8th Parliament · 1st Session
page 12678
The Clerk announced that he had receivedan intimation from the President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) that he would be unavoidably absent from the sitting of the Senate to-day.
The Deputy President (Senator T. Bakhap) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 12678
Appointment of Sib Joseph Cook
– I ask the representative of the Government in the Senate if the Government have taken notice of my criticism of yesterday, and decided to appoint a High Commissioner?
Question not replied to.
– I should like to know if the Government have decided to appoint a High - Commissioner in London?
– I have nothing to add to what Senator E. D. Millen had to say yesterday on the subject.
– Is it a fact that a statement was made in another place that Sir Joseph Cook had been appointed High Commissioner?
– Not to my knowledge. Some one may have made an Interjection to that effect, but no such statement has been officially made on behalf of the Government.
page 12678
Ma. Ashworth’s Charges
asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -
Have the Government yet reached a decision as to tbe suggested Royal Commission to inquire into Mr. Ashworth’s charges against the Administration ?
– As the matters referred to are being inquired into by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Pub- he Accounts, the Government do not at present see any necessity for the course suggested.
page 12679
Motion (by Senator Senior) agreed to-
That the report from the Printing Committee, presented to the Senate on the 10th November, 1921, be adopted.
page 12679
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 10th November, vide page 12595) :
Clause 70 -
Provided that an officer shall not be granted leave of absence to exceed a continuous period of twelve months at any one time.
Naval or Military Forces of the Commonwealth, either directly or through the Public Service of a State, his service in such Territorial Service or in the Naval or Military Forces shall, for the purposes of this section, be reckoned as service in the Commonwealth Service.
On which Senator Senior had moved, by way of amendment -
That the word “ salary “ ( first occurring) he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ pay “.
– It is so long since Senator Senior submitted his amendment that perhaps he would be good enough to refresh our memories as to his reasons for proposing that the word “pay” should be substituted for the word “ salary.”
– This clause makes provision for furlough and allowances in lieu of furlough. An officer on retirement is to be entitled to one and a half months’ full salary or three months half salary in respect of each five years of service after he has served twenty years. In clause 64, provision is made under which an officer may be reduced to a lower grade at a lower rate of salary than he has been receiving. In such a case, the effect of using the word “ salary “ in this clause would be that on retirement his allowances in lieu of furlough would be based on the reduced salary of the lower grade position which he was occupying at the time. Suppose that after eighteen years’ service an officer were reduced, under clause 64, to a lower grade, and that after serving two years in that lower grade he retired and claimed his furlough allowance, he would be paid allowance in lieu of furlough based on the salary of the lower grade to which he had been reduced. But that officer having given eighteen years’ good service at a higher salary should be given all the privileges to which he was entitled by his service. The Minister has admitted that certain increases of salary were given during war time-, amongst other things, to meet the high cost of living. I should like to know whether an officer retiring under the circumstances to which I have referred would receive allowance in lieu of furlough on the basis of his salary on retirement, plus the allowance for high cost of living.. I suggest the substitution of the word “pay” for the word “salary,” in order to include all allowances in the amount upon which the retiring allowance is to be based. The salary remains unchanged, and I am contending that an officer on retiring should have his retiring allowance based on the salary he received plus bonus to meet high cost of living, or other allowance.
– Includingthe allowance for children.
– Yes; because that allowance was intended as an equivalent to an increase in the basic wage.
– There are a hundred and one allowances made.
– My contention is that those allowances are really part of the officer’s pay. An officer may retire after twenty years’ service because of illness, and on his retirement may have heavy doctors’ bills to pay. I do not think it is fair that he should be given a furlough allowance based on the lower rate of salary he received, if he had been reduced to a lower grade, without taking into account any allowances he received in addition to the fixed salary of his office.
– If an officer retires because of ill-health, he will receive his proper proportion of allowance.
– If he has been reduced under clause 64 to a lower grade, the salary upon which his furlough allowance will be based will be that of the grade to which he has been reduced. The Commonwealth Government should be a model employer, and should not take advantage of its servants.
– I agree that the Government should be a model employer; but I do not agree that it should become a benevolent society.
– I am not arguing that it should. I fail to see that there is any benevolence in granting an allowance of £20 a year to meet the high cost of living. That is not benevolence; it is justice.
– Suppose the cost of living falls? The high cost of living is a temporary condition.
– The honorable senator’s experience differs from that of other people. I find it a pretty perma nent condition. If it is permanent, the allowance on that account should be regarded as a permanent addition to the salary of a public servant.
– How would the use of the word “ pay “ rather than the word “salary” affect the matter?
– The honorable senator is splitting hairs.
Senior SENIOR.- If I am, it is in the interests of justice. The interpretation put upon the word “ salary “ is the fixed amount paid to an officer occupying a particular position.
– Does the honorable senator receive £1,000 as pay or a salary of £1,000 a year?
– I did not wish to refer to that; but if honorable senators were entitled to retiring allowance in the same way as members of the Public Service, what would be their position on retirement? We have received an increase of salary, and I ask Senator Reid whether the retiring allowance should be based on the amount of £400, the salary fixed by the Constitution, or on the amount of £1,000?
– It should be according , to what honorable senators are receiving now.
– That is the principle I am advocating. I am not seeking any advantage, but am moving in this direction in the interest of justice.
– Are the Government doing otherwise!
– Judging by the time the present Public Service Act has been in operation, the Bill we are now discussing, when it becomes law, may be in force for a long period, during which time there may be different Governments in office. Under clause 64, it may be decided that an officer shall be paid when on leave at the lower instead of the higher rate. If my proposed amendment is adopted, payment will not be based merely on salary, but on the other allowances that are due to an officer.
SenatorFoster. - Does the honorable senator consider that the stamp allowance we receive is a portion of our pay or of our salary?
– That is made to cover expenses involved in connexion with the duties we are performing.
– Is it in the same category as quarters?
– Quarters would be required wherever an officer was situated.
– What would be the position of an officer who was in receipt of an allowance because he was serving in the Northern Territory, and who left the Territory to return to Sydney or Melbourne ?
– Such an argument is useless unless it works both ways. Supposing an officer living in Melbourne were transferred to the Northern Territory, would he have to go there on a reduced salary?
– The honorable senator contends that there is a difference between “full salary” and “full pay.”
– Tes; and that, is why I have moved an amendment.
– I am afraid Senator Senior is influenced largely by sentimental considerations. He referred to the question of allowances; but quarters cannot be regarded as such, because their cost is deducted from an officer’s pay. Postmasters and other officials actually pay rent, because the rental value of the quarters they occupy is deducted from their salaries. Quarters cannot be regarded as allowances, but we must not deduct more than 10 per cent, of an officer’s salary on that account. An allowance of 5 per cent, is made to officers sent to certain portions of Western Australia because of the conditions of life there. If a public servant is transferred to Western Australia for three years, he receives an allowance on the basis mentioned, and, after his period of service in that State has terminated, and he returns to Victoria, the allowance is discontinued, because it was granted for a special purpose. An officer might perhaps be sent from Melbourne to Tort Darwin, in which case a special allowance would be paid for the full period he was away, but that arrangement would be terminated when he returned.
– In Queensland, there are three grades of allowances, according to the distance an officer is sent.
– Yes. Railway officers when on furlough are allowed to travel with their wives over the railways free of charge, but that cannot be regarded as a fixed allowance. If the honorable senator will withdraw his amendment, I intend to move -
That the following’ new sub-clause be added : - Provided that for the purpose of clause 70, salary include such emoluments as are prescribed by the Board.
– Will that include the £12 received by an officer in addition to his salary because he has reached the maximum rate in his particular division and no promotion is available?
– If an officer received that amount as a portion, of his salary, it would be regarded as such. If an officer was compelled to leave the Service after at least four years’ service,’ he would receive an allowance based on. his length of service. If an officer had been in the Service for nineteen years, he would receive nineteentwentieths of ‘ the sum which he would have been paid if he had served for twenty years.
– Where is that pro- .vided for?
– In a proposed new clause to provide for the case of an officer who is compelled to leave the Service owing to ill-health. The beneficiary of a public servant who dies after rendering four years’ service may receive payment, or a public servant who is too ill to continue at work may receive an allowance proportionate to the time he was employed, but no such payments are made unless a man has been in the Service for four years. I believe that the amendment which I have read will meet the point raised by Senator Senior.
– I believe it will, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That in sub-clause (2) the words, “ Governor General may, on the recommendation of the Board, grant” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word’s “Board may authorize payment.”
That the word “ of “ be inserted after the word “ retirement.”
That the words “ at that time” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof “ immediately prior to retirement.”
– Under sub-clause 1 an officer may be granted leave of absence for a certain period, and under subclause 2 be may be granted upon retirement a sum equivalent to the amount of salary be would have received during such leave of absence as could have been granted under the first sub-clause. Does it mean that, instead of taking leave, the officer could have the pay?
-Yes. The officer has to arrange the matter before his retirement, because he ceases to come under the operation of the Act the day he leaves the Service.
– The clause will not allow an officer to take his leave and get an additional sum on retiring?
– No. He receives six months’ pay for twenty years’ service.
.- I move-
That the words “ Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, pay,” in sub-clause (3), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Board may authorize payment.”
It is not considered that the estate of an officer should benefit where there are no dependants.
– Will the Minister agree to insert the words “legal representatives “ in lieu of “ dependants “ ?
– I think not. The sum payable is intended as a reward for good and faithful service, and nobody should benefit apart from the officer himself, members of his family, or direct dependants. Money intended as a reward for loyal service should not be handed over, for instance, to an officer’s brother-in-law.
– We may be giving away a good deal more than we imagine by accepting the Minister’s amendment and leaving the discretion entirely to the Board. “ Governor-General “ really means “ Minister.”
– The payment is made according to a rigid scale, and it is always granted as a matter of course. The officer receives six months’ leave, or the equivalent in pay, and most officers take the pay.
– I favour Senator Senior’s suggestion, but I would insert “personal representatives” instead of “ dependants “. The payment should form part of the estate of an officer,’ and the money should be payable to the persons whom he might wish to benefit under his will.
– We cannot accept such an amendment. The object of recreation leave is to enable an officer to do better work on his return to duty. There is no legal obligation on the part of the Government to pay this money; it is a gift, and we do not intend to hand the money over to an officer’s distant relatives. We have no money to throw away.
Amendment agreed to.
– Death may ensue after an officer has taken a portion of his leave. There may be no direct dependant, but a. relative, such as a niece, may have been attending to the officer during his illness. If the Committee retain the word “ dependants,” it would be impossible for the officer to leave any of the money to that relative, if he so wished. I do not see that the money must be regarded, as a gift.
– It has always been looked upon in that light.
– Its payment is part of the contract made with the officer, and it is not a sift.
– There is no contract in this instance.
– When an officer enters into the service of the Government, it is equivalent to a contract.
– There is no contract in connexion with this payment. It is an act of grace on the part of the Government.
– Officers do not receive the payment unless they have a clean record. The payment is in addition to all salary received.
– The record of the officer is taken, into consideration, and the Department safeguards itself so as to reduce to the narrowest limit that which it binds itself to give. An officer may have lost his wife, and may leave a niece as his legal representative.
– If a niece were dependent on an officer, she could benefit.
– It seems like an attempt to evade a recognised duty. If death occurs before an officer has taken his furlough the cash equivalent may be withheld from the person who may be named as the beneficiary under his will.
– The honorable senator’s argument is faulty in that an officer has no vested interest in this gift from the Government. It is optional whether the Government pay it or not.
– This debate will be illuminating to those 25,000 members of the Public Service who are dependent upon the will of the Government. They will realize that if, during their period of service, they fall sick or die, no privileges will be extended to their dependants except at the will of the Government.
– That is not so.
– But the argument has been put up that the cash equivalent to an officer’s furlough has not been earned by the officer at all ; that, in effect, it is something over and above his salary. As a matter of fact, it is recognised as a return for long and faithful service, and an officer should have the right to direct that it be paid to his personal representative.
– If the honorable senator had been in touch with the Defence Department he would have known that a very large number of people, who were in no respect dependent upon deceased soldiers, lodged claims in respect of pension allowances.
– The decision of the Minister to insist on the retention of the word “ dependants “ will really mean that any dependant will have to set up a definite claim.
SenatorHenderson. - And if the words ‘ personal representative “ be inserted instead, the position will be ten times worse.
– I do not agree with the honorable senator. If I died without having made a will, letters of administration would have to be applied for by some person who would have to prove that he was my legal representative. I move -
That the word “dependants,” sub-clause (3), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ personal representative.”
– I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment, and I do so because I have had considerable experience of the difficulties in connexion with the payment to dependants of soldiers’ gratuities and pensions. All sorts of quibbles have been raised as to who was a dependant and who was not, and whether there was any legal obligation on the part of the deceased soldier to support an applicant.
– During the war the Defence Department had to alter some of the soldiers’ wills because they were so unjust in. effect.
– I know the Defence authorities did some extraordinary things during the war. In some cases they compelled a man to support a wife with whom he had not been living for years, and who bore a very bad character-; but I did not know that they went to the extent of interfering with a soldier’s will.
– Only in some extreme cases.
– The Minister has admitted that the public servants have a vested interest in this grant which, he has told us, is made as a matter of course.
– I do not admit that. I deny having made such a statement.
– I understood that the Minister moved for the deletion of the word “ Governor-General “ in order to simplify the procedure, because this grant has always been made as a matter of course.
– I did not use those words. I said that the procedure was formal if an officer bore a good character.
– Apparently, the procedure has become so formal that an officer has a vested interest in the grant, and my contention is that it should be allowed to descend, just as part of his pay would descend, to his personal representative, and form part of the estate. This would get over any legal quibbles as to whether a person was a dependant or not.
Question - That the word proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 2
NOES: 18
Majority … … 16
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That after the word “ officer” second occurring, sub-clause (3), the word “of” be inserted.
That the following proviso be added to subclause (4), paragraph (6): - “Provided that the total ‘period of leave of absence for recreation which may, under this paragraph, be withheld, or regarded as part of the period of leave of absence granted under this section, during any officer’s period of service, shall not exceed the period of leave of absence for recreation which may be granted in respect of one year of service.”
That in sub-clause (5) the words “in the Territorial Service or “ and the words “ in such Territorial Service or “ be left out.
That ‘the following new sub-clause be added: - “ (6) This section shall be deemed to have commenced, on the 30th day of November, 1919.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment, (by Senator- Russell) agreed to -
That the following new clause be inserted - “ 70a. (1) The Board may grant to any officer of satisfactory service who is not eligible for furlough under the last preceding section, immediately prior to his retirement from the Commonwealth Service on, or subsequent to, his attaining the age of sixty years, leave of absence on full salary in accordance with the following scale: -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That the following new clause be inserted :: - “ 70b. For the purposes of the last two preceding sections, salary includes such emoluments as are prescribed.”
– This clause is a very interesting one. It proposes to shift from Parliament to the Board the onus of defining “salary.” The Senate has no power to deal with a regulation except to disallow it. I ask honorable senators to look at the proposal carefully, and to decide whether the clause will have the same effect as a precise statement of what salary includes. I object to the practice of leaving so many things to be prescribed. Under this clause the Board will have the power to say what portion of a man’s direct monetary pay shall be regarded as salary.
– If everything is defined in the Act, why have a Board?
– If the argument in favour of the clause had any strength I would ask, Why have an Act ? Why not give all the power to the Board?
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 -
First day of January, twenty-sixth day of January, Christmas Bay and the following day, Good Friday and the fol- lowing Saturday and Monday, the anniversary of the birthday of the Sovereign, and any day proclaimed by the Governor-General or required by any Act to be observed in lieu of any of the said days.
– I move -
That in sub-clause (1), after the word “ Sovereign,” the following words be inserted, “ the twenty-fifth of April.”
Consequentially upon this I shall also move that in sub-clause 3 the word “ four “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “three.” For the past two or three years there has been some discussion as to whether the 25th April, which is Anzac Day - the day on which it has been said Australia was born as a nation - should be observed as a public holiday. For two years there was some difficulty in arranging the matter, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), I think principally because of his interest in the matter, granted last Anzac Day as a public holiday. The soldiers’ organizations, particularly, and the Fathers and Mothers Associations, are very keen in desiring that this day should be observed as one of our national days. I have moved that it be one of the prescribed national holidays, and that the number of days which may otherwise be prescribed as holidays be reduced from four to three. I know that this is a matter which has to be dealt with carefully, because the number of public holidays in the year must be kept within reasonable limits.
– The Government would be glad to grant Anzac Day as a holiday, but they think that the occasion should not be used for holding picnics, prize fights, and the like. They think that it is too serious a day to be devoted to such amusement, and that it should be observed in a semi-religious manner, on ‘a Sunday. I think that is also the view taken generally by the people of Australia.
– There is a difference of opinion regarding the way in which the day should be observed. Some people say that it should be observed as a memorial day, and others that it should, if it is the day on which Australia was born as a nation, be a day of national rejoicing. Something can be said in favour of both these views, but, how-‘ ever the day is observed, that does not alter the principle that it should be a national day. The method of observance must be left to public sentiment. How can the Government insure that the holiday shall be observed in any particular way, except by passing special legislation to prohibit race meetings and the like being held on it?
– How are you going to make the States fall into Une with the Commonwealth in observing the holiday?
– Some i of the States two years ago observed Anzac Day as a holiday, but the Commonwealth offices were not closed. In the State of Tasmania I jestingly rang up the AttorneyGeneral and suggested that he should send the policemen down the bay for a holiday, as some returned soldiers were going to picket the post-office and other Commonwealth offices, to insure that no one worked there. I think that if the Commonwealth Government were to give a lead in the matter, and te approve of the day being observed as Australia’s principal national day, it would then be possible to educate public opinion as to how the day should be observed.
– Anzac Day will always be the principal national day in Australia, but that could also be so if its observance were confined to the Sunday?
– It has been suggested that the memorial services in connexion with Anzac Day should be held on the Sunday nearest to the public holiday.
– It would not do to have the holiday observed on two different days.
– Special church services are often held to commemorate an occasion on the Sunday nearest to the day on which a holiday is generally observed. If Anzac Day is made a memorial day, it is very likely that special church services to com mem orate it will be held on the Sunday nearest to the date fixed for the general observance of the holiday. I think that we should say definitely in this Bill whether or not it is intended to observe this day about which so much has been said.
– I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to substitute Anzac Day for the holiday observed on the 26th January ?
– I think the matter might he left to the Government to arrange. We do not wish to confuse Anzac Day with some other holiday.
– I should regard it as a serious matter to deliberately add to the number of public holidays.
– There ‘are four days or half-days which are optional.
– Are those holidays always granted ?
– The public servants see that they get them.
– I am loath to add to the number of public holidays.
– That objection will be met by the proposed amendment to strike out the word “four “ with a view to insert the word “ three.” The number of holidays will remain the same.
– I am not sure that the Government each year do prescribe four holidays.
– The public servants take the half-holidays when they want them. If there is a show in a country district,- the local people take a holiday, and the public servants are also given that holiday,
– The Government acquiesce V
– The Government1 agree to grant the holiday within the local area. “When every one else in a district is enjoying a holiday, why should not the Commonwealth public servants in that district be given the same privilege?
– I have only to add ‘that I am prepared in that case to support Senator Poster’s amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the word “ four “ in sub-clause (3) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ three.”
.- I move-
That the following sub-clause be added to the clause : - “ (8) This section shall not apply to officers stationed at lighthouses or employed on lighthouse steamers.”
These officers are given special leave once a year, and ordinarily in holiday time their services are required in the different stations.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as ‘amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “ occurring during their employment “ be left out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 (Temporary employment of returned soldiers).
– The Minister promised some amendment of this clause dealing with the temporary employment of returned soldiers.
– I propose to deal with the matter by an amendment of clause 79, which will make the condition of preference to returned soldiers applicable throughout the Bill. It will guarantee to naval men who have seen active service preference over men whose services were confined to the dep6t, for instance.
– I do not think that the Minister recollects the matter to ° which I intended to refer. I circulated an amendment to clause 41 to the effect that the temporary employment of any returned soldier should not be terminated merely to provide a position which might be filled by the promotion of a telegraph messenger.
– That can be dealt with on the recommittal of the Bill.
– I withdrew my amendment under the impression that a similar provision would be inserted in this clause 78 dealing with the temporary employment of returned soldiers.
– It is my intention to submit an amendment to the following effect : -
The services of a returned soldier temporarily employed shall not be dispensed with in order only to provide an office to which a person appointedas a telegraph messenger may be promoted.
– That seems to meet what I desire. Perhaps the Minister will say where he intends to insert that provision ?
– I shall ask for the postponement of clause 78, and will consult with the honorable senator as to where the amendment I have indicated can be best introduced.
Clause postponed.
Sitting suspended from 1 to £.30 p.m.
Clause 79 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That after the word “ section,” sub-clause (2), the words “thirty-eight or” be inserted.
– Does that give all returned soldiers, subject to competency, the right, under clause 39, to be exempt from examination.
– Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That sub-clauses (5) and (6) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clauses: - “ (5) Returned soldiers shall be eligible as candidates for the prescribed examination for admission to the Third Division at any age under fifty-one years, and if successful at the examination may be appointed to such class at such salary within the limits of the class as the Board determines.
Returned soldiers who have passed any prescribed examination for admission to the Public Service for which the maximum age fixed for candidates at the date of examination exceeds sixteen years, shall be eligible for appointment to the Public Service at any time before they attain the age of fifty-one years.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a returned soldier who prior to enlistment was dismissed from the Commonwealth Service, or whose resignation was enforced, may be appointed by the Board, and if the Board thinks fit the appointment may be without probation or without compliance with the life assurance provisions of this Act.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a returned soldier on being recommended for appointment to the Commonwealth Service shall only be required to pass such medical examination as will show that he is fit to perform the duties of an officer.”
– Why should there be any limitation or qualification for admission to the Third Division? Does that exclude returned soldiers from other Divisions ?
– Sub-clause 5 provides that returned soldiers shall be eligible candidates for the prescribed examination for admission to the Third Division at any age until fifty-one years; and if successful at the examination, may be appointed to such class at such salary within the limits of the class as the Board determines. The provision is an extension, and. not a curtailment, of the opportunities available to returned soldiers.
– Why is the Third Division specifically mentioned?
– With the idea of encouraging officers to qualify for a higher division. It is assumed that officers in the Fourth Division will seek promotion to the Third Division, and will endeavour to qualify for that promotion. It is probable that large numbers will attend night schools, with the idea of becoming qualified for promotion, to a higher division.
– There is nothing to prevent them being promoted to a higher division if they passthe necessary examinations ?
– No. In certain cases, special examinations may be held, at which tha practical, but not the technical standard may be reduced. If a returned soldier is loaded for assurance, he can be exempted from further assurance, and he can also be appointed if he can pass a medical examination to show that he is capable of undertaking the work he seeks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80-
Subject to the provisions of this Act, no appointment of an officer shall be confirmed until he has effected an assurance of his life with some life assurance company or society, approved by the Governor-General, registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or as is prescribed, providing for such benefits as are prescribed, and for increasing from time to time the amount assured:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any officer who at the time of his appointment is already assured in any such company or society for benefits equivalent to those prescribed.
.- I move-
That the words “ no appointment of an officer shall be confirmed until he has effected” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof “ every person appointed to the Commonwealth Service shall effect, as prescribed “.
We desire the power to prescribe so that returned soldiers may not be unnecessarily loaded for assurance. We have a system under which a certain percentage is paid into a fund which provides similar advantages to those offered by life assurance companies.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (by Senator Russell) proposed. -
That the word “ officer “ in the proviso he left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ person.”
That after the word “ prescribed “ at the end of the proviso the words “ or to any officer in the position of telegraph messenger until such officer has been promoted, whereupon he shall effect an assurance of his life as provided in this section “ be inserted.
– Can the Minister (Senator Russell) say whether the establishment of a Government life assurance branch has ever been seriously considered on the lines of a mutual benefit society, particularly for the benefit of public servants’ We have been informed that there are, approximately, 25,000 public servants, and a good deal of work must be involved in collecting the premiums of those who contribute to funds controlled by the Government.It is generally believed that large profits are made by the life assurance offices, and it would be advisable if these were, utilized either for the benefit of the community or the public servants.
: - Some public servants have already effected assurance with private companies, and we could not ask them to assure again. I do not suppose the private, companies would ; be agreeable to transfers being made, and we could not compel officers who were well assured before joining . the Service to take out an additional policy. It is optional for public servants to act as they desire in this connexion. I shall bring the matter under the notice of the Cabinet.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 -
Amendment (by . Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “and in the latter case is unwilling to assure his life,” in sub-clause (1), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ or, where a person who is a returned soldier is unable to assure his life for a less annual payment’ than 6 per centum of his salary, and if, in either case, the person is unwilling to assure his life.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 verbally amended and agreed to.
Clause 87 -
Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “called upon to retire,” in sub-clause (1), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ retired.”
That the word “such,” in sub-clause (2), be left out.
That the words “by the Board from the Service,” in sub-clause (2), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ from the Serviceby the Board, or, in the case of an officer of the 1st Division, by the GovernorGeneral.” (Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 -
When an officer has attained the age of sixtyfive years and, in the opinion of the Board, it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the officer should continue in the performance of the duties of his office, and the officer is able and willing to do so, the Board may direct the officer to continue in his office for a fixed time not exceeding twelve months, otherwise every officer, on attaining sixty-five years of age shall retire from the Service.:
Provided that in the case of an officer who is not entitled to pension or superannuation allowance, and who desires to continue to be employed in the Commonwealth Service, the Board may direct that the officer he retained in the Service subject to the following: -
that any grant of salary payable to him under this Act upon retirement or to his dependants in the event of his death, shall be based on his period of service and his rate of salary at the date when he attained the age of sixty-five years.
Amendment(by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That after the word “that,” in paragraph (e), the words “notwithstanding anything contained in section 70 of this Act” be inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 88a. The application of this division shall extend to officers to whom section 44 of this Act applies.”
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90-
Provided that where any such building has been acquired or erected by the Commonwealth solely for the purpose of residence of the officer without an incidental obligation of supervis ion or general control by the officer over personnel or property, the Board may fix a fair and reasonable sum, not exceeding 7 per centum of thecapital value of the premises occupied, as rent for the premises, and such sum shall be deducted from the salary of the officer.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed-
That the words in the proviso to sub-clause ( 1 ) , “ the Board may fix a fair and reasonable sum, not exceeding 7 per centum of the capital value of the premises occupied, as rent for the premises, and such sum shall be deducted from the salary of the officer,” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, the officer occupying the premises shall pay such rent, and be subject to such conditions of occupancy, as are determined by the Minister in charge of the Department controlling the premises.”
– ‘Country postmasters and rail- way stationmasters have to reside on the premises in which their offices are situated, and their official duties do not really cease when their offices are closed.
– The amendment applies only to premises which are solely of a residential character.
– In the sub-clause as printed, the amount chargeable is “not more than 7 per cent.”
.- I notice that the amount set down in the sub-clause as the equivalent of rent is 7 per cent, of the capital value. In the case of the income tax the rental value is fixed at 5 per cent.
– We want to make the buildings self-supporting.
– If the pulblic servants have to pay through the nose, it will be an injustice. Am I to understand that the rent charged willbe according to the capital value?
– It will be sufficient to make the buildings pay. We do not desire to show a profit.
– I recollect that in a neighbouring State the Government secured premises for a Customs House, post-office, and police station, and subsequently the Customs office and post-office were combined. Under this proposal, apparently, the Government could charge the one occupant the interest on the capital cost of the whole building.
– That would take all the officer’s wages.
– I can quote the case of a married man who had been in occupation of a post-office building being transferred, and a single man appointed in hia place. The single man was required to occupy the premises to protect the property, and for that privilege the Department deducted 7 per cent, of hia salary for rent.
– An officer has the right to sub-let premises if they are not suitable for residential purposes. The Government get nothing out of the transaction; as a matter of fact, we are under a loss, but we provide living premises for the convenience of officers who may be married men with families.
– The point I make is that the rental charged for the buildings is counted as part of an officer’s salary.
– The Board now will take that matter into consideration.
– But the honorable senator will see that under this clause the Board will not have that power.
– Well, the Minister, if you like. Previously the rent was acitually fixed at 7 per cent, of the actual cost. Under this provision it will he fixed at the discretion of the Minister. What more do you want ?
– The Minister residing in Melbourne will be called upon to determine al case in, say, Western Australia. He will know nothing of the circumstances, so he will call for the papers, and, having ascertained the capital cost of a building, will say that an officer must pay so much by way of interest. If an officer in receipt of a lower salary displaces an officer of a higher status, the rental charged to him, in proportion to his annual salary, will be greater than that charged to his predecessor, and will be tantamount to a reduction of salary. ‘Cases of this kind have frequently been reported to me, and I think this is a favorable opportunity to mention the matter. However, if the Committee thinks that it should be left as it is, well and good.
– Did I understand the Minister (Senator Russell) to say that the Government have been involved in a loss through the letting of premises to public servants ? If so, and if the Minister wants additional power, in order to get a rental return high enough to wipe out any loss, I shall be glad to give him the necessary support.
– We are not running this as a, business. We recognise that we have to provide living accommodation in certain districts, and we aim at doing so at the exact cost of the property to us.
– In other words, the Government look for a reasonable return on the capital outlay ?
– Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That after the word “ same “, line 8, the words “ or a lower “ be inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92-
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “ or the Governor-General “ be left out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to-
That after the word “ Board “ the words “a Permanent Head “‘be inserted.
.- Sub-clause 2 provides that notice of every appointment, promotion, and retirement or dismissal of officers shall be published in the Gazette. It has been suggested by the Council of the Public Service Association that all vacancies should also be notified in the same way, so that any officer in ‘the Service may have an opportunity of applying.
– Original vacancies are advertised publicly, but vacancies in a Department due to the promotion, of an officer are not notified. These are matters of internal administration.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “ Department of the Navy or any office in the “, sub-clause 1, and the words, “ Department of the Navy or in the “, sub-clause 3, be left out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 95 -
If after inquiry a Royal Commission . . . reports to the Governor-General that it is of opinion that the continuance of any person in the Public Service or employ is detrimental to the public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General may dismiss the person from the Public Service or employ.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That the words “reports to the GovernorGeneral that it is of opinion that the continuance of any person in the Public Service or employ is detrimental to the public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth,” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “makes a report to the GovernorGeneral expressing the opinion that the service of any person in the Public Service or employ should not be continued.”
– This clause refers to the presence in the Commonwealth Public Service of any objectionable person, described in the marginal note as an officer of enemy origin. Seeing that the Empire, which includes Australia, is at peace with late enemy countries, I do not know if it is advisable to perpetuate the verbiage of the clause, and particularly the marginal note.
– It provides for future contingencies in the Pacific.
– Would the honorable senator go so far as to describe our enemies of the future?
– The clause would cover the case of a civilian of alien origin, the citizen of a country in which the law of conscription prevails.
– Broadly speaking, it may be said that this country and the Empire are at peace with every other country in the world to-day, and I find it a little difficult to understand the justification for the reference in the clause to an officer of enemy origin. If there is good ground for believing that an officer 13 disaffected or disloyal he should not be continued in the Service; but is it wise that we should adopt the expensive and cumbersome method of appointing a Royal Commission to bring about his dismissal ?
– The Royal Commissioner in such a case is usually a police magistrate or a Judge of an inferior Court.
– Why could not the Board deal with these cases?
– That is just what I am trying to find out.
– Some of these are very serious cases, and call ,f or considerable inquiry.
– Could not the Board make the inquiry ?
– We have found this a very complicated matter in the past.
– The Minister’s statement is an admission that a Royal Commission, consisting of a magistrate or a Judge of an inferior Court, would be a more competent tribunal than the Board.
– The reason for the Royal Commission is to confer on the tribunal making the inquiry the powers given to a Royal Commission under the Royal Commissions Act, which powers the Board would not have.
– I do not see the necessity for the adoption of this expensive method to discover whether a person in the Public Service is disaffected or disloyal. I do not see why the Board should not be armed with sufficient powers to make the necessary inquiries in these cases, and to inflict punishment where that seemed to be justified, even to the extent of dismissal from the Service.’ I do not know that a magistrate or a Judge of an inferior Court would possess special qualifications which would not be possessed by the Board. It might be shown that the person charged was not actually disloyal. He might come right up to the chalk -line, but not cross it. It seems to me that it would be rather futile to appoint a Royal Commission to make an investigation which might end in smoke. If the Board can be trusted to deal with members of the Service in all other respects, I do not see why it should not be empowered to consider the case of an officer suspected of disaffection or disloyalty.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That after sub-clause (1) the following new sub-clause be inserted : - “ (1a) If the Board, after inquiry, reports to the Governor-General that in its opinion the continuance of any person in the Public Service or employ is detrimental to the public safety or the defence of the Common-‘ wealth, the Governor-General may dismiss the person from the Public Service or employ.”
– Under the proposed new subclause the Board is given the power which under sub-clause 1 is left to a Royal Commission. The Bill should at least do some justice to the intelligence of our draftsmanship.
– A Royal Commission has not the power to dismiss. Very extensive powers are necessary in some of these cases. I have known a Royal Commission to sit for twenty days taking evidence as to nationality.
– Under the proposed new sub-clause the Board will not report to the Governor-General until it has made an inquiry, and in sub-clause 1 the inquiry is placed in the hands of a Royal Commission.
– A Royal Commission may do more. In some of those cases the inquiries might be followed by criminal prosecutions.
– The Minister proposes in sub-clause 1a to give to the Board the power which in sub-clause 1 is given to a Royal Commission, and I want to know why the Board should not have the power to deal with all these cases. I have directed attention to what appears to me to be the folly of appointing probably an expensive Royal Commission to do work which the Minister now admits the Board is competent to do.
– This is intended to cover, not so much the future as cases which have arisen in the past. We want to provide that where the Government, in good faith, have acted upon the reports of Royal Commissions inquiring; into these cases their decision shall be final. We do not desire that the Government should be dragged through the Courts for action which it was deemed desirable to take against alien enemies during the war. I may remind honorable senators that on one occasion a Royal Commission was appointed to report on patent medicines, and it was found necessary to pass a special Act to protect Mr. Beale, who made the report, against action which might be taken by persons who had millions behind them to crush a man who had only done his duty in showing up certain abuses. An enemy subject who was a member of the Public Service may have suffered certain disabilities, and may now desire to get back into the Service or to secure compensation. I . do not think that aliens who were dealt with during the war should have the right to prosecute the Government in such cases. Mistakes may have occurred in dealing with some of them, but in the course followed the authorities felt that they were doing what was their duty at the time. May I direct the attention of the Committee to the last sub-clause, which reads -
No person who is dismissed from the Commonwealth Public Service or employ in pursuance of this section shall be entitled to make any claim against the Commonwealth by way of compensation or otherwise in respect of his dismissal.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the following new sub-clause be added : - (3.) This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the first day of May One thousand nine hundred and eighteen.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96-
The Board may . . . make regulations . . .
Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That paragraph (c) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : - “ (e) for prescribing or regulating the character and standard of competitive entrance examinations, the manner of holding those examinations, the minimum and maximum age of candidates, and for registering, in the order of merit, the names of all persons who have qualified at such examinations, and of those candidates who, having so qualified, may be appointed to fill < subsequent vacancies arising within a prescribed period.”
That after paragraph (/) the following new paragraph be inserted : - ” (ff) for prescribing courses of study for which recognition may be given by the Board.”
That paragraph (k) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : - ” (k) for regulating the duties and conduct of officers.”
That in sub-clause (1), paragraph (n), after the word “ officers “ the following words be inserted : - “ and temporary employees.”
That the following proviso be added to paragraph (q) : - ‘“Provided that nothing in the regulations shall authorize the keeping formore than two years of the record of any punishment which does not exceed a fine of Five shillings.”
That in sub-clause (1), paragraph (t), the words “ and determining “ be left out.
That in sub-clause (1), after paragraph (t), the following new paragraph be inserted : - “ (to) for requiring officers to take oaths or affirmations of secrecy in relation to the matters coming to their knowledge in the course of their employment, and for prescribing the form of such oaths or affirmations.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 - (2)’ The provisions of this Part, except section ninety-eight thereof, shall be limited in their application to officers employed in the administrative or executive sections of Departments or branches of the Provisional Service.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the word “ eight “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ nine.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to.
Clause 100-
Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That after the word “ order” the words “ in writing “ be inserted.
That the words “ which shall in that case “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words ‘ ‘ for such time as is considered justified, and in that event the increment shall.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 consequentially amended, and agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “alter, or repeal” be left out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
– In moving that progress be reported I desire to extend my thanks to honorable senators for the assistance they have given me in bringing what has been to me a most difficult Bill to this stage.
The schedules cannot very well be dealt with at this juncture, because there are certain postponed clauses still to be considered.
Progress reported.
page 12694
The following paper was presented : -
Premiers’ Conference, held at Melbourne, OctoberNovember, 1921 - Decisions arrived at.
Ordered to be printed.
page 12694
Assent reported.
page 12694
Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to refer to a question which I submitted to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator E. D. Millen) yesterday in regard to the appointment of Sir Joseph Cook as High Commissioner, and his reply to the effect that there was no information to give. Again, this morning, when another place was congratulating Sir Joseph Cook on his appointment, the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell), who was the only Minister present at the time, informed me that the position was the same as it was yesterday. I am not making the complaint a personal one; but as a member of this Senate who contends that we have co-ordinate powers with another place and are entitled to be supplied with public information at the same time, I strongly dissent from the Minister’s attitude in declining to give information on a matter of public interest when it was available in the place which makes and unmakes Governments. May I throw out a suggestion to the party opposite, and say that the time has arrived when the number of Ministers in the Senate should be more in proportion to the number of electors we represent. I realize that we have three Ministers, one of whom is usually absent, and perhaps it is unfair to complain of scant treatment, because they appear to be overworked; but it is time an alteration was made. I utter a most emphatic protest against Ministers in this Senate withholding information, or supplying misleading particulars, in regard to public matters when correct information is in possession of honorable members in another place. I am not going to complain unduly of the attitude of the Minister who was in charge at the time, although he was responsible for the refusal to answer the question I submitted this morning. The time for secrecy has passed, and I lodge my protest, trusting that Ministers will cease giving scant attention to the questions asked in this House. Ministers must realize that it is not the individual who is slighted by a refusal to answer, but the prestige of this Senate. This branch of the Legislature, except where otherwise stated in the Constitution, has powers equal to those of the other Chamber. As a senator, I shall always insist on public information being made available here at the same time as it is disclosed in another place, and if it is not, I shall do as I am now doing - utter my emphatic protest against treatment of such a character.
– I desire to support the remarks of Senator Gardiner, because the Senate is entitled to information of public importance such as has been given in another place. In discussing this matter with an ex-senator of considerable experience, he said that if such a position had arisen when he was a member of the Chamber there would have been “ something doing.” We come here as representatives of the people of Australia, and are entitled to be supplied with information of public interest when it is made available in ‘another Chamber. Surely the representatives of the Government in the Senate enjoy the same privileges as Ministers in another place. I should be very sorry indeed for this protest to be regarded as a personal reflection upon the VicePresident of the Executive Council - I am sure Senator Gardiner does not wish it to be treated as such - but I strongly protest against the treatment the Senate has received, not only in this but in other instances. Senator Gardiner expressed himself very eloquently yesterday, and I am only too pleased to be able to indorse hia remarks. The attitude we are adopting must not be regarded as criticism concorning the appointment of Sir Joseph Cook to the office of High Commissioner, because such is not the case; but we resent the Senate being treated in this way. Surely it is not suggested that this deliberative body should be refused information on matters of policy.
– Not at all.
– I do not enjoy the privilege of the “Minister’s confidences.
– I could not give the information without dishonouring myself, and I would not do that.
– I am prepared to excuse the Minister; but there does not seem to be any valid reason why the announcement should not have been made in the Senate.
– It was my fault.
– I enter my emphatic protest against the treatment we have received, and should we be similarly slighted in future, I shall speak again as I have, spoken to-day.
– I have been privileged to occupy a seat in this Chamber for a number of years, and during that time I have always endeavoured to give information when it was obtainable. This morning I attended a meeting of the Executive Council at 10 o’clock, and I reached this building at 10.45, just prior to the commencement of the memorial service. I was not approached by any honorable senator before we met, and when I was questioned I merely replied that I did not have anything to add to what the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator E. D. Millen) had said yesterday. I have been asked why I did not give the information, but I am not allowed to disclose particulars of the proceedings at a gathering at which Ministers are on oath. If I had answered the question submitted to me, without the consent of my colleagues, I would have been breaking my pledge, which I refuse to do. If I had been approached before the Senate met I would have been able to communicate with the ‘Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes). But I have been alone on the Ministerial bench during the day, my colleagues, as honorable senators are aware, being unavoidably absent.
– We should have four or five Ministers in the Senate.
– At times I think we should have six.
– Does not the Minister think that the information should have been given?
– Yes ; I am prepared to shoulder the responsibility. I had no opportunity of leaving the chamber, my two colleagues Being absent, and I trust that in the circumstances honorable senators will not accuse me of wilfully withholding the information, because that was not my desire.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (bena: tor Bakhap) [3.58]. - Since I have been a member of the Senate this is the first occasion I can remember cm which Mr. President (Senator Givens) has been absent for several sittings in succession. I ami sure honorable senators will join with me in expressing the hope that he will soon be sufficiently recovered to again occupy the presidential chair.
– I shall be glad, Mr. Deputy President, if you will, on behalf of the Senate, convey to M!r. President the expressions of regret which you have voiced.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 November 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19211111_senate_8_97/>.