7th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 5465
Conditions of Employment
SenatorNEEDHAM. - I ask the Min ister for Defence whether he is yet in a position to give me any information concerning the conditions obtaining in connexion with the employment of motor drivers in the Defence Department?
– The honorable senator on Thursday last asked me the following questions -
What are the conditions attaching to motor drivers engaged in other Departments of State -
The answers are -
It may be stated that the Minister is referring the whole question of Motor Transport Services to the Board of Business Administration for consideration.
page 5465
-I ask the
Minister representing the Prime Minister, without notice, whether the Government have considered the Inter-State Commission’s report on the price of meat, and, if so, whether they intend to take any action in the matter?
– The Governmenthave received the report referred to, but have not been able to agree toits recommendations. The Minister concerned has now submitted to the Cabinet for consideration alternative proposals.
Later.
– I ask the Minister for Repatriation, following upon the answer given to Senator McDougall, if the report he speaks of will be available to honorable senators before Parliament adjourns?
– The report to which I referred was, I believe, made available to honorable senators some days ago.
– The Minister said there was some other scheme being considered by the Cabinet.
– Senator Grant asked me about the report.
– I wish to find out whether the Government are prepared to -take the Senate into their confidence and tell honorable senators what they propose to do in view of the report submitted by the Inter-State Commission ?
– Obviously the Government must take not only this Chamber, but the country, into their confidence when they announce the course of action which they propose to take.
– Having got so far, I should like to find out from the Minister whether he can say if the information as to the action proposed to be taken by the Government will be communicated to Parliament prior to the prospective short adjournment.
– If Senator Grant could tell me definitely when Parliament will go into recess, I might be in a position to answer him.
– It is going into recess either this week or next week.
page 5466
“Anzacs” on Furlough - Enlistment of Minors.
– I ask the Minister for Repatriation : (1) Is it a fact that a number of Australian soldiers are now upon two months’ furlough in Australia ?
– I understand that the men to whom Senator Barnes refers are still soldiers on the military pay roll. If that is their position, they are not eligible for the benefits provided by the Repatriation Act.
– I ask the Minister for Defence, without notice, how many minors under the age of nineteen years enlisted without the consent of their parents since the order allowing that to be done first came into force, and how many have since been discharged?
– In asking the honorable senator to give notice of his question, I might say that when honorable senators desire such information they should move that it be supplied in the form of a return. The honorable senator’s question can only be answered by a return.
– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I may be allowed to say that similar questions have been asked before, and there has been no motion for a return.
– Evil examples need not necessarily be followed.
– I give notice of the question.
page 5466
SenatorFOLL. - I ask the Minister for Repatriation, without notice, whether it is a fact, as stated in the Argus of this morning, that only necessitous soldiers are entitled to assistance when desiring to settle on the land ?
– It is not correct, as stated in the article referred to, that only necessitous soldiers are entitled to assistance. I should like also to say that other statements appearing in the article are incorrect, no doubt inadvertently. The necessity or otherwise of the soldier does not in any way contribute to or detract from his eligibility for the assistance provided under that section of the repatriation scheme.
page 5467
The following paper was presented: -
Shipbuilding : Copy of correspondence between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Queensland.
page 5467
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 5467
asked the Vice-
President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers are - 1.No.
page 5467
Commonwealth Representation at Washington.
asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -
When will the promised disclosure of the Government’s intention and policy in regard to the representation of the Commonwealth of Australia at Washington, United States of America, and the resolution passed by the Senate dealing with this matter, be made?
– This matter is being investigated by the Prime Minister whilst passing through the United States of America, and when advices are received from Mr. Hughes the Government expects to be in a position to act.
page 5467
Is it a fact that dependants of members of the Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom and outside Australia are treated differently as to allowances from those within the? Commonwealth ?
If so, why?
– The answers are -
page 5467
asked the Minister for
Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 5468
– I move -
That until the 28th day of June, 1918, Government business, unless otherwise ordered, take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions.
I desire to explain to the Senate, and more particularly to those honorable senators who have notices on the businesspaper, what is the desire of the Government consequent on the carrying of this motion. Without instituting any invidious distinction, I think I can say that at least one private motion is exciting general attention, but should the nature of the Government business demand it, the Government will ask honorable senators to encroach uponthe time ordinarily allotted to honorable senators to-morrow night. I do not anticipate, however, that we shall be under the necessity of asking honorable senators to allow private business to stand aside. The prospects now of business coming from the other House is such that, without finally committing myself, I feel I am in a position to assure honorable senators that tomorrow night will, as usual, be devoted to private business; but I would like the Senate to place me in the position of being able, in the event of any pressure of public business, to take Government business to-morrow night.
– The motion standing in the name of Senator Guy is, I think, the matter re ferred to by the Leader of. the Senate (Senator Millen), and I for one. would like to see it dealt with. I do not dispute the importance of business to be submitted by the Government, but it should be remembered that the Government really approved of the appointment of the Intoxicants Select Committee, that there was no opposition to the motion, and that the Committee was appointed on the initiative of a member of the Ministerial side of the Senate.
– It is not correct to say there was no opposition to it.
SenatorGRANT. - The few who opposed the motion did not really count. They were a negligible quantity. Nobody minded them. The motion for the appointment of the Committee was carried on the voices, those who were opposed to it not having the courage to call for a division. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the opposition was negligible, and that the appointment of the Committee had practically the unanimous support of the Senate, so it is, in effect, a Government matter. I do not for a moment overlook or desire to minimize the importance of the interests that are opposed to anything being done to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee.
– Does the honorable senator want the matter discussed further ? If so, it would help very much if he would resort to brevity.
– I am sure my remarks are usually very brief and to the point. I try to use as few words as possible, and to convey my meaning as clearly, as forcibly, and as unmistakably as I can. I do notcare very much for the promise which the Minister has given to the Senate. It would be much better if the Government would say straightforwardly that, owing to the loquacity of members in the other House there is no reasonable prospect of business reaching the Senate, and that, therefore, we shall be able to take private business to-morrow night as usual. I would, therefore, suggest that the Minister withdraw the motion. Later, if he wishes an all-night sitting, I, for one, shall be only too glad to accommodate him, and, if necessary, sit from now on until the end of the week, or even duringnext week if desired. The notice of motion in the name ofSenator Need ham is also important, and should be freely discussed. I am opposed to the motion before the Senate, and shall vote against it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 5469
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This measure is one which gives authority to the Government to raise by way of loan £80,000,000 for war purposes. The Bill does not itself set out the general conditions under which this loan, or loans, will be floated. Those are covered by the Inscribed Stock Act and, the Treasury Bills Act, which hitherto have laid down the conditions surrounding the loans. Certain details - that is, as to the rate of interest current on the loans, and the amount - have previously been determined by an Order in Council, and it is proposed to continue that procedure with respect to the authority that has been granted.
It may be of interest to honorable senators to know briefly the extent of our loan operations in the past. So far, four Loan Bills have been authorized by Parliament, representing an aggregate amount of £168,000,000. That authority has been exercised to the extent of £149,325,058, so that there is already in existence authority to raise another amount, equalling £18,674,942. That total of £168,000,000, to which I have just referred, includes war savings certificates which have been issued up to the first week of last month, to an amount representing £4,383,748.
In addition to the sum raised locally for war purposes, Australia has borrowed from Great Britain £47,500,000. Then there is a further addition to our indebtedness represented by an amount which, though it has not been borrowed From Great Britain, we owe to the Mother Country; that is a sum equalling £39,750,000. It isdue by Great Britain having paid those current expenses for which Australia is liable in respect to her Army at the Front. The total borrowings in connexion with the war have been £215,825,058, and, adding to that sum the amount still owing Great Britain in the manner just indicated, our debt is £255,575,058. By my reference to that debt to Great Britain, I mean the amount which Great Britain has paid on our behalf in contradistinction to the money actually borrowed from her. Negotiations have passed as to the liquidation of that sum, and, as part of those negotiations, the Government have undertaken to promptly meet any claims with respect to our current indebtedness which is still going on from day to day.
– Are not some adjustments proceeding between the Imperial and the Commonweath Governments ?
– Negotiations are proceeding - as I was just indicating - and these are inter-related to the financing of our wool crop and other products which Great Britain has purchased from us. Those negotiations are being conducted at the present time, and I hope that almost immediately something will be done to reduce the indebtedness of the Commonwealth Government in that respect; but definite assurances have been given that we shall promptly meet any obligations.
– I was referring to some amounts which had been inadvertently charged to the Commonwealth instead of to the Imperial authorities.
– I have no knowledge of that matter, but will endeavour to secure the information.
As to the need for the Bill, the cost of the war for the financial year ended 30th June next, is estimated at £84,051,230. As far as it is. possible to form an estimate in that respect, it is anticipated that our war expenditure for the ensuing financial year will be possibly two or three million sterling less. In dealing with war expenditure, it is - I need scarcely say - rather difficult to form an estimate with any degree of definiteness ; but it is considered that the expenditure for the next year will be possibly two or three millions less than the expenditure for the year now terminating.
This Bill - giving authority to borrow £80,000,000, plus the authority already given, and not yet exercised, for raising a sum of £18,674,000- will provide for the expenditure of next year, and will leave an estimated balance of £14,000,000. It follows that the Government are seeking authority to borrow more than they anticipate will be required; but, necessarily, the Treasurer would not exercise that Authority unless he were confronted by a need which would render the floating of additional loans necessary. Bearing in mind that it is not always easy to raise £40,000,000, or £80,000,000, it is desirable to place the Treasurer in such a position that, if circumstances demanded it, he -would be free to raise such sums as he deemed requisite, rather than be required to wait until the last moment, and then have to hurriedly ask Parliament for the authority, without which he could not move.
-Colonel O’loghlin. - Do those terms include the amounts borrowed by the Imperial Government on behalf of our troops at the Front?
– No; I have referred to that separately.
In the past, the loans have been floated - with the exception of the last - upon one basis only; that is, they earned interest at 4£ per cent., and were declared free of Commonwealth and State taxation. I will not open up the question as to the soundness or otherwise of the policy represented by the terms of the previous loans. But, when confronted with the responsibility of floating the last loan, the Government, while feeling it desirable not to precipitately change the system in vogue, announced that that would be the last tax-free loan for which they would be responsible. In addition, however, there was advanced an alternative proposition, leaving it open for the 4-^ per cent, non-taxable bonds to be taken up as heretofore, and submitting an alternative 5 per cent, scheme, to be subject, however, to taxation. The result of that invitation to the public was that bonds totalling £36,987,295 were_ applied for under the 4J per cent, “nontaxable proposition, and bonds representing £6,523,445 were applied for as 5 per cent, stock. It will be easy for honorable senators to recognise that naturally each applicant would apply for that class of loan which best suited his own circumstances. The smaller investor, who would not be perturbed at the prospect of having to pay a heavy total of income tax, would go for the stock carrying the higher rate of interest; while the other class of investor would apply for that carrying the lower rate, but which was free of taxation, and would thus represent the greater return to him.
I have endeavoured briefly to put before honorable senators the purpose of the Bill, which, as I intimated earlier in my remarks, is merely intended to authorize the Government to raise £80,000,000 during the next financial year. I shall be glad if I can elucidate any points which may excite the attention of honorable senators during the course of this debate, or during the Committee stage of the measure.
Debate (on motion by Senator McDou_ gall) adjourned.
page 5470
Debate resumed from 31st May (vide page 5364), on motion by Senator Pearce -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– I have been very carefully through the provisions of this Bill, because I know that the civilian life of Australia is always very anxious when an amendment of the Defence Act is proposed, lest some portion of its .rights and privileges should be placed under military control. But I am glad to say, as the result of my perusal of the measure, that, in the present instance, no such curtailment of their rights and privileges is contemplated. We must certainly give the Business Board which has been constituted to exercise supervision over the business methods of the Defence Department credit for the work which it has performed in attempting to produce some sort”of order out of the chaos which has been apparent in that Department for some time, and especially so far as the soldiers’ arrangements are concerned. Three different classes of employees have been working for the Department, and if this Bill will place them under one control, it will be a step in the right direction. My own opinion is that there should not be any State servants employed in the Defence Department at all. All should be under the control of the Commonwealth.
There is one very good feature in the Bill - I refer to the provision which it makes for the retention of the services of temporary employees. Personally, I could never understand why, under our Public Service Act, temporary employees are treated differently from permanent employees. I have known temporary employees who have exhibited unsurpassed ability, but who, notwithstanding that fact, have been unceremoniously got rid of the moment that their six months’ period had expired, with an extension, perhaps, of three months. I have in my mind one case in which an accountant was taken into the Defence Department as a temporary employee in connexion with No. 2 Military District. During his nine months of service there he was able to effect great reforms so far as the Pay Office was concerned. Yet, at the end of that time, despite his unquestioned ability, he was compelled to relinquish his connexion with the Service. I take it that our object ought to he to obtain the greatest possible efficiency. But, while we continue to discharge” men after they have devoted nine months’ service to the Commonwealth, we shall not secure that efficiency. I do not know why the provision in regard to the duration of temporary employment was ever embodied in the principal Act. Probably the intention of its framers was to make the billets go round. If so, I am absolutely opposed to that principle. Whenever we get efficiency we should recognise it. We should retain the services of any officer so long as he is able to perform his duties satisfactorily. When he cannot do that, we should get rid of him.
We all understand, from the continuous appeals made to us from constituents, the extraordinary manner in which the Pay Office has been conducted in times gone by. The most awful thing connected with it is that it has allowed unfortunate women to draw money which was not due to them, and has then compelled them to refund it. That is a cruel injustice. I do not know how any branch of our Public Service could be so inefficient as to permit of a condition of affairs like that. This money has been paid over to the dependants of soldiers, who have contracted debts to make the home pleasant in anticipation of the return of their relatives who are fighting overseas. Then, when the goods which they, have purchased have been half paid for, they have received notices from the Defence Department intimating that they were indebted to it to the extent of perhaps £40 or £50 - an amount which they have not the remotest hope of ever repaying. If the Bill will remedy that sort of thing, I shall welcome it. There is only one portion of the measure of which I disapprove, and in respect of that the Minister was not very emphatic. I refer to the proposal that, the employees in the Ordnance Branch should be enlisted. He said that he thought all these men would come under that provision in the measurePersonally, I do not want to see any more men placed under military control than is absolutely unavoidable. I do not see why the employees iri the Ordnance Branch should be enlisted. That is the only thing which I can see wrong in the measure.
– It is rather unfortunate that honorable senators should be called upon to discuss the second reading of this important Bill without first having been afforded an opportunity of reading in Hansard the speech made by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) on Friday last. Personally, I have no cause for complaint, - because I communicated with “the honorable gentleman, and asked him to let me have a proof copy of that speech - a request to which he at once acceded. I have read the deliverance of the Minister very carefully, and I must confess that the arguments, which he advanced in favour of the measure have not convinced me of its necessity. I do not say that there is not some alteration required in the existing law, but, nevertheless, the reasons which he adduced for bringing this matter under notice did not demonstrate the need for the present Bill.
The first reason advanced by the Minister for the introduction of the Bill was that in the civil part of the Defence Department there has been a number of persons working under different conditions. The Minister stated that when we went into the Federation we took over the transferred Departments with all their State rights, the consequence being that in Mie civil portion of the Defence Department there are some civil servants working under the ‘ Public Service Act, some under old Defence Acts, and others under the present Act. The Minister asked us to pass the Bill in order that this condition of affairs may be done away with, and that there may be “ one control.” It seems to me that if one control is desired, there is no necessity to introduce this Bill, becausethe whole thing could be done under the present Public Service Act.
– I do not agree with your contention; but even if it is right, the one control would be that of the Public Service Commissioner.
– Yes.Under the Public Service Act of 1902, and the classification of 1903 or 1904, every person in the transferred Services can be brought under one control - that is the control of the Public Service Commissioner.
– But a lot of these employees have been appointed since then under those three headings.
– That may be so; but it does not affect my argument that if the Minister had wanted one control, he could have had it without this Bill. He is not interfered with in that regard by any State rights.
– Yes, we are. We could not pass any of the general employees at the Ordnance Branch under the Public Service Commissioner: the Public Service Act does not allow it.
– But the Minister said the difficulty arose from certain accrued rights given to the Public Service before Federation.
– That is only one difficulty.
– If that is not the difficulty, there is no difficulty.
– Would not all appointees after the passing of the Public Service Act come under that Act?
– No. Some were appointed under the Defence Act.
– I propose to deal with that point. When passing the Defence Act, we specially exempted certain employees from the operation of the Public Service Act; still, constitutionally, if the Minister wanted one control, he could have it under the Public Service Act. Constitutionally, he could even put the Military under the Public Service Act.
– Not without an amendment of the Public Service Act.
– The Public Service Act would need some amendment, and probably an amendment would also be needed in the Defence Act. My main point is that there is no constitutional difficulty. If a constitutional difficulty prevents us bringing them under the Public Service Act, it must also prevent us bringing them under this Bill.
– There is no constitutional difficulty.
– I am glad of that confirmation of my view; but whether it is advisable to bring them under the provisions of the Public Service Act is another question.
The Minister informed us that the Bill would apply generally to all the clerical staff of the Defence Department. He added that when the war broke out an enormous, but obviously temporary, extension of the Defence Department’s staff became necessary, and the number of employees to be appointed was so great that it was extremely unwise to appoint them under the Public Service Act. I agree with the Minister that it would be unwise to appoint permanently a large number of people who would not be wanted after a certain time; but the Minister’s statement in that regard cuts across the argument of Senator McDougall, who favoured the Bill because, in his opinion, once a person is appointed temporarily, he should be kept on as long as he can do the work. The Government have not the slightest intention of doing that under this Bill.
– There is no provision in this Bill for that.
– No ; and quite right too. The Minister stated that the Government do not want to appoint a large number of permanent officials under the Public Service Act, because as soon as the war is over they will naturally want to get rid of them. He then went on to say that, under the Public Service Act, they were unable to find the necessary persons to do the work of a temporary character, because at the end of six or nine months they would have to be dismissed. ‘ Let me remind the Minister that there is no necessityeven for that to be done under the Public Service Act. Under the Act there are three classes of employees - permanent, casual, and temporary. One of the two latter classes, either the temporary or the casual - I do not remember which, but it is immaterial - can be exempted for a given time by the Public Service Commissioner from the provision relating to six and nine months’ service.
– Some have had exemptions again and again.
– That is so. I entirely differ from Senator McDougall, who argued that the provision in the Act limiting the length of service of a temporary employee was a bad one. Most of us here were in Parliament when that provision was put in the Act. Personally, I thought- it a good one. Its first object was to prevent the permanent staff being overloaded. Without it, it would have been possible for any one who had the right to appoint temporary nien to appoint them in such a way that they would practically become permanent. Another reason was that if a number of men were out of work, the work should be made to go round, ‘as far as possible. The Public Service Commissioner has the right, within the scope of the Public Service Act, to grant exemptions for a certain time, once work is being done. The Public .Service Commissioner granted that exemption in the case of men employed in connexion with the undergrounding of the telephone wires. It was pointed out by the officer in charge of the work that, if he were called upon to dismiss his nien after six or nine months’ employment, he could not compete with contractors who were able to continue the employment of their men as long as a job lasted. In view of that, the Public Service Commissioner exempted the men engaged in this work from that provision of the Public Service Act, and allowed them to continue their employment, although, they were temporary or casual employees, until the work upon which they were engaged was completed. The Minister for Defence stated that one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill was that his Department was continually being faced with a new staff, because clerks appointed temporarily had to be dismissed at the close of six or nine months. I am urging that the introduction of a Bill was unnecessary to overcome that difficulty, because if the Public Service Commissioner is prepared to exempt from the provision applying to temporary employees men engaged in the way I have stated, I am sure he would be quite prepared, if the Minister for Defence submitted the. matter to him, to exempt in the same way temporary clerks in the Defence Department, and perri.it them to remain at their work during the war, and it might be for twelve months after the war.
The Minister made the statement that, as the necessary dismissal of temporary men was very unsatisfactory, the Department adopted a new system which made it unnecessary for him to fall back upon the Public Service Commissioner. Temporary employees were engaged by the Defence Department under the provisions of the Defence Act. The Minister explained that they were enlisted, and had to undertake to continue in their employment until the end of the war. Dealing with this matter, the honorable senator said -
Tt was necessary that we should secure the benefit of the experience which the temporary employees gained in the Defence Department, and they should not, therefore, be in a position to leave the Department in the lurch when they wished, because, perhaps, they received a better offer elsewhere. To meet this difficulty, a Pay Corps was formed, in which men were enlisted for the term of the war, thus taking from them the option of leaving the Department, since they were practically enlisted as soldiers. The object was To secure a permanent staff during the war, and, at the same time, to reserve power to dismiss those who proved inefficient. This has undoubtedly led, as the Royal Commission testified, to a very great increase in the efficiency of the Pay Branch.
The Minister argued that one reason for the efficiency is that the Department is able to retain men in the” service for longer than six or nine months. I do not know whether one reason may not be that the men so enlisted cannot leave if they desire to leave. The Minister elsewhere stated another reason why there was not that efficiency amongst the temporary clerks that he would like to see before he entered into the arrangement for the establishment of “the Pay Corps. With regard to the suggestion that efficiency may be expected because men under the system adopted cannot leave the service of the Department to go elsewhere, I am sure that the Minister for Defence has never seen any wild rush on the part of persons working in a Government Department to leave the Public Service and enter private employment.
– These were not permanent officers. In some cases they were officers who had given up positions worth £1,000 .or £1.500 a year to work for the Defence Department at £300 or £400 a year.
– I understand there are a few such cases, and their action speaks very well for them, but I take it there would not be on the part of the greater number any wild rush to seek employment outside.
– Not a week passes without our receiving requests from men to be allowed to take positions elsewhere. I received one such request to-day.
– I wish to be a3 fair as I can in dealing with this matter, and I am prepared to admit that there may be some difficulty in bringing under the Public Service Commissioner men occupying positions as military staff clerks. J3ut even in their case the Minister tells us that they are employed under Public Service conditions, though . they are not under the Public Service Commissioner. I understand that the Public Service Commissioner fixes salaries and increments for those working under his control, and that the practice is to pay similar salaries and increments to employees engaged in similar work in the Defence Department. Is this done by the military officials or done through the Public Service Commissioner?
– By the Minister on the recommendation of the permanent head.
– We have, then, a certain amount of control exercised by the Public Service Commissioner in respect to salaries and increments paid, since they are fixed by the Public Service Commissioner.
– No; in the Defence Department we adopt, as nearly as may be, the graduations adopted for the different classes and grades in the Public Service, and we adopt their regulations, but the Public Service Commissioner is not called into the matter at all.
– The Defence Department is guided in dealing with military clerks by the practice adopted out* side that Department.
– -Yes; by the practice in all the other public Departments.
– There< appears to be a certain amount of diversity of control. It is obvious that if there are men in the Department some of whom are controlled in one way and some in another, that will not tend to efficiency. My idea is that all these officers should be under trie Public Service Commissioner. They would then be under a definite control, so far as salaries and increments are concernedI admit that the head of a branch in tha Defence Department should have tlieright to say whether an officer under him was doing his work properly or not. To that extent the permanent heads of theDefence Department should be able to exercise some control, but I, would prefer that all officers should be under the PublicService Commissioner.
It does appear to me that, even under this Bill, there wil? be some differentiation in the treatment of different officers. I. take the c?se of an officer loaned to the Defence Department from another Department of thePublic Service. If, after he has been in the Defence Department for a time, it i3found that he is not giving satisfaction, he may be dismissed from the DefenceDepartment and sent back to that from which he came. However, before being finally dismissed the Service he has the right to an appeal to the Appeal Board. In the case of an officer in the DefenceDepartment who has not been loaned by one of the- other public Departments, I understand that he can be dealt with by the Business Board, consisting of thethree business gentlemen recently appointed by the Government. I take it that the Business Board can dismiss such, a man practically at a moment’s notice,, whilst the man loaned from another public Department, though dismissed from the Defence Department, cannot be finally dismissed the Service except under the regulations- of the Public Service Act giving him the right to appear before the Appeal Board. There is some differential treatment here. I am not pressing strongly the right to go before the Appeal Board in the case of all men employed in the Defence Department, because I recognise that, even under the Public Service Act, temporary employeeshave not this right. The temporary employee can be dismissed practically at a moment’s notice. If my idea were carried out, there would still be differential treatment of permanent as against temporary officers. But I contend that this Bill does not do away with the evil of having men working under similar conditions under different control, which was the main reason submitted by the Minister for its introduction.
I think it is quite possible that the permanent heads in the Defence Department would argue that under this Bill they would have complete control of the employees, and could secure greater efficiency than if they were under the control of the Public Service Commissioner. That might be a strong argument in favour of this particular Bill, but, if its force in this case be admitted, it will apply equally to every other Department of the Public Service of the Commonwealth. I know that there are those who believe that, instead of employees in the Public Service going through the different channels under the Public Service Commissioner, each Department should have the right to control its own employees. I put a question a little time ago to discover why the Acting Public Service Commissioner is still Acting Commissioner, although he has been in that position now for nearly three years. We have been told, in answer to questions concerning alterations of the Public Service Act, that the Postal Department is desirous of getting away from the control of the Public Service Commissioner, so that the employees may be dealt with by the Department itself. If the principle contained in the Bill, as applying to the Defence Department, will lead to greater efficiency, then I say it would apply equally to the Post Office, the Customs, or any other Department of the Commonwealth Service. I am rather sorry that the Bill has been introduced, because, if the whole of the civil side of the Defence Department is not retained under the authority of the Public Service Act, the effect, I think, will be to weaken the Public Service.
The Minister, in the course of his speech, said that the Act would cease to be operative twelve months after the close of the war; and when Senator Foll asked if the officials to be affected by the Bill would be enlisted men, the Minister said that those in the Pay Corps were, but not officers in the other branches, and that their positions would be safeguarded. The Minister also said that the Acting Public Service Commissioner had agreed to the Bill. Does that mean that the Acting Commissioner is prepared, in certain circumstances, to take back into the Public Service any officer who has been loaned to the Defence
Department, and who will come under the operation of this particular measure, or does it mean that the Acting Public Service Commissioner is in favour of the Bill as a whole, which the Minister is introducing? I understand that, under the Bill, a loaned officer may, by making a request, be transferred back to the Department from which he came, unless the Minister objects in writing, but that, before stating his objection, the Minister must be able to show that no other person in the community could take that officer’s place. It seems to me that, whilst, under this measure, we shall have one control, there will still be a certain amount of differentiation in the way in which some officers will be employed, and this would not be experienced if they were all under the Public Service Act, because they would be subject to the same treatment and be under the same control.
There is one other matter of some importance upon which I am not quite clear, and which, I think, is rather important, and that is - how can any person get into the Service? The Minister, in the course of his speech referring to loaned officers or officers who had joined the Service, stated that, in certain circumstances, an office could be created, and a particular officer appointed. If this Act will cease to be operative twelve months after peace is declared, will that particular officer become an officer of the Public Service?
– Not unless the Governor-General in Council agrees to the creation of that office as an office of the Public Service.
– Then a person may enter the Public Service in some other way than by examination.
– No. That does not follow.
– The question is: Must he pass an examination?
– I think this is an important point. I know that in some of the higher grades of the Public Service an entrance examination is not necessary; but in the General and Clerical Divisions candidates for admission are required to pass an examination before becoming permanent officers of the Public Service.
– That principle is not altered by this Bill.
– But the Minister has said there is a probability of a person becoming a public servant, because, under this measure, there is no provision for examination prior to employment.
– If a business man comes in under this Bill, he will not be in the Public Service, even when this Bill lapses.
– I have read the measure, and I am not quite clear on this point. If what the Minister says is correct, . and if a person cannot enter the Public Service except in the one way, then one of my objections to the Bill is removed.
– This Bill does not provide a back-door entrance to the Public Service.
– An answer given by the Minister in reply to a question by Senator Newland left some doubt in my mind on this particular point, and even with the Minister’s assurance that it is not so, I am still opposed to the Bill, because I think that everything required may be done under the Public Service Act, so that the Bill is not necessary. The Minister, I know, says that the matter is urgent, but it was in November last that the business men who were requested to report on the subject submitted their recommendation, and I think all that is now asked could be done better under the Public Service Act. Who, for instance, will deal with future appointments ? We have a Business Board of three capable business men who, I understand, will devote the whole of their time to the handling of the big problem that will come before them, and, in my judgment, theyshould not be bothered with the question of appointments. And if this matter is to be left to the officers of the Military Department, men subordinate to the Business Board, then again, in my judgment, it would be much better done by the Public Service Commissioner himself. For these reasons I am against the Bill.
– I understand the Bill is the result of recommendations made by the Royal Commission, which led to the appointment of the Business Board now established in the Department, and it is from that aspect that I shall deal with the measure. I listened to the major portion of the Minister’s second-reading speech, and since then I have had an opportunity of reading his remarks. When the Bill was introduced I had some appre hension as to whether or not the rights of the public servants - those men who have served us faithfully and well for many years - were properly safeguarded, and after reading the Minister’s speech there are still one or two points upon which I should like further information. For instance, I have received a telegram from an officer of the Department, a man whose name I will not mention just now, but will furnish it privately to the Minister if required. It is addressed to Senators Needham, Buzacott, and Lynch, and is as follows: -
Urgently request you oppose Bill making civilians staff become subject military. Transferred servants civil rights form part of Constitution Commonwealth. Refer you to file on subject, July, 1904. Attorney-General’s decision now Judge Higgins no law can repudiate contract between Government and servant. Military offered me rank staff sergeant, Order 325, Statutory Rule 165, bringing me to rank and file after twenty years’ faultless service. No consideration me or respect my family. As transferred servant, earnestly beg for self and dependants your united opposition to Bill. Posting this mail full letter.
I have not received the letter, nor am I in a position to say whether the points raised are based upon a correct estimate of the position.
– That person is evidently under a misapprehension. He speaks of this Bill bringing a civilian under military control, whereas it is to be the reverse of that.
– I have read the telegram so that any doubt in my mind and in that of the gentleman sending it may be removed.
In the Bill under discussion no provision is made in connexion with offences that may be committed after this measure has become an Act. I draw the attention of the Minister (Senator Pearce) to section 46 of the Public Service Act, which provides for a Board or Court of Appeal, as was referred to by Senator Thomas, to deal with offences. Unless, when the Minister is replying, he can give me some further information why the Bill does not provide for that, I intend to pursue the matter further in Committee. Under the Commonwealth Public Service Act - the Statute under which these officers accepted employment - before an officer can be dealt with for any offence other than minor breaches of discipline, he is charged before a Board. That body consists of a representative of the Public Service Commis sioner - who, in the case of officers under the Public Service Act, is considered the independent party upon the tribunal - a representative of the Department, and a representative of the division in which the charged officer is classified. That is the position to-day, and it would remain undisturbed but forthe intervention of this measure.
There is another phase to which I call attention. I see a danger, so far as transferred officers under the Billare concerned. The conditions ruling to-day in the Defence Department are that in the regulations pertaining to civil employment the departmental head has the power to summarily deal with any officer guilty of an offence. What I want to know is whether or not, when this Bill comes into force, any officer guilty of a breach of discipline and charged with some offence, minor or major, will be summarily dealt with by the Business Board; or whether that officer will have the same opportunity of putting his case before a tribunal as exists to-day under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The proposed system of dealing with an offence is considered a harsh and unjust form of trial, and, seeing that the Commonwealth Government contracted with those officers, when they entered the Commonwealth service, to employ them subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, it would be unfair to take rights away from them respecting trial for offences, and to place them in the hands of the departmental head. If it is intended by this Bill to summarily deal with officers, it should be amended in Committee, so that a similar tribunal to that in existence today shall be appointed.
There is another feature of the Bill which I desire to place before honorable senators. Clause 8 reads -
Let me state a supposititious case. Imagine that an officer in the fourth class has been promoted to the third class. That would entail an increase in salary. I wish to know if that officer would receive the added salary, or increment, right from the day of promotion, even although the Minister did not consent in writing, in accordance with the clause as it is at present worded. The Minister might not. wish to have that officer sent to the Department to which he had been promoted. It would not be right, however, to penalize him by keeping from him the addition to his salary.
– This deals with his appointment to a definite office. That is, assuming that he had been in a certain office, and that during the time in which he was loaned to the Defence Department he was promoted to another office. We might not be able to spare him ; still, the promotion would stand, notwithstanding that we were retaining him. He would get the credit of that transfer.
– I thank the Minister for the explanation, but I would like to have it made clear whether he would get the added salary from the date of promotion. I invite the Minister to inquire into that. There is some doubt, although probably it is not intended. The officer, at any rate, should not have to suffer undeservedly.
One other matter to whichI must refer is that I see no provision in the Bill relating to increments, and as to how they shall operate. Clause 11 deals with “ increments to officers appointed under or subject to this Act.” Again, I point out another danger in that the operations of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act might not be brought to bear. According to that Statute, when an award of the Court is made, after the organization has put its case before the Court, the increments granted come into operation from the time when the particulars are laid before Parliament. I do not think the new system of control under this Bill should prevent the necessity for reviewing the salaries and conditions of employment of officers concerned. In Committee I intend to submit -
That all awards obtained by the Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association under the provisions of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act shall apply to the members of that Association who are affected by this Bill.
As to the necessity for the Bill, I am doubtful. I have pointed out, first, that there is no provision to deal with officers who may commit offences, except that they may be summarily dealt with; second, that there is a danger of officers promoted from a lower to a higher class being deprived of the monetary increase to which they are entitled, unless specific provision is made; and, third, that we should safeguard the officers concerned by incorporating the amendment just indicated in reference to arbitration awards.
-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [4.34].- I welcome this Bill. The Government are to be commended for bringing it forward as a war measure. In dealing with the civil branch of the Defence Department, conditions demand prompt and immediate attention. The circumlocution required . by the Public Service Act often handicaps responsible officers in dealing with a situation which, in the interests of the Department and of the Service, requires immediate attention. One matter to which I desire to refer, and which is not mentioned in the Bill, is the practice of conferring military rank upon employees in the civil branch of the Defence Department, and in permitting them to wear military uniforms. I know that this is the cause of a greatdeal of resentment in the Service, and anything that has a tendency to destroy that harmony which alone will produce efficiency should be eliminated. There are several notorious- instances in which high military rank has been conferred upon individuals who have not even an elementary knowledge of military matters.
– Are the men to whom the honorable senator is referring civil officers in the Defence Department?
– Yes. Military rank, either non-commissioned or commissioned, should be obtainable only by a person passing the necessary qualifying examinations for which provision is made in our Defence Act. The Department is in a measure belittling itself by decreasing the credit that should attach to a man who passes those examinations in order that he may attain military rank. I shall be glad to have an expression of opinion from the Minister in regard to this matter.
– There are one or two features of this Bill which, to my mind, are rather objectionable. Like Senator Thomas, I was under the impression, after listening to the remarks made by the Minister (Senator Pearce) in moving the second reading of the measure, that after an office had been created in the Defence Department, its occupant, upon this Bill ceasing to operate, would automatically pass into our Public Service. The Minister, - however, has given us an assurance to the contrary, and that circumstance removes one of my objections to the Bill. Nevertheless, I regard the principle which it is now proposed to adopt as a wrong one, because it seems to contemplate the creation of an independent service within the Public Service - that is to say, a caste or military service. I do not think that that principle is a good one. The reasons advanced by the Minister for the introduction of this Bill were not very convincing. We were not told who originated the ideas that are embodied in it. We were not informed whether the Bill gives effect to the desires of the Business Board appointed to supervise matters connected with the Defence Department, or to the ideas of the military advisers of that Department.
– I think I said that it embodies the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which were followed up by the recommendations of the Business Board.
– I did not grasp the position when the Minister was speaking. Under this Bill officers in the Defence Department will cease to be officers under the Public Service Act during the term that this measure continues in force, and upon the expiration of that period they will again come under the Public Service Act. That seems to me to involve a contradiction in terms. They are not to be subject to the Public Service Act except in regard to Part IV., which deals with compulsory insurance. Another provision in the Bill makes it optional with persons employed upon the civil side of the Defence Department as to whether they come under its operation or not. Now, if the measure be necessary to regulate the smooth working of the Department, surely all the employees of that Department should come under it. But under clause 6 an employee is allowed to exercise a discretion as to whether he shall come under it or not.
– That is the loaned officer.
– If the Bill be necessary for the harmonious working of the Department, it seems to me a contradiction to say that such an option shall be given to any officer, even though he may be a loaned officer. Regarding the point raised by Senator Needham, it appears to me that clause 8 opens the door to a very grave abuse. Under this Bill, an employee upon the civil side of the Defence Department may take advantage of promotion or transfer to return to the Public Service at an increased rate of emolument, and may accept such a promotion or transfer, although he may not actually quit the Defence Department until the Minister has given his consent in writing. To me that seems to open the door to a very curious state of affairs. If a man is to be appointed to a higher office under our Public Service Act, surely he should fill that office. But under the Bill he may be retained in the service of the Defence Department until the Minister gives his consent in writing to the transfer. That means until the military advisers of the Minister give their consent.
– The military advisers will have nothing to do with the administration of this measure. The whole matter will be under civil control.
– If a man wishes to accept promotion under our Public Service Act, he should be allowed to do so. But he should not be permitted to obtain an advance in status under that Act whilst he remains in the Defence De partment. The Minister, during his second-reading speech, laid great stress on the fact that, at the outbreak of the war, the Department experienced a serious difficulty in securing the necessary officers todo the work which had to be performed. He told us it had practically to beg, borrow, or steal them. Now, another objectionable feature of the measure is that men who have been thus loaned to the Defence Department, very often at a higher rate of pay than they had been getting in our Public Service, upon their return to that Service on the expiration of this Bill, will receive a rate of pay not less than that which they have been receiving in the Defence Department. That is not right. We have instances in the Defence Department in which men who have been loaned, borrowed, or stolen, have received increases in salary up to £100 a year. Most of the officers in our Federal and State Departments would be quite prepared to be loaned under those conditions.
– We have found very few of them willing to be loaned.
– For what reason 1
– Because there is too much hard work to be done in the Defence Department.
– I have picked out at random the names of a few officers, and I propose to show the difference between the pay which they received in the Public Service as against the pay which they are receiving whilst they are employed in the Defence Department. The statement is as follows: -
In that list, the officers concerned have received an aggregate annual increase of £777.
– The honorable senator will find that in nearly every one of those cases there has not been any increased rate of pay, but an allowance has been made. This Bill provides that an officer shall not carry that allowance back to the Public Service.
– When these men return to the Public Service they will carry with them their increased status.
– No; their salaries have not been increased. They are merely receiving an allowance for extra work.
– I do not think they should be paid that allowance.
– In some cases they are filling the positions of officers who have gone to the war, and who were getting double their salaries.
– I do not think that such men should get an increase, of £100 a year for their work. When these officers return to the Public Service they will be advantaged as against the men who have remained there.
– No.
– They ought to be if they have done the hard work
– But they are getting an increase of £100 a year for it.
– Does the honorable senator object to men getting paid for the work that they do ?
– I object to these heroes getting an increase of £100 a year when they go into the Defence Department as compared with the salary which they were receiving under our Public Service Act.
– These men are working about double the hours which they worked in their ordinary jobs.
– I am not inclined to accept the assurance of the Minister, which is so glibly given. What I fear is that these men will be advantaged over other officers who have remained in our Public Service.
– From where did the honorable senator get those salaries?
– They came down in the last shower. I do submit that the Business Board which is going to supervise the operations of our Defence Department, should, at least, set about some curtailment of the unnecessary- expense which is taking place there. If officers are going from our Public Service into the Defence Department under the guise of patriots, heroes, and slaves to duty, as the Minister would have us believe, they should not be permitted to draw up to £108 per annum in excess of the salary which they formerly received. Clause 12 allows that man to come back under the operation of the Public Service Act with an advanced status, as against the man who has never left the Public Service to become a “ patriotic worker “ and . “ hero,” making a sacrifice of £100 a year increase. I shall vote against the whole Bill. The principle of creating a separate caste within the Public Service is wrong. Once we get a “ go “ on in that direction, the same line will have to be followed in other Departments. If Senator Thomas pushes the question to a division, I shall vote against the Bill, and I shall certainly vote in Committee against the clause to which Senator Needham referred.
– Senator Thomas’ suggestion that one control could have been obtained by bringing all the employees under the Public Service Act might have been one way out; but the result would have been to bring these employees under the control of the Public Service Commissioner, and remove them further from the control of the Business Board. I am not in favour of that. We cannot expect the Board to get efficient service if its staff is removed from its control, and all questions of appointments, transfers, and promotions are put in the hands of some officer who does not know the Department, and has nothing to do with it.
– The PostmasterGeneral says exactly the same thing.
– I do not care what any one else says; I would ten times rather remain as we are at present.
– If that is the game, you ought to knock the Public Service Act on the head.
– At . any rate, the control suggested by Senator Thomas would be infinitely worse than that we have now. It would bring about a unified control without achieving any improvement.
– Now we know the reason for the Bill!
– It would be simply impossible to ask the Department, in time of war, to carry on under that system. I can understand it being argued in the case of a Department that has not to deal with war conditions; but any one who thinks that a Department dealing with war conditions can. be treated in the game way has absolutely lost sight of the whole reason for the introduction of the Bill. If control by the Public Service Commissioner was to be effective, all the pay clerks, the military staff clerks, the ordnance clerks, and the ordnance labourers would have to come under the Public Service Act. None of the pay clerks, ordnance clerks, and ordnance labourers have passed the examinations, under the Public Service Act. None of the ordnance labourers have passed the medical examination under the Public Service Act. The greater number of them are temporary labourers.
– A temporary labourer does not have to pass a medical examination under the Public Service Act.
– I understand that the Clerical Division have to. Then all that would pass over would be the military staff clerks, They would be made Public Service clerks, and all the rest would have to be temporary public servants. Senator Thomas suggests that we could get over that difficulty in the same way as the Public Service Commissioner got over the difficulty with regard to the labourers on the telephone tunnels - by exempting them from the Public Service Act. If we followed Senator Thomas’ advice, all we should have accomplished would have been to transfer these employees to the Public Service Act, and then, to get over the difficulty about the temporary labour provision of six and nine months’ service, we should have to appeal to the Public Service Commissioner to exempt them from the Act.
– I did not say to exempt them from the Act. I said to exempt them from the six months’ provision, which is a very different thing.
– If they are to be exempted from the six months’ provision, they might as well be exempted from the control of the Public Service Commissioner, because, when employees are exempted from that provision, they are placed practically under the control of the officer in the Department in charge of the work. In the instance of the telephone tunnels the men were put on, not by the Public Service Commissioner or his inspector, but by the officers of the Department who were in control of the work. There was practically no control by the Public Service Commissioner. Therefore, all that Senator Thomas suggests in effect is a paper transfer, which would not result in any control by the Public Service Commissioner over the greater part of the’ employees in the Defence Department. If the Public Service Commissioner’s control could be made effective over them, the position would become all the more objectionable. Ordinarily in the Public Service a Department expands slowly, and the expansion is regular. The Defence Department has expanded enormously, quickly, and irregularly. Just imagine, during this war we should have had to ask the Public Service Commissioner to create new offices, or if, as Senator Thomas says, the offices were made temporary, we should have had to go to the Commissioner for permission to put on employees. This would have rendered the thing absolutely unworkable. It has been bad enough as it is. It would have been infinitely worse if that had been the case.
– If the Acting Public Service Commissioner had had the appointments, even the military ones, it would have been a lot better.
– If that is so he is too good to be Acting Public Service Commissioner. He ought to be the Minister administering the Department. I am glad to hear that the honorable senator has such a wonderful opinion of that gentleman’s ability.He has nothing to do with, and knows nothing about, this Department, yet Senator Thomas is prepared to hand over to him the whole question of the appointments in it.
– If he had had the military side to deal with, I do not think he could have done worse.
– I have not seen . greater faith, no, not in Israel.
– It does not require any faith.
– It is an exhibition of sublime faith, and is certainly not very flattering to myself.
– Yon do not appoint as Minister; you simply accept recommendations.
– I take the responsibility for every appointment outside the Public Service Commissioner. I am not of such a a cowardly nature as to shelter myself behind my officers. The Public Service Commissioner does not appoint any more than I do. He acts on the recommendation of his Public Service inspector in a State.
– Then I withdraw my remark about those appointments^ as I would not like to say anything unkind about you.
Senn tor PEARCE. - Senator Thomas also asked what I meant by saying that the Public Service Commissioner favoured this Bill. If I said that, I meant that there are certain particulars in the Bill dealing with its relations to the Public Service, and that with those the Public Service Commissioner agrees. They affect the questions of transfer and re-transfer of loaned officers and others. Senator Thomas also asked whether, under this Bill, persons could come into the Public Service. A person can come into the Public Service now through the Defence Department in two ways. The Defence Department in that particular is no different from any other. An office may be created in the Department of Defence by the Governor-General in Council, on the advice of the Public Service Commissioner. It is possible under the Public Service Act for some person not in the Public Service to be appointed to ft, if the Commissioner declares that there is no person in the Public Service suitable for it. On his appointment he becomes a member of the Public Service. An instance occurred within the last few weeks. A publicity office was created in the Prime Minister’s Department, and applications were called, not only in the Public Service, but outside. A gentleman named Cook was appointed from, outside. By virtue of the Public Service Commissioner’s certificate that there was no person as suitable in the Service as this gentleman, he has now become a member of the Public Service. That has always been possible, and this Bill will not alter it. It will still continue to be possible in the Defence Department, but it is affected by clause 10 and part of clause 14 of this Bill. Clause 10 provides -
During the continuance of this Act no Public Service office shall be created in the Department of Defence, but in lieu of the creation of any such office there may be created a civil office in the Defence Force. Any person appointed to any such office which in the opinion of the Governor-General would hut for this Act have been a Public Service office shall be required to comply with the provisions of Part IV. of the Commonwealth Public Service Act and the regulations relating to that part as if he were subject to that Act.
– That relates to insurance ?
– Yes. Clause 14 provides that -
Upon the expiration of this Act . . . . (c) all civil offices in the Defence1 Force created during the continuance of this Act which in the opinion of the Governor-General would but for this Act have been Public Service offices in the Department of Defence shall be deemed to be Public Service offices in that Department; (d) all persons occupying the offices mentioned in the last-preceding paragraph shall become public servants in like manner as if the offices had been Public Service offices and they had been appointed to- those offices in pursuance of that Act.
Therefore, what is now the case in the Defence Department under the Defence Act, and is the case in every other Department under the Public Service Act, will still be the position under this Bill. The Governor-General in Council can approve of an office being created in the Department of Defence. During the term of this Bill, the person appointed to this office will be subject to this Bill, but on the termination of this Bill he will become a member of the Public Service. Exactly, the same thing would have happened if this Bill had never been brought into force. The only difference the Bill m«akes is that his entry into the Public Service is deferred until twelve months after the war ends.
A telegram was read by Senator Needham from some person in Western Australia objecting that, under the Bill, some persons who are now civilians would become military. Evidently there has been a mistake in some information telegraphed to that State, because the Bill does not provide anything of the kind. There is nothing in the Bill, Dor is there any intention behind the Bill, to bring any person who is now civilian under military control. On the other hand, it brings a number of persons who are now under military control under civilian control.
– Probably _ the wording has been transposed. The telegram is from an officer in the Defence Department.
– From the subsequent, reading of the telegram I think the officer must have been under that misapprehension, because he speaks of being offered the military position of staff sergeant-major. I judged from the telegram that it was sent by a civilian, who feared that, under this Bill, he would be compelled to take a military position.
– He is not a civilian officer. He is in the Ordnance Branch. I can give the Minister the name privately.
– I can only say that there is nothing in the Bill to bring under military control any person now under civilian control. As a matter of fact, the Bill provides for civilian control.
– I admit that I think the public servant is fairly well protected under the Bill.
– Senator Needham raised a point in connexion with offences by civilian officers. They are not dealt with by the Bill .at all, but by the civilian regulations under the Defence Act. Military staff clerks are governed by regulations under the Defence Act, the Ordnance Branch by the civilian regulations, the pay staff by the military regulations, and members of the Public Service at present by the Public Service regulations.
– What about loaned officers?
– They are now under the Public Service regulations; but when this Bill becomes an Act it will be necessary to have regulations drawn up to provide for uniform conditions applicable to all. There are now four different classes of employees in the Defence Department governed by three different sets of regulations - the military regulations, the Defence civilian regulations, and the Public Service regulations. We shall have to provide for a uniform set of regulations, applicable to the whole of these officers. These regulations have not yet been drafted, but when they are, provision will be made in them for the procedure to be adopted in regard to offences.
I am not prepared at this juncture to say what procedure will be adopted, but I again remind Senator Needham that this Bill does not deal with offences in any way.
– It may be that it is because the Bill does not deal with offences that there may be danger of injustice being done to some officers.
– We shall have to draft a uniform set of regulations, and, in doing so, no doubt, consideration will be given to the different sets of regulations now in operation in the Department. F
asked a further question with respect to the position of an officer who, having been loaned to the Defence Department, is promoted or transferred in his own Department, such transfer or promotion carrying an increase in salary. The honorable senator said that, under this Bill, the Minister for Defence might object to such an officer going back to his own Department to benefit by his transfer or promotion. He asked what would be the position of such an officer in the matter of increased salary. Let me explain the intention of the Bill. If, for instance, the loaned officer came to the Defence Department from the Post and Telegraph Department, and, as a result of his work in the latter Department, he was recommended for promotion, and was in the meantime loaned to the Defence Department, and his promotion was subsequently approved, under this Bill, although the Minister for Defence might object to his going back to the Post and Telegraph Department, and might retain his services, he would be entitled to the promotion given him and to the increase in salary attached to it.
– From the date of the promotion?
– Yes, from the date of the promotion. Senator Needham also asked whether arbitration awards will apply to officers under this Bill. The answer is that this measure will not increase or take away any of the rights of officers under the Commonwealth (Public Service) Arbitration Act. Whatever rights they have under that Act will not be affected by the passing of this Bill.
Senator Bolton questioned the practice adopted in certain cases of giving civilians employed in the Defence Department military rank and permitting them to wear a uniform. The most noticeable cases of this kind occur in connexion with the Pay Corps. If honorable members will peruse the report of the Royal Commission, they will see that it very severely commented upon the work of the Pay Branch. We used to employ temporary employees as pay clerks, but I am sorry to say that the result was most unsatisfactory. We were able to retain the services of those who were not very valuable, and of some who were valuable, but men who came into the branch and after a few months got into the way of the work and became efficient would be on the look-out all the time for a better job outside, and when it offered they would take it. We cannot blame them for that, but the result was that the Department suffered, and we had a fluctuating staff dealing with matters of pay, and there can be no doubt that this resulted in great inefficiency. As a result of that experience, and in order to get a better class of men, and secure stability instead of a fluctuating staff, it was decided to enlist these men for the war. That decision had some surprising results. We have been able to attract to the Pay Corps some very valuable officers. I can give honorable senators an instance of one man who may be regarded as one of the patriots whom Senator Ferricks sneered at, who came to the Pay Corps from a business outside, from which’ he was receiving an income of anything from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. He enlisted in the Pay Corps for the period of the war and twelve months after, and he is receiving the magnificent salary of under £600 per annum. That man cannot go back to his private employment unless the Minister for Defence consents to his doing so, because he has enlisted for the duration of the war. When, some time ago, there were many severe comments made on the Pay Branch in connexion with certain reports issued by the Royal Com- mission, two or three gentlemen offered me their resignations. I would not let them go, because they are very valuable officers. Had they been temporary employees, they could have left the Department whether I wanted them or not. These are men whom we wish to retain, because they are patriotic and render great and valuable service to the country.
– That type of man would remain in the Department.
– The money is not keeping them. What impelled them to feel that they ought to get out of .the Department was that they believed that they were misrepresented, and they felt that their work Avas not appreciated. It was necessary, not that we should have one or two brilliant men, but that we should have a strong staff of pay officers; and the only way in which we could secure them, unless we offered them high rates of pay, which Parliament would not agree to, was to fix fair rates of pay for them, and then “enlist them for the war. Once we did that, they became soldiers. They were enlisted under the Defence Act, and, following the usual practice, we had to put them into uniform; and for the purpose of organization and discipline, they were given rank in accordance with the positions they held.
-Colonel Bolton. - That was contrary to the Defence Act, which provides that men must pass examinations to secure rank.
– -It was not contrary to the Defence Act. We had this power during a time of war. If the honorable senator will look at the Defence Act, lie will find that, in time of war, power is given to the Governor-General to appoint persons to certain duties, and to give them commissions. For instance, a paymaster would be made a major, and those under him graded according to the work they were doing. These men can be dealt with as soldiers for offences and other things. They are not there as civilians, with all the rights and privileges of civilians; and their enlistment was decided upon at a time when an efficient Pay Branch was absolutely essential to the prosecution of the war. Honorable senators will, agree that a great number of the complaints that were made time after time hinged on the question of pay; and if we were to do away with the numerous complaints that were being made in connexion with that particular branch, it was found absolutely essential to strengthen it at all costs. We tried the civilian plan, and the employment of temporary employees, and it was a hideous failure. From the time the Pay Corps was established, I say that it has justified its establishment. I do not say this on my own authority, but because the Royal Commission has stated that the inauguration of the Pay Corps has resulted in a distinct improvement, and to-day the Pay Branch is fairly satisfactory.
– Are these men governed under clause 8 ?
– I am not dealing with clause 8, but with Senator Bolton’s remarks concerning the wearing of military uniforms, and the conferring of military rank on persons who are not soldiers.
The Ordnance Branch is at present in this position : The Royal Commission recommended that an Ordnance Corps should be formed, and that it should be military. The Government ha.ve not adopted that recommendation, but they have referred it to the Business Board for their consideration and advice, and that Board is at present considering the question. When this Bill is passed, the Pay Corps will automatically come under the Business Board. These different branches will all be amalgamated, and the Business Board will have to consider whether it is necessary to retain the Pay Corps, and whether its members shall wear uniform. I can promise Senator Bolton that, as regards the Ordnance Corps, nothing definite on these lines has been decided.
Senator Ferricks dealt with loaned officers, and I am sorry to say that he seemed to be somewhat sarcastic at the expense of certain officers lent by other Departments to the Defence Department, and who, because of the increased work they were called upon to do, and the increased responsibilities laid upon them, have in some cases been given an allowance in addition to the salary they received in the Departments from which they were loaned. The honorable senator quoted from some document, the correctness of which I am not prepared to admit. I dare say that it was sent to him by some gentleman who has remained in one of the other Departments, who has dodged the work and responsibility, and is now annoyed because men who did volunteer to assist the Defence Department in a time of stress and struggle, and have worked seven days a week, whilst he has been free on the Sunday, have received an allowance of £40 or £50 per year more than he receives. Senator Ferricks was not good enough to say where he got his information, but I have no doubt that that kind of gentleman is the source of it. I frankly admit that in many cases officers loaned to the Defence Department by other Departments are given an allowance of as much as £100 per year over their ordinary salary. In some of these cases the officers are temporarily filling the positions of men who have gone to the war, but who before the war were drawing £200 or £300 per year more than those who are now filling their positions. So that, although the Defence Department is giving loaned officers allowances over their ordinary salaries, it is saving money by doing so. I deprecate sneering at these men, who might have remained in their own Departments and had a much easier time than they have had in the Defence Department. I know that many of the officers who have come to us from other Departments have worked seven days of the week, on all holidays as they came round, and for long hours without overtime. In the circumstances the least recompense the country can make to them for doing more work than they would have been called upon to do as officers of other Public Departments is to make them some allowance for their increased work.
I have dealt, I think, with most of the points raised, and I trust that the Bill will now be passed through Committee, and that any further discussion that may arise will be pertinent to the different clauses as they come up for consideration.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Duration of Act).
.- The Minister (Senator Pearce) stated that the Royal Commission appointed by the Government suggested the outline of the Bill now before the Committee, but I think a little unfairness has been shown to the Acting Commissioner in this matter. In the third “progress report, giving the reasons for recommending the Bill, we are told that the Acting Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner stated -
A system of dual control, which is open to grave objection, obtains in some sections of the Department of Defence. In the Central
Administration, and in the Pay and Ordnance Branches of the several States, civil positions are occupied in some instances by officers appointed under the Public Service Act, and in others by appointees under the Defence Act, the discretion resting with the Department as to which Statute is to govern an appointment to a vacancy. The result is that officers in a particular branch, performing duties of a similar character, demanding like qualifications, are working under differing conditions as to salary, promotion, and terms of employment. Such a state of affairs is not only anomalous but exceedingly undesirable from an administrative stand-point.
We all agree with that; but I find that the Acting Commissioner said something more. When speaking on the second reading of the Bill I tried to get his report, which was brought to me, but I did not have an opportunity of reading it just then, so I think it is only fair that now I should read just what he said on this particular matter. He adds -
In my view, officers attached to the branches particularly mentioned in capacities of a civil nature should be appointed under the Public Service Act, but if good and sufficient reasons can be advanced in opposition to that opinion, the remaining course for terminating the present unsatisfactory situation should be followed, viz., to place all positions of the nature referred to under the Defence Act.
If any honorable senator reads the progress report of the Royal Commission, he will come to the ‘conclusion that the Acting Public Service Commissioner advocated the Bill, and that he was also of opinion that appointments should be under the Defence Act and not under the Public Service Act. In fairness to the Acting Commissioner, the latter sentences, giving his views on the subject, should be made known. I shall, therefore, vote against the clause.
.- When speaking on . the second reading I quoted a telegram I had received from an officer of the Public Service; I can now assure the Minister that the officer concerned was under no misapprehension, because’ he referred to this Bill making .the civilian staff subject to the military authority.
– It does not do that.
– Very good. He also referred to transferred civil servants’ rights as forming part of the Constitution. I presume civil servants will be transferred.
– Yes; but their rights will be protected.
– Very good. In another part of his telegram he mentioned that the military authorities had offered him the rank of staff-sergeant, under Order 325, Statutory Rule 165, thus bringing him to the rank and file, after a faultless service of twenty-seven years.
– Obviously, he is referring to something which has nothing to do with this Bill.
– Very well. I will leave the matter at that stage.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses’ 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 - t-. Any public servant employed temporarily in the Department of Defence may, within fourteen days after the …. commencement of his employment in that Department (whichever last happens), notify the Secretary to the Department of Defence in writing that he does not desire to become a person employed in a civil capacity, in connexion with the Defence Force, and thereupon he shall remain subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1917.
– The Minister in his reply a few minutes ago did not touch upon a matter which I have mentioned. I should like to know why it should be optional for any person employed in the Defence Department to come under the operation of this Bill. Why should it not be applied to all alike?
– I point out that those officers who have already been temporarily transferred to the Department had no knowledge that this Bill would be introduced, and that they would be temporarily suspended from the operations of the Public Service Act, so I think it is only right they should have an opportunity of consenting .to come under the Bill. They came over to convenience the Defence Department, and not to convenience themselves, and as unfortunately we shall have to obtain tire loan of other officers from other Departments, it might be a hindrance. A man might be willing, but for the passing of this Bill, so he should have the opportunity of saying if he would come under the operation of the measure or not.
– Did the other officers have an option of refusing ?
– Yes, and we are now giving them the option of saying if they will come under this Bill. They may consider it a disadvantage, but it is fair that those who came over without any knowledge that this Bill would be introduced should now have the opportunity of saying if they consent to come under it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 -
.- I should like a little further information concerning this clause. Are we to understand that persons promoted in the Public Service shall, receive increments from the date of promotion even if they continue under sub-clause 2, because the Minister may refuse an officer the right to go back to his original Department. I shall have no objection to the clause if the Minister can assure me that promotion will operate from the date of gazettal, and that it will carry with it the resultant increase in salary.
– In order to make sure that my interpretation of the clause was correct, I referred to the officer, who advises Ministers in regard to the legal meaning of clauses in our Bills, and he has informed me that such is the intention of this clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 (Upon transfer, &c, officer to become subject to Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-17.)
SenatorFOLL (Queensland) [5.33].- In the case of men transferred from other Departments to the Department of Defence, is it the practice of the Department in the event of returned soldiers being available, to give them preference and send the transferred officers back to their own Departments?
.- That is the usual practice. But a returned soldier is not appointed to an office. He would be a temporary employee of the Department in the same way as any other person appointed under this Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 (Increments to officers appointed under, or subject to, this Act).
– I call the attention of the Minister to this clause, which states that officers shall be treated in the matter of increments as nearly as practicable on equal terms and conditions with officers of similar status in the Public Service. The whole clause deals with “ increments to officers appointed under, or subject to, this Act.” That is the reason why I think a proviso should be added to clause 11 as follows -
Provided that all awards obtained by the Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association under the provisions of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911 shall apply to the members of that Association who are affected by this Bill.
I would not even narrow it down to the membership of that particular Association. I would like the proviso to apply to all organizations within the Public Service which are registered under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911.
The Minister said, in his reply, that those interests would be protected; but I have pointed out the qualifying words, which might put those persons out of court so far as the operations of this measure are concerned. I move -
That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Provided thatall awards obtained by the Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association or other associations under the provisions of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911 shall apply to the members of those associations who are affected by this Act.”
– I trust thatSenator Needham will not press his amendment. We have the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, which provides, in section 2- - “ The Public Service of the Commonwealth “ includes the Public Service of the Northern Territory . . . and the Service of any public institution or authority of the Commonwealth. . . .
And surely the Defence Department is an authority of the Commonwealth, if it is argued that it is not part of the Public Service. The section continues - and includes all persons employed in any such Service in any capacity, whether permanently or temporarily, and whether under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1002-1909 or not, but does not include persons employed in the Naval or Military Forces only.
That is the only exception. That is to say, soldiers and sailors. And with that exception, everybody employed by the Commonwealth Government– not necessarily under the Public Service Act, but under any authority - will come under this Act. Therefore, why should we insert this amendment in the Bill, seeing that it is entirely unnecessary?
– I moved my amendment to secure a definite statement from the Minister. His quotation and . his comment upon it now assure me that the procedure which I had desired to incorporate is already covered. That being so, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 (Allowance to officers performing higher duties).
.- What method of procedure is adopted with respect to allowances ? Are they on a credit basis, or do they depend principally on the recommendation of the officer in charge of the branch concerned ?
– In fixing allowances, regard has been had to such cases, for example, as where an officer in receipt of £600 per annum, and who is in charge of a particular branch of the Defence Department, has gone to the war, or overseas, on administrative duties. Another officer is loaned to the Defence Department, say, from the Department of the Postmaster-General. He temporarily takes the position, and performs the duties of the departed officer. In the Department from which he has been loaned, he may have been getting £400. Regard is had to the salary affixed to the office whichhe is now temporarily filling. We do not usually give to the temporary officer as much as has been earned by the officer whose place he has taken; but, if the latter was receiving £600, and ‘ the loaned officer was paid £400, there would be a pretty strong claim to bring him up to the neighbourhood of £500. Such recommendations are made to the Minister by the head of the Department, and to that officer by the head of the branch concerned; and he must bring before the Minister whatever may . be said in favour of the claim, or against it, and he must cite instances of what has been done in similar circumstances, and whatwould be done in the same case in the Public Service. There, in the case of a temporary appointment, at the end of six months the officer concerned may secure the difference between his own salary and that attached to the office which he is temporarily filling. We have had regard to that consideration in dealing with such cases as would arise here.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
– I move -
That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 17. Any officer affected by this Act shall; if guilty of any of the offences prescribed as breaches of conduct, disgraceful or improper conduct, &c, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act,upon being charged by the Chief Officer, be tried before a Board which shall consist of an independent chairman, an officer to represent the Department of Defence, and an officer to represent the division in which the charged officer is classified.”
My reason for moving this new clause is that the explanation of the Minister did not satisfy me. I referred to the matter during the second-reading stage,and pointed out the danger of an officer, under the Bill, being summarily, and thus harshly, dealt with. The Minister (Senator Pearce), in his reply, said it was the intention of the Department to draft regulations with a view to meeting those circumstances. We do not know what kind of a tribunal is to be constituted when those regulations are drafted. A very fair body might be appointed. There might be a chance for the officer to have the same method of redress as obtains under the Commonwealth Public Service Act; but there might not be such an opportunity. . Since this legislation is a new departure, surely we should be able, in its initiation, to place within the measure itself what the procedure should be, and not leave the whole subject to regulation. My proposed new clause will place in the Bill practically the same machinery as exists under the Public Service Act. When any man commits a fault wo should see that the tribunal to deal with his case is absolutely impartial. That is why I have stressed the phrase, “independent chairman.” I do not know the gentlemen who constitute the Business Board, and upon whose recommendations thisBill has been drafted. They may be, and, no doubt, are very worthy men; but, at the same time, there might be some unconscious bias if the person occupying the chair upon an appeal Board had anything to do with the Business Board. My clause provides^ for a representative of the Business Board,’ a representative of the employee concerned, and an independent chairman.
– Who would appoint the independent chairman?
– I would be willing to leave that in the hands of the Government. The appointment could be by arrangement. The representatives of the parties concerned could agree upon a nomination.
– Would it not be as well to include that in the clause ?
– It might be strengthened by that, but I am anxious that no officer under this Act shall be summarily dealt with, and that the machinery under the Commonwealth Public Service Act shall be brought to bear so that an independent chairman shall be provided. That would relieve the Minister and the Department of much responsibility, and would guarantee that the charged officer would receive a fair trial.
– I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. As I have already pointed out, after this Bill becomes an Act we shall have to frame regulations to meet quite a number of things in connexion with. it. Those regulations will require to be laid on the table of Parliament, and it will th en be competent for any honorable senator to give notice of motion to disallow them. Under our Standing Orders it is not within the power of the Government to block that course being taken. Such a motion must take precedence over all business, including Government business. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Senate has no power over the regulations. That .being so, I ask the Committee to await the tabling of the regulations by the Government. I cannot accept the proposal of Senator Needham, but I hold myself free to con sider any recommendation which may be made in the future. In the circumstances I hope the honorable senator will withdraw his proposal.
Proposed new clause negatived.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
page 5489
Debate resumed from 17th May (vide page 4829), on motion by Senator Millen -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– When I was interrupted in my remarks upon this Bill about a fortnight ago I was endeavouring to impress upon the Senate that provision already existed for doing everything which this measure aims at doing, and for doing it in a much more effective way. If the Government and Parliament seriously tackle this question of the redemption of our war loan securities in a business-like manner, they will be speedily brought to a realization of what Australia is already up against,, and what she will be up against in the immediate future. Recently we have heard a great deal of preaching about economy, and the necessity which exists for applying the pruning, knife to our Government Departments. But here is an opportunity for the Ministry to show that they realize to the full the serious nature of the proposition with which we are confronted. It will be within the memory of honorable senators that under this Bill it is proposed to take up to lj per cent, per year out of the total war loans floated in Australia, which, according to Senator Millen, now amount to about £150,000,000. Now 3 per cent, per month is equivalent to lj per’ cent, for the year. It follows, therefore, that upon £150,000,000 we should, under this Bill, raise only £2,500-000 for the repurchase of war loan securities. The measure provides that when these securities have been repurchased out of war loan funds, they shall be cancelled. Fancy the Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer (Mr. Watt) getting hold of one of these repurchased securities, and solemnly cancelling it, whilst exclaiming “Thank God, that is settled!” That is what Mr. Micawber used to say. I repeat that the Government will repurchase these securities with war loan moneys. Now there is nothing sound about that proposal. If the Government mean business, there is a much more effective way of accomplishing something useful in the direction they desire. It would be a fine advertisement for Australia if we were to set about tackling this great financial problem at the earliest opportunity. It might well be claimed, then, that the Commonwealth was leading the world in that matter.
It used to be said that the Australian Democracy led the world. But I fear we must forgo that proud claim since the outbreak of the present war. Here, however, is an excellent opportunity for us to lead the world in regard to the redemption of our war loan indebtedness. Upon the termination of the present struggle we may reasonably expect a great influx of population to our shore3. Nothing would advertise lis to better effect than would the fact that we were already starting in a practical way to extinguish our war loan responsibilities. But the Bill does not aim at doing anything of the kind. One might almost liken it to hell itself, because out of hell there can come jio redemption, and certainly out of this Bill can. come no redemption.
Let us for a moment review the alternative to which I have referred. According to Knibbs. on the 31st December, 1916, the public debt of Australia was £140,000,000. Assuming that we took a half per cent, of that sum and funded it, we should have £700,000. On the 31st December, 1917, the public debt of Australia stood at £200,000,000. A half per cent, upon that would represent £1,000,000. According to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt), our public indebtedness at present stands at £309,000,000, and by the end of the -year it is not unreasonable to assume that it will total £350,000,000. A half per cent, upon that amount would represent £1,750,000. These three sums added together will amount, approximately, to £3,500,000, or about £1,000,000 more than we can hope to provide under the operation of this Bill. A half per cent. upon the accumulated war loans of Australia will yield only £2,250,000, whereas, under the existing law, we can raise a sum of £1,000,000 in excess of that. Consequently, I say that the policy which is laid down in this Bill is unsound and unsafe. Its effect will be to encourage market fluctuations. The Government will not know who are selling war bonds, and yet they will be buying them. If they were purchasing those bonds out of any other fund, they would be achieving something useful. But they will be borrowing the money with which to buy up these securities. That is an unsound policy to adopt, and there is nothing more calculated to render unstable the financial position of Australia. It is often claimed that we ought not to tackle our responsibilities in connexion with our national indebtedness - that we should leave them to posterity, because posterity has so much to gain from what civilization has done for it. That may be all very well in regard to expenditure upon national works-
– There are some persons who think we ought to leave the fighting to posterity, too.
– If I were the honorable senator, and did not believe that, I would hie myself to England, where men will now be accepted for military service up to fifty-five years of age.
– I will go tomorrow if the honorable senator will go with me, and I am probably fifteen years his senior.
– They are not accepting men in England up to fifty-five years of age yet.
– Yes.
– That is a very cowardly suggestion to come from a young man.
– It seems to hit home in the case of the honorable senator. Posterity should certainly not have to pay the piper in regard to this war, seeing that it cannot be blamed for having brought about the conflict.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to Senator Pratten and Senator Fairbairn talking upon matters incidental to this question, and I ask either of them whether he will justify what the Government are proposing to do in this Bill ? I feel sure that neither of them will do so. I know that our Standing Orders preclude me from mentioning the exact way in which the desirable object that the Government have in view may be achieved. But the existing law already provides every means that is necessary for the effective redeeming of our war bonds. In most of the States, provision is made for the redemption of their debts by means of a sinking fund. A similar law is in operation, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. The position, therefore, appears to be that Australia needs only to make a genuine commencement in this connexion. If she does not do so, the existing legislation will have been in vain, and the proposal embodied in this Bill will also have been in vain. I have already pointed out that a fund of quite £1,000,000 more than can be raised under this measure either already exists or will exist in the near future, because the Act relating to the establishment of a sinking fund, which was passed by this Parlia.ment, dates from the 1st July, 1916. Since the passage of that measure £3,500,000 has been made available out of the Consolidated Revenue, which is the proper medium from which to provide for redemptions. This Bill is unsound and unsafe, and nothing is more calculated to bring about a rush or financial crisis. There was one in Queensland recently, where people, for party or political purposes, did not scruple to attempt to create a financial scare. At the time of the recent State elections the report was put about that if the Ryan Government was returned to power the money in the State Savings Bank would not be safe, with the result that a kind of run set in on that bank. People tried to draw their money from there in order to take it to the Commonwealth. Bank. Only a few years ago they were withdrawing their money from the Commonwealth Bank to put it into the State Bank.
– When?
– When the Fisher Government were in power numbers of people put money into the State Savings Banks in Queensland because they were being administered by a Liberal Government. People who spread reports of the kind I have mentioned sometimes do not realize the harm they may do. In Queensland the report was put about on the quiet that it would be better to take money out of the State Savings Bank and put it in the Commonwealth Bank, and a run on the State institution nearly resulted.
– That crowd, is fit for anything.
– It was practically all working people who withdrew their money.
– Naturally, as they are always the first to be stampeded. One employer was boasting in the train that he had told his people that if they wanted their money kept in an institution that was not being used for State enterprises they had better take it to the Commonwealth Bank.
The Minister did not give us much information about this Bill in his second-reading speech. He did not say what was to be gained’ by it. I have pointed out that, under the existing law, loan securities can be redeemed from the Consolidated Revenue. Will the Minister tell the Senate why that policy has not been followed? It seems quite a joke to buy these securities out of our loan funds. I can quite imagine the position that the Government will be in if, sooner or later, they do not attempt to face the situation. I trust Senator McDougall will push this question to a division. If. he does, I shall vote against the Bill. I agree with him that the measure is unnecessary and unwarranted, as he said in his second-reading speech, and no sound argument has been advanced in support of it.
– One ‘point that Senator Ferricks missed is that the Government cannot go far wrong in buying their own securities at the present time, because they can buy £100 worth of war bonds for £100, and on the 15th of this month the halfyear’s interest is payable. That will be £2 5s., so that, practically, the Government will be getting £102 5s. for the £100. It is merely a matter of calculation to find how much the Government would have to borrow to pay off the whole of Australia’s loans. The Bill seems to contemplate that these loans may fall heavily on the market. We hope not, because Australia’s credit is beyond reproach; but such a thing is possible. If it does happen, the Government can come in, so long as we have patriotic people who will lend money as they have done lately, with their eyes open, giving £100 for every £100 bond issued by the Government. If that policy can be continued, and our bonds fall to £50, it will only require a certain amount of borrowing to pay off the whole of Australia’s indebtedness, and leave us absolutely free. That would be a capital financial transaction in one way, but it is rather reducing the matter to an absurdity. Still, I do not see that this method of keeping Government securities at about par can do any harm.
– I contend that it should be done from a sinking fund.
– That is a different question, and one that will have to be faced. So long as we are going on borrowing, it is too soon to contemplate the establishment of a sinking fund. I understand that we have at present a sinking fund of1/2 per cent., but we will have to leave that big question until we find out what the total amount of’ our indebtedness is likely to be. When we know that, we shall have to face the question of establishing a proper sinking fund. My experience of sinking funds in the past is that the money is first paid into a trust fund, and then the Government become hard up and take the sinking fund over again. I have always advocated that the fund should beput in the names of trustees outside the Government, so that the Government would have no power to touch it, because the temptation to a Government to take over money of that sort has always been far too great. If we give the Government the power contemplated by this Bill, it may steady the loans. It is necessary that the credit of Australia should remain at par value, although I am sorry to say it is a little below that at present. It can do no harm to grant the Government this power, “ and it may do good by keeping Government securities right up to the full face value. If they fall below the face value, the Government will be getting an advantage, while if they fall very heavily the Government can make a really good transaction out of it. The Bill, therefore, can be safely passed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In. Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 5492
Imported Shaving: Brushes: Death from Anthrax - Cable Messages from Soldiers Overseas - War Loan Advertisements - Price Fixing: Grocery Trade: Sugar Industry: Colonial Sugar Refining Company - Embargo on Export of Salt - Unforeseen Expenditure.
Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That this Bill be now read a first time.
– In July of last year a man named Hood died in Perth through contracting anthrax from a shaving brush. I wrote to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Jensen), and he replied that he could do nothing in the matter. The man was being shaved in a hairdresser’s saloon in Perth, and shortly afterwards took ill and died. The cause of death was diagnosed as anthrax, and the Customs Department at once instituted a close search in regard to all shaving brushes in Australia, particularly those that had been imported from Japan. They confiscated all the brushes from the particular shipment concerned. The son, Cuthbert Hood, wrote to me on 10th January, 1918, as follows -
My father died in the month of July of last year from human anthrax contracted from the use of a Japanese shaving brush from Japanese shaving brushes which were allowed to come into this country without being inspected. This sort of case has happened before in Queensland in the same way. I am sure there has been neglect in this direction. I believe that if one, or a few, of those brushes had been inspected, my dear father would have been with us now.
Just at this time his family needs him most. From the death of my father, and prompt action on the part of the authorities, I believe that many lives were saved, as these brushes were widely distributed. From cuttings of local papers you will read the full facts of the case, that the whole shipment of brushes were infected, and were all called in; thereby protecting the whole of the community, a protection which my father did not get. Now, if it was not the authorities’ duty to inspect such brushware, who should do it?
I may say at this stage thatI wrote to the Minister for Trade and Customs, and pointed out to him that, even if there were no legal obligation on the . part of the Commonwealth Government to compensate Mrs. Hood, the widow of Hood, because of his death from the contraction of this dangerous anthrax disease, as a matter of grace some compassionate allowance might be made to her. The Minister for Trade and Customs replied, and said that this could not be done. I am reminded by the facts in this case of the old saying about shutting the stable door after the steed is stolen. If this man Hood had not died as the result of contagion from these Japanese brushes, many other persons might have contracted the disease. I urge upon Senator Russell the necessity for reviewing the decision of the Minister for Trade and Customs that no compensation should be paid to Mrs. Hood. “With these remarksI leave that matter to the Minister.
Another matter I wish to bring under notice is connected with the cable service. I have here a letter from a Mr. R. W. Thomson, of 42 Kingston-avenue, Perth. It is dated 18th May, 1918, and deals with the matter of cables despatched by members of the Australian Imperial Force abroad to their parents in Australia. This is the case of a soldier abroad who sent a cable to his father asking for monetary assistance, but which the father did not receive for many days. This is a matter worthy of the attention of the Government. I may say that I have not had a chance to refer this case to the’ Minister for Defence.
– I do not control cables.
– I thought that perhaps if I referred the case to the Minister for Defence he would be able to deal with it. Mr. Thomson’s letter, which is addressed to me, reads as follows : -
Sir, - As one of your constituents, I rise to place in your hands the following particulars, and would request that you take the necessary steps in the Senate to see that promptrepresentations are made, so that our boys on the fighting Front are not deliberately robbed of their cash, and that their parents and other relations are treated as human beings. On 29th April, 1918, a cable- message was delivered at my address at 5.15 p.m., of which the following is a correct copy: -
No. and route: 1 Pacific. Station, date received:. London 18. No. of words 0. C. 10 11 C. F. F. Thompson, Kingstonavenue, Perth, W.A. Cable twenty Commonwealth Bank. Well. Thompson, 456. That money was cabled on Monday morning, 30th last. I decided to apply at the General Post Office, Perth, for information as to date on which the cable was lodged. At 9 a.m., 1st May, I received a notice in writing from the telegraph office, of which the following is a correct copy : - 30th April; 18. Thompson, Kingstonavenue, Perth. Montreal advises re your cable from London C.F., signed Thompson, received by you 29th instant, date lodged is March18. Repeat March 18.
This is signed Evan, Manager of Telephones, Perth.
The writer of this letter goes on to say that he had felt it to be only right to communicate with Senator Pearce, and request a prompt explanation. He says -
The letter was sent on the 2nd inst., but, as he has not considered it necessary to reply to same, it is only fair to our brave sons to take further steps.
At this stage I want, in justice to Senator Pearce, to say that there is another letter in my possession showing that Senator Pearce has -replied to Mr. Thomson’s communication. It is dated 24th May, 1918, and in it I am informed that Senator Pearce did get Mr. Thomson’s communication, and replied in connexion with this series of cables. Mr. Thomson goes on to say in his letter to me -
If it is impossible to have this matter remedied through your representations in the Federal Parliament, then we will have to try the press, and, failing this, on account of the censor, public meetings will be tried, and some very plain speaking might be indulged in.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m.
– The letter indicates that forty-two days elapsed from the date on which the cable was lodged until it was received by Mr. Thomson in Perth. As soon as the father received the message asking him to send £20 he despatched the money; but the point is that his soldier son might have gone into action in any one of those forty-two days and might have met the fate which has overtaken many other soldiers, and been killed, thinking all the time that his parents in Australia had failed to respond to his request for money. If that was the only, case it might not be worth while detaining the Senate, but I have been informed that several similar cases have been reported, and honorable senators must be aware from their reading of the daily press that the statement made in this letter is borne out by many other similar cases. The Defence authorities abroad take the responsibility of sending cables, so far as our soldiers are concerned, and they should take steps to prevent a recurrence of these- unfortunate and lengthy delays.
I now wish to refer to another matter. On the 1st May I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the cost per inch in the newspapers of Australia for advertisements in connexion with the sixth Commonwealth war loan, and the reply I received was that the, price varied from 2s. to £1 5s. per inch - the latter price being claimed in two cases. I followed up my question by asking, on the 23rd May, the names of the two papers which claimed £1 5s. per inch, and was informed that they were the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sydney Baily Telegraph, but that the charges were for special positions, a concession that was not allowed ‘ to other advertisers. That sounds very loyal and patriotic ! Especially so in view of the fact that some of the newspapers were prepared to advertise the sixth war loan at 2s. per inch.
– And picture shows for less.
– Yes ; probably they charged less for picture show advertisements. If that is the kind of patriotism that is bruited abroad, I have not much time for it. But I want to leave that phase of the question now and refer to the business side of these advertisements. I have here two clippings of advertisements from two West Australian papers, neither of which asked £1 5s. per inch. I presume they were paid at the ordinary rates; but I want to show how the Department of the Treasury, which, I presume, was responsible for the advertisement, patronized the two papers. One clipping, which honorable senators may see, is from the West Australian Worker, published in Perth, and with a circulation of 14,000 or 15,000 weekly. That paper received an advertisement about 4 inches in length, while the Boulder Evening Star, which has a circulation of between 3,000 and 4,000 weekly, received an advertisement very much larger than that given to the West Australian Worker. I presume the Department wanted to see the advertisement for thewar loan circulated amongst the greatest number of people, so it seems strange that a very much larger advertisement was given to the paper with a very limited circulation. I should like the Minister, when replying, to give some reason for this preference to the Evening Star in Boulder over the Worker in Perth.
I wish now to refer again briefly tothe death of Mr. Hood. After his death, the Customs Department became vigilant, in the matter of inspecting shaving, brushes, whether they were from Japan, or any other country, and I have no doubt that many valuable lives were saved by this extra vigilance.
– The honorable senator is now discussing a matter which he hasalready dealt with.
– I did refer tr> the matter, Mr. President, and if you are now going to rule me out of order on the ground of tedious repetition, I hope you will be just as observant when other honorable senators come back to a subject, they have already touched upon.
– I do not want torule the honorable senator out of orderbut I understand he discussed the matter fully before the dinner hour adjournment, so it is merely needless repetition for him’, now to make remarks upon that subject unless he has fresh facts to produce.
– If you had permitted me, Mr. President, I would have finished in the time occupied by your remarks. I want to say again that this matter is one which the Government might well take into consideration, with’ a view to granting a compassionate allowance to Mrs. Hood for the death of her husband, as she is left with a family, only one of whom can be of any assistance toher. The Minister for Customs (Mr. Jensen) has said that there is no legal, obligation on the Government to grant any compassionate allowance. I admit there is none, but I hope the Government will review the matter, and see if it i* not possible to give her some assistance. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) made similar representations tothe Minister for Customs, and, I understand, he received the same reply; but I again want to impress on the Government the desirability of giving the matterfurther consideration, so that some assistance may be rendered to the widow.
– During the afternoon sitting I called attention, by way of question, to a. matter that had previously been broached in this Chamber, I think, by SenatorFair.bairn, and I asked the Minister if he had received any verification of a. statement, quoted in the Senate, that 300 grocers had retired, or been forced out _of business, during the last three years in Melbourne and suburbs. I received a reply in the negative, and, in answer to my other question, if the Minister had taken any steps to verify or disprove the assertion, the Minister really repeated the answer given to Senator Fairbairn in reference to insolvencies or assignments, though my question did not imply that the only reason was insolvencies or assignments. Although the Minister said Tie had received no verification of the statement, I am aware that the Minister To another place received the names and addresses of 450 grocers.
– “What Minister?
– The Minister dealing’ with this question (Mr. Greene). In response to a request from him to be supplied with the names and addresses, he received a letter giving this information with respect to 45Q grocers. I am not blaming the Vice-President of the ^Executive Council (Senator Russell). I do not know whether the question was clear enough, and whether, that was considered verification or not; but it was a very fair attempt :to give it. The Minister is well aware, too, of whence the statement was taken. He knows that it was given before the Commission, which was gathering evidence at the time upon groceries; That report, by the way, makes very interesting reading. It shows that the statements contained therein are amply justified - and that the position of grocers, not only in Melbourne and suburbs, is most pitiable. They find themselves between the upper and the nether millstone. In the one case their prices are fixed for selling - I am not going to complain about that - and, in the other instance, those from whom they must purchase, and who produce articles that amount to nearly onethird of their turnover, have had their prices very materially increased to them, 1 he grocers have approached the Commissioners and the Minister several times with this grievance, and have sought to secure redress. They have received abundance of promises, but up to the present they have obtained very little relief.
The statement is distinctly clear that, in dealing with the grocery trade in the way I have suggested - and I know some- thing about it, for I have spent a considerable part of my life in that trade - those tradespeople are subject to certain overhead charges which cannot be reduced. I refer to charges such as rent of shop and employees’ wages. And, while prices for their articles are fixed, and they cannot raise them without the consent of the Minister, the Wages Boards give an award which increases the amount to be paid to employees, so. adding to overhead charges.
– So the Wages Boards do that every time the price is fixed for a commodity ?
– No ; but since their appeal for relief to the Minister the Wages Board has considerably increased wages in Melbourne; and that has meant a reduction in profits. Senator Long will admit that where business people have an increased cost that is not due to mismanagement, or short-sightedness, or want of business capacity, they should be entitled to some relief, particularly in view of the fact that they have had charges forced upon them.
– Are not the big wholesale people the cause of most of their troubles?
– I shall try and trace where the cause lies.
– Cutting below the fixed price is generally the trouble.
– The Minister ( cannot say that that has been done in the cases to which I have referred. Take two articles - dairy produce and sugar. Those two items include one-third of the turnover of a grocer. It will be clear to honorable senators that if they are losing on one-third of their turnover the grocers are carrying on ,their business along dangerous lines. The only relief so far given is that the Commissioners have asked the grocers to suggest improvements; but the Minister has called attention to the fact that suggestions have not come forward.
Here is a peculiar position. I do not want the Minister (Senator Russell) to feel that I am a carping critic, but I desire to bring forward the facts so as to lead to some definite relief. In Melbourne there are about 1,500 grocers. The Minister responsible has the names of 450 who, during the past two years and the four months of this year, have gone out of business or have been forced out.
That is a very large proportion of those engaged. Then the Minister should remember that on dairy produce and sugar the grocers are selling very much below overhead charges. In the list of overhead charges there is not one item that can be questioned. When the war broke out the profits on sugar were nearly 6 per cent, greater than they are to-day. The price has been fixed by the Government, so that it cannot be increased to the customer; but how about the price on the other side, and what of the effect on those who have produced the sugar? The cost of milling sugar to-day shows some items that have never crept into the cost previously. I quote a statement which shows : - “ The gross proceeds received for the refined products of 1 ton of raw sugar, melted, averages £27 12s. Id.; less discounts on sales, which average 19s. lid.” The discounts on sales are these: Unless a person buys £200 worth of sugar and pays within ten days of the month succeeding he gets no discount at all; but if he goes over that time he must pay 8 per cent, interest. So where the discount comes in is a puzzle to me. I am assured that in Melbourne there is only one grocer, who is a merchant as well as a grocer, who is able to take advantage of those discounts.
– Where the honorable senator said £200, he should have quoted £2,000.
– Then the Minister must correct the Commission’s report.
– The report says £2,000.
– On page 97, the. Minister will see that accounts are due strictly thirty days after the average date of the deliveries during the month, and discount is allowed as follows: - When the amount of the calendar month’s account is under £200, 2£ per cent. ; when it is £200 and under £500, 3 per cent., and so on. But the full amount is £1,000 and over, and then the discount is 4 per cent. A grocer’s account for the month would not be £200; so, then, he can only take advantage - if he pays within a calendar month - of the 2£ per cent, discount.
The statement I have quoted shows that the net amount received is not £29 5s., but £26 12s. 2d. The raw sugar is purchased at 94 N.T.. but averages 96.22 NT., which, at £1S per ton for 94 NT., equals £18 Ss. lid. To this must be added the shipping charges, freight on the raw sugar, harbor dues, exchange, insurance, sacks, landing and wharfage - £1 13s. lOd. Then come refining charges, Colonial Sugar Refining Company, £1 15s. 2d. ; selling charges, Colonial Sugar Refining Company, 7s.; payment for services of Colonial Sugar Refining Company, £1; making a total of £23 4s. lid.
– Who is responsible , for that statement?
– The Minister in charge of price fixing (Mr. Greene). That is a contract price that he is giving.
Honorable senators who listened to a speech delivered last session in this Chamber by Senator Ferricks will recall that he gave a very closely reasoned and exhaustive disquisition on this same question, and pointed out that the refinery charges as given here, namely, £1 15s. 2d., are very largely in excess of anything that is paid similarly in America.
– There they have coloured labour.
– Then we are to put it all down to labour. But it must also be borne in mind that that amount of £1 15s. 2d. is for refining only. That is in excess of the amount that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company received for refining prior to the Avar. It will be interesting to know how far that affects the profits that they have made - the revealed profits - because there are many profits which appear only on paper. But we have only to take the ‘capitalization of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and the reserves which have been capitalized, together with the amounts which have been paid by way of bonuses for the purchase of debentures, and which really increase the number of shares that bear profits, in order to ascertain the position. We find that this is where the leakage occurs, and that, whereas the grower is not receiving proportionately as much for his cane to-day as he did prior to the war, the grocers are receiving less by about 6 per cent, for selling sugar, whilst the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is receiving very much more for refining it.
– Has the honorable senator compared the price of sugar and butter in New Zealand with the prices of those commodities in ‘ Australia ?
– I have not had time to do so.
– Sugar in New Zealand is £3 per ton cheaper than it is in Australia.
– That is Fijian “black” sugar.
– I thank the Minister for his interjection. I shall refer presently to the profits which are made by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company in Fiji. Speaking in the Senate on the 4th November, 1915, I learn from Hansard No. 60 that Senator Ferricks said -
I find that in March, 1908, the company- referring to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company - made a net profit of £134,782; it paid a dividend of £124,037, and carried to reserve £10,475, making the total reserve £364,961. At the next half-yearly meeting the profits were shown to be £146,493, the dividends paid totalled £124,885, the amount carried to reserve was £21,608, and the reserve then totalled £386,369. At that date £350,000 of the reserve was capitalized.
At that point ex-Senator Lt. -Colonel Sir
Albert Gould interjected -
What is the capital of the company! to which Senator Ferricks replied - lt is £3,250,000, but it was not that amount then.
The honorable senator went on to say that for the half-year ended March, 1909, the net profit was £162,632; for the halfyear ended September, 1909, it was £168,881 ; for the half-year ended March, 1910, it was £175,590; and for the halfyear ended September, 1910, it was £196,714, while the dividend paid -at each of those half-yearly meetings was £142,500. In September, 1910, the reserve reached £170,186, of which amount £150,000 was capitalized. In 1908, £350,000 had been capitalized, and in September, 1910, a further sum of £150,000 was treated in- the same way. In the succeeding five half-years the net profits were £207,428, £210,803, £225,601, £229,629, and £233,530 respectively, while the dividends paid in those periods were £150,000, £165,000, £187,500, £187,500, and £187,500. The amounts carried to the reserve in those half-years were £57,428, £45,830, £38,101, £42,129, and £46,030. At the half-yearly meeting in March, 1913, the reserve had again reached £250,000. At the half-yearly meeting held in September of that year the net profit was £255,400, the dividend amounted to £203,125, representing 12J per cent., and the amount carried to reserve was £52,019.. I have here a cutting from the Argus newspaper, which contains some very interesting figures in regard to the same company. Speaking of the crop of 1917, the chairman said -
They had produced a good deal more sugar than was required by the Commonwealth, and the surplus would have been much greater had not the strike caused some of the mills to cease work. This had also brought about delay in shipping sugar, which had led to heavy losses when the flood occurred at Mackay. . . . With regard to various proposals regarding Government control of business after the war, it would be a grievous mistake to pursue such a policy. The directors were strongly of opinion, after three years of such interference with the course of trade, that the sooner trade reverted to ordinary channels the better it would be for all concerned, especially the public.
The writer then goes on to say -
We are indebted to the Argus for the above report and for the following balance-sheet figures : -
For the six months ended 31st March the earnings of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited were £142,640 (including dividend on shares in the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Fiji and New Zealand), against £145,758 for the corresponding term in 1917. Dividend at the rate of 6) per cent, absorbs £105,625, and the balance of £37,015 is added to the sum at credit of profit and loss, raising same to £130,879. A comparison is given below of the last three balance-sheets.
I wish only to quote the figures in respect of the year 1916 as against those for the year 1918. The capital involved in each case was £3,250,000. The reserve in 1916 was £200,000, whereas in 1918 it was £300,000- an- increase of £100,000. In 1916 the replacement fund amounted to £578,974, whereas in 1918 it was £798,364. In 1916 the employees’ fund, which I presume was an insurance fund, amounted to £246,868, and in 1918 it totalled £287,473. In- 1916 sundry creditors represented £1,427,910, and in 1918 they represented £1,299,698. In 1916 the suspense account stood at £989,769, and in 1918 at £1,406,760. In 1916 profit and loss account stood at £191,099, and in 1918 at £236,501. Then follows the estimated values in regard to refineries, working account, stocks of sugar, &c. Alongside these figures I wish now to place those relating to the Fijian accounts. For the twelve months ended 31st March the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (Fiji and New Zealand) Limited showed a net profit of £338,147, as compared with £340,200 for the previous term. A dividend of 6 per cent, absorbed £210,000; to dividend reserve fund £100,000 was transferred, and a balance of £28,147 was added to the credit of profit and loss account, making the same £84,678. In March, 1916, preference shares ‘ represented £3,250,000, and in 1918 they stood at the same amount. In 1916 ordinary shares stood at £250,000, and in 1918 they represented the same amount. The renewal of depreciation fund, which would correspond to the replacement account, stood at £100,000 in 1916, and at £270,022 in 1918, an increase ot £170,000. In 1916 sundry creditors represented £24,642, and in 1918 they represented £35,269. In 1916 the suspense account was £103,000, and in 1918 it was £318,000. In 1916 the profit and loss account stood at £231,330, and in 1918 it represented £289,678.
Here we have the position plainly set out in figures which cannot be questioned. They show that, on the one hand, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company has been making larger profits, paying larger dividends, laying up larger reserves, and larger replacement funds, capitalizing their profits to an enormous extent, while the grocers, to whom they are really indebted, because they could not make those immense profits but for- the services of the grocers, have seen their profits reduced tremendously. The report shows that of 69 grocers examined by the Commission very few were really paying their expenses, and many were running their businesses at a loss. I was told the other day of one man who had sent two sons to the Front. Before his sons left he was able to carry on his business fairly well. The sons had great business aptitude, and he felt their loss severely, so much so that during the two years they have been away from the business he has made a loss of £1,000. That is the sacrifice he has made to the Empire, in addition to giving his sons. I would like the Minister to go carefully into this question, because it concerns a large number of business men in all the States.
A leading grocer in Adelaide writes me -as follows: - 1 am unable to state the number of grocers who have gone out of business, or who have made assignments; but I do know that a fairly large number have done so, and, further, there are many employers - some of the best - who to-day would get out of the grocery business if they could find buyers; not because they have made a competency, but simply because of the intolerable position forced upon them by unprofitable fixed prices.
The writer makes the following comparisons of Adelaide prices: - June, 1913 (pre-war) : Sugar, wholesale, £23 10s. per ton; retail, 3d. per lb., or 2s. 9d. per dozen lbs. About half was sold in halfdozen or dozen lots, equal to £26 16s. 8d. per ton, showing a gross profit of £3 6s. 8d., or 14.3 per cent, on cost, exclusive of discount. The cost of paper bags was then 3d. per lb., and assistant’s wages were £2 8s. per week. May, 1918 : Sugar, wholesale, £29 15s. 6d.; retail fixed price, 3Jd. per lb., equal to £32 13s. 4d. per ton, showing a gross profit of £2 17s. 10d., equal to 10 per cent, on cost, exclusive of discount. Paper bags to-day cost 10 Jd. per lb., and wages have advanced to £3 ls. Paper bags bought in Melbourne, the writer says, are quoted locally at 8Jd. per lb., so that, comparing Melbourne with Adelaide, the Adelaide grocers are suffering a greater loss because of the 8s. increase in cost, which equals lj per cent., the selling price being the same in both cities. He adds that paper bags used in Melbourne are quoted at 35s. per cwt;., but in Adelaide the quotation is 79s. 4d. Wages in Melbourne are £3 per week, and Melbourne overhead expenses are practically the same.
– It is a wonder those Adelaide grocers do not come to Melbourne to buy their bags if there is such an enormous difference. They must be bad business men.
– With the present price of sugar it would pay them better to remain at home.
– Any man who pays 79s. for bags when he could get them for 35s. in a neighbouring State is not likely to make a success of business.
– On the 12th February, 1918, the Minister who has just made that interjection received ‘the following statement from Mr. Williams, secretary of the Grocers Association: -
In reply to your request for information as to relative profit on sugar before the war and at present, I have to submit the following figures taken from my president’s books: - July, 1914, wholesale, £21 2s. 6d., less 2) per cent., equals £20 12s. net. Retail, 1 lb., 3d.; 2 Iba., aid-; 3 lbs., 8$d.; 4 lbs., lid.; 6 lbs., ls. 4d.; and 12 lbs., 2s. 7$d. His proportion of sales was - 35 12-lb. bags (420 lbs.), at 2s. Hd. per bag, equals £4 lis. 10d.; 163 6-lb. bags (978 lbs.), at ls. *id., equate £10 17s. 4d.; 105 4-lb. .bags (420 lbs.), at lid., equate £4 16s. 3d.; 140 3-lb. bags (420 lbs.), at 8Jd., equals £4 19s. 2d.;1 and one 2-lb. bag at 5Jd; gross return, £25 5s. Id. per ton. The net cost being £20 12s., the gross profit was £4 18a. Id., or 18.4 per cent.
Present day - wholesale, £29 7s. 6d., less 2i per cent., £28 12b. lOd. Sales of 2,240 lbs. at 3Jd., equal £32 13s. 4d,, leaving a gross profit of £4 0s. 6d., or 12.3 per cent.
The overhead charges of a grocer are acknowledged by the Commission, who have examined many grocers, to equal 20 per cent., so that there is a loss on that turnover of 7.7 per cent. The Minister may argue that the grocer is making this loss up on other things, but that is not so. Take carbonate of soda as an instance. Mr. Bullock, giving evidence before the Commission in November, 1917, said that, whereas previously the cost of carbonate of soda was 12s. 6d. per cwt. i the previous week it was 22s. It was selling at 3d. per lb., or 28s. per cwt., so that honorable senators will see that there was not much profit on it, especially as a great deal of it would have to be weighed out in quarter and half-lb. lots.
In an appendix to their report the Commission give particulars of cost per head of groceries and the proportions of the weekly bill attributable .to groceries. They show that a person earning £3 per week, with an average number in family of 3.28 persons, pays a weekly bill for food of £1 ls. 9£d., while a person earning £A per week, with an average of 3.30 persons in family, pays £1 Ils., so that the higher the salary the less the proportionate increase in the cost of food. In a special table setting out the proportions of the weekly bill attributable to groceries the Commission shows that to those with incomes of £3 per week the grocer’s bill represents 24.154 per cent, of the total weekly expenditure, whereas for a person with an income of £4 per week it represents 19.141 per cent. Another table is given showing the annual cost per head of certain foodstuffs. Potatoes, flour, bread, rice, sago and tapioca, oatmeal, sugar, jam, butter, cheese, tea and coffee showed in 1914 an annual cost per head of £6 18s. 9.94d., and in 1917 of £8 13s. 10.16d. Of these sugar represented in 1914 £1 3s..9.45d., and in 1917 £1 10s. 7.85d. Butter represented £1 12s. 8.80d. in 1914, and £2 5s. in 1917. In 1917, therefore, sugar and butter represented nearly £4 out of a total annual cost of £8 ,13s. lOd. The Minister may think that to raise the price of sugar by a farthing per lb. will not make much difference, but I have shown that the in-* crease falls heaviest on the poor man, anet all the time the Government are overlooking the enormous profits made by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. They are making 12^ per cent, and capitalizing their profits, while the grocer, who is a useful man to us, is being squeezed out of business. When a man has spent twenty-five years of his life in a business of that kind, it is not an easy thing for him to get a living in some other way.
It must be borne in mind that these conditions are brought about by circumstances over which the grocers have no control. One might bear with what has taken place if the matter had not been represented to the Government, and they had not been approached again and again to look into the position of the grocers, and find some remedy for their difficulties. But they have had to contend against these difficulties now for years. The position with regard to butter was brought before the Minister again and again. He must know that those who are retailing butter to-day are not making any profit on it. But they have to do it. No grocer could carry on his .business without retailing butter.
– Does the honorable senator really know what the grocer* make on butter?
– I do. I know that what they have to do now is to sell an inferior article at a price that gives them no profit for selling it. Is the Minister prepared to tell honorable senators tonight that grocers are making a living wage out of the sale of butter?
– The honorable senator’s contention is that they are not. I want the facts.
– The Minister can get the facts from the evidence given before the Inter-State Commission.
– Can the honorable senator quote from the report of the Commission his statement that they recommend 20 per cent, for overhead charges?!
– I can refer the Minister to that part of the report of the Commission in which they say distinctly that they find that 20 per cent, is claimed for overhead charges.
– They are generally stated .by the smaller grocers at 17 per cent.
– The smaller grocer is the man who has not to pay wages. He carries on his business by himself, and usually lives on the premises in which he carries on business.
– Surely the big grocers are not those who have gone out of business?
– The big grocers are largely affected; but the man with one establishment i3 most seriously affected. The mau with more than one shop, who buys largely, and lives on discounts, is in a better position than is the man who carries on his business, as many have to do in the country, without the benefit of discounts. Let us consider what the overhead charges are. I find that the percentage of overhead charge on sales to the value of £100 is placed at 19.45. That is as nearly as possible 20 per cent. That was the evidence tendered to the InterState Commission.
– The honorable senator said that the Commission recommended that the overhead charge should be 20 per cent.
– No. What I said was that the Interstate Commission state that, in their examinations, they have found that the overhead charges are fixed approximately at 20 per cent. The Minister will find the following at page 22 of the report: - N
Repeated requests have been made .to manufacturers, who issue a fixed retail price-list for their goods, to omit the retail price from their lists, especially if such lists do not allow the retailer a margin of 20 per cent. The retailers claim a greater freedom in this respect, to enable them to charge more than 20 per cent, on some lines, in order, as they state, to make up the loss on lines that are cut.
Higher up on the same page this statement is made concerning the Retail Grocers Association -
The association meets every fortnight to discuss matters connected with the grocery business, and has made a considerable increase in membership during the last year. It takes an active part in combating the cutting process by some retailers, who sell even below the price fixed by the Chief Prices Commissioner. Cutting prices seems, to be a continual grievance among members of the association, not only now, but in normal times. It has also repeatedly approached the Victorian Prices Commissioner and the -Commonwealth Chief Prices Commissioner with regard to the fixing of prices, and has entered numerous protests against prices being fixed which did not allow the retail grocer a clear margin of 20 per cent.
Let us see what the overhead charges are. I find that they are stated in this way: Salaries for management, including self and such members of family as are employed in business, 4.12 per cent. ; wages, shop assistants, storekeeper, carters, and stablemen, 7.67 per cent.; rent, not including rent of freehold, or portion of premises used as dwelling, 1.51 per cent. ; lighting, .14 per cent.; municipal rates and taxes, not including income tax, .21 per cent:; insurance, fire, employers’ liability, &c., .13 per cent.; horses, fodder, agistment, shoeing, cart and harness repairs, .80 per cent.; stationery, advertising, and postage, .23 per cent. ; telephone, 10 per cent. ; paper bags, packages, paper, and string, .70 per cent. ; bank charges and interest, .10 per cent.; trade expenses, 33 per cent.; bad debts, .51 per cent.; sundry expenses, .19 per cent.; depreciation, .49 per cent.; interest on capital, which a grocer is entitled to earn, 2.34 per cent. That is not a large interest charge. If a man cannot make more than 2.34 per cent, interest on capital invested in the grocery business, it is time for him to take a back seat. 1 have put this matter faithfully before the Minister, and I wish him to look into it. There are a great many per3on3 engaged in the grocery business in and around Melbourne, and many engaged in the business in country districts are also affected. Whatever may be their increased charges in getting the goods to their places of business, they are bound by the fixed prices.
There is one other matter’ to which I wish to refer, and that was dealt with in some questions I asked this afternoon. I refer to the embargo on the export of salt. I asked as my first question -
Is it true that an embargo has been placed on the export of salt from the Commonwealth?
The answer I received to that question was “Yes.” I asked next -
If so, has the Minister instituted inquiries to ascertain what quantity of salt is now in the Commonwealth f
The answer given to that was -
No; but it is known that a marked shortage exists in some of the States.
My third question was -
Will the Minister inform the Senate what amount has been represented to him as being available for use in the Commonwealth?
In reply, I was asked to refer to the answers to the previous questions. I also asked -
What is the tonnage of the probable shortage represented to the Minister?
I was directed for a reply to that to choose between “ Yes “ and “ No,” and There was a marked shortage.” The reply to my third question was -
Such information is not available; but the dairying industry has had difficulty in obtaining proper supplies.
It may be news to the Minister to learn that in South Australia there is one little salt lake which, in ordinary seasons, has a deposit of salt 2 feet thick covering many square miles. It would produce readily as much salt a3 would meet Australian requirements for many years. That is only one of such lakes. The area of salt lakes chiefly exploited on Yorke Peninsula yields a large proportion of salt. They were affected by the wet season wc had - not this year, but last year. I may tell the Minister that where 200 tons of salt were scraped from these lakes the year before last, 2,000 tons have been harvested this year, and yet this is the year when the embargo is placed on the export of salt. An attempt has been made, which, I think, is justifiable, by merchants here to find a market abroad for Australian salt. They have sought and found that market in New Zealand. When they have entered into contracts to supply New Zealand, the Commonwealth Government, without making inquiries as to the amount of salt available in Australia, places an embargo upon its export. Am I to understand that the Government have placed this embargo on the export of salt at the suggestion of. some one?
– There is a salt famine in Sydney.
– Then it is a pity
I hat the Sydney people do not apply to South Australia. On the railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie that the Commonwealth Government have built, there is a salt lake - Lake Hart - which, if they chose to make use of it, would give them a supply of salt, not only sufficient to meet Australian requirements, but to provide also a great deal for export.
– It is not of much use to the consumers to know that.
– It should be of some use to the consumers to know that at Port Augusta, the neck of the Gulf, where the water is not affected so much by the rise and fall of tides, it is so saline that it is a very difficult matter to evaporate it. Very good salt is being made there. There is more salt in Australia to-day than there was twelve months ago. There is in Australia to-day at least 100,000 tons of salt.
– In a marketable condition ?
– Yes. When our people have opened up avenues of trade with New Zealand, and have made contracts to supply salt, the Government impose an embargo, and say that they must not export salt to that Dominion. Is not New Zealand a friendly country? The Government cannot raise the objection that we should be taking our ships to export the salt to New Zealand, because New Zealand sends her ships to Australia to get the salt. An embargo is placed upon its export to that Dominion, notwithstanding the fact that New Zealand has contracted to supply butter and cheese to the Imperial Army; and if she cannot get salt, she will be unable to fulfil those contracts.
It is not with any pleasure that 1 voice this complaint, but I cannot remain silent when I know that such a grievance exists. I say that the embargo on the export of salt should be lifted at once. Where did New Zealand obtain her supplies of salt before? She did not obtain them from Australia. It was the war conditions that opened up the New Zealand market to our salt manufacturers, and they might retain it after the war. Previous to the war New Zealand obtained her supplies of salt from a long distance overseas. I cannot believe for a moment that the Minister, knowing the facts of the case, will permit the embargo on the export of salt to remain. The whole of the facts have been laid before the Minister, and it has been clearly demonstrated that a large quantity of salt is marketable in Australia. I hope, therefore, that, not as a result of anything I have said, but as the result of looking into the question carefully, the Minister will see good reason for removing the embargo in order that our trade with New Zealand may be fostered rather than checked, and that contracts that have been entered into may be carried out.
Senator FAIRBAIRN (Victoria) J9.16]. - I am not sure that I understand this measure correctly, and as finance is important, I think we should endeavour to be fully conversant with all Bills bearing on the granting of money. This Bill, J understand, is to pay for services rendered for the financial year ending 30th June, 1916 - nearly two years ago. It appears to me extraordinary that we should now be asked to grant the sum of £622,407 to make up deficiencies in items which were included in the balance-sheet to 30th June of that year. It is an enormous sum ; and what puzzles me is the fact that at the end of the financial year of 1915-16 the Treasurer of the day informed members that there was a credit balance of some particular and fixed sum. It now appears, ‘from this Bill, that his balance- was out to the extent of £622,407. In item 3 in the Prime Minister’s Department, we find that we are asked to vote £1,042 for maintenance of motor cars, which was put down at £1,000.
– I point out that all this money was previously voted under the Treasurer’s Advance Account, and that this Bill is merely an explanation of the expenditure.
– As far as the Prime Minister’s Department is concerned, there are in it thirty-four items, representing £9,059 over and above what was estimated at the time. I wish the Minister would explain the Bill, because no mortal man can understand the measure as it has been presented to the Senate
(“9.17 ]. - Is it the usual practice to specify all items of expenditure in the Estimates ; but certain matters cannot be so provided for, and so the Treasurer’s Advance Account is drawn upon to meet all cases of extraordinary expenditure. Let me quote, as an illustration, the death of General Bridges. That was an event that could not have been foreseen; but the Government were determined to do justice, in the circumstances, and the Treasurer’s Advance Account, which has been established to meet special circumstances like that, was drawn upon. In the Prime Minister’s Department, all items of expenditure that could have been anticipated were included; but the Department grew very rapidly, and it was necessary to make further provision for clerical labour. If we assume that the sum of £500 was necessary, this money, which had been provided by Parliament for the Treasurer’s Advance Account, would be drawn from that source ; and. as the items were not specified, Parliament insists that there shall be an additional Appropriation Bill to cover all such particular items. The point is: the money has been voted by Parliament, and has been accounted for ; but Parliament insists that particulars shall be given of the expenditure, and it is done in the form of this Bill.
– Was the £622,407 included in the balance-sheet ending 30th June, 1916?
– Yes.
– Then why are we asked to appropriate a further sum?
– Because none of the items could be specified in the Estimates, the payments being made from the Treasurer’s Advance Account, which is a sum of money that is placed at the disposal of the Treasurer to meet cases of emergency. The Treasurer, in his wisdom, granted the items referred to in the Bill now before the Senate, and we are now asked to indorse his action.
– Then this really makes no difference to the national balance-sheet ?
– No. One of the Appropriation Bills was, unfortunately, delayed through an oversight, and so it is late. But the other is up to its usual time. The whole of the money has been accounted for, and this Bill is really the rendering to Parliament of a full statement as to the manner in which it has been disbursed.
In regard to the statement made by Senator Needham in relation to the death of Mr. Hood, I can only, say that we all sympathize with the widow in her unfortunate position; but I am not sure that the Department can accept responsibility in cases where people suffer through the purchase of articles publicly. If we admitted that principle, I do not know where it would end. However, as the matter is under the control of the Minister for Customs (Mr. Jensen), I will again refer it to him., and ask for his sympathetic consideration, although I emphasize that it would be dangerous for the Commonwealth to admit the principle of responsibility for the death of any person in the circumstances mentioned.
I will draw the attention of the Treasury to the expenditure in connexion with the Commonwealth War Loan advertisements in the Western Australian newspapers, referred to by Senator Needham, and I have no doubt that the officials will be able to more than justify their action.
In regard to the cable that took fortytwo days to reach Australia, I am afraid it is not a typical case. If it were, I am sure there would be quite a revolution amongst our men at the Front. However, we all regret the mistake, and I will have special inquiries made at the Postal Department as to the cause of the delay.
Referring to the statements made by Senator Senior concerning the poor, starving grocers, I might mention that during the time I was in charge of the Department, covering a period of eighteen months, there had been no previous attempt at price-fixing by the Commonwealth; and I can tell honorable senators that it is the most complicated job that any Minister can face. I am glad to be able to report, however, that, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances of the time, the cost of living in Australia decreased by 3 per cent., although most of the articles concerned were imported, and freights went from £4 10s. to £10 and £12 10s. per ton, while wages in Australia increased by 12 per cent, during the same period. We were not successful in bringing about overwhelming reductions, because all the elements were against a reduction in the cost of production. It, was war-time, and conditions were changing almost from day to day, so that I am not prepared to say that profiteering .did not take place in certain directions; but I do say that the Government are after the profiteers, and will stop profiteering in this country at the earliest possible moment.
– Then stop meat profiteering.
– Let me point out what took place, and let me take baking powder as an illustration.
– Take mustard.
– The bulk of themustard comes from Essex, in England; and, unfortunately, ,the mustard growers- there are fighting for their lives to-day. So far as I know, no grocer has become insolvent or has assigned his estate in Victoria this year; and although 300 went out of business, 1 point out that that number come in and go out of the business every year, and they include cases like that of the unfortunate widow, for whom people out of the goodness of their hearts get together £100 to start her in business, but she is out of it again in six months, because she has had no training and no experience. If we had to fix prices to enable the struggling man with small capital, and without experience, to make a living, we would be charged with profiteering, ourselves, by the smart business man. In the case of matches, also, the blind man selling on the street must get at least 300 per cent, in order to make a living. Outside of butter and sugar, the Prices Commissioner generally manages to allow the grocer a margin of 20 per cent. ; and when we talk about percentages, we must take into consideration the number of times grocery articles are turned over. We admit that the retailers of butter and sugar are not getting sufficient; but both these articles are now under consideration by the Prices’ Commissioner and the Minister in charge of the Department, and I hope that the grievances will be remedied immediately. I believe the margin on butter works out at -about 11 per cent.; but this item is burned over twice a week, so that it amounts to 22 per cent., and in the course of a year it ought to amount to about 1,100 per cent. on. the capital invested. Outside butter and sugar, I do not believe there is an application from the grocers before the Prices Commissioner to-day.
– What about clothing and boots?
– Boots are not grocery, and I am speaking about the grocers’ grievances. As Minister controlling price fixing, I never assumed the right to interfere with Government contracts; and, as I understood the position, the Government took over the Queensland sugar from the State Government, and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was interested only in the question of refining charges ; so that if grocers in the southern States have got less out of the deal, I believe it is mainly because a higher price has been given to the growers in Queensland.
– There is the item of refinery charges, and this allowance of £1, and then the selling charges.
– I take personal responsibility for over forty lines in which the prices were fixed, and I defy any honorable senator to bring forward figures to show that the prices which I fixed amounted to an injustice. With respect to sugar, I had no control. As to butter, I admit being guilty, because we accepted the usual trade practice prior to fixing. I say to honorable senators, do not tell me of a grievance. Give me the definite evidence.
Now I turn to the figures quoted by Senator Senior. The honorable senator was wrong about the discounts. I hold no brief for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but the discounts referred to were up to the amount of £2,000, and traders must turn over that sum every month for six months before securing full discounts. The report says, “ The only exception to the general rule in the lastmentioned year “ was the firm of Messrs. Moran and Cato. Senator Senior referred distinctly to one grocer. According to the report, that firm was allowed to receive the maximum rate of discount. The manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Mr. H. H. Symonds, stated in the course of a letter to the Commission -
Messrs. Moran and Cato were allowed to continue to receive the maximum rate of discount, as it seemed only just, in view of the fact that their ownbona fide purchases largely exceeded the nominal minimum of £2,000 per month, and it did not clash with any other individual firm.
– Now turn to the appendices. You will find there the figures that I have quoted.
– I desire to refer briefly now to the reason for grocers going out of business. The report states -
It is a matter of common observation that in very many parts of the city of Melbourne and suburbs a number of grocers’ and dairy produce shops exist within a small radius. Most of these shops are on a small scale. Most of them are endeavouring to cut into each other’s business with a limited number of clients. It is stated that a considerable number - not less than 200 to 300 grocers - go in and out of business every year, as they cannot make the business pay.
Surely prices cannot be fixed for a man with, say. sixty or seventy to a hundred customers. It is a common thing to see two grocers established on opposite corners of a street, cutting into each other for all they are worth. Let honorable senators go to Chapel-street, Prahran, and look in the shop windows, and take pricelists with them. They will see the competing tradespeople cutting into each other on many items. Let me take another quotation from the report -
While these are undoubtedly representative of a large number of small grocers, and they amply demonstrate the absurd waste of unrumunerated effort and capital, the Commission is satisfied from further investigation that well-conducted grocery businesses on a larger scale generally pay well.
The small man, with little or no capital, and who cannot buy, has no chance of competing against shops purchasing on a large scale. The discounts to-day undoubtedly favour the larger firms, but we have effectively dealt with them on many lines, and I trust that these discounts may be made available more fairly to the smaller men.
– Mention one line of groceries where discounts make up for the loss on sugar.
– One firm, which is a wholesale and retail house, gets 6 per cent, discount, and that is because it turns over £2,000 per month. But, personally, I am in favour of giving the benefit of the discounts to the small grocer on the same scale as to the large man. I have worked closely in association with the Prices Commissioner. He is a most capable man, a trained accountant, and a trained orator - one who is desirous of receiving the fullest information direct from individuals. But men sometimes, before putting a business-like application before the Commissioner, write abusive letters, because they are against the principle of price fixing. Members of Parliament have complained of the actions of the Commissioner, and when I have asked whether there has been an application upon the line in question the answer has been “ No.” The first business of people in such a position is to ascertain what items they are losing on; and, having done that, let them make a proper application to the Commissioner, when they will receive a fair hearing and the fullest possible assistance.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without request.
Bill read a third time.
page 5505
– In moving -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
I desire to inform honorable senators that there are only four items covered by the measure. Those items are: Federal Capital, towards cost of establishment, £3,379; Flinders. Naval Base, £9,243; Liverpool Manoeuvre Area, £3,012; and Post-office Buildings, New South Wales, £1,33S; making a total under the control of the Department of Home Affairs of £16,972. These items all arise owing to a slight under-estimate having been given for the completion of the works; and the Treasurer, out of the Treasurer’s Advance Account, advanced the money necessary to complete them.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule.
– Several of the votes for these Departments have the appearance of being suspiciously like bookkeeping entries, intended to square accounts. I think some explanation should be given regarding them.
– I desire to direct attention to part 5, division 14, “Under control of the Department of the Navy.” There is a line there- “No. 13, Lighthouse steamers- 3, £11,216.” That is in lieu of “No. 13, Lighthouse steamers - 3, £20,000.” Where do we stand upon that item? Can the Minister give us any information with respect to the “number of lighthouse steamers, where they are situated, and what they are doing? Again, in Division 14, I notice, “ Lightships - two, £1S,191,” in lieu of which we have to read, “ Lightships - two, £10,000.” I wish to know whether we have built two lightships for £10,000, when they were estimated to cost £18,191?
– May I point out to Senator Guthrie that there is nothing to worry about in connexion with this item. 3 When the expenditure upon the construction of vessels for other Departments was estimated, the amount was set down at £33,000. That money has not been spent out of the Treasurer’s Advance, otherwise it would be shown in the second column of the Bill.
– I should like an explanation of the items which appear in Division 12, under the heading of “ Naval Works.” The cost of those works is set down at £672,160.
– There is no expenditure contained in this Bill.
– There is an estimated expenditure of £672,160 for the year 1916, and to balance that there is an actual expenditure during the same year of a similar amount. To my mind, it is extremely unlikely that the actual expenditure on these items exactly totalled the estimated expenditure. The thing looks - suspiciously like an attempt tE balance the accounts for the year.
– This is not an attempt to balance accounts for the year as the honorable senator suggests. The amounts shown in the Bill relate to the Treasurer’s Advance. Nothing has been spent out of that Advance upon these items”. There has been only a slight deviation from the original estimate. In other words, a little more may have been voted, say, in connexion with naval establishments, and a little less on account of Naval Bases.
– Then why are these accounts two years late?
– I gave the reason earlier. It is due to an unfortunate oversight.
, - I understand that the items following the words “ in lieu of “ are those which were placed on the Estimates for 1915-16. Those items include “ Naval Bases,” “ Cockatoo Island Dockyard,” and “ Garden Island, Wireless Telegraphy.” The amount set down in connexion with these works totals £672,160. That was their estimated cost, and we are now asked to believe that the expenditure upon them exactly totalled the same amount.
– Nothing of the kind.
– On Naval Bases, works, and establishments, machinery and plant, we have spent £201,454.
– I am quite aware that the amounts in respect of the various items differ. ButI am suggesting that the total sum looks suspiciously like a bookkeeping entry which is designed to close the accounts for the year.
– I presume that authority was giveu to build these two lightships in 1915-16, and that they have already been constructed. If so, can the Minister inform us what was the actual -cost of their construction ?
– The estimated -cost was £10,000, and the actual cost £18,191. benator RUSSELL (Victoria - Vice- President of the Executive Council) [9.52]. - To avoid confusion, perhaps I had better make a statement. When the estimates for these works were submitted to Parliament, they were rough estimates, and the cost of the works might have been met out of the Treasurer’s Advance. The estimate for the Naval Bases was £200,000. Under that heading, we have expended £194,000, thus effecting a slight saving. That saving may have been utilized in connexion with some other branch of these works. Senator Pratten has suggested that the figures look suspiciously like a bookkeeping entry to close the accounts for the year. Surely the accuracy of the figures will not be questioned. The Auditor-General has investigated them, and he has certified to their correctness.
– Has the money been spent?
– Yes.
– The £18,191 has been expended in building two lightships ? -Senator RUSSELL. - No. I was dealing with Division No. 12. Apparently £18,191 has been expended upon lightships in lieu of £10,000. There has thusbeen an excess expenditure. .
– That amount has been spent upon the construction of steamers ?
– Apparently . Of course, it may have been spent upon the Cockatoo Island Dockyard.
– If the money hasv been diverted to other channels, why is itput down to lightships?
– The chances arethat the two lightships are in course of construction in some part of Australia. ButI am not able to give precise information on that point at the presentmoment.
– I have not received an answer to my question, and consequently I will repeat it. I wish to know if these’ two lightships have . been constructed,, and, if so, what was their actual cost?
– I assume that, asthe figures were supplied by the Treasuryin the usual form, the £18,191 has been, expended. I will, however, make inquiries into the matter, and will betpleased to tell honorable senators the exact stage which has been reached in the construction of these vessels, to-morrow.
. - I wish to direct attention to Division 15, under the heading of “ Northern Territory.” In that division, there appearsan item which reads, “ Compensation on purchase of hotels, £24,799,” in lieu of “ Compensation on purchase of hotels, £27,000.” I have not had an opportunity of visiting the Territory myself, but I have recently had conversations with quite a number of gentlemen whosebusiness constantly takes them there. They have informed me that the hotels in’ the Territory which are at present underthe control of the Commonwealth are a positive disgrace, and that they are not fit for travellers to stay at. Only a little time ago, a letter was written to one of the leading newspapers regarding theircondition. A gentleman informed . me that one of these hotels was in such a bad state of repair that when he wished tovisit the bathroom there was no need” for him to go along the passageas he could walk through the wall.. Although this is somewhat exaggerated,.
It is obvious that they must be in a very bad state indeed. Seeing that there is practically no other accommodation in the Territory, and that a large number of business men have frequently to remain there for a considerable time owing to the shortage of shipping-, will the Government make some effort to put them in a proper state of repair? I have been told on several occasions that the bad quality of the liquor sold there is only exceeded by the bad quality of the accommodation in general. Although I cannot verify those statements here, so many complaints have been made to me from so many different sources that I really think there must be some just cause for complaint.
– Could you not give the source of your information?
– Commercial travellers whose business takes them to the Northern Territory two or three times a year have, without exception, complained to me about the bad state of the hotels. Mr. Wright, a traveller who came down recently, said that the hotels in the Northern Territory were the worst he had seen in any part of the Australian bush. Seeing that the whole of the accommodation there is practically controlled by the Commonwealth Government, it behoves them to see that it is up to the standard, and that the convenience of those who have to use the hotels is considered.
– There are three or four items in the schedule that balance one another - one under the control of the Department of Defence, one under the Navy Department, one in connexion with the Northern Territory-, and the other in the Trade and Customs Department. If all the money voted has been spent, I can quite understand that the allocations of the various items are correct; but, if not. I refuse to believe in the coincidence of three pages of items coming out to the exact pound voted by Parliament. I indorse Senator Foil’s remarks about the control of the liquor traffic in the Northern Territory. I say deliberately that the way the liquor traffic is carried on there under Commonwealth control is a blot on the fair escutcheon of Australia. Very little is known about it down south ; ‘but the accommodation is poor, and the control of the whole of the liquor traffic in Darwin is vile. I understand that they drink there principally beer that is brewed in Mel- “ bourne. Whatever shortages there are in freight accommodation for - other articles to Darwin, they certainly see that a fair supply of beer is kept up. The matter wants looking into. I was in Darwin early in the year. I have been there three or four times, and can say that the liquor traffic there since the Commonwealth Government took control is a disgrace to Australia, and a disgrace to the Department controlling it. I am sorry to have to say that, but I hope the Minister (Senator Russell) will bring it under the attention of the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn).
– What is actually the matter with the liquor control there?
– The Governmentemployees run the hotels, and there is very little control regarding the hours for the sale of liquor, or the sale of liquor itself, or the treatment of drunken men, or any of the half-dozen things that licensed victuallers have to see to for fear of losing their licences. If the Committee that is investigating the question of the influence of alcohol upon soldiers could go to Darwin and make a report on this matter, it would almost make our hair stand on end. If the Commonwealth is going to control the liquor traffic anywhere, it ought to control it respectably. It ought to .provide decent accommodation for travellers, and carry on in the best possible manner, instead of which, things are going from bad to worse, and Darwin is really a blot upon Australia so far as regards the conduct of the liquor traffic.
– What is wrong with the accommodation ?
– The accommodation is not good at all. It seems to me that the only goal for those who manage the liquor traffic in Darwin is to sell as much beer as possible. I believe I am not exaggerating when I say that if. any licensed victualler in Melbourne or Sydney conducted the liquor traffic as it is now being carried on in Darwin by Government servants, he would have his licence indorsed next day, and have ittaken away in a very short time. The complaint voiced by Senator Foll is known to every traveller who has any experience of Darwin.
– The Committee may have treated the remarks of Senator Foll and
Senator Pratten with a certain amount of levity - perhaps I was guilty of that myself - but the charge made by those two honorable senators is well worthy the attention of the .Government. I have always been, and am still, an advocate of State control of the liquor traffic. The Commonwealth launched out in that direction two or three years ago when it took the Northern Territory over from South Australia. If the charges made by Senators Poll and Pratten are correct, there is something wrong; but I would suggest that before they make wild charges in the Senate about Government servants supplying liquor at all hours.-
– I made no charges like that. I complained of the bad accommodation.
- Senator Pratten practically made the charge that Government servants supply drunken men with liquor at all times arid under all conditions.
– I do not think I went quite so far as that.
– That is a charge that the honorable senator should be called on to prove up to the hilt.
– There will be no difficulty in proving what I said.
– The honorable senator should be careful before he launches a charge of that nature, not only against the Government, but against Government employees, who are not here io defend themselves. It has been the custom not to launch charges in this Parliament against Government employees in public Departments, because they cannot defend themselves here. The only chance an officer charged in that way would have to defend himself would be to appear before a tribunal. Senator Pratten launched, a charge not only against the Government as to the conduct of the hotels in the Northern Territory, but against the employees there.
– Necessarily the charge must include them.
– Those employees are not here to defend themselves, and the Minister ought to see that they are given an opportunity to refute the charges levelled against them by Senator Pratten, that they at all times and under all conditions, supply men with liquor, and with inferior liquor at that. . Senator Pratten . - You are now putting words into my mouth.
– I do not need to put words into the honorable senator’s mouth. He has a command of language equal to that of any man in the Senate, and in his own quiet way oan be very effective. He will not deny that he made a charge against Government employees. That being so, I ask him now to prove those charges.
– You ?
– I may “call spirits from the vasty deep,” but it does not follow that they will come. I appeal to the honorable senator’s sense of fair play. Perhaps unconsciously he has levelled the charge against certain employees of the Commonwealth Government, who have no chance to defend themselves.
– Is not every criticismlevelled against a Department a reflection on some employees?
– Not in any sense of the term.
– When a pay officer in the Defence Department is complained of in the Senate, is not that the same thing ?
– Not at all. Honorable senators have raised a very important question, and I am sorry that Senator Thomas was not here. Perhaps he would have taken up the cause of the employees in a much more able manner than I could. I ask Senator Pratten to withdraw his charges against Government employees before the debate closes if he feels that he has unconsciously reflected upon them.
.- If the hotels at Darwin now are bad, it is a good job we have closed some up. This item is for compensation for those we purchased and closed up because they were bad.
– The Government closed only one.
– I am sorry to hear that any one could not get a decent drink or accommodation, and will bring the matter under the notice of the Minister to see if we cannot have the walls papered and the Carlton beer improved.
– I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) whether, now that various places of accommodation in the Northern Territory are being closed up, the Government are providing any sort of temperance accommodation in their stead? I understand that, so far, the hotels have supplied the only accommodation that can be obtained in the Northern Territory.
– I shall be glad to bring the honorable senator’s suggestion under the notice of the Minister responsible.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 5509
Northern Territory: Control of Liquor Traffic - Defence Administration : Recruiting : Arrangements for Reception of Returned Soldiers - Taxation Office, Brisbane: Pay of Temporary Employees - Deceased Soldiers’ Accrued Pay: Deduction for Offences - Race Meetings in Queensland: Tattersall’s Club - Defence Department and Defence Industries : Parliamentary Visit of Inspection.
Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed
That this Bill be now read a first time.
– Is there any necessity to rush Bills through in this way?
– We are taking only the first reading of this Bill to-night.
– -But I understand that that will close the opportunity for debate, a considerable amount of latitude being allowed on the first reading of these Bills. I should like an opportunity to reply to what has been said by Senator Needham .
– The honorable senator can reply to Senator Needham on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.
– I prefer not to do so. On the first reading of an Appropriation Bill there is an opportunity afforded to honorable senators to discuss topics very close to their hearts. If we allow the first reading of this Bill to go now, there are some honorable senators who are not here to-night who might wish to say something in connexion with it.
– There is a Supply Bill coming on.
– I ask the Minister for Defence if he can tell me when it is coming on?
– During this week; before we adjourn.
– I do not wish to block business, but I feel that some reply to the remarks made by Senator Needham is necessary. I have made a deliberate charge, and I repeat it, that the control of the liquor traffic in Port Darwin by the Commonwealth Government and Commonwealth officials is a blot upon the escutcheon of Australia. I think that some investigation of the liquor traffic in the Northern Territory is needed. “ Senator Newland knows something about the business, but I may say that, from information I have received from residents, and from my own personal observation, the liquor traffic in the Northern Territory should be better controlled than it has been up to now.
– What is the Administrator doing?
– I do not know what he is doing, but complaints are general and numerous with regard to this matter, and it certainly deserves the attention of the Government.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to have alluded. One” is in connexion partially with Defence administration. I feel that, in connexion with some of the orders issued from the Defence Department, sufficient consideration is not given to them from the stand-point of recruiting. We have had several illustrations of this. One was the regulation for the recruiting of youths over eighteen and under nineteen years of age without the consent of their parents, which was afterwards modified owing to the pressure of public opinion. We have had, also, the general service enlistment order brought into force, and one or two other proposals which have not appeared to ma to be indicative of, shall I say, a warm sympathy between the military officials at the Victoria Barracks and Democratic Australia.
I was much pained on Saturday, in Sydney, to find that a fine welcome home was arranged by the Minister for Recruiting to about 600 soldiers returning to Sydney from the war, and that, owing again to some misunderstanding, muddle, or worse, the crowds in Sydney were kept waiting about for hours, and, instead of the troops being welcomed according to schedule and programme at 11 o’clock, it was nearer 1 o’clock before the soldiers’ procession went through the streets. Numbers of military officers went down to the wharf and on board the transport in order to take their share in the welcome to the men coming back. Quite half-a-dozen of what some facetious people call “ brass hats “ were amongst them. I do think that, in view of the delay that occurred in Sydney on Saturday last, and one or two delays that have occurred in Melbourne, there should be greater harmony between the military officials who have control of the soldiers and the recruiting officials who prepare a welcome for them on their return.
– Does the honorable senator not think that some work has to be done on board the transports ?
– My honorable and gallant friend asks me whether I do not think some work has to be done on board the transports. No doubt that is so; but I understand that the arrangements are made by the military people themselves.
– Whether it suits the people in charge of the transports or not?
– The military people give the recruiting authorities the time when the troops are to be allowed to land. All the arrangements are made on that basis, and when the day comes, and the welcoming thousands are assembled in the streets in order to take part in the welcome home, they have to wait about, as in the case of the landing in Sydney last Saturday, for one and a-half hours later than the scheduled time, presumably on account of some one’s muddle. It seems to me that, when the military authorities fix the time-table, they should adhere to it. There might be some good and sufficient reason why they do not ; but, in view of what occurred in Sydney last Saturday, and what has occurred more than once in Melbourne, I cannot help thinking there may possibly be some want of sympathy between the permanent military officials and the recruiting authorities.
– No; no!
– I think that is a fair presumption. It is not a small thing to keep thousands and tens of thousands of people waiting in the streets for hours by breaking faith with them as to the time appointed and the arrangements made for the welcoming back of 600 soldiers.
There are other questions to which I should like to refer, but as. the hour is getting late, I shall not deal with them. I thought I should take an early opportunity of bringing this matter under the notice of the Minister for Defence, because I am sure he will see that it is not good for the enthusiasm of our fellow Australians that faith should be broken with them in this manner. The honorable senator must know the feeling of exasperation that arises when people have to stand about in the streets because military arrangements have gone wrong. I hope there will be more collaboration and more harmonious working between the military and recruiting authorities in the future. I am led to make these remarks because some of us have an element of suspicion in our minds that the military authorities do not like too well the new arrangements whereby troops are given a welcome home. We all remember the time when they were sent away across the sea, some of them in the middle of the night or in the grey dawn of morning. I am glad to see that a greater amount of the milk of human kindness is now displayed towards our troops, both when going away and when returning home, now that we have a recruiting organization. I hope that the military will not be allowed, in future, to spoil the arrangements, and interfere with time-tables and demonstrations that, I understand, are arranged in accordance with times fixed by themselves.
– I think it is due to me that I should reply in a few words to the insinuation and suspicions thrown out by Senator Pratten, and his apparent attempt to throw discredit on the military organization, and put everything of which he complains down to their fault. We are invited to assume that the honorable senator is himself very anxious to assist recruiting, but that the military authorities are in some way hostile, and that all these delays are due to them. The constant repetition by the honorable senator of the term “military authorities “ in this connexion is grossly unf air. If he possessed the knowledge that he poses as possessing, he would know it to be unfair. He poses here as a business man, who knows everything about business arrangements. If he knew anything about this business he would know, first of all, that the military authorities have no control over shipping. That is the first lesson in the A B C which the honorable senator has yet to learn. Apparently, although he has been a member of the Senate for some months, he has not yet learned that shipping is under the control of the naval, and not the military, authorities, whom he is so fond of sneering at. He does not appear to know either that the Navy controls wireless communication. That is probably news to him.
– Is this an explanation of what occurred last Saturday in Sydney?
– I shall give an explanation of that, but I am, first of all, dealing with the honorable senator’s sneering at the military authorities as responsible for the delay in the arrangements. The only thing the military authorities can do is this: “When they are informed by the Department of- the Navy that a ship will arrive at a certain time, they notify the recruiting authorities, in order that the necessary arrangements for a welcome may be made. The time for the landing of the troops is in the hands of the Navy, and the time-table is fixed upon the information given to the military authorities by the Navy. But Senator Pratten never utters one word of criticism of the Navy. It is with him always criticism of the military authorities. Until the Department of the Navy tell us the hour at which a ship will arrive we have no knowledge of it. Then, perhaps, the honorable senator is not aware that, owing to the necessity of preventing a possible raider on our coast getting information of the hour when a ship will arrive, the ships are not allowed to use their wireless until they are inside the Heads. Perhaps the honorable senator is not aware, also, of the fact that some times a ship is delayed by head winds. Perhaps he has never heard of that in all his great business experience; but I and other honorable senators from Western Australia have had that experience, with the result that, instead of a ship arriving at a given time, it has been several hours late. . The honorable senator apparently thinks that the military authoritiesshould have some control of the elements !
– What about the quality of whisky in the Northern Territory?
– I want to keep away from that subject, and deal with one about which I know something. In the case of a vessel expected to arrive at a given time, as soon as the military authorities get the information arrangements are made with recruiting officersfor a welcome to the soldiers, but the ship may be three or four hours late inarriving at the Heads, and it is only then, that we know it is late, hence the delay in connexion with shore arrangements. Even when a ship arrives in Hobson’s Bay these “ incompetent “ military authorities are not yet in control. There is still another Department,, about which Senator Pratten seems to be entirely ignorant, that has something todo. That is the Quarantine Department. Has Senator Pratten never heard that ships coming to Australia have first of all to pass an examination by quarantine officials? Apparently he has not, but believes that these “awful” military authorities have full control of a ship when it enters Hobson’s Bay. He is not aware, apparently, that before persons can land from a ship they must pass an examination, so I am informing him now, for his future information, and in order that when again he takes up the task of castigating the “ incompetent “ military Department, he will first of all endeavourto make sure- of his facts, and will know that the military authorities have no power to land a single man until the Quarantine officials have certified that the vessel has a clean bill of health. The delay he speaks of in Hobson’s Bay was due to the fact that a quarantine examination had to be made, and I might inform him that the “incompetent” military authorities have already entered a protest to the Department for the Navy and the Customs Department, which con- trol the arrangements. Exactly the same thing happens when a ship leaves Melbourne for Sydney. Again we are informed of the time the vessel may be expected to arrive in Sydney, and the military authorities invite the recruiting officials in Sydney to assist in the welcome arrangements. But, again, if the ship i3 delayed for any reason, we are not allowed to receive any messages by wireless, so long as the ship is at sea, with the result that, until the ship arrives off Sydney Heads, we have no information of any kind. The honorable senator never mentions those other Departments which, as I have shown, are responsible for any interference with arrangements that may be made. Having made up his case against the military authorities, he breathes out suspicion. The honorable senator is very strong on suspicion. He was suspicious recently about figures which the Auditor-General had examined, and reported to Parliament upon, and he has now become suspicious that the military officials are not in sympathy with the recruiting authorities. Let me tell him that the secrecy which he speaks about in connexion with placing troops on board ships at night-time cannot be charged against the military authorities, because they receive direct instructions from the Naval authorities, who adopt this course in order to safeguard the transports leaving our coasts. The honorable senator allows all these things to breed in his mind suspicion that the military authorities have no sympathy with the recruiting authorities. Let me tell him that the arrangements made by the recruiting authorities to stimulate recruiting have not only ‘ received our cordial approval, but our cordial co-operation, and his pessimism and suspicion about our attitude is not, at any rate, shared by the Assistant Minister for Recruiting (Mr. Orchard), who has informed me that everywhere the Military authorities are co-operating in every way to make his proposals as regards welcoming troops and stimulating recruiting the success that they ought to be.
I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to speak briefly of matters which I raised some time ago. When the last Supply Bill was under discussion I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) a question concern ing certain alleged reforms that had been made in the pay of temporary employees in the Federal Taxation Department, Brisbane, and received a reply to the effect that the general policy of the Government was not to reduce wages in any way, but rather to increase them. I was pleased to have that information, but since then I have been “able to ascertain the position for myself, and figures which have been supplied to me, and which I have every reason to believe are authentic, show that while the former rates for female employees in the Department were 5s. a day for females of eighteen years of age, 5s. lOd. for females of nineteen years, 6s. 8d. for females of twenty years, and 8s. 6d. for females of over twenty-one years, the rate in operation in Brisbane since March, 1918, is 3s. 6d. for females from eighteen years to twenty years of age, and 7s. a day for females over twenty-one years of age. I ask, therefore, that this matter be immediately inquired into by the responsible Minister, because, if the emolument has been reduced as indicated, it is apparent that a very great injustice has been done. No matter what the circumstances may be, there is no justification at all for the Government to reduce the wages of employees in view of the fact that the cost of living is continually increasing. This alteration in pay, I understand, dated from the expiration of the first six months of service. I believe that, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, temporary employees are engaged for six months, and afterwards, if approved of, they receive an extension of time, and I have been told that the reduction in the case of these female employees dated from the expiration of their first six months’ term of engagement. They are classed as female sorters, but, to my mind, this is merely a subterfuge by which the responsible official has been able to reduce their wages, though I have been given to understand that a large number of these temporary employees are doing straight-out clerical work.
– Are they classed as postal sorters?
– No ; they are in the Federal Taxation Department, and I presume they are engaged in sorting the various returns or notes that are received. Furthermore, I have been told that many of them are under the age of twenty-one years, so they would be receiving the lower rate of payment. Many of the girls, I believe, have widowed mothers and other dependants, and if it is true that their wages have been reduced an immediate inquiry should be instituted in order that they may be restored to their former status. In addition to this, the girls work overtime, but are not allowed tea money. With regard to married men, I understand temporary employees receive 10s. a day. They are required to have a good knowledge of figures, and, although they are not qualified accountants, many of them have a good idea of accountancy, and, to my mind, 10s. a day is a totally inadequate return for the services which they render to the Commonwealth.. Senator Pratten, when he was speaking on the Income Tax Assessment Bill recently, referred to a certain amount of laxity evidenced in the Federal Taxation Office in Sydney, and all I can say is that, if so many of the officials are temporarily engaged, and receive such a low rate of pay, there should be no reason to look further for an explanation. In an office like this the very best men obtainable should be engaged, and they should be amply paid for their services. I know that a number of the men engaged in the Federal Taxation Office in Brisbane can hold their own in any clerical capacity, and I think they deserve a better payment than 10s. a day. Under the last award the lowest wage paid by the State Government in Queensland is, I think, 12s. 6d. a day, and I contend that temporary employees of the Commonwealth should receive the same amount. I hope, therefore, that as the result of my representations the Minister will order an inquiry into the position with the object of removing this cause of dissatisfaction, because if the present condition is allowed to continue it will be quite impossible for the Department to work on an efficient basis, or for the officer - in-charge to get the best work out of the employees.
Another case which I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) is that of a man who has had a number of minor crimes and fines recorded against him in his paybook, and I ask the Minister if, in the event of that man being unfortunate enough to make the supreme sacrifice, he will consider the desirability of wiping off this record from the man’s pay-book in order that his next of kin may not be made to suffer for his offences. I do not think a great sum would be involved ; but I know, from cases which have been brought under my notice, that next of kin have been very deeply hurt when they have made application for money due to them, and have found that there has been a small or large sum withdrawn, representing fines for minor offences on the part of their soldier relatives. I trust that the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) will earnestly consider what I have put before him upon that subject.
Another matter to which I desire to draw the attention of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) is in respect to the reduction of proprietary race meetings in Queensland. A protest was lodged in this Chamber some little while ago by Senator Reid with respect to the extra three days’ racing. granted to a proprietary concern, and to an application by the Queensland Turf Club which had been refused. The latter body carries on its race meetings practically solely for patriotic purposes. The whole of the net profits .are given to charitable institutions. I have already brought under the notice of the Minister the case of Tattersalls Club. Previous to the recent curtailment this body was allowed three days’ racing per annum. It is essentially not a proprietary concern. The club is run apart altogether from the racing club, and the latter is distinctly not proprietary. Upon the last reduction the race days allotted to Tattersalls Club in Brisbane were reduced from three to two. I have received a telegram from the secretary, which reads as follows : -
Tattersalls again curtailed, evidently on account of being proprietary. Kindly convince Minister that club not proprietary, seeking inquiry if necessary to prove my statement as correct. Sydney Tattersalls combined raced five or six days this current season. Why are we treated differently? During last five months committee, from club funds, have donated £550, and each year since war started hundreds of pounds have been given away, although our club is the least wealthy of all the sporting and racing clubs in the different, metropoli
It is well known that Tattersalls Club, in common with other non-proprietary racing concerns in Queensland, has distributed a very large amount of its net profits to - charitable institutions; whereas the proprietary club in Brisbane, which has not been reduced to anything like the same extent proportionately, does not con- tribute to any charitable institutions, so far as I am aware. I trust that the Minister for Defence will consider whether Tattersalls Club cannot be given another of the racing Saturdays available during the year.
I desire to express my appreciation of the Minister for Defence inviting members of the Commonwealth Parliament to view various industries connected with his Department. After reading some of the press accounts at the time of the publication of the reports of the recent Royal Commission, I, with many others, was of the opinion that the Defence Department must be in a state of chaos. Having taken part in every trip held under the auspices of the Defence Department, I desire to say now that I have found each branch working smoothly and upon a good system. The Pay Office in Melbourne, for example, particularly claimed my attention. I recall that when I first reported here from the Front, during the early stages of the war, the Department was in a very different condition from what it is at present. It is creditable to note the splendid system under which the Pay Office to-day is working. Every assistance is given, so as to cause the least possible inconvenience to returned men when they present themselves in connexion with the drawing of money due to them.
Upon our visit to the Geelong Woollen Mills, every member of Parliament who bad the good fortune to make the trip expressed admiration of the up-to-date machinery, and of the economical and efficient manner in which the work was being conducted.
– It was the most interesting visit of the whole series.
– It was. What impressed me was the fact that those mills could turn out a good three-piece suit and cap for 30s. If Senator Pearce has any spare suits for sale at that price I shall be among the first applicants. In passing, there is this thought which naturally appeals to one: If such fine suits can be turned out for 30s., it behoves the Minister in charge of price fixing to ascertain why the public have to pay £7 7 s., £8 8s., and £9 9s. for their suits. There must be some big profiteer- . ing going on somewhere when the public have to pay such high prices for their clothing.
Another branch of the Defence Department which is very creditable to the administration is the Commonwealth Clothing Factory. Never have I visited an institution where I have seen a more happy and contented lot of workers than were the girls employed there. All seemed contented, and the old sweating: system appears to have been entirely done away with so far as that factory, at least, is concerned. The manner in which those girls have worked in their own time to provide comforts for the men at tha Front is an indication that they are satisfied with their- employment - which reflects credit on the administration of the.Defence Department.
At the Base Records Branch demonstrations were given which proved that any soldier, no matter when and where* he had enlisted, could have his history referred to in a few moments. One thing; which particularly struck my attention was that, no matter what may have been a man’s history, or tow many transfers he may have had, every fact was recorded on his sheets.
In conclusion, I desire to pay a tribute to the administration of the Caulfield. Hospital. If time had permitted I would have referred to several other Departments which have come under my notice. But I must briefly mention one branch of the Caulfield Hospital, namely, that devoted to the manufacture of artificial limbs. What we saw there led membersof Parliament to the conclusion that Australia need not go overseas for much of its goods in the future. Although the manufacture of artificial limbs is quite a new project, we were enabled to see the factory in full swing. Most of the employees have themselves lost limbs; but, on account of the good workmanship, it was almost impossible to detect the artificial from real limbs.
Summing up the visits to the various industries and activities of the Defence Department, I am bound to say that they have been of great instruction to rae. I only wish every member of Parliament could have taken the opportunity to make those trips, when I am certain that a great deal of misconception would have been removed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
Senate adjourned at 10.57 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 June 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19180605_senate_7_85/>.