmanship to the credit of any Australian statesman. The information for which I have asked will be of interest to a large section of the community, and possibly if the Minister is not able to furnish it now he may supply it on the adjournment.
– There is a metal exchange, which is registered as a company, and charges a toll on all sales, the revenue thus derived paying the cost of the exchange. All exportation must be registered by the Government. Thus the control of all contracts lies with the Government, because all purchases are made by companies outside the Commonwealth. At a later stage I shall supply the honorable senator with further information.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 8346
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill votes a credit of £662,085 for the purpose of carrying on works already authorized by Parliament. It covers payments for the first two months after the 30th June next.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee :
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule.
– Provision is made for post-office buildings as follows: New South Wales, £15,000; Victoria, £18,000; South Australia, £5,000; Western Australia, £20,000; Queensland, £1,000; Tasmania, £150, and the Northern Territory, £250. I strongly object to this absurd differentiation. We could spend at least £50,000 in Queensland on new post-office buildings. Hundreds of places need them urgently. I ask the Minister to explain the reasons for the differentiation.
.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council, when replying, might also give an explanation of why such a palpable injustice is being inflicted on Tasmania. I shouldlike to know why only £150 is to be expended during the next two months upon post-office buildings in that State out of a total expenditure under this heading of £60,300. I am sure that there are many places in Tasmania in which £150 could be advantageously spent upon a single work - for example, upon necessary renewals in connexion with post-offices there. Of course, I recognise that it is the desire of the Government to curtail expenditure as far as possible, consistent with maintaining an effective service.
– A comparison has been instituted between Queensland and South Australia. We are certainly a long-suffering people in South Australia. But I wish particularly to call attention to the fact that for some months, if not years, it has been admitted that the Central Post Office in South Australia has been urgently in need of alterations and additions. At Port Adelaide, too, a new post-office has been promised for quite a long time, yet the redemption of that promise seems as far off as ever. I would like to know whether the undue delay which has already occurred is to be further prolonged ? Under this Bill it is proposed to expend the magnificent sum of £5,000 upon postoffice buildings in South Australia, notwithstanding that double that sum has been allocated to similar buildings in Queensland. If it can justly be claimed that Queensland has been slighted in this matter, what can be said of the position occupied by South Australia?
– The expenditure provided for in this Bill for the two months following the close of the current financial year is based upon the Estimates which we passed last night. Naturally we could not ask the Committee to permit us to begin the construction of new works in connexion with a two-months’ Supply Bill; but I would point out that last year the sum of £70,000 was appropriated for additions, new works, and buildings in South Australia, whilst an amount of £20,000 was voted for Tasmania. In “Western Australia there is a large new post-office in course of construction, and in Sydney a new telephone exchange is being provided a little lower down the street than the General Post Office. In dealing with these matters, we have adopted a purely business system, and the requirements of post-offices are the basis of the improvements which are effected.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 8347
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the determination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.
page 8347
.- I move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. on a day to be fixed by Mr. President, which day of meeting shall be notified by Mr. President to each senator by telegram or letter.
It is not considered desirable to fix a date for the re-assembling of the Senate, because in time of war, like the present, it might be desirable to call honorable senators together at any time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 8347
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I wish to take advantage of this motion to say a few words in connexion with a matter to which I intended to refer this afternoon when we were dealing with the Supply Bill, had I not missed my opportunity. I wish- to dissociate myself entirely from the remarks, or most of the remarks, that were made here last night by a Ministerial supporter, and a member of the party to which I belong. I do not wish it to go out to the public, or to the section of the public that sent me here, . that I, for one moment, subscribe to the opinions expressed by Senator Ferricks. I would very much prefer that the honorable senator should be present to hear what I have to say, but as he sat up all night there is a very good reason why he should be unable to be present now. I do not desire that the electors who sent me here should think for a moment that I subscribe to the opinions he expressed regarding the actions of the present Prime Minister of Australia, who is not now in the Commonwealth to reply for himself. If he were here he could defend himself better, probably, than could any other member of the Federal Parliament. It seems to me remarkable that a member of a big political party should be so ignorant of the circumstances connected with the postponement of the referenda proposals as. Senator Ferricks showed himself to be last night. I am prepared to take my full share, not of blame, because none attaches to me in that connexion, but of responsibility for their postponement. I was a member of the party to whom the reasons for the postponement of the proposals were candidly outlined by the Prime Minister. Senator Ferricks is a member of the same party, and in the circumstances it is not fair that, during his absence from the Commonwealth7 the leader of the party, the leader of this country, and a man well fitted to be its political leader, should have these charges hurled at him, especially in view of the position which he is occupying to-day at the heart of the Empire. What was said by Senator Ferricks last night is being circulated, or, probably, in a few hours will be circulated, in Great Britain, and the Prime Minister will be taunted with the statement that he does not represent the Labour party of Australia.
– Is the honorable senator fearful that his own speech will be sent to Great Britain ?
Senator O’KEEFE. Certainly not. That is what makes the charges uttered by Senator Ferricks so very unfair. The medium that will so readily send to the Old Country any statement against a Labour Minister is not quite so ready to circulate statements made in defence of the Labour party.
– Mr. Hughes said that the Dress gave us a fair deal.
– He was over generous in that statement.
– Perhaps the press said it for Mr. Hughes.
– That is very likely.
– The press has been very generous to Mr. Hughes.
– The Prime Minister at the present time occupies a unique position at the heart of the Empire. His name is in the mouths of more of the public men and people of Great Britain than that of any other British statesmen. He is, I think rightly, in considerable favour with practically the whole of the English-speakingpeople.
– He has a retinue of the aristocracy with him wherever he goes.
– He has not asked them to go with him. He cannot help it if they follow him up. Mr. Hughes respects the aristocracy of brains rather than the aristocracy of birth, and those who follow him up must- also respect the aristocracy of brains, of which he is a brilliant example. It is not a fair thing that an honorable member, sitting behind the Government, should make such statements as those which were made by Senator Ferricks last night, when it is known that the press is always ready to print under headlines anything that may be saidto the detriment of a Labour Minister. We know that these statements will be transmitted by cable to the place where Mr. Hughes is to-day, with the object, not only of causing him annoyance, but of putting him in a very false position. I am entitled to my opinion, as Senator Ferricks is entitled to his, and I assert that Mr. Hughes carries the approval and cordial support, not merely of a majority, but of 99 per cent. of Labour sympathizers in Australia. His statesmanship, and the work he has done as Prime Minister, and did for some time before he reached that position, entitle him to a splendid place in the esteem of all Labour sympathizers in the Commonwealth. I am not satisfied that the statements made by Senator Ferricks should go forward to the people of Great Britain, or to the people of Australia, as expressing the views of the great majority of Labourites in this Commonwealth. When the time comes for testing the feeling of the people Senator Ferricks will find that he is wrong, and that Mr. Hughes is absolutely without blame for the action he took in connexion with the referenda proposals. The responsibility for their abandonment for the time is shared equallyby every member of this Parliament sitting behind the Government today. The almost unanimous opinion of the party was at the time behind the action proposed by Mr. Hughes, and to-day in similar circumstances that action would meet with the same approval. The Prime Minister has done a great deal in the Old Country in connexion with matters of vital importance to Australia. His work has proved him to be a man of commanding ability, and Australia owes a great deal to him at this particular time. I thought it was only fair to myself, as a member of the party to which Senator Ferricks also belongs, to say that I do not subscribe to the opinion he expressed of the action of Mr. Hughes. For the past sixteen years, since the establishment of the Federal Parliament, I have been in close association with Mr. Hughes. I know the work he has done for the Labour party in season and out of season, and in Parliament and out of Parliament, not only when what he did had thrown upon it the light of press criticism, but when he worked for the party in a quieter way. With sixteen years’ experience of the magnificent work done by Mr. Hughes, I say that it ill becomes any member of the Labour party in Australia, whilst ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister, to give utterance to the statements which Senator Ferricks made last night concerning that gentleman.
.- I have been glad to listen to the remarks which have fallen from my honorable colleague, Senator O’Keefe. There is a great tendency to condemn men who make their mark in public life. Although Mr. Hughes, on one or two very rare occasions, may have made statements to which I, and other members of the rank and file of the Labour party, could not entirely agree, I say that he stands, par excellence, the best man that Labour ever produced in the Commonwealth, and I think that he will maintain that high position as time goes on. It is unnecessary for any of us to speak for Mr. Hughes, who can so well speak for himself.
– He has been attacked in his absence.
– That is so. He has been stabbed in the back. Some one has given us the expression, “ My country, right or wrong;” and I say my leader, right or wrong. I am a supporter and upholder of the views held by Mr. Hughes. I wish to make my position clear in connexion with some remarks which fell from Senator Ferricks.
In connexion with the abandonment of the referenda proposals, the honorable senator mentioned the names of certain members of the Victorian Labour party who voted, according to him, in the right direction on that question. He mentioned the names of Senators Findley, McKissock, and myself as members of the party who, at the Caucus meeting, voted that the Referenda Bills should be persisted with and submitted to the people. I am not going to tell the Houseor the country how I voted on that occasion, because I look upon anything that takes place in our party meetings as secret and sacred. I do not desire that Senator Ferricks should speak for my attitude at party meetings in connexion with the abandonment of the referenda proposals. I have no desire to canvass what was done in the past; but as one of the spokesmen of some of the Labour people in Victoria, I should like to ask the Government and their supporters to consider whether we should not reconsider the decision arrived atlast November, and even at this eleventh hour put before the people our proposals for the alteration of the Constitution. Perhaps the time is not opportune, but we know that another election will be coining on in a comparatively short time, and we know that the people of this Commonwealth are suffering from the high cost of living. Whether they be right or not, many of them believe that if the Constitution were altered in accordance with the referenda proposals, and if they had been given effect, as they ought to have been, by the State Governments, they would he assisted to meet their sufferings due to the high cost of living. I have done my duty in the matter, and I ask the Government whether they do not think that we should even now submit to the people “ by referendum “ proposals for the alteration of the Constitution 1 The Leader of the Opposition in another place urged a referendum on the question of conscription. If it be right to have a referendum on the conscription of men, it isalso right to have a referendum on the prices of food. ‘ I ask the Government to take my suggestion into consideration, and have it discussed in the Cabinet and before the party.
– Parliament will be summoned together again in accordance with the motion which has been passed, on a date that is not now fixed, but of which honorable senators will be advised by the President, and honorable members in another place by the Speaker. I take this opportunity of directing the attention of the Government to the fact that this session, which commenced in 1914, has not yet finished. It has been the practice hitherto to issue the Acts passed by this Parliament in sessional volumes. We have sessional volumes up to 1913. No sessional volumehas been issued since that year. Parliament has been sitting in 1914-1915- 1916, and we are now about to adjourn once more for an indefinite period. There has been issued what might be called a stop-gap or temporary volume of the Acts passedduring this unfinished session, but very few copies have been published, andthese are available only within the four walls of Parliament House. They are not available outside. They are not available in the Courts of the various States, or to the members of the law societies of the various States. Every one is supposed to know the law, and not even the lawyers, Courts, or Judges charged with its administration are given a reasonable opportunity to know what it is. Some time ago I was informed by the Department that the volume would be issued probably within a month or so. I hope the Minister will consider the urgency of the matter. Gentlemen occupying the highest judicial positions have informed me that they have not seen nor have they available on their shelves, nor can they obtain, the Acts passed by this Parliament in connexion with which they are called upon to adjudicate. It is possible when a case comes on to get a printer’s copy of an individual Act, but that is not satisfactory. Those who have to administer the law, and those whose duty it is to see to its proper observance, should be provided with proper copies of the Acts. I do not blame the Government, but hope that during the adjournment they will see that all the Acts passed are bound and supplied to the various authorities, who have heretofore generally received them sessionally. All the regulations should also be made as public as possible, the Post Office and other Commonwealth instrumentalities being used for their circulation amongst persons directly affected by them. The PostmasterGeneral’s Department could be utilized for the sale of the regulations, the price of which is plainly marked on them. Wo have passed a number of measures of supreme importance to the trading community, who should have the earliest and fullest opportunity of obtaining copies of all the Acts and the regulations pertaining to them.
– I have here a book of 540 pages on “emergency legislation.”
– Thatwas published through the Prime Minister’s Department.
– I thought it was issued by a private person for personal profit. In these special circumstances we should not wait until the session ends before issuing copies of the Acts. If necessary the book could be bound in a different colour to indicate that it was not a complete sessional volume. I was interested in the remarks of Senator O’Keefe and Senator Blakey. I had not an opportunity to hear Senator Ferricks, but it struck me that Senator Blakey thought he was still in caucus when speaking here to-night, or perhaps Senator Ferricks, whose statements Senator Blakey was traversing, forgot last night that he was not in caucus. I thought that Senator Blakey let fall a few little driblets of information which he might not have uttered outside that body, for which I know he entertains the greatest respect.
– The Acts are being printed, not in sessional volumes but for each year. A volume containing the Statutes for 1914 and 1915 is being printed, and will be issued in the course of a few days. Everything Senator Keating said to-night about the regulations he said a few nights ago, and Senator Gardiner then promised to bring his representations under the notice of the Attorney-General .
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 May 1916, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1916/19160523_senate_6_79/>.