House of Representatives
3 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PATENT DESIGN AND TRADE MARKS BILL
QUESTION
- THE NEW HEBRIDES
RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK
- Parliament House,
- Sir, Melbourne, 2nd July, 1901
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
SECOND SCHEDULE
QUESTION
- THIRD SCHEDULE
ADJOURNMENT
- Public Service Bill

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1954

PATENT DESIGN AND TRADE MARKS BILL

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I dosire to ask the Minister for Tradeand Customs,without notice, when the proposed Patent Design and Trade Marks Bill is likely to be introduced 1 I ask this question because I om informed, on good authority, that the revenue of the State Patent Offices is falling off, business both in the States and abroad being held back in the expectation of the early introduction of the measure, which, as applying to the whole Commonwealth, will, it is believed, materially reduce the present charges.

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– It is not expected that it will be possible for the Government to introduce the Bill before next session, though the matter has been considered, and a rough draught of the measure’ has been prepared by a conference of officers.

page 1954

QUESTION

THE NEW HEBRIDES

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– In the Age this morning there appears a paragraph which has been telegraphed from Sydney, and relates to the position of affairs in the New Hebrides. There is a great feeling of unrest among the people of the Commonwealth in regard to this matter, who desire that our shores shall be kept safo from the danger which would undoubtedly menace them if these islands became the property of the French Republic. I ask the Prime Minister if he has anything to say which would tend to reassure them?

Mr Reid:

– I had an opportunity to look at our standing orders last evening, and, although I have not finished going through them, I cannot find that they make any provision for the asking of questions without notice. I would, therefore, like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon this practice. It ‘is a matter for consideration whether this practice should be created.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no direct provision in our standing orders for the asking of questions without notice, but, as there is no prohibition of the practice, if a question is asked without notice and the Minister to whom it is addressed chooses to answer it, I do not think that I should object.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I understand that in some of the State legislatures the practice has been to obtain the- permission of the Chair before putting a question without notice. I think that the proper rule for a Government to Jay down on this subject, ii/nd an effective rule for all Governments, is that it will answer questions without notice only when they concern some matter so urgent that ‘the Minister feels justified in giving information upon it immediately. .As to the letter to which the honorable member for Laanecoorie has drawn my attention, I would say that it is a very difficult thing for me to deal with, because the writer of it has chosen to communicate its contents to the press before it has reached my hands, which I consider a grave discourtesy. I think honorable members “will support me in the statement that it is not an advisable thing that those who correspond with Ministers should make public what they have written, before the Ministers have had ah opportunity to read and consider their letters. That, however, is the position with- regard to this letter, which has not yet been delivered, unless it has come by to-day’s express. It is a warning letter, relating to the New Hebrides, which has been published in the Sydney newspapers under the heading “ French Designs,” and a paragraph relating to it appears in this morning’s Aye. In reply to the question which the honorable member has asked in regard to it, I think it is fair to make this answer : The matter has received my earnest and continuous consideration, and I have been for some time engaged in correspondence and telegraphic communication, through the GovernorGeneral, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in connexion with it. The nature of those communications it would be very unwise to disclose, because its disclosure would probably frustrate the object in view, which is - not to unduly suspect the French Government upon any ex parte statement whatsoever of a design to engross and possess the New Hebrides, but to invoke the consideration of the Imperial Government towards a fair method of dealing with disputes arising in those islands. The agreement of 1888 provides for a joint commission, consisting of the captain and two officers of the English and the French menofwar visiting the islands, to deal with such disputes ; but, as honorable members know, the most proline source of disputes in all times and in all countries has been the ownership of land, and the agreement to which I refer makes no provision for the settling of such disputes, but, on the contrary, prohibits the commission from dealing with them. Upon this and other matters relating to the New Hebrides the Government has been in correspondence with the Imperial Government, and I think that all I need say to my honorable friend to reassure him is that the matter is under the kindly and favorable consideration of that Government. More than that, in the face of confidential communications, I am not at liberty to say.

Mr ISAACS:
INDI, VICTORIA

– May I ask the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration the advisability of coming to an understanding with the Imperial Government to the effect that, before any determination is arrived at by it with regard to the future of the Pacific, Australia will be consulted ? ‘ Mr. BARTON. - I have already addressed a communication to the British Government exactly on those lines.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Referring to the point of order which was raised just now, I wish to call attention to Standing Orders 94 and 95, which read as follows : -

In putting any such question no argument or opinion shall be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain such question.

In answering any such question a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

Those standing orders will apply to questions asked without notice, by permission of the House, as well as to questions of which notice has been given.

page 1955

RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that this morning I received the following letter from the Clerk

Parliament House,

Sir, Melbourne, 2nd July, 1901

I do myself the honour to inform you that for reasons of a personal nature I desire to resume my office of Clerk of the Parliaments of Victoria at the earliest opportunity, and for that purpose I beg to request that I may be relieved of the duties of my office of Clerk of the House of .Representatives on Saturday next, the 6th July instant.

In tendering my resignation of the high office which the Prime Minister of Australia conferred upon me, and which I regard as one of the most honorable and distinguished positions I can hope to fill in my life, I desire to say that I shall ever look back with feelings of the deepest pride and pleasure on my connexion with this honorable House.

With greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all honorable members, I beg to subscribe myself,

Your most faithful servant, GEORGE H. JENKINS,

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

I om sure that Mr. Jenkins takes with him to the State Parliament the best wishes of all the members of this House.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– Perhaps honorable members will allow me to pursue a course which is not usual, but which is justified by the circumstances of the case. Mr. Jenkins has given his services to the Commonwealth in the arduous and difficult work of initiating our proceedings entirely without remuneration, and I consider that he has placed the Commonwealth under an obligation to him. I therefore move, with the concurrence of honorable members, without notice -

That the thanks of this House be tendered to Mr. Gr. . H. Jenkins, C.M.G., for his able and gratuitous services to the Commonwealth in respect of the inauguration of Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1956

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In committee (consideration resumed from 2nd July, vide page 1895):

Postponed clause 44 -

Subject to the provisions of this Act every probationer before the confirmation of his appointment and every officer shall effect with some life assurance company or society registered and currying on business in the Commonwealth an assurance on his life providing for the following benefits, namely : -

The payment of a sum of money on his death if it occnrs before he attains the age of sixty years ;

The payment to him of an annuity until death if he survives the age of sixty years ;

The payment to him, if he retires from or ceases to be a member of the public service before attaining the age of sixty years, of a sum of money equal to the whole amount of premiums paid byhim to the company or society unless he elects to continue paying the premiums on his policy ; and

For the increasing from time to time of the amount assured as may be prescribed.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I understand from the Attorney-General that an amendment is to be moved in this clause to limit the assurance provided for to approved assurance companies.

Mr Deakin:

– I believe that the object desired is to be obtained in another way.

Mr CROUCH:

Mr SALMON:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I do not think that upon the explanation the honorable member has given the committee can adopt the suggestion that has just been made, because it is altogether different to a proposal for life assurance. It may work well in South Australia, and may, as the honorable member says, have worked well for eleven years, but I should certainly want to make some further investigation before I would be prepared to say anything in its favour. What I particularly rose to say was, that a suggestion has been made to me by the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. Piesse, which I am rather inclined to think is a good one. He has suggested that the clause should be amended to read as follows : -

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every probationer, before the confirmation of his appointment, and every officer shall effect with some life insurance company, registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or otherwise as may be prescribed, an assurance on his life, providing for such benefits as may be prescribed, and for increasing from time to time the amount insured.

That would be the whole of the clause, and we should leave out paragraphs (a), (/>), and (a).

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Government would require to approve of the policy in that case.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

-Yes. Regulalations would have to be framed, and it may be necessary to introduce some slight amendment in clause 71, to provide for the case. There is doubtless some difficult)” in connexion with paragraph (c) in reference to the point that was raised at the time of the previous debate. I have a communition from the actuary or the manager of the Australian Widows’ Fund, in which he says -

The provision undersection (c), is that which requires most consideration, as it renders a life assurance society liable under certain conditions for a, payment in excess of the amount held in reserve against its liability under a policy. From one point o£ view, it stipulates- for a larger surrender value than a life assurance society would be able to pay ; but, on the other hand, it may be regarded as an additional benefit, which could be provided for by charging a somewhat higher premium.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I am sure that honorable members who are anxious that an opportunity should be afforded to try the experiment outlined in the. proposal of the honorable member for Bourke last evening will support the amendment, and that they will also support the suggestion that only purely Australian and mutual societies shall be prescribed. Avery large amount of money is now sent out of the Commonwealth to payfor life insurances, and in my opinion we should keep as much money here as we can.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

-It is always a great pleasure for any one who sits on this side of the Chamber to be able to congratulate the Government, and I think that we are entitled to congratulate them upon having seen a virtue in the numbers that ranged themselves on these benches last evening. I think that the Minister has shown a wise discretion. I had intended to propose the addition to the clause of the following words -

But such company or society shall be one of which the head office is within the Common- . wealth, and shall be conducted wholly on the mutual principle, and shall when required so to do permit the Minister to authorize an indepen-. dent valuation of its assets.

Sir William LYNE:

– I have given instructions this morning for’ the preparation of a Bill dealing with all the companies.

Mr MAHON:

– In that case I shall not move an amendment. But I would like to ask the Minister what provision he proposes to make for persons who leave the public service or who are dismissed, and are compelled to surrender their policies.

Mr Reid:

– Such persons should be allowed to go on paying their premiums.

Mr MAHON:

– But they may not be able to do so. At the present time, if a man who is insured surrenders his policy, he will not get back more than 30 per cent, or 40 per cent, of what he lias paid in premiums ; the actual amount depending upon the liberality of the company and the length of time during which he has been insured. According to the Australian Banking and Insurance Record the total liabilities, under the head of life endowment and annuity funds, of the twelve Australian insurance companies last year was £30,100,000 odd, and of that amount nearly £500,000 represented surrendered policies. I do not know whether the £500,000 was the face value of the surrendered policies or the amount which the cornpanies repaid to those who surrendered ; but the figures indicate that iii these tunes a large number of people find, themselves obliged to surrender their policies, and that being so, 1 think we should make provision for the return of a larger proportion of the premiums where a policy has to be surrendered than is returned now.

Sir William Lyne:

– I think that could be provided for only by loading the premiums in the first instance:

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr REID:

– That is what I am pointing out. It is a mere matter of money. With foreign societies, though not with Australian societies - in that case it is patriotism. . . If that be made a feature of the arrangement the charge will be much higher in order to provide for a casual event, an accidental event which would happen only once in a hundred cases. 1 feel sure that the Government, even at the risk of spending another sleepless night, will take this matter into consideration, so that’ we shall have a thoroughly sound system. The salaries of public servants are not very high, and we do not want to load them in any injudicious way. I should like to have the benefit of the views of the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr Piesse, who has taken such a deep and useful interest in this matter. Would it not tend to load the payment by the public servant, if the condition be attached that ‘when a man leaves the service all he has paid is returned to him with interest - that that may happen to any man who is assured.

– It is the mere return of the premiums, and, of course, that would make a very great difference. After a considerable number of years the capital may very well be returned, because the interest will have made up for the risk. I hope that this question will be settled in a way that will meet the views of those who advocate State life insurance. At the same time I feel that State life insurance is hardly attainable within the time in. which it is necessary that some provision shall be made. There will be civil servants appointed very shortly, and, unless the Government are ready with their scheme, those officers will not be able to have their lives assured immediately they enter the service. If we accept the proposal, with some slight modification, I think that the clause might be made to read as follows : -

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every probationer, before the confirmation of his appointment, and every officer, shall effect an assurance on his life, either with some Australian mutual life assurance company, registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or as may be prescribed.

Thus there would be an alternative presented. The Government can then insist upon an officer who is appointed before they are ready with their scheme, insuring his life with some company which is registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth. They will thus be able to prescribe the benefits that areto be obtained either from the company in which such an officer is insured or under the scheme which they themselves promulgate.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- No public officer assures for death only if he is compelled to insure by the Government. All the policies which public officers take out are endowment policies. The question of death does not enter into the matter at all.

Mr Reid:

– If a certain amount is payable at 60 years of age that is scarcely satisfactory as an annuity; because we know how money goes very often, and how it leaves the assured just as poor as ever.

Mr McCOLL:

– I do not think that the suggestion that public servants should be compelled to assure only in colonial mutual companies is wise at the present time. The Government should not put its imprimatur upon any company until it has made the strictest investigation into the affairs of tha,t company. It might be found upon inquiry that what are termed “ foreign companies “ are very much better for assurers than are some of the colonial mutual societies.

Mr Watson:

– How can we investigate the affairs of foreign companies ?

Mr McCOLL:

– In just the same way as we can investigate the affairs of others, if they are allowed to do business here. But, as a matter of fact, some of what are termed foreign assurance companies doing business in Victoria have to submit yearly to the most searching investigation by a Government actuary that is conducted in regard to any assurance company in the world. In the State of New York there is a superintendent of assurance, who has to value the assets of every company doing business in that State. He has to consider every mortgage, and every penny that is laid out on security of any kind has to be specially valued by him, and he tells us in a public document what is the value of the property on which the money has been lent, and also the amount that has been lent upon that property. That is the system of supervision that we require here. Until we get that system it will be very unwise for the Government to put its imprimatur upon any office, Australian or otherwise. Our first aim should be to secure a strict inquiry into all the offices, in order to ascertain whether we cannot have a system of Commonwealth assurance. I believe that such a system must come. It has been a great success in New Zealand, and it must in time come here. It is perhaps a little premature just now, and the discussion that wehave been indulgingin has been largely academic and doctrinaire. I wish to point out that there are mutual companies doing business here who are paying over 200 per cent for their new business. They arepaying two years’ premiums in order to get one policy. Therefore, we ought to be extremely careful in what we do at the present time.

Mr. SALMON (Laanecoorie). - The suggestion made by the Minister for Home Affairs can be accepted by me, at any rate. feel that investigation will only show him the manifest advantages of the system which I have endeavoured all too feebly and incoherently to lay before the committee. It s a system which has borne the strictest investigation, and one with which I am very much in favour. I feel sure that after investigation on the part of the Minister, that system will so commend itself to him that we shall soon find him bringing down to the House a Bill which will provide for its initiation in the Commonwealth.

Clause’agreed to.

Clause 45 -

Such assurance shall be continued by the assured and not allowed to lapse, and the amount thereof shall be increased by the assured from time to time in proportion as nearly as practicable to his salary as may be prescribed.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).This clause provides that the amount of the assurance may be increased from time to time. In order to protect the employe, who has to take out several different policies, I desire to move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “ Such increased assurance may be effected with any approved company without regard to the original policy or policies.”

It has been found that where a person who had insured with a certain company when young, afterwards had to go to the same company, he has been loaded much heavier than would have been the case had he been at liberty to assure with some other company. I think that the words which I have proposed will afford protection to the employes without in any way hampering the working of the Bill.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I would point out that this clause makes it mandatory that the increase shall take place. I have endeavoured to show the committee what the result of that system has been in “Victoria. The result was that the burden which had to be borne by the members of the public service was too heavy for them. Astheir salaries increased, their ages also increased, and their effectiveness as members of mutual insurance societies had correspondingly decreased. They could not take out policies on anything like the same terms as those upon which their first policies were taken out. I ask the Minister if it is intended to penalize the members of the public service for every promotion which they receive 1 So soon as they are promoted from one class to another they will, under this provision, find that a further demand is made upon them in the way of an assurance premium. Those who are better able to discuss this matter than myself, by reason of their further personal experience, will bear me out that the time will naturally arrive when men will find it impossible to effect assurances on the highest scale at their increased ages. Under the circumstances, we are asking the public servants to do something which they are incapable of doing, and the result will be that which has been so often outlined, viz., that the State will be compelled to take up this matter. I hope that the Minister will allow the clause to be struck out altogether. Under the amendment made in the previous clause he will have full power to deal with this matter, and I think it is better to leave it in his hands until a full and comprehensive scheme is brought down to the House.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I think the difficulty can be got over to some extent if the amount of the assurance according to salary were prescribed in the first instance so as to give the person who assured for the first time the option of assuring for the higher amount. Any prudent man, if he could pay the premiums, would adopt the course rather than trust to being able to assure when he was much older.

Mr Deakin:

– There would always be an option of that sort.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– It appears to be man datory that he should increase” the amount from time to time, irrespective of what the first amount may be. If an officer assured for an amount proportionate to the larger salary in the first instance, he ought not to be required to increase the amount as he grows older.

Mr McColl:

– The rule is that a man must insure for the maximum salary of his class.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– But he might go into another class. He might assure for maximum of the next class.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I wish to ask the Minister if it is intended that this life assurance shall apply to the general division as well as to the clerical division ?

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes.

Mr ISAACS:

– May I direct the honorable gentleman’s, attention to one particular point. In clause 44 there is no provision as to the amount of assurance, and, as far as I can see, the provision for prescribing the amount is in clause 71.

Sir William Lyne:

– I said just now that if my suggestion with regard to clause 44 is carried out, clause 71 will have to be amended to meet it.

Mr ISAACS:

– In what way ?

Sir William Lyne:

– Because it does not give sufficient power in the making of regulations.

Mr ISAACS:

– But it appears to be confined to the clerical officers, because clause 71 says that the regulations shall, prescribe the lowest amount for which the lives of officers shall, having regard to their annual salary, be assured. That provision will not cover wages. I think that the Minister ought to be very careful that the words used shall cover the general division as well as the clerical division of the public service.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– I wish to point out to the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, that his amendment assumes a great many things that have not yet been determined. For example: he uses the words “approved companies.” Clause 44 does not suggest that there shall be approved companies, and indeed I think it would be unwise to say that companies should be approved.

Mr Poynton:

– We can leave out the word “ approved.”

Mr McCAY:

– But for what the honorable member for South Australia said, I should not have thought that these clauses implied that the increased assurance must be effected in the company in which the original assurance was effected. I think that the clause carries no such implication, and that the danger which he apprehends is purely an imaginary one. There is no fear of the Government falling into the error of compelling a man to increase his assurance in the same company when everybody knows that by doing so the assured might be placed in a very unfair position.

Mr Poynton:

– It cannot do any harm.

Mr McCAY:

– As it is drawn the amendment might do a great deal of harm. I might take exception to other words . in the proposed amendment, but I do not wish to do so. There is no use in providing for protection against danger in a clause where danger does not exist.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– I would ask the honorable member to withdraw the amendment, because under the clause as it will be framed when recommitted there will be power to give effect to exactly what he wishes ; and as far as lam concerned I will take care that that is done. It would be very unfair to compel a man to go to the company in which he originally assured in order to increase the amount of his life assurance policy, because the company might try to load him beyond the extent to which he should be loaded, and he might be able to go to another assurance company and get his policy increased at an easier rate.

Mr Reid:

– Supposing he could get the additional assurance at a cheaper rate from an equally sound company that does not happen to be an Australian company ‘

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I will make a statement regarding that on clause 44.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SALMON (Laanecoorie). - I invite the Minister in charge of the Bill to say whether he considers we are justified in passing a clause which will be mandatory - which will not be optional - under which a member of the public service, in order to retain his position, will be absolutely compelled to effect a further assurance on his life when he gets an increase of salary. I do not for one moment doubt the advisableness of the course in so far as it will help a man to meet the responsibilities which he will encounter after he leaves the service; but that is not the question so much as the ability of the man himself to comply with the requirements of the clause. I contend that it will be found impossible- - and the Minister knows well enough that it will be found impossible - in some eases for a man to effect any further assurance on his life. I have already referred to the breakdown that occurred under the Victorian system, which had to be altered some eight or nine years ago. That was a system of increased assurances with every addition to salary, but it was found impossible to carry it into effect, and it had to be abolished. Now the system is just as bad, because it requires an assurance equal to the amount of salary which a man receives on his first appointment to the service. If members of the Commonwealth service are to be burdened with such conditions as these, they will prefer to be out of the service altogether. I really think that Ministers have not sufficiently considered the matter.

Mr Deakin:

– The words “as maybe prescribed” are sufficient - that is the safety valve.

Mr SALMON:

– But that is only the proportion which may be prescribed.

Mr Deakin:

– It is not only the proportion, but also relates to the increases.

Mr SALMON:

– Of course, I take the Attorney-General’s opinion as to the meaning of the clause ; but certainly it did not appeal to me in that way. I should be very sorry indeed to see the committee fix conditions in a Bill like this, which would be found impracticable, and which it has been found impracticable to carry into effect in Victoria.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– Surely the principle with which we start any assurance at all must be carried out as a man’s salary increases, and if the additional assurance is fixed in an absolutely fair proportion, there is no more reason to cavil at it than at the assurance itself at the outset. The increases must be in keeping with the principle of assurance that may be adopted in the first instance, whether it be under a system of State assurance or of assurance with outside offices. The point is that a man on his retiring from the service should have an amount provided for him, equivalent to the salary attached to the position which he occupied in the service. Because, after all, in some positions £100 a year wouldbe nothing to a man who had been accustomed to certain luxuries. It seems to me to be perfectly fair, under any circumstances, now that we have decided to await further developments from the Government’s consideration of this matter, that we should pass these clauses as they are.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I do not see how the hardship comes in in the way the honorable and learned member for Laanecoorie would persuade us that it does. Where a man has £100 a year, and £10 is deducted from his salary for life assurance, he is more hardly dealt with than is the man who has £200 a year, and who has to pay £20 out of it for life assurance.

Mr Salmon:

– How do we know that a man would get the extra assurance for an additional £10 ; it might cost him £30?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Even if the contention of the honorable and learned member be correct, the hardship would not be very great. If the principle of life assurance is sound - and we have agreed that it is - the officers ought to add to their assurances as their salaries increase.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 46 - (Policy not assignable, and to be exempt from insolvency laws,&c).

– Yes. This clause is intended to obviate the necessity of dealing harshly with an officer who has not the power to do the work that he has been asked to do.

Mi-. BATCHELOR (South Australia).This new clause gives power, as I understand it, to reduce an officer from the clerical to the general division. But I would ask the Minister whether there is any power to reduce an officer from the professional to the clerical division.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

-That would not be a reeduction, but a transfer.

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– It might- be a reduction.

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

– Not necessarily. A good many officers in the clerical division are paid more than are some of those in the professional division, and vice versa.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Similarly, arguing on the same lines, some of those in the general division will certainly be getting higher pay than some of the officers in the clerical division. Would it not be better to widen the scope of the provision, so as to permit of men being taken from one division to another %

Clause agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the following proposed new clause be inserted after clause 21 : - “ The GovernorGeneral may direct that any officer in the general division, who shall have served for seven years, shall be paid the salary of £110 per annum, provided that the commissioner shall recommend on the ground of good conduct and efficiency that such officer shall receive such salary.”

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I presume that the amendment which, has just been moved is intended by the Government as a fulfilment of the promise that they would consider an amendment which I- moved the other day upon clause 1 8, and which, as amended, to meet the wishes of the Government, .now stands upon the notice-paper in my name : -

No male person who has served for seven years in the general division, and whose services are fully employed therein, shall be paid a lower salary than £110 per annum.

The proposed new clause, however, does not meet the desire of the committee, because it gives too much power to the GovernorGeneral in regard to ‘ the granting of this salary. A very different provision was’ inserted in clause 21 in regard to members of the clerical division, sub-clause (6) of which says : -

Every officer shall be entitled on reaching- the age of 21 years to a salary of £110 per annum.

Sir William Lyne:

– Does the honorable and learned member wish to provide that a man either must get £110 a year or be, hunted out of the service %

Mr CROUCH:

– I wish to insist that the Government of the Commonwealth shall pay a fair wage for a fair amount of work, inasmuch as some of the State Governments require outside employers to do so. In my opinion the amendment which I have proposed is the least which the committee will accept.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I am surprised that the Government have not brought forward a more liberal proposal. I had an idea ‘that they were in favour of fixing a minimum wage at least as high as that now in force in New South Wales and in most of the other States.’ But, under this proposed new clause, a man who may have entered the service at the age of twenty or thirty years must remain in it for seven years before he is entitled to the minimum wage of £110 a year.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is not so. The intention of the proposed new clause is that no man who has served seven years shall receive less than £110 per year unless through his own fault. It has been pointed out by a number of honorable members that there may be a number of men who, through no fault of their own, may not have a chance of earning more than £S0 or £90 per year, and it was contended that a minimum wage should be fixed to provide for such cases. The proposed new clause provides that no one who has been a certain length of time in the service shall receive less than £110 per year.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– In the clerical division every officer who has been in the service for three years will be entitled to a salary of £110 per year upon reaching the age of 2.1 years, but with regard to the general division the Government provide that an officer must be seven years in the service before he can. obtain that salary, and there is no limitation of age to 21 years. I understand that the principle underlying the idea of a minimum wage is that if you employ an adult you must not pay him less than a living wage, which in this case is fixed at 7s. per day. If three years is long enough for an officer of the clerical division to serve to become entitled to £110 per year, no person in the general division should be compelled to serve seven years. “What was intended by the committee was that no public servant who had reached the age of 21 years, and had been any length of time in the public service, should receive less than £110 per annum, and that being so, the proposed new clause will not meet the views of honorable members.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– The proposed new clause does not seem to get us anyf urther ahead, because the Bill already provides that the Governor-General., on the recommendation of the commissioner, may increase a man’s salary whether he has or has not been seven years in the service. But, as I understood the desire of the committee, it was that there should be no question of “ may,” but that it should be absolutely imperative that every adult person in the service should receive at least 7s. a day. I know of cases in New. South Wales where men who have been nine or ten years in. the public service are only receiving £78 a year.

Mr Higgins:

– Tj know of a man who has been eleven years in the service ofVictoria, and who is receiving only £1 5s. a week.

Mr Mauger:

– There are a number of cases like that in all the States. They are disgraceful.

Mr WATSON:

– I would suggest that, instead of accepting the proposed new clause, we should repeat in regard to the general division the provision which we have passed in regard to the clerical division.

Mr Deakin:

– The members of theclerical division must subject themselves toexamination, to prove their fitness for theirpositions.

Mr WATSON:

– The very fact that a man is continued in his position must be taken to show that he is doing his work properly, and if a man is 21 years of age, and has been in the service for three years, he should not receive less than 7s. a day. If he is not fitted for his position, the commissioner can easilydispense withhisservices.

Sir William Lyne:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that if the commissioner thinks that a man is not fitted to do his work he had better dismiss him?

Mr WATSON:

– Certainly; I think that that should be one of the governing features of the measure. We do not want the public service to become an asylum forincompetents.

Mr.Reid. - Hear, hear. And the sooner we can get rid ofthe idea that it is an asylum for incompetents the better.

Mr WATSON:

– I am Sure the great majority of the public servants would not thank us for encouraging that idea-. We should insure that a man shall be decently paid for the work he does, and if he is not fit for his work he should go. I trust that the Minister will see the wisdom of providing that as soon as a man who has been a reasonable length of time in the service reaches the age of 21 years he shall bepaid the minimum wage.

Siu WILLIAM LYNE. - The position of the men in the general division issomewhat different from that of the men who comeunder clause 21. The officers of the clerical division have to establish their qualifications by passing examinations.

Mr Watson:

-. - But we cannot examine the men in the general division upon thekind of work they do.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Quite so, and therefore the circumstances are different. If we provide that a man who has been three years in the service shall receive £110 a year, men who are under the age of 21 years, and who entered it at the age of sixteen, will be entitled to that wage.

Mr Watson:

– Then limit it to those who have attained the age of 21 vears.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I am prepared to do that, and I move, in. substitution of my former amendment -

That the following proposed new clause be inserted after clause 21 : - “Any officer in the general division who shall have served for three years, and shall have attained the age of 21 years, Shall be paid the solar)’ of £110 per annum.”

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– Would it not be better to make it read -

Who shall have attained the age of 21 years’ and wild has not been less than three years in the service.

Mr REID:

– The statement is absolutely untrue, and I am sure if the honorable member knew the facts–

– I admit I. must be wrong if ;he honorable member says that.

Mi-. McCay. - I am glad the honorable gentleman feels that.

Mr REID:

Mr CRUICKSHANK:

– I have discussed the clause with other honorable members round about me as much as any honorable member in the Chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have not been so rigid in the performance of my duties as perhaps I ought to have been, in allowing this debate to proceed, because, as every honorable member is aware, the rule is that in committee the discussion must be confined entirely to the question before the Chair j but, having allowed the leader of the Opposition to make a statement, I thought it due to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he should be allowed to reply. I recognise, however, that if the discussion is allowed to proceed further it may lead to confusion and disorder, and, therefore, I ask the honorable member to confine himself to the clause.

Mr CRUICKSHANK:

– I think that we might peaceably come to a division now. The passing of the clause as amended will satisfy the people to whom I have referred that there is a provision in the Bill making it emphatic, and not problematic, that they shall receive consideration.

Proposed new clause agreed to. Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat - AttorneyGeneral). - I move -

That the following new clause be inserted after clause 42 : - “ When any charge against an officer is submitted to a board of inquiry, such board shall have the right to direct that the inquiry shall be held in private. In any case where such board finds that the charge is not proved the board may recommend that the reasonable expenses, or any part thereof incurred by such officer in meeting such charge, be paid, the amount of such expense to be mentioned in such recommendation. Every such recommendation shall be considered by the Governor-General. In any case where a charge against an officer is submitted to a board of inquiry a copy of all the documents intended to be used at such inquiry shall be furnished to such officer at least seven days before such inquiry is held.” This new clause is to meet an understanding arrived at in committee, and I think it embodies every suggestion made in reference to the improvement of the procedure of boards of inquiry as provided in the Bill.

– Yes.

Mr.’ WATSON (Bland).- I think the expression used in the latter part of the proposed new clause is that an officer charged shall be furnished with all documents intended to be used. I was wondering whether that is sufficient to cover a case in which confidential reports might be used, reports which, though having no direct connexion with the particular charge, might influence the head of a department in causing an inquiry. It ought to be laid down that everything in writing against an officer should be submitted to him.

Sir William Lyne:

– Everything but confidential reports. This point was discussed the other night, and it was decided that, in the interests of the inspector, confidential reports should not be submitted. I then stated that I would not agree to prepare a clause to allow confidential reports to be submitted, but only such documents as are provided for in the new clause.

Mr Deakin:

– The board does not see confidential reports.

Mr WATSON:

– It depends to some extent on the constitution of the board. So long as the board does not contain among its members any officer who has had access to those confidential reports, there is no objection. I do not know whether there is any provision to insure that no such officer shall be one of the board.

Mr Deakin:

– No such officer concerned would be appointed on the board.

Mr WATSON:

– I do not mean the officer making the charge, but some officer who has had access to confidential reports some time prior to the charge being investigated. If there is any possibility of such an officer getting on the board it would be a bad thing, unless the officer charged had an opportunity of replying to confidential reports. What I desire to insure is that any officer will have a chance of replying to any charge which is the subject of investigation.

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

– May I point out to the honor- able and learned member that a Judge sitting on the bench does not get confidential reports from the person who is prosecuting a man on trial. A J udge does not get confidential reports to guide him in trying a man while that man is not aware of the documents.

Mr Isaacs:

– The board of inquiry is not supposed to see any of those documents.

Mr.REID. - Surely the worldly experience of the honorable and learned member is sufficient to enable him toknow that thepermanent heads of departments have many ways of letting the inspectors know things. In a matter of law, I should have the most profound deference for the opinion of my honorable and learned friend ; but having been twenty years in the public service, I perhaps have gained some little knowledge of the ordinary incidents of the life. Perhaps my friend will allow me, on a subject of this sort, like Middle wick on the subject of “ Dosset,” to have a certain amount of experience. My own experience teaches me that even the best of permanent heads are liable in matters of this sort to come into close touch with high officials, and I do not know that it is an improper condition that they should be able to have communication with the man in’ the position of chief inspector. Of course the board might be a perfectly independent body apart even from the inspector, but I certainly think that there should be some provision by which an accused person would be enabled to see every line that has been written connected with the offence with which he is charged. I, do not mean that he should see every line that has been written after the case has begun, because then he is upon his trial, and has no right to see the brief of the other side. But all the documents relating to the charge which is brought against him, and which are upon record in the department, should be accessible to him. . I think it is a question, at any rate, for serious consideration whether an accused person should be kept in the dark as to a single word that has been written in connexion with his alleged offence.

– He sees everything that comes before ‘the board. If he asks for more papers they are rarely refused. The board are allowed to see all the documents. We have also accepted the suggestion of the honorable member for Bland, and have inserted a provision to enable copies of the whole of the papers to be placed in the hands of the accused seven days before the inquiry.

Mr Reid:

– That is all I ask.

Mi-. DEAKIN. - Of course I mean all the papers except confidential papers.

Mr Reid:

– Then they are not all the papers.

Mr DEAKIN:

– There may be a case in which a confidential report is involved, and in which we could not permit the document to be brought forward. In such a case, however, the report would not influence the board. The board know nothing about it.

Mr O’Malley:

– It implies that there is something behind.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Not at all. In a case, in which a confidential document is refused, that point is used with very good effect by the counsel representing the accused, just as the right honorable and learned member for East Sydney invariably does with a jury, when some piece of evidence which he has called for is refused him, and when he makes a mountain out of a molehill. n appealing to an independent board, the officer is perfectly safe. If the honorable member for Bland turns to the power for making regulations, he will find that the laying down of the procedure of the court and all the circumstances in connexion with the board of inquiry are provided for by regulation. Those regulations will be drawn, if the present Government remain in office, upon the most advanced lines in this regard, and care will be taken that absolute justice is insured in regard to the conduct of these inquiries by every reasonable latitude that can be allowed. Our practice

-- 3- has been to give the board the powers of a court, and they practically obtain all the information they require. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- In what way would an officer accused receive through his agent documents of a confidential character *t* {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Our practice has been that he gets them upon application. It is inherent in the nature of the case, but if there is any doubt it can be provided for by regulation. It has never been our custom to refuse any of these papers. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- Even confidential papers *1* {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Except .confidential papers ; but that does not occur once in a hundred times. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Are the judges allowed to see the documents *1* {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Yes, in every case that I have known of. I will not say there has not been a case of refusal, but I have never known of it. {: #debate-3-s36 .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- If the board can see the documents and the accused cannot, it will be unfair. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I thought that the honorable member meant some confidential report that the accused person desired to have put in evidence, thinking that it might help him. If it is a confidential document it cannot be put in in evidence ; but in these cases the court will be allowed to see the most confidential documents, although such documents could not be put in in evidence. What I wish to point out to the honorable member for Bland is - I really think we are taking up more time over this matter than it deserves, although anything affecting the liberty or rights of a public servant merits the most careful consideration - that we have gone beyond anything that has been attempted under any other Public Service Act in any State. We have made the law more considerate in every manner possible, and if public servants are fairly dealt with now, they will be in a much better position under this measure. **Mr. ISAACS** (Indi). - I think this is a very important matter indeed, as it involves not only the thousands of servants now in the Commonwealth service, but all who come after them. The question thoroughly deserves the prominence given to it, but as far as I can see there is no ground whatever for alarm, and a very little consideration will show that to be so. An inquiry takes place under clause 40, sub-clause (4). The board of inquiry is the body to make the investigation, and is constituted of three persons, one of whom is the chairman, and any two of whom may exercise all the powers of the board. Now, if we take clause 10 of the Bill, under sub-clause (2) we find that it is provided that a chairman of any board of inquiry, under Part 3 of the Bill, shall, unless otherwise prescribed, have all the powers conferred on the commissioner or any inspector. When we turn to the first sub-clause we find that the commissioner and the inspectors, and therefore the chairman of the board, have power to summon any witness or to call for any official books, documents, or writings within the custody or control of any witness that may be material to the inquiry. That gives the amplest power to call for the production of every document of any kind whatever. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- Even a confidential document *1* {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- There is only one thing that could prevent the production of a confidential document, and that is an expression of the Minister's opinion that it would be detrimental to the interests of the public, and the position in that case would be just the same as in any ordinary civil or criminal trial. There the head of a department could be summoned to produce such a document, and the. only tiling that would protect that document from being produced in court would be the exercise of the privilege of the Minister, who has the right to say that in his opinion it would be detrimental to the best interests of the public to have it produced in court. The committee surely would not put in this Bill any provision that would compel the production of any document, however inimical it might be to the interests of the public to produce it, and surely we can trust the Minister of the day to say whether the production of a document would be dangerous to the public interests. Unless the Minister is prepared to so certify - and the court would not be satisfied with any tiling else - it seems to me that there is ample power on the part of the board to compel the production of every document material to any inquiry. {: #debate-3-s37 .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr O'MALLEY:
Tasmania -- I think this is a very important question, and that the right honorable member for East Sydney deserves great commendation for having raised this point. Now, confidence is the parent of tyranny, and every Government rests in jealousy. If a confidential document were only seen by the one person and then hermetically .sealed, there might be something in the position taken up by the Government. Generally, however, the person who has seen a confidential report winks at somebody else, and somebody else winks at a third person, and it gradually becomes bruited about that there is something in the document which, if it were only known, would put the man concerned in gaol. I have been through the mill myself and I know something about it, and I say that any man who puts his pen to paper about another man ought to be held responsible for it, and made to answer for it. If he does not, he is a sneaking coward who is working injury in the dark. I say, further, that no man ought to say in this House words that he will not say. on the steps. I am prepared to act up to that. This is a serious matter, because some unfortunate officer may under a confidential report be charged with a very serious offence. If there is anything in such a document we should get at it, and if the right honorable gentleman will move in that direction he will have my support. **Mr. REID** (East Sydney).- The honorable and learned member for Indi has thrown a great deal more light on the Bill than has the Minister in charge of it, and I pay him the compliment of saying that he has placed the matter much more clearly before the. committee than it appeared before. Furthermore, I recognise that the statement he has made improves the matter considerably, because I understand from the position taken up by the Attorney-General that a confidential document is privileged. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Oh, no. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I think the AttorneyGeneral put the same view as I did, only in other words. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- Then I must congratulate the honorable and learned member for Indi upon having put the matter so that some one else can understand it. Even the statement of the honorable member for Indi does not touch the point I am dealing with at all. What word is there in the Bill that enables an accused person to see the document produced by the head of the department to the court ? The document which may be placed before the court may be a confidential report to the Minister, and under what authority has the accused person the right to see that ? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- He could compel the production of any document he pleases, subject to the one restriction I have mentioned. Mi-. REID. - May I say that the power of production of a document is not given to the man who is accused? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- He can ask for its production if it is in his favour. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- Who is to judge whether it is in his favour? How will he have a chance of judging whether the document is in his favour or not ? I have been in the same official grooves as the honorable member, . and I have "also been in the civil service, and I can, therefore, look at the question from both points of view. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I also was in the service for many years. . {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I am glad to hear the honorable and learned member had that distinction ; but there is no service in the world in which, however high-minded and honorable they may be, two men start on equal terms if an under-secretary makes a charge against a subordinate. Where an under-secretary makes a charge against a subordinate we know the weight of the influence exerted by the man who sits at the right hand of the Minister compared with that attaching to the clerk downstairs. We are so perfect, all of us, sitting here ; but I know enough of the public sendee to know that there is nothing in the relations between the permanent head and the subordinate which makes it of less importance for that subordinate to know everything relating to the . charge against Mm than it would be under other circumstances. A man does start fan: in a court of justice, but he does not start fair where the issue is between himself and his under-secretary as to who is to go. Let us suppose the issue is whether the under-secretary is to go, for making a wrong charge against the officer, or whether the officer is to go. Do they start fair? An Honorable Member. - But the board is an independent court. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I know that. Of course the board can do anything, but I am talking about the accused person before he goes into the inquiry, and his right to know everything that an official has written on official paper in the nature of a report with reference to him, and I say that the mere putting of the word " confidential " on that report ought not to protect the person who has brought the charge from the inspection of his accusation by the accused before the trial. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- Would the right honorable and learned member have the accused's papers produced *1* {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I do not look upon official documents as private. Honorable members may depend upon it that all the official documents of the accused, all his writings to the head of his department that would tell against him, will be produced, and I ask why should anything written by the accusing officer against the accused be screened from the public gaze *1* I say that there is no fairness in it. It is bad enough for the accused officer to start as he does at a great disadvantage without making the position worse. It may turn out from the nature of a particular case - and it is no wild supposition - that a concealed confidential report might enable an accused person to show in black and white under the hand of his accuser that the charge is the product of malice or misunderstanding. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The honorable and learned member must assume that the Minister is in the conspiracy. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- Why should all the assumptions tend to deprive a man of the thing he has a right to see? We could assume that a Judge would be a fair jury to try people charged with criminal offences, but that does not answer the question of trial by jury; so I say in this particular case that it is a matter of common fairness that any confidential report affecting any particular officer should be shown to that man before he is tried. Proposed new clause agreed to. Amendment (by **Sir William** LINE' agreed to - That the following new clause be inserted after clause49: - "All officers off a department transferred to the Commonwealth, and all officers in the public, railway, or other service of a State so transferred, who, by any law of a State, had to contribute to a superannuation fund, or to insure their lives, shall continue to be liable to pay the sum imposed by such law into the Treasury, and to continue to keep up such insurance according to the provisions of such law." {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I move- That the following new clause be inserted after clause 52 : - "Any officer of a department transferred to the Commonwealth and any person in the public, railway, or other service of a State so transferred, who has qualified to take any other position in the service of a State prior to such transfer, shall in the service of the Commonwealth retain all the rights to promotion he possessed in the service of the State at the time of such transfer. " That clause has been drafted to deal with the cases of officers of a State who by passing examinations have become qualified to obtain certain positions in the service of that State. There has been some doubt as to whether such officers, if transferred to the Commonwealth, would retain that right where their appointment had not been actually made before the transference. **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- A certain number of men in the general division of the public service of Victoria passed an examination qualifying them for positions in the clerical division ; but they were not appointed to the clerical division prior to the transfer of their departments to the Commonwealth ; and, upon the matter being pointed out to the Attorney-General, the promise was made that a clause would be introduced to continue that right to them under the Commonwealth Government. Has this clause been drafted to meet that case ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes, to meet that case and some others. Some of the officers of, I think, the Telegraph department came to me yesterday and told me that they had passed examinations but had not been appointed to positions for which they had qualified, and this clause has been introduced to deal with their case and all similar cases- where rights have accrued in State departments through the passing of examinations. **Mr. CROUCH** (Corio).- May I suggest to the Minister that the clause which I have prepared, and which has been circulated with other proposed amendments, more fairly meets these cases *1* I propose to insert after clause 51 the following new clause : - If any officer has done any act or passed any examination by which he has under the law of any State the right to appointment or prior appointment to any division of the public service such right shall be conserved to him in the departments under this Act. "Officer" in this section shall include persons permanently employed in the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth. Under the clause which the Minister wishes to insert only the right to promotion is retained. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I am willing to insert, after the word "promotion," the words "or transfer." {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- If the Minister does that, and alters the word " service " to " services " I think the clause will meet the case. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910 -- I will do so. Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to. **Mr. CROUCH** (Corio).- I move- That the following new clause be inserted after clause 21: - "All persons who have served for a period of not less than five years in the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth, or of a State, shall be entitled to be employed in the general division on fulfilling all requirements as to examination and insurance for persons entering such division, and such persons shall be entitled to be appointed to any vacancy which may occurtherein in priority toall other persons whatsoever except persons already in the public service." The words " except persons already in the public service " have been put in at the suggestion of the Attorney-General. The clause only conserves rights which at present exist. It wasfound in Victoria that, although a good body of men could be obtained for actual military and naval service, it was impossible to build up reserves, and therefore the privilege which this clause retains was offered to all who served for a period of not less than five years in the naval or military forces of the State. As a result, there are now in the penal, lunacy, and other departments of Victoria a number of men who have qualified as artillerymen or in other branches of *military* duty, who, belonging to the reserves, in times of emergency, when the public service would be suspended, would be able to assist in the defence of their country against foreign invasion. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- But is not a mandatory provision such as this rather extreme ? {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- The clause is an exact copy of a section of the Victorian Discipline and Defences Act, except that it has been modified as I have already explained. To show that it has been appreciated by those who have administered the public service, I may state that it was re-enacted in the Public Service Act of 1900. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- What does the honorable and learned member mean by the words " shall be entitled to *"?* {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- Those words mean that these men shall have a prior right. They must pass an examination and comply with the insurance provisions of the Bill. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Should not the appointment be subject to the recommendation of the commissioner ? {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I object to the amendment, because it gives these men. a prior right to every one else. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- The proposal is very drastic. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- It is not so drastic but that ithas been approved in Victoria for the last nineteen years. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- Could not the honorable and learned member insert the words "as far as practicable *"?* {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- With the permission of the committee I will insert the words " as far as practicable " after the word " entitled " in line 5. I would point out that there is a similar provision in existence in New Zealand, and that in Germany old soldiers are employed on the railways. The clause only preserves rights which already exist in Victoria, and in view of the provisions of section 54 of the Constitution Act, I think they should be preserved. **Mr. KIRWAN** (Western Australia).- I have no quarrel with the clause itself, but I think the wording ought to be in some respects altered. The clause is to the effect that all persons who have served for a period of not less than five years in the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth shall be given the priority suggested. No exception whatever is made in the clause to persons who have served their period in the naval or military forces, and who, at the.end of the five years, or sometime subsequently, may be discharged for misconduct or some other discreditable reason. An exception ought to be made, and words inserted to the effect that men who have been discharged for misconduct should not come within the operation of the provision. As the clause reads now, it means that all persons who have served five years, irrespective of the reason for which they may have left the service, or how they conducted themselves in the service, would be entitled to priority in the matter of appointments. I suggest to the Minister, and I am sure he will accept the suggestion, that the clause ought to be altered with a view to exceptingpersons discharged from the service for misconduct. {: #debate-3-s38 .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL:
Echuca -- I would like to know when any members of the general public are going to get a chance of a position under the Commonwealth *1* We hare already opened the service by giving priority to officers in every department of the various States. This is a practice which has never obtained before, where the railways and other services are kept separate from the ordinary public service. We now propose that any one who chooses to serve five years in the ranks in any capacity whatever, shall have the right of entrance into the Commonwealth service. I understood the Commonwealth service was to be a service open to the smartest and most brilliant young men we have. How are the farmers' sons and the smart lads throughout the Commonwealth going to get a chance if we hedgeround the entrance to the Commonwealth service with all these provisions *1* It seems to me we are discounting the future to far too great an extent, and I certainly think this is not a clause we ought to accept. We should have left ourselves much freer than we have done in regard to the selection of men. It seems to me that we are going utterly too far by binding the Commonwealth as to the class and kind of men we are going to take into the public service. **Mr. MAUGER** (Melbourne Ports).- It seems to me that the honorable member for Echuca should take the opposite view if he wants to help the farmers' sons, who have shown their anxiety to do what they conceive to be right - that is, they have fought for the country in a way that commends itself to most people of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McColl: -- They have no chance for the Commonwealth service. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER: -- I differ from the honorable member. These men have a greater chance, because there are not the same number of other attractions outside the city. Surely if we mean anything by the praise we have been uttering in regard to these men, we shouldshow our appreciation of their conduct in some practical way. It seems to me exceedingly wise and right that the men who have done the State service, and are still prepared to do the State service, should have any opportunity the Commonwealth has to offer them in the public service. **Mr. KIRWAN** (Western Australia).With the consent of the mover of the new clause, I move - ' That the clause be amended by inserting after the word "State," line 4, the words "and who have not been discharged for discreditable conduct." {: #debate-3-s39 .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania -- I understand that some exception is taken,, and not unnaturally, to the words which, the honorable member who has moved thisnew clause seeks to introduce, viz., thewords "as far as practicable." He might have worded the clause to the effect that such persons should be entitled to priority of appointment to any vacancy. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is what I object to - the priority. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir EDWARD BRADDON: -- Of course, if the Minister takes exception to the principle of the clause, there is an end of thematter. J {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- The Minister has not done that. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir EDWARD BRADDON: -- But it is only intended to say that the man who has served in the naval or military forces shall be entitled by reason of that service to priority of claim to an appointment. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- On passing the examination and assuring his life. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir EDWARD BRADDON: -- Yes ; all that has gone before being taken into consideration. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- What I object to in the clause is that it places the Defence department over other, departments which have been allowed to come in under the Bill. For instance, preference would be given to the officers of the Harbor Trust and perhaps -some other departments whom we have agreed to allow to come in, on passing the examination. The clause seems to provide that if these men have served five years, they shall be entitled to priority. There is something in the statement madeby the member for Western Australia, **Mr. Kirwan,** that a man who has served that time would, as the clause is worded, be entitled to priority, although lie may have been discharged for misconduct. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- I have accepted the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Western Australia, **Mr. Kirwan.** {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Then there are the lines : - >And such persons shall be entitled to be appointed to any vacancy -which may occur therein in priority to all other persons whatsoever, except persons already in the public service. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- These words are in the Victorian Act. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I know they are not in the Act of New South Wales. The servants of the Harbor Trust in New South Wales are not under the public service board, and they would certainly not have the same right that the men contemplated in the proposed new clause would have. I am prepared to allow these officers to come in on exactly the same basis as all the others - to take their chance on passing the examination and effecting assurance of being selected, as many of them would probably be, for any position which might offer. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- But there is no selecting ; that has been done away with. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I do not mean selection, but passing the examination and qualifying themselves. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- They cannot be stopped from doing that. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The honorable member must not forget that this proposed new clause is very far-reaching. If every rifle club and every 'partially paid force in the States are considered, I do not know how many thousands of men there would be. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- The volunteer would have no advantage over the man who had been paid for his services in the regular forces. {: #debate-3-s40 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILL [AM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist -- I do not know how many men there are in the Defence department, but there must be a large number, I should think 10,000 or 15,000. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- 51,000. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- It is proposed to give all those men priority over every one else, except those in the public service technically, which would mean those under the public service commissioner in a particular State. {: .speaker-KWT} ##### Sir George Turner: -- They would take priority over the whole of the States. The public service means " the public service of the Commonwealth." {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- That is worse still. {: .speaker-KWT} ##### Sir George Turner: -- Of course it is. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I think the honorable member for Corio will see that it is impossible for me to accept the proposed new clause. {: #debate-3-s41 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
South Australia -- I would like to point out, in reply to the honorable member for Echuca, that this clause goes very much further than anything we have done in connexion with the Bill.' All we did in connexion with the railway and other services was to make the persons engaged therein eligible, and to protect their rights and accruing rights. This clause goes much further, and gives the men in the naval and military forces a first preference over all the other services. That, I think, is going a bit too far. **Mr. CROUCH** (Corio).- I can see the committee are ready to accept this clause if certain amendments are made. The objections are not at all to the principle of the clause, because J. can hardly understand any body of intelligent men objecting to create a reserve such as is absolutely necessary in a State like Australia. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- Does the honorable member mean that if a man has served five years as an ordinary volunteer he will come under this clause 1 {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- I do not see why he should not have the preference *1* {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- There "must be thousands of them. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The Minister for Defence says there are 51,000 men who would be affeced {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- The honorable member for Wentworth seems to think that the fact of a man being a volunteer is an argument against his coining under the clause, when really it should rather be an argument in his favour. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- I hope that every citizen will be a volunteer. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- The fact of a man having been a volunteer should be used rather as an argument why his claim should be considered in 1)reference to that of any one else. In order to meet the objection of the honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Poynton,** which I see is a forcible one, I am prepared to alter the clause by substituting for " public service" the words - "In the public railway and other services of the State." That will be quite sufficient to continue the preference already given to those other public servants. All the objections to the clause have been objections to detaiL and not to the clause itself. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Will the honorable gentleman agree to strike out the word " priority *V* {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- There would then be nothing in the clause at all. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Why should we place these men above the ordinary public in a matter of this kind *1* {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- Simply because it would be a wise thing, as I attempted to point out, to have among the clerical employes of the State men upon whom the country could call in times of emergency. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- Why does not the honorable member propose at once that all public servants should be compelled to serve in the naval or military forces 1 He might just as well do that as make this proposal. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- If the leader of the Opposition would, at the proper time, when the Defence Bill is before the House, make such a proposal, I should be very glad to support it. At the present time 1 must have regard to the possibility that such a proposal might not be carried. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- Does the honorable member mean that a man who has been paid for every day he has served in the military forces - the regular military forces - shall be put in the same position of advantage as a man who has given his services as a volunteer for nothing ? {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- Yes. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- I do not see any fairness in that. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- The reason is that there would be these trained men whom we want to keep in the public service, so that we can lay our hands on them when public affairs are disorganized by war. There would then be no necessity to carry on the public service, and these men could be sent to the front when we want highlytrained military men ready to defend the State. I propose to amend the clause in the direction already indicated by me. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Would the Harbor Trust and fire brigades men be included *1* {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- The fire brigades men incur more danger than do some of the others. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- I also propose to accept the amendment to the clause suggested by the honorable member for Western Australia, **Mr. Kirwan,** and after the word " State," to insert the words " who have not been discharged for misconduct." {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- How can a man be appointed " as far as practicable " *1* **Mr. REID** (East Sydney). - I think this would be a very good place at which to test the sense of the committee upon the whole clause. It is of no use to make a number of amendments in a clause if we propose afterwards to negative it. I propose to vote against the entire clause. {: .speaker-KWT} ##### Sir George Turner: -- Would it not be better to move to omit the first words of the clause ? {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- Yes ; and if the committee are in favour of the amendment of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, we can then proceed with any subsequent amendments that it may be necessary to make. But otherwise it is of no use wasting time. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- I will not proceed further if my amendment is defeated. **Mr.- REID.** - But to press that amendment at this stage puts us in a false position, by making it appear that we are opposed to disgraceful conduct being regarded as a bar. If the honorable member for Kalgoorlie will withdraw his amendment, I will make this question a test one. I move - That the words "all persons," line], be omitted. I will not repeat the objections that have been already mentioned, but I would point out to the honorable member for Corio that, to be fair all round, this clause ought to date from a future day. Every one should know the advantages which attach to naval or, military service in the States. At the present time there is only one State - Victoria - in which military or naval service is thus recognised. Consequently large numbers of men may have joined the naval and military forces in Victoria with the knowledge that they would have this privilege conferred upon them after five years. But in the other States, where the privilege does not exist, men will be shut out by reason of the priority that is being given in Victoria. {: .speaker-KWT} ##### Sir George Turner: -- They will all have the same priority. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I quite see that the volunteers who have served in New South Wales will be on the same footing as the volunteers who have served in Victoria. But in Victoria a large number may have joined the volunteer forces with the intention of getting this, privilege, while a large number would have joined the New South Wales forces five years ago if they had known that this priority would be given to them. **Mr. -Crouch.** - How does the right honorable and learned member propose to preserve their rights ? {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- They are not deprived of their rights. Their right was not to serve in the Commonwealth, but to serve in the Victorian military service. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- We have taken away three of their departments. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I do not suppose that they are very sorry for it. Is it not altogether wrong to make any distinction between a man who is in the permanent force at 5s. or 6s. a day, and the volunteer who serves his country for nothing ? Surely we should not put them on the same footing as regards priority. Certainly 1 would not do so. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -I propose to withdraw the clause and to bring the matter up at a later stage. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- Then I will withdraw the amendment. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN: -- Before the amendment is withdrawn I should like to say that the objection which I have to this clause is the same one that I have taken to several parts of the Bill - viz., that it is an attempt to unduly restrict the choice of the commissioner. This Bill is not intended for a State, but for the whole of Australia, and it might be very difficult in different parts of Australia - if these hardandfast rules were laid down - to get proper persons for particular positions. At first we ought not to make the Bill drastic by confining the choice to too close limits. Amendments and new clause, by leave, withdrawn. **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- I desire to move a new clause which raises rather an important question. The Bill now contains almost every provision that it should contain, with one very notable exception. There is no appeal machinery of any kind in it. There are provisions - very wise and proper ones - for the holding of inquiries. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Where does the honorable member propose that this clause shall come in? {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- It is immaterial to me where it is put in. I should say that it ought to follow the clauses dealing with inquiry boards. But I am simply asking for a principle. I move that the following stand a new clause in the Bill : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. . If an officer feels aggrieved by any decision of the permanent head refusing to recommend the granting of a higher rate of pay to any officer claiming to be legally eligible therefor or any officer's promotion or transfer, he may within 28 days thereafter appeal against such refusal to an appeal board consisting of the inspector the permanent head or chief officer and a representative of the division to which such officer belongs and elected by the officers of that division under the regulations. 1. The appeal board thus constituted shall investigate any such appeal and shall report upon the same and submit the facts together with any recommendation thereon to the commissioner whose decision shall be final. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the honorable member refer to one officer who feels aggrieved at the treatment of another officer ? {: .speaker-KY9} ##### Mr Piesse: -- I rise to a point of order. I do not know if the honorable member for Bourke is in order in anticipating the order in which notice of amendments has been given. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I would point out that there is nothing in the standing orders to prevent any honorable member proposing a new clause at any time, that he may think 'proper. The honorable member for Bourke has certainly placed his notice upon a paper ; but not upon the business paper of the House, and his new clause is not to be treated as if it appeared upon that business paper. The honorable member is, therefore, in order in bringing forward his clause when he may think it proper to do so. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the honorable member for Bourke refer to a case in which one officer takes exception to the treatment by another officer of himself, because, as the clause is worded, it looks as if officer A is going to champion the cause of officer B. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- I wish to point out again that there is no right of appeal provided in this Bill for any officer who feels aggrieved by reason of being passed over and not getting the place to which he thinks he is entitled. Under these circumstances it seems to me that some sort of appeal board must be constituted. Otherwise the Bill is as perfect as we can make it, and is certainly a great advance upon any public service legislation that we have seen enacted in 'other States. But it lacks that saving clause whereby officers who feel aggrieved may take action to have their grievances remedied. Very adequate provision has been made for boards of inquiry. If an officer has a charge made againsthim it can be remitted to a board upon which there is a representative elected from that division of the service to which the accused belongs. But what right has an officer with no charge against him, but who desires to make a charge against a permanent head ? It seems to me that officers ought to have a general right of appeal. Under these circumstances I have framed a clause which runs along the same lines as the clause providing for inquiry boards, and which gives to an officer the right of appeal to a board upon which there shall be a man representing the particular division of the service to which he belongs. Some objections have been made to the proposed method of constituting the board. I do not know that these are vital objections, but possibly they may be, owing to the way in which the clause is drawn. The first objection was that this clause would require that any particular division of the service should elect an officer for all Australia ; that is to say, that the clerical division could have only one man to represent the whole of Australia on the appeal board. That certainly is not what I intended, because I think that each State should have its own appeal board, and that each division- in the State should have its representative on the board. That is to say, »that the Customs department of Victoria would have its own hoard of appeal, and the officers of each division would have a representative on the board. ' That would be following exactly along the lines of the board of inquiry, constituted under clause *iO.* The wording of my clause may not have that effect, but that is what is intended. Then it has also been urged that there is no machinery for the election of these officers. I propose to get over that difficulty by providing that they shall be elected under regulations. I do not desire to cumber the Bill with a number of clauses which will provide machinery under which the officers shall be elected, and as to the voting, and so on. it seems to me that it will be much easier to draft regulations, just as it is proposed to draft regulations for the inquiry board. There are three sets of persons represented on the board. First of all there will be the inspector, who would, so to speak, represent the Government of the Commonwealth. Then there -would be the chief officer, or it might be the permanent head - whichever is the more convenient - who would act for the department in which the appeal, case arises, and who would put forward the departmental views, and urge whatever reasons he might have in support of the promotion or transfer as against the appeal of the man who feels aggrieved. Then there would be the officer elected by the division who would represent the appellant, and who would understand his case and know all the facts surrounding it, and just because he would be so very familiar with the internal workings of the division he would be able to properly represent his client's case to the other two members of the appeal board. I do not propose to give this .appeal board the power to deal finally with the questions coming before them. These must be sent on to the commissioner, who would have the inspectors to aid and advise him in coming to a decision. I repeat that I am not particularly wedded to this proposal as it is now worded, but I think some provision must be -made in the Bill whereby appeals can be heard from those who feel aggrieved. I may point out in support of this proposal that it is practically along the lines of the system adopted in South Australia. There they have two persons appointed by the Government acting for the Government and one man elected by the division of the service to which the officer making the appeal belongs. Appeals can be made to this board under such circumstances as I have detaile I do not see how officers are to substantiate their cases unless there is some right of appeal. We have adopted, and wisely too throughout this Bill the principle that merit shall have the first call upon the service of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Does not the honorable member think this amendment will destroy that ? {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- No; we have decided .that merit shall have the first claim, but we have inserted a provision that where a junior officer is appointed the commissioner must first certify that there is no senior officer equally capable of performing the duties and available for the purpose. It may be that even with that provision, wise as it is, some man may be pissed over who feels, and perhaps rightly so, that he has been improperly treated, that he has a right to promotion, or a right to increased pay, or a right to be transferred, which will not be supported by the permanent head or the commissioner. Under these circumstances, the officer ought to have the right of appealing to somebody, and I think the proper person to deal with the question is the commissioner in the last resource. I do not desire to labour this matter, but honorable members will see that this Bill cannot be considered complete without some right of appeal, which will give servants the right to fight out their own battles when they feel aggrieved - when they do' not get the treatment they consider they ought to receive, or do not receive transfers or promotions to which they consider they are entitled. I therefore beg to submit the clause, and ask for the support of all those honorable members who approve of the principle of appeal, hoping that they will assist me to make the clause effective, if they consider its present wording faulty. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Without delaying the committee at any length, I would point out to the honorable member who has moved this new clause, that when he drafted it the Bill was in a very different form from that in which it now appears. It was at first provided that the permanent head should make the recommendation, but now it is the commissioner who makes the recommendation to the Governor-General, in cases such as this clause would attempt to vary. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- After report from the permanent head. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes; after report from the permanent head. Therefore, the effect of this clause would be to provide for an appeal from the commissioner to the commissioner, because the honorable member says he wishes the board to hold an inquiry and report the result to the commissioner, leaving the commissioner in a position to say what he will do afterwards. As the Bill is altered, there is notthe necessity for this clause, which there might have been. I admit that there is something in the statement that an appeal is provided for in South Australia from the decision, not of the commissioners, because I do not think there are any commissioners there, but of the Minister or the head of the department. In that instance, there is no commissioner who can take into consideration everything surrounding a case as there will be under this Act, so that the same necessity does not exist for a board of appeal under the conditions contemplated by this Bill. I wish to point out, too, that in the case the honorable member refers to in connexion with the railways in Victoria there is an appeal board, composed of departmental officers, and one officer elected by the men. I copied that to some extent, and we passed an Act in New South Wales constituting an appeal board of a similar character in connexion with the railway service there. The appeal in that case is from the decision of the railway commissioners which is hedged round with everything to protect it. That is not provided with regard to the commissioner under this Bill. I do not think that any grave injustice can be done to officers when the commissioner has to obtain a report and then to make a recommendation to the Governor-General before any matter is decided. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- It is because the. Governor-General really makes the appointment that I have limited the appeal to the commissioner. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The GovernorGeneral makes the appointment, but in 99 cases out of 100 the report of the commissioner practically controls the matter. That has been my experience in the past, and no doubt it will be the same under this Bill. An attempt has been made under this measure to clothe the commissioner with very considerable powers, which I have agreed to mainly with the object of placing him in a position to make appointments. The provision that recommendations are to be sent on to the Governor-General is intended to give the right to the GovernorGeneral - that is practically the Ministry - to exercise the ultimate control, but that is a power which will be exercised only in extreme cases, and it is hedged round with provisions that anything that may be done contrary to the recommendation of the commissioner, shall be reported to Parliament. I think that there is no danger whatever to be apprehended so far as the public servants are concerned, and as this clause will only provide for an appeal from the commissioner to the commissioner, I hope the honorable member will not press it. **Sir WILLIAM** McMILLAN (Wentworth). - I hope the honorable member will withdraw the clause. I do not think there ; is any analogy between a question of pay and a wrong being done to a public servant, or an inquiry being held into the conduct of an officer. Furthermore, as the Minister has said, we have so drastically altered the whole position of the commissioner, that he is now practically the guardian of the public service, and cannot be in any way inimical to its interests. He must see the position of every servant and the salary he is getting, and he must know that certain men have remained at a given salary for some time, and it would be ridiculous to appoint a commissioner upon the supposition that he would not make inquiries into all such cases, and find out why a man has been stationary, and why he has not obtained reasonable promotion. It seems contrary to the principle of the Bill that there should be any provision such as is now suggested by the honorable member, and I hope he will withdraw it. Mr.EWING (Richmond).- I think the clause proposed by the honorable member for Bourke is a very laudable effort to get away from the possible consequences of departmental neglect. Anyone who knows anything as to the working of the State departments knows that there is such a thing as departmental neglect, and, although we do not want to overload the Bill, we want to make it a fair measure. The honorable member for Bourke proposes to eventually trust the commissioner, but we might get over the difficulty possibly by trusting the commissioner in thefirst instance, and I would suggest, if the Government would approve of it, that all the words after the word appeal, in line 5, should be struck out, and the words " directly to the commissioner," should be substituted. The honorable member for Wentworth may think that it has no value. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- That would destroy the whole discipline of the service. {: #debate-3-s42 .speaker-KDR} ##### Mr EWING:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I do not know that it would. If thehonorablemember was an officer of a department, and considered that he was not getting that which he ought to obtain, he would not feel as he does to-night. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- That means that thecommissioner does not know his business. {: .speaker-KDR} ##### Mr EWING: -- I could quite understand a number of papers reaching the commissioner that disclosed a very fair departmental case. The officer recommended for promotion would be perfectly satisfied, but the man over whose head he was to be promoted should be allowed an opportunity of appealing and stating his case. I cannot see any objection to it. Why should not the officer aggrieved have the right of appeal ? I do not desire to overlay the public service with courts of inquiry and things of that kind, but I think my proposal is a reasonable one. **Mr. McCAY** (Corinella). - The suggestion made by the honorable member for Richmond is hardly possible, because the amendmentput forward by the honorable member for Bourke appears to have been drawn up before the commissioner was practically substituted as the recommending party in lieu of the permanent head. As a matter of fact as the Bill now stands, it is the commissioner who recommends the granting of a higher rate of pay, and who recommends promotions and transfers. Thus to say that if an officer feels aggrieved at any decision of the permanent head he should have the right of appeal would be useless because the permanent head does not do it now. The word "commissioner" would have to be substituted for "permanent head" in the first line of the amendment by the honorable member for Bourke. Then the suggestion of the honorable member for Richmondwould be that if an officer felt aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner he should have the right of appeal to the commissioner. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -From Caesar to Caesar. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- As the Bill now stands it is impossible to substitute the commissioner for the board, because it is not the recommending party. I do not know whether that fact would influence the honorable member for Bourke in regard to his amendment. **Mr. SALMON** (Laanecoorie). - I should like to point out that if this clause is adopted we shall have a perfect sheaf of appeals on the occasion of every promotion or transfer. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- And it would take half-a-dozen boards to hear them. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr SALMON: -- I am quite in favour of having some tribunal to which officers who feel aggrieved may appeal. I could only support that proposal, however, with a proviso that some penalty should attach to appeals which have no foundation. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir Edward Braddon: -- Frivolous appeals. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr SALMON: -- Yes. We should have the same kind of penalty as is provided in the case of an owner of a race-horse, who appeals frivolously against the horse first past the post. In order that we may have an effective and contented public service I think we must have some tribunal to which an officer who feels aggrieved may be able to appeal, but subject to the conditions I have stated. **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- I do not wish to force this clause, but I do desire to force the issue of the question of the right of appeal. If the Minister in charge of the Bill thinks there should be some tribunal to which officers feeling aggrieved might appeal, I will be very glad to temporarily withdraw the clause so as to hear what the Ministerial proposal is. There must be some kind of appeal. It is utterly impossible to conceive of a service where no right of appeal exists for aggrieved officers, more particularly when we have taken care to enable junior men to be promoted whereever it will benefit the service. I feel very warm about this subject. Many a good man may be passed over because he is not known to the permanent head, who makes the recommendation to the commissioner. Such a man might be exceedingly good, and efficient and equal to the senior man who received the appointment. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Would it not be better in cases like that for the individual aggrieved to approach the commissioner ? {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- Can he not do so at the present time? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- He certainly can. {: .speaker-L2G} ##### Sir William McMillan: -- The commissioner is the guardian of the rights of the civil servants, and they will have a perfect right to approach him. {: .speaker-KDR} ##### Mr EWING:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT -- It would be a breach of departmental discipline for an officer to do so. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- He could do so through the under-secretary. . **Mr. HUME** COOK.- There is no provision in clause 71 by which officers feeling aggrieved may appeal to any one. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910 -- McMillan. - Perhaps on the recommittal of the Bill there may be something put in. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- It may seem a very trivial matter to the honorable member for Wentworth. but there are between 11,000 and 12,000 persons in the service of the Commonwealth, all of whom might at some time feel aggrieved, and they ought to have the right of appeal. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Under this provision we might have half-a-dozen appeal boards sitting at the same time. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- We might have two or three. I desire to see the representation of the service on the appeal board, just as we have in the railway service at the present time. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- And just as we have provided in another portion of the Bill. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- It is quite evident that this proposal as it is laid down cannot be accepted by the committee. I should like, however, to receive some assurance from the Minister for Home Affairs that he will look into the matter before the third reading, and see if it is not possible to do something in the direction I have indicated which would be satisfactory to the service. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I am prepared to go so far as this. If, as the honorable member for Richmond lias said, it would be a breach of discipline for an officer who thought he was overlooked to approach the commissioner, I shall be quite prepared to put some provision in the Bill that it shall not be a breach of the rules for an officer feeling himself aggrieved to make his representations to the commissioner before the latter has forwarded his recommendation to the Governor-General. I do not think that would be a breach of the regulations at present. At all events I think it could be provided for by regulations under clause 71. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would not the adoption of the honorable member's suggestion simply mean an appeal from the commissioner to the commissioner *1* {: #debate-3-s43 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910 -- Yes. There may be a man, however, who thinks that he has been overlooked by the permanent head in making his recommendation to the commissioner, and I do not see why he should not have the right to lay his representations before the commissioner. The whole matter would then rest with the commissioner. **Mr. ISAACS** (Indi).- I think we ought to divide this matter into more than one head. As regards advances of pay in subdivisions where the increase is not automatic, I do not think there would be much difficulty in obtaining something like an appeal from the decision of the permanent head, or whoever it may be, in refusing toreport favorably upon it. Where an officerthought he was fairly entitled to have a favorable recommendation, after asking his permanent head, or the person in charge towhom the duty was committed of making a report, he might without any difficulty in practical administration have an opportunity of appealing to the commissioner.. But I see in cases of promotion in a vast service a great deal of practical difficultySuppose some vacancy occurs, and it is proposed to fill it up by promotion, the commissioner calls upon the permanent head for a report. The latter is to considereverything and make a report. Is the permanent head at that stage to invite every officer in the service to make his claim to him ? If that is to be done, there will be great difficulty. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- - -Every vacancy is notified, and every man has a- right to apply for it.. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- But is the permanent head to inform every man who applies for it that he must come in and make good his claim, because, as I would point out, the difficulty does not arise till he has determined upon recommending a certain individual. When he has arrived at that stage, is he to hold his hand and not report till every one has had a chance of appealing. Then the commistioner, after receiving the report, can judge for himself what recommendations he will make. Is it at that juncture that this is to take place *1* Then the Governor in Council is to consider whether he should adopt the report. I should like to see an opportunity of correcting injustices, but I observe practical difficulties in regard to promotion. The chance of an improper recommendation is minimized because the case of a senior officer being passed over for a junior could hardly take place without the fullest opportunity of the injustice being corrected. To clause 3S a proviso is now added that in every instance where a junior is recommended the certificate of the commissioner has first to be issued certifying that there is no senior officer capable of satisfactorily performing the duties. Before he can make that certificate he must inquire carefully, and practically he will have to give every senior officer an opportunity of demonstrating his capacity. That being so, the greatest danger of .all is removed, arid having in view the practical difficulty of working the departments with perfection of appeal we might very well take the position as it is. In regard to the pa)', however, where it depends not on competition but on personal merit, I think the Minister might very well see his way clear to adopt the idea of my honor.able friend, and allow the appeal from the refusal of the permanent head to the commissioner. **Mr. RONALD** (Southern Melbourne).It is highly desirable that there shall be some court of appeal for cases in which a man feels aggrieved, and I cannot understand what objection there can be to a board on. which the man will be represented. The proposal of the Minister is altogether inadequate to meet the case, because it is simply an appeal from Caesar to Cheer the commissioner being the originating source, and it is not likely that, if the originating source were the permanent .head, the commissioner would override his recommendation. If he did so, then the man who is aggrieved should have the right to a board on which his class is represented. It is of vital importance, and I am perfectly sure no man will feel he has received justice unless he has such an appeal board. We have granted an inquiry board in other cases, and if so, why not in this, seeing that all the men are on the same plane ? I hope the committee will see its way to grant a board, and thus complete an excellent organization for securing the rights of the public servants, and making the public service as efficient as possible. **Mr. PIESSE** (Tasmania). - I hope the Minister will provide that officers who desire to make a complaint' or seek promotion shall be told by regulation that they are to approach their permanent officer or chief officer or the commissioner. The regulations should be so framed that officers of the public service will know that they ought not to go outside those channels in order to secure their end. If such a regulation can be framed and carried out, one of the great objects which we desire will to some extent be attained. Members of Parliament will be free from the applications now made to them, on behalf of public servants, and the honorable member who moved in this matter has done good service in removing the possibility of honorable members being approached as they now are to ventilate personal grievances. But I think the object might be attained if the Ministry would frame, or take power to frame, regulations to provide for an appeal in the direction proposed. I do not know that the present proposal would work out very well, but in some such way the object might be attained. **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- Perhaps time will be saved if I withdraw my proposal temporarily, and wait until we have the promised proposal of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. **Mr. PIESSE** (Tasmania). - I move - ' That the following new clause be inserted after clause 31 : - " (1) The Governor-General may arrange with the Governor in Council of any State for the performance by an officer in the public service of Such State for the Government of the Commonwealth of an3' work or services, or for executing the duties of any office in the public service of the Commonwealth. "(2) In any such. case the. Governor-General may, by agreement with the Governor in Council of the State or otherwise, make arrangements for determining - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the rate of payment to be madeby the Government of the Commonwealth for the services to be performed or the work done for the Commonwealth by such officer ; and {: type="1" start="6"} 0. any matters which may require to be adjusted with regard to the performance of such duties or execution of such work by such officer." In the part of the Billwhere it is proposed to introduce this new clause there are clauses 32 and 33 dealing with the same subject, but they refer to officers of the Commonwealth performing duties for the Government of a State. There is apparently no provision in the Bill enabling the Governor-General to arrange for the performance of duties of the Commonwealth by officers 'of a State, and it is necessary that some provision should be made. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Mr. Piesse)** agreed to - >That the following new clause be inserted after clause 33 : - " In all cases coming under the last four preceding sections the Governor-General may by agreement with the Governor in Council of the State concerned or otherwise make arrangements for determining in respect of any officer so employed on behalf of the Commonwealth and of a State the respective shares of each Government in any pension-retiring allowance or allowance to dependents which may become payable either under the laws of the State or of the Commonwealth in respect to such officer. " **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- I move- >That the following new clause be inserted after clause 20 : - "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act orany regulation where an officer in the fifth class has been for three years at the maximum salary of £l60 per annum, he may be paid a longservice increment at the rate - > >Of £20 per annum, and after he has been in receipt of such long-service increment for a period of five years he may be paid a further long-service increment at the rate of £20 per annum. > >Where an officer in the fourth class has been for five years at the maximum salary of £285 he may be paid a longservice increment at the rate of £15 per annum > >Where any person in the professional division or general division the rate of whose pay exceeds £156 per annum has been at the maximum of his class or grade for a period of three years or more he may be paid a long-service increment at the rate of £5 per cent, per annum upon such maximum, and when he has been in receipt thereof for a further period of three years he may be paid a further long-service increment of £5 per cent, per annum on such maximum. > >No long-service increment shall be so paid unless recommended by the permanent head for merit and good and diligent conduct and approved by the commissioner, but the commissioner may on appeal of such officer or person grant such increment although the same has not been so recommended." The Minister has adopted as a schedule of the pay which the officers in the Commonwealth service are to receive, the schedule under the Victorian Act known asNo. 1721. All the salaries provided in that Act are adopted in 'the Bill, with the exception of a provision for the payment of long-service increments. I have copied section 9 of the Victorian Act almost word for word, but it is only fair to state that in regard to these long -service increments in the professional or general division, some alteration has been made. When the Victorian Act was passed, it was specifically stated that those in the general division would get a long -service increment, but owing- to some quibble over the words "salary" and "officer," men in the general division have not been paid, and are not likely to receive, a long-service increment. In order to provide a long-service increment for those in the general division, as well as for those in the clerical division of the Commonwealth service, I have inserted sub-clause (3), merely with the object of carrying out the letter and spirit of the Victorian Act. As to the principle of long - service increments, I desire to again draw attention to the fact that merit has been made the chief standard of promotion in the Commonwealth service. Men who display conspicuous ability and diligence, whether they are juniors or seniors, will getadvancement very much more rapidly than they would under any conditions we have known in any State service. But there are always a number of men who, whilst displaying no conspicuous ability, are steady, sober, diligent officers, and attend punctually and do the work they are set to do, and who, if they were employed in any outside business, would have their long service recognised by their employers. By the introduction of the merit principle, these men will not get the increments which, under the old system of automatic advancement, they would have received. We have knocked out automatic increases absolutely. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir Edward Braddon: -- And a good thing too. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- And a good thing too. At the same time, those who have served a number of years are entitled to some recognition of faithful and diligent service. 1 am more concerned about the general division than I am about the clerical division. In the clerical division men can reach a reasonable salary, up to as much as <£S00, and have good opportunities of improving their position by meritorious service. But the case of the general division is very different. The men in that division are not to get anything like the same return for their labour. It is true we have adopted a minimum wage of £110 when a man reaches the age of 21 years, but the highest salary to which a man can attain in the general division at the end of a long period of service may not be very much. Under these circumstances I feel that something ought to be done to recognise men who have faithfully and diligently carried on their work for years, and I appeal to the Minister to adopt the new clause. So far as I have been able to ascertain, after consultation with a good many of the public service associations, some of which are federal, the schedule to the Bill will give every satisfaction. This particular proposal has been submitted to the associations of New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria, and they all approve of it. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William LYNE: -- I should think they do. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir Edward BRADDON: -- There is a wonderful "unanimity. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Naturally the associations approve of the schedule. What I meant to convey was that they approved of the schedule as a whole, and not merely this particular provision. The salaries to be paid under the schedule are not nearly so high in many instances as those which *used* to be paid under the old Victorian Public Service Act, and such as are paid in the other States. The salaries under the Commonwealth are somewhat lower on the general average than those which have 'been paid in past times, but the associations are prepared to accept these salaries without demur, provided they get some recognition for long service in the shape of such increments as are here suggested. **Sir EDWARD** BRADDON (Tasmania). - I am entirely in favour of paying the civil servants of the Commonwealth with the ut- most liberality. I quite recognise the principle that there should be a certain living wage, and that members of the service whose salaries are under £110 per year should be entitled to an automatic increment that will bring them up to the amount mentioned. But if ' we adopt this principle we strike at the very root of the administration of the service. -We say that merit shall have nothing whatever to do with the progress which an officer makes in his department. He is to go on in the same grade year after year, by reason, possibly, of more efficient men being promoted over him, and in spite of his inefficiency he is to get an automatic increase after five years. We can only be generous at the cost of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, and we have no right to give to those public servants who have not proved themselves efficient anything more than that to which they are entitled within the grade they have attained, and in which they ha>ve remained because they have not earned promotion. The good men will get promotion. Mr.POYNTON(SouthAustralia).- There is another phase of this question which I think has not been referred to. All the Victorian officers who have been transferred to the service of the. Commonwealth I would point out have their existing and accruing rights. . preserved to them. But what about otherofficers who may be working alongside of them, and whose maximum is considerably less ? Probably the Minister for Home Affairs can inform us whether any of the other States have long service increments, and, if so, how many States are affected in that way. I can realize that later on, when it becomes known that an officer in Victoria is doing the same class of work as an officerin New South Wales or South Australia,, and that the first-named is entitled to longservice increments which are denied to the others, considerable dissatisfaction will arise. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say upon that phase of the question. I also desire to know how many transferred State officers are in the positionoccupied by the Victorian officers ? What the honorable member for Bourke is moving does not give one iota more advantage tothe Victorian officers than they already possess. **Mr. BATCHELOR** (South Australia).With every desire to be as liberal aspossible to the public servants, of the; Commonwealth, this proposal goes further than 1 care for. The principle which, we have laid down, that merit should be the first consideration, is set aside altogether' by this clause. The honorable member for Bourke wishes to provide that after three years an officer in the fifth class who has been receiving the maximum salary of £160 may be paid another £20 a year as a long-service increment. That would be too heavy a burden for the Commonwealth to bear, besides which officers who have reached the top of the fifth class are in receipt of a fair salary, and certainly do not require anything of this kind. I admit that promotion necessarily will not be very fast, but at the same time this proposal asks too much. Sub-clause (2), which provides that where an officer in the fourth- class has been for five years at the maximum salary of £280, he may be paid a long service increment at the rate of £15 per annum, is still worse. I would rather vote for subclause^) than for sub-clause (2). At the same time I do not think that the Commonwealth ought to establish a privileged class in which, whether an officer shows meritorious service or not, he may receive periodical advancement. **Mr. REID** (East Sydney).- If, as stated by my honorable friend, the member for South Australia, **Mr. Poynton,** the Victorian officers will be entitled to the benefit of .this long-service increment, a state of things will arise in the public service which will be intolerable. In one respect the honorable member for Bourke is trying to do a good thing by attempting to make matters uniform. I would not pretend to give a deliberate opinion on the question without making a careful study of the Bill, but it seems to me that the honorable member for South Australia is mistaken. Even On the assumption that such a provision as has been referred to is in the Victorian law, the words in this Bill to which reference has been made will not give to Victorian officers anything which other officers will be denied. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Look, at clause 59. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- I have been looking at that clause. A transferred officer, according to the provisions of that clause, shall preserve all his existing and accruing rights. But that provision, of course, must be read subject to the provisions of the Bill generally, and looking at the Bill generally I think that the right which we have been discussing will not be preserved. I suppose that the Government have really considered this matter, because it would never do to have such a state of things arise as has been suggested. My own view is that it will not arise. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is the view of those whom I have consulted. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- At the same time we know how courts sometimes give decisions which are quite opposite to the opinions which have been expressed. I suppose that there would be nothing to prevent a proceeding under this Act to test the question in a court of law. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- I am told that officers in the Postal department are now receiving these long-service increments, which are paid to them I suppose by the Commonwealth, although the Act from which I borrowed the proposal was passed only a month or two prior to the establishment, of federation. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- That is a very serious matter. If in the administration of 'a de- . partment of the Commonwealth this right is being recognised, the Government will be in an extremely difficult position if ever they come to contest it, because their own conduct would be against what they say is the law. I have no doubt that the Minister will bear in mind the statement which has just been made by the honorable member for Bourke, and which has a very practical bearing on this matter. {: #debate-3-s44 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLI AM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist -- I have obtained the opinions of legal authorities upon this matter, and they agree that it does not apply to the Commonwealth ser vice. I recogn ise that whatever is done in regard to the Victorian * service must be done in regard to the other services. I am absolutely opposed to the proposal of the honorable member, and I cannot accept his amendment. But I will go so far as to say that the matter shall be further inquired into as far as the officers transferred from the Victorian service are concerned, and all the services will be placed upon the same footing. **Mr. ISAACS** (Indi).- I wish to ask the Minister, in view of the constitutional provision that officers passing over to the Commonwealth service shall retain their rights, to consider No. 1721 of the Victorian Acts. The ninth section of that Act contains a provision very much in the terms of the clause which is proposed by the honorable member for Bourke. It enacts that long-service increments may be paid. There is a right in one sense, though not an absolute right in another sense. There is no absolute right to these long service increments unless the authorities choose to give them. But there is the right that officers may have these increments if the authorities choose to exercise their discretion to give them. The honorable member for Bourke proposes to give officers power to invoke that discretion. If such a provision be not included in the Bill, no Victorian officer passing over to the service .of the Commonwealth will have power in the future to point to anything which would entitle him to that long service increment, even though the authorities might be desirous of granting it. There is a right being lost to them unless some Such provision as this is included in the Bill. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The word "may" is used both in the Victorian Act and in the clause under discussion. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- There is no compulsion in either case, but unless some such provision is inserted in this Bill there is a right which has vanished. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr MCCAY: -- Does the honorable and learned member think that is a right within the meaning of the Constitution? ' **Mr. ISAACS.** - It is very early to interpret a word of that nature, but I think we should be careful not to do anything to destroy the possibility of ever having that word interpreted. I want to preserve the *status quo ante* as much as possible, in order that officers may not hereafter be told, " Had you remained in the Victorian service you could have made your represen- .. " tations to the Postal department, and have obtained, upon proper proof of merit and good service, these long-service increments, but there is no provision in the Public Service Act of the Commonwealth which enables us to pay them." There is a strong feeling I may tell the Minister amongst a large number in the public service that the Victorian public servants, who have been transferred along with their departments, will carry with them the rights which they enjoyed as members of the State service. Does the Minister acknowledge that if that is correct they will still have the right to go to the authorities and ask for the exercise of the power conferred by Act 1721? There are persons, who, if they had remained in the service of the State, would have' gone from £180 to the maximum salary of their class, £200. But unless their right is acknowledged by the Government, in the sense in which I have put it, they will be debarred from ever rising to that £200. It' seems, therefore, to be only a fair and reasonable thing to allay any doubts existing on that point. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- With reference to the remarks of the honorable and learned member for Indi, I cannot go further than this. Supposing we put anything in this Act which would interfere with the rights existing under the Constitution, it would have no effect. If a right exists as far as the Victorian service is concerned, that right cannot, and will not be taken away, and it must be also extended to the other members of the Commonwealth service. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- The present proposal would have the effect of doing that. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I know that ; but it would be dangerous to adopt the suggestion until we know more about the rights given by the Victorian Act. No right will be taken away, and the whole of the members of the service must have the same rights, but it is too early to define what these rights are. I ask the honorable member not to press this clause, as the discussion has drawn attention to the matter, which will be further considered by the legal members of the Government, so that justice may be done. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- -Will the Minister remember the statement which has been made as to what is being done under the Commonwealth now. That is a most important matter to inquire into. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I will inquire into it. **Mr. HUME** COOK (Bourke).- In the face of what the Minister has said I would not think of pressing the matter to a division. He has stated, in set terms, that he will inquire into the matter, and that if the Victorian officers have a right it will be secured to them, and further, that if it does not extend to the rest of the service, he will see that it is extended to them. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. First schedule agreed to. {: .page-start } page 2004 {:#debate-4} ### SECOND SCHEDULE Permanent Heads oi? DEPARTMENTS The Secretary to the Department of External Affairs. The Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. The Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs. The Secretary to the Department of the Treasury. The Secretary to the Department of Trade and Customs. The Secretary to the Department of Defence. The Secretary to the Postmaster-General's Department. {: #debate-4-s0 .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID:
East Sydney -- I do not wish to raise any very serious discussion over this, except that it is a matter for consideration whether the titles of the permanent heads of departments are the best that could be adopted. It has been quite a common thing in our State Parliaments to apply the terms here given to officers to Ministers, and in some of the States the Minister is the Secretary for Lands, and so on. On the other hand, in some States there is a. Secretary for the Postal department, who is the permanent head, so that the practice is not uniform. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- We have considered all that. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr REID: -- It is a question whether the term " secretary " is best, but J have no strong objection to it. {: #debate-4-s1 .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS:
Indi -- I would like to know whether " secretary " means the Minister's private secretary. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- No ; it means the permanent secretary. Schedule agreed to. {: .page-start } page 2005 {:#debate-5} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-5-0} #### THIRD SCHEDULE {: #subdebate-5-0-s0 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
South Australia -- I think this is the proper place to consider the position of female officers in connexion with the Commonwealth service. We have here for females a fifth class with a maximum salary of £1 10, and a fourth class with a maximum salary of £140. I believe that in New South Wales the maximum fortelegraph operatives is £170, and for postmistresses £240. In Victoria the maximum for telegraph operatives is £84, whilst for postmistresses it is £132, with certain reductions for quarters. There are also provisions for similar reductions for quarters in New South Wales. If this schedule is carried as it stands, we shall make the pay considerably less than it is in New South Wales, and even less than in Victoria, and I desire to raise the question as to whether there is any necessity for females to remain in the fourth class. The clauses of the Bill provide for testing the efficiency of officers by examination, and advances from one division to another, as far as male operatives are concerned, and they apply to females also up to the fourth class. I cannot see any necessity for the latter part of the schedule at all, as if we place males and females on the same footing they will advance according to their merit, not only to the fourth class, but to any of the classes. I shall therefore move - >That the word "males" in the first column of the schedule be omitted. If that is carried, the whole of the schedule relating specially to females will have to come out. {: #subdebate-5-0-s1 .speaker-KRP} ##### Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I hope the Government will consent to this amendment; firstly, in the interests of those already in services where higher salaries are being paid ; and secondly, in the interests of the male employes generally. I think the fact of having a female grade at lower salaries must necessarily tend to displace male labour to some extent, and to prevent males from obtaining many of the positions which would otherwise be open to them. We are all agreed that where women are capable of doing a certain class of work they ought to be eligible for employment in the Government service, but I. do not think we are in favour of establishing a lower scale of remuneration for females, which would have the effect of supplanting male officers by cheaper female labour. I seriously ask the Government to accept the amendment, which is in harmony with the provisions already agreed to, fixing a minimum wage. It was understood that that amendment was applicable to all males, and if that is so, the.matter should be carried a little further, and male and female employes should be placed upon the same footing. It cannot be the intention of the House or the desire of the Government that men should be supplanted by females at a lower rate of pay, but such a result might be brought about if any distinction were made in the remuneration of males and females working in the same subdivisions or classes. {: #subdebate-5-0-s2 .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- This does not seem to be a matter for argument, because it is simply the corollary of the conclusion the committee has already arrived at. When the schedule was framed it was shaped on the assumption that the Bill was going to treat female labour on a different basis from male labour, but the committee has really determined that women shall be entitled to the same pay as men if they do the same work. Therefore the whole schedule requires to be altered, in accordance with that decision. There is no distinction made between men and women, and if a woman does the work, it is intended that she shall receive the same remuneration asa man would get under similar conditions. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity for any distinction in the grading of the two sexes. {: #subdebate-5-0-s3 .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports -- I sincerely hope the Minister will agree to tins proposal. I know that in some of the Government departments, especially in the Postal department, women have been presiding over offices and carrying out responsible work at rates of pay considerably less than men would have been paid. As the honorable member for Parkes has pointed out, we have really accepted the principle, and the Ministry has conceded it, that women shall be paid at the same rates as men for similar work, and the Government will save a great deal of time if they at once adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for South Australia. **Mr. BATCHELOR** (South Australia).The honorable member for Lang said there could not be very much, argument on this question. I admit at once that the arguments are all *on* the honorable member's side. There is no getting away from the point that women who are doing work in which men are also engaged should receive the same pay as that given to the men. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member wants to get rid of the women. {: #subdebate-5-0-s4 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- At the same time I do not want the committee to forget that the chances are that if this proposal is carried there will be very few women employed in the Commonwealth service. I am pretty well certain that we shall be doing the females a very bad turn indeed by passing this amendment. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER: -- -Is that not entirely contrary to the argument that women do the work as well as men. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I am satisfied that every honorable member must recognise that the effect of passing this proposal is likely to be what I have stated. Of course I recognise that it is inconsistent with the view that women ought to receive as much as men, but in practical life, as things are to-day, women's labour in all branches of employment is valued below that of "men. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER: -- Wrongly so. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Still there is no use quarrelling with the condition of affairs. I am confident that a considerable amount of harm will result if this proposal is carried. It is said that women very often do exactly the same work as men; but we must remember that men are called upon to work overtime ; to work late at night and until 1, 2, and 3 o'clock in the morning. {: .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr Wilkinson: -- -And they get extra pay for doing so. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Does the honorable member consider that it would be advisable to employ women for such long hours, and to send them home at that time in the morning *1* The honorable member will admit at once that this is a barrier to the employment of women for overtime. I agree that wherever women do precisely the same amount of work as men they ought to be paid the rate which the men receive. I should like, however, to see that matter left to the commissioner. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- - -The commissioner will use his own discretion in choosing women for various classes of work. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- In the case of telegraph operators, the women do very much the same amount of work as men, and that statement also applies to postmistresses. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Some of the biggest suburban post-offices in Victoria are managed by women. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I know that some of the largest suburban stations in South Australia have been managed by women, but they are stations that have grown up with women in charge. In two cases, when the women in charge retired, their places were filled up immediately by the appointment of men. {: .speaker-KU9} ##### Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT -- What were their relative salaries *1* {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- The salaries received by the women were much lower than those paid to the men. I am referring to the Parkside and Unley Post-offices, with which the honorable member is no doubt familiar. The changes I am alluding to were made within the last three ' months. It would have been very much cheaper, when the postmistress retired, to place other women in charge, but because the stations had grown beyond what was considered to be within the normal powers of a woman, in regard to the management of a number of men, postmasters were appointed. {: .speaker-KRP} ##### Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- That would apply whether the schedule was amended or not. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I am not saying it would not. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I can assure the honorable member that a woman has just been appointed to succeed the retiring postmistress at the Footscray office, where something like fifteen men are employed and the work is very great., {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I do not desire to dogmatise on this question. I am most anxious to preserve opportunities for women, to secure employment which is congenial to, and suitable for them. I am afraid, however, that if we require that they shall in all cases receive the same salary as men, and go right up to £.160 per annum by automatic increases, we shall not have many women employed in the service. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- They go up to £170 in New South Wales. A.n Honorable Member. - Up to £240. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- If the honorable member does not think his proposal will have the effect I attribute to it I shall be quite prepared to support it. I believe, however, that it would be a great deal better to omit the figures "£140" which appear in the schedule. That is the absolute maximum for women. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But it is proposed to have only one classification for males and females. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I think the figures ought to be struck out, and that where precisely the same responsibility exists, and the same work is being done by a woman as would be required in the case of a man, there should be an opportunity for the commissioner to raise the amount. {: #subdebate-5-0-s5 .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS:
Indi -- There seems to be a great deal of truth on both sides. On carefully looking at this schedule I think the Minister will see that it will have to be altered in some way, because while a distinction is drawn between males and females in the fourth and fifth classes none is drawn in any other class. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Females cannot go beyond those classes. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- Is it intended that a female is not to get beyond the fourth class *t* {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- -The schedule makes it appear so. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I have not heard of any- ' thing affirming such a decision on the part of the committee. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The committee has affirmed the contrary. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- If a female gets beyond the fourth class - that is, if she gets into the higher classes at all - she is by this schedule permittted to have exactly the same salary as a male. The honorable gentleman in charge of the Bill will see that there is some small degree of inconsistency in the schedule in that respect. I am sure it is one that is not intended. Which part is to be altered1! Are we to carry on the distinction between males and females right through the schedule, or blot out the distinction which already exists ? I think it will be found impossible to construct a new schedule showing the difference between males and females right through. The various difficulties might be harmonized. If we were to abolish all distinctions on paper between males and females, we could then meet the position lightly put. in man)' respects by the honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Batchelor,** in this way - that if a woman was found not to be able to do as much work as a man she would not be advanced so far. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- By the commissioner *1* {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- That meets the difficulty. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I should say that if we strike out the paper disparity the department could be worked practically just as the matter deserves, by not placing women in positions in which they would be called upon to do greater or better work or more arduous work than their capacity would permit. Therefore I would suggest to the honorable gentleman in charge of the Bill that he might strike out the figures distinctively appertaining to females, and trust to the practical working of the department. {: #subdebate-5-0-s6 .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania -- It seems to me to be logically impossible to advocate any differentiation of the rates of pay of males and females merely for reasons of sex. If a woman does work as well as a man, surely she is entitled to draw the same rate of pay. It is within my experience that females have been appointed to clerical positions in departments where they have been treated exactly as males have been, and where they have drawn salaries corresponding with those to which the males were entitled. I certainly think that we should pay for work when the work is worthy, whether it is done by males or females. That might be a very good suggestion for wider extension beyond the public service, and might even induce the better payment of women in employments outside that of the Commonwealth service where they do men's work. {: #subdebate-5-0-s7 .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL:
Echuca -- I think we ought to consider, and some statement should be made to the committee before these changes are made, what they are going to cost . the Commonwealth. It has been remarked before to-night that very little consideration has been given to the taxpayers in the preparation of this Bill. We find amendments moved and changes proposed in the airiest possible manner, without knowing what they are going to cost. Something was said last night about placing women on the same footing as men in allowing them to go up to £110 on reaching 21 years of age.. We have transferred some 4.00 females to the Commonwealth service. Scarcely any of them receive £110 per annum, but the great bulk of them would, under that arrangement, be able to claim that amount, which would probably mean an expense of between £20,000 and £30,000. If this change is made, what is it going to cost ? In my opinion, it will simply ring the death knell of female employment in the service. There is on the part of superior officers very strong prejudice against employing females, and that prejudice has been several times evinced lately, so that while equality of wages may give women already in the service a very rosy position, it may keep other women from entering it. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- In one departmentrecently twenty women were put on, and no men. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL: -- We all know very well that the Commonwealth is going to be a great financial strain on the States, and that we are increasing the expense by givingevery one what is a fair living wage. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAuGER: -- The honorable member should be just. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL: -- It is not a- question of justice. Could these women get anything like the amount that is proposed if they went into service outside *1* This is giving far more than a living wage to women. AVe ought to studv the farmers and workingmen, who have to pay the taxes, before we sanction these radical changes which will increase enormously the burdens of the Commonwealth and the people of Australia. **Mr. BRUCE** SMITH (Parkes).- It is very interesting to me to hear gentlemen who are never tired of proclaiming them? selves liberals in politics, sounding this note of the knell of women's employment in the public service of the country. The honorable member who has just sat. down has uttered a jeremiad about the cost to the State of putting women on equal terms with men, losing sight, in the first place, of the very simple fact that the condition of their being so paid is that they shall take the place of men and therefore take men's payment. I heard the honorable member Speaking in an earlier part of the day about the fine young farmers who should be encouraged to come into the service of the country ; and I am quite sure that if he had to go before a lot of women constituents he would not talk as he has talked to-night. He knows he can express himself in this way, because women are not his constituents, though he may have them as his constituents much sooner than he expects, and then he will have this little speech coming home to roost. The honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Batchelor,** who, I know, professes to be not only liberal, but radical in politics, seems to stop short in his liberalism when it is proposed to put both sexes on the same footing. It is one of the best tests of the genuineness of a man's liberalism that he is prepared to admit the equality of the sexes, supposing they have the same opportunity. We all recognise that men for a long series, not merely of generations, but of centuries, have had cultivated in them the faculty which fits them for business, whilst women have been taught, and have almost come to believe that they are unfitted to do the class of business which men do regularly. I carry my liberalism to the extent of admitting that there is inherently no difference between the mental capacity of a woman and the mental capacity of a man. ' I quite recognise that there are- certain physical difficulties and differences which may from time to time affect them ; but we have no right on that ground to say that we shall not open the door to women to rise to any position which is open to men. When I addressed the House on the second reading of the Bill, I pointed out that women pay the same income tax and the same land tax, and are subject to the same criminal and civil law. For a long time men have laughed at their claim to have a vote in the election of members for Parliament ; but that claim seems to me to be admitted now, and it is difficult to find a man who has the temerity to dispute it. We have reached another stage. Here is a public service, paid out of- funds to which women contribute, and yet there are honorable members here, professing to be liberal or radical in politics, who are fearful to take the step of paying them salaries equal to those paid to men. The honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Batchelor,** says that this may be the death knell of the employment of women in the service of the country. But the honorable member must give other people credit for knowing that there is boomerang legislation, which very often comes back and strikes the people it is intended to benefit. I have no fear of that, because the commissioner of the public service will always have it in his power to say whether or not a woman already in the service is capable of moving into a higher position. Mi1. Ewing. - That is the whole case. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is the whole case. If the Bill had been framed on the principle of automatic rises, the commissioner would have no power to stop women's salaries rising. But after a woman roaches a certain amount of salary, the commissioner can say " No doubt this woman has done very well in this particular business,- which is of a routine character, but she is a woman of not much mental capacity, and she cannot, although she has been so many years in the service, be promoted to a higher position, because she is not capable." The commissioner will always have it in his power to say that. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- I do not think that under clause 21, as it stands, the commissioner will have that power in regard to the fifth class. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If it is necessary to provide against any possible danger, let provision be made by all means ; but do not let it be said that under this Commonwealth we are not advanced enough to admit women to an equal position with men, so long as the women do equal work. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- There is provision in clause 21 to the effect that in the case of a woman there shall be u certificate that she is capable of performing the work. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not complain of that. All I claim is that women should have the same chance, and no better chance, than. men. I make that claim with some spirit, because it has been a conviction in my mind for many years, and I am extremely glad the opportunity has arisen under the Bill for testing the genuine liberalism of men on the question of placing the two sexes on the same level. {: #subdebate-5-0-s8 .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton -- I cannot see why females should not be paid the same wage for the same class of work as men are paid. I recognise the force of what the honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Batchelor,** has said as to the possibility of this equality of wages leading to the abolition of female labour in the public service, and I do not know that that would be altogether an evil. What do we find going on in the industrial world ? We find a disposition to accept female labour because it is cheaper, and also to accept boy labour, which is cheaper still. The effect is that men are thrown out of work, and women, instead of" becoming wives and mothers, go out to earn money where men should be earning higher wages. In the first subdivision of the fourth class, as shown in the third schedule, the difference between the salaries of males and females is £60, while similar disparities can be seen throughout the schedule. If a woman does the same work as a man she should be paid at the same rate as a man ; and the Government should set an example to pri vate employers. If we get any class of labour from women at a cheaper rate than we should have to pay men, we become swindlers and sweaters. .1 shall certainly support any effort which would put females on an equal footing with men, and, as I said before, it might not be altogether an evil if women were discouraged from attempting to take the place of men by underbidding them. **Mr. BATCHELOR** (South Australia).- I protest against the honorable member for Parkes trying to fix on me views which I altogether repudiate. I was very careful to .guard myself against leading the committee to believe that I recognise any difference between men and women mentally, or that women should be paid less than men for 'doing similar work. I said 1 was personally .strongly in favour of equal payment, but I pointed out that as things are to-day, there are prejudices against the employment of women. If WA say that women must in all Cases receive exactly the same wages as men up to the £160 stage, I am afraid, in view of the fact that men can be transferred much more readily from one position to another, that this will lead to the replacement of women by men, so that instead of extending- the area of employment we shall greatly contract it. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Some people advocate equal wages in order to keep women out. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I am not going to Say that any honorable member would take up that position ; but there are people determined, if they possibly can, to enforce equal rates with the avowed' intention of bringing about the displacement of women by men. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Surely the honorable member is not justified in assuming that the commissioner will have that prejudice. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I am not assuming that the commissioner will have any prejudice of the kind. Only a few months ago, while I was temporarily in charge of the Post-office department in South Australia, I was waited on by a deputation of postmistresses stationed within two or three miles of Adelaide, with a request that certain offices then filled by women should be earmarked for women for all time. Notwithstanding the fact that they were paid 30 per cent, less wages than men, they felt quite certain that in the event of any one of their offices becoming vacant, it .would be filled *by* a man. The fact that these women believed this, and that in certain offices women have been displaced by men, shows there was some ground for fear. I want the committee not to bind the commissioner to give automatic increases, but to recognise there may be differences sometimes, and to give him every opportunity of dealing with them. I am perfectly satisfied with the proposal suggested by the honorable and learned member for Indi. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- We are all agreed then % {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- We are all agreed. What I object to is the honorable and learned member for Parkes crediting me with views which I do not hold. Mi-. BRUCE Smith. - I withdraw, and apologize most humbly {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Under these circumstances I shall say no more. **Mr. McCOLL** (Echuca).- The honorable and learned member for Parkes went somewhat out of his way to visit me,inanticipation, with pains and penalties for remarks I made to-night. I will repeat those remarks before any congregation of women, whether those women be voters or not. I am afraid that it is the action of gentlemen like the honorable and learned member himself which will ring the knell of the employment of women. My remarks were more particularly directed to pointing out that before we make these sweeping financial changes we have a right to know what the result of them will be. We are bringing in this Public Service Bill and making changes, and we have not yet been told what they are likely to cost. As prudent men, to whose care is committed the financial arrangements of the Commonwealth, we have a right to see that economy is carried out in every branch of the public service. W e are not doing our duty if we introduce into the Bill sweeping changes which will have the effect of vastly increasing the cost of the public service, without first knowing what those changes are going to cost. It is all very well for some members to come here and try to earn a little cheap popularity by posing as champions of the women, but when the women find that through certain changes they are kept out of the public service, they are more likely to visit retribution upon the heads of those who are. responsible for those changes than they are upon those who opposed their introduction. **Mr. ISAACS** (Indi). - It will be observed that there is a provision in clause 21 by which automatic increases are to be given. In. order to carry out the plan of which I was speaking a little time ago, I would suggest to the Government to add to sub-clause (5) of clause 21 the words - 1 And also in the case of u female as being as capable of us satisfactorily performing the work as a male. In that case I think that even the objection urged by the honorable member for Echuca would vanish at once. The honorable member is only anxious that inferior work shall not be paid for at the same rate as superior work. We all know that some women are quite as capable as are some men. In fact, some women are more capable than are some men. What I would suggest, will, if carried into effect, put this matter upon a satisfactory basis. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Mr. Poynton)** agreed to- >That the following portion of the schedule be omitted : - Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. {: #subdebate-5-0-s9 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist -- With the indulgence of the House I desire to state that I cannot to-night go on with the clauses liat are *to* be recommitted. We hare nothing now but those clauses to deal with, but I propose to-morrow to recommit the Bill in order that they may be reconsidered, and also to consider the amendment suggested by the honorable and learned member for Indi in clause 21. It was' on the understanding that that amendment should be carried, or words having the effect suggested by him, that I agreed to the alteration which has been made in the schedule. {: .speaker-JRR} ##### Sir Edward Braddon: -- Will the Minister recommit the whole Bill ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- No. I should not have agreed to the amendment in the 3rd schedule without expecting to obtain such an amendment as the honerable and learned member for Indi has foreshadowed,, and I recognise that there is a great deal in the remark that unless such an amendment is carried the amendment of the schedule will, to a great extent, have the effect of excluding women from employment in the public service of the Commonwealth. {: .page-start } page 2011 {:#debate-6} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-6-0} #### Public Service Bill Motion (by Mi(. Deakin) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-6-0-s0 .speaker-KU9} ##### Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT -- I desire to ask whether, before we consider the recommittal of the Public Service Bill, honorable members will be able to get a reprint of the measure as it now stands *t* It is really of immense importance that we should do so. The Bill has- been considerably knocked about, new clauses have been' inserted in all sorts of ways, and it will be almost impossible to understand it unless honorable members have a clean print of it before them. When the proposal is made to-morrow by the Minister to recommit certain clauses, it will be impossible for honorable members to know whether other clauses may not require to be recommitted unless they have a reprint of the Bill in its present form. MR.MCCOLL(Echuca) - I wish to ask the Minister if he will be good enough to supply to-morrow, when the Bill comes up for discussion, particulars with regard to- the women employed in the service transferred from the States, together with some information as to what are their salaries, and what amount will be involved by reason of the changes proposed under this Bill *1* {: #subdebate-6-0-s1 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · Hume · Protectionist -- In reply to the honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. V.** L. Solomon, I may say that 1 do not know whether it is possible to get the Government Printer to supply us with a fair copy of the Bill containing the amendments and new clauses in time for our meeting to-morrow ; but the Clerk will send down a copy to-night with a request, which I will emphasize to-morrow morning, that clean prints of the Bill shall be supplied, if possible, before the House reassembles. It is very important that we should know how the measure stands. In answer to the honorable member for Echuca, I wish to say that I do not know whether it is possible to obtain the particulars which he desires, but I shall try to do so to-morrow morning. {: #subdebate-6-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- My attention has been called to the fact that there is a notice of motion standing in the name of the honorable member for Tasmania, **Mr. O'Malley,** which perhaps he may wish to move. In that case it will be necessary for the AttorneyGeneral to withdraw his motion. LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MR. GLYNN. *Resolved* (on motion by **Mr. O'Malley)** - That leave of absence for one fortnight be granted to the honorable member for South Australia, **Mr. Glynn,** an the groundof illhealth. House adjourned at 10. 13 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010703_reps_1_2/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 3 July 1901

PATENT DESIGN AND TRADE MARKS BILL

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

THE NEW HEBRIDES

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr Reid:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr ISAACS:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK

Mr SPEAKER:

Parliament House,

Sir, Melbourne, 2nd July, 1901

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Mr CROUCH:Corio

Mr Deakin:

Mr CROUCH:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr SALMON:Laanecoorie

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr SALMON:

Mr Watson:

Mr SALMON:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SALMON:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir WilliIAM McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SALMON:

Mr McCOLL:ECHUCA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr SALMON:

Mr MCCOLL:ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SALMON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr Mahon:

Mr SALMON:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SALMON:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SALMON:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SALMON:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Mahon:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Reid:

House of Representatives
3 July 1901

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr ISAACS:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr McCOLL:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr MCCOLL:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr CRUICKSHANK:
Gwydir

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr PIESSE:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA