8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 5596
The following papers were presented : -
Defence Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1920, Nos. 159, 160.
Lands Acquisition Act. - Land acquired at -
Midland Junction, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.
Thursday Island, Queensland - For Quarantine purposes.
War Service Homes Act. - Lands acquired at Weston, New South Wales.
River Murray Waters Act- River Murray Commission - Report for the year 1919-20
page 5596
– I ask the leave of the Senate to move a motion without notice. The object of the motion is to grant to such senators as are members of the Committee of Public Accounts, leave to attend meetings of that body during the sittings of the Senate. This course is rendered necessary by the fact that some honorable senators are expected to attend a meeting of the Committee today.
– The Minister does not require leave to move such a motion, but it must becarried by an absolute majority of the Senate.
– Very well. Then I move -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent such honorable senators as are members of the Committee of Public Accounts attending meetings of such Committee during the sittings of the Senate.
Some honorable senators are engaged upon the Committee in conducting a very important public inquiry, and it is quite possible that they may be required to attend meetings whilst the Senate is sitting.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 5597
– I ask the leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.
– When speaking in this Chamber on the 10th September last upon a motion for the adjournment of the Senate, which was submitted by Senator J. F. Guthrie, and which had reference to the wool position in relation to cloth manufacture, I made the following statement regarding the agreement which is now in existence between the Colonial Combing, Spinning, and Weaving Company and the Commonwealth Government : -
But I would point out to the honorable senator that the agreement which was subsequently entered into, and which he now criticises, was drawn up by the Central Wool Committee themselves. This is an historical fact which cannot be evaded. The Central Wool Committee did not sign it, but nevertheless it was the agreement which members of that body drew up.
I find that that statement is inaccurate. The facts are that the agreement of 12th March, 1920, between the Commonwealth Government and the Colonial Combing, Spinning, and Weaving Company, which was the agreement to which I referred, was not drawn up by the Central Wool Committee, and they were not consulted in respect of it. But, prior to that agreement being adopted, a conference was convened by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) between the Central Wool Committee and the company in question, at which certain heads of the proposed agreement w ere drafted and agreed to by all the parties, but this draft was not signed. I am informed that it is also a fact that some of the points of the agreement which have been the subject of criticism are covered by the heads which were agreed to by the Central Wool Committee at that conference. But, whilst that is so, my statement that the agreement was drawn up by the Central Wool Committee is not correct. I therefore take the earliest opportunity., since my attention was drawn to the matter, of making this correction of my statement.
page 5597
Supplies for Jam Making
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Seeing that there is a probability of a big crop of fruit this season, will the Government provide for a greater supply of sugar to householders and manufacturers of jam?
-The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows.: -
It is anticipated that recent purchases of white foreign sugars, together with the output of the Australian refineries, will enable us to meet all the requirements of the forthcoming fruit season.
page 5597
Bill read a third time.
page 5597
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Supply Bill for two months, based, of course, on the Estimates now before Parliament. Parliament has already granted Supply for a little over three months of the present financial year, the votes being for the following amounts:- No. 1, £1,838,847; No. 2, £2,367,826; No. 3, £1,729,915; total, £5,936,588. Further Supply is required to enable salaries for the Public Service to be paid on the 15th October, so it is necessary for the Senate to put the Bill through to-day. The measure provides the money necessary to carry on the ordinary services of the Government for two months, the total amount asked for being £3,128,645. Of this sum £2,124,595 is for ordinary services, £854,050 on account of war services paid from revenue, as indicated in the Treasurer’s Budget speech, and £150,000 for refunds to revenue, required for refunds of payments in connexion with income tax and Post Office revenue. Appeals are continually pending against taxation assessments, and as these appeals are decided in favour of the taxpayers, who have already paid the amounts in question into the revenue, the Treasurer has to find varying sums of money as refunds. This vote is required to meet such contingencies. A similar position arises in connexion with Post Office revenue from time to time. Apart from these, there are no items in the Bill that call for any special comment, the remainder of the Supply, as I have already stated, being the vote required to carry on the Public Service of the Commonwealth.
– There is onesmall matter which I should like to bring under the notice of the Government. It is time that we set about making our own telephone instruments, or, at all events, parts of these instruments, in Australia.
– Would you put a duty on them?
– I would rather encourage the making of telephones in Australia in some other way, as I shall tell the honorable senator.
– It was very unkind of Senator Fairbairn to introduce the fiscal question on this issue.
– But what is the use of bothering now ? We shall have wireless telephony in a few years.
– I am surprised that, when I exhibit any anxiety to encourage the policy of making everything we need in Australia, I should receive such opposition from Protectionists. In 1915 tenders were called for the making of telephone instruments in Australia, and there were some replies. Subsequently the Government informed the tenderers that they did not intend to proceed with the work, but that in all probability they would hear more of the matter within twelve months. I understand it is quite possible, under certain circumstances, to make about 80 per cent. of telephone instrument parts in Australia, and if this work can be done under fair and reasonable conditions - I am not asking the Government to pay too much for them - it should be advisable to encourage the manufacturers. I was speaking to one of the tenderers in Sydney this week, and I gathered, from our conversation, that a company undertaking to make telephone instruments in Australia would require a contract from the Government for nearly five years, which, I think, is rather a long term. Unless the Government were prepared to give an order covering a fairly long time it would not pay any individual or company to attempt to make the instruments in Australia. Outside the Government requirements, of course, there are very few telephones in Australia.
– You would also want a guarantee that the parts of an instrument which could not be made here would be obtainable from people outside.
-Just so. If 80 per cent. of an instrument can be made in Australia it is quite possible that if the manufacturers are encouraged they may be able, ultimately, to make the other 20 per cent., so that in course of time telephones may be entirely made in the Commonwealth. I mention this matter in order to get some information from the Minister as to whether the Government intend again to call tenders, or whether the Postmaster-General (Mr. Wise) will let me know why the proposition has been turned down, because it is nearly four years ago now since tenders were invited, and the tenderers were informed then that they could expect some further communications on the subject from the Government. No reasons were given, except that the Government did not intend then to go on with it, but that they hoped within twelve months to call for fresh tenders. I am glad the Minister representing the Postmaster-General is present, because he said that the Post Office was “ getting a move on.” May I remind him that it is four years since that Department said that within twelve months they would be calling for fresh tenders? I ask the Minister to bring this matter under the notice of the Postmaster-General, in order to see if it is possible to call for tenders, so that we may ascertain whether at least some portions of the telephones can be made in Australia, and whether the Government can give any firm or firms a guarantee for a certain amount of time, so as to enable them to start making the instruments.
.- I wish to bring under notice the question of the country mail services in Queensland. During my recent tour of part of that State, I came across quite a number of districts, at no great distance from Rockhampton, which are -without any mail delivery at all. In some cases these districts were being opened, up by returned soldiers. Many of the men who are going in for soldier settlements have not been accustomed, during the greater part of their lives, to country conditions, and, so far as I could gather, one of the- greatest causes of dissatisfaction among them was the fact that they wore not able to get their letters regularly. At one place in particular, known a6 the Dalma Scrub, in addition to the men who are opening up the country as soldier settlers, there is a large number of other settlers who have been there for many years, and who ‘have been putting up with this state, of affairs for a considerable time. On the first occasion that they asked for a mail service they were informed b3’ the Deputy PostmasterGeneral that there was not sufficient money available on account of the restrictions placed on country mail services. At the end of the war, when they rightly considered that their claims should receive some attention from, the Government, they were informed that the Department did not think there was sufficient business to warrant the granting of a mail service. Even if the Department were going to lose temporarily a certain amount owing to the limited business available by giving services to the new settlements which are being opened up by returned soldiers, it would find that, in the long run, by making these men more satisfied with their conditions it would reap a great reward. There are large numbers of soldier settlers in different parts of Queensland, and. the Department would ultimately benefit by now granting them a weekly, or, if possible, a twice-a-week, mail delivery. I believe it would be possible to get one of the local settlers who has the time at his disposal to undertake the mail contract for a sum that would cost the Government very little. Many of these settlers are living away from their people until they get their selections sufficiently cleared to bring their families to them, and the fact that they are not able to receive letters regularly is to them a cause of great dissatisfaction. The question of supplying soldier settlers with mail services should receive the very earnest consideration of the Government. Australia generally will benefit by making them more satisfied with their conditions.
On the question of land settlement for returned soldiers, in the early stages a sum amounting to £625 per settler was allocated by the Federal Government to the State Governments, and by them - advanced by way of loan to the soldiers, so much to be available for the building of a house, so much for scrub clearing, so much for well sinking, and so much for’ stocking up and fencing. On a number of occasions the fact was brought under the notice of the Minister for Repatriation (.Senator Millen.) in this Chamber, and also by deputations of the soldiers themselves, that in many cases £625 was not sufficient to give the man a flying start. Recently the Commonwealth Government increased the allowance from £625 to a flat rate of £1,000 per settler, but the settlers themselves were very much surprised when they were informed lately by the Land Settlement Department of the State of Queensland that the extra £375 made available bv the Commonwealth Government was not being granted to the soldier at all, but was being retained by the State Government to meet what they called overhead expenses. A letter, signed by Mr. B. W. Phillips, a settler on the North-Coast line, recently appeared in the Brisbane Daily’ Mail, pointing out the dissatisfaction existing among the settlers as the result of this action by the State Government. I do not know what the Queensland Land Settlement Department claim to be doing with the £375, but it is generally understood that they say they are retaining it for overhead expenses and for the purpose of making roads to the various settlements. I had an opportunity recently to visit two or three of the settlements, particularly one known as Ridgelands and another known as the Charcoal Scrub. If the Queensland Government are charging every settler £375 for the roads they are building out tq these settlements, then they are profiteering at the expense of the soldier settlers, because, generally speaking, those roads are practically impassable for anything except a light spring cart.
– Is that £375 charged to the holder of each block?
– The amount of £375 per settler is retained by the Queensland Government, although the Commonwealth Government increased the total advance per settler to £1,000. A number of the settlers have complained that the only amount available for them is £625, and’ the letter I referred to, dealing with the deputation of Beerburrum settlers which waited on the Minister, points out that the State Government are retaining £375 per settler for what they call over- head charges. I understood that the Minister for Repatriation decided to increase the amount from £625 to £1,000 per settler, because he realized, as others did, that the extra £375 for improvements and stocking up would mean just the difference in many cases between success and failure on the part of the soldier settlers. But, if the extra amount is to be retained by the State Government, the settlers are in practically no better position than they were when the Commonwealth Government was making available to the States the sum of only £625 per man. I do not know what the intentions of the Government were when they agreed to increase the rate per settler to £1,000, but I understand that the increase was made to enable the men to have more money to assist them in cultivating a larger area if they were farming, or to increase their herds if they weredairying. It is quite apparent that, under the existing state of affairs in Queensland, the soldier settler is no better off than when he was receiving £625. According to the complaint made by the gentleman who brought this matter under the notice of the Queensland Minister for Lands, the extra money is not benefiting the soldier settler to any extent, and. I think it is a matter that should have the immediate attention of the Government. When the amount was increased I do not think it was intended that it should be held by a State Government for overhead expenses.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that the Queensland Government is retaining £375 for administrative expenses in connexion with each block ?
SenatorFOLL. - That is practically what it means; but it is quite possible that the Land Settlement Board will say that it is retaining the amount to construct roads through the scrub. The soldier settlers complain that, although the amount has been increased to the extent I have mentioned, one-third of it is retained by the Government. When I first read the statement made by the settlers themselves, and the reply given by the Minister for Lands, I was astounded. Honorable senators will see that it is out of all proportion , to say that one-third of the money advanced by the Commonwealth Government should be retained for overhead expenses. The Queensland Government are adopting a very different attitude to that of the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the War
Service Homes Department, where; no charge is made for administrative expenses. As the Commonwealth is primarily responsible for finding the money for settling soldiers on the land, some investigation should be made as to the manner in which this money is being spent, as too much latitude is being given to Governments in the matter of land settlement. The Commonwealth Government are responsible for raising the money and for the burden of taxation they have to impose upon the people to meet the interest bill, and they should exercise more jurisdiction over the expenditure.
– Is the honorable senator sure that this money is not being used for the construction of roads,bridges and fences?
– Possibly it is, but £375 per settler is an outrageous amount to levy on each block for roads and bridges.
– The local authorities should meet that expenditure.
– The land policy of the Queensland Government is perpetual leasehold, under which the soldiers are charged rent which should practically cover the cost of road-making. In addition to rent, local government taxes have to be paid on this land as on other properties, which means that the holdings are carrying an excessive burden. If a road is constructed through scrub on Crown lands to a holding 7 or 8 miles off the main road, why should a soldier settler be burdened with the cost of that road ?
– Is the honorable senator sure that that is what is being done?
Do not the district councils construct the roads ?
– The fact remains that £375 out of the £1,000 advanced is deducted by the State Government for overhead expenses and improvements. Even if the roads are being constructed, it is an unreasonable amount to charge each settler. If an ordinary settler had to pay anything approaching that amount in proportion, to what he was investing he would be unable to carry on. The soldier is not getting any of the £375 to enable him to purchase additional stock or implements, although I believe the extra money was made available for that purpose. He is practically no better off than when the smaller amount was allotted.
– If the States have advanced, say, £400 to the settlers for the purpose of improving their holdings, and the Commonwealth is advancing £1,000, they are perhaps taking the advance out of the amount paid by the Government.-
– I have yet to learn that that money was made available for that purpose. Quite recently I- had an opportunity of visiting Charcoal Scrub, which is 30 miles out from Rockhampton. This settlement is well off the main road, and in order to reach it 2 or 3 miles of low-lying country, which is under water in a rainy season, has to be crossed .- The Charcoal Scrub country consists of splendid land, and the men will do well on it, but it is of little use to them until an embankment and light tramway are constructed. It is unreasonable to suggest that the soldier settlers should have to pay the whole of the cost of such a tramway, as that is surely a part of the development policy of the State Government. In the Charcoal Scrub country there is very dense scrub, and by the time a settler has sunk a well, put up a house, erected some fencing, and, possibly, paid £3 per acre for clearing the scrub, there is very little left out of the advance of £625. Because I knew that the position of these settlers was known I was of the opinion that the Commonwealth had agreed to increase the advance to £1,000 in order that more capital might be available to the soldier settlers. It is a common complaint among them that the advance is quite insufficient. When General Birdwood was visiting the
Beerburrum settlement a number of “ diggers” pointed out to- him that the amount of money made available to them out of the advance was not sufficient for them. They were told that at the very moment they were voicing this complaint, Mr. Coyne, the State Minister for Lands, was in Melbourne attending a Conference convened by the Minister for Repatriation, at which he intended to ask that the amount made available by the Commonwealth should be increased. This information was received by the “ diggers “ with cheers, but it came as a thunderbolt to them when they discovered that they were not to have the use of the extra money advanced, but that it was to be retained and spent by the State Government. I think this matter should be given the fullest consideration and inquiry by the Minister.
.- I indorse every word that Senator Foll has said in regard to the necessity for increasing the postal facilities of those people who live far back from ordinary centres of settlement. Quite recently I paid a visit to St. Mary’s Plain, a very isolated portion of Tasmania, where a number of men with their families have for years been endeavouring to carve out for themselves homes in the bush. Their number ha6 recently been augmented by half-a-dozen returned soldiers. The nearest post-office is about 12 miles away, and they are without a mail or telephone service. From time to time this Parliament, has endeavoured to impress upon the people the necessity for developing the resources that have hitherto lain neglected in our back areas, and it seems to me that we ought to urge the Minister in charge of the Bill (Senator Pearce) to bring under the notice of the Postmaster.General (Mr. Wise) the necessity for devoting to the provision of special services for people in outback districts a portion of the profit made by his Department last year and a portion of the money which, we are informed, the Treasurer has just made available to the Department. We ought to get out of the groove in which we have been travelling for years past, and if it should be a fact that departmental regulations may prevent the PostmasterGeneral from doing that which we desire, surely we are justified in claiming that the regulations should be altered in order that such mail -services may be provided for people as will afford them every inducement to remain on the land to develop the resources of the Commonwealth. I can quite realize that some of the outlying settlements do’ not justify the establishment of the ordinary mail services and post-offices, but surely some scheme could be introduced whereby they could get, if not a mail service twice a week, at least a weekly service, which would bring them into closer touch with the rest of the State in which they reside. Therefore, I trust the Minister will confer with the Postmaster-General to see if there is any possibility of doing this, not only for the soldier settlements mentioned by Senator Foll, but also for scattered communities of settlers right throughout the Commonwealth. I feel sure that the people as a whole would approve of such a policy. The St. Mary’s Plain district has wonderful possibilities, but we cannot expect to have it developed unless we offer some inducement to people to settle there. The soldiers who have settled there are working well, but they pointed out to- me on my recent visit that it was difficult for them to carry on without reasonable facilities for getting their correspondence to the nearest post-office.
In regard to the retention by the State Governments of the £375 out of the total of £1,000 advanced by the Commonwealth for the settlement of soldiers on the land, I do not think that honorable senators are fully aware of the conditions which govern and control the disbursement of this money, and I am hopeful that we shall have a statement this afternoon showing the exact position in this regard. Nothing can be urged against the retention of a portion of the advance by the State Government, if it is spent directly in the interests of the soldier settlers, and it appears to me that the desire of the Federal Government in supplementing the amount directly advanced to the settlers, for the purpose of enabling them to purchase stock and implements, is to provide a sum which the State Governments can devote towards the construction of works intended for the benefit of the soldiers on the land.
– If so, it is a large amount for that purpose.
– It is, and I should imagine that a smaller amount would be suincierj.it. It must be remembered that those who have, been endeavouring to carve out homes in the back-blocks prior to the initiation of the soldier settlement scheme had to wait for many years before they could get anything like decent roads to their holdings. The States could not find the money to make the roads and provide these settlers with means of communication with the larger centres, and it strikes me that it is quite possible this arrangement ha6 been entered into in order that the soldier settler might not be handicapped as was the ordinary settler in the past, and might be provided with good means of communication in the near future.
– And ready-made farms.
– A policy has been suggested from time to time - and it has a good deal to recommend it - that the States should withdraw their land from selection and build roads through it, the cost of which would ultimately be placed on the blocks when taken up. However, I should imagine that, at the bottom of the arrangement between the. Commonwealth and the States in respect to soldier settlement, is the idea that the soldier settlers may have speedy means of access to their holdings and to the neighbouring towns. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a statement regarding the expenditure of this money.
– I desire to say a few words upon the very important point which has been raised by Senator Foll. The exact position has already been forecast by Senator Payne. In regard to the land settlement of returned soldiers it was originally agreed that the Commonwealth would advance up to £625 per man in respect of stock, implements, buildings, &c. Obviously the man would get the greater portion of that advance. Subsequently a conference was held at which the .States pointed out that if they were to make soldier settlement a success they must commit themselves to a larger expenditure. The Commonwealth agreed to find a total sum for the States of £1,000 per man. This amount was to cover all expenditure upon land resumption, public works, and the advances to the soldiers. The arrangement, however, does not mean that a soldier will get more than £625.
– Is he required to pay interest upon more than that amount?
– No. He pays interest only upon the amount actually advanced to him. The State Governments are entitled to use the difference for opening up lands for the purpose of soldier settlements.
– What labour are they supposed to employ 1
– The understanding arrived at was that returned soldiers should be granted a preference upon all work connected with the expenditure of this money.
– In Victoria the State Lands Department is using a certain portion of the advance for the purpose of constructing roads and bridges.
– I do not know the nature of the arrangement which has been made between the State and the soldier.
– The States are keeping back £400 per man, and are charging the soldiers interest upon it. They are loading the estates purchased for the purpose of soldier settlement, and thus the men are being taxed twice.
– The Commonwealth cannot be expected to act as a sort of schoolmaster to the States. The soldiers have their own remedy against the State Governments. Under cover of this advance we cannot dictate to the States what shall be their land policy.
– Where an advance of £625 to the soldier is not sufficient to give him a “ flying “ start, he cannot obtain part of the remaining £375 ?
– No. In regard to the point raised by Senator Thomas I have not yet been able to obtain the desired information, but I shall endeavour to ascertain whether any further steps are being taken to bring about the manufacture of telephones within the Commonwealth. Senator Foll and Senator Payne will agree with me that the last Budget exhibits a determination on the part of the Government to extend postal facilities to the country generally. The benevolent attitude of members towards soldier settlement will certainly prejudice them in favour of any applications which may be made by such settlements for telephonic or telegraphic communication. It is the desire of the Go vernment that this policy shall be extended, as far as possible, and any specific request by honorable senators to the PostmasterGeneral in that connexion will receive sympathetic consideration.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
– At this stage is it competent for me to move the suspension of our Standing Orders to enable the Bill to be passed through all its remaining stages?
– The Minister has a right at any time to move any motion in regard to the conduct of business, without notice. But it will be necessary for a motion which has for its object the suspension of the Standing Orders to be carried by an absolute majority of the Senate.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.
In Committee:
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule.
.- I would like the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to give us some information in regard to the item of “ Australian Commissioner in the United States of America.” Has this officer been appointed, and, if so, where is he located, and who is he?
Senator SENIOR (South Australia)
R-l]. - In the last Supply Bill an amount of £775 was voted in connexion with the office of Australian Commissioner for the United States of America. In this measure we are asked to vote £1,750 under this heading. If the Commissioner has not yet been appointed, how is the money to be expended? The previous Supply Bill contained an amount of £775 for “contingencies,” and this Bill provides for an expenditure of £750 under the same heading. Seeing that we know nothing whatever about this Commissioner, these sums appear to be unduly large.
– I am rather surprised at Senator Earle and Senator Senior imagining things. The item in the Bill to which reference has been made relates, not to a High Commissioner in America, but to the Trade Commissioner, Mr. Mark Sheldon, who has been appointed for quite a long time. The discrepancy between the amount provided for this particular item in the present Bill and that which appeared in the last Supply Bill is easily explained. The last Supply Bill covered only one month, whereas this Bill will cover two months. The Trade Commissioner’s Office is in New York, which is a very expensive city in which to maintain an office. That circumstance alone accounts for the large amount under the heading of “ contingencies,” as compared with the sum which is to be appropriated by way of salary.
– The amount which we are asked to vote under this heading indicates that the Australian Trade Commissioner’s. Office in New York is costing the Commonwealth about £10,000 per - annum. Whilst I do not dissent from the action of the Government in opening up trade communication with the great Republic across the Pacific, I entirely agree with their policy of appointing a High Commissioner in the United States of America in the near future, in order that we may derive some political advantage from the position. I do not think that we are getting too many advantages from the appointment of a Trade Commissioner. I believe that many political advantages would accrue, and a more friendly bond would be created, by a diplomatic appointment in the United States of America upon the lines proposed by the Government.
– Have we ever had a report from the Australian Trade Commissioner there?
– Not that I am aware of.
– A report has reached the Prime Minister’s Department.
– I quite recognise that a movement of this description may reasonably start with the appointment of a Trade Commissioner, just as it did in the case of Canada. I am in entire accord with the policy of the Government in regard to the appointment in the immediate future of a High Commissioner in the United States of America for the purpose of establishing a diplo matic bond between ourselves and thegreat Republic across the Pacific.
.- I hope that the Government will continuethe policy of appointing Trade Commissioners in various parts of the world. As the result of Australian trade interests being represented in the United States of America, the Commonwealth will derive a substantial benefit. But the countries to which we should turn our attention in this connexion are those which are looking for our exports. There is no part of the world which offers so many opportunities for the development of our trade as does the near East. Although this Bill contains no provision for the position, I understand that at present we have a trade representative in Paris looking after our interests there, and I hope the Government will push on with the policy indorsed by the Senate when the resolution to which I have referred was carried,
– I must remind the honorable senator that while he may make passing reference to- the subject, he must not discuss the appointment of Trade Commissioners in a general way.
– Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will push on with the policy of appointing Trade Commissioners.
.- I should like some pronouncement from the Minister concerning the policy of the Government towards blind and invalid pensioners, and also concerning the promise, made some time ago, to increase the pocket money provided for those old people who are living in the different institutions of the Commonwealth.
– As announced in the Budget speech, action is to be taken. Legislation will be introduced very shortly, and it will come before this Chamber for approval. I cannot give the exact details in anticipation. It is not usual to do so-. The Government will, at an early date, honour the promise made.
.. - About 6ix months ago my honorable friend, Senator Earle, raised the question of the position of the old people in institutions, and I supported him in his endeavour to get a little extra pocket money for them. I think a half promise was then given by Senator Millen that inquiries would be made, and an effort made to improve their, position. Without, perhaps, being entirely accurate , as to the circumstances, I believe that in such places as the Liverpool, Lidcombe, and Newington institutions, all in the vicinity of Sydney, the Commonwealth Government pay the pension allowance to the State Government for the maintenance of the old people.
– Portion of it.
– The amount was, I think, 8s. per week when the pension allowance was 10s. per week.
– Seeing that the old-age pension allowance is now higher, I think the old folk in such places are entitled to a little more pocket money for such comforts as tobacco, newspapers, and even sweets. Any honorable senator who visits these well-conducted homes must feel very gratified indeed that Australia has provided such places for the old people who are there very well cared for, and their declining years are as peaceful as they can reasonably be in all the circumstances. These institutions are not looked upon as asylums or charitable homes. The old people, if they have been good citizens of the Commonwealth, have a right to go to them ; but the ambit of their happiness is governed largely by the amount of pocket money for what are now, to them, almost necessary commodities. Even an additional 16. per week would make all the difference in the world to them. Take tobacco, as an illustration. Nearly all of the old men require tobacco, and it is now more than twice the price it was when this- arrangement as to the amount of their pocket money was made, so that they can only buy half the quantity now. The Commonwealth recognises that they are worthy citizens by giving them the right of the franchise, and, in view of the restricted purchasing power of our currency, I urge upon the Minister the desirability of allotting a little extra pocket money to- these old people. I am glad the Minister has told us that this matter is in the hands of the Commonwealth, and not of the States, and I hope that my friend, Senator Earle, and I will now only have to ask to receive.
Senator SENIOR (South Australia) [4.151. - I should like some information concerning the item “ Coinage, £6,000.”
In the previous Supply Bill the amount was £1,500.
– I should like to urge upon the Minister the necessity for a reconsideration of the conditions under which the maternity bonus is allotted. It was all very well before the war, when we had an abundant revenue and a light indebtedness, for the Commonwealth Government to play the part of a fairy godmother by awarding to every mother who presented an infant to the world a present, irrespective of whether it was needed or not. That time has long since gone by. Now we have to look to every item of expenditure with the idea of cutting it down if possible. Yesterday, when the Minister ‘invited critics of the Budget to lay their fingers upon any particular item in respect of which economy might be advocated, he entirely overlooked this particular vote. He also urged that the largely increased expenditure this year was inevitably forced upon the Commonwealth Government; but that, at all events, cannot be said of this particular item. We should give some evidence of our earnestness to observe the pledges we gave to the electors that we would endeavour to bring about economy in administration. It is idle for the Minister to defend the Government by remarking that, if another party got into power, they would “roast” the unfortunate electors to a still greater degree than the present Government are doing. That is no answer to criticism, for the people might very well say, “A plague on both your houses,” and determine to get a better set of people who would endeavour to- carry out the mandate to reduce expenditure. It is somewhat difficult for private members to point to any particular expenditure, but, in this Chamber and elsewhere, certain items have been mentioned as being capable of reduction. I have instanced the Canberra vote-, and, with some other honorable senators, urged a reduction there. Here, again, is a vote in connexion with which inquiries might be made with a view to reduction in the maternity allowance vote.
– Let us start at home, and see if we can find some Victorian items to knock out.
– i suggest, then, that the wife of a man having an income of more than £300 per year should not get the maternity allowance.
– A lot of people get it, but do not earn it.
– It seems to me that this vote merely provides an opportunity for continuing certain positions in the Public Service to administer an allowance which so often is paid to people who do not really need it, thereby adding still further to the burden of an already overburdened citizen.
.- I have made up my mind never to let pass an opportunity to protest against a continuation of the maternity allowance as it is administered to-day. The time has arrived when the Government ought to review the operations of this Department with regard to the maternity allowance. We are face to face with ahuge annual expenditure, with a heavy war debt, and a heavy debt in connexion with other matters, and the Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) tells us that he does not know how to make ends meet, yet we practically propose to throw away at least £250,000 which ought to be utilized in some other direction that would be valuable to the Commonwealth.
– Not thrown away, surely?
– (Surely it is throwing the taxpayers’ money away to make a present of a certain sum annually to people who do not need it?
– It is the best expenditure of the State.
– The honorable senator who makes that interjection should be prepared to prove it. If he could show that, by this expenditure, we were increasing our population, or saving the lives of a large number of mothers and infants, I would agree with him; but statistics show that there has been no improvement in those directions since the introduction of the maternity allowance. No diminution of the death-rate of infants has ensued.
– Let us make the inducement greater.
– If it is felt to be necessary to increase the allowance in cases where the money is helpful to the mother and child, I am prepared to support such a proposition; but I shall not support the continuance of the payment ofa bonus of £5 on the arrival of an infant in a home in which there is full and plenty.
– The money could be very much better expended in infant clinics and maternity clinics.
– That is so. It is absurd to suggest that there should be no discrimination as regards the recipients of the allowance. If a little stranger came to my house next year, why should I have the right to claim £5 of the taxpayers’ money? The object of the introduction of the allowance originally was to provide necessary comforts and assistance to the mother andchild where, owing to the financial circumstances of the home, these were not available.
– Do not you think that the cost of that assistance is now more than treble what it was before?
– That is not the point. I have just said that, if it is essential for the saving of child life and for assisting the mother at childbirth to increase the allowance in deserving cases, I would be prepared to support such a proposal; but I am opposed to the granting of the money to all and sundry.
– The £5 is either superfluous or inadequate.
– That is so. We know theallowance is superfluous in many cases. I believe that in 50 per cent. of the cases in Australia it is absolutely superfluous, because the money is not needed. The Budget-papers show that last year the allowance cost the Commonwealth £625,865. The cost of administration was £2 0s.10d. per cent., whereas in 1914 it was only £1 10s. 6d. per cent. One is surely justified in drawing attention to the increase of departmental expenditure in a matter of this kind. There should be little or no increase. I could understand the bulk of the expenditure being incurred at the beginning of the scheme, but when the machinery got into workingorder we ought reasonably to anticipate a reduction of the annual expenditure on this sub-Department.
– Salaries have gone up in that time.
– But that increase would be counterbalanced by the fact that the machinery had been put into working order.
– The population is increasing.
– I am quoting the percentage costs, so that the increase of population does not apply. One could understand, when the new Department was created, a large amount of expenditure being involved during the first year or so of its operations in order to get the machinery going properly, but that ought not to be a recurring item. The time has arrived when the Senate ought to press the Government to do all they can to revise the maternity allowance legislation in the direction of applying it only to cases where the help is really needed. If it is found necessary to increase the amount, I shall be prepared to support the increase so long as the grant is made only to necessitous cases.
– I wish to support, to a certain extent, the remarks of previous speakers on the maternity allowance, whichis costing the Commonwealth such a vast amount. I should never be one to attempt to prevent the payment of the allowance to those who need it. I should be rather inclined in those cases to increase it, because the sum of £5, made available for medical attention and so forth in a time of need, is of great assistance to poor people. But on every page of his Budget speech the Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) points out how essential it is for the Commonwealth Parliament to economize at the present juncture, and I would support any movement whereby those people who are in receipt of” an income of, say, £400 per annum and over, should not receive the allowance. The money saved would be much better spent in the establishment of an institution such as they have in New Zealand, whereby mothers-to-be are educated by those splendid women, the trained nurses, in the proper way to attend to the babies. After all, a good, healthy Australian baby is the best possible immigrant that we can have in this country.
– They have a similar institution doing splendid work in Hobart.
– It exists in New Zealand, where, through the nurses going about the country showing expectant mothers how to attend to their babies, and how to take care of their own health, and by the inauguration of a pure milk supply, which is a magnificent thing for any Government to take in hand, the mortality of infants has been decreased by over 4 per cent. This proves that the lives of thousands and thousands of children have been saved by these means. The Commonwealth Government should, therefore, take seriously into consideration, if not now, then in the immediate future, the question of either increasing the maternity allowance to the poor by deducting it from the comparatively rich, who do not require it, or of assisting to establish an institution of trained nurses to go throughout the country, or of doing something towards securing a pure milk supply, which is a thing we have not got in Australia. It may be available in some parts, but we have not made the provision in the Commonwealth that we should have made, especially in the large cities of Melbourne and Sydney, for that purpose. A pure milk supply is a matter of national importance. If the Government cansave money by not paying the maternity allowance to those enjoying over a certain income, and if then they have any money to spend on other Departments, I would impress on them the fact that they are not spending enough on immigration. Only the paltry sum of £100,000 is providedfor thatpurpose in this year’s Estimates.
– The honorable senator will not be in order in discussing immigration at this stage.
– I have expressed my views on the maternity allowance, and desire to emphasize that it should not be paid to those who enjoy an income of over £400 per annum.
– The question of payments to pensioners in homes is at present under the consideration of the Government, who are considering the advisability of increasing the amount now allowed. I hope that when the Bill is brought forward we shall be able to satisfy honorable senators.
– Does it require a Bill ? Is it not a matter of administration ?
– I am not sure. It may be a matter for regulations. No decision has been arrived at, but the matter has been discussed in Cabinet.
– Does the honor orable senator promise that it will have early consideration 1
– It will. I cannot, of course, say that the Government will agree to the suggestion, but whatever decision is arrived at will be announced by the Treasurer.
Senator Elliott and others have raised the question of the maternity, allowance. I dissent from Senator Elliott’s statement that there is any going back on election pledges ir. this regard. I watched the election pretty closely, and know of no instance where any honorable senator pledged himself to the repeal of the allowance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) certainly did not do so in his Bendigo speech, and the Opposition did not, although I think the Country party did.
– Senator Elliott only showed where economy could be exercised.
– Yes, but he said something about the Ministry sticking to their election pledges. We never pledged ourselves to economize by repealing the allowance.
– I suggested that you should draw the line at incomes of £300 per annum.
– That would involve the abandonment of the important principle originally laid down that everybody who qualified should be entitled to the allowance, and that no poverty line should be drawn. Personally, I am not satisfied that we are spending this money to get the best results. I am convinced that it is the duty of the State to assist maternity, but the Commonwealth will never be able satisfactorily to deal with this and allied ‘health questions until it has a Ministry of Health,_ and until it is endowed with proper powers to deal with health matters. The maternity question is only one phase of the bigger question of the health of the people.
– Can th© Minister justify the continuance of the payment to well-to-do people ?
– While assistance is given in this way, it would be invidious to say that only some were to receive it, as it would then become a pauper’s dole. The community would be divided into two sections, one of which could point to the other as being subsidized by the State. My personal opinion is that this money is not being spent in the best way to assist maternity, but I do not think it would be wise to draw what might be called a poverty line.
– Has Parliament power to take steps to initiate a scheme for a pure milk supply in metro.politan areas ?
– It is doubtful if we have power in that direction j it is a matter that is vested in the States. We had an instance during the recent influenza epidemic of the unsatisfactory conditions existing in regard to health matters, and when the forthcoming Convention is held this and other similar Questions will doubtless be discussed.
Senator Senior, raised the question of the coinage vote. This is not a regular amount we pay out in salaries, but included in it is the purchase of material, and. the expenditure in this direction may be more in one month than in another.
The increase in the cost of administering the maternity allowance is largely due to the increased salaries paid to public servants. The Budget figures disclose that £750,000 is to be spent in increased salaries. I understand that the cost of administering the baby bonus is at the “rate of 2s. per birth, about 8d. of which is paid to the Registrar of Births and Deaths. There is another factor which Senator Payne may not be aware of. I am informed that at the inception of this scheme there was a large number of cases of fraud and deception, as a result of which a check system had to be established, which necessitated the employment of a larger number of officers.
– What was responsible for the increase last year?
– Salaries have been increased.
– Last year there were more claims than births
– I understand that the figures in that connexion relate to the children who lived at birth, whereas the maternity allowance is paid on viable births, and the difference between the figures arose in that way.
– I know I am voicing the feelings of some who are absent when I say that at present we are paying away a good deal of money in maternity allowances when it is absolutely unnecessary. I believe that is the point which Senator Elliott desired to make> but the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) seemed to evade it. The Minister said that he could justify the payment of £5 for every infant bom, irrespective of the circumstances, because if it were otherwise it would be regarded as a pauper’s dole. I do not agree with that point of view at all. I -do not think that position is consistent with the manner in which the recipients of the old-age pension regard it. That pension is given as a right, not as charity, to those unfortunately placed citizens in our midst who, under certain circumstances, are entitled to it. My strong opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of many honorable senators, is that no payment should be made in respect of a child whose father was receiving, say, £300, £400, or £500 per annum, or whatever amount Parliament might decide. The same principle applies in taxation matters; but I think it is desirable to stress the fact that in certain circumstances the payment of £5 is too little. In connexion with the revision of. the many activities of the Government, I hope they will bear in mind that it is, I believe, the overwhelming opinion, of the people that, although we may pay away £650,000 in maternity allowances, that a re-adjustment of that position could take place in the way of lopping off the bonus from those who do not need it, and adding it to those to whom it would be a blessing when a child is born. Although my remarks may not be regarded as of great importance, I trust they will be the means of helping to create an atmosphere of public opinion which may be reflected in the direction we desire in the future financial policy of the Government.
– In relation to the proposed expenditure in the Northern Territory, I have noticed statements in the press that there is one Government official in the Territory to every white member of the population. I have also noticed in the report of Mr. Justice Ewing that the expenditure in connexion with the maintenance of a certain steam-boat was a shameful waste of public money. I trust we shall have some assurance from the Minister that this matter is to be investigated, and that all unnecessary expenditure will be avoided.
– ;I desire to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, in connexion with the expenditure of £16,400 in the Northern Territory, no reference is made to boring for water. It is not my desire to take up the time of the Senate, but knowing a good deal about the Northern Territory, I wish to say that the only way in which that country can be developed is by providing adequate supplies of water. Sub-artesian supplies are obtainable almost anywhere from 250 to 400 feet in depth, and it is the duty of the Government to put down as many bores as possible. If this were done, it would be the means of assisting in bringing stock to market from the back country. At present beef would not be costing its present price if cattle could be brought from the north-western portion of the Northern Territory, where there are long stretches on the stock routes without water. If the Government spent a reasonable amount in tapping subartesian supplies it would be the means of increasing the supply of cattle in our metropolitan and country markets.
I also wish to draw the attention of the Government to the absolute necessity of improving the wharfage accommodation at Port Darwin. I understand that one of the reasons why Vestey Brothers Limited are not operating there this season, although they have expended a million sterling on buildings and plant, and are by far the largest employers of labour in the Northern Territory, is that the wharfage accommodation provided by the Government is not what was promised, and is quite inadequate.
– Is it worth while improving the wharf if Vestey’s works are to be closed]
– I have been informed by the general manager of Vestey Brothers that the question of scrapping their huge works and forfeiting all their capital expenditure is hanging in the balance. I desire to impress upon the Government the absolute necessity of endeavouring to get Vestey Brothers to continue their great industry by giving them every possible encouragement. Up to the present they have not had a fair’ deal.
– In regard to the point raised by Senator Elliott concerning the expense of running the Lady Forrest, the vessel to which he referred, I understand the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Poynton) is arranging to dispose of the vessel .
Senator Guthrie referred to the necessity of boring for water in the Northern Territory, which is a sound policy, and one which is recognised by the Government. We showed our bona fides in this matter by providing £15,000 for the purpose in the Works and Buildings Bill which was recently passed by the Senate.
– That is a very small amount, and is quite inadequate.
– It is useless to provide a larger amount than can be expended in the time. If more money is required it will be forthcoming.
I have no information on the question of improving the wharfage accommodation at Port Darwin, but I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister for Home and Territories.
– One is tempted to say a great deal when Estimates are under review, because they practically contain references to the whole gamut ofCommonwealth activities; but I would like a little information from the Minister in reference to the items “ Electoral Office “ and “Census and Statistics.” I understand that there is a Commonwealth law by which a re-distribution of constituencies in the House of Representatives follows the taking of a census, but I would like to know whether it is obligatory on the Government to carry out such a redistribution.
Honorable members who were present when the Canberra discussion took place will no doubt notice that in the schedule of this Supply Bill £15,700 is provided for two months’ rent of buildings occupied by the Commonwealth. I admit that ail this rent is not paid in Melbourne, but, still, for twelve months it represents an expenditure of £100,000.
– Which would not be saved by transferring the Seat of Government to Canberra.
– That is a question of argument. I am merely, in pass ing, drawing attention to this large amount which is paid by the Commonwealth by way of rent for buildings.
I would like also to know what information has come to hand in regard to the development of oil-fields in Papua. I understand that the control of this work is in the hands of the Anglo-Persian officials, although, of course, the ultimate control is by the Commonwealth; but it would be interesting to honorable senators to learn that indications so far tend to support the very great hope we have that the Commonwealth will discover a big oil-field in this Territory.
– The matter of the re-distribution of seats in the House of Representatives following upon the census of the people is governed by section 24 of the Constitution, which provides -
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators. the number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner: -
A quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators;
The number of members to be chosen in each State shall be determined by dividing the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the quota; and if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State.
But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each original State.
It does not seem to be obligatory on the Government to re-distribute seats following upon the taking of a census.
– Is it not obligatory, and does it not follow automatically, that there should be a redistribution ?
– It seems, from the wording of section 24 of the Constitution, that the initiative must be taken by the Government, but no doubt a census is the means by which Ministers will inform their minds as to whether the conditions of the Constitution are for the moment being substantially adhered to. From what I have seen of the electoral figures I should say that a redistribution of seats will almost certainly follow the next census, because there has been a great change in the population figures since the last redistribution took place.
No developments of any note have occurred in connexion with the discovery of oil fields in Papua to justify a statement to Parliament, but, under the new regime, we are hopeful of being able to accomplish something.
– Apparently it has been decided by the Department of the Navy to cut out Rockhampton as a sub-district naval training centre, and, as Naval Defence will play an important part in the defence of Australia, I hope that this apparent small economy will not be effected, and that the step contemplated will be reconsidered. I have already approached the Department on the matter, and the people of Rockhampton have brought it under the attention of the Naval Commandant at Brisbane, who, I understand, says that economy has necessitated cutting out Rockhampton as a sub-district training centre. I take second place to no one in my desire to see economy effected by the Government, but, in view of the vulnerability of the Queensland coast line to attack, I think this would be false economy. I urge the Department not to seek to save the small amount of money that would be spent by maintaining Rockhampton, which is in the centre of that coast line, as a sub-district training centre, and I hope the Minister for Defence will bring this matter under the attention, of the Minister for the Navy.
– I promise the honorable senator that I shall do so.
.- The Marine Board of Launceston - which is spending a considerable amount of money for the purpose of improving the entrance to the Tamar River, a work not only of local, but also of national importance, because I understand that if a rock at the entrance is removed the Navy “Department will establish a subbase in the river - has informed me that it has had occasion to import a considerable quantity of machinery, which cannot be obtained in Australia, for the purpose of removing this rock, and has been obliged to pay £500 by way of duty upon it. It is also bringing out a dredger of a particular type on which it will also be called upon to pay duty. While I am most anxious that both private and public enterprises should be carried out by the utilization of material made in Australia, at the same time I hold that if it is impossible to provide the necessary material locally it is in the interests of the public generally that some concession should be made to State Government or semi-Government activities which are obliged to import it. I was under the impression that there was some preferential tariff in this respect for Government Departments or semi-Government institutions, and if such be the case I direct the attention of the Minister to the claim, of this semiGovernment activity, the Launceston Marine Board, to be relieved’ of the payment of ‘duty upon the material it requires for removing the main obstruction to the entrance of a beautiful river. I do not know what amount is involved, but it is a matter of principle which I atn urging, namely that any Government undertaking should receive assistance in carrying out a national undertaking, always providing, of course, that such assistance is commensurate with a due observance of the necessity for affording adequate protection to Australian industries.
.- I indorse what Senator Earle has said. The Launceston Marine Board has been faced with very great problems with regard to the development of that very fine waterway named the River Tamar, which the Board is endeavouring to make so .navigable that it will be able to accommodate not only the Australian Nary, but also the British Navy should it ever come out here. The people of Launceston have undertaken a huge financial responsibility. In their endeavour to create, at Bell Bay, a port second to none in Australia, it has become necessary for them to incur . very heavy expenditure in the purchase of material, the duty on which is a big item. On some heavy cable chains recently purchased, a very big sum was paid by way of duty, and now that they are bringing out a bucket dredge, which is essential to the carrying out of the work, they have asked honorable senators representing Tasmania to approach the Government with a view to securing some concession in respect to the duty payable on this material. I hope that the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs will convey our representations to his colleague, and confer with him to see whether some relief cannot be afforded which will assist the Launceston Marine Board in carrying out this work which is of national importance.
Iwish now to say a few words in regard to the item “ Lighthouses.” It has been brought under my notice that at King Island, in the Straits - an island which is of very great importance from a productive point of view - there is a jetty on the east coast which was constructed by the State Government at a very heavy cost some years ago, and which is badly in need of some lighting in order to insure the safety of vessels trading there. This jetty is constructed in the open roadstead nearFraser Bluff, and, prior to its erection, the only port available was Currie Harbor, which is subject to very heavy north-westerly gales. It therefore became necessary to evolve a scheme for the construction of a port which would afford the necessary shelter during the prevailing westerly winds. The result was that eventually the State Government constructed the Fraser Harbor jetty at a very heavy cost. There is no light there, and frequentlyships arriving after dusk are obliged to stand off till next morning before they can approach the jetty.
– Is the honorable member referring to a light in the port itself ?
– I am referring to the need which exists for a light on the shore and upon the jetty.
– That is a State matter.
– The Commonwealth has a lighthouse on the Mersey River. Of course, if the matter is one for the Marine Board, that body will have to be made acquainted with the facts. I wrote to the Department upon this matter some time ago, but up to the present have not received any reply. If the Minister will be good enough to bring my remarks under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) I shall be obliged.
– My own opinion is that the matter to which Senator Payne has referred comes under the control of the local harbor authorities. However, I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs, and I shall ask him to give favorable consideration to the request which has been preferred, if that course be possible.
– I should like to know when the Government propose to re-adjust the very unfair method of administration which is now adopted in relation to foreign exchanges ?
– The Bill relating to that matter will be. brought down in another place this week.
– I am glad that the Bill is to be brought down this week, but, in my opinion, its introduction is somewhat belated. This matter was first mentioned in the Senate nearly six months ago. I hope that the measure referred to by the Minister for Defence will remove the very unfair anomalies which exist in regard to the administration of foreign exchanges in the Customs House, and that it will no longer continue to favour countries such as the United States of America, Canada, and Japan, whose exchanges are against us, whilst penalizing countries likeFrance, Italy, and Belgium, whose exchanges are in our favour. I feel that we should give the French people just now the verybest possible treatment that we can, consistent with the protection of Australian interests. A state of affairs has existed in connexion with these exchanges which has played right into the hands of Americans and Japanese, and which has subjected our late ally, France, to a very grave handicap. I hope that the Bill which has been promised will rectify these anomalies and place the administration of foreign exchanges by the Customs Department upon a basis at which no business man can cavil.
– In the Postmaster-General’s Department, under the heading of “ Northern Territory.” I notice an item which reads “ Salaries (payable at Adelaide), £200.” The next item is for “ Salaries (payable at Darwin), £1,000,” and then follows a third item which reads “ Con veyance of mails (payable at Adelaide), £100.” Do some of the Northern Territory officials reside in Adelaide? I know that the Territory is administered from Melbourne, but I was not aware that Northern Territory officials were living in Adelaide. Can the Minister explain why these moneys are to be payable in that city ? I can scarcely believe that Northern Territory officials are resident there.
– The payment of these moneys in Adelaide is due to the fact that there has always been an arrangement under which the Northern Territory accounts are kept separate from those for the rest of the Commonwealth. Adelaide is one of the termini of the overland telegraph line over which is transmitted a large volume of cable business. I do not know why the practice of paying certain officials in Adelaide has been continued as it has been. Ever since South Australia undertook the administration of the Northern Territory certain officials have been paid in Adelaide, and the amounts thus disbursed have been charged against the Territory.
– It is a rather roundabout way of doing things.
– It is. But I suppose that the practice merely involves the use of a little more printer’s ink.
– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister for Defence to the lack of mail facilities in the Northern Territory. Only the other day I received a request from the residents of Borroloola that I should do what I could to secure them a fortnightly mail service. At present they receive a mail from Cloncurry only once a month. As the sum of £100,000 has been set aside for the encouragement of commercial aviation, I suggest that a part of it should be earmarked to encourage a company which is being formed by some returned aviators, who, like the provisional directors of the company, are men of very high standing, and which is called “ The Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service Limited.” The objects of the company are to establish an aerial passenger mail and general aerial transport service, linking up the railway termini in Queensland with’ the Northern Territory at Port .Darwin. At the present time, mails have to travel all the way round Yorke’s Penin- sula in order to reach Darwin, and their transit is consequently slow and expensive. This, it will be conceded, is a great drawback. The proposed aerial service will run from Longreach, in Queensland, to Winton, thence to Cloncurry, Camooweal, Anthony’s Lagoon, Newcastle Waters, Daly Waters, and the Katherine, where it will link up with the railway from the Katherine to Darwin. This is not a hot-air scheme. Anybody who has taken an interest in the aerial transport of mails must know what is being done in this regard in Great Britain, America, and Europe. It is hoped that the company to which I have referred will be able to obtain contracts from the Government for the carriage of mails through this particular country, thus conferring many advantages upon outback settlers. The prospectus of the company states : -
The special climatic and general suitability of conditions in the area, to bc served by this company, and the great distances between the commercial centres of the Commonwealth and the undeveloped pastoral and mineral areas that will be served by this company, convince the directors that the services will be of great value to the Commonwealth, from an administrative, development, and defence point of view. This route - Longreach to Katherine - is a most essential route to be organized in connexion with the aerial defence of Australia, and it is expected that the Federal Government will assist in the organization of this, and will also avail itself of the company’s services for the carriage of mails and for the administration at Port Darwin and for aerial survey work, &c.
I ask the Minister to consider the advisableness of earmarking a certain portion of the £100,000 which is to be devoted to the encouragement of commercial aviation, for the carriage of mails along the route which has been mapped out by this company. The promoters of the company are returned soldiers and very experienced aviators. I hope, therefore, that the company will be granted a contract for the carriage of mails along the route which I have outlined.’
– I can assure the Committee that the Government will look with a sympathetic eye upon any proposal on the part of private companies to develop civil aviation. Any concrete proposition, such as that which has been outlined by Senator J. F.
Guthrie, will receive very favorable consideration. But, obviously, each proposal must be examined upon its merits, and must be able towithstand the closest investigation. We ought not to fritter money away upon ill-digestedschemes, no matter how enthusiastic their promoters may be. Very often we know that the judgment of these people is not sound.
– This scheme seems to me to be a very sound one.
– I hope that, it is. We propose shortly to appoint a Director of Civil Aviation. We hope he will be in sympathy with the development of civil aviation. The Defence Department is at present in collaboration with the Postal Department in endeavouring to select certain routes for trial postal services. It is wise, in the interests of economy, that we should not launch an ambitious scheme at first, and without giving careful consideration to the actual working conditions of a certain period. Only in this way can we expect to be able to form an opinion as to how best the services may be further developed. It does not follow that a scheme which has been successful in other parts of the world, under possibly different aerial conditions, will be as successful here. We intend to carefully develop aviation, and to endeavour if possible to place civil aviation ona sound commercial basis.
– A certain amount of criticism has been directed towards that scheme. It has been urged that the military machines are not altogether suitable for that particular purpose.
– That statement has been made, but in regard to certain machines under, the control of the Defence Department it is not true. Some of our machines are capable of carrying heavy loads.
-Brockm an. - I am glad to hear that.
– I hope the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) will remember that what Australia wants most in connexion with aviation is a practical application of the aeroplane to the needs of the far interior, about which, at present, we know very little; and I trust that in connexion. with the big military vote for the development of aviation, some attempt will be made to apply the military machine to the practical requirements of the Commonwealth. I should not like to see established two distinct branches of aviation, not related to each other, the one for military purposes only, and the other for commercial purposes, developed, possibly, by private enterprise largely, and perhaps to some extent frowned upon by the military authorities.
I rose particularly to refer to the question of our overseas mail service, in connexion with which our expenditure is, approximately, £150,000 per year. This sum, I take it, is being paid on the poundage basis for the despatch of Australian mail matter abroad. It is common knowledge that, before the war, the Orient Steam Navigation Company had a contract with the Commonwealth Government for the carriage of our mails to the United Kingdom, while the British Government had a contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the conveyance of British mails to Australia. The two contracts gave us practically a weekly mail service between the Commonwealth and the Mother Country. We know that the dislocation of shipping was very great during the war; and I noticed in the press the other day a statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Wise) to the effect that he was taking advantage of the best service offering for the despatch of mail matter to the United Kingdom, on the poundage basis, irrespective of any particular steam-ship line. I do not know what is in. the mind of the Government with regard to the renewal of the subsidy for a regular mail service ; but I do know that during the past twelve months the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the Commonwealth have been vigorously protesting against the unsatisfactory position of our oversea mail service. It is within my own knowledge that mails from England are delivered very spasmodically, though I believe the Postm aster-General disclaims any responsibility. I understand, too, that Australian mails are delivered in England in the same unsatisfactory manner. In view of a recent announcement by the Peninsular and Oriental and
Orient Companies that they hope, early in the new year, to institute abi-weekly mail service again, I hope the Post Office authorities will do something to place our post-war mail service on its very satisfactory pre-war basis. I believe the subsidy is not now being paid.
– The subsidy is being paid.
– I understand the payment of the subsidy has been suspended even up to date. I do not see any particular item to cover the amount, either in this year’s or last year’s Estimates.
– We paid £111,000 last year.
– I remember an agreement made between the Orient Company and the Commonwealth Government in one of the pre-war years - I am not quite sure it was not made by Senator Thomas when he was PostmasterGeneral - for the payment of a sum approaching £200,000 as a subsidy for a regular fortnightly service. The payment of that subsidy was suspended during the war, and I believe it has not been renewed. I should like some information on the point, because even now the transit of mails to and from Australia and England is very unsatisfactory. I remind honorable senators, too, that the bulk of our export trade is with England, and that an unsatisfactory mail service means a great deal, directly and indirectly, to our commercial community. Documents, exchanges, drafts, credits, and indeed the whole export structure of our commercial edifice in Australia would be greatly improved by a regular mail service to the United Kingdom.
I understand - perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong - that the radio service has recently been transferred from the Navy Department to the Postal Department.
– Not yet, but that is to be done.
– This will mean, then, that the radio service will be changed from a defence matter to a commercial matter, and that in future it will be under the aegisof the PostmasterGeneral, who will be responsible for its development.
– During the war there was no option but to suspend the mail contract with the Orient Company, because nearly all the vessels of that company’s fleet were requisitioned by the Imperial Government. The contract was for £170,000 a year, and upon the suspension of the contract we were obliged to send our mails at poundage rates by any vessel that happened to be available. When the war ended the British Shipping Controller released a number of the Orient ships, and we have taken over the contrast again, although, legally, we could have broken it altogether. The company lost a number of vessels by enemy action; but they are now building up their fleet again, as is evidenced from the fact that the subsidy to be paid this year is larger than last year.
– Do I understand that as that company get nearer to the fortnightly service, they will get nearer to the full amount of the subsidy?
– Yes.
– Then it is really to their advantage to build up their fleet as quickly as possible, and establish a regular fortnightly service.
– Yes. They are in honour bound to complete their contract.
– And the Government at present are paying according to the service given ?
– I take it that is so. The full contract is for £175,000 per year. Last year we paid £111,000, and this year we are paying about £130,000. As they improve the service, so will the subsidy increase in proportion. With regard to the radio service, the Government have decided to transfer it from the Navy to the Postal Department, and I believe negotiations are now being made to that end by the respective Ministers.
.- Under the item, War Pensions Office, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to the fact that in the recent increase of pensions to dependants of soldiers proper provision was not made for the dependants of officers of the Australian Imperial Force who were killed in action or died on active service. When the Australian Imperial Force was established a scheme of pensions was inaugurated, in which the provision was totally inadequate, with the result that first a simple system of living .allowances, and later an increased pension scheme, was provided for the lower ranks. The result is that up to the rank of captain every one receives a flat rate. Beyond that there is a slight increase for majors and colonels. It is very good to have a democratic ideal, and to live up to it, by treating everybody alike. It makes quite a popular appeal, and goes down well with the mob ; but a Government charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the Commonwealth, and especially that enormously important branch of them, the Military Forces, must look a little further than that if they are to obtain good service. It has recently been found that the conditions of service in the commissioned ranks are so bad that no one is coming forward to take the positions offered at Duntroon. A similar difficulty is likely to meet the Government in officering even the Citizen Forces. The officers of any Force are open to criticism, and that has been very freely exercised by certain sections of the community. An officer, to fit himself, even in the Citizen Forces-
– How does this arise under war pensions, which relate only to the Australian Imperial Force ?
– The conditions which, to-day. apply to the Australian Imperial Force are likely to apply to any Force that is hereafter raised to defend Australia. Intending officers, looking at the treatment afforded to officers of the Australian Imperial Force, may well draw the inference that their treatment will be on like lines, and so be deterred from accepting the responsibilities and the extra dangers attached to the rank of officer. The officers of the Citizen Forces have to sacrifice the whole of their leisure time, as I know from personal experience. For many years after the Boer War I never had a vacation that I could spend with my family. All my spare time was taken up with attending instructional schools or camps of training. The reward, so far as I can see, is that officers are treated exactly the same as those in the lower ranks, and no encouragement appears to be offered, in the latest scale of pensions, to men to fit themselves for higher commands. I would particularly direct the attention of the Minister to the facts about the medical service. The great majority of its members were men of the rank of captain, young men, many of them just married, and with young families. A n umber of them possessed the very highest attainments in their profession. They came forward with the utmost freedom; in fact we were able actually to spare men who were graduates of the Australian Universities to help the British. Hundreds of them who came forward in response to the call left the Australian Forces and joined the British, to whom they rendered invaluable services. Many of these men were killed or died on service, but the only reward that their dependants have received is exactly the same treatment as is given to the dependants of privates. These men fitted themselves by a long and expensive course of study to undertake the duties which they were called on to discharge, and for which they freely volunteered. The Government might well take into consideration the need for encouraging such men to come forward freely in that way by making a little better provision for their children and other dependants in the event of their being killed in the service of their country.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) (5.40]. - Senator Elliott is incorrect in assuming that war pensions, when first established, recognised any difference between the officer and other ranks. The first War Pensions Bill introduced provided for a flat rate. It took no cognisance of the difference between officers and those of other ranks. If Senator Elliott will look a little further back than he has gone, I think he will find a justification for the attitude which the Commonwealth has taken up. The Australian Imperial Force was essentially a citizen army. When its members ceased to be citizens, and became soldiers, the Commonwealth recognised the difference in the responsibility of officers and other ranks by giving higher salaries according to the grade of that responsibility. But when they ceased to be soldiers, and again became citizens, and were to receive war pen.sious according to the disability they suffered in the war, the Commonwealth treated them as it treats all its citizens, equally in the sight of the law, and. therefore equally in their claims for war pensions. That policy, I think, can be justified, because our officers were not drawn from any particular class of the community. They came from all classes. The intention of the pension is to compensate for disabilities, and to place the soldier relatively, as far as this can be done, in as good a position as he occupied before he was disabled. If, therefore, we depart from that flat rate, we must not base the pension on the salary which the man received as a soldier, but on the salary that he received before he became a soldier. Look where that would lead us, and the many inequalities that we would come up against. Obviously, that is the only basis, if we are going to treat these men as citizens in regard to their war pensions. It is the only justification we could have for departing from the flat rate.
– Why not recognise their rank?
– Because, as citizens, they do not hold that rank, and as citizensthey do not draw the salary of that rank. In some cases they draw more, and in some less. The Australian ImperialForce was an army recruited from the citizens, and the idea of the war pension is that it should be a compensation for and alleviation of disabilities suffered from the war, having regard, not to the man as a soldier, or the salary he earned as a soldier, but to the man as a citizen. Therefore, if we were strictly logical we would fix the pension in relation to the salary he received as a citizen; but as that would raise a tremendous crop of difficulties, we adopted a flat rate for all, which seems to me the better course.
– At the present time a major’s widow gets more than a private’s widow.
– Not in regard to war pensions. The honorable senator must be thinking of the supplementary scale of living allowance under the Repatriation Act. Since the first Bill was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, a flat rate has been the rule for war pensions.
– I think you are mistaken.
– I do not think so, because I remember the discussions that arose over the case of General Bridges, who was at that time General Officer Commanding of the Australian Imperial Force, but whose widow, under the War Pensions Act, was entitled only to the same as the widow of a private.
– Are you not referring to a special grant?
– A special grant was made by Act of Parliament, but not under the War Pensions Act, and only in that one case.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported without request; report adopted.
– In moving
That this Bill be now read a third time,
I wish to qualify what I have just said to Senator Elliott. There is a variation in the pension between the point of £52 per year and the point of £156 per year. To that extent the honorable senator is right, and I am wrong.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 5617
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This is somewhat of a technical measure, and. as a layman, I speak on it with some trepidation. The main principles involved in it, however, are such as the ordinary layman can approach with as much confidence as can members of the legal profession. In the Judiciary Act which we passed in 1912 it is provided that a Full Court consisting of less than all the Justices shall not give a decision upon any question affecting the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth unless a majority of the Justices concur in the decision. There are at present seven Justices of the High Court, and no decision can be given upon any constitutional question unless at least four Justices concur in it. Until quite recently two Justices were utilized practically for the whole of their time upon Arbitration work, and although the Arbitration (Public Service) Bill recently passed may relieve one, it is almost certain that at least one Judge will continue to be occupied with arbitration work for the whole of his time. Mr. Justice Powers is absent on leave overseas. Owing to thepressure of work during the war the Justices have not been able to take their leave, and are now seizing the opportunity. Upon the return of Mr. Justice Powers, Mr. Justice Isaacs will take his leave. It will be seen that for all practical purposes there will be five Justices readily available for hearing constitutional questions before the High Court. It would be difficult to have a Court constituted of a greater number than that, and it is therefore proposed to amend the existing law by striking out the words, “ unless a majority of the Justices concur in the decision,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ unless at least three Justices concur in the decision.” In most cases it will be three out of five. The point may be raised as to what would happen in the event of six Judges deciding to sit, because if we carry this Bill three are to constitute a majority. In the event of an equal number of Judges there might be three on either side. Section 3 of the Judiciary Act 1912, which amends section 23 of the principal Act, provides in sub-section 2: -
Justice of the High Court (whether acting asa Justice of the High Court or in someother capacity), or of a Supreme Court of a State or a Judge thereof, is called in question by appeal or otherwise, the decision appealed from shall be affirmed ; and
It is assumed that if there were three on either side, and the opinion of the Judge has been appealed against, the appeal would fail. Where it is not a case of appeal, but original jurisdiction, the opinion of the Chief J ustice or the senior Judge would prevail.
– It is practically givinghim a casting vote.
– In that contingency only.
– What would happen in the event of a constitutional point being decided ?
– If it was on an appeal, the position would be as I have stated. If it was not on an appeal the opinion of the Chief Justice or senior Judge would prevail. That is, of course, assuming the six sat.
– It is merely a provision against a deadlock.
– Yes. Three is to be the majority instead of four, as in the past.
– Would it not be rather dangerous to allow one man to decide on a constitutional point?
– It is rather misleading for the honorable member to suggest that, because the Chief Justice or senior Judge does not decide alone, but with the assistance of three others.
Another amendment is proposed in section 3. Under section 75 of the Constitution theHigh Court possesses original jurisdiction -
In all matters -
Arising under any Treaty;
Affecting Consuls or other representatives of other countries;
In which the Commonwealth or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a party;
Between States or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;
In which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.
In all these things the Court has original jurisdiction. Section 76 of the Constitution provides -
The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter -
Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
Arising under any laws made by the Commonwealth ;
Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States.
Under section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1915, which was an Act which amended the principal Act, Parliament conferred original jurisdiction upon the High Court -
This is in exercise of the power conferred under section 76, sub-section 2, of the Constitution, which reads, “ Arising under any laws made by the Commonwealth.” Under the Act of 1915 the Commonwealth partly exercised its power by giving to the High Court original jurisdiction in trials of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. The distinctive feature of that Act was the granting of criminal jurisdiction to the High Court to enable it to deal with indictable offences.
The measure was introduced at a time when war legislation generally was under discussion, and there was a disposition on the part of Parliament to embody in all its laws a restriction as to the period of their operation. At the time we were conferring on the High Court Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and although that was necessary in time of peace, it became increasingly necessary in time of war. As regards indictable offences, it must be remembered that the Commonwealth Parliament had the supreme responsibility of the war thrown upon it, and it was felt that it should be supreme in regard to indictable offences through our own Court. These matters were made urgent in consequence of the war, and even if there had not been a war this power should have been conferred upon it. The Government of the day accepted an amendment providing that the Act should remain in operation during the war, and for six months thereafter, and no longer. It is now proposed to repeal that limitation, which will have the effect of continuing the High Court jurisdiction as provided in the 1915 Act. I think it is sufficient to say that, as nothing very dreadful has happened, there should be no objection to the power being continued.
Clause 4 will enable the High Court to direct that an award of arbitration in any matter of Federal jurisdiction shall be a rule of Court. Such awards may then be enforced in the same way as judgments. For instance, awards of arbitration in regard to disputes arising where land has been acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act, or the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Lands Act, will now be enforceable in the same way as judgments of the Court. At present, in the absence of this provision, an appeal to a State Court is required to accomplish that, but if this ‘amendment is carried it will be a matter for an order of the High Court.
Clause 5 will authorize State Courts exercising Commonwealth jurisdiction in. criminal matters to amend infor mations so as to remove defects therein. Cases have arisen in certain State Courts where it has been held that they did not have the power. There is no difficulty in this regard in most of the States; but in South Australia instances have occurred where it has been held that they did not have the power. It is advisable that they should have authority, because justice may otherwise be defeated if they cannot amend an information when defects are disclosed. The law in the other States is different, and it is thought that in Commonwealth cases there should be power to amend an information in the State of South Australia.
The measure is one that will prove useful, and I trust its provisions will be acceptable to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Earle) adjourned.
page 5619
In Committee (Consideration of House’ of Representatives’ amendments) :
Clause 8 -
Section 6 of the principal Act is amended -
by omitting from the definition of “ Master “ the words “ other than a pilot”;
by omitting from the definition of “Discharge” the words “the last” and inserting in their stead the word “a”;
House of Representatives’ amendment -
After “amended” and before paragraph (a) insert: - “ (aa) by omitting from the definition of limited coast-trade ship ‘ the words (not exceeding a radius of four hundred miles) ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘(not exceeding the limits for home-trade or coast-trade ships, as the case may be, fixed for the port, at the commencement of this section, by any State law) ‘; (ab) by adding at the end of the defini tion of ‘ River and bay ship ‘ the words ‘and also includes any ship or class of ships, specified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. which trades exclusively within the limits of a specified port, bay or river and within a radius of three nautical miles seaward from the entrance of the port, bay or river:’;”.
– I do not know what latitude I am allowed in dealing with the amendments made in another place; but I think it desirable to consider them collectively. They have been adopted as a result of a conference between the seamen and the representative of the Government, and subsequently by a conference with the ship-owners. All parties are now agreed on the points at issue, and it is believed that the amendments will make our navigation laws the best of any nation in the world. Some of them are rather technical, and come under specific headings; and I believe if I were permitted, in a general way, to draw attention to their meaning, much Mme would* be saved. Is it possible to explain all the amendments in a general statement ?
– The Minister may make a general statement on the amendments made by the House of Representatives. .
– The first amendment is in relation to the definition of a “ limited coast trade ship.” In the original Act there was no mileage limit, but in 1910 a limitation of 400 miles was imposed; but as the word “nautical” was omitted we were compelled to define “ miles “ as being ordinary miles. If the word “ nautical “ had been employed a much greater distance would have been covered. For instance, Sydney and Melbourne would have been brought within the radius of 400 nautical miles. It is proposed to emit the words “ not exceeding a radius of 400 miles,” and insert in their stead “ not exceeding the limits for home trade or coast trade ships, as the case may be, fixed for the port at the commencement of this section by any State law.” ;
Another amendment deals with certified tes of competency. When the Act was passed there were few oil boats or power boats in use. It lias been decided to issue first class and second class certificates of competency to engineers on motor boats.
The next amendment relates to employment of aliens, and is a copy of the new provision in the British Act. Australia is following the example of Great Britain in preventing the employment of aliens, thus preserving the British mercantile marino to British seamen.
Then follows an amendment as to nn-.inng agreements. In the past seamen have suffered hardship through being discharged away from their home ports. A new clause has been inserted by the House of Representatives, having been mutually agreed upon by the steam-ship owners and the seamen, providing that when a crew has been engaged under a running agreement which has been in force more than six months, they must be discharged at their home port or transhipped to their home port upon discharge at the co6t of the ship-owner.
Then there is an amendment relating; to allotment notes, and providing that a seaman proceedi ng on a voyage which may last for six months may allot two-thirds of his pay to his wife, children or other dependants. In the old days the seaman was not allowed to allot more than half his wages; but with the increased pay of seamen I. think that a sailor should be entitled to allot a greater proportion of his wages to his dependants at home. In any . case it would still leave him with, more money than he had under the old arrangement by which he allotted half his wages.
– The? seaman should be allowed to take the whole of his wages; he has earned them.
– He may take the whole of his wages. This amendment merely provides a special arrangement by which he may allot two-thirds of his wages to his dependants. Provision is also made in this amendment for the wages of the seamen to be paid at a port where there is a branch or agency of the Commonwealth Bank.
In the next amendment, in a case of shipwreck the responsibility is cast upon the owner to take care of a seaman until his return to Australia.
A further amendment will compel ship-owners to provide refrigerating, chambers capable of preserving in good condition fresh meat for the consumption of their # crews. This is an example of how far prejudice may take one. After careful inquiry it has been ascertained that the cost of observing this provision will be less than the cost of .the old system which it will supplant. While’ it will be a great improvement from the point of view of the crew, it will also serve to eliminate a great deal of the waste which occurred under the old system.
Provision is made for protecting the deck wheel, and the next amendment relates to accommodation for seamen and apprentices. The latter has been mutually agreed upon by all parties. Of course, there are some exemptions in this respect. It is not proposed to compel a ship-owner to break up a boat which may have cost many thousands of pounds because the necessary accommodation cannot be fitted into it, but the existing construction will be utilized to the best advantage in order to afford improved conditions for the crew. However, no new boat will be licensed until it complies with all these conditions.
Other amendments relate to bunks, the appointment of surveyors, the provision of watertight compartments, fireproof bulkheads, &c, on passenger ships and unlicensed ships. There are certain unlicensed tramp vessels which wander round the world getting cargoes where they can. When it is possible for us to secure licensed vessels for our coastal work, of course, they must, be utilized ; but when all our own vessels are fully engaged, and it may be found necessary to secure the services of additional ships, we ought to have permission to engage the services of unlicensed vessels. In fact, the north-west coast will probably be dependent on unlicensed vessels.
– That means the use of black labour on the north-west coast.
– The honorable senator’s interjection is most unfair. The whole purpose of this Bill is to preserve the policy of a White Australia, but we are not so foolish as to say that if ships manned by white crews are notavailable, we must deprive a portion of the coast of Australia of all means of Communication. That would be cutting off one’s nose to spite his face. We tried the method once, and a part of our coast Vas neglected for many months.
An amendment to clause US limits the time for taking proceedings, and the last amendment relates to barges, sud) as are used on the River Murray, which Ave hope to see developed in the near future. A strict interpretation of the law is that each barge must carry a skipper and a mate, but In the history of the River Murray trade we have not had an instance of a barge requiring the attendance of more than a skipper and, possibly, a helmsman, who, as a matter of fact, is a member of the crew of the tug which is towing the barge. It is not the desire of the Government to compel these craft to carry full crews, and the Minister, by this amendment, is given power to exempt them.
As the Senate in industrial matters is anxious to preserve peace, I would like to point out that these amendments are- the result of an agreement arrived at by all the parties - the Government, the seamen, and the ship-owners. Therefore, I recommend their acceptance. 1 move -
That the amendments bo agreed to.
– Each amendment must be moved separately.
– I move-
That the amendment to clause S be agreed to.
– I would like to give full consideration to these amendments, particularly the exemption of the North-West trade from the provisions of the Act, thus permitting the employment of black labour on our coast. As honorable senators are aware, I have been absent from Australia for the last few months, and, of course, I arn not altogether familiar with what has taken place here during my absence. I ask the Minister to report progress so that I might peruse these amendments to-night and study their effect. It may be true that the ship-owners have agreed to these amendments, and it may be possible that the Western Australian Government have agreed to the exemption of black-labour boats, but I know from my own experience that they are building their own vessels to trade upon their coast.
Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council) [G.1SJ. - There is no desire to force these amendments on the Senate without giving ample opportunity for discussing them, and although I am surprised that a request for adjournment should come from one honorable senator who we all know is the be3t informed in the Chamber upon matters affecting seamen, I realize that it is because be has just returned to Australia. However, seeing that he has been most active in participating in the passing of legislation affecting navigation, it would possibly be unfair not to grant his request, and I am quite prepared to allow the discussion of these amendments to stand over until to-morrow.
Progress reported.
page 5622
– I move-
My object in submitting this motion is to afford honorable senators an opportunity of ventilating their opinions upon a matter which has already been more or less discussed here, and upon which there exists a great difference of opinion - I refer to the position of our parliamentary officers under the Public Service Act - and to the powers of the various Committees that we elect at the commencement of each Parliament. A debate upon these lines will serve to familiarize honorable senators with what has been the practice since the inception of the Commonwealth, and also with the provisions of the Public Service Act in their relation to parliamentary officers.
– The Select Committee which the honorable senator desires to see appointed could merely make recommendations.
– Precisely. It could only make recommendations in accordance with the evidence which was tendered to it. But its deliberations might conceivably result in an amendmentof our Public Service Act. It must be admitted that the views which some of us hold to-day are somewhat different from those which we expressed when the first Public Service Bill was under consideration in this Chamber. It is also possible that a discussion of this motion may make more understandable than they are at present certain actions which you, sir, have recently taken. To-day I have the honour to be a member of the Parliamentary Library Committee. I was also a member of the first Library Committee, which was appointed soon after the meeting of the first Commonwealth Parliament nearly twenty years ago. I am, therefore, thoroughly acquainted with the practice which has obtained in connexion with that body since its very inception, and I exceedingly regret the attempts which have recently been made by you, sir, to depart from wellestablished precedent - precedent which was laid down when the first Parliamentary Library Committee which was presided over by the Speaker of the first Commonwealth Parliament, the late Sir Frederick Holder, was appointed. I gather from a letter, which was recently forwarded by you to the present Library Committee, that you protest against certain practices on the part of that body - practices which were followed by the first Library Committee to which I have referred. Whilst attending a meeting of the Committee the other clay I was indeed surprised to learn of the attitude which you have taken up. I made inquiries into the matter, and found that the Committee had been exercising control over certain parliamentary officers, so far as their promotions and salaries were concerned. According to a report, whichI have received, you, sir, have protested against their action, and have affirmed that under the Public Service Act you and Mr. Speaker have the right to deal with these questions. Upon hearing this, the members of the Committee naturally began to ask themselves, “ What is the use of this Committee if it cannot exercise control over these matters?” I say quite frankly that, if the important questions to which I have referred are taken out of the hands of the Committee, I shall not remain a member of it for five minutes. If you, sir, are going to dictate to the Committees which this Parliament has rightly appointed, you must accept full responsibility for your action. That is the position which I intend to take up. But I do not wish to press the matter to that extreme. When the first Public Service Bill was under consideration, Parliament wisely declined to surrender control of its own officers to the Public Service Commissioner.
But for the purposes of administration, the President of this Chamber and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were appointed to take the place of the Commissioner, so far as parliamentary officers are concerned. I was a member of the House Committee which was appointed by the second Commonwealth Parliament, and can therefore speak with some degree of authority as to what transpired at its meetings. I have no hesita’tion in saying that, in those days, each item of business, whether it related to the salary or promotion of any official or not, was brought before the Committee, and decided by a majority of its members, and the President of the Senate. Sir Richard Baker, duly gave effect to those decisions. That practice has continued till quite recently. Our Public Service Act has not been altered in any way which can be construed into a justification for you, sir, taking up the attitude which you have adopted. In my opinion, you are putting a new interpretation upon your own powers, and are seeking to take out of the hands of the Committees to which I have referred the right to control the officers of this Parliament. Seeing that Parliament was so jealous of its right to control its own officers that it declined to transfer that control to an outside Commissioner, it follows that it should also refuse to surrender that control to an individual member of this Senate, in the person of the President.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to S p.m.
– At the dinner adjournment I was referring to the precedents that have been set up many years ago in regard to the control by the various Committees which we appoint for the better working of Parliament; and I was pointing out that it would be quite foreign to the intention of Parliament to apply to our officers one particular section of the Act by setting up the President and Mr. Speaker in positions somewhat similar to that of the Public Service Commissioner.
– On a point of order, Mr. President, do you not think we should have a quorum?
– There is a quorum present.
– If we were to apply only one particular section of the
Act to the various Departments of th® Parliament, and ignore the Act in otherrespects, that would be a very one-eyed! way of interpreting a very important measure.
Many provisions of the Public Service Act are not applied to our officers and] our Departments. For instance, the Public Service Commissioner is required? to present an annual report to Parliament concerning the entire working o£ the whole of the Public Service. ~W& have had no such report from the President or Mr. Speaker, nor have we had! any statement from them as to the classification of our officers. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the Parliament, we have no announcement of the fact through the press, and, so far as I aim aware, no applications are invited from officers in the Public Service outside th© Parliament, as is usual in other branches of the Public Service. Ltd short, with the exception of one particular section, the Public Service Act has not been applied to Parliament. Outside of the Parliament an officer of on© Department has an opportunity of applying for a vacancy in another Department, but we have had nothing of that kind here, although, strange to say, while we have only a small number of officers iia the Parliament, we have as many Departments as there are in the whole Public Service. For instance, the Senate is a Department, the House of Representatives is a Department, the Library is a Department, the Hansard is a Department, and so on. And each Department is a water-tight compartment. This is on© phase of the question which it would b© necessary for this Select Committee to inquire into. This state of affairs is very unfair to our officers, many of whom have been here for the last twenty years. Iia this Chamber I recognise gentlemen who came here twenty years ago, and who today are occupying practically the same position, with very little advance im salary.
– Let u6 hope you will recognise some of us twenty years hence.
– I hope so, toss, I also hope that twenty years hence we shall not be occupying the same humble positions that we are in to-day, but that we shall have made some progress in the meantime. This cannot be .«aid. of elD of our officers. During the last twenty years some have made material advancement; but others, on the contrary, have made none at all. There are officers in this Chamber - I am not going outside the Senate for my illustrations - gentlemen who occupied very humble and modest positions in comparison with what they occupy to-day ; men who were on a very low salary scale, who, in fact, were in junior positions, but who, to-day are very high up in their classification. On the other hand, we have gentlemen occupying very prominent positions in connexion with Hansard, and who, in my opinion, after close observation, are the hardest working section of our parliamentary officers, and yet these officers are in the same position to-day as they were twenty years ago. 7. attribute this to the system of watertight compartments in the Parliament of which I am complaining. The system docs not work fairly between one officer and another. “We have officers who, twenty years ago, were getting, say, £300 a year, and to-day arc in receipt of £1,000 a year. They certainly have not got much to complain of, for they have received recognition.
– We have had the same rate of advance, too.
– No, we have not made quite the same advance; but, even if we had, that would not be much consolation to those of our officers who have made no progress during that time.
– No. I should say it would make their position the. harder.
– When we organized the Hansard Department, we searched practically the whole of Australia for the very best journalists available, men who had made names for themselves, and yet so far as classification is concerned, these gentlemen have receded into junior positions, whilst other officers have gone abend. These are the matters which the Select Committee should inquire into, and I hope remedy, or at all events make some recommendation to the Senate as to the better working of the Public Service Act in relation to our officers.
I have mentioned the higher-paid officers; I turn now to the lower-paid men, and I find that their position is even worse. Considering the times we are living in, the high cost of living, and the fact that greatly increased wages are now paid by outside employers, our lower-paid officers have been working under sweated conditions. Instead of Parliament being a model employer, I think it might very well be termed a sweating employer. These are the matters which I think justify me in saying that the time is ripe for an inquiry into the working of the Public Service Act, so far as this Parliament is concerned, to see whether .we can remedy this state of affairs and do justice between one officer and another.
I do not wish to cover the whole of the ground in my remarks to-night, as I understand other honorable senators intend also to speak. I may, perhaps, instance the case of a prominent member of the Ilansard Staff - I am not going to refer to any of the gentlemen who are still on that staff, for I have very good reason for not wanting to drag them in if I can possibly leave them out - a gentleman who was on the staff for many years: Professor Scott, of the Melbourne University. Had that gentleman still occupied his position on the Hansard Staff, he could not have applied for a vacancy at the head of the Senate table. This is a state of affairs that should not be allowed to continue. When a ‘man gives good service to his country, and is fitted for other tasks than that in which he is engaged, he should have an opportunity of making application for any vacancies in the other branches of the Public Service. Some of the men in the humbler positions in the Parliament are to-day on practically the same wage as they wore twenty years ago. This is alto.gether unreasonable in these days of high cost of living. There are men working on our staff, doing responsible work, for less than £4 per week. I attribute this state of affairs to the present want of system.
I do not wish to weary the Senate, but I would remind honorable senators that, while wc have been passing laws for the betterment of working conditions outside, we have, I am afraid, overlooked those who are attending on us day after day, and, perhaps, we have not recognised their merits because they have been so close to us. It is time the Senate took some action to improve their position. Men who have been in the service of the
Parliament for very many years are still temporary officers. This, again, shows that the classification scheme of the Public Service Acthas not been applied, because no employee in the Public Service can remaina temporary employee for a greater period than nine months. Yet, we have men still regarded as temporary employees who have been working in the Parliament for nine years. These men, so far as they know, have never been gazetted. They are still in temporary positions. That, I take it, is qui te wrong.
– I should think so.
– Recognising all these facts, we should endeavour to do justice in the matter by having a thorough inquiry into the whole position.
The precedents set by past Presidents, and past Speakers justify me in the attitude 1 have taken up regarding interpretations of the Public Service Act by the present President (Senator Givens). I say without any heat or personal illfeeling that the interpretations he has put upon the duties of his position are quite inconsistent with those of the gentlemen who presided over this Chamber in the past, and also of the gentlemen who have presided in the other Chamber. Sir Richard Baker carried out the duties of his office in the way I have already indicated. Anything in connexion with the working of the Department was placed by him before the House Committee. Sir Frederick Holder, who was the first Speaker of another place, did the same with the Library Committee. Sir Albert Gould followed the same course, and so did Mr. Turley, so far as I know. Mr. McDonald and Sir Elliot Johnson, who are still with us, and are members of the House and Library Committees, also corroborate the statement I have enunciated here this evening, that certain practices have been followed in the Library Committee on the one hand, and the House Committee on the other, but that new interpretations have been given which undoubtedly take away from those two Committees’ the right which they have so long exercised. I do not deplore the fact that the power has been taken away from those Committees. It is a very good thing that something has stirred Parliament to take action and take notice of what is going on. We have the right from time to time to review the working of our laws, and if we discover flaws which necessitate amendments, we should say so, as reasonable individuals, no matter who may be offended. I, for one, am not going to be turned one iota from the course which my sense of duty compels me to take in order to pleaseor displease any individual.I came here as a free man to do the right thing by any one and every one who may be affected by my vote and voice, and I am going to do that to the end. If individuals treat this as a personal matter, they must take the responsibility.I am standing as I did twenty years ago, for a just thing between the Committees and those whom we employ, to carry on the work of Parliament. That is all I ask for, and nothing short of an inquiry into the whole of the surrounding circumstances, and a revision of the Public Service Act, in the light of the way it has operated , will meet the requirements of the case.
.- In what I have to say on this motion I wish it to be distinctly understood that I speak as a senator, and not as a member of the Government. This is a question which concerns the Senate itself. It is not a Government question, and therefore every honorable senator is entitled to express his own views on it. To me the issue seems very simple. Section 14 of the Public Service Act substitutes the President of the Senate, so far as the Senate is concerned, for the Public Service Commissioner and the Clerk of the Senate is created the permanent head of a Department. There can be no manner of doubt about this. It also constitutes the officers of the Senate a separate Department under the Act. If the President sees fit to consult any Committee of the Senate about a question coming within his jurisdiction, that is a matter for himself. There is no statutory obligation, and no obligation laid upon him by our Standing Orders to do so. He has the right to inform his mind as he sees fit. He is the officer made responsible by the Public Service Act and by our Standing Orders, and it is to him and not to any Committee or any individual senator that the Senate must look for the proper performance of his duties as the head of the officers of this branch of the Legislature. Therefore, so far as concerns the first part of Senator de Largie’s speech, I have no doubt in my mind that the President is the authority duly constituted. It does not matter whether any past President has thought fit to consult a Committee or anybody else. That fact does not raise any doubt cn my mind as to the position of the President in this matter.
The next question that arises is whether the President is properly carrying out his duties to the Senate. If he £s, we have no need to appoint a Select Committee. I take it that, as soon as the Select Committee came up against the Public Service Act, they would be Forced to the view that the President is responsible. * They would then have to proceed to inquire into what the President has been and is doing to see whether, in their opinion, he is. rightly carrying out his duties.
– Is not the idea of the appointment of the Committee to get an alteration of the Act in that regard’? II understood so from Senator de Largie’s speech.
– If that is the idea, then I am not in favour of appointing a Committee, because I am not in favour of laying that duty on a number of persons. I prefer to lay it on one person, and to hold him responsible to the Senate. That person is the Presiding Officer of the Senate. He and the Speaker of another place are the proper persons to have control of the staffs accessary for the carrying on of Parliament.
– They have legal control, not to speak of other control.
– They have, but, if the object of the inquiry by the Committee is to determine whether that is the best system, I do not need any inquiry on that point to enable me to make up my mind.
– You know all about it.
– I do. I know enough of Departments to realize that there must be some one responsible, and dat you cannot work a Department with a ‘Committee. It is an outstanding fact that the one person responsible in this ease must be Mie President.
– I do not say that it is not. I wish for the appointment of a Committee of inquiry.
– I do not need a Committee of inquiry to help me to make up my mind on that point. If the Committee reported that somebody else should be responsible, it would not alter my judgment, which is that the Presiding Officer is the proper person to have control.
– Would the Minister favour the abolition of the Sessional Committees ?
– No. I think there ure plenty of duties for the Committees to concern themselves with properly.
– I understand that the difficulty is as to what the powers of the Committees are.
– If that is so, the Committees have the right to report the fact to the Senate. All our Committees have the right to make a report to the body that elects them. If they find any difficulty in carrying out their duties, their obligation is to report to the Senate. So far, they have not done that, and until some Committee report that the President is interfering with them, or preventing them from carrying out their duties, I shall assume that he is not so interfering, because there is a proper way under the Standing Orders for them to bring any such happening before the Senate. Until they do, T do not propose to assume anything of the kind.
The President is first of all elected by the vote of the Senate, and under section 17 of the Constitution he is removable at any time by a vote of the Senate. He is, therefore, all the time responsible to the Senate for the due performance of his duties. The question consequently arises : Has any case been made out to show that the President is not worthy of our confidence? Because the .passing of a motion such as this would presume that we have doubts’ as to the way in which he is carrying out his duties. In the case of some Departments, honorable senators may not have the means of making up their minds as to what is being done. That cannot be said in the case of the Senate. Every one of us, so far as our parliamentary sittings are concerned, is in daily touch with what is happening. We have only to look at the
Estimates as they come before us to ascertain the salaries that are being paid. We seC the hours that the attendants are working, and every day we see the duties they are performing, and how they are performing them. I do not need any Select Committee to tell me who is doing the work, and how it is being done.
– There are lots of things going on that you know nothing about.
– There may be. but I have the average intelligence of the average man, and I do not need a Select Committee to tell me what I can see going on around and about me. I can see it for myself just as well as any member of a Select Committee can see it. I am, therefore, entitled to make up my own mind whether the President is properly carrying out his duties. I believe he is doing so. I believe he has a due sense of his responsibility, not merely to the Senate, but to the officers under his ‘control. I therefore cannot vote for the motion, because, in my judgment, it imputes a doubt as to the way in which the President is carrying out his duties.
One point was brought up by Senator de Largie as a justification, I take it, for the passing of the motion. He quoted cases of officers who were here when the first Senate met, and pointed out that many of them had not had their salaries increased in proportion to the length of time that they had been engaged. I altogether dissent from the principle therein inferred as to the fixation of salaries. The right thing to do in Government Departments, as elsewhere, is to fix the salary according to the nature and responsibility of the duties performed. The problem set by Senator de Largie is not confined to Parliament. It is to be met in every Government Department. The claim is continually put forward that an officer can remain in a position, and that his salary can go on automatically increasing. If that principle were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that, in course of time, an officer performing duties of the lowest character; so far as responsibility and value of service were concerned, could be receiving the highest salary, because he had been in the Department for perhaps thirty years. That is altogether a wrong principle upon which to assess salaries. Length, of service should be taken into consideration, but we must also consider the nature o5 the duties that the officer is performing. Officers do not come into this Parliament blindfold. They know what they are coming to. There are officers in this Parliament who were officers in some of the Commonwealth Departments. When they came into the service of Parliament they knew that they were entering a Department in which the opportunities for promotion were strictly limited. They knew that they were coming to a large extent into a cut-de-sac. A man looking around him for a future career could see the Public Service open to him, because if he had the qualifications to enter the Parliamentary Service, he ought tc> have them also to enter the Public Service. He deliberately decides to enter a Department with a handful of employees, where he must know that the number of highly-paid positions must be distinctly limited, and the opportunities for promotion very few. He must know that the opportunities hereare not to be compared with those which obtain in the wider sphere of other Departments.
– Why not?
– Because he comes* into a Department where they do not exist.
– Is that the best for the Department?
– Yes. There aremany positions in Parliament which a; man of small attainments can fill admirably. Let us not humbug ourselves, but be frank. We know there is work in this Parliament being performed by men which could well be done by boys. I have seen men with bundles of papers, under their arms which have merely to be attached to files in the Senate clubroom. Does work of that kind require ability, education, or physical strength?
– They have other duties.
– Yes, which areequally simple. If honorable senators: pretend that many of the duties carried1 on by our attendants are of a characterthat require either great ability or education, they are only humbugging in- saying it.
– But these officers have a right to be promoted when vacancies occur.
– ‘Certainly.
– But that opportunity has not been given.
– If vacancies occur, they have the opportunity of applying; and it is ridiculous to suggest that because a man remains in a certain position his salary should rise automatically. It would be unreasonable to adopt such a principle. The salaries here ought to have relation to salaries outside, which are paid by those who have to provide the money with which our attendants ;irc paid. Prom, what I can see in the’ Estimates, the salaries paid to our attendants compare more than favorably with those in other public Departments. I have seen officers in this Parliament performing duties which are light compared with those in other public Departments where “the remuneration is not higher.
– What are they?
– I am not going to particularize.
– The Minister will find that he is wrong if he inquires.
– No. I adhere to my statement, and say that when we compare this branch of the Public Service with other Departments, the salaries compare move than favorably.
– The others must be badly off.
– Some may be; but I have done my best to improve them. The last argument used by Senator de Largie does not appeal to me at all. Even if it were assumed that the salaries paid are inadequate, that is a matter with which the President can deal. The Senate had a Supply Bill before it this afternoon, and Mr. President was available to answer any criticisms or questions in regard to the salaries paid to certain officers. I do not see why Mr. President and Mr. Speaker . should not be responsible; and I am sure that if specific cases were brought forward they would see that justice was done.
– And the individuals would be victimized.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that because the case of a particular employee is mentioned, Mr. President is likely to victimize bini? I do not believe that he would do that, and before a charge of that kind is made proof of it should be submitted. So far, there has been no justification for such a statement, and during the twenty years I have been a member of this Senate I have never heard of a case of victimization. For the reasons I have already given, I cannot vote for the motion submitted by Senator de Largie.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) [8.35]. - As this matter concerns me primarily, and is one that should be fully and clearly explained to honorable senators, I desire to place a few facts before the Senate so that honorable senators will be able to record their votes with the whole of the facts before them. This is not the first time that adverse criticisms, and even attacks, have been made upon my administration of the affairs of this Chamber. The only complaint I have to make in this regard is that it would be much better to discuss this matter when we are in Committee on the Estimates, as I would then have the opportunity of meeting honorable senators on an equal footing.
– What restrictions are you under now?
– In speaking from the Chair, I have to do so with a restraint which I would not feel called upon to exercise if we were in Committee.
– There is no restraint placed upon you as far as I amconcerned. You can go the “ whole hog.”
– I wish the honorable senator would be silent and allow me to proceed, as I did not’ interrupt him when he was speaking. Senator de Largie, at the outset, gave his reasons for bringing this motion forward. It is not for me to impute motives, but he said he had introduced the matter to give the Senate an opportunity to ventilate its opinions. The Senate has full and ample opportunity to do that without any special opportunity being provided by Senator de Largie. This afternoon we had a Supply Bill before the Senate, in which the Parliamentary Estimates found first place. I remained in the chamber, as I always do, until the vote for Parliament had been disposed of, so that if any criticisms were offered I would be able to meet them. That was an opportunity for honorable senators to. ventilate their opinions. Does Senator de Largie believe that if a Select Committee is appointed it will be the means of giving honorable senators an opportunity to ventilate their opinions? It will not give them that right.
– The motion does.
– It will give certain honorable senators the right to inquire, but it will not give other honorable senators any right to ventilate opinions apart from those which they now possess.
– That is what I said.
– Senator de Largie thinks that in bringing this motion forward, honorable senators will be given an opportunity to ventilate their opinions. That is quite incorrect, because honorable senators have that right at present.
It is very curious to me to find that the Senate is being asked to appoint a Committee to inquire into the work of Committees, or something which comes under the purview of Committees already appointed. The Senate, in common with another place, has appointed various Committees, and as the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) pointed out, they have the right to report to the Senate or to another place any conclusions at which they may arrive. These Committees have the fullest right to inquire into everything that comes under their purview, and yet the Senate is being coolly asked to appoint another Committee to inquire into the work of other Committees. It is absurd on the face of it. The honorable senator said, amongst other things, that the inquiry of the proposed Committee might be the means of making my decisions more understandable. If there has been anything that was not understandable I have been in my place every time the Estimates and Supply Bills have been under discussion to give thefullest information. If it is to be an inquiry behind my back, without me having the opportunity of putting my case, I do not think the Senate will be in a much better position to understand my decisions than it has been in the past. It is altogether improper for the Senate to appoint a Committee of inquiry into the working of the Joint Committee of the two Houses. It would be an assumption on the part of the Senate that they had the right to review the work of Joint Committees. That would not be a. proper attitude for the Senate to adopt. If a Select Committee is appointed it should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses, because both branches of the Legislature are equally responsible.
In discussing certain matters which he desired to review, Senator de Largie said that a letter was sent from me to the Library Committee laving down certain principles. I desire to assure honorable senators that during the seventeen years I have been a member of the Senate I have never sent asingle line to the Library Committee or any other Committee. If I did send a communication it must be on the files of the Library Committee, and I defy Senator de Largie, or any one else, to produce such a letter, because I have never written one - not a single line.
– Members of the Library Committee are at present in the chamber.
– I have never written a line to the Library Committee.
– What did you write?
– Not a single line.
Senatorde Largie. - What did you send to the Library Committee ?
– I did not send anything. The honorable senator seems to doubt my word. When the question of fixing salaries or arranging promotions came under review, I, as a member of the Committee, refused to take any part in the discussion, because under the law as it stands it was not my duty. That is the attitude I adopted.
-Then it was an oral, not a written, protest.
– I never sent a single line.
– But it is just the same thing.
– The honorable senator is misrepresenting the position.
– It is no misrepresentation , because I heard it read from the minutes.
– The minutes are not a letter. I did enter a protest; I refused to be a party to what was being done, because Mr. Speaker is the chairman of the Library Committee. The responsibility is his by Act of Parliament, and no Committee has a right to override an Act passed by both branches of the Legislature. The gentlemen who should pay the greatest respect to the will of Parliament are its members and officers. If the law is wrong it should be amended ; but while it is there expressing the will of Parliament, honorable members themselves, and especially the officers, should be most ardent in upholding it. What really happened in regard to the Library Committee is this : The Speaker is chairman of the Committee, and has a full knowledge of the work of the officers, and i6, therefore, the proper person to deal with such questions as promotions and salaries. I have a joint responsibility with him, and give my assent to all his recommendations. I never question his decisions, because I recognise that he is the responsible officer. I give my support in any decisions he may arrive at, because I believe that divided or scattered control is very undesirable. Exactly the same thing happened in regard to the Joint House Committee, and the procedure adopted has always been the same, since the Public Service Act was passed. It is only in regard to the men who are not classified, such as gardeners and others, that for many years past the Presiding Officers have consulted the Committee. I consulted the House Committee when the cost of living was increasing by leaps and bounds, in order to strengthen my opinion as to what should be a proper amount to add to the salaries of these officers, and so that, when asking the Government for increased provision, I might be able to say that I had the support of the Committee in doing so.
Senator de Largie also says that the Presiding Officers must accept all the responsibility. Undoubtedly we must, and I have never refused to do so. I am here to be criticised for any action I may have taken, and willing to face all criticism levelled against me. It is my responsibility to do so. I have always been willing to take it. I am doing so now. But what would be the position of the Presiding Officers if we were to be mere messenger boys, allowing everything to be fixed by Committees, and then making our recommendations to the Governor-General in Council, as provided in the Act, al- though having nothing at all to do with them? Who would be responsible in those circumstances? As a matter of fact, no Speaker or President could adopt such a cowardly attitude as to say to either House, “ The Committee did this, and I should not be held responsible.” The Act places the responsibility on the Presiding Officers, and we cannot be so cowardly as to shelter ourselves behind any Committees. Senator de Largie says that our action has taken away from the Committee the power to deal with the officers, but how can one take away from the Committee something which it has never had ?
– It has always had it, long before you were in your present position.
– The Committee has never had this power. Section 14 of the Public Service Act, which was passed in 1902, and has never been repealed or altered in this regard, distinctly provides, in sub-section 1, that the President and Speaker shall deal with all questions of appointments, promotions, ‘ and regulations. Can any one show me a single line, in the Public Service Act in which the Committee to which the honorable senator has referred is even mentioned ? Subsection 2 of this section further appoints the President and Speaker to take the place of the Public Service Commissioner, and classifies the Clerks of either House, the Chief Parliamentary Reporter, and the Parliamentary Librarian as permanent heads. That is the provision in the Act, and I ask, again, how can any action on my part take away from a Committee something which it has never had? If any fault there be, it lies with Parliament for not giving the Committee the power. Therefore, Senator de Largie’s complaint lies against Parliament and not against me. I am placed here in a responsible position, with certain defined duties laid down by Statute, and am I to be “ hauled over the coals “ because I do faithfully and well, within the limits of my capacity and ability, that which the Act compels me to do ? It is a strange doctrine indeed to me that the honorable senator should turn and rend me for doing something which Parliament has made it imperative for me to do.
The honorable senator claims that the Presiding Officers have ignored all the other provisions of the Public
Service Act while giving adherence to this particular sub-section. As a matter of fact we have done nothing of the kind. In every place where the Public Service regulations with regard to leave, promotions, or anything else, are applicable to this Senate, they are always applied. There is not a single provision of the Act or obligation imposed om the Public Service Commissioner in regard to the outside officers which we do not assume in regard to our officers. Perhaps I am wrong in saying this, because there is one thing which I have done illegally, but I shall tell the Senate about it before I have finished and then it can judge me accordingly. But apart from this in every case where the Public Service regulations and practice could be applied to the officers of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker and I have invariably applied them. Again, where a ‘Commonwealth arbitration award has applied to officers of the Public Service, we have immediately, and without hesitation, applied it to the officers of this Parliament. If a Commonwealth Arbitration Court has given an award improving the .position, or increasing the pay of officers of the Public Service, similarly the pay of our own officers has immediately been advanced to the same extent. This has been done in every case.
Senator de Largie says that no ‘ announcement has been made in the press of vacancies that have occurred in the staff of the Senate; but I think he is wrong. Vacancies have frequently been advertised in the press. A month ago a vacant .position was advertised in that way. I am not sure that every vacant position has been so advertised in the press, but an advertisement has always appeared in the Commonwealth Gazette. The position which Mr. Speaker and I have always taken up in regard to filling classified positions in this Parliament is this: We have no examining staff, and no standard of qualification has been laid down for the different classifications.
– Why have you not done that?
– Simply because it has not been necessary for us to incur expenditure in doing so. We advertise a vacancy for any certain class in the Public Service, and leave it open to any one in the Public Service who has passed an examination for that particular class to apply.
– Can you quote a case in which you have advertised these positions ?
– Yes, I can do so. There is no necessity to advertise a position in the Public Service Act if, when a vacancy occurs, there is already in the Department an officer fitted to be promoted to the position. When Mr. Duffy retired a little while ago the other officers of the Senate were all promoted one step.
– Rightly so.
– Mr. Monahan, the Assistant Clerk, was promoted to be Clerk; Mr. U’Ren. the Usher, was promoted to .be Assistant Clerk; Mr. Broinowski, the Clerk of Papers, was promoted to be Usher; and Mr. Edwards, who was a junior, was promoted fi be Clerk of Papers; while the vacancy created by the promotion of Mr. Edwards, which was really the only vacancy, was advertised. There were many applicants for the position, and I did not know one of them; but I had members of both Houses button-holing me in the interests of their particular candidates, although it was, on their .part, something quite contrary to a provision in an Act of Parliament. However, after having given every one the fullest possibly show, I appointed a young man who I thought was best suited for the position. I had never seen him before.
I have already said that I plead guilty to one evasion of the provisions of the Public Service Act; but that has occurred since our soldiers began to return from the great war. In respect to junior (positions, in which’ it is not necessary to hold an examination, and for which any one outside the Service may be chosen, instead of advertising them, as perhaps I should have done, under the strict letter of the law, I have asked the Repatriation Department to choose for me three or four men suitable for the positions to be filled. I have explained the nature of the duties to be undertaken, and have interviewed the men sent up by the Department, and picked those I thoughtbest suited for the positions. If I am to be condemned for this one departure from the provisions of the Public Service Act, I am prepared to bear the condemnation cheerfully. To these lowerpositions four men have been appointed by me within the last four years, and they were all obtained in the manner I have described. When a very old servant of, the Senate died a little while ago, the vacancy thus created was filled in this manner’ on the first of this month.
– Why did you not give returned soldiers an opportunity of appointment to the higher posts ?
– I shall deal with that matter if the honorable senator will allow me to complete what I am saying. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking. All the appointments made in the way I have described have proved satisfactory. I have not had a single complaint about one of these men. They were appointed on six months’ probation, and their appointments were confirmed if they proved satisfactory. So far every one of them has proved satisfactory. In regard to the giving of higher positions to returned soldiers, there has only been one position vacant - the one which I mentioned a little while ago. However, my conception of the principle of giving preference to returned soldiers is to give them that preference in respect to entry into the Service, and then let them work their way up on their merits. Having secured preference of entry into the Service, I think they ought not to ask for anything more. In that respect the report of Mr. McLachlan, which I can produce for the benefit of honorable senators, fully bears me out. This is the position I have taken up in regard to the vacancies I have filled. In the last case my idea was to get the youngest person I could, with the necessary qualifications, because, in the ordinary course of events, it was likely that he would have a very long time to wait before obtaining promotion, and I thought that the years of training and practical work he would thus get would enable him to fill the highest positions here. Therefore, the younger he was, the better he would be from my point of view. That was one of the reasons actuating me in appointing the gentleman who has filled the vacancy.
Senator de Largie has also said that unfairness has been displayed towards officers with twenty years’ service, but it is all very well to make a general statement of that kind. The honorable senator should have come down to hard facts, and if he knew that there had been unfairness he should have given particular instances of it. I venture to say that there is not’ a single officer, from the highest position to the lowest position in the Senate, who is not at least as well off as any officer occupying a similar position in the general Public Service. This is proved by the fact that, for every position in the Parliamentary Service, from the highest to the lowest, which has become vacant, there have been hundreds of applications from persons in the general Public Service. Do honorable senators think that if officers of the Parliament were not so well paid as officers of the general Public Service, there would be that rush for these positions ? People do not rush for worse positions than those which they atpresent occupy. Whilst the Parliament should be the best and most generous of employers, it should not set an impossible standard for the general Public Service. Conditions should be somewhat equal all round. In my view, whilst being just, and even generous, to the men we employ, we should not be over-generous, because we should remember the multitude of poor people who have to find the money to give them handsome salaries. However, I have always noticed that men who are most generous with other people’s money are generally close-fisted with their own.
– That is Scotch.
– It is quite easy to be generous with other people’s money. If there is a single officer of the Senate from the humblest to the highest getting a lower salary than he would receive in the general Public Service, he has. a right to complain of injustice just as an officer of the general Public Service would have the right to complain if officers here of a similar grade were very much better treated than he was. Each is entitled to the same measure of fair play and justice no matter to which of the Services he belongs.
As I have already pointed out, of late years I do not fix the salaries of these nien. The salaries are fixed by the Publie Service Arbitration Court, a tribunal created for this particular purpose.
– That is only a mere quibble.
– The honorable senator says that that is a quibble, but what am I to do? What standard am I to adopt - that of Senator de Largie, or of some one else? What standard should I adopt but that laid down by this Parliament?
– The honorable senator is in the position of the Public Service Commissioner so far as regards the officers of the Senate, and he should take his own responsibilities.
– I am in the_ position of the Public Service Commissioner, but this Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided that if there is to be any review of a decision of the Public Service Commissioner, it must be by a competent tribunal which Parliament has set up.
– Where is that in the Public Service Act?
– That is not in the Public Service Act, but it is in an Act which was passed by this Parliament many years subsequent to the passing of the Public Service Act.
– Special pleading!
– I do not pretend to argue in order to convince Senator de Largie. I think that that would be impossible. All I pretend to do is to sec out the facts of the case for the consideration of the whole Senate.
There was an ample opportunity afforded this afternoon, if any injustice has been done to any individual, to thresh out the individual case. It cannot be done in a general debate of this kind, but it might have been done this afternoon in Committee on the Supply Bill. Senator de Largie, casting his eyes around, said that he could see such officers in this chamber. The only individual case to which I can think the honorable senator’s remarks applied is the case of my messenger, James, who is in the Senate chamber now, and who has been promoted. I take full responsibility for his promotion, and I say that James is the only officer I have met in this Parliament who would have done what he did without a murmur. A little while ago, owing to ill-health or some other re’ason we had occasion to reduce an officer to a humbler position than that yhich he previously occupied. James was transferred to fill that officer’s place. After filling if satisfactorily and well for several months representations were made to me that I ought to give the former occupant of the position another show, and put him back in the position he formerly occupied. I did so, and restored James to his old and humbler position. He went back, and never uttered a complaint. I say that I do not think there is any other officer who would have done that. If any man on his past record is deserving of promotion it is James, and I make no apology to any one for having promoted him.
– And made others his juniors who have been here double the time he has.
– I do not care if there were other men here forty years ago. Merit should prevail above all things.
– The others are as good officers as he is.
– If I am to be condemned for the action I took in this case I shall cheerfully receive any punishment the Senate likes to mete out to me.
Something has been said with respect to the Mansard staff. The Hansard staff is in a position by itself. To a large extent it is a professional staff, and if there is any close staff at all - which Senator de Largie complains of - it is the Hansard staff, and necessarily so, because a man requires special qualifications to be a member of it. Other officers of very high ability come in in junior positions, and have to work their way up after many years to the standard of the Hansard man. If they tried to get on to the Hansard staff here ; there would be very serious complaints about it, and they would never get a show. But the members of the Hansard staff do not work throughout years of junior training at low salaries in the service of this Parliament as other officers have to do. They are appointed at fairly decent salaries from the beginning. I took occasion a little while ago to get from the House of Commons a statement as to the way in which the Hansard staff was treated there, and I say that, although the cost of living is higher in Great Britain than it is here at the present moment, the treatment meted out to the Hansard officers here does not compare unfavorably with the treatment meted out to the ‘Souse of Commons Hansard staff, nor is their work more strenuous.
AVith regard to the sweated conditions here which we have heard so much about, I fail to see that anybody is sweated in the service of this Chamber. If there is any one sweated the fault must lie with the tribunal that fixes the conditions of service, because the decisions of that tribunal are invariably applied to the officers of the Senate. Senator de Largie has mentioned the fact that Professor Scott was a member of the Hansard staff. No one rejoiced more than I did to find one of the members of our Hansard staff promoted to so distinguished a position as that of Professor of History in the University of Melbourne. But while he is to be congratulated upon his success, that is not to say that he was worth any more to us as a Hansard reporter. He might be worth several thousand pounds a year as a professor of history, but that would be no criterion of his value as a Hansard reporter. It would have nothing to do with it. A man in one walk of life may earn £20 a week, but because he may choose to accept another position in which, he can earn only £5, that is no reason why the occupation for which he is paid £5 per week should be saddled with the higher salary - it is only that the man is in the wrong position for the time being.
With regard to the question of the temporary men, I have not adopted any system in that regard which was not adopted by my predecessor from the beginning. Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, in regard to the lower paid junior positions, laid down that principle many years ago. He held that he should be in a position to have some control over officers filling positions for which no examination had to be passed, and which required the possession of no particular qualifications. There is another aspect of the question which ought to be considered, and it is this : There are positions which at times can very well be done without, and, if you put into those positions a gazetted public servant, a permanent man, no matter whether you want him or not and whether or not there is anything for him to do, he must be kept on. There are some positions in connexion with the Senate which, at times, and especially when Parliament is not sitting, need not be filled. It is a matter for consideration whether the policy of retaining officers in those positions shall continue in the future. In any case it is a bad policy to gazette a man into the Public Service so that he must be kept in employment whether there is work for him to do or not. No one has anything to complain of because the junior and lower positions are temporary. As a matter of fact, .the officers filling them have every privilege, every increase of pay, and every promotion given to them that they could claim if they were duly gazetted public servants.
In conclusion, I want to point out what it would mean if Senator de Largie’s contention, were correct, and all appointments, fixing of salaries, and promotions were subject to a Committee. Rightly or wrongly, and, I believe, rightly, the Public Service Act was originally passed for the purpose of removing, as far as possible, all political influence from the Public Service. That was one of the main reasons why the Act was passed in its present form
– No Committee could act at all unless the provisions of the Public Service Act were first amended.
– Of course they could not. They would have no right whatever to do so. If the Presiding Officers abrogated their duty, and it became the duty of a Committee, its members and their friends might all be wanting positions for their friends or relations, and we” can easily imagine how overloaded the Service might become, and how possibly very improper individuals might be appointed. No one could say that any one in particular was responsible. You could not put your finger upon any particular man and say that he was responsible for that. That is the position, and Senator de Largie knows it as well as I do. I venture to say that, if that practice had applied to officers of this Parliament, we should have had more than one improper appointment made, and the Public Service would have been unduly loaded with supernumeraries and incompetents. I venture to say that one of my chief sins in the eyes of ‘Senator de Largie is that I did not act in something like that way on one occasion. I did not do it, and I am willing to bear the consequence. I leave it entirely in the hands of the Senate to say whether thereis any need for the proposed Select Committee, or whether I am to be subjected to these continual taunts and pin-pricks because of any personal animus or feeling on the part of another honorable senator. I think that is to be deprecated. I have tried to do my duty, and shall continue to do so so long as I retain the position I now occupy. It is quite unnecessary that I should be appealed to, as Senator de Largie appealed to me at the beginning of his address, to take full responsibility for what I do. I always do so. I am taking full responsibility now, and I am willing toaccept any punishment the Senate likes to inflict upon me for so doing.
– I regretthat in the course of its development the debate upon this motion has assumed a somewhat personal tone. I missed the first five minutes of Senator de Largie’ s remarks in submitting his motion, but I must conclude from the tone of the remarks of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) and those of the President (Senator Givens) that Senator de Largie must have succeeded in that five minutes in getting in a great weight of personal matter to have warranted the personal tone of subsequent speeches and the undoubted resentfulness displayed by the President.
– The honorable senator will be able to read in Hansard the report of what I said in the first five minutes, and will be able to judge the weight of personal matter I introduced.
– When the motion was announced yesterday, and when I read it on the business-paper to-day, I could see at once that it was not so much of a public character as a motion dealing with the affairs of the Senate itself. But from the debate it seems to have assumed the form of a domestic or family quarrel. I should be very sorry if the motion were voted upon from considerations of that character. Senator Pearce has pointed out that section 14 of the Public Service Act invests the President and Mr. Speaker, in their relation to the officers of the Senate and another place, with the same powers, functions, responsibilities, and duties as the Public Service Commissioner exercises over the general body of the Public Service. Nobody doubts that. But what, I take it, Senator de Largie was complaining of was that, whereas in the early days of the operation of the Act it was the practice for Presidents and Speakers, in exercising some of their responsibilities and discharging their functions in relation to employees of Parliament, to consult and confer with several Committees more directly associated with individual officers, the practice has now grown up of the President of the Senate and of the Speaker of the other branch of the Legislature taking upon themselves literally, technically, and formally, the full powers and responsibilities which are vested in them by virtue of the Public Service Act. That, I take it, was the gravamen of his complaint.
The Minister for Defence stated that he was not concerned with what preceding Presidents and Speakers did. I am, and I hope that the Senate will be. They have laid down precedents for our guidance in regard to the position of the various officers of the Senate. What will be the position of the latter if we have not a uniform practice? If preceding Presidents have adopted one line of practice, are not the officers of the Senate justified in assuming that that practice will be permanently followed ? If a succeeding President comes along and blows to the winds all the precedents laid down by his predecessors, what will be the position of the officers of this Chamber? If that President should go, and his successor should adopt a different attitude, how can those officers know where they stand ? I am, therefore, concerned with what was the original practice.
– Is it not a case of what is the law rather than of what is the practice?
– Exactly. But the law itself is to a large extent governed by precedent.
– Does the honorable senator say that any precedent can override the law ?
– No.
– That is the gravamen of the honorable senator’s argument.
– It’ is not. Certain principles have been laid down in our Public Service Act for certain purposes Had time permitted, I would have carefully perused the debates which took place upon certain provisions which are embodied in that Statute with a view to ascertaining the reasons which actuated Parliament in placing under the control of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of another place, the, officers of this Parliament, instead of placing them under the control of the Public Service Commissioner. It may be that upon that occasion the President and the Speaker’ gave assurances that in discharging their responsibilities they would be guided by the views which were expressed by the various Parliamentary Committees.
– That is just what they did.
– I cannot say. Had time permitted me to do so I would have consulted the records with a view to ascertaining whether it was so or not. It may be that Parliament agreed to certain provisions which now appear in the Public Service Act upon assurances of that character. At any rate. President Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, who was perhaps the most experienced Presiding Officer of his day in the whole of the Commonwealth, and Speaker Holder, who was a Speaker of the greatest eminence, discharged their duties under the Public Service- Act in a certain manner, and officers of this Parliament were naturally led to believe that the procedure which they laid down would be followed for all time. Now it appears that certain changes have taken place. Should there be any further changes in the occupancy of the chairs in the different Houses, the officers of this Parliament will have no knowledge of where they stand. For this reason’ we are concerned, when debating a motion of this character, with what has been the practice hitherto, no matter what may be the literal terms of the Statute.
Senator de Largie asks for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report to the Senate - upon what- Upon the operations of a Parliamentary Committee as stated by the President? Certainly not. When the President made that statement just now I thought either that he could not have read the motion or that he had forgotten its terms. It is proposed that the Com mittee shall inquire into and report upon -
The only use of the term “ Committees of the Senate “ is to designate particular officers. The motion aims at an inquiry into the position of officers of the Senate, and into the operation of the Public Service Act in respect of those officers. In my opinion the time has arrived when these matters may very well be inquired into. The wisdom of the provisions of the Public Service Act is open to question. That measure is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians - unchangeable.
– Especially when an amending Public Service Bill is to be brought forward.
– Exactly. We have had seventeen or eighteen years’ experience of the Public Service Act in its application to public servants generally, and of section 14 of that Act in its application to officers of this Parliament. There is no harm in inquiring whether it is wise to perpetuate the policy which is there laid down or to modify it. As I have been reminded by Senator Senior, the Government propose, during the current session, to deal with various outstanding features connected with our Public Service administration. We have been promised a_ comprehensive measure dealing with the Public Service in all its phases. We have recently dealt with single features of the Service by means of separate Bills. But the amending measure which is to be submitted for our consideration during the present session will apply to the whole of the Service. Should it be thought desirable by the Select Committee which it is proposed to appoint, that the provisions of the Act should be made to apply “to the officers of the Senate, the present is a very opportune time for it to consider that question. If, on the other hand, the Committee should think that the present system works’ well in the interests of the officers of Parliament themselves, this is a very opportune time for it to express its opinion to the Senate., and for the Senate to act accordingly. The time, I repeat, is opportune, and the means proposed in this motion are appropriate. I therefore intend to support the motion. In doing so, however. I do not wish to lay myself open to the same form of attack as I have made upon the Minister for Defence; but I am not now concerned with the question of whether a man should or should not have been promoted, or whether he is or is not receiving adequate remuneration for his services considering the length of time that he has occupied his office. But I am concerned with whether the officers of this Parliament should constitute a water-tight compartment.
– Does not the Act keep them in that water-tight compartment ?
– Yes.
– That matter can be dealt with when the amending Public Service Bill is brought forward. Is not the whole trouble due to the falling value of the pound ?
– Probably, as far as individual complaints are concerned, that is so. This is a very opportune time for ‘that matter to be considered. There are many other questions which require to be determined, and for these reasons I shall support the motion.
– To-day, when you, sir, were classifying the business, I called “Not formal” to this motion, in order that I might at least hear from Senator de Largie the motives which prompted his desire to get it put into operation without discussion. Personally, I desired it to be discussed. I have since listened to the whole of his speech; and whatever may be the correctness or otherwise of the construction which has been put upon the motion by Senator Keating. I must tell him that I heard Senator de Largie lay special stress upon matters concerning the Library staff and. the Hansard staff. I understand that the officials engaged in our parliamentary Library, and the officers of the Han sard staff, come under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of another place and of the President of the Senate, and that they are not solely within the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer of this Oh amber. Consequently, any Committee which may he appointed under the terms of this motion will clearly have no power to do anything in connexion with officers who require to be appointed by the Presiding Officers of both branches of the Legislature. If we attempt, of our own volition, to initiate an inquiry into matters which certainly concern the Presiding Officers of both Chambers, our action will probably be resented. But even if we could institute such an inquiry, it would be injudicious for usto do so. If we take the Hansard staff and the Library staff away from the parliamentary staff, how many individuals will remain? I am a member of the House Committee, and have been so ever since I entered the Senate. I have missed very few meetings of that Committee-
– The honorable senator could not do that very well.
– There has been a very considerable number of meetings held during the years that I have occupied a seat in this Chamber. Upon occasions, these meetings have been very well attended.
– Will the honorable senator tell us his experience of them?
– My experience has been that the President of the Senate has always presided at the meetings of the Joint House Committee, and that the present Clerk of the Senate has, to the best of my recollection, been present upon nearly all occasions.
-Was it that Committee which raised the prices charged in our parliamentary dining-room ?
SenatorBAKHAP.- Yes. That was clearly one of the acts within the competency of the Committee. I am not here to defend the President. He is very capable of defending his own action. At the meetings of the Joint House Committee which I have attended, many matters have come within its purview, and these have certainly been brought, up by the President in no arrogant spirit; but if he and the Speaker of another place have powers vested in them by Act of Parliament, I would think very little of them if they asked the Committee to assume responsibility for the exercise of those powers. The granting of an increase in the meal allowances and increased wages to the gardeners came within the scope of the House Committee’s deliberations. That was not effected by the President or Mr. Speaker of their own volition. It was done by us at a meeting of the Joint House Committee.
-i am glad to hear that.
– But at the same time if the President by law were vested with the power to deal solely with these officers on the Parliamentary staff, I would think very little of him if he asked us to assume the responsibility of carrying out work which he was expected to do.
– Why the gardeners and not the messengers?
– For the simple reason that they do not come within the same classification.
– There is no classification, anyhow.
– On several occasions the wages paid to these men were discussed by the House Committee, when the President was in the chair and superintending its deliberations, and certain action was taken. But what can this proposed Committee do in regard to Library officials ?
– It ought to do something, anyhow.
– It cannot, for the simple reason that our Library officials are under the control of the two Presiding Officers; not under the control of our President alone.
– Then what is the good of fooling honorable senators by asking them to be on the Committee?
– Because certain duties have to be carried out by Parliament as an entity, and not by one House alone.
– You do not understand the position.
– I understand, at all events, that if we attempted to appoint Library officials without reference to another place, we would soon hear about it.
SenatorFoll. - Both Houses are represented on that Committee.
– Exactly. Senator de Largie clearly referred to certain disabilities which have been placed upon members of the Hansard staff. But can this Senate, by its own action, remedy any of those alleged wrongs?
– Why not?
– Where is our power ? I invite the honorable senator to tell us what we can do, seeing that the staff is under the control of the Presiding Officers of both Chambers.
– But the Senate ought to be all-powerful in regard to its own officers.
– I think honorable senators will agree that I am as ardent a stickler for the privileges of the Senate as any other member of this Chamber, but I would be loath to set up a claim that this Senate can do anything in a sphere which particularly concerns Parliament as an entity, and not this Chamber alone. I think, in fairness to the President, that before we appoint this Select Committee, which will be in a sense appointed in an atmosphere of censure so far as he is concerned, we should have some specific statement, for Senator de Largie clearly complained, in his opening remarks, of certain things which he said the President had done or had not done; of sins of commission and omission. Was the honorable senator specific in his allegations? Hecertainly was not. He mentioned in a vague way something the President had done in connexion with the Library Committee, but I am in darkness even now as to what wrong the President committed. What are the charges? What is the nature of the President’s derelictions? I do not know. Did any other honorable senator gather any substantial information from Senator de Largie’s statements ?
– I did not give you enough personalities, evidently.
– The honorable senator was personal, though not in an offensive sense. He certainly referred to the President, and I venture to say that, in the proof of his speech, which he will get to-morrow, he will find the word “President” occurring many times in the first few paragraphs. What has the President done?
– Is this a private fight, or can any one join in?
– Any one can join in, for I understand the President has ruled that, if honorable senators have anything to say, now is the time to say it. Senator de Largie gave no specific reasons for the appointment of this Select
Committee, and its appointment, I repeat, will be made in a spirit of censure, and certainly of review, of those functions which the President, by virtue of his position, has had vested in him by Parliament. I am going to vote against the motion, and I may say in closing that, while the world is seething with trouble, I am very sorry that the Chamber of review in the Commonwealth Parliament should be occupied in the discussion of such trivialities.
– I follow very largely what Senator Bakhap has said, and I want to say, definitely and clearly, that I sympathize with the members of the Parliamentary staffs in the fact that the reduced value of the £1 to-day has placed them at a disadvantage. I listened with a great deal of interest to what Senator Keating had’ to say. He told us clearly that the whole trouble was due to the fact that .the Parliamentary staffs were in watertight compartments under the present Public Service Act. If that is so, I take it that the appointment of this Select Committee can lead to no good, but that, on the contrary, it may do a great deal of harm in the matter of discipline and the creation of ill-feeling amongst the officers concerned. For that reason I deprecate very much the time of the Senate being taken up in the discussion of the question .
Senator SENIOR (South Australia) 79.37]. - I am sorry the debate has taken this turn. I have taken a great deal of interest in every Bill affecting the Public Service that has come before the Senate, and I think that as we are to have a comprehensive amendment of the Act shortly we should learn as much as we can of the present system under which our Parliamentary officers are working. I know of no other way of getting this information than by the means proposed.
– And that informa-, tion. should guide us in considering the Public Service Bill.
– That is so. I have no personal feeling in the matter at all. I feel that a public duty rests upon me to do what I can to make every Bill that comes before the Senate as perfect as possible, and I desire that all officers employed in connexion with the Parliament should have every reasonable opportunity for advancement. I would not like it to be said of them : “ As you were in the beginning, so you shall be for ever.” I may inform honorable senators that a gentleman, who was a sessional assistant in the South Australian Parliament, was able eventually to rise to his present position as assistant librarian in the State Parliamentary Library. I do not want any impediment to be placed in the path of progress for our officers, and for that_ reason I have no hesitation in indorsing the terms of the motion. I am not supporting it in order to pass censure upon the President, because, as a matter of fact, we are very good friends.
– You are with everybody.
– Well, I try to be. I disagree altogether with Senator J. D. Millen, who says that no good can come out of this proposed inquiry. It will depend entirely upon the spirit with which the Committee enters upon its work.
– Nothing of the sort.
– If it enters upon its work with a feeling that it has a public duty to perform in relation to the satisfactory working of this Parliament, I see no reason to object to its appointment.
– But could not the House Committee do all that a Select Committee may do?
– The House Committee is concerned only with the affairs of the Parliament, and not with the study of the Public Service as a whole, whereas the Select Committee will make the necessary inquiries, and in due time present a report which’ should be of considerable assistance to honorable senators when they are called upon to deal with the Public Service Bill. I am strongly opposed, to anything in the nature of watertight compartments for the Public Service.
– We have them now.
-I know we have.
– The whole ‘ service is a watertight compartment.
– And so is Great Britain !
– So is the Pacific Ocean !
– Well, the Pacific Ocean is wide enough and deep enough for a man to swim in, and that cannot be said of the Public Service, for in some Departments, at all events, there is not room or opportunity for a man to develop and advance.
– If that is so, why are there so many people after the vacancies ?
– My honorable friend is usually wise, but thatwas one of the most foolish retorts he could have made. The people outside may be in total ignorance as to the conditions existing in the Public Service before they rush into it.
– Is it proposed that this Select Committee shall visit all the States?
– It certainly should take cognisance of the procedure in some of the State Parliaments, at all events.
– That means it willhave to visit the six State Capitals ?
– Not necessarily, but it should visit the principal States, at all events.
– It ought to go to Darwin, anyway.
– We shall have to consider the Public Service as a whole in the Bill that will shortly be before us. If the Department of the Senate is a “ watertight compartment,” as it has been called during the debate, we want to know whether that is the most desirable system, and we cannot ascertain that better than by finding out how other Parliaments conduct similar services. If our way is better than theirs, we shall return from the search satisfied, and be able to report that we are satisfied. If, however, we obtain such information as leads this Parliament to amend the existing system, our appointment will not have been in vain. A Select Committee really involves the sacrifice of the time of the members who compose it, and that sacrifice will have to be made without any fee or reward. It therefore need not be thought that this is to be a joy-ride. Whether the motion is carried or not will depend entirely on the good sense of the Senate; and, for my part, I leave it entirely to their judgment. In my opinion, if the Committee is appointed useful results will be achieved.
.- I have listened to the debate on this question from its inception, and, so far, I have failed to grasp Senator de Largie’s object in asking for the appointment of a SelectCommittee. Had I been a member of the House Committee, and had I felt that I was responsible to the Senate for the protection of the officers under theCommittee, I should have taken upon myself the responsibility of advising the Senate that those officers were not being properly treated. The officers themselves have rights, and if they feel that it would be a.privilege to them to ‘be allowed to appeal to the ‘House ‘Committee to remedy their wrongs-
– They are told that the House Committee have no authority.
– They asked to be heard before the HouseCommittee, and were refused even a hearing.
– Did the House Committee refuse them?
– No; but the President would not allow them to get there. They were told that theHouse Committee had no authority.
SenatorFoll. - Would not the application to be heard go to the House Committee?
-i do not know whether it went to the HouseCommittee or not; but they did not get a hearing.
– I am not capable of grasping theposition ; and; with the exception of the few members who are to be on the Committee, I question if there are any here who do thoroughly understand it.
– I know something about the Library position, and I am not at all satisfied.
SenatorPLAIN. - If there appears to be something wrong in the working of the Committee, and if they feel that they have not the power that they expected to have, that has nothing to do with the President, or with any member of the Senate.
– It has to do with the amendment of the Public Service Act, which we are in favour of.
– If that is the point, and we thoroughly understand what we are doing, it must affect the judgment of the Senate. In the circumstances it. is not reasonable to ask the few members who are present to-night to take on themselves the . responsibility of deciding the motion. I therefore ask the Minister to move the adjournment of the debate.
– I cannot do so. I have already spoken.
– Then may I move the adjournment of the debate?
– The honorable senator cannot move the adjournment of the debate now, because he has already spoken.
– Then I ask leave to continue my remarks on a future occasion.
– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the honorable senator have leave to continue his remarks at a later date?
– No. What is the good of wasting the time of the Senate day after day on a matter like this?
Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That the debate be now adjourned.
– Senator Plain’s speech cannot be interrupted by a motion for the adjournment of the debate. Does the honorable senator desire to continue his speech?
– No. I am only anxious to have the debate adjourned.
– Will the Minister for Defence give the Senate an opportunity of coming to a decision?
– That all depends on the state of public business.
Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.
page 5641
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday next.
page 5641
Motion (by Senator Pearce) pro posed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I was asked to bring before the Senate yesterday a matter affect ing honorable senators who were absent at the time the division was taken on the item in the Loan Bill for works in the Federal Capital Territory. At the time the Senate adjourned yesterday the Library Committee was meeting, and I missed the opportunity to do so. An article appeared in the Melbourne Age of 4th October commenting on the division on the vote for works at Canberra, in which reflections were made on senators who were absent. I am pleased to say that those senators were paired on that occasion, but if the Age statement was not contradicted, they might be placed in an unfavorable light before the public. The paragraph is as follows: -
The Senate on Friday hadanopportunity to prevent the wasteful expenditure of £150,000 on the Federal Capital, and seldom was more than one-half of the thirty-six members present. Many of thosewho were opposing this frittering away of money considered that had there been a full attendance the waste would havebeen prevented. When a division was taken nineteen members voted. It is only a short while since members voted themselves an additional £400 a year, and the least they can do is to give serious consideration to important business when it arises.
We had in the circumstances a very good attendance. Those honorable senators who did not take part in the division were paired, and their vote was recorded, and had they been present it would have made no difference whatever to the result. It is only fair that I should mention this in order to show the public that those senators who were absent did not neglect their duties in any way. Many of them were away on public duties, or taking part in public affairs, but they were all accounted for. The pairs on that division were: - Senator Gardiner with Senator Wilson; Senator Pearce, who was in Western Australia on public duty, with Senator Bolton; Senator E. D. Millen, who was also away on public duty, with Senator Fairbairn ; Senator Reid, who was in Queensland on public affairs, with Senator Glasgow; Senator Lynch, whois in Western Australia, with Senator Crawford ; and SenatorPayne, who was in Tasmania, with Senator Plain. Including that list of pairs, therefore, wo had a very full attendance when the matter was settled.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 October 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19201014_senate_8_94/>.