House of Representatives
18 December 1912

4th Parliament · 3rd Session



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

page 7366

PAPERS

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the table the following paper: -

Joint Report of the Library Committee.

MINISTERS laid upon the table-

Actuarial Congress - Report by W. R. Day on the Seventh International Congress, held at Amsterdam, September, 1912.

Ordered to be printed.

South Africa - Correspondence between the South African and Commonwealth Governments in relation to the formation of the South African Union.

Public Service Act -Regulations Amended (Provisional) - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 232.

page 7366

MR. CHINN’S APPOINTMENT: POWELLISING CONTRACT

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– Last night, on behalf of the Government, I said that because of certain statements made by the honorable member for Perth, and certain documents upon which they were based, reflecting seriously on the character of Mr. Henry Chinn, an employe of the Commonwealth connected with the construction of the Trans-Australian railway, I should at this sitting declare what action Ministers would take on the evidence submitted. Having given full consideration to the subject, we consider the charges made against Mr. Chinn so serious that we have suspended him from the service of the Commonwealth, and T am asking the Premier of this State to allow a Victorian Judge to act as a Royal Commissioner, with full power to call for persons and papers relating to the specific charges made, and to investigate them . as speedily as possible, affording Mr. Chinn every opportunity to defend himself. I am not yet able to say that a Victorian Judge will bc appointed to make the inquiry, but I hope that that course will be taken. We desire that the inquiry shall be in judicial form, without prejudice to either party in the controversy. In the. meantime we trust that all persons will refrain, as far as possible, from compromising either party. Wefeel that Mr. Chinn and other witnesses must be allowed the usual fees given to witnesses attending before Royal Commissions. Every facility will be afforded for the in vestigation of the charges to the very root, but the scope of the Commission of Inquiry will be limited to the statements made by the honorable member for Perth last night. Other matters may come in incidentally, but we regard it as undesirable that there should be what I might call a sprawling Commission, dealing with every suggestion that has been thrown out here and elsewhere

Mr Fowler:

– I thank the Prime Minister for the courtesy and promptitude with which he has dealt with this matter.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member stated that he would lay the original papers which he used on the table of the House, and I ask him now to put them in the possession of Mr. Speaker, who will hand them over to the proper authority.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Clerk already has the napers in his possession.

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister if he does not deem it advisable, when an inquiry is being made, to ask the Commissioner to investigate the statements that have been made regarding powellised sleepers, making one job of both matters?

Mr FISHER:

– I regret that the question has been asked. The contract for powellised sleepers is purely a political matter. It has nothing to do with the charge against a man’s character. Character means as much as life to a man.

page 7366

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. W. Elliot Johnson) agreed to -

That leave of absence for the remainder of the session be granted to the honorable member for Oxley.

page 7366

QUESTION

BRITISH AND GERMAN RELATIONS

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence whether he has.observed that the British Admiralty has given orders for the construction of a Parsifal air-ship, 300 feet long, and capable of travelling 50 miles an hour with a load of twenty passengers, which is to be built by a German firm ? Does not this contract indicate that the relations between Great Britain and Germany are much more friendly than the honorable member for Wentworth, by his speeches, would haveus believe? Will the Honorary Minister inquire whether, in the event of war between Great Britain and Germany, the air-ship will be used to kill the German workmen who made it?

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the reported purchaseof the air-ship in question indicates closer friendship between Great Britain and Germany, we shall all be very pleased indeed.

page 7367

QUESTION

SYDNEY CUSTOMS HOUSE

Statistical Branch

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Minister of Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that girls employed in the Statistical Branch of the Department of Trade and Customs in Sydney were compelled to work during January and February of this year until 9.30 every night without extra pay, and that they have again received instructions that they will be required to work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the next two months, as from 16th December. As no overtime pay was arranged for last time, has such pay been arranged for this time, and, if so, what is the arrangement?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the honorable member to give notice of the question, because I do not know what are the hours worked in that branch. Personally, I am opposed to overtime, but certain statistical work must be got out at- certain periods of the year. I regret that the statistics of the States are not published as promptly as those of the Commonwealth.

page 7367

QUESTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the most important business now on the noticepaper is that in the names of private members, and I ask if he will give an undertaking to make a statement as to when an opportunity will be given for its discussion, so that those interested may make their arrangements accordingly?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– It will probably be Friday or Saturday -perhaps Friday, all being well - before private business can be dealt with. We hope to get the Estimates to the Senate to-night.

page 7367

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGNS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister of Home Affairs throw open to public competition the preparation of designs for the public buildings to be erected in the Federal Capital ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– That is the intention at present.

Mr FULLER:

– Does the Minister propose to adopt the plan for the laying out of the Federal city which has been agreed to by the officers of his Department, or will he take expert advice before a definite decision is made?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The matter is a serious one.

Mr Fuller:

– That is why I asked the question.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I am looking into the matter, and getting persons who are experts to examine the design. Mr. Scrivener, yesterday, or the day before, pointed out to me certain defects in the American plan. He said that lifts would be required to take persons up the mountains from the intersections of the streets. The matter will be carefully considered.

page 7367

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS: NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs when we may expect the new scheme for the redistribution of the electorates of New South Wales?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– I have just telephoned to the office, but the papers have not yet arrived.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Will the Minister ask the Postmaster-General why an important and urgent document like the report of the Commissioners is not delivered as quicklv as ordinary correspondence?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I think that the report will be here early this afternoon.

Later -

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the Minister of Home Affairs yet received the maps and other communications in connexion with the redistribution of the New South Wales electorates, and, if so, when will they be made available?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The maps have arrived, but the registered package has not. When the latter arrives, the maps and documents will be made available.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Will the maps be made available immediately for inspection by honorable members?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes.

page 7367

QUESTION

LAND TAX

Valuations - Officers

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– The other day I men tioned a case in which the Land Tax Commissioner had refused to inform the person whose property had been assessed how or why his valuations had been increased. Will the Prime Minister issue to the Commissioner the instruction that he shall give every information to taxpayers as to why their valuations have been increased, and the properties on which they have been increased ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– Every one whom’ I have met, without exception, has expressed gratitude at the manner in which the Commissioner has supplied information in answer to questions, so that the case mentioned is a singular one. There may have been some misunderstanding ; but I shall refer the matter to the Commissioner.

Mr RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– A number of young men employed in the Taxation Commissioner’s office, Sydney, regard it as a hardship that they are classed as temporary employes, because they have been a long time in their present positions, and probably will remain there a long time. Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making them permanent employes?

Mr FISHER:

– I shall give the matter consideration. I am not personally acquainted with the facts.

Mr HOWE:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Following up the question asked by the honorable member for North Sydney respecting the position of certain employes in the Land Tax Department, I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General whether it is not a fact that during the last two months the matter has been brought before them, and promises of consideration given. If that is so, will they be pleased to give it their early attention with a view to the settlement of the difficulty ?

Mr FISHER:

– What the honorable member states may be correct. It is impossible for any one occupying my position to keep in mind all such matters; but my attention having been drawn to it. I can only say that it will receive direct and immediate attention, and that the result will be communicated to honorable members.

page 7368

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Administration - Land Ordinance

Mr THOMAS:
Minister of External Affairs · Barrier · ALP

– Some days ago I was asked a question concerning some statements which had appeared in the Age newspaper concerning the administration of the Northern Territory. With the permission of the House, I desire now to make a reply to the criticism referred to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of External Affairs be permitted to make a statement ?

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr THOMAS:

– It will be remembered that the Age, in its issue of 16th inst., published from its correspondent ‘ at Darwin a letter headed “ How the money goes, “.” Waste i-n the Northern Territory.” Several questions relating to the matter were put to me, and I stated that I had read part of the statement, but considered it to be so frivolous that I did not complete my reading of it. As the outcome of the questions put to me, however, I caused the following telegram to be sent the Administrator : -

Letter appears to-day’s Age headed “ How the Money Goes : Waste in the Northern Territory.” Minister read it, but resolved on taking no notice, knowing what was behind it ; but several members asked questions in House today, and he will be glad to have telegraphic statement from you regarding it.

Then follow the terms of the statement as published in the Age. The telegram continued -

You will kindly understand that Minister himself attaches no weight to these statements, but to satisfy members will be glad to have your assurance.

In reply, I have received the following telegram from the Administrator: -

Glad to have assurance Minister attached no weight to the letter in question. Pleased he had definite opportunity of noting how facts can bc distorted and statements manufactured to suit ends of useless and dissatisfied individuals.

I shall now read the statements as they appealed in the newspaper and* the reply given in each case by the Administrator. The Age said, in the first place, that -

To begin with, the Governor has a Government cow. A man gets 10s. a day for milking it, a nigger gets 35. a day to take it out for pasture, and the food will run into 25s. a week. Nobody gets any benefit from this but the Governor.

Administrator’s Reply - This animal, one of many sent from South for demonstration purposes, was retained at Darwin to ascertain whether there were any truth in the current allegation that cows could not exist in Darwin, hence the absence of any milk supply whatsoever for nearly a quarter of a century. A cow for milking and attendance has never cost more than 10s. weekly, as can be seen by Departmental vouchers. Unfortunately, difficulty experienced from time to time to secure a reliable milker at any price and on several occasions the cow had been nearly ruined through inability to get milkers. Irremediable damage on a number of occasions has only been obviated by the milking being performed by the Director of Agriculture and my secretary. During the winter months, when there was little grass, some hay was .given in the same ratio as to the cows on the farms. I received portion of this cow’s milk. The experiment has proved so satisfactory that two hotelkeepers have now each two cows supplying milk to their guests- Cows now on the way from the South will supply hospital, where for many years tinned milk only has been used, and that at a cost of£100 per annum. The Director of Agriculture, in my opinion, deserves credit for the demonstration in question.

Newspaper Statement. - Then he (the Governor) has an electric plant, steam water supply plant, and a cold storage, all for the residency, and each being run by separate groups of engineers.

Administrator’s Reply. - As regards the electriclightplant, at present it only supplies Government House; but, as you are aware, had a complete equipment arrived sooner, all Government offices would have been supplied to benefit of service. General installation is now being completed.

I may say that in August last I approved of a recommendation that the electric light plant for Port Darwin should be placed alongside the refrigerating plant, in order to avoid additional expense in labour. This involved a considerable additional length of cable, but, owing to delays in connexion with shipment, &c., the full supplies of material necessary are now only available in Darwin. It is assumed that the work of transferring the electric light generating plant from its temporary position to its proper place adjacent to the refrigerating engine is now being carried out. With respect to the steam water supply plant, the Administrator answered, “ This does not exist.” Dealing further with the newspaper statement to which I have referred, he goes on to say -

Cold storage is a public boon, as proved by the fact that meathas been reduced by 5d. per 1b. retail, butter by 3d. per lb., and to meet the demand on storage I have under consideration the question of enlarging the storage capacity. I am informed that the largest hotel proprietor estimates the saving to him through the establishment of cold storage to be£200 per year.

I may add that this cold storage was put up in the township, and is available to anybody who desires to use it. I understand that since it has been erected the price of meat has been brought down, on account of the people being able to have their meat brought from Queensland and placed in the cold storage, thus competing with a monopoly which previously existed in Darwin. I have been informed on the best authority that mutton is at the disposal of the people, because mutton and lamb can also be taken to Darwin and stored - a good thing which, prior to the erection of the cold storage plant, was out of the question. The wife of the late Acting Administrator, when in Melbourne, told me that mutton was a very great luxury in Darwin when she and her husband were there, and that they obtained it only when the captain of a steamer putting into port sent up a little to the residency. Another statement made in the Age articlewas-

The farms are costing nearly£70 an acre to clear.

The Administrator’s reply to that statement is as follows: -

It is sufficient to state that the last contract let on the Batchelor farm was £515speracre to a gang of men who had previously,” worked there and who prefer a contract so theymay work to suit themselves, commencing 5 a.m., and earn more than daily wages.

Newspaper Statement. - Last week theyhad a 12-furrow steam traction plough, a team of eight horses carrying water for this traction engine, six men, and all they did was to plough 4 acres in six days. If it be remembered that the minimum wage paid to some of thesemen was11s. 4d. per day, the cost of doingthis work can be ascertained.

Administrator’s Reply. - Water was brought by the river ; no horses used. Gang consisted of engine-driver and two men. Amount ploughed 4 acres daily, and was limited by the capacity of the engine. Wages were according to Mr. Skewes’ schedule.

Newspaper Statement. - All the heads ofDepartments are away travelling, because their travelling allowances range from 17s. 6d.to £2 2s. a day. There is not a head of any Department here ; they are all away travelling.

Administrator’s Reply. - Heads of Departments were travelling on my instructions.

Newspaper Statement. - A box of tobacco costing 63s. was left out of one of the Government orders, and was not found till some days after, when arrangements were made to send the tobacco overland to catch the party at a certain place along the coast. The cost of pack horses, &c., cost£34 odd. The original cost of the tobacco was only 63s.

Administrator’s Reply. - This statement probably arose through the fact that Protector Linacre, patrolling Darwin and Pine Creek, viâ Alligator River, took some tobacco that had been missed being sent by Professor Spencer.

Newspaper Statement. - The authorities got fourteen heavv draught horses, costing over £80 each. They have already lost three of them by death in four months.

Administrator’s Reply. - I have sent you particulars of the imported horses which have died.

I may say that these particulars show that two of the imported mares have died. One was poisoned with arsenic on vegetation on the railway line, and the other died from the effect of injuries received during transportation.

Newspaper Statement. - The same story is to be told about the pigs brought to Darwin at£25 each to improve the breed; but they never reached the farm. They died as they were being driven there from the railway station.

Administrator’s Reply. - No imported pigs have died save one, whose death was directly due to a farm hand’s inebriation.

Newspaper Statement. - The carpenters have all struck, and are going South, because they cannot get their own way. Buildings are going up all over the place, costing ten times in wages what they should. It is common talk that the carpenters do not put in more than two sheets of iron per day per man, and they are restricted to putting on only two sheets of 8 by 4 fibrous cement ceiling. So, from these few instances, it will readily be seen what an enormous waste is going on.

Administrator’s Reply. - Re strike of carpenters, I have heard nothing of this. Re cost of buildings, statements made regarding this matter are gross exaggerations, and do not merit any consideration.

I may add that it does seem strange that the men should be dissatisfied with the conditions if it be a fact that they only put in two sheets of iron per day, and are restricted to putting on only two sheets of 8 x 4 fibrous cement ceiling. This only shows the ridiculousness and absurdity of the statements made.

Mr Deakin:

– Is that all they do?

Mr THOMAS:

– I say that if the men are not satisfied with those conditions, it will be very difficult to please them -

Newspaper Report. - The worst of the whole thing is that people are afraid to talk.

Administrator’s Reply. - I am. surprised to hear that people are afraid to speak, and tremble to think what would happen if they were not afraid.

In view of the replies received from the Administrator, I think honorable members will agree with me that it is a very great pity that a newspaper occupying the position that the Age does in Victoria should allow its columns to be used by its local representative in the way they have been. That a newspaper holding the position that the Age does in Victoria should be prepared to permit the publication of such a statement, which, on its face, is obviously written out of mere spite, because the correspondent has, in some way or other, come athwart some of the officials in the Territory, is strong evidence in support of the great necessity which exists for signed articles, so that the people may know who it is that writes the statements, and that the information given may be dealt with absolutely on its merits, without having behind it the prestige of a big newspaper. I cannot but feel confident that if the person who forwarded the information, knowing that the statements contained therein were manifestly untrue, unjust, and unfair, was aware that it would have to appear over his signature, such a statement would never have been sent to the paper.

Mr FULLER:

– When does the Prime Minister propose to give the House an opportunity to deal with the Ordinance relating to land settlement in the Northern Territory ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I think it will be convenient to deal with that Ordinance when the Government business has been disposed of, and before we go on to private members’ business. That, 1 think, will be on Friday.

Mr Fuller:

– It is an important matter that ought to be settled before we rise.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes.

page 7370

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister the cause of the delay in the presentation of the annual report of the Public Service Commissioner, and when we may expect it to be furnished.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I am unable now to furnish the honorable member with a reply, butI shall endeavour to do so at a later hour.

Sir John Quick:

– I asked the question a fortnight ago.

Mr FISHER:

– I have not obtained any information in the meantime, but will make inquiries immediately.

page 7370

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the final statement of the public accounts was submitted to the Auditor-General this year? We have just been told that the AuditorGeneral’s report will be laid on the table on Friday.

Mr Fisher:

– That is what the AuditorGeneral tells me.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That will be too late to be of any use this year.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I quite recognise that Friday will be too late to enable us to consider the Auditor-General’s report in conjunction with the Estimates, but it is the earliest possible time I can get the Auditor-General to send it in.

Mr Harper:

– Could arrangements not be made for the report to be submitted earlier in the future? .

Mr FISHER:

– Even if it meant a great deal more expense, it would be a good thing if the Auditor-General’s report were in the hands of honorable members in mid-session, say, about September. That is what we ought to aim at ; but no one knows better than the honorable member for Parramatta that the adjustment of the postal accounts, owing to the transition, has rendered it difficult for the report to be submitted earlier duringthe past two or three years.

Mr HARPER:

– I desire to ask the Treasurer when the Auditor-General’s report will be submitted in Parliament.

Mr FISHER:

– I asked the AuditorGeneral some three months ago, when the question of the presentation of his report was raised, to furnish it as early as possible. He has informed me that he hopes to present it on Friday morning.

page 7371

NAVIGATION BILL

Bill received from the Senate with a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral recommending amendments and intimating that the Senate, having agreed to the same, requested the concurrence of the House of Representatives.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith in Committee of the whole House.

In Committee :

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Since the Navigation Bill passed this House, about a week ago, it has been ascertained that there are two errors in it, one of which is merely the printing of “ fifteen “ where the word “ fifty “ should appear. The other error is in prescribing in the schedule a scale of provisions on oversea ships not engaged in the coastal trade, a regulation that we have no power to make. The amendments have been made by the Senate, and I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- Am I to understand that the Governor-General has placed his veto on this Bill ?

Mr Tudor:

– No.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It seems very curious that the Government should permit a clause to appear that is obviously an error.

Mr Tudor:

– It is an error which, had it been noticed before, would have been rectified when the Bill was before us.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Was it the GovernorGeneral who noticed the error?

Mr Tudor:

– No.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I can assure the honorable member for Cook that the making of amendments in this way on a message from the Govenor-General is in agreement with the usual procedure under the circumstances. All the GovernorGeneral does is to ask the Governemnt, at the Government’s own request, to submit the amendments to Parliament.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The errors were dis covered immediately we had finished with the Bill ; but it was not possible to rectify them in another place, and, therefore, a message had to be obtained from the GovernorGeneral.

Motion agreed to.

Reported that the Committee had agreed to the amendments; report adopted.

page 7371

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7371

BEER EXCISE BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7371

QUESTION

NAVAL FORCES: LODGING ALLOWANCE

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Why do some members. . of the Naval Forces receive lodging allowances while others in the same grade do not?
  2. Why are the artificers in the Defence Forces not paid the travelling allowances authorized by the Minister?
  3. Why do some labourers in the Ordnance Department receive 10s. a day while others receive only 8s. for the same class of work?
Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

  1. Lodging allowance is not payable to members of the Naval Forces serving in sea-going ships as they are required to live on board.
  2. Delay has occurred in a few instances in the payment of travelling allowances pending a determination as to what stations shall be considered isolated stations, at which stations only the payment of commuted travelling allowances is admissible. This question is now under consideration, and will be settled very shortly.
  3. Two of such men are in receipt of 10s. per day, ohe of them being in charge of the Ordnance Depot at South Melbourne, and having twenty-eight men under him, and the other being an expert in cloth and clothing materials. The remaining hands are employed only in light labouringwork, and have not the responsibilities of the two above referred to.

page 7371

QUESTION

ORDNANCE STORES : CASUAL EMPLOYES

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence,upon notice -

  1. Is the Minister aware of the provisions of paragraph A, section 40, of thePublic Service Act which provides that casuals doing the same class of work as permanent officers shall receive the same rate of pay?
  2. Is theMinister aware that permanenthands receive in addition to salary- holiday pay, sick pay, and annual leave?
  3. If so, how can he construe the meaning of the Act so as to give casual ordnance storemen Ss. 6d. per day, whilst permanent hands (with whom they are working) receive, under Statutory Rule 163,9s. per day as well as various concessions?
  4. Is it the intention of the Minister to rectify this anomaly, and comply with the provisions of the Public Service Act?
  5. If not, what are his reasons for withholding the payments provided for by the Public Service Act?
Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

  1. Yes, but it must be remembered that the Public Service Regulations provide a minimum and maximum rate of pay, and permanent officers have to serve stated periods (generally not less than two years) on the minimum before they are entitled to an increment. The pay to casuals would therefore be the minimum rate provided.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Minister presumes that Statutory Rule 103 of 1912 is referred to as 163, does not seem to have any bearing on the subject.

Statutory Rule 103 is issued under the provisions of the Defence Act, and not the Public Service Act. The minimum rate for storemen under the Public Service Regulations is £126 per annum, i.e., about 8s. per day, reckoning 313 days to the year, and all the permanent storemen in the Ordnance Department, Victoria, under the Public Service Act have several years’ service, and have gone from the minimum through grades to present rates of pay.

The minimum rate for permanent storemen under the Defence Act (Statutory Rule 103 of 1912) is£134 per annum, i.e., about 8s. 6d. per day (reckoning 313 days to the year), and the Minister has decided to pay casual storemen from 1st November at the rate of 8s. 6d. per day.

The permanent storemen under the Public Service Act have upwards of eleven years’ service, and their pay ranges from£138 to£144, according to length of service. Only one permanent storeman is under the Defence Act, and he was this year appointed at£134 per annum. 4 and 5. The Public Service Act is not administered by the Minister of Defence, but he does not admit that any payments to casual storemen are withheld.

page 7372

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICE

Accountant: Railway Post-offices.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Is it a fact that the accountant of the Post and Telegraph Department has accepted another appointment, and that, consequently, his position will shortly become vacant?

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. The names of the railway stations at which post-office and telegraph business is managed by railway officials?
  2. The amount of payment made by the Post and Telegraph Department to the Railway Department in each instance?
  3. The amount of remuneration paid to such railway employes for performing these duties?
Mr FRAZER:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 and 2. A return giving the information asked for has been furnished by the Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, and I will lay copy thereof on the table of the House for the member’s information.

  1. I am unaware of the payments made by the Government of Victoria to its railway officers in regard to services rendered.

page 7372

QUESTION

COMMANDER BARNES

Mr HOWE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is Commander Barnes at present employed by the Commonwealth Government?
  2. If so, what are his Naval qualifications?
  3. In what vessels has he served as commander or in any other capacity?
  4. Has he any qualifications as an engineer?
  5. Has he had any experience in shipbuilding?
  6. If so, where, when, and to what extent?
  7. Is he at present representing the Commonwealth Government at Fitzroy Dock; and, if so, in what capacity?
Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

  1. Yes.
  2. Served six years in the Royal Naval Dockyard, Chatham; five years in H.M.S. Tyne and H.M.S. Nelson; two months as 3rd engineer s.s. Rockton, and from 1886 to date in the Queensland and Commonwealth Naval Forces.
  3. H.M.S. Tyne, H.M.S. Nelson, s.s. Rockton, H.M.A.S. Gayundah, H.M.A.S. Paluma,. and H.M.A.S. Parramatta.
  4. He is a certificated engineer.
  5. Yes.
  6. He was at the yard of the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company, on the Clyde, during the construction of the destroyers Parramatta and Warrego, a period of about fifteen months, and also superintended the re-construction of Warrego in Australia. 7.He is engineer overseer under the Naval Board, during the construction of the machinery of the cruiser and destroyers being built at Cockatoo Island.

page 7372

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th December (vide page 7247) on motion by Mr. Fisher -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– Itwas a relief to me that an hour or two was given to honorable members to consider the Bill. On first looking at it, I felt somewhat in the position of Douglas Jerrold, after he made his first attempt to read Browning’s Sordello. Had it not been for the fact that the honorable member for Bendigo also could scarcely make head or tail of the Bill, I, like Douglas Jerrold, would have had to be convinced of my own sanity. However, after a second perusal, I have some idea what the draftsman is desirous of attaining. I do hope that whoever has the opportunity of doing so will endeavour to simplify our Land Tax Assessment Act. That can be done only by simplifying the system. When obligations are imposed upon the citizens of Australia, it is due to them that the machinery of the Act, which imposes those obligations, should be capable of being understood fairly well. Under our Land Tax Assessment Act there is very great opening for increased simplicity. In saying that, I do not for a moment allege that the draftsman has not done as well as was possible in the circumstances. It is the complexity of the system itself which has led to the Act being a series of complicated provisions, designed to attain an end which is ultimately attained, but by means which the layman cannot easily follow. It is an Act which consists of some general principles with a great many exceptions and provisos. It would tax the ingenuity of many lawyers to understand the effect which this Bill will have on the principal Act. As a believer in the system of land values taxation, I think we ought to base that system on the true economic assumption that it is a tax on land. We ought not to harass those who . occupy the land as lessees by regarding them as individual taxpayers. When the first Land Tax Bill on unimproved values introduced into any British community was submitted to the South Austraiian Parliament in 1884, a very simple measure was passed. It was drafted by the late Mr. Kingston, and I do not think it has since had to be amended owing to any imperfections in its machinery, substantially, if at all. There have been some amending Acts, it is true, but they have chiefly related to the variation of the amount of the tax, both for income and land tax purposes, and to periods of valuation. I do not think that the Act has been amended owing to any difficulties of administration, and for the sole reason that the system adopted was a simple one. The tax imposed on that occasion amounted to Jd. in the £1, and provision was made for existing interests. There might, for instance, have been a leaseholder under a freeholder. A leaseholder might have an estate, the good-will of which was capable of realizing a large price. In other words, the rental paid by the leaseholder might be much less than the true economic rent of the land, and to the extent of the capitalized difference that leaseholder ought to be liable to taxation. It was necessary in that Act to make provision for such cases. With the exception of provisions dealing with these temporary and expiring leases, there were no sections in the South Australian Act of 1884 other than were necessary to enable a tax on unimproved land values to be collected. But in our Land Tax Assessment Act we seek vo secure the payment of a tax by rendering several persons liable, some as primary and others as secondary taxpayers. I hope that when the opportunity does arise we shall endeavour - even if there be no desire to substantially alter the Act as regards the burden imposed upon the taxpayers - to simplify it considerably. That that is possible, at least, if the legislation be altered, I endeavoured to point out on the motion for its second reading in 19 10. The taxpayer is entitled to consideration, because, in the case of almost every State, he pays under two Acts of Parliament. In South Australia he pays under the Federal Land Tax Act, and he also pays under a State Land Tax Act. I quite agree that we are entitled to impose a land tax. There is no reason why we should not exercise our power of direct taxation as well as the States, and I do think that, for economic reasons, land stands out as a fair subject for taxation, apart altogether from what may be called confiscation. At the same time, there is a very good opening for simplicity by some arrangement being arrived at between the States and the Commonwealth in regard to the system of valuation to be adopted, and in regard to one method and cost of collection. The very object of Federation was to bring about this simplicity. At present, even the definition of “unimproved value” varies. The South Australian land-owner will find that the definition of that term takes one shape under the State Land Tax Act and another shape under our Land Tax Assessment Act. There is a similar difficulty experienced in regard to “deductions,” a definition of “ provision for “ which is included in one Act, but not in the other. The result is confusion. While I do not say that a taxpayer should not be taxed, I do say that he ought not to be regarded by two Governments as an economic unit to whom a different system should be applied by each. What I hope will be our objective is the imposition of one land tax throughout Australia by an arrangement between the States and the Commonwealth. I trust that it will be based upon economic values, and that it will disregard exemptions. I hope that the valuations made by the Federal Government will be used by the State Governments. I hope that the principle of uniformity will be pushed so far that one valuation may be used for Federal, State, municipal and waterworks purposes. I endeavoured to achieve a somewhat similar result as far back as 1888 on a specific motion which I submitted in the South Australian House of Assembly. My experience is that though our Act is complicated, the administration does everything in its power to help the taxpayer to understand his position. I have had statements made to me by taxpayers, and by solicitors representing taxpayers, to the effect that the head of this Department and his officers have been courteous and obliging almost beyond what one might have expected from the traditions of certain Departments. If there be any complexity it is due rather to the system, and to the system of our Land Values Assessment Act itself, than to any disinclination on the part of the Department to help taxpayers out of a difficulty. The first thing with which this Bill seeks to deal is a difference between taxpayers and the Commissioner as to what is meant by the term “value of improvements.” On looking at this Bill, the impression which I form is that the principal Act as it stands is perfectly clear. At any rate, it will not be made clearer by the provisions of this Bill. The Act says - “ Value of improvements,” in relation to land, means the added value which the improvements give to the land at the date of valuation, irrespective of the cost of the improvements.

One cannot estimate that value more than approximately, but an approximate estimate should be sufficient. Sometimes an assessment will be in favour of the taxpayer. At other times, it will work out against him. But over a series of years it will operate with approximate justice. If a mistake has been made in the Act itself it is in defining “ value of improvements “ at all. It is not defined in the South Australian Act. “ Here we attempt to define all the elements which enter into the consideration of this question, and in doing so we sometimes use terms which are not themselves defined.

Mr Hughes:

– We say what “ unimproved value “ means, and what is the “ value of the improvements.” If we subtract one from the other we shall get the value of the improvements.

Mr GLYNN:

– The difficulty is that we must have one term clearly defined.

Mr Hughes:

– We have our basic term, which is “ unimproved value.”

Mr GLYNN:

– That is not the basic term, but the final end. We must not import anything into our definitions which is not in itself clear. Coming down to simpler language, it amounts to this : that in all our definitions there must be something which is absolutely clear. The terms which are used to express what another term means must also be clear. Otherwise we shall have confusion.

Mr Hughes:

– We assume that some words are understood. We do not define “a” or “be” or “some.”

Mr GLYNN:

– But can the AttorneyGeneral assume that the meaning of “ unimproved value” is clear?

Mr Hughes:

– I assume that the meaning of “ value “ is clear, and that the meaning of “ unimproved “ is also clear. I put the two together, and give a definition of what they mean.

Mr GLYNN:

– The Attorney-General does not do that. The proviso in clause2 reads -

Provided that the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

I must know the unimproved value before I can tell the amount required to bring the unimproved value to the improved value. What we are trying to get at is, not the value of the improvements, but the unimproved value of the land which is the subject of taxation, through the value of the improvements.

Mr Hughes:

– You could not define “ night “ except in relation to “ day.” It is the same with regard to unimproved value and improved value.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am afraid that it would be useless to continue this discussion, because we have arrived at a position like that mentioned by Locke in his Essay on the Human Understanding. He speaks of two medical men who had a dispute as to whether a.certain fluid permeated animal membrane, and found that they were in perfect agreement, butapproached the subject from different points of view. They differed as to what “fluid” meant.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member embarked on this voyage.Let him put his own definition, and I will accept it.

Mr GLYNN:

– I believe that it would be better if we did not define value of improvements, because there is so much difficulty in doing so that you cannot use the term to interpret the meaning of unimproved value.

Mr Hughes:

– I do not agree with the honorable member.

Mr GLYNN:

– The Act, as it stands, is fairly clear, and I believe that the addition which we propose to make contains something included in the definition as it stands. I understand that some taxpayers thought that they were entitled to a greater allowance for improvements than the actual cost that would have been incurredat the date of assessment in effecting those improvements ; but I do not think that the law is open to that interpretation.

Mr Hughes:

-I quite agree with the honorable member. This is merely declaratory.

Mr GLYNN:

– I believe that if the proviso were left out, a reasonable interpretation of “ value of improvements,” as defined in the Act, would accomplish the same end. Difficulty has arisen because some taxpayers seem to think that they are entitled to the actual cost of making improvements, and that it is the cost of improvements that adds value to land. As a matter of fact, the expenditure of £5,000 might add 50 per cent, to the apparent value of some land, and only 25 per cent, to the value of otherland, the difference being due largely to the capacity of the land to respond to the application of capital, and the method in which capital is applied. These, however, are matters best discussed in Committee. Coming to clause 3, I understand that under section 25 it is now possible for the owner of a freehold estate less than fee-simple to sub-lease the land in such divisions that the holding of each lessee may be worth less than £5,000, so that the lessees are not liable for taxation, because of the exemptions, and the holder of the estate less thanfee-simple is not liable. It is now proposed to amend the section to make it read -

The owner of any freehold estate less than the fee-simple (other than an estate of freehold arising by virtue of a lease for life under a lease or an agreement for a lease) shall be deemed to be the owner of the fee-simple, to theexclusion of any person entitled in reversion or remainder:

I take it thatfreehold owners created by a lease or agreement, as distinct from those created as tenants for life under settlements or wills, are removed from the section, and fall under the provisions of sections 27 and 28.

Mr Hughes:

– Under the Act as it stands, neither freehold tenants for life nor remainder men are liable.

Mr GLYNN:

– The freeholders for life may not be under some circumstances, the remainder men are not. Freehold tenants, who have not been created by wills and settlements, will be declared to be ordinary lessees for the purposes of taxation, coming under sections 27 and 28. But it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is meant by those sections. Letme dealnow with clause 4.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-Does the honorable memberunderstand it ?

Mr GLYNN:

– I am trying to find out if I do.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-I Have spent several, hours uppn it, and I cannot make it out yet.

Mr GLYNN:

-I am inclined to charge counsel’s fees for anyopinion regarding it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If you look at the memorandum, you will be more hopelessly confused.

Mr GLYNN:

– Under section 27, as it stands, provision is made for leases entered into after the commencement of the Act. It is provided that the leaseholder under such a lease is to be regarded as the owner of the fee-simple for the purposes of the taxation, but is entitled to recourse against those who are liable to pay the tax, or that portion of the tax for which he is not fairly liable. He is entitled to go for a proportion of the tax to his landlord, or ultimately to the final reversioner, if there happens to be more than one lease, and to ask for a contribution towards the tax paid by him. I believe that that works unfairly to some lessees, and an instance has been given showing its operation in regard to section 41, under which mutual life assurance societies are not liable to taxation. If a mutual life assurance society leases to any one, the leaseholder, under section 27, is now regarded as the owner of the fee simple, and as such has to pay the whole of the tax. A leaseholder under the section may recover from his landlord that portion of the tax which the landlord ought to pay, but in the case under discussion the landlord is exempt by section 41.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The leaseholder can deduct from the tax. He cannot recover from the landlord.

Mr GLYNN:

– Ultimately, it means that he is entitled to credit as against the tax to be paid by the landlord.

Mr Hughes:

– The man who leases from persons inside section 41 is in a worse position than the man who leases other land.

Mr GLYNN:

– Inasmuch as a mutual life assurance society is exempt from taxation, there is nothing to be deducted.

Mr Scullin:

– The lessee has to pay the whole tax.

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes. The lessee can recover only from a landlord who is liable to taxation, and when his landlord is exempt under section 41, he cannot recover any proportion of the tax.

Mr Hughes:

– When there is no primary taxpayer, the secondary taxpayer has to pay all.

Mr GLYNN:

– It is now proposed to alter the principle of assessment under section 27.

Mr Hughes:

– The difficulties affecting section 27 as it stands are not confined to the case mentioned by the right honorable member.

Mr GLYNN:

– I know that. The Prime Minister gave us two other cases, one in which the lessee might be the owner of other land held by him in severalty, and the landlord might be the owner of other land. By aggregation the lessee might be subject to a higher rate, and have to pay a larger amount of taxation. It may be considered anomalous that he should have to pay a higher rate because of the aggregation of land on which he was taxable with land on which he was not taxable. I take it that the clause aims at releasing the lessee from obligations that should not be imposed upon him. Apparently, he is no longer to be regarded as the owner of the fee-simple, but “ the owner of land of an unimproved value equal to the unimproved value of his estate.” Iri other words, he is to be regarded as a landowner to the extent of the value of his estate, and not as the owner of the feesimple with recourse against others.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– So far it is simple.

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes, up to that point. To find out what the unimproved value of the leaseholder’s estate is, it would seem that you must take the total capital value of the land and regard it as capable of producing 4J per cent, rental. Then you estimate the lessee’s interest in that rental, which is determined by capitalizing the annual value at per cent, for the unexpired term of the lease. The rent is estimated at 4^ per cent, on the total capital value of the land.

Mr Hughes:

– The unimproved value..

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes. We are dealing now only with unimproved value.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The difficulty comes with sub-clause 2. What does it mean?

Mr GLYNN:

– It is a sum in proportion.

AIr. W. H. Irvine. - If you look at that provision carefully you will see that read in one way it enables the lessee to deduct the whole of the tax that he has to pay.

Mr GLYNN:

– I think he can.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then what is the good of making him send in a return?

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not know. I want to know what is attained by this. There may be something, but at present I do not grasp it. Having estimated, then, what is the unimproved value of the estate by making certain calculations . to which I have referred, the lessee is entitled to make a deduction from the tax, which is ascertained in this way : As the unimproved value of the land, apart altogether from the variousestates in it, is to the unimproved value of the leasehold, so is the tax on the land to the deduction to be made. That seems to be the effect of the provision.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And after a man has gone to the trouble of making up his assessment and arriving at the value, he has no tax to pay.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am not quite sure, but that seems to be the case. If that will be the effect, then there is no use for this machinery. As I said before, we ought to hold the land liable, and make some provision to prevent the shifting of the burden on to the man who ought not to bear it. It is possible that the draftsman may have thought that where the lessee’s interest has a sale value owing to the fact that he pays a rental which represents, say, 3 per cent, on the capital value of the land, the difference of 1½ per cent, is either made a present to him or in some other way is got at.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– -The unimproved value must be calculated on the same basis in each case.

Mr GLYNN:

– So far as the lessee fs concerned, his value is calculated on what is found to be the average return, or 4J per cent. When it is ascertained, he may deduct the tax on that. In some cases, however, the lessee will not be paying 4½ per cent. ; he may be paying only 4 per cent., so that, as a matter of fact, he will have a sale value represented by½ per cent. That is touched as regards leases before the Act by section 28, but not in case of leases after the Act. It may be that the Department thinks that the landlord has to pay ; but has he to do so? The value upon which he pays is the unimproved value of the land, which is ascertained on its sale value under the definition clause. But that is not on the basis of a 4½ per cent, return. He is taxed on that, and the theory may be that he pays the whole of that amount, which may be a higher rate than would be got at if a bigger tax were imposed upon the lessee. Therefore, we are not to take into account any difference between 4½ per cent, and any lesser rent that may be paid by the lessee. I confess that I am not quite sure what is aimed at. At the same time, I do not say that this matter may not be made clear to us. I hope that when we go into Committee we shall have the matter cleared up, and the true significance of the clauses explained. As regards lessees before the date of the Act, there seems to be no material alteration made by this Bill. Section 28 of the Act deals with leases created before the commencement of the Act. The principle followed is that the owner of the land is regarded as the owner of the fee-simple, and that he has the right to make a deduction in proportion to the amount of the tax that ought to be paid by any lessee. But the lessee’s interest is calculated, not as it will be and is under section 27 as to leases after the Act, but as on the capitalized value at 4½ per cent, of the difference between a 4½ per cent, rental and the rental he actually pays. I believe that the principle is untouched, except that we declare now by law what has been adopted by administration - that the test of value is to be a 4½ per cent, return. I do not wish to say anything more on this clause, but when we go into Committee I hope that any mistake made in interpretation will be removed. Clause 6 deals with annuities. I understand that the idea is that, under section 34 of the Act as it stands, an annuitant may also be the joint holder of the land. He may own it as well as have an annuity charge upon it, and under the interpretation of the Act two deductions have been claimed. It is now provided that where a deduction is made in respect of the annuity, and the annuitant happens to be the owner, for land tax purposes only one deduction is to be made, and that the larger of the two. That seems to be fair. I come to another rather technical provision; - clause 7 - which deals with the question of an equitable tenant for life under section 25 of the Act. The principle of the Act being the encouragement of subdivision, it was thought that, if a man had no power to sell under a settlement, it would be unfair to assess the value of the fee-simple at a higher rental than was actually returned by the land. The legal tenant for life was allowed the privilege of having his assessment based upon the rental he was actually getting, or that which, if he let the property, he ought to get. It was said that that provision ought not to apply to an equitable tenant for life. I suppose it was thought that, if an equitable tenant for life obtained the same privilege, there would be two deductions.

Mr Hughes:

– No. If a man is a legal tenant for life, without power to sell, his position is different from that of an equitable tenant. He may not dispose of his interest. In such a case, he is entitled to the. provisions of the section.

Mr GLYNN:

– Section 35 ?

Mr Hughes:

– Yes.

Mr GLYNN:

– That section provides that-

Subject to this Act, the owner of any equitable estate or interest in any land shall be assessed. . . . as if he were the legal owner of the estate or interest.

That seems to introduce a doubt. I think that section 25, as it originally stood, did not contain the word “ legal.” It was amended in 1911, and it may be that that amendment has cast a doubt upon the interpretation of section 35. So far as I can see at present, the amendment is a proper one to make. The amendment of the principal Act, for which clause 8 provides, is intended, I understand, to deal with the case of persons who are entitled under a settlement, and who, by reason of that part of the Act dealing with joint tenants, are entitled to make a deduction in relation to their interests if the settlement were made prior to June, 1910. Under section 28 they are entitled to certain deductions.The trustee may make deductions in relation to the members of the family of the testator or the settlor amongst whom the beneficial interest is divided. That deduction is to be£5,000 inrespect of eachof the capital value of their shares, whichever is the. greater amount. It is said that these persons might also have an interest as joint owners in another property not affected by the settlement, and that under the decision of the High Court in the Isles case-

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is this not intended to overrule the decision in that case ?

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes. I have not had an opportunity to look into that case recently, the parliamentary copy of thereports not being available. The question to be considered is what was intended by the Act originally, and what is fair. It would be as well, perhaps, toallowthe consideration of that matter to stand over until we go into Committee. Clause 9 appears to be a fair provision. Under a reading ofthe Act as it stands, it is possible for a person to get more than one deduction, when he derives the same interest from several titles. It is now provided by this Bill that, whether an interest is derived from one or several sources, only one deduction shall be made. I shall pass over clause 10. At present there is no means of recovering the tax from an absentee who is a shareholder ina company. It is proper to assume that he has, to the extent of his interest, appointed that company as his local agent, and that the extent of the tax payable by him should, therefore, be recoverable from the company. Clause11, according to the Prime Minister, is aimed at a case which may be briefly stated; A man owns land under a title in his own name. He occupies that land, and also land that may be in the name of, perhaps, his secretary, his wife, or one of his children, or in the name of each of them. In other words, he may occupy under several titles, only one of which is his own, and work the whole property permanently. This clause declares that we must assume that he is the real owner of the lot, and that he has simply adopted such an arrangement in order to evade his obligations under the Act. I am sorry that we have to put in the machinery of the Act itself these special provisions, which appear to me to deal only with a few individual cases. The provision seems a dangerous one. We have to take the word or the judgment of the Department in every case as to this provision being required to cover the merits of a particular case about which we know verylittle. If the legislation is justifiable, this clause supposes that, under the Act as if stands, thereisgeneral evasion by landowners,whoarrange with the members of their families to hold land underseveral titles, the owners retaining only a part in their own names but working the whole under an agreement. Further, it is supposed that this goes on permanently. If it is a common occurrence, the legislation is justified, but not otherwise. There are other provisions in the Act which aim at evasions of this class, and confusion may arise. Section 42 of the Act provides-

Notwithstanding any conveyance, transfer, declaration of trust, settlement,or other disposition of land, whether made before or after the commencement of the Act, the person making the same shall, so long as he remains or is in possession or in receipt of the rents and profits of the land, whether on his own account or on account of any other person, be deemed (though not to the exclusion of any other person) to be the owner of the land.

That aims at the case of a man who subdivides his land under separate titles amongst persons who are really dummies ; and that is the same kind of case that is aimed at by clause11 in the Bill. I am afraid that under that clause the Department may deal, not with cases of subdivision and transfers after the date of the Act, but with cases in which the subdivision may have taken place ten or twenty years ago.

Mr Hughes:

– In ninety cases out of a hundred the liability will be nothing.

Mr GLYNN:

– I regard it as dangerous to have particular provisions for particular cases.

Mr Hughes:

– Where everything is bona fide, I do not think there will be one case in a thousand.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am not sure that the definition of joint owners is perfectly clear, and many cases of dispute have arisen. “ Joint owners “ in the Act means persons who own land jointly or in common, whether as partners or otherwise. In New Zealand, under a similarly-worded provision, it was decided that the test of joint tenancy was the ownership of the land, and not the partnership of the profits. When that question arose in New Zealand, the Act was altered so as to define “ joint owners “ as including those who were partners in the profits of the land, although they might not be partners in the land itself. What is doubtful in the Bill as it stands is in relation to partners who own the land in severalty but work it jointly - who may be partners in the profits, but not necessarily partners in the land. If they are not partners in the land, are they regarded by the definition as joint owners, and, as such, liable to the rate of tax determined by the aggregation of their holdings? That is a point which has arisen under the Act, and which ought to be made clear.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Roberts) adjourned

page 7379

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ROBERTS:
Honorary Minister · Adelaide · ALP

– I desire to lay on the table a further report - No. 3 - by the New :South Wales Electoral Commissioners on the redistribution of the New South Wales electoral divisions, together with the maps. I move -

That the consideration of the report be an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is there any reason why we should not consider and decide this matter to-night?

Mr Hughes:

– We shall consider the Commissioners’ report as soon as the Land Tax Assessment Bill and the Estimates are out of the way.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I suggest the desirability of disposing of the business of the electoral divisions at once. The Land Tax Assessment Bill is a technical and complicated measure, and it would not be fair to the House or to the Commissioner of Taxes if its consideration -were hurried. If it is postponed for a time it will enable honorable members to discuss points of importance relating to it, and in regard to which I have received telegrams that I now have pleasure in handing to the Attorney-General. There are no doubt cases of hardship under the Bill as it stands, and a little delay might really lead to a more easy solution of the difficulties.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– This Bill was introduced, primarily, at the instance of the honorable member for Kooyong; indeed, it would not have been introduced at all had not that honorable member waited on the Prime Minister and myself to ask that it -should be.

Sir Robert Best:

– I waited on the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General with a deputation.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the honorable member does not wish the Bill to pass let him say so.

Sir Robert Best:

– I am not saying anything about it.

Mr HUGHES:

– Nothing would be simpler than to put it under the table, but it would be very much to be regretted if the speech of the honorable member for Angas had to be thrown away. No doubt, as honorable members say, the Bill is an important one, affecting certain important rights and interests. It was brought in to remove certain anomalous and unjust provisions in the Act. That being so, not a moment should be lost in putting these people right. It is proposed to deal with this Bill first, then conclude the consideration of the Estimates, and then deal with the redistribution scheme.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– It is quite true that I introduced a deputation consisting of a representative of the Melbourne Land Tax Committee, who pointed out to the Attorney-General and Prime Minister certain anomalies in connexion with the land tax. Those anomalies were so obvious, and created such unnecessary hardship, that the Prime Minister and Attorney-General at once admitted-

Mr Hughes:

– I did nothing of the sort, and I do not admit it now.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Well, the Prime Minister admitted that they should be remedied.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The question before the Chair is whether the consideration of the report of the Electoral Commissioners shall be set down for tomorrow.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member for Kooyong will do me the justice to say that I opposed his contention at every step.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– This matter is of no personal moment to me one way or the other. It is purely a question of doing, justice to a section of the community.

Mr Hughes:

– I take exception to the honorable member saying that the anomalies are obvious. They are not obvious, because no one opposite, except the honorable- member himself, has seen them.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I am anxious to facilitate the business in every way, and I shall be very glad to fall in with any arrangement to that end.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Attorney-General has, I think, misunderstood the purport of the statement that was, made. There is no desire to interfere with the progress of the Land Tax Assessment Bill; all that is suggested is that, in view of the little time remaining, and the urgency of the redistribution scheme, it should be taken into consideration immediately the Land Tax Assessment

Bill is out of the way, and before the consideration of the Estimates is resumed. I think the Attorney-General would find that such an arrangement would facilitate business. If the scheme now submitted by the Electoral Commissioners is rejected, there ought to be sufficient time allowed for another to be submitted. If, on the other hand, there is no objection to the redistribution, it can be got out of the way forthwith. But it is of the utmost importance that that scheme should be dealt with without delay.

Question - That the report be taken into consideration to-morrow - put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 15

Majority … … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- May I intervene for a moment? So far as I can gather, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the vote which has just been taken. It had but one motive, and that a sound motive. Now that the scheme for the redistribution of New South Wales into electoral divisions has arrived, we are all anxious that it should be dealt with before the Appropriation Bill finally leaves this House.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Govern ment intend bonâ fide to deal with the redistribution scheme. But I think that the Appropriation Bill should first go to the Senate, so that that branch of the Legislature may have time to deal with it. There will be no attempt on the part of the Government to shirk their duty in regard to the scheme for the redistribution of New South Wales into fresh electoral divisions.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nobody suggested that for a moment.

Mr FISHER:

– But the Appropriation Bill must take precedence. The Senate cannot deal with the Estimates until it has received that Bill. After the Appropriation Bill has been got out of the way, the redistribution scheme will be considered.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We cannot do that. I am very sorry to have to say so.

page 7380

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide 7379).

Mr HUGHES:
Attor ney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I shall not detain the House at very great length in discussing this Bill. It is a measure which is designed to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act, and it has been brought forward to remedy the law in certain directions, which experience has shown to be necessary. It will be better to deal with the particular proposals in Committee rather than to attempt to discuss them - no matter how briefly - at this stage. But the honorable member for Angas made one or two observations to which I must reply. I heartily indorse his broad and sweeping statement as to the necessity for making laws of this character so clear that they can be understood by the people. But I venture to say that the Acts passed by this Parliament are the most lucid pieces of legislation to be found anywhere in the British Empire.

Mr Glynn:

– I say the same thing. The confusion which has arisen under our Land Tax Assessment Act is due to the complexity of the subject.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member spoke of an Act passed by the South Australian Parliamentsome twenty-five or thirty years ago, which he said had scarcely been amended since. He declared that it was easily understood, and he expressed regret that our Act had not been drafted upon equally simple lines. But the position of the two cases is quite dissimilar. Our Act provides for the imposition of a progressive land tax. It has a different object in view from the South Australian Act,. and the method of achieving that object is necessarily entirely different. The very nature of progressive land taxation creates all these difficulties. If we were applying the tax evenly to all land, irrespective of the nature of its tenure and its extent, irrespective of anything but its value, we should have the basis for a simple law, and one which could be easily understood. But in this instance we have to apply the principle of land value taxation to circumstances in which there are so many exceptions that, naturally, a great deal of complication is inevitable. Subject to that, our Land Tax Assessment Act is a very model of clear and concise English. It reflects very great credit on our Parliamentary Draftsman. The honorable member for Angas is of opinion that the proposed amendment of the law in relation to value and the value of improvements is unnecessary. I interjected that while he was speaking that it is declaratory. I agree with him that, as it stands, the section in the Act is sufficient. At the same time, there is room for ambiguity, and it is because of that that we propose to make its meaning quite clear by inserting the proviso which is contained in clause 2 of this Bill. Otherwise the section is capable of the interpretation which has been put upon it by some taxpayers, namely, that they are entitled to deduct as the value of their improvements value which is really inseparable from the unimproved value, and to deduct the value of improvements irrespective of their cost, and irrespective of the difference between the unimproved value of their land and its capital value. This proviso will limit the amount to be deducted to the sum which may reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value to the improved value of the date of the assessment. But the main principles of the Bill arise out of section 27 of the Land Tax Assessment Act, and the application of section 43 of that Act. Section 27 sets out the liability of a leasehold and freehold owner of land in the case of leases made after the commencement of the Act. Section 43 defines in a precise manner who is to be considered a primary and who is to be considered a secondary taxpayer, and what may be deducted by the secondary taxpayer, and in what circumstances. Under section 27, the position of the leaseholder at the present time is this : He has to pay, not upon the value of his estate, whatever that may be, but upon a value not fixed, but contingent on the position of the lessor, the owner of the freehold estate. It is contended that th.at position is unfair. The lessee ought to he taxed on the value of his estate, whatever that estate may be. Should the value of his estate be to the value of the freehold estate as 1 is to 4, his taxation should be in proportion. At present the extent of his liability depends on a number of things, amongst others, on whether his land is owned by a company covered by section 41. In the latter case, his liability is very much increased. Even if the land is not owned by a company covered by section 41, the lessee may be subjected to a higher rate of taxation that he would be were the lessor a bigger land-owner paying at a higher rale. That is claimed to be inequitable, and opposed to fair principles of taxation. It is now proposed that the lessee of any land under a lease of an agreement made after the passing of the Act of 1910 shall be liable to the extent of his estate, and no more. The calculation of this liability is exactly defined. As the honorable member for Angas has explained, it is on the basis of a 4J per cent, valuation. The tax paid’ by the leaseholder is as the proportion of the value of his estate in the land is to the total unimproved value of the land; the value of the lease being calculated upon the capitalized value of the unexpired portion at 4^ per cent, per annum. For instance, a man who has a lease for five years of land the total unimproved value of which is £20,000 is to be deemed to have an estate worth, say, one-fourth of £20,000, and will be taxed on that basis. At present the position is very different. If “A” leases land from “B,” the effect may be to raise “ A’s “ rate of tax from 3d. to 3½d. or 4jd., everything depending on the position of “ B.” This is neither equity nor common sense, and we are remedying it by the Bill.

New section 28 is in harmony with the amendment made by new section 27, but it deals with leases made before the passing of the Act. Under it at present the liability is confined to the estate, whatever that may be; but the calculation of the value of the estate is now based upon the same principles as those applied by new section 27.

Mr Glynn:

– I hope that that is so.

Mr HUGHES:

– Ithink that it is. Sub-section 4 of proposed new section 27 says -

The unimproved value of a leasehold estate means the present value of the annual value of the land calculated for the unexpired period of the lease at 4½ per centum, according to calculations based on the prescribed tables for the calculation of values.

The similar provision in section 28 will read -

The unimproved value of a lease or leasehold estate in land means the value of the amount (if any) by which 4½ per centum of the unimproved value of land exceeds the annual rent reserved by the lease, calculated for the unexpired period of the lease at 4½ per centum, according to the calculations based on the prescribed tables for the calculation of values.

Mr Glynn:

– Is not one based on goodwill and the other on rental ?

Mr HUGHES:

– Under the proposed new section 27, the tax will be in proportion to the value of the lessee’s estate to the value of the total freehold estate, calculated on the basis of 4½ per cent. Under section 28, as proposed to be amended, the unimproved value of a lease will mean the amount by which the capitalized value of the lease upon a 4½ per cent. basis exceeds the annual rental. A lessee may be paying a smaller rent than the economic rent. If he pays a lower rent he is taxed on the capitalized difference. The principle followed in section 28 as proposed to be a mended is the principle now in the Act, whereas proposed new section 27 departs from the principle of the Act; but the method followed in ascertaining the value of the leasehold estate is the same in each case, the basis being 4½ per cent. We deliberately made a distinction between leases granted before the passing of the Act and leases granted after the passing of the Act. In regard to the latter, we make it clear that the lessee is to be taxed only on the value of his estate, and in regard to the former we are concerned only in ascertaining the value of the lessee’s interest, and whether he is paying a fair return to the lessor. If the lessee pays a smaller return to the lessor than he should pay, his tax is proportionately heavier. For instance, if the economic rent of land is £20, and the lessee pays £16, the lessee is taxed on the difference in respect to it.

Coming now to another matter, it was decided by the High Court, in the case of Isles v. The Commissioner ofLand Tax, that the double deduction provided for in section 38, sub-section 7, applies to all joint owners. The provision reads -

Where under a settlement made before the 1st day of July, 1910, or under the will of a testator who died before that day, the beneficial interest in any land or in the income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act, then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds, as provided by paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of section 11 of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each original share in the land under the settlement or will,

The sum of Five thousand pounds, or

The sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

It was not intended that the double deduction should apply to any but the persons mentioned in that provision, and the Bill, therefore, proposes to expressly limit it to them. Joint owners of lands partly held by beneficiaries under a will or settlement made before 1st July, 19 10, will be entitled to one deduction only, under sub-section 3 of section 38, and new sub-section 2, which is to be inserted in place of the present subsection 2. That is to say, that where land is held jointly by persons, some of whom are beneficiaries and others not, the latter are entitled to one deduction.

The other provisions of the Bill, although important enough, can be best dealt with in Committee. The main object of the measure is to relieve those who are lessees of land, or who may hereafter become lessees, of the contingent and uncertain liability which now attaches to the leasing of land. When the measure has become law, every man who leases land, and thereby incurs liability for taxation or additional taxation, will be taxed only to the extent of the estate that he possesses. At present that is not so. He is frequently taxed at a very muchhigher rate. He is frequently taxed exclusively, and the freeholder does not pay any tax at all. That occurs under section 41. If the lessor is not a taxpayer - that is to say, if he does not own land the unimproved value of which exceeds£5,000 - or if he is a taxpayer in respect of property the unimproved value of which does not exceed £10,000, he has to pay at the rate of1d. or a fraction over. If a man owned land of the unimproved value of over £50,000, however, his taxation would be raised from 4½d. to perhaps 6$d. While the Treasury benefits by this, it is scarcely equitable. It. . is, therefore, proposed to relieve the taxpayers in this direction.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– As mentioned by the Attorney-General, I introduced to the Prime Minister and himself - the Commissioner of Land Tax also being present - ra representative of business men who had suffered by the unfair operation of this Act, and wished to show how section 27 more particularly had acted unfairly to them, and affected leaseholders in a manner which the Government themselves, and certainly Parliament, had never intended. Section 27, in its present form, really penalizes the mere occupation, quite apart from the ownership, of land. It introduces the principle that the owner of a leasehold estate in land shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, to be the owner of the fee-simple. It is true that, under the present law, the lessee is entitled to deduct from any tax paid by him the tax which would be payable by the landlord in respect of the land occupied. But it happens that, in many cases, no tax whatever is payable by the landlord. The section works thus inequitably, the leaseholder, in such circumstances, having to undertake the whole liability of the tax. That would occur, for instance, in the case of a lease from a building society and other institutions which, under section 1.3, are exempt from, taxation. It would also occur where the landlord’s holding did not exceed £5,000 of unimproved value. The leaseholder is therefore placed in an extraordinary position. He.never knows exactly what his liability will be. A leaseholder, for instance, taking a lease from a wealthy land-owner would be relieved very often of the whole, or a substantial portion, of the tax, but if that wealthy landlord chanced to sell to a man who did not own land of the unimproved value of £5,000, or to any of the institutions exempted under sections 13 and 41, then the whole incidence of the tax would change, so far as the leaseholder was concerned. Instead of having to pay practically nothing by way of land taxation, he would have to undertake the whole burden so far as his leasehold was concerned. The section even goes further than that In certain cases, a man who did not own a foot -of land in Australia might be a heavy, land tax payer, and be called upon to bear the burden of the taxation of the land held by others. Take the case of a man. whose investments consist of debentures or other personal assets, or of a mart, we will say, in a large way of business, but owning no land, and who pays no land tax. He takes business premises, the unimproved value of which is under £5,000, and he also rents a residence in the suburbs. ‘ Unless the landlords of those properties were taxpayers - and in many cases they would not be - the effect would be that, although he did not own a foot of land in Australia, he would have to bear the full burden of taxation on the two properties, by reason only of his mere occupation of them for business and residential purposes, provided, of course, that the aggregate unimproved value exceeded £5,000. If he found it necessary, also, in connexion with his business, to lease a factory, his taxation would be proportionately increased. It was never intended that the Act should operate in that way. The AttorneyGeneral, in introducing the original Bill in September, 1 9 10, said -

The principle of the clause is that every man shall pay in accordance with his interest in the land which is taxed. … In all cases the liability of a lessee can be determined by taking the difference between the full annual value and the rental paid by him, and multiplying it by 20 or 25, as the case may be, and giving the lessee the benefit of the deduction.

But, as finally passed, the law does not operate in that way. The Act is very complicated, and perhaps legislation in connexion with land taxation is necessarily so. The general idea of the Act was that a landlord should at least be obliged to contribute, and the leaseholder be correspondingly relieved from taxation. A number of cases have come under my notice professionally. There is one of which I have the particulars at hand. It is that of Taxpayers C 1-49 -

The taxpayers own a property in Sydney, and their tax was ^25 os. 4d. In 191 1 they leased premises in’ Melbourne on which the owners paid ^135 3s. 10d. Now, owing tn the inclusion of the land leased in Melbourne, their tax is increased to £52 3s. 2d. It will be seen that the owners of the Melbourne land are large taxpayers, and have paid ^135 3s. rod., and yet the tenant is now taxed £27 as. 10d. more.

There we have the case of a landlord who is actually paying in respect of a particular property a very large sum, and yet, by reason* .of the particular holdings of that -landlord, the tenants had to pay an -additional sum of £27 2s. rod., which, of course, was added to their rental. That . is , only, typical of a number of cases. Business men tell me that, in some instances, the section so operates in thisway as to penalize them to the extentof some hundreds of pounds. When a man enters into a lease his land tax liability may be of a nominal character, yet after a portion of the term of the lease has expired by reason of his landlord’s dealings with the land and throughno fault of the tenant, his liability has increased in some cases by hundreds of pounds. In connexion with section 27, there has occurred this extraordinary anomaly which, with others, I have brought under the notice of the Prime Minister.

Mr.West.-We cannot help land increasing in value.

SirROBERT BEST. - When a man enters into a lease he should know exactly what his liability is.I have already pointed put that under the Act as it stands , a man may take a leasefrom a wealthy owner, and that in that case he may be liable, perhaps, to a nominal amount of land taxation. If, however, the owner sells to abuilding or life assurance societyand both of those institutions are exemptortoan owner the total unimprovedvalue of whose property does not exceed£5,000, then the burden of the liability is transferred to the leaseholder.If that leaseholder happens to beafairly wealthy man, or a company, the transactionmay mean to him a difference, some hundreds of pounds becauseoftheprogressive nature of the company.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is treated as the freeholder?

Sir.ROBERTBEST. - Yes, under section2 7he issotreated. That is a most anomalousstaterof affairs. Then, again, if the man who had given the lease happened to die, and his property were distributed, the effect of that distribution would be that the various beneficiaries under thewillwould be entitled to their exemption, whereas the leaseholder would have probably to undertake the whole burden, of the taxation, although, when he. entered, into the lease, he was liable for only a small sum. In the circumstances, therefore, a leaseholder never knows where he is. At any time, throughno fault of his own, he may have to shoulderaresponsibility for which he never bargained. I was requested by the representatives of business men to introduce these mattersto the notice of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. I did so, and the Prime Minister at once recognised the anomaly and the inequitable operation of this particular provision. I drew the Prime -Minister’s attention to another instance which came under my notice professionally, and which appears to me to be an obvious oversight in section 27, which imposes on a leaseholder the liability of a freeholder. That section provides -

  1. Notwithstanding anything in this section, where the owner of the fee simple of the land is exempt under section thirteen of this Act from taxation in respect of the land, a lessee of the land shall be assessed and liable for land tax as if the lease were made before the commencement of this Act and not otherwise.

Section 13 exempts building societies, places of worship, charitable institutions, public libraries, fire brigade stations, and so forth, but it omits, by an oversight, subsection 3 of section 27, and omits to mention section 41, which exempts mutual life assurance societies.

Mr Livingston:

– No wonder the honorable member for Angas said that the law ought to be simplified.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– No doubt, land taxation is a most complicated question, but, as I read the Bill, it carries out what was suggested, inasmuch as it relieves the leaseholder by making him liable only so far as the estate and interest created by his lease is concerned. Supposing that a lease has three years to run, the unimproved value is capitalized at 4½ per cent., and on that the leaseholder has to pay. whereas under the Act he was liable to pay on the whole unimproved value of the land. That, I think, is a very substantial concession, relieving the leaseholder, as it does, from a burden of which he never dreamt or contemplated when he entered into the lease.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
Balaclava

– It seems to me that there are anomalies in connexion with leaseholds that require to be remedied. If a manufacturer with freehold premises in Melbourne, finds it necessary to lease premises in any of the other States or cities, for the purpose of extending his business, he is called upon to pay the tax just as if he were the owner ofthe freehold of the leasehold premises. The Government ought to be getting the tax from the freeholder, and not from the leaseholder ; and the present arrangement simply amounts to a cumulative tax, without any benefit to the general public. A liability of this kind does not encourage people to invest their money, and we all admit that the more factories are established the better it is for the workpeople and the country generally. Then, again, it seems unfair that the owner of freehold property should have to pay land tax simply because he holds shares in a company that owns land, the company, as a company, being already taxed. Another amendment might well have been introduced to deal with the case of absentees. There is no doubt that this tax on absentees has done a great deal of harm abroad, especially in the Mother Country. I have always contended that we should tax the unimproved value of land in the name of the owner, and that shareholders ought not to be called upon to pay an additional tax. In many cases, if the property of a company were distributed amongst the shareholders, they would not be liable to any tax; in other words, shareholders, in the aggregate, are called upon to pay a tax for which they would not be liable as private individuals. I am informed that the revenue from the absentee tax does not amount to more than £40,000 a year. I admit that some years ago I had an idea that absentee owners ought to be called upon to bear a share of the cost of carrying on the business of the country; but, as a matter of fact, this tax has caused a withdrawal of more capital than the small amount of revenue is worth.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Does the honorable member say that absentees should be allowed to go scot free ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– No; they should be taxed through the company, treated as an individual. This is an irritating tax that has caused, as I say, the withdrawal of large sums, and it is scarcely worth collecting in the circumstances. When I was in practice in Victoria, a large amount of English capital, left with my firm for investment,and £2,000,000 left with two other firms of solicitors, were withdrawn because of the absentee tax. There is no doubt that the more money we haw in this country for investment the lower the rates of interest are ; and the sum of £2,000,000 would be very useful just now in Victoria, and in the Commonwealth as a whole. The rates of interest have so increased that it is almost impossible for even Governments to borrow at the rates prevailing a few years ago. At one time we could borrow at 3½ per cent., but now we can scarcely get money at 4 per cent. ; and, though I nave not gone into the figures, I should say that½ per cent, represents more than £100,000 per annum.

That is a heavy tax to be placed on the people simply because we get small ideas into our minds, and have a stupid desire to “ peg “ somebody. The country would be much better off if this absentee tax were removed. The original Act was difficult enough to understand, but we are told by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General that even they do not comprehend the meaning of the amendments now introduced. The position of the layman may be imagined ; indeed, I do not believe there is a single lawyer in the House that really grasps the meaning of the amendments proposed in the Bill. What we require is a consolidated Act that people can read as they run. One of the best Acts ever introduced in this country was the Sale of Goods Act, copied from an English code measure. That Act could be read, each line of it, like a book ; and the same may be said of our own Customs Act. When we have a Land Taxation Act, let it be made as simple as possible. The Federal and the State Land Tax Acts should be exactly similar; and at present there is great divergence between them. On my own property I, one week, had the Federal Land Tax Valuer, and, the next week, the State Land Tax Valuer; and each took a different point of view and taxed on different lines.

Mr Tudor:

– What does the honorable member suggest - a separate Federal law for each State?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– I should like the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments to come into line on this legislation.

Mr Tudor:

– There are six separate State Acts now.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– I suggest that the whole of the work should be done by the Commonwealth with one Land Tax Commissioner and one set of assessors.

Mr Tudor:

– Hear, hear.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– The Federal tax and the State land tax might be collected together in each State, and the State’s proportion paid back in the same way as we pay the 25s. per head of Customs and Excise revenue. The saving in the cost of collection would be very considerable, not less, I should imagine, than between £50,000 and £60,000 a year.

Mr Spence:

– It ought to be possible to make such an arrangement mutually.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– It can only be proposed by the Commonwealth Government, who possess all the necessary machinery; which, Iunderstand, is now running quite smoothly. I have not met the Commissioner of Taxes, but I hear on all hands that he is trying to administer the Act fairly, and with as little hardship as possible. The States proceed on different lines, and if we can only secure uniformity in their procedure and that of the Commonwealth, the expenditure incurred will be considerably lessened, while the public will gain by knowing exactly what they have to pay, and exactly what they have to do. No two States assess land-owners upon the same lines. If uniformity in this matter can be attained, it will save the services of an army of assessors, and, in addition, will obviate a great deal of friction. There is not the slightest reason why our Land Tax Department should not be run on exactly the same lines as our Customs Department. By that I mean that it should be run for the benefit of the whole Commonwealth. Probably a conference with the State Premiers would result in a. working arrangement being arrived at under which matters would be greatly simplified for the taxpayers. There is too much complication under all these Acts, and greater complexity arises by reason of the number of them. When we come to deal with the unimproved value of the land under this Bill, I foresee that great difficulties will arise. Take, for example, the case of a man who owns swamp land, which is worth, perhaps, only £2 per acre. If he drains that land, he may increase its value to £20 per acre. Yet itmay take him ten years to bring it up to that value. All that he will be credited with under this Bill is the actual amount which he spends in improvements. But if his land has to lie fallow for two or three years, and then has to be re-ploughed and sown down, probably ten years will elapse before it becomes valuable. At the present time, I am endeavouring to deal with some flooded land, the ploughing and re-ploughing of which is costing me £2 per acre. By the time it is fit for cultivation: it will have cost me £4 per acre. I am obliged to lose the use of the land, probably, for four years, intereston themoney which I am spending upon it, aswell as the interest on its unimproved value, in, order to bring it under cultivation. I am increasing the production of that land for the benefit of myself andthewhole of Australia. But, under this Bill, I should receive no allowance for the timeIam losing-Ishallbecredited only with the barecostofthe improvements.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member will be allowed the added value.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– I shall be obliged to pay on the added value, but I will not be credited with the added value. The only amount which a land-owner is allowed to deduct under the State land tax is the bare cost of his improvements. I do not think that this Bill will improve the position one iota. As a matter of fact, it will reduce the amount which has hitherto been credited to a land-owner. Instead of restricting the value of the improvements which a land-owner is allowed to deduct, we ought to increase it, in order to encourage persons to improve their property and to spend money in wages and otherwise.

Mr Kelly:

– It ought to be a tax on increment, and not on labour.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– Exactly. More trouble is experienced in connexion with unimproved values than is experienced in connexion with anything else. The simpler we can make those values, the better it will be for the community as a whole. In regard to the proposal to tax the interests of shareholders in companies, I merely wish to say that the amount which will thus be recovered will not pay for the cost of assessment and collection. I have a few shares in a building society, and some six months ago I received notice from the Land Tax Commissioner, asking why I had not included them in my return. My reply was that I understood that building societies were not taxed under the Act. The statement of . the Department was that I was quite correct, but that the company in which I was interested might have held some foreclosed properties, and, if so, I would have been liable for taxation in respect of my interest in them. That little incident evidences the trouble which the Department must experience in endeavouring to give effect to this proposal. I say that a company ought to be taxed on the property which it holds, because there are hundreds of shareholders in companies who ought not to be taxed at all. Indirectly they are taxed through the company in which they are shareholders. But they will not be encouraged to invest money in companies when theyfind that by so doing they will be increasing their burden of taxation. I know of many cases in which money has been sent to Canada for investment, because the shareholders in companies are not taxed there. We want to keep in Australia every shilling that is earned in the Commonwealth. I venture to say that, in practice, this proposal will not return sufficient revenue to pay the cost of assessment and collection. The honorable member for Angas, who is one of the closest students of Bills in this House, has confessed that he has experienced great difficulty in understanding this measure. I think that the Department might have had a memorandum prepared setting out exactly what is intended by this Bill. The memorandum which was laid on thetable of the House does not tell us how matters stand It would have simplified things very much if the Attorney-General had obtained from the Land Tax Commissioner an explanation of how these proposals will affect the principal Act. Honorable members would then have known exactly what was intended, and whether the Bill would increase or decrease taxation. I have never seen a Bill brought forward to decrease taxation. But I do say that we should make all our measures as simple as possible. Let us have them in such a form that they can be readily understood. I believe that, by the exercise of a little tact, the States might be brought into line with the Commonwealth, and a working arrangement arrived at under which the Commonwealth could collect their land taxation in conjunction with its own, and return to them their proportion of it.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– If the honorable member for Balaclava understands the purport of this Bill, I do not, and if I understand it, he does not. I admit that its provisions are rather complex, but certainly the honorable member’s conclusions do not. accord with my own. He spoke of the added value, and said that he failed to see why the full value of the improvements were not allowed. Personally, I hail with considerable pleasure the fact that something has been done to simplify the meaning of the terms “ unimproved value “ and “ added value.” As one who represents a big farming constituency, I recognise that there has been no end of trouble experienced by many persons in endeavouring to determine the meaning of these terms. A great many land-holders have proceeded on the assumption that, because certain improvements had cost them £1,000, they were entitled to deduct that amount from the total value of their land. The honorable member for Balaclava considers that that is only fair. Let me point out to him the absurdity of the position. Take the case of a little wayside place in the country, where a man owns half-an-acre of relatively poor land. Of course, all values are relative, but if we can arrive at the relative value of any land, we shall not experience much trouble in arriving at its improved value. Suppose that this individual erected upon that half -acre of land buildings worth £10,000. The land itself might not be worth £50, but, according to the honorable member for Balaclava, that man should be at liberty to deduct from its value the total value of his improvements.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– I did not say a word about buildings ; I spoke about improving the carrying capacity and value of the land.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member say that the value of a building put upon land should not be deducted ?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The value of a building such as I speak of, put upon land in a remote situation, would not be equal to the value of a similar building at Toorak.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The value of the building would be the same in each case.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– A building is not worth as much if erected in some place remote from railways and the conveniences of a city as if erected in a suburb like Toorak.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– If a man did what the honorable member describes he would be fit for a lunatic asylum.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have met with what might be called mansions in way-back places. The value of a building is to be assessed by the use to which it can be put. It is not a matter of cost.

Mr Sampson:

– Under the Act as it stands, the value of a building such as the honorable member has described would not come under the heading of added value, which was what the honorable member for Balaclava was speaking of. He was not referring to mere useless expenditure.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Without the proposed definition, there will be the risk that the allowance may not be sufficient in one case and too much in another. The honorable member for Kooyong threw more light on the subject than any one else who has spoken. My contention is that the added value of property is that which is placed on it by any one who, wishing to use it, brings unimproved land up to the value of improved land in any particular locality; it is what is added in raising land from its unimproved value to the improved value of other land in the vicinity - that is, the prevailing value of land in the locality. A reasonable and simple way of determining unimproved value is to imagine the land in its unimproved state, and to ask what it would cost to raise it ‘to the value of improved land in the locality.

Mr Sampson:

– A block of land may be worth ten times as much as the adjoining block.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– There are such extreme cases ; but, generally speaking, the value of land is relative. By deducting from the total capital value of land in any particular locality the added value, you will get the unimproved value. Take a locality where some of the land is improved and some is unimproved. One man may, by spending 30s. an acre, improve land to the extent of giving it an added value of. say, £2 an acre, and another man may give it that added value only by an expenditure of £3 an acre. If you allowed for the actual expenditure in each case, the position would be absurd. What you have to arrive at is a reasonable estimate of - what it would cost to raise land from its unimproved state to the improved state of other land in the locality.

Mr Livingston:

– The word “ reasonable “ would require interpretation.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– What the improved land in any locality is .worth is a question that can be settled by a business man like my honorable friend, who understands values.

Mr Livingston:

– Value is a hard thing to determine. It goes up and down with the seasons sometimes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– It can be determined ; otherwise land would never change hands. Buyers are able to take into account the value of improvements and of conveniences, such as nearness to a railway station, and situation generally. The last speaker appears to be opposed to absentee taxation, but no part .of the Act pleases me better than that which says that landholders who do not think it worth while to live in the country, and draw huge rents from their land, must contribute something more for the defence of their property against the invasion of a foreign foe than those who live here. Absentees, if it came . to fighting, would not be here to take part in the defence of their land, and, therefore, they can fairly be asked to contribute more to provide for its defence than is asked of residents within the Commonwealth. I do not think that the honorable member is really very desirous of the abolition or the substantial reduction of the absentee tax. We are indebted to the honorable member for Kooyong for the light that he has thrown on the leasing question. The honorable member who last spoke said that if a man having a business in Melbourne wished to extend it to Sydney,, he should not have an extra burden to bear. My sympathies are always with the leaseholder, and especially the poorer leaseholders. Wealthy leaseholders are always able to obtain the best legal advice, and thus manage to evade taxation which poorer leaseholders have to pay; but, if effect were given to the suggestion of the last speaker, any man who leased land from a; lessor in Sydney or elsewhere who was not a taxpayer, would be exempt from taxation in respect of it, and the revenue would suffer. The lessee should pay something, but he should not be called upon to pay as he has had to pay in the past. The amendment will improve his position, and if honorable members read the Bill closely,, they will find that it is not so complicated as it appears to be. Under the Bill, a lessee will no longer be required to pay taxation as if he were the holder in fee simple. He will be taxed only on the present value of his lease, calculated on the term it has to run. That will be a boon to those who are trying to extend their businesses in the way referred to. The Bill will benefit lessees, especially those of the poorer classes, and land-holders in general. It makes it easier to define “ improved value “” and “ added value.” It should be welcomed, therefore, by all who have the interests of the community at heart, and desirefair and honest taxation.

Mr. W. H. IRVINE (Flinders) [5.44!.. - I agree with the honorable member for Indi that you cannot take the cost of improvements as a fair measure of their value. One man may throw away money, making little improvement by its expenditure, and another, exercising great ingenuity, knowledge, and skill, may largely add to the value of his land by a small expenditure. In neither case should you make the expenditure the measure of the added value. In that respect, the provisions of the Act are quite right. Section 2 of the principal Act defines the meaning of “improved value” and of “ unimproved value.” Both are based upon what might be called the market value of the land. It is comparatively easy to ascertain the improved value of a holding. An experc can usually say, approximately, what is the value of a piece of land, no matter how improved it may be. More difficulty is experienced in determining the unimproved value, but the directions given by the Act are explicit. Valuers are told that they must estimate what the land, in a state of nature - if the improvements upon it did not exist - would fetch in the market. Therefore, both as to the improved and the unimproved value, it seems to me that the only proper direction is given, namely, “ Do not take into account either the wise or foolish expenditure of money; but ask yourselves what, if the land were in a prairie condition, it would sell for at the present day, having regard to the railways and roads about it.” That is the test of the unimproved value. In order to ascertain the improved value, one has to take the estimate of an expert agent or valuer, and the added value is the difference between the two. The Bill, however, proposes to take the cost into account as against the skilful, prudent, diligent, and careful owner, but not to take it into account in his favour. Clause 2 proposes to add to the definition of “ value of improvements “ the words -

Provided that the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

I should like to make clear to the Minister the fact that this will lead to a very gross injustice against those whom we ought to encourage, namely, those who do not merely spend money on their land, but who bring to bear skill in the expenditure of it. One man might increase the value of his land by the amount of money that he spends on his improvements - a little more or a little less. Another man, however, might, by care, skill, energy, and ingenuity in the spending of the same amount of money, double or treble its value. Suppose he does, and then apply your principle for estimating the value of the land. Would it not be fair to that man to apply the principle of the present Act, and to say to him, “ What is the value of your farm?” instead of inquiring how much or how little money has been expended upon it. He should be asked what would be its value if it did not have upon it the existing improvements. The unimproved value should be arrived at in that way. Instead of that, if this part of the Bill be carried, it will, in effect, say to such a man, “ It is quite true that you have improved the prairie value of your holding from £10,000 to £20,000, but, instead of going back for the purpose of taxation to the unimproved value, we are going to mulct you, or fine you, because you have been particularly skilful or successful in the application of your money.” As a matter of fact, the Commissioner should get back as nearly as possible to the unimproved value.

Mr Carr:

– Does the honorable member suggest that by spending £10,000 on a property a man might increase its value to the extent of £20,000 ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A man might improve his estate to the extent of £10,000 by an expenditure of only £5,000. Such cases do occur, and in many cases by an expenditure of £5,000 the value of a piece of land is increased by a good deal more than that amount.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– If what the honorable member suggests were adopted, would we not have different unimproved values in respect of adjoining properties?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The ideal way of ascertaining the unimproved value of a piece of land is, where there is unimproved land in the same district, and a market for it, to ascertain what it would realize if placed in the market. That, however, is not always possible. We have, therefore, only to conjecture what the land would fetch if it were unimproved.

Mr Carr:

– We could not have any fixed principle.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is a fixed principle. The unimproved value has to be arrived at in the best way possible. In the case of city lands, it is easily ascertainable. I dare say that most valuers in Melbourne could say, within a very small percentage, what is the unimproved value of any block of land in Collins-street. They would know, from the various sales of vacant land - or of land, the buildings on which had to be removed - that have taken place, the price per foot which that land would sell at if unimproved. The same remark would apply to farms, although in their case the difficulty is sometimes greater. Let me return, however, to the case of the man who has not merely been expending money on his land, but expending it with great care and thought, and has so increased the selling value of his improved farm.

Why should such a man be taxed in respect of a higher unimproved value?

Mr Carr:

– The measure of his capacity is an uncertain quantity.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I say. that, leaving out of consideration the whole question -of the cost of the improvements-

Mr West:

– In other words, ignore all improvements, and say what is the unimproved value.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– -Ignore the cost of improvements.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– This amending Bill only dennes the added value.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But it says that the added value, in any case, shall not be more than the amount actually spent on improvements, o

Mr Carr:

– But how is the value to be assessed ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Honorable members opposite are assuming that the cost of making the improvements is always equal :to the added value. Those who have had practical experience well know that, in many cases, a prudent, thoughtful man will create added value vastly in excess of the amount actually spent. I say that we ought not to mulct that man - to give a fictitious or higher unimproved value to his land - because he has been successful in the application of his money. I wish now to refer to clause 4. I have devoted much time to an effort to understand it, .but I am not at all sure that I do. I admit the difficulties that exist under the present law, and that it requires amendment for the reason to which the honorable member for Kooyong has referred, namely, that a lessee might have to pay taxation and not get any return where the land itself is exempt, or where the owner is assessed at a lower rate than is the lessee. I doubt very much whether this new provision is at all a useful or workable substitute. It seems to me that, .instead of declaring tha’- a lessee shall be deemed to be the owner of the land primarily entitled to deduct what he -can deduct from it, leaving him sometimes in the lurch because he finds that, in certain cases, he cannot deduct anything, this ^clause says to him, quite properly, “ We are going to tax you in respect of the value -of your interest in the unimproved value.” That seems to be right as far as it goes, provided that lessees are to be taxed at all. But, coming to the point as to deductions, if there is a tax payable by the lessor, and at the same rate at which he claims or pays, 4hen, of course, he ought to be allowed to deduct the whole ; and under this provision he would be allowed to do so. But the difficulty arises where the rates are to be payable by the lessor and lessees. Here it is said that he shall be entitled to deduct from the tax payable by him -

The amount which bears the same proportion to the tax payable in respect of the land by the owner of any freehold estate as the unimproved value of the leasehold estate bears to the unimproved value of the land.

The way in which that provision will work, must depend entirely upon the tax payable by the owner. The owner’s taxation depends entirely upon the value of the land which he holds, independently of the particular piece of land which he has leased. The result, therefore, would be that the amount of the deduction allowed to the lessee will depend upon whether the lessor owns a large area of land, and is, therefore, rateable at 6d.-

Mr Carr:

– The lessee is the sport of circumstance.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It will be independent entirely of his own valuation. Suppose the owner at the time the lease is made is paying taxation at the rate of 6d., and that he enters into a fifteen or sixteen years’ lease, the lessee is always entitled, under this provision, to deduct the whole. But suppose the lessor chooses to dispose of the rest of his land, or a large portion of it, so as to bring down to 3d. the rate that he pays, or, it may be, to rid himself of the land tax altogether, if the particular leased estate is less than £5,000 unimproved value, then the unfortunate lessee is left to pay the tax on the whole of the land. I do not think that could have been intended, and I do not think that this provision has been carefully thought out. This is undoubtedly a very difficult question. We start with the view that the owner is the person on whom the tax ought to fall, and this raises the question whether a lessee under a lease made after the Act came into operation ought to be taxed at all.

Mr Ryrie:

– Whether the tax ought nob to be left absolutely to the owner?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes. All these provisions relate only to leases entered into after the Act came into operation. That point must not be forgotten. If it is intended to meet cases where a lessor has an exemption, then it would operate unjustly in another way. It will operate to deprive him of his exemption. Take the case of a mutual insurance society, which’ is a lessor after the Act came into operation. It was intended that such a society should not pay any tax. But if we say that the lessee has to pay, we, in effect and reality, give the exemption with one hand, and take it away with the other. .

Sir Robert Best:

– The Bill provides for that particular instance.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then take the case contemplated by section 13.

Sir Robert Best:

– Both axe now exempt by the Bill.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Still there will be the tax on the leasehold value, and it is .a deprivation of the lessor of some portion of his exemption. The tax will determine the amount of the rent, and, therefore, in a lease after the Act came into operation, the amount of the tax is really a deduction from the rent he has to pay the lessor.

Mr Hughes:

– Is the honorable- member suggesting that this should apply to leases for life, or to leases generally?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not dealing with leases for life, but with ordinary leases for a term of years.

Mr Hughes:

– There will be no tax at all in a great number of the cases.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should tax the owner.

Mr Hughes:

– If a person owns £5,000 worth of land, and be leases it for ninety-nine years to a man who owns £60,000 worth of land, neither one nor the other will pay the tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite true. The principle of the Act is that those who own the land shall pay the tax.

Mr Hughes:

– Those who hold the land.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is exactly where I do not agree with the honorable member. I think the principle of the Act, as evidenced in almost every section, is that the owner shall be the person to be taxed; and once we depart from that principle we get into difficulties, one of which we are discussing.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Supposing a man had £100,000 worth of land, and were to subdivide it into £5,000 blocks - in such case no one would pay any tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The lessor would pay.

Mr Glynn:

– The principle of the Act is subdivision.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite so.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Under the original Act the man who subdivides escapes the tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If he subdivides by lease he does not escape, because he is the owner; and if he divides it into a number of small leases, he still has to pay under the suggestion I make, while the lessee will not pay at all. That, I say, is carrying out the true principle of the Act. I should now like to refer to the Isles case, which raises a question requiring a good deal more consideration. The intention, as I say, is to get at the real owner. In some cases a man is a trustee for other persons, and the Act recognises, in many directions, that he is not the real owner of the land. While imposing a primary liability on a trustee, it is recognised that his is merely the hand that holds the land, and that the beneficiaries are the real owners. In the Isles case there were two owners in common, one a bank, and the other a widow of Isles, who had created a number of interests under his will, dividing his estate among a number of beneficiaries. The estate was landed property, and practically a tenancy in common between the Commercial Bank as to one-half, and the beneficiaries under Isles’ will as to the other. We may take it that the undivided share that had belonged to Isles, really belonged, after his death, to the beneficiaries under his will ; and the present Act provides for cases of that kind. Section 13, while it makes trustees liable for the tax, contains an express provision that, in the case of land vested in a trustee under a settlement made before the Act came into force, if the trustee holds it for the benefit of a number of relatives of the testator, then, for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable value, each of these persons, being a taxpayer in reality, gets the exemption. That is to say, acknowledging the principle that the real taxpayer is the beneficiary, whether large or small, if the land be subdivided, each of the persons concerned ought to be considered as the real owner of his share, and get the benefit of the exemption as a small owner. Mrs. Isles, on behalf of all the beneficiaries, as well as herself, claimed that they were entitled to exemption as being the real owners ; and the Crown, or the Commissioner of Taxes, contended that if, instead of there being a tenancy in common, the whole of the land had belonged to Isles, that would have been so, but because Isles was a tenant in com- mon with the bank, another section, namely, section 38, came into play, and declared that only one exemption should be given to the joint tenants. The High Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Barton, and Mr. Justice Isaacs, unanimously came to the decision that the Crown’s contention was wrong - that, looking at the real substance, object, and policy of the Act, as well as the language of the two sections, there was no difference intended at all between the kind of exemption that ought to be given - whether the land that is left to. the beneficiaries shares in a joint tenancy, or there are separate, independent pieces of land. They held, as Mr. Justice Isaacs pointed out very concisely, that section 38 is merely a machinery clause, to prevent certain evasions of the Act in regard to joint owners, and that section 33 was intended to provide that, so far as the interest of Mr. Isles was concerned, it ought to be treated in exactly the. same way, and, being divided amonga number of beneficiaries, who became actually entitled to separate interests, they should have the benefit of the exemption as small owners. Mr. Justice Isaacs pointed out -

But in the separate assessment of Mrs. Isles, which is to be on her individual interest in the land, and as if she were the owner of the land in proportion to her interest, undoubtedly section 33 must be taken into account. Why then must these beneficial interests be obliterated? The Commission says, because sub-clause a declares the land is to be assessed as if it were owned by a single person. But a single person might be trustee as to named shares of beneficiaries, and hold in his own right as to the balance, and full effect can therefore be given to sub-section (i), without impliedly repealing the distinct and just provisions of the third proviso to section 33.

The whole of the judgment will repay perusal ; and it shows clearly that it was never intended by Parliament that section 38, as to joint tenants, was entitled to override the just provision introduced for beneficiaries who, under a will made before the Act came into operation, became the real owners of land, and, therefore, entitled to whatever exemption, as owners, the Act would give them. That decision of the Court seems to me to be entirely in accordance with the object of Parliament in passing section 33. For some reason or another, clause 8 of the Bill abolishes this beneficial exemption. I shall not say anything more about it now, except that I have heard no reason in support of the amendment, which seems to depart from what I think is the true, simple policy of the Act. That policy is to get at the real beneficial owner wherever we find him - not as trustee or lessee, but the beneficial owner in every case. The provision as to trustees, lessees, and joint holders are all machinery provisions for the purpose of getting at the owner. Where he is a large owner, of course, he pays a heavy rate, with one exemption ; and in the case of beneficiaries under a will - usually small owners - each is separately entitled to the same exemption.

Mr Sampson:

– Does it apply to all beneficiaries under wills, or only to beneficiaries under certain kinds of wills ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It applies to beneficiaries with separate interests under a will. This does not apply to a great number of cases, but really only to a few. The matter was never brought under my notice till to-day; and those concerned feel that, being few in number, they are likely to be overlooked. This Bill will not have the effect of doing away with section 33 of the principal Act in the great majority of cases. But in those cases like the Isles case, in which it happens that the trustee has a joint interest in the estate, the decision of the High Court will be overridden by this Bill. I submit, therefore, that the measure introduces a lacuna in the Act. I shall have a further opportunity of dealing with the matter in Committee.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The particular matter to which the honorable member for Flinders has referred, is contained in sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of the Bill. The hardship of which he spoke is one which I do not think will apply to many cases. One cannot imagine the beneficiaries in the joint ownership of estates in Australia will be very numerous. But the hardships which may result in those special cases are rather significant. I hold in my hand a telegram from Mr. Colin Stephen, a lawyer in Sydney, in whom 1 have implicit confidence, and who says that if the amendment be carried, several beneficiaries in an estate, who own a joint interest worth £33,000, will each have to pay £660 as their share of land tax. Had they been interested in separate estates instead of in a joint ownership, none of them would be called upon to pay a single penny by way of land tax. But, because of their joint ownership, each will have to pay . £660, although the interest of each is less than £5,000.

Mr Hughes:

– All that this Bill does is to make the law what we thought it was before the decision in the case of Isles v.

The Commissioner of Land Tax. In that case, the High Court applied the provisions of the proviso to the whole section.

Mr KELLY:

– I do not doubt what was in the Attorney- General’s mind when the Act was passed, and we know how the Court read the Act. But I think he will be the first to recognise that, under this provision, a very great hardship will be inflicted on persons who are not in any way responsible for the existing circumstances, but who are bound by the dead hand of an established settlement.

Mr Hughes:

– What are the rights of these beneficiaries, legal or equitable?

Mr KELLY:

– They are beneficiaries in a joint ownership.

Mr Hughes:

– Is there a trustee?

Mr KELLY:

– I will read the whole telegram, so that the Attorney-General will understand just as much about the case as I do. Mr. Colin Stephen wires as follows : -

Federal land tax clause 8 amending subsection a, section 38, nullifies effect High Court decision in Isles case, and affects to most unfair extent beneficiaries under will who own land jointly with others . . . For instance, if amendment carried seven beneficiaries in an estate which own a joint interest worth£33,000 have to pay£660, their share of land tax. . . . Estate owns altogether about , £56,000 worth, therefore each beneficiary’s share in estate £8,000, but each beneficiary has to pay about One hundred and fifty pounds land tax,or over three times the amount of tax payable by an absentee. . The number of properties held under similar conditions are very few, and under existing law beneficiaries pay fair tax the law as proposed works great hardship on a very few.

That case shows the need for exercising very great care before allowing the Bill to leave this Chamber. I would remind the AttorneyGeneral that it proposes to put beneficiaries in two different categories. Under this measure, beneficiaries who have separate interests in estates will be taxed on a different basis from beneficiaries who are jointly interested.

Mr Hughes:

– They are not to be taxed on a different basis when there is more than one beneficiary to any will or settle-

Mr KELLY:

– I have given a case in ment. which seven beneficiaries are interested.

Mr Hughes:

– They will be taxed on the same basis as other beneficiaries who are similarly situated.

Mr KELLY:

– In the cases to which I have called attention, seven beneficiaries are jointly interested in an estate worth £33,000. Yet all have had to pay the tax.

Mr Hughes:

– I refer the honorable member to sub-section 7, of section 33.

Mr KELLY:

– It reads-

Provided further that, in the case of land vested in a trustee, under a settlement made before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, or under the will of a testator who died before that day, upon trust to stand possessed thereof for the benefit of a number of persons who are relatives of the settlor or testator, then, for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable value of the land owned by him as such trustee, there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds as provided by paragraph (4) of sub-section (2) of section eleven of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each share into which the land is, in the first instance, distributed under the settlement or will amongst such beneficiaries, the sum of Five thousand pounds, or the unimproved value of the share, whichever is the less.

As far as I can see, that will meet the case. But I take it that the telegram which I have read has not been idly sent.

Mr Hughes:

– Will the honorable member now read the way in which it is proposed to amend sub-section 7 of section 38 of the principal Act?

Mr KELLY:

– Yes. It is proposed to add to that sub-section the following proviso: -

Provided that, where the same persons have a beneficial interest in land or in the income therefrom under more than one settlement or will or under a settlement and will, they shall be jointly assessed in respect of the whole of their interests under the settlement or wills or settlement and will, and there may be deducted in the joint assessment from the unimproved value of the land comprised in the joint assessment, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds as provided by paragraph (4) of subsection (2) of section 11 of this Act the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each of the joint owners who holds an original share in the land being jointly assessed -

the total sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land after deducting the value of any annuity under section thirty-four of this Act as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

Mr Hughes:

– I am not going to say that the wire is not right; but it does not apply to the case which the honorable member has put forward.

Mr KELLY:

– I am very glad to hear the Attorney-General say so, because, otherwise, a great injustice would be done. I regret that there seems to be no machinery in Australia for breaking seals and deeds, where their effect is held to be opposed to the public interest. Let me give a case in point. The aggregation of land in the hands of a few individuals is held by the people to be against the public interest. Now, certain wills were made previously to the public arriving at that decision, and those wills are still binding. So far as deeds are held to be opposed to the public interest, they should be broken in identically the same way as the Courts declare void any agreement entered into between’ persons which is opposed to the public interest. That principle applies in law today. If any of my honorable friends opposite were to go outside the narrow path, and enter into an arrangement between themselves which was opposed to the public interest, although that arrangement was signed, sealed, and delivered, it would be declared void by the Court.

Sir Robert Best:

– Frequently provisions in wills are declared void.

Mr KELLY:

– In a matter of this kind it is, in my judgment, purely a question of justice to the living person. There ought to be some means of declaring deeds, so far as they are opposed to the public interest, null and void. The difficulty is that we cannot pass an Act of that kind in regard to the land tax, because, the moment we did so, we should admit that we were dealing with the land policy. I do hope that the Attorney-General will make sure that what he has just told me is the construction which will invariably be placed upon the law, because I find that the Bill itself is tantamount to a Chinese puzzle.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr KELLY:

– The difficulties of this problem of land tax assessment are so great and varied that I am sure honorable members will pardon me for having taken advantage of the dinner adjournment to endeavour to unravel the mysteries surounding the question of the Isles case. The Attorney-General for the time satisfied me that the provision in the original Act met the case presented by me before dinner. But the more one looks into this matter, the less certain one becomes j and the uncertainty, in my mind, is shared by very distinguished lawyers. We will take the case of that distinguished legal luminary the AttorneyGeneral, and the more practical-minded members of the High Court Bench, who hold different views with regard to the one proposal in the Act recently passed by the Government. I understand the inten tion of the Government in connexion with the amending Bill is to prevent any particular person obtaining the advantage of more than one exemption. I think that is a fair way of putting it. It was held that, because a person was a beneficiary under some joint ownership, he should get his £5,000 exemption for that, in addition to any other exemption he could obtain on account of interests in other properties. Of course, that would be unfair, and no one would like to see that done. I do not think that those persons who have most to suffer from the amendment of the law desire that that should occur. I have received an urgent telegram from Mr. Bayley Macarthur, who says, “ Land tax amendment reinflicts hardships removed by the Isles case.” There is a statement in the telegram with regard to the admissions by departmental officers with respect to injustices suffered, but I do not propose to read that, because I do not think it would be fair to the officers. Mr. Macarthur goes on to say, “ Our class of taxpayers will have to pay three times more than ordinary taxpayers. Necessary amendments possible with decent consideration without any injustice.” Evidently in this particular case, which, from the little I know of it, is obviously a case of great hardship, the persons concerned are the victims of circumstances. And it is a pity that the Bill should be passed without endeavouring to meet this case and prevent the Government spoliation of beneficiaries under wills. I do not wish to trouble honorable members with further details, but I think the whole question is so intricate, and involves so many questions as to the exact meanings of legal phrases, that it would be better to accept the AttorneyGeneral’s proposal before dinner, and postpone the measure until next session. The Attorney-General said before the adjournment that he would be only too happy to hold over the Bill. He said that it had been introduced at the wish of the honorable member for Kooyong, and I do not think that, in the light of the very trenchant criticisms that have been passed on the measure, that honorable member will persist in his desire to have the Bill passed.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill would remove great injustices that are now suffered by leaseholders.

Mr KELLY:

– If it is desired to remove the injustice now suffered by leaseholders, the provisions dealing with that matter might be passed, and the rest of the

Bill held over. There is no reason, in these dying hours of the session, for entering upon an intricate, difficult, and technical discussion of the law and the interpretation of legal phrases. The Government have frankly admitted that this is a difficult proposal, and that they cannot see their way clearly through it, and I do not think that any honorable member on this side would claim to be quite confident. Even the Attorney-General recognises that the provisions of the Bill are clothed in obscurity, and the only resentment he showed was when some honorable member suggested that the position was clear. He objected to the use of that term, and insisted that the Bill was obscure; and this affords all the more reason why we should postpone the measure. I would urge the postponement in the interests of the Bill itself, and also in the interests of those persons who, through no fault of their own, are bound under settlements made in the dead past, and who would suffer the gravest injustice if this Bill became law.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- Irrespective of the technical clauses relating to beneficiaries under estates held in common, I wish to say a few words with regard to clauses 2 and 4. I agree with the remarks made by some honorable members that this Bill would appear to liberalize the conditions relating to lessees for certain terms. But, on the other hand, the provisions in the valuation clauses will have the effect of limiting the definition of improvements. I understand that, at present, the valuations are governed by two principles. The unimproved value is obtained by taking the value of the land in its primitive condition, as if no improvements had been made upon it, and, presuming, at the same time, that the district had developed into its present state. On the other hand, the improved value has to be obtained by ascertaining as far as possible what the land would fetch if it were offered for sale in the open market under reasonable conditions. The question in between, which has been the subject of nearly all the discussion and controversy, is as to the method of valuing the improvements; in other words, the method of arriving at the added value of the land brought about by the construction of improvements and the occupation and general management of the owner of such land. It may be placed to the credit of the original Act that it contains a wider definition in regard to valuation of improvements than any other contemporary Act, with the exception, perhaps, of that in force in South Australia. The last-mentioned Act has no definition of improvements, but it is left to the discretion of the valuer as to howfar he will allow for added value by reason of the expenditure of money in the direction of improvements. The section in the original Act gives the widest possible discretion to the Commissioner as to the value he shall place on the improvements. f. believe that, in the definition of value given in New Zealand after an enumeration of the real improvements, it is stated! that the valuation placed upon them by the valuer shall not exceed their cost, and that they must possess their full value at the time of the valuation ; that is to say, the improvements placed on the land at a certain” cost shall remain unexhausted at the time of valuation. In that case, the method of valuation of improvements ties the valuer down to a certain definition’, and consequentially narrows the scope of the valuation. ,1 believe that, in this respect, our Act is better than any other except that in operation in South Australia, because it leaves it open to the valuer to> estimate the value of improvements in accordance with the extent to which they increase the value of the land. Under the Act - “ value of improvements,” in relation to land, means the added value which the improvements, give to the land at the date of valuation irrespective of the cost of the improvements.

Mr Carr:

– That is very wide.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Yes. But the Bill adds to the definition these words -

Provided that the added value should in nocase exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

That limits the discretion of the valuer. It is difficult to see how far the valuers will be able to determine what should be “ reasonably involved “ in considering the various factors that make for improvement. The honorable member for Flinders has mentioned how much good management and intelligence count in the adding of value to the land by the making of improvements, improved value not being measurable merely by actual outlay. In my opinion the Bill limits the discretion of the valuers. The word “ reasonably “ is capable of all sorts of interpretations, and it is impossible to say how far the High Court would allow it to be stretched. The honorable member for

Balaclava has pointed out that a man, by an expenditure of £10, might improve the value of swamp land by £20, but that he might have to wait ten or fifteen years for that increase of value.

Mr Carr:

– The amendment provides for a reasonable allowance.

Mr SAMPSON:

– What would be a reasonable allowance?

Mr Spence:

– Swamp land is worth nothing until it is drained, and land which had no unimproved value would not be taxable.

Mr SAMPSON:

– By draining and cultivation over a period of years land which was originally practically valueless might be made to have a value exceeding the amount spent on it. The eminent lawyers of the House seem to find it difficult to understand the provisions of the Bill relating to leaseholds, but apparently the measure will give relief to those who hold leases for terms of years. Lessees, instead of being taxable on the full value of the land, will be taxable only on their interest in it, based on the capitalization of its rental value. I would remind the House, however, that the original Bill was brought in to force land-owners to subdivide. Revenue was an incidental consideration. The object of this legislation being to force subdivision, why are lessees taxed at all? Why is not the taxation confined to the owners of land? The taxing of lessees gives the Administration an opportunity to levy taxation on land which otherwise would not be taxable. A man who does not hold an acre of land in fee-simple may have to pay land tax by becoming the lessee of land owned by others, and land which is not taxable because held by small owners, each of them owning less than £5,000 worth, may become taxable by being leased to a man who, in the aggregate, leases land the total value of which exceeds the £5,000 exemption. Thus the Administration is permitted to go behind the real purpose of the law, which is taxation of persons holding land the unimproved value of which exceeds £5,000 with a view to compelling them to subdivide. No holding whose unimproved value is less than £5,000 should be taxable. To the extent to which the Bill relieves lessees by reducing their taxation it is a good one, though I do not know how the lessee will fare when his interests exceed those of the lessor. I am very doubtful as to the good effect of the provision relating to valuation. Possibly the restriction of the discretion of the valuers may largely neutralize whatever good may result from the provisions relating to lessees.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- The avowed object of the principal Act is twofold, the production of revenue and the bursting up of large estates, a purpose which we have no constitutional warrant for attempting to achieve. The most striking thing in regard to the amending Bill is that its author, the AttorneyGeneral, finds it difficult to explain what it will accomplish, and when men of the keen legal acumen and discernment of the honorable member for Angas confess that they cannot understand its provisions, a layman cannot pretend to do so. The intention that those having interests in land should pay taxation in proportion to those interests is a fair one, and the Bill, so far as it will accomplish that, is a step in the right direction. It is unfortunate that a measure of such importance to the community should be introduced so late in the session, because there are a great many matters which should be considered in connexion with it. In the light of our experience of the operation of this tax, it is questionable whether it was wise to impose additional taxation upon absentees.

Mr Higgs:

– I do not think that the honorable member has a right to reflect upon an Act passed by this Parliament.

Mr PALMER:

– If an Act of Parliament be defective I have a right to reflect upon it until I can secure its amendment. I thought that this Bill would have embodied something of the concentrated wisdom of the Ministry in the shape of an amendment of the principal. Act dealing with the taxation of absentees It is an erroneous idea that we should tax absentees to a greater extent than we do landowners residing in the Commonwealth on the supposition that we are imposing a penalty upon them. As a matter of fact, we are simply imposing upon them conditions which they pass on to us in the shape of higher rates of interest on the money which they lend.

Mr Archibald:

– Moonshine !

Mr PALMER:

– It is undoubtedly a fact. That this taxation of absentees is driving capital out of the country can hardly be gainsaid. It is one of the causes of the shortage of money, or, in other words, of dear money. The only other point to which I desire to refer is that, in connexion with this as other legislation, more is being carried out by way of regulation than should be done. I cited in this House the other day the case of a taxpayer, whose valuation was considerably increased, but who was denied any information as to the reasons for that increase. He asked the Land Tax Department to tell him in respect to which of his properties the valuation had been, increased, and he received the cool reply that the matter was one that concerned the Department, and nobody else. Such a procedure is an affront to a taxpayer. If we impose taxation we should sugarcoat the pill as far as possible. We have a right to make our taxation as little galling as possible. It is certainly unfair that a man should be called upon to pay more than he deems to be a reasonable amount of taxation, and should be denied information as to the basis on which the valuation of his property for taxation purposes has been increased. I brought the matter under the notice of the Prime Minister earlier in the day and he then said, very fairly, that he would bring my suggestion under the consideration of the Department. I think, however, that we should go further, and that we should provide in this Bill that where a landowner’s valuation is increased by the Government valuer he should be advised of the grounds on which that increase has been made. Let us treat these men fairly and honestly. We are running a huge business concern, and under the Land Tax Act are brought peculiarly into touch with those who have to pay taxation. This is, in a sense, class taxation, and those who have to bear it should be supplied with all the information for which they ask in regard to any increase that is made.

Mr Fairbairn:

– That information is usually given.

Mr PALMER:

– The State Income Tax Commissioner and others usually do supply such information, and why should not the Federal Land Tax Commissioner follow their example? I think that when the Bill goes into Committee I shall be justified in submitting an amendment to improve it in the direction 1 have indicated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of section 3).

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- Under this clause it is proposed to amend the definition of “ value of improvements “ in the principal Act by providing that - the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in bringing the unimproved value of the land to its improved value as at the date of assessment.

Who is to determine the amount that should reasonably be involved ? The question is a most difficult one. It is mOst unfair that the amount actually . expended in making the improvements should only be taken into consideration. In that respect, therefore, the amendment is a good one. The Attorney-General has issued a memorandum stating that this will include, not only the amount actually spent, but also reasonable interest on the amount being expended while the land is being’ brought up to its improved condition. Is that to be taken as an indication that the Commissioner will allow for the interest on the money spent in effecting improvements? If it is not, then the memorandum is of no value to us. It seems to me that the law will be administered, not in the light of that memorandum, but strictly in accordance with its provisions. During the debate on this measure a good deal has been said regarding the extent to which land may be improved by drainage works. There are many other ways in which land may be improved, and it is difficult, after the lapse of many years, to say what is the added value by reason of such improvements. ‘I have had considerable experience in improving land by ringbarking and scrubbing, and am quite in accord with those who have said that a man may expend a considerable sum of money without improving his land to a material extent, whereas another, by the exercise of wisdom and discretion, may make very considerable improvements for the same expenditure. For instance, one man might ringbark at the wrong season, with the result that he would soon have on his land, not only a mass of suckers, but a mass of seedlings. In that case it would be incumbent upon him to have the land suckered and the seedlings mattocked out. Then, again, if that work were not carried out at the right time of the year it would have to be done over again, and the value of his land would be seriously depreciated. On the other hand, a man who ringbarked the same class of land at the right season would have no trouble. The two men should not be placed on an equality.

Mr Carr:

– Land that has not been ringbarked successfully is not of the same value as that which has been successfully dealt with.

Mr RYRIE:

– The point is that the one man might spend double the amount expended by the other, and yet not improve his land to anything like the same extent. Surely the man who exercises wisdom and judgment in improving his land should get the benefit of the exercise of his brains.

Mr Carr:

– And the other man should get the benefit of his expenditure, although he did no good.

Mr RYRIE:

– If a man is not clever enough to do the right thing at the right time it is only reasonable, perhaps, that he should suffer the consequences. Such a man, however, would be granted an allowance equal to the actual added value of the improvements. We should allow the actual added value of the improvements.

Mr Frazer:

– That is what the clause provides for.

Mr RYRIE:

– I beg to differ from the Postmaster-General, and the clause supports my view.

Mr Frazer:

– Does not the clause offer a fair thing?

Mr RYRIE:

– I do not think so. If I ring-bark land, and scrub it two or three times, I may improve the value from£1 to £2 an acre, at a cost of 2s. 6d. an acre.

Mr Frazer:

– Will that not be recognised under the clause?

Mr RYRIE:

– I am afraid it will be said that 2s. 6d. is a reasonable amount to allow under the circumstances. Who is to say what is a “reasonable” amount? The Attorney-General has said that a man will be allowed interest on the money ; but there is nothing in the clause to compel the payment of interest. There should be a considerable allowance made, over and above the amount which it costs to effect the improvements.

Mr Frazer:

– Why ?

Mr RYRIE:

– Because there is not only the expenditure, but the man’s time and brains, to be considered, and, moreover, he may have to wait for years before the land is in an improved state. For that reason the full added value should be allowed.

Mr Frazer:

– Even if the expenditure has been only 2s. 6d. an acre.

Mr RYRIE:

– I do not think that it could be done at 2s. 6d. an acre; and I gave that figure simply as an illustration.

Mr Chanter:

– The Commissioner allows the increment value now.

Mr RYRIE:

– I think a very small allowance is made. I value the amendment to a certain extent, because it certainly gives a little more than is allowed under the present Act.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

.- I do not appreciate the attitude of the Opposition in regard to this proposed amendment. It seems to me that the Commissioner has a much more difficult task under the Act than he will have under the proposed amendment. He is now entitled to allow any added value that is considered due to the improvements, no matter what the improvements may cost; and that, of course means an unknown quantity. It gives great licence to go to extreme lengths, and justifies the taxpayer in claiming exorbitant amounts for what he considers the value given to the land by the improvements. Moreover, it leaves open a wide door for litigation that has, no doubt, been largely availed of, and it renders it very difficult for the Judiciary to say what is the actual added value. The insertion of the word “reasonable” seems to clear the ground considerably, because it makes it understood that we are not prepared to allow fancy values.

Mr Sampson:

– Will the word “ reasonable “ be interpreted by the Court broadly enough to include all that the honorable member indicates.

Mr CARR:

– The word, at least, fixes some limitation, and affords the Court some guidance. I can quite see the need for the proposed amendment.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- I agree with the honorable member for Macquarie that the Commissioner has had a most difficult task in the administration of this Act, for, of course, he must see that absolute fairness is dealt out to the taxpayers. The Prime Minister, in his memorandum, says that clause 2 amends the definition of “ value of improvements” in section 3 of the principal Act, and he adds -

The question of “ added value “ had been a source of trouble in the administration of the Act, and claims had been repeatedly made by taxpayers that something should be allowed apart from, and in addition to, the actual amount involved in bringing the unimproved land to its improved condition.

My object in reading that is to show that we ought to clearly understand what is going to be done. The Court may take a bald and. rigid view of the clause, and may,I thereby do injustice; but ifthe clause be read in conjunction with the explanation by Mr. Fisher, it seems reasonable enough, because it gives a definition upon which the Commissioner can work. The Prime Minister goes on to say -

The amendment confined “added value” to the principle, which was intended in the first case, and allowed as “ added value “ the amount reasonably involved in bringing the unimproved land to its improved condition.

We do not expect the value of the improvements to be unreasonable -that, for instance, a great mansion erected on a piece of wretched land should count in favour of the taxpayer. The Prime Minister goes on to say -

This would include, not only the money actually spent, but also reasonable interest on the amount being expended while the land was brought up to its improved condition.

The taxpayer, therefore, will get the money he has spent, and also interest; and that is quite right, as far as it goes. There is, however, just one little objection, and that is that the value of the improvement is taken as at the date of assessment. This might be found to work a little hardly, because labour is dearer at one time than another, and a man may have made the improvements when the cost was higher. This, however, may be worked out between the taxpayer and the Commissioner on fair lines. The whole question is surrounded with great difficulty ; but, so far, the assessment of the unimproved value has worked harmoniously and fairly well. The great fear is in connexion with land, perhaps scrub land, improved a number of years ago, and the work in connexion with which has been absolutely forgotten. I know land which, at one time, for miles, was covered with ti-tree, but there is no sign of the ti-tree to-day, and the work of clearing is so far forgotten that no charge is made, or, if made, is not allowed. In the case of one estate, the owner found that, so far from his owing the Government money, the Government owed him money, the expenditure being more than the land was worth. However, I think that if the Act is administered in the future as in the past, and in the light of the memorandum issued by the Prime Minister, no great objection will be raised. Of course, it depends on the administration, which, we hope, will continue to be reasonable, as I think it has been in the past. My desire is to direct the attention of. the Minister to the fact that the amending Bill ought to be read in conjunction with the explanatory notes of the Prime Minister.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

. -This taxation is based on the recognition of what is termed the unimproved value of the land - the economic rent, or the communitycreated value of the land. Under the proposed amendment a land-holder is to be allowed the amount that he has expended on the improvement, plus a certain amount for the unearned increment that may be said to be directly the outcome of his expenditure. This is just where the problem arises. There is a difficulty in differentiating between the value that is the outcome of the expenditure and the communitycreated value. We have been told of swamp lands being improved by a certain expenditure ; and it has been claimed that the improved value, the outcome of that expenditure, should be allowed. Swamp land that may be considered valueless can be rendered valuable, perhaps, by drainage, at the expenditure of £1 an acre, and converted into good potato land. I am informed that such land in Victoriais rented at £7 an acre ; but it would be fallacious to argue that the whole of the increased value is due to the expenditure of the money. Land in the near vicinity of a large population like Melbourne may, by such an expenditure, secure the increased return, but land similarly improved in the heart of Australia, away from population, would give practically no return, because there is no demand for the produce. It will be seen that here is shown the margin between the increased value due entirely to the expenditure, and the increased value that is called the community-created value. It is on that community-created value that this taxation is based, and the difficulty arises in drawing the line. In the State of New South Wales, where we have experimented longer in trying to solve this question, there was a case in the early days in which certain lands were reresumed from pastoral occupancy and made available for closer, or smaller, settlement. It was claimed, and allowed by the Court, that the original owner of the improvements was not only entitled to deduct the cost of his improvements, but was also entitled to deduct the unearned increment. As the result of the case of Green v. Hargreaves, the New South Wales Parliament had to legislate to meet that position. It provided that the deduction allowed for improvements should be the value of those improvements at the time of the assessment, but that that value should not exceed their original cost. It had been found that an expenditure of is. 6d. per acre for ringbarking had rendered necessary a further expenditure of 2s. 6d. per acre for the same purpose within a few years. In other words, the so-called improvement had really depreciated the value of the land. Some years ago the Government, of which Mr. Reid was the head, submitted proposals to the New South Wales Parliament to base the tax upon land values upon this principle. The proposal in this Bill is to impose certain conditions which will enable the Land Tax Commissioner or the Judiciary to have some material upon which a decision may be arrived at as to what is the communitycreated value of the land, and as to what value has been imparted to it by its owner. It is in the direction of simplifying the principal Act. But if the Government desire to avoid difficulty, they should follow in the footsteps of Sir George Reid, and refuse to make any allowance for incremental value which is the outcome of expenditure.

Clause agreed to.

Caluse 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Lessees of land after commencement of Act).

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- Doubts have been expressed as to the aim of this clause. Under section 27 of the principal Act, the lessee in the case of a lease entered into after the commencement of that Act is regarded as a land-owner, although he is described as the owner of the fee-simple. Under the proposal embodied in this clause he will still be regarded as a land-owner, but only to the extent of the value of his leasehold. In England, and in countries where the annual rental is taxed rather than the capital rental, he could not possibly be declared to be a land-owner. He is not a land-owner here, because he pays his rent annually to somebody else. . But he is described as a land-owner, and the value of his interest in the land is ascertained by the method which is prescribed in the Act. But, having ascertained the tax to which he is liable, he is not called upon to pay it. We do not ask him to pay the amount of his tax, the rate of which is determined by the land which he owns as a lessee. But if he owns other land, he will be obliged under this Bill to pay a higher rate, and will only be able to deduct the tax on value of the land that he holds at the lower rate. I believe that the complexity of this clause is not due to its draftsmanship, but to the system.

Instead of taxing the owner of the land, and leaving him to regulate the incidence 01 the tax as between himself and a lessee who has taken a lease after the commencement of the principal Act, it is proposed that the Commonwealth should step in and say, “As the leaseholder, we intend to tax. you as a land-owner,” the value of whose land depends upon the value of his lease as ascertained by the method prescribed in the Act. Now, we need not do that at all. The one reason why it is proposed to do it seems to be that a lessee may be the owner of other land than that which he holds on lease, and in order to get from him the higher rate of the tax, the Government wish to make him a landholder under this clause, and to add the value of his lease to the value of his ownership of other lands. That is the only reason why a departure is proposed from the true system of land taxation, which is that the owner of land should be taxed, and allowed to make whatever arrangements he chooses with his lessees. The land-owner ought to bear the burden of the tax, and we ought not to bother our heads about lessees and sub-lessees, except to prevent the shifting of the tax. Of course, that statement does not apply to leases which were in existence at the time the principal Act was passed, because some of those leases might be for fifty or sixty years at a rental lower than the true economic rental of the land. But to land-owners whose land is unfettered by leases, we ought to say, “ You must pay this tax. If you do not pay it, we can take your land and sell it.” That ought to be the policy of the Government. It may be that in the absence of some such provision, “evasion of the tax would be possible. I have heard it said that unless we perpetuate this system of taxation on lessees, it will be possible for land-owners so to subdivide their land by leasing it as to create lessees who will not be liable at all. I really do not know that that would be possible, but if it is, the position is owing to the complexity of the Act. I do not say that the draftsman has not done his work clearly and well, but he has been hampered by the fact that a complex system has been adopted. I think the drafting attains its end in the sense that it taxes the ownership in severalty at a higher rate, but in my view the policy of taxing lessees should have been avoided.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I wish to put my view before the Committee as to the intention of the clause, lest there should be any confusion. It must not be forgotten that the principle of the Act is that of a progressive land tax. If a man owns £5,000 worth of land he pays nothing ; if he owns land valued at £5,001, he pays id. by way of taxation, and the amount goes on increasing by gradations en id. until it reaches the maximum at £80,000. The more land a man has the higher the rate, as well as the aggregate amount of taxation he has to pay. Whenever a man, who already owns land, buys further land, his taxation is increased by the additional amount he will have to pay upon the added land, and by the higher rate of tax upon all his land. He pays not only the tax on the land he had before and the taxation payable in respect to the purchased land, but he has to pay a higher rate on the whole of the land held by him’. Leasehold land is treated exactly in the same way as freehold land, and very properly so. Land is a fixed quantity; nothing can increase its extent. Therefore, the principle of land value taxation -per se is that as the land held by one man to the exclusion of- others necessarily imposes on those others certain disadvantages, the man who holds the land should be taxed in proportion to the advantage he enjoys; whether he holds on a leasehold or other tenure is not material. Leasehold does not differ from freehold except in its duration.

Mr Glynn:

– Except as to the unearned increment which may be attached to the land.

Mr HUGHES:

– The unearned increment in the case of a 999 years’ lease would be just as valuable as that attached 10 a freehold. I am speaking about leasehold tenure as such. In this Bill we have proceeded on the principle that a man is to be taxed according to the interest he has in the land. If a lessee has ten years’ interest he is taxed at a- rate in keeping with the proportion that ten years bears to the twenty-two years which represents a freehold interest, calculated on a per cent, basis. Therefore, if a man holds a piece of land under lease, the expired term of which is eleven years, he is regarded as possessing half the freehold value of the land. Under the Act as it stands, the leaseholder is in a very different position. He does not pay on his eleven years’ interest, but sometimes he pays as much as the freeholder. If he leases land held by any one under section 41, he has to pay the whole of the taxation. He cannot pass the tax on to the freeholder, because the freeholder is not taxable. If he leases land from a man who is not a taxpayer he bears the whole of the burden. If he leases land from a taxpayer who pays a Jd. rate, and he already owns £50,000 worth of land, his total holding is brought up to a value of £75,000, and the rate on the whole is increased from, say, 3½d. to 4½d. or sd. The leaseholder who leases land from a small land-owner has to pay at a higher rate, while the man who leases from the bigger land-owner is better off, because his rate of taxation is less than that of the man from whom he bought. This is entirely wrong, because we ought to make men pay according . to the value of their interest in the land, and not according to the position of the man from) whom, the purchase, was made. If I buy an article in a shop I pay for it according to its value. The price does not depend upon whether the shopkeeper is worth £10,000 or 2d. But the position of the leaseholder under the Act is entirely dependent on the position of the man from whom he leases his land. Under the amendment, he will have to pay taxation according to the value of his lease, but no more. The honorable member for Angas has referred to some question as to whether the ‘clause car1ries out its intention. I say that it is perfectly clear. First of all, subclause 1 lays down the principle that the holder of the land is to be called upon to pay taxation according to his estate in the land. If he has a five years’ lease, he will pay on that, and if he has a twenty years’ lease, he will have to pay so much more. The actual amount of deduction is this : As the value of the lease is to the value of the freehold, so is the amount of tax payable by the lessee to the totality of the tax payable on the land. He deducts one from the other and pays the difference. In many cases he is the better off to the extent of the whole of the difference between the two.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- In view of the fact that the honorable member for Angas, and the AttorneyGeneral, cannot agree as to the exact effect of this clause, I do not see how an ordinary layman can be expected to come to any definite conclusion. It would be very much better to bring in a Bill containing clear and concise provisions that every one could understand. Land-owners do not mind paying the tax when they know exactly the position in which they stand. But it is highly undesirable that the tax should be saddled on two different parties. If leaseholders are to be called upon to pay the tax, trouble will inevitably ensue.

Mr Hughes:

– At the present time, in many cases, one man pays the tax instead of two, and that is where the trouble arises, We bring in a Bill to remedy that, and the honorable member sees nothing but trouble in it.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– It will be much better to make it perfectly clear that only one tax is to be payable in respect of the land.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I agree with the Attorney-General that the clause will relieve leaseholders who are now called upon to pay on the total ofthe fee-simple without recourse. That is a very unfair arrangement, and it is quite right that relief should be given. The object aimed at will be accomplished, and it appears to me that the end might have been attained without taxing leaseholders as such. The only reason why this system of taxing leaseholders is kept up is to enable the Department to obtain a higher rate of taxation from leaseholders who are the owners of land apart from leaseholds. My regret is that we could not adopt some method of dispensing with the taxation of lessees. I do not believe that the necessity for taxing leaseholders is due to the progressive nature of the tax.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Amendment of section 38).

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- I think that the clause will entail considerable hardship on many individuals by reason of the insertion in sub-section 7 of section 38 of the principal Act of the words “of the joint owners who holds an” after the words “in respect of each.” That sub-section, as amended, will read -

Where under a settlement made before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, or under the will of a testator who died before that day, the beneficial interest in any land or any income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act. then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners, there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds as provided by paragraph b of subsection 2 of section eleven of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each of the joint owners who holds an original share in the land under the settlement, or will,

the sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same proportion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less.

While each of the original beneficiaries under a will executed before 1st July, 1910, will still have the right to an exemption of £5,000 on the death of any of them, his children will be deprived of that benefit. Suppose that, under a will, an estate worth £30,000 or £40,000 is left to the testator’s four sons. Each is entitled to an exemption of £5,000, but if one dies, leaving a widow and children, these are deprived of the exemption, and whatever dividends they may get from the estate will be accordingly diminished.

Mr Hughes:

– That is not the effect of the amendment. Sub-section 8 defines “ original share in the land “ to mean the share of one of the persons specified in the settlement or will.

Mr RYRIE:

– At present original beneficiaries each enjoy an exemption of £5,000, so long as they continue to live; but, on the death of any of them, the widow and family lose the benefit of that exemption. If, in the case to which I have referred, the four beneficiaries died, the special exemption which each of them enjoyed would be lost. It must be remembered that in many cases the income from an estate may be very small. The estate, perhaps is not worth one-fourth of what it is valued at, as it may be subject to a heavy mortgage, for which no allowance is made. The Attorney-General is endeavouring to prevent a multiplicity of exemptions being claimed by persons who arenot beneficiaries; but I do not think that we should take from the widow and family of a beneficiary the exemption which the breadwinner enjoyed. As to the decision in Isles v. Commissioner of Land Tax, I fail to see why, because a bank and a private person happened to be joint owners, the direct beneficiaries of the private person should be penalized.

Mr Hughes:

– Beneficiaries are not penalized. The trouble was that persons who were not beneficiaries were claiming the rights of beneficiaries.

Mr RYRIE:

– I think that the amendment should be altered to allow the widow and children of a beneficiary to retain the exemption which he enjoyed.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– In Isles v. Commissioner ofLand Tax it was held, amongst other things, that section 38, sub-section 7, enables joint owners, some of whom are beneficiaries, and some of whom are not, to enjoy the extra deduction therein provided for. Under the section a joint owner is assessed jointly, and also severally. Under sub-section 4 -

The joint owners in respect of their joint assessment shall be deemed to be the primary taxpayer, and each joint owner in respect of his separate assessment to be a secondary taxpayer; and from the tax payable, in respect of his interest in the land, by each joint owner under the last preceding sub-section, there shall be deducted such amount (if any) as is necessary to prevent double taxation.

That applies to all joint owners, except those who are beneficiaries under a will or settlement made before the1st day of July, 1 9 10. In interpreting the section, the High Court held that if there were, say, five beneficiaries, and two other persons, who were not beneficiaries, joint owners of an estate, not only the five beneficiaries, but also the two others as well, would be entitled to the special deduction allowed under sub-section 7. The clause excludes such joint owners who are not beneficiaries from the enjoyment of this deduction. Coming now to the other point raised by the honorable member for North Sydney, he says that the Act permits those who inherit from the holder of an original share in land under a will to enjoy the exemption given by sub-section 7 ; but that is not so. It does nothing of the sort. What happens is that the benefits are confined to the original holder. That, at least, is my opinion. I would call the attention of honorable members to the wording of section 7 in the Act of 191 1, which provides that -

Where under a settlement made before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, or under the will of a testator who died before that day the beneficiary’s interest in any land or in the income therefrom is for the time being shared among a number of persons, all of whom are relatives of the settlor or testator by blood, marriage, or adoption, in such a way that they are taxable as joint owners under this Act, then, for the purpose of their joint assessment as such joint owners, there may be deducted from the unimproved value of the land, instead of the sum of Five thousand pounds, as provided by paragraph (b) of sub-section 2 of section eleven of this Act, the aggregate of the following sums, namely : -

In respect of each original share in the land under the settlement or will -

the sum of Five thousand pounds, or

the sum which bears the same propor tion to the unimproved value of the land as the share bears to the whole, whichever is the less. “ Original share in the land “ is defined in the Act of 19 11 as meaning “ the share of one of the persons specified in the settlement or will.” That excludes any person, who is not mentioned in the settlement or will. If it is devised to B, with remainder to C, then it may be arguable that both B and C enjoy the advantages of this section.

Mr Riley:

– Then what is the use of the amendment adding the words “ of the joint owners who hold an original share”?

Mr HUGHES:

– I am interpreting the Act, and combating the honorable member’s statement that the Act, as it stands, does something which the amendment undoes so far as the beneficiaries are concerned. So far as we have gone, the Bill does not affect the rights of beneficiaries.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I am glad that the honorable member for North Sydney has drawn attention to this matter, for it is right that the public should understand what is the departmental construction of the Act. I believe that the Department tries to act fairly in its interpretation, and does not unduly determine any doubt against the taxpayer. The point raised by the honorable member is that under the Act as it stands the children of one of the beneficiaries who “ took,” on the death of the beneficiary, the original share to which that beneficiary was entitled, would be deprived of the exemption given to the first holder. I do not think that would be the case. The holder of the original share, not necessarily the first holder of the original share, who takes under the settlement or by devolution from the person who took under the settlement, is entitledto the one exemption. In other words, there is attached to that share an exemption. If the holder of that share chooses to make any settlement - to subdivide it amongst five or six others - then it is claimed that each of those amongst whom it is distributed is also entitled to the exemption.

Mr Ryrie:

– I do not claim that.

Mr GLYNN:

– The honorable member does not, but there are some people who misunderstand the scope of the Act. It has been contended that this exemption extends to new beneficiaries created by a subsequent settlement of the share. All that the Act declares, and I think that it is made clearer by this amendment, is that there is an exemption attaching to the share, hut if that share be subdivided, each of those amongst whom it is subdivided is not to get the exemption. In other words, the usual principle must be followed. We must go to the root of the devolution of the share. The point was incidentally raised in the case of Neill v. The Federal Commissioner of LandTax, and, in giving judgment, the Chief Justice stated what I think would be the view of the High Court in regard to this matter. He said -

Now, those words -

He was referring to words in the very subsection we are discussing - do not mean distributed at the date of the will amongst persons named in it, nor do they mean distributable instanter at the death of the testator. So much was decided in Archer’s case (1). In that case we held that the intention is that the distribution intended is a distribution which is made directly by the will itself, in the sense that the shares are created by the will itself. That construction excludes any further subdivision of shares that may be made by the deed or will of the original beneficiaries. For instance, if the distribution made by the will is into four shares, or if, as here, there is an undetermined number of shares which turns out to be four at the relevant time of inquiry, and one subdivides her share into two, or dies, and by her will or by devolution on intestacy her share becomes divided into two, there are still only four deductions to be made, because the distribution made by the will is into four shares, although there are now five beneficiaries. On the other hand, if in the events that happen before the assessment is made the property which was originally divisable into fourths has become divisable into thirds, only three deductions would be made.

I think I have quoted enough to show that the High Court would not deprive the children who took the original share in the ordinary course of devolution, and not under a. new settlement, of the one deduction that is attached to the original share before subdivision. Another point has been raised as to allowing a double exemption as regards beneficiaries who are also joint owners of other land. I have not had an opportunity recently to look at the Isles case, but whatever may have been the intent of the Act, I do not think that a double deduction ought to be allowed. The intent was that the beneficiary was to secure the deduction as a beneficiary under the settlement. But if that beneficial owner was a joint tenant with others who were not under the settlement at all, it seems to me altogether foreign to the purpose of sub-section 7 to say that the joint owners associated with him should get the benefit of a provision that was never intended to reach them. The amendment suggested by the Attorney- General should, I think, be made.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Amendment of section 9).

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I desire to draw the attention of the AttorneyGeneral to what is possibly an unexpected difficulty in regard to this proposed amendment of the principal Act.I think it will tend to discourage what may be urged as a legitimate object, namely, family or ordinary partnerships in respect of separate holdings of land. This seems to be an attempt to bring within the principle of joint ownership a number of persons who are legally separate owners, and who, as such, are entitled to separate exemptions. The principle of the Act is that each separate owner of land in one or several parcels is entitled to an exemption of £5,000.

Mr Hughes:

– Provided the ownership or occupation is bonâ fide.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Quite so. I apprehend that the principle of the Act is that a separate owner is a person who has a separate certificate of title, and that joint owners are those whose title is consolidated in the one instrument. There is a great difference between joint and separate ownership. The principle of the Act is to breakup large estates - to induce their devolution, and, therefore, nothing should be done to discourage separate ownership. For instance, nothing should be done toprevent the father of a family from dividing his estate amongst his children, and giving them a legal title. If a man, for valuable consideration, parts with his land to members of his family, and they become the owners, they are, by law, the exclusive owners, and he cannot get back that estate. His family would thus have an interest in the property, but it might suit their interests to conduct it as a partnership estate, although it might be held in severalty, and various members of the one family have distinct legal interest in it. But, as I read this clause, it seems to me that the fact that the father of a family in such circumstances acted as manager of the whole estate might be considered as suspicious evidence of dummying, or something of the kind, and that the Commissioner would have a right to refuse to grant a separate exemption for the separate parcels of land. In that case, this would not be a tax on landowners calculated to lead to the division of large estates. It would really be a tax on partnerships. I know of cases where land held under separate titles by father and sons has been consolidated by the Commissioner, and where it has been claimed by him that only one exemption should be allowed. That does not give any encouragement to the breaking up of large estates. The clause seems to me to give the Commissioner a greater power than he now possesses. The mere fact that a father was acting as superintendent or manager of a property owned by himself and his sons, and held under separate titles, might be regarded by him as -prima facie evidence of some collusive arrangement. If, however, the property had been absolutely transferred, and the various persons concerned had unassailable titles, why should the Commissioner interfere? An estate might be broken up, yet it might be convenient to work it as one. Surely the law should not compel the owners to have a separate plant and separate homes, and to manage the estate separately, with the result that it could not be successfully carried on. The purpose of the Act, which is to break up large estates, has been achieved, and why not allow this subdivision to go on so long as it is quite clear that separate legal titles are in existence? The case suggested by the Prime Minister of a man with a large quantity of land dividing it up amongst his wife, his niece, his secretary, and so forth, may, of course, look suspicious, but it is hardly a fair test. We ought not to judge a bona fide case of breaking up an estate by an illustration of the kind, because it may be that the results are such as were contemplated, and probably intended, by the Act, meaning only a perfectly legal distribution amongst the members of a family. It may look specially suspicious when the secretary is one of the persons, but the test ought to be whether there has been a legal transfer duly registered. I hope that this is not an attempt on the part of the Commissioner to enable himself to get behind absolutely bond fi.de transfers, and to treat the persons concerned as if they were merely joint owners. If that be done, we shall defeat one of the fundamental purposes of the Act, namely, the breaking up of large estates.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– The honorable member for Bendigo has, I think, failed to appreciate the effect of this clause. The intention is, as the honorable member has pointed out, to break up large estates, and, as far as possible, bring land into cultivation and use. There must be no colourable pretence of this, but the subdivision must be bond fide. The illustration given by the Prime Minister is an actual case, supplied, of course, by the Department, which, after an experience of two years and over, is able to say exactly where the Act needstightening up and where it needs relaxing. If the owner of an estate gives a portion to his secretary, another to his niece, another to his wife, and others to his sons, and so forth, the titles may be perfectly legal, and yet he may continue to control it, stock it, and work it ; and the effect on the country as a whole is exactly the same as if he had not cut it up at all. If the honorable member looks at the clause, be will see that it is aimed at maid fide subdivisions.

Sir John Quick:

– It does not say that the land must be exclusively controlled and used bv the person.

Mr HUGHES:

– In such a case as I have mentioned, what sensible alteration has taken place? A ‘change has been made so far as the legal status of the person is concerned, but the effect is precisely the same as before on the individual working of the land, and on the community at large. Surely there is no reason why there should not be a lease, or an agreement to lease, in which case section 27 would operate, and the tax placed on the leaseholder to the value of his lease? Where the length of the lease is such as to make it, for the purposes of this Act, equivalent to a freehold tenure, the occupier will pay the whole tax. I see no injustice in the clause, and no violation of the principle of the Act.

Mr. GLYNN (Angas) [10.8J.- I mentioned before that clause 42 covers a great many of the cases mentioned, but the clause under discussion goes beyond that, and is not limited to cases of dummying. The subdivision may have been made twentyyears before the Act was passed, under a family arrangement ; and it seems a bit unfair that such an arrangement should be upset by the Commissioner of Taxes, and a man obliged to enter into leasehold arrangements with his sons. Is it worth while to have such an amendment to cover one or two cases ?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : -

Mortgagors of land subject to tax to be allowed an exemption equal to the amount of 6d. in the £1 on the amount of interest paid upon such mortgage.

The phraseology may not be legally correct, but it expresses the object I have in view. There are a large number of persons who are obliged to pay land tax on estates, which, though ostensibly owned by them, are really owned by banks and other financial institutions. This position may have arisen from no fault of the people concerned, because many have suffered from droughts and pests, and in other ways have fallen on hard times. Income tax is collected by the State on the amount of interest derivable from the mortgage, and it is hardly fair that the ostensible owner should be called upon to pay the full amount of the land tax. I have not worked out the proportions, but, under the New South Wales Land Tax Act, owners are allowed an exemption to the amount of the interest on the mortgages, and that is 6d. in the £1. Many of them experience great difficulty in paying this tax, and when they are heavily in debt - as many of them are - its payment year after year only adds to their indebtedness. As a matter of fact, it probably compels them to borrow still further from the mortgagee. That is a very great hardship.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I regret that the Government are unable to accept the proposal of the honorable member for North Sydney. He knows very well that this matter was discussed at considerable length when the principal Act was under review, and it was not without the fullest reflection that the principle of declining to allow an exemption in the case of mortgages was adopted. It was felt then - and experience has shown the conclusion to be quite sound - that exemptions in the case of mortgages was incompatible with the principle of a progressive land tax, however appropriate it might be in connexion with a tax of a different character.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7406

QUESTION

ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from 17th December, vide page 7305) :

Postmaster-General’s Department

Division 106 (Central Staff), £22,041

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- At the very outset of the consideration of these Estimates it may be worth while to inquire the attitude of the Postmaster-General towards a proposition which, possibly, has received his consideration and that of his colleagues. It is a very fundamental and pressing one. I refer to the possibility of continuing the present system of administration, under which the whole burden, rests, in a very large measure, not only in appearance, but in fact, upon the Minister in charge of the Department. Extreme brevity is imposed by the time limit. It has often been questioned whether a man, even of exceptional gifts, and trained in our Post Office, can cope with the multifarious demands made upon him in a country of the immense extent of Australia, and under the many disabilities to which he must necessarily be subjected in dealing with large portions of its interior.

Then, on the telegraphic side of the Department must be considered the constant improvements and new developments taking place in electrical methods, and the hundred . and one minor branches and interests falling within the ambit of this huge Department. Under these circumstances, it has become a practical question whether the Minister, who represents the whole Commonwealth, does not require to be advised and supported by an active executive in the shape of a Board of Commissioners, charged with the continuous oversight and practical control of these services. It may be said that we already have a system under which each State is equipped with a Deputy PostmasterGeneral, and that these gentlemen might constitute such a body. As a matter of fact, all of these are swallowed up in the daily routine of their Departments. The areas which they control are those of the States, which differ immensely in magnitude and in the demands which they make on these officers.

Our Deputy Postmasters-General are essentially executive officials ; but, at the same time, if regard be had to the enormous number of their duties - I do not like to say minor duties, because some of them are of the first importance - which devolve upon them daily, without considering exceptional demands, I venture to believe - basing my opinion upon some years’ experience in Governments, both State and Commonwealth - that the necessary extensions of the Post and Telegraph Services of Australia must soon make their present method of control untenable. It is sure to become more and more unsatisfactory, and to require a re-division of many of the great areas at present under a single Deputy. Above all, it will probably require at the head of the Department a body of extremely capable and carefully chosen men, some three or four in number, who will deal with this great proposition as it deserves to be dealt with, with an eye to the maintenance of its general efficiency, and a steady progress.

Mr Howe:

– - How can the honorable member relate the proposal which he is now putting forward to the abolition of the Public Service Board?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I have not put forward a proposal for the abolition of that Board. I specially desire to avoid dealing with the Victorian Post Office alone, because I wish to bring into view the rapidly rising tide of discontent in the Department pervading the whole Service throughout Australia.

We cannot avoid a consideration of these factors, and many others. I do not affect any such complete and comprehensive knowledge of the whole of the operations of the Department as would allow me to dictate ±0 my fellow members, many of whom have had closer experience of up-country conditions, but none of whom can be more impressed, not only with its great importance, but of its many inevitable modern developments. The irresistible conclusion forced upon my mind, without impeaching the quality of the men, or Ministers, whom we have had at the head of our post and telegraph system, is that it is growing far beyond their control. Some three or four experts should be appointed, charged with the general management and control of its policy, subject to Parliament, through its Ministerial representative. The Minister would, of course, interpret to this body the views of Parliament, which would, as the result of being brought into close touch with the whole of the services performed by the Department, be able to deal with it on a much more equitable footing than we at present essay.

Mr Archibald:

– Would not the honorable member’s proposal, if adopted, weaken the power of the Deputy PostmastersGeneral?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Certainly. They would not, as at present, be charged with the whole control of the States’ services. Besides, the States’ administrative areas must be subdivided. It might be possible for a Deputy PostmasterGeneral to exercise all the authority and administrative power necessary in the case of Tasmania; but I very much doubt whether the same thing will be at all possible in the larger States of the Union.

Mr Frazer:

– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral has had a considerable increase of delegated power since this Government came into office.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am aware of that, and regard it as a healthy sign. But I am throwing out suggestions entirely removed from party considerations, because I think this great question can only be dealt with by preparing the way for some’ new plan of grappling with the executive tasks associated with this immense enterprise. We must meet more fully the wants of those scattered throughout this continent, who, although they have received benefits under our present system, are not deriving anything like the advantages that they will be entitled to in a very short time. These demands cannot be met by means of the existing organization. I am putting forward this general proposal very briefly in order that it may receive some of the consideration that is its due. My desire is that the great problem of re-organizing and re-casting our postal, telegraphic, and subsidiary services shall be taken into serious consideration without further delay. The Commonwealth Departments are all very important, but none is as important in some relations as this Department, owing to the multitudinous number of its transactions, enormously varied in character, and its obligations scattered over the whole of this vast continent.

Moreover, nowhere have we such a large body of public servants as discontented with their present lot and future prospects. The difficulty is to reconcile a system which evidently tends to become more and more mechanical with the proper distribution of the duties to be discharged, and the due recognition of merit in those discharging them. Our Public Service system as a whole - and this tells, most unfortunately, in this our greatest business, is largely mechanical in its character and methods, tending not, perhaps, to discourage all ability, but to bring about conditions that do not afford a sufficient recognition of loyal service and capability. Progress is not being fostered. In the Post Office Department the opportunities for advancement are comparatively few. Only a limited number of officers are able to see a chance of breaking away from the level in which they find themselves. Of course, the men do rise slowly, and a certain number reach the front. Promotion falls on some of those who most richly deserve it; but present conditions do not offer by any means the best encouragement to merit. We possess nothing equivalent to the marshal’s baton, though the possibility of winning it imparted a spirit and dash to the soldiers of Napoleon that largely contributed to his great victories. Unless some radical and well-considered changes are brought about, we shall neither be able to meet the increasing demands of our rapidly swelling population in the Post and Telegraph Office, nor to give to its vast number of public servants the recognitions and rewards they deserve. Our present system must come to an end within the next few years, and our attention should be devoted to the drawing up of the best possible scheme of re-organization that can be devised to relieve us of the encumbrances on our progress, and to enable us to do justice to our employes. During the recess I hope the Postmaster-General will give this great problem his serious Consideration. We can postpone action no longer.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I very much regret that we have not the advantage of the assistance that would be afforded by the report of the Public Service Commissioner. Nearly a fortnight ago I directed the attention of the Prime Minister to the absence of this report, and he promised to expedite its presentation to the House. I think we have every reason to complain that the report has not yet been placed before us. It was due in September last, and yet we are without it now, when we are nearly at the end of the session. No doubt, if we had the report before us, it would give us the clue to the solution of a large number of the questions which have been agitating public men as well as public servants for some time past.

Mr Frazer:

– The Prime Minister said he would present the report to-morrow.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– It was promised this evening.

Mr Frazer:

– He said he would try to obtain the report and place it Before honorable members later on to-day, or tomorrow.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– What is the use of presenting the report to-morrow if we have to consider these Estimates to-night? What we require is official information. The Public Service Commissioner is charged with the duty of reporting to Parliament, and his report will lose much of its value if its presentation is delayed until the meeting of the new Parliament. I feel very much hampered in dealing with these Public Service problems, owing to the absence of the report of the trusted guardian of the Service, and the trusted adviser of Parliament, upon such Public Service matters. The Service has been agitated by many burning questions on which the Commissioner ought to be able to render us valuable assistance. It is impossible to disguise the fact that in connexion with the post and telegraphic services controversies have been going on, in which the Commissioner has taken a hand, and we are entitled to have his report before us. Lacking official information, I am at a disadvantage. I do not wish to pass undeserved censure on the Minister or the heads of the Department without proper information. In the circumstances, what I am about to say will be by way of eliciting information. I saw in the press recently sensational reports of the condition of affairs in the Department, and it is only right that the Postmaster-General should be given an opportunity to make some reply to the complaints made. One statement which appeared in the Age of 1st November last, was to this effect -

Discontent has been aroused among the lowe, divisions of the Commonwealth service on the ground that the Government is increasing the salaries of officials in the Professional and Clerical Divisions, and leaving the General Division to obtain from the Arbitration Court the increases asked for.

Mr Frazer:

– No one knows better than does the honorable gentleman that that statement is incorrect.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I am asking for information. Representatives of the employes in the lower ranks contend that, whilst there have been increases in the higher grades, and also in the very lowest grades, there have not been increases or recognition of increments in the middle ranks of the Service. The Commissioner, it is said, has published a statement that, while 747 highly-paid officers were receiving£18,000 per annum in increases, as much as£100,145 was being distributed among the lower grades.

Representatives of the employes in the lower ranks admit the accuracy of the figures, but contend that they are misleading, as the larger share of the £100,145 will be absorbed in granting 8s. per day to employes attaining 21 years of age and in increases to officers receiving under £2 15s. per week. Some men declare that the 8s. per day at 21 years of age was never asked for, and that those who receive it are subsequently penalized by having to wait for four years at that salary before they are able to advance.

Mr Frazer:

– Does the honorable gentleman object to juniors getting 8s. per day ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– No; but I say the statement of the Public Service Commissioner, according to this report, does not cover the complaint that, whilst the highest and lowest grades have received consideration, the middle grades in the General Division have not received any consideration.

Mr Frazer:

– What is the authority for the statement?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I am quoting from what appears to be an interview reported in the Age of1st November of this year.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable gentleman is building on a bad foundation.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– We have no other source of information. We are dependent upon the newspapers for information.

Mr Fenton:

– I am sorry that the honorable gentleman, who is an old journalist, should talk like that.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I do not know what we should do without the newspapers.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not know what the Opposition would do without them.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– They are very useful. When the Minister of Trade and. Customs was in Opposition, I have no doubt he found them very useful. We cannot go prying about the Departments for information, andI prefer information from the public press to information from private sources which could not be used.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable gentleman never asked for any information from me that he did not get.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I have never sought it, but I seek it now.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable gentleman will not get it in a newspaper interview.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The report goes on to say -

Many officers drawing under £3 a week will receive no increase, and this section regards itself as most unjustly treated. As the men put it. the Government has acted in entire disregard of the middlemen. It is contended by officers receiving under£168 per annum that increases of at least 20 per cent, should have been granted in view of the heavy cost of living. Many officers of 15, 20, and 25 years service are not even receiving£3 a week.

The report winds up by saying that -

With the entrance of the Labour party into power the men state they expected that justice would be done to the officers in receipt of low wages, but this expectation has not been realized.

I quote the following statement from the Argus of 31st October: -

page 7409

POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Discontent in Service.

Sydney, Wednesday. - The decision of the

Commonwealth Government that no increases will be granted in the General Division of the Postal Service, unless by the direction of the Arbitration Court, is viewed with much disfavour by the executive of the Telegraph and Telephone Construction Union, more especially since substantial increases have been provided to the higher-paid officers of the Clerical and Professional Divisions.

An attempt was made at a combined meeting on Tuesday night to come to some determination, but it was thought better to have delegates empowered by their unions to vote on such an important matter. Accordingly, it was decided to meet again on the second Tuesday in November. It will then be decided whether there should be a mass meeting of the members of the respective unions. Meanwhile, a resolution of protest will go forward to the Federal Government.

I should like the Postmaster-General to say whether he received that resolution of protest about the beginning of November. The report goes on to say -

Claims have been filed in the Federal Arbitration Court, but there is delay in getting a hearing.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Will the honorable gentleman say whether the resolution of protest was sent to him?

Mr Frazer:

– About what?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– On the ground that increments had not been granted to the middle grade, and, if so, what answer was sent in reply to it.

Mr Frazer:

– There have been many protests.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– If we had the report of the Public Service Commissioner on this subject, we should be able to consider the matter calmly and impartially.. I have reason to complain that the report is not before honorable members. Complaints have been made by the postmasters at a recent Conference respecting the immediate appointment of postal inspectors, district allowances, access to adverse reports, relieving postmasters, fourth class officers receiving fifth class pay, the payment of minimum salary to postmasters fifty years of age and with a satisfactory record, and other matters. I should like to know whether anything has been done to redress these grievances.

Mr Frazer:

– It is a marvellous thing that the honorable member did not redress the grievances when he was PostmasterGeneral.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I redressed every grievance that came under my notice, but I was displaced before I obtained a free hand. The present Postmaster-General has had a free hand, an overflowing revenue, and no Braddon section to contend with. We were in office during a period of financial stringency. My successor has had a boom revenue. I am simply asking for information on these points. I should also like to know the meaning of the trouble that is taking place in connexion with the Sydney telegraph service. I have not been able to get the hang of the dispute, but have seen disturbing reports in the newspapers. I should like to have an official explanation as to what is meant by the trouble regarding broken shifts.

Mr Frazer:

– Public business is being expedited as a consequence of the change in the system.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I have read that the Sydney telegraphists have formulated a statement of their case. What is the attitude of the Department regarding broken shifts ? I have no doubt that the change in system has been recommended by the responsible officers, and I suppose that there must be strong reasons in favour pf it. But we should like to hear the PostmasterGeneral on this subject. A telegram was published a day or two ago stating that a strike was threatened. Fortunately, that trouble has been averted, but I should like to know the terms of the settlement, and whether the broken-shift system is to be insisted upon, or whether there is likely to be a deadlock in the future?

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member should have been here when I made an explanation.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Now is the Minister’s opportunity. We are entitled to get an explanation on the Estimates. Another matter to which I invite attention has reference to the recent imposition of letter fees in connexion with the postage of letters at country railway stations. I am aware that the explanation of the Department is that the change has been made in Victoria for the purpose of securing uniformity.. But the system that has been in vogue in Victoria has existed since the beginning of Federation. No suggestion was made that it was an undesirable system. It might have been introduced in other States. I think the whole matter might be rediscussed by the departmental officers. The Post Office ought, as far as possible, to increase public facilities with reference to the transport of mails. Particularly in the country districts every effort ought to be made to increase public conveniences.

Mr Frazer:

– It is a disgrace to the administration that the system continued so long in Victoria.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Whether it was a disgrace to the administration or not, the merits of the case ought to be considered, and the Minister ought not to insist on an all-round, rigid regulation. The system in Victoria resulted in great public convenience, allowing letters to be collected at railway stations without any great trouble and expense. The public ought not to be penalized by the imposition of late fees.

Mr Frazer:

– If a concession of the kind is made at all, it ought to apply to all the States.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I admit that. The regulations in other States might have been altered to bring them into conformity with the Victorian regulation. I am not asking for discrimination in favour of Victoria. I think that in every State letters should have been allowed to be posted at railway stations without the charging of late fees. The suggestion of the Department was that letters posted in boxes at railway stations could not be collected without the employment of additional hands. That consideration should not prevent the Department from maintaining or extending postal facilities. It is a retrograde movement to reduce facilities in this great Department, whose revenue is expanding from year to year, notwithstanding the reduction of the postage rate. In the country districts of Victoria and the other States, the people are under a great obligation to the Post Office. It has been a great developing agency. It is a great agent for increasing inter-communication and promoting the convenience, the happiness, and the well-being of the people, particularly those who live in the country. It seems an unnecessary curtailment of the privileges of country residents that, if they post a letter at a postoffice, say, within half-an-hour of the arrival of the train, they have to pay an extra fee when the letter-box can be cleared by the railway guard without entailing any extra expense to the Department. I am told that the Victorian Railway Department, through its officials at the various stations, used to collect the letters and place them in the railway van without increased expense to the Post Office. The wholesale regulation to which I have referred has resulted in a great outcry on the part of, not only country residents, but of commercial travellers, who understood the convenience and the utility of the old practice. We want a progressive Postal Department - one which is prepared rather to enlarge the area of its operations than to -curtail and discourage business. Considering the expansion of the Department within the last few years, I regard the charge of a fee for letters posted at railway stations as a backward step. Instead of Victoria being penalized in this regard, the other States ought to have been brought into line with that State.

Mr Frazer:

– And on the next occasion you will get up and support your Deputy Leader when he states that the Department is being run at a loss of £500,000.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– There may be sources of saving to which that honorable gentleman referred, but which have nothing to do with the convenience of the public. It may be that in other directions there have been losses. T am referring now to the curtailment of postal privileges. I do not think that the Department will ever be made a payable concern by reducing those facilities or discouraging people from using them. On a former occasion, I drew the attention of honorable members to numerous complaints which were made in the last report of the Public Service Commissioner, of certain reforms which ought to have been carried out, but have not been carried out. He drew attention to the fact that a large number of branches of the Postal Service are gradually being withdrawn from his control and supervision, and placed completely within the supervision and control of the heads of the Department or the Minister.

He said that by the withdrawal of those branches from his control, and by the increase in the employment of exempt and temporary hands, a large area of the Public Service, and particularly the Postal Department, had been placed practically within the control of political administration, that many appointments are being made about which he is not consulted, and that appointments are being made by the heads of the Department or the Minister without reference to him. I have not the report before me at present, but the extracts I quoted therefrom will be found in a former speech I made. I invite the attention of the Committee and the Minister to the report on the growth of departmental patronage in the way of appointment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr.

Chanter). - Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I was really surprised at the character of the criticism which the honorable member for Bendigo passed on a Department of which he at one time was the political head. It is surprising that with the knowledge which should come to a Postmaster-General we should hear from the honorable member such a puerile attempt to go into the essentials of a Department of this kind. To my mind, it does not elevate the standards of politicians in this assembly. I regret, too, the absence of the Public Service Commissioner’s report at this stage of the session. I think that if there is one thing necessary for the guidance of honorable members in dealing with the things which are being done or left undone in the Postal Department, which is ruled by the Commissioner in the main, it is that the man who has the responsibility of appointing the officers for that service, deciding upon their promotion, awarding their increments - the responsibility of everything except that of seeing that the work is done - should present his report to us in time to be considered in conjunction with its Estimates. I wish to prove my case. I am not content to merely make an assertion. My desire is to show how necessary it is that the report of this officer should be in our hands. In looking through the Estimates I find many changes made at his instance in the grading of the postal service. Whether they are justified or not I have no means of knowing, without the reasons of the Public Service Commissioner. It is one thing to agree to the Postal Commission’s report, it is one thing to award increased minimum salaries, it is one thing to increase the maximum of every grade ; but, to my mind, the changes in the Estimates, inasmuch as we have not the report of the Public Service Commissioner, require explanation from the PostmasterGeneral. In the New South Wales branch of the service there are thirty-seven fourth class clerical assistants. These are new officers, and the designation of their office is new. There is also an increase of ninetyseven fifth class officers graded as clerical assistants. The increase of fourth and fifth class officers graded as clerical assistants is an innovation which can have only one meaning, and that is that, while pretending to raise the status of fourth and fifth class officers, and to give them the increases voted by Parliament, there are being brought into existence offices held by juniors drawing low salaries, to the detriment of those holding superior positions. The thirty-seven additional fourth class clerical assistants in New South Wales mean an additional cost of £7,970, and the ninetyseven fifth class clerical assistants of £20,280 - a total of £28,250. In Victoria the thirty-six additional fourth class clerical assistants mean an increase of £7,665, and the addition of fifty-three fifth class clerical assistants an increase of £8,623 - a total of £16,288. In Queensland sixteen additional fourth class clerical assistants mean an increase of £3,435, and twenty-four additional fifth class clerical assistants an increase of £3,208, or £6,743 in all. In South Australia two additional fourth class clerical assistants, and twenty-seven additional fifth class clerical assistants, mean an increase of £5»794- In Western Australia fourteen additional fourth class clerical assistants, and thirty-three additional fifth class clerical assistants, mean an increase of £8,980. In Tasmania there are four additional fourth class clerical assistants, and seven additional fifth class clerical assistants. Underlying these appointments there is some other change. It will be seen from the reference to page 170 of the Budget statement that in New South Wales the number of men designated fourth class telegraphists is sixty-six less than it was in 1.911-12, and that there has been a reduction of sixty-one in the num’ber of fifth class telegraphists. Evidently the increase of subordinate officers of a new designation at low salaries is to provide for the reduction in the number of fourth and fifth class telegraphists. In Victoria the fourth class telegraphists have been reduced by thirty-three, and the fifth class telegraphists by” fifty-four.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Have the men been promoted to a higher classification?

Mr WEBSTER:

– There is no higherclassification for telegraphists than the fourth class.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then, have they been put into a lower class?

Mr WEBSTER:

– -That is what I wish to know, and as the Public Service Commissioner has not explained these changes, our only source of information is the Minister at the head of the Department. In Queensland the reduction of the telegraphists is not so pronounced, although the increase in clerical assistance is proportionately greater. In South Australia the fourth class telegraphists have been reduced by twenty-six, and the fifth class by eleven. In Western Australia the fourth class telegraphists have been reduced by one and the fifth class by thirty-four, and. in Tasmania the fourth class telegraphists have been reduced by three and the fifth class by two. Knowing what I do of theService as controlled by the Public ServiceCommissioner, I feel that these alterations will have a serious effect when applied tothe officers who are being reduced.

Mr Frazer:

– Has the status of any one of these officers been reduced ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I take it that it will not be reduced until these Estimates are passed.

Mr Frazer:

– Nor will it be reduced’ after they have passed.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Then these Estimates do not properly put the positionbefore us?

Mr Frazer:

– They do.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member may deny what I say, but I would refer him to his own Estimates. At page 170- it is shown that provision is made for 10 1 fourth class telegraphists in New South Wales as against 177 for 191 1, a reduction of 76.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The others mayhave a different designation.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Does not the honorable member recognise that once a telegraphist is placed in a subordinate position his prospects of promotion must beretarded ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But if these menare given another designation carrying an equal status, there can be no reduction.

Mr WEBSTER:

-That does not explain the position. Telegraphists and clerks were hitherto on the same footing, both being in the Clerical Division. But we find in these Estimates the new designations of “ assistant clerks “ and “ fourth class clerical assistants.” Telegraphists cannot be properly described as “ clerical assistants.” If these telegraphists are being made clerical assistants in the fourth or fifth class, then the number of telegraphists is . actually being reduced, as shown in these Estimates.

Mr Frazer:

– Would the honorable member suggest that telegraphists, who are placed in charge of country offices where, perhaps, only four or five telegrams have to be transmitted in a day, should be called upon to do nothing else - that they should be stationed in those offices as telegraphists only ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member would make that appear to be the reason for this change.

Mr Frazer:

– That is the position. They are called clerical assistants so that they may undertake the duties of such officers, in addition to ordinary telegraphic work.

Mr WEBSTER:

– At the same salary as they have hitherto enjoyed?

Mr Frazer:

– Their original status is maintained.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member may be able to make that explanation in regard to clerical assistants.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member will get no further explanation.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I am. not going to beg the Postmaster-General to give me any information. Another interesting feature of these Estimates is that the number of postal assistants in New South Wales has been increased by 214, as compared with the number for which provision was made in last year’s Estimates, representing an additional expenditure of £29,678. In. Victoria, on the other hand, there is a decrease of seven, although the two States are practically on a par with respect to postal matters. This surely is an anomaly that needs to be explained. In Queensland, the number of postal assistants has been increased by forty-two, South Australia twenty-one, Western Australia nineteen, and Tasmania forty. The annual report of the Public Service Commissioner may clear up the matter, but it is not yet available, and, in its absence, I must appeal to the responsible Minister for information. It seems to me that there is a tendency on the part of the Public Service Commissioner to try to box the compass, so far as the increases granted by this Parliament during the last year or two are concerned. Let us consider now the position of postmasters. I find that in New South Wales the number of postmasters in the fourth class has been reduced by forty-five, and in the fifth class by forty-one. It seems remarkable that in Victoria, on the other hand, only a very small number of postmasters will be eliminated from the fourth and fifth classes. In Victoria, where the officers are near the Seat of Government, these changes are either not made, or are unnecessary. In South Australia the number of postmasters in the fourth class will be reduced by twenty-two ; whereas there is only an increase of nine in the number of fifth class postmasters. In Western Australia the number of third class postmasters is reduced by one, and the number in the fourth class is reduced by sixteen, whilst the number in the fifth class is reduced by four. In Tasmania there is a reduction of three in each class. These facts require to be explained. If the Minister can show that these officers are not going to suffer by reason of the change in their designation - that their prospects of promotion will not be retarded - well and good. The Public Service Commissioner has had a mania for classification, and he seems now to be substituting for that a change in the designation of officers. He is “ going to get inside “ somewhere, and I am a little suspicious that these new designations and reductions of grade in the case of telegraphists and postmasters, together with the increase in the number of clerical and postal assistants, do not augur well for the peace and contentment of the Service. I find that in all the States, with the exception of New South Wales, an increase in the commissions on the sale of stamps has been provided for. In Victoria the increase is £852, while in New South Wales the amount is reduced by £1, 112. I should like to know why a reduction in the commission on the sale of stamps is anticipated in New South Wales, while an increase is anticipated in all the other States? As regards the allowances to receiving officers, the Minister has provided for an increase in New South Wales of nearly £17,000, in Victoria of nearly £12,000, South Australia £5,000, Queensland £5,528, Western Australia £2,926, and Tasmania £3,606;. I desire to know how those amounts are going to be allocated, and in what way the officers are going to be benefited by these increases. There is a material reduction in the amount provided for the supervision of works by the States. Last year the amount was £8,430, while this year it is £3,500. Am I to understand that that reduction indicates the extent to which the supervision of works by Commonwealth officers has been taken over from the State officers.

Mr Frazer:

– It is not quite that. It means that quite a number of the works have been completed, and we shall not require the services of the State officers to the same extent next year.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I do not think that the Minister’s explanation can be regarded as satisfactory, because there are numbers of works that will have to be carried out before the end of the financial year. I desire to know if the reduction will have a detrimental effect upon the service.

Mr Frazer:

– It will not. Provision is being made to carry out all necessary works.

Mr WEBSTER:

– It is proposed to increase each of the salaries of the Deputy Postmasters-General of New South Wales and Victoria by £50. I should like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that this money is being earned by these officers. I hold a distinct opinion, which has been expressed in the report of the Royal Commission, for the framing of which I am to some e xtent responsible, as to the value of the services of these men, but when Parliament keeps on increasing their salaries, it is an indication to them that their value goes up In proportion to their ability, and often inability, to control the Departments of which they have charge.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.- The Postal Department is one of the most important Departments we have to deal with. The public are every hour of the day drawn into very close association with all sections of this service, which is doing excellent work from one end of Australia to another. Seeing that these Estimates cover an expenditure of £4,000,000, I hope they will not be rushed through in too great haste, notwithstanding that the sands of the session are rapidly running out. Although Christmas is approaching, we ought to be prepared to stay here till

Doomsday, if necessary, in order to do full justice to a Department of this character, and to deal out even-handed justice to the very large number of employes in the Department. We should realize that with the growing needs of the Commonwealth we must be prepared to face the contingency of this Department growing larger and larger every year. The public of Australia, under the various State Governments, have been led to look on this Department as one which is going to give the man in the back-blocks as much convenience as it is possible to extend to him. If we wish to develop this great Continent, one of the first things we have to do, as a people, is to extend the lines of communication - postal, telegraphic, and telephonic. There is one matter to which I particularly wish to draw attention, namely, the disability under which the residents in the central parts of Australia, stretching right through the heart of the continent, are suffering under the present postal arrangements. It does seem incongruous that a lessee, for instance, in central Australia, who has business relations with the Lands Office at Darwin, should have to send his letters 1,200 or 1,400 miles to Adelaide to be forwarded via Melbourne, Sydney, thence by sea to Darwin, taking as long on the journey as if that lessee were under the authority of Downingstreet in London. It is often five or six months before such a man can receive his receipt for the money he has sent to Darwin, or any replies to correspondence he may have with the Administrator. I put forward the plea that, if we are to encourage settlement in central Australia, some additional mail communication must be provided. A few days ago I had two lessees from the Macdonnell Ranges to see me, and they pointed out that it took four or five months to get a reply to communications they had sent to Port Darwin ; and they asked if it were not possible to inaugurate an overland service between Oodnadatta and Pine Creek. I realize that their suggestion, if carried out, would represent considerable expenditure; but it seems to me important that the residents of those remote parts, seeing that they must have business relations with Port Darwin as their head-quarters, should have more direct communication than by Adelaide, Melbourne, and sea. I know that the demands on the telephone exchanges of the various States must have been very great during recent years. There have been such increases in the number of subscribers that it is not surprising that the Department should have been overweighted in the endeavour to respond to the demands made upon it. I hope, however, that the Department realizes the natural growth that must take place in the near future, and that it will be able to look a little further ahead than has been the case during recent years. In some of the States intending subscribers are not able to get telephonic communication to their business premises and private residences because of the inadequacy of the various exchanges to respond to the demand. I do not know exactly whether the matter comes under the observation of the Minister and his departmental officers, but it is a bad arrangement that the examination for telephonists has been fixed in January. This is a very awkward month in South Australia for those who have been studying all the year round for the purpose of these examinations, because it is just the period when they should be enjoying their holidays. As it is, not only the students, but their teachers, have to remain in Adelaide, and these examinations will probably have to be conducted in a temperature of something over 100 degrees in the shade. To conduct an examination in the hottest month in the year in Adelaide seems making an unreasonable demand on the candidates and their teachers. I know that no alteration can be made for the coming examination; but I hope that the matter will be taken into consideration by the Government. We may expect in the near future that the Postal Department will be called on to do a considerable business for the Commonwealth Savings Bank; and I should like to know what arrangements are proposed for payment for the services rendered by the officers of the Department in this connexion. Is the Department to be paid by the Commonwealth Bank, and, if so, is it proposed that the postmasters and postmistresses are to be paid extra, or that the payment from one Department to the other is to be credited to the Department itself?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It would be most unjust if the latter were the case.

Mr Frazer:

– Was that not the arrangement that obtained in regard to the State Savings Bank?

Mr GORDON:

– That is just the point. When the postal officers were doing the work for the States, special al lowances were made to them - a gratuity or some addition to their salary.

Mr Tudor:

– That was not so in Victoria.

Mr GORDON:

– It was in South Australia Postal and telegraphic officials in the various States feel that, under the Commonwealth, they are not receiving all that consideration they were led to believe they would receive when transferred. Those employes gave excellent service to the country when in the State employ ; and I feel sure that in the Federal service they axe prepared to do their duty to the best of their ability I do hope that, whether the responsibility rests with the Minister or with the Public Service Commissioner, every effort will be made to give a fair deal to the men and women in this important Department. Why should the employes of the post and telegraph service suffer any disability, from the stand-point of their pay or conditions, simply because, for national reasons, they were transferred from the States to the Commonwealth? They were satisfied to work under their old conditions. They were a particularly happy family in South Australia, under the parental control of the late Sir Charles Todd, who built up that Department by giving them every opportunity to come to the front - every opportunity of exhibiting special ability and efficiency. But, in common with the rest of the people of Australia, an appeal was made to their patriotism. They were asked to vote for Federation, and to face the necessity of transferring their services from the States to the Commonwealth. They were assured by the Federal Convention, from the public platform, and in the columns of the press, that if they acquiesced in the proposal for national union they would not lose any of the prestige, or any of the rights, which they enjoyed under the States. That is set forth in section 84 of the Constitution. The late Mr. Justice O’Connor, who was a member of the Federal Convention, put their position as follows -

I think we are all agreed that when an officer is taken over by the Commonwealth he should not be placed in an unfair position or lose any rights by being taken over, because it is no fault of his that the continuity of his service has been broken.

That was a very fair statement of the situation as it was understood and accepted by members of the Post and Telegraph Department; but we all know that that understanding has not been honoured. Another member of the Convention, Mr. Gordon - now Mr. Justice Gordon - in referring to these officers, said -

Let all their rights be preserved. It is our duty to see that the civil servants do not suffer through the establishment of Federation.

In various parts of Australia there is a feeling that some of the grades cf the Service have not benefited under the Commonwealth to the extent they were led to believe they would. Why should a man who, under a State, would have been able to work in the Department until he was seventy years of age be deprived of five years of his earning powers by a mere stroke of the pen? A gentleman called upon me a few weeks ago who was recently retired because he had reached the age limit of sixty-five years; but, although he had reached that age, he was in good health, was vigorous, and well able to discharge his duties. Through no fault of his own he has had five years of his earning powers taken from him. He naturally wants to know why the National Government should not have been able to see him out.

Mr Howe:

– What does the honorable member think should be done?

Mr GORDON:

– I think that the least this Parliament could have done was to see that generation of employes out. All new men entering the Department might have been asked to subscribe to the new regulations, whatever they might have been. When a man has been thirty or forty years in the service of a Department, and has’ been under the impression all that time that he would not be retired until he reached seventy years of age, he should not be automatically deprived of five years of his earning power simply because he is transferred from a State to the Commonwealth.

Mr Howe:

– Is this a piece of special pleading for South Australia?

Mr GORDON:

– That does not concern me at all.

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

– It applies equally to New South Wales.

Mr GORDON:

– I am very glad to have that interjection. The South Australian Post and Telegraph Association, which comprises a large body of officers, have set out their claims very lucidly as follows : - “ (i) That the Fede”ral Convention intended that no transferred officer should be worse off under Federal control than he was under State control, and enacted section 84 to insure that intention being carried into effect. (2) That the first Federal Parliament felt bound by section 84 to respect the rights of transferred officers, hence section 60, Commonwealth Public Service Act. (See Sir William Lyne’s speech in moving second reading - Federal Hansard, Session 1901-2, page 1084; also see Quick and Garran’ s Commentaries on Constitution, page 818, and pages 656-661.) (3) The High Court in Cousens v. The Commonwealth ruled that officers did take over with them rights - such as the right to a certain salary - in their transfer from the State, but that the Federal Parliament was a competent authority to vary or abolish such rights. (4) That the Public Service Commissioner, finding himself clothed with all the powers of Parliament in respect of Service matters, exercised the power claimed for the Parliament by the High Court in the Cousens case, without regard to the moral obligations imposed on the Commonwealth bv the tacit agreement between the Convention and the Service [vide section 84), and in disregard of the direction given him in section 60, Commonwealth Public Service Act. by the First Federal Parliament. (5) That this action of the Commissioner, under the circumstances, amounted to an abuse of power, and, though his action by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by the Public Service Act has the force of law, it was an unjust and oppressive action, and a distinct repudiation of the Commonwealth’s obligations towards its servants. (6) That the law, apart from the Commissioner’s action, did not forbid, but clearly contemplated, the continuance, until their natural expiration, of the accrued and accruing rights of transferred officers. (7) That, in view of the AttorneyGeneral’s statement that the Commissioner would not have been acting unconstitutionally had he, in his classification, recognised and provided for the accrued and accruing rights of transferred officers, the matters in dispute should, by direction of. Parliament, be settled by arbitration on the grounds of equity without involving the officers in the heavy costs of a suit before the High Court or the Arbitration Court.”

This was the statement the association drew up in support of their claims for special consideration, and for that measure of justice they were always led to believe they would receive when they came into the greater service of the National Parliament. Instead of these officers being able to approach the Postmaster-General as their immediate employer, and put their views before him, the Minister refers them to the Act passed last session, by which they are compelled to go before the Arbitration Court. Some of the middle-aged men in the Service are beginning to realize that they should have started early in life in order to obtain justice in their old age from the Arbitration Court. The delay and expense entailed in going before this Court is sufficient to frighten the men.

Mr Scullin:

– They are not compelled to go before the Court. If they decline to go there, they are only in the same position that they were in before.

Mr GORDON:

– Of course, if they decline to go before the Court they cannot have their claims considered. I would ask the honorable member if he thinks there is anything very inviting about the suggestion that any association should go before the Court ?

Mr Frazer:

– Outside workers think there is something inviting about the suggestion.

Mr GORDON:

– I would like the Minister to ask the tramway associations in the various States what they think of the Arbitration Court.

Mr Frazer:

– They would all say “ Hooray ! “

Mr GORDON:

– Possibly it does not take very long to get into the Arbitration Court, but a long time elapses before applicants can get out of it. Moreover, they have to employ some of the leading lawyers in Australia to tell them exactly what is the effect of the award. The employes of the Post and Telegraph Department are fearful of facing the expense and delay involved in going before that tribunal. I have never seen the necessity of requiring that the men should1 go before the Court in order to obtain redress; but, as matters stand, if they do not go there they have no other means of redress. The PostmasterGeneral, when appealed to, tells his employes that Parliament has passed a law which gives them the right to approach the Arbitration Court, before which they must put their claims, and then abide by the verdict.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– The honorable member for Gwydir, who professes to have brought some crushing criticisms to bear upon the administration of this Department, was chiefly instrumental in bringing into existence the report of the Postal Commission. In the first pages of that report, the complaint is made that, owing to the publication in the press of the evidence taken before the Commission, the Department had, by making certain reforms, anticipated the recommendations that would, in the ordinary course, have been placed before Parliament. Any one who reads the report of the SubCommittee appointed by the Cabinet to go into the whole question of postal administration will see that most of the proposals adopted were based on the recommendations of the

Committee. The following list is from the Committee’s report -

IMPROVEMENTS MADE AND SERVICE CONCESSIONS GRANTED.

Increase in the permanent staff by making provision in the 1902-10 Estimates for 1,500 additional officers.

Larger votes granted for telegraphic and telephonic construction works.

Telephone rates remodelled.

Position of Chief Accountant created.

Chief Electrical Engineer’s staff augmented.

Introduction of Wheatstone instruments on Inter-State telegraph lines.

deduction of the number of grades of post-offices from thirteen to seven.

Overtime worked in the General Post Office, Sydney, partly paid for.

Accommodation obtained at the Central Railway Station, Sydney, for the Mail Branch.

Sorting test simplified in May, 1909.

A conference of departmental officers held to investigate the question of broken shifts in the Mail Branch.

Additional grade of senior assistant established.

Age for the admission of telegraph messengers to the Service increased, and age of retirement extended.

Appointment of outside supervisors of telegraph messengers.

A uniform Postal Guide introduced.

Improvement made in the compensation allowed for Sunday work.

Letter-carriers’ beats in Sydney readjusted.

Privileges extended to temporary employes.

Procedure under punitive sections of Commonwealth Public Service Act simplified.

These are the boasted reforms which we have been told were brought about as the result of the publication of the evidence given before the Commission, but which, according to the members of the Commission, were introduced by the Department prior to the presentation of their report. The honorable member for Gwydir made no reference to-night to any recommendations of the Commission that had not been carried out by the Department, but there is one very important recommendation which has not been adopted, and that is the one recommending an alteration in the control of the Department. The Commission recommended that it should be placed under an independent Board, consisting of a general manager, responsible immediately for finance and general administration ; a postal director, responsible for the management and general supervision of the labour services ; and a telegraph and telephone director, responsible for construction and maintenance. I take it that it was intended that this Board should be endowed with the powers vested in the Railways Commissioners of the States. My own opinion of this system of control by Commissioners independent of Parliament is that, while it might work well in large centres of population, it would be utterly destructive of any attempt to prosecute a forward policy in the country districts.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member is absolutely at variance with his leader on that point.

Mr SAMPSON:

– That may be so, but I have had, as a country member, sufficient experience of the way in which country districts are neglected under the system* The chief abuses of the old system of railway management in Victoria arose in connexion with the construction of new railways and the appointment and promotion of officers. It was on account of these abuses that the service was placed under the control of independent Commissioners. I do not think that, even in the administration of the railways, it would be advisable to return to political control in the case of appointment and promotion of the staff, which should be in the hands of an entirely independent officer, in a position to make provision for promotion by merit. It is somewhat disappointing to find that when the recommendations of the Postal Commission have been adopted, this great spending Department, which is in daily and hourly contact with every member of the community, is not giving the satisfaction we have a right to expect. I affirm that the position of the Postmaster-General is, perhaps, the most difficult of any of the Ministerial positions to fill. What we require is some distribution of the control which will provide, to a greater extent, for local government.

Mr Frazer:

– I have given very extensive powers to the Deputy PostmastersGeneral.

Mr SAMPSON:

– So far as I can learn, those powers are limited by regulations, to which the Deputy Postmasters-General are as much slaves as are their subordinates. If a new postal service, or a new telephone line, is required in a country district, the regulations control the conditions under which it is provided. So that, although the Deputy Postmasters-General may have larger powers than they used to have, they are, nevertheless, controlled by regulations which, in my opinion, have a very hampering effect. In some parts of the country railways have been constructed in advance of settlement. But the Post and Telegraph Department, being bound by regulations, has not supplied . telegraphic and telephonic communication along the routes of these railways, although the Railway Department has erected the poles to which wires could be attached. That is an instance of the want of progressive policy that marks the administration. It is a very much more expensive business to build railways in sparsely populated districts than to construct telephones and telegraphs; but the railway policy has been progressive, whilst the postal policy has lagged behind. Surely this Department should be at least as progressive as the State Governments have shown themselves to be with reference to railway construction. In my opinion, the Deputy PostmastersGeneral ought to have larger powers in regard to the extension of telegraphic and telephonic facilities in newly-settled districts where it is certain that population must rapidly grow. I object to a centralizing policy, which cripples development. The Deputy Postmaster-General, having a knowledge of the State in which he administers, and being in receipt of reports from his officers, should be able to take action in matters of this kind. Why is it necessary that the Deputy Postmaster-Genera) should be absolutely under the control of the Secretary of the Central Administration? Another matter to which I wish to refer is connected with semi-official postoffices. I know that the PostmasterGeneral has had a very difficult problem presented to him in connexion with the postmistresses who are at present conducting semi-official offices.

Mr Tudor:

– It is a very difficult problem, indeed.

Mr SAMPSON:

– The difficulty is accentuated because districts and members of Parliament are naturally desirous of obtaining the best postal service that they can possibly get. There are constant agitations for allowance offices to be converted into semi-official offices, and for semiofficial offices to be raised as soon as possible to official status, in order that fuller facilities may be enjoyed bv the public. There are, I believe, 300 semi-official offices, most of which have been in charge, of postmistresses, who, in the ordinary course, would be dismissed from their employment if their offices were raised to an official status. These postmistresses have carried out their .duties for fourteen or fifteen years, and are not qualified to enter into another form. of employment. The have spent the best years of their lives upon postal work, and have Become thoroughly accustomed to it. Generally, they are very competent officers. If they were dismissed, a great wrong would be done to them. I think that it is the duty of the Commonwealth, having kept these postmistresses in the Service for a number of years, to provide constant employment for them when. the offices of which they have been in charge are raised in status. I do not know why they should be treated differently. I know quite a number of semi-official post-offices which are carrying out work quite as important as that which is done by official post-offices. The persons in charge of the semi-official postoffices perform their duties most efficiently, but the payment they get is not equal to that which is provided for classified officers. They are not allowed holidays, and do not enjoy other considerations which are extended to permanent officers. The Department has certainly created a position which calls for some consideration. I know that it is impossible to give them the same status as is extended to permanent officers, but I think that the matter is sufficiently important to justify the Government in bringing in a measure providing in a special way for the various postmistresses who are operating throughout Australia, generally speaking, in a most satisfactory manner. I regret very much that in the closing hours of the session there is no possibility of dealing with, the question. It has been impossible, we know, to bring it as prominently before the House as it deserved, because we only get an opportunity to deal with the Estimates just prior to the prorogation of Parliament. It is certainly a matter which demands consideration from both sides of the Chamber. No fewer than 300 mistresses of semi-official post-offices ha.ve been trained by the Department to a particular class of work. Many of them have been employed so long at that work that they are not qualified to engage in private employment in a way that would probably give satisfaction to their employers. The Department owes a duty to those persons. I regret very much that the session is to close without the Government making a. definite pronouncement of their intentions in this regard. It is very disappointing to find that, although the revenue of the Postal Department has increased from £2,784,664 in 1905-6, to £5>775>2<54 in 1911.-12, the payment of the staff has not shown a material increase. The number of officers increased from 10,759 m 1905-6 to 18,515 in 191.2-13; while the salaries increased from £1,434,813 in 1905-6, to £2,419,944 in 1912-13. The highest average pay per officer for the last ten years in the Postal Department was £133 in 1905-6. In 1912-13 there was a drop to £130. The decrease may be explained, perhaps, by a larger number of juniors being appointed, but this is not satisfactory. There was a fluctuation from £133 in 1905-6 to £124 in 1909-10.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– 1 know of no Department in the Public Service which offers a. deeper interest to honorable members than does the Post Office. There is no Department which touches the interest of the people more directly and more universally than it does. Every man, woman, and child has, from time to time, to deal with the ramifications of that great Department, and I suppose that no subject gives rise to more correspondence between a member’s constituents and himself than it does. It covers, in the first place, the delivery of letters - the letters of merchants, bankers, insurance people. Men, women, and children are from day to day using the Post Office. Telegrams are being sent all over the country from people of all ages, and on all subjects. Having regard to the very wide-spread influence it exercises upon the condition of the people, I think it is to be regretted that the PostmasterGeneral is not here to hear the arguments which are being advanced. The honorable member who preceded me dealt at length with a very important report, in the production of which the honorable member for Gwydir took an active part. Those arguments, which are very important and very useful, were completely lost to the Minister, who, I think, should have heard them, and should have had an opportunity of taking some steps to remedy the abuses to which the last speaker drew attention. There are a number of subjects about which I should like to speak, and. I shall first say something about the miserable pay that is given to men occupying positions of great responsibility in the Department. A few months ago there came under my notice the case of an assistant postmaster in one of the chief suburbs of Sydney, who was from time to time called upon to act as postmaster, and had then, sometimes, as much as £700 under his control in connexion with the Savings Bank business..-

After twenty-four years of service he was receiving only £126 a year..

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A fine record for previous Governments.

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

– The present Government have been in power for three years, but they have not taken the slightest trouble to put their humanitarian principles into practice by increasing the pay of men occupying positions such as that of the officer of whom I speak. The Labour party has done nothing to fulfil the fine promises which it made to the people. We were promised that, under the new order of things, all abuses would be remedied, but the service to-day is in a seething condition of discontent, and serious abuses exist which a self-respecting Government would have remedied long ago. The view of the honorable member for Bendigo is a sound one, and one which I have held for many years. I think with him that the Post Office Department should be put under a Commission. It is essentially a commercial concern. Throughout Europe and the United States of America, telephone services are managed entirely by private enterprise, and in Great Britain the postal service was for a long time carried out in the same way. The services performed by the Postal, Telegraphic, and Telephonic Branches of the Department constitute an industry which might well be controlled by a body of men like the Railways Commissioners. Is it to be expected that men who have never been brought into touch with mercantile, banking, and commercial affairs, can manage this Department in such a way as to satisfy the business needs of the community as well as they could be satisfied by business men? While in the case of a Board of Railways Commissioners one is generally an engineer, the others are business men, chosen because they are supposed to be competent to provide for the needs of the business community. We need at the head of the Postmaster-General’s Department business men who know the necessity for promptitude, expedition, and good management in the conduct of its business. To-day, persons can travel long distances, and often arrive before telegrams that they have sent announcing their coming. Recently, the honorable member for Fremantle sent a telegram to Sydney to announce his coming, and, having travelled 150 miles, found that his friends had not yet received it. That would not be tolerated under private management. We need at the head of affairs, not only men with special knowledge of the technical work of the Department, but also men with knowledge of the business needs of the community. The management of the Telephone Branch illustrates the neglect of business requirements. In many places in Sydney, the apparatus installed for the use of the public is twenty years old, and nothing is done to modernize it, unless public complaint is made. Under private control, care would be taken to see that the apparatus was kept up to date, and that the newest ideas were adopted. I know for a fact that, something like two years ago, the automatic telephone system was brought under the notice of this Government, and, after months of agitation, was installed experimentally at Geelong. Subscribers to the Geelong Exchange, instead of having to wait until a busy attendant can connect them, are able to communicate directly with the person with whom they wish to speak. Months ago it. was known that the system was a success, but the Department is only beginning to think of extending it. Under private business management, the competition of telephone companies would have installed automatic systems for the sake of the custom which they would have attracted.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How many companies have adopted the automatic system in America?

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

– Thirty-five. But we cannot get this sleepy Government to come out of its shell and make use of the system which has commended itself to the people of the United States of America. Reference was made to-night to a matter seriously affecting the employes of the Postmaster-General’s Department. Those who were taken over from the States at the time of Federation complain that the rights given to them by the Constitution are not being recognised. I have received about half-a-dozen letters on the subject, some of which I have forwarded to the PostmasterGeneral. Section 84 of the Constitution says that an officer taken over from the States by the Commonwealth shall have all his existing and “ accuring “ rights preserved. But I have sent to the Postmaster-General more than one letter from men who say that this section of the Constitution is being ignored, the reply they receive being, “We recognise that you have accruing rights, but you must, now go before the Arbitration Court.”

Mr Frazer:

– That is not correct.

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

– What I say may be unpalatable, but it is perfectly true. The men concerned have sent in corporate protests, and have protested through their representatives, The Arbitration Court may be all very well for officers who., were not taken over from the States prior to Federation, but a Court set up under an Act of Parliament cannot deprive those to whom I refer of their constitutional rights. It is a pretty state of things that when men have been brought into a service under certain conditions, those conditions should be ignored by a Minister who, perhaps, does not recognise the difference between the Constitution and an Act of Parliament repugnant to it. I protest against this treatment of a body of the Public Service. The PostmasterGeneral, instead of referring the men to the Arbitration Court, should give them the increased salary which they would have got had they remained in the service of the States, an “ accuring “ right guaranteed to them under the Constitution,

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member forgets that they contested the point in the High Court.

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

– The PostmasterGeneral attempts to answer criticism by interruptions, but we are entitled to have from him a reply to the views which have been expressed. The remarks of the honorable member for Bendigo certainly call for an answer. We have had put before us in the newspapers, from time to time, statements regarding litigation between the Marconi Company and the Government, but we have not had any authoritative statement as to the progress of that litigation. We do not really know whether any litigation is now pending between the company and the Department at the present time. We know that Mr. Balsillie has endeavoured to put forward some patents of his own, and that the Government have been vain enough to believe that this young wireless expert has invented something that supersedes the Marconi patents. They may live to learn that he has done nothing of the sort.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is a nice statement - a reflection on an Australian.

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

– I intend it as a reflection. We have a right to know what is the relationship between the PostmasterGeneral and the Marconi Company as to the patent rights of the latter. It has been said that I am trying to belittle the Commonwealth expert. I am not doing anything of the kind. It seems to me, however, to be highly improbable that a young expert, who left Great Britain to come toAustralia for a few hundred pounds a year, should have invented something that completely supersedes the system that has been adopted by all1 the great countries in. Europe. We are entitled to an explanation from the Minister as to why Mr. Bal.sillie’s patents are not being used in Europe? If this young gentleman has invented something which means an enormous saving, why has his invention not been adopted by other countries ? We require to know what guarantee the Government have that this expert has really found out something which none of the wiser and more experienced men of Europe understand or adopt. The Government, however, have grown so confident in their majority that they vouchsafe very little information to the Opposition.

Mr Frazer:

– Do not make any mistake. The Courts have stood to them up till now.

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

– We ask questions in this House, and obtain most evasive answers, often put in such a form that we can well imagine that the writer, in preparing them, had his tongue in his cheek. We wish to know from the Minister whether any actions have been settled, and, if so, how much the Government have had to pay.

Mr Frazer:

– Nothing.

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

– That is some information, and I invite attention to the way in which we obtain it. It is blurted out by a man sitting at the table of the House, instead of rising in his place, as he ought to do, and affording us in the usual way the information for which we ask.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- It is to be regretted that the report of the Public Service Commissioner has not yet beenpresented, . since in its absence we cannot hope to deal effectively with these Estimates. It is a remarkable fact that, although we are in the middle of December,, that report is not yet forthcoming, although in 1910 and 1911 it was available in the month of September. When it is presented it will be useless, so far as this or the next Parliament is concerned, and the failure to submit it to the House before now calls for very strong comment. Without reflecting on any branch of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, I wish toenter a special plea on behalf of country postmasters, and to refer particularly to postmasters in that portion of New South Wales with which I am familiar. We all know that many postmasters are men of high education. All of them possess a fair education, and, having regard to the work that they have to perform, the hours during which they work, and the trouble to which they go to convenience the public they ought to receive our consideration. 1 desire to show the relative position of six postmasters and six telegraphists prior to the 1904 classification, and again in 191 1. I would, in the first place, refer the Postmaster-General to the list of officers published in the Commonwealth Gazette of 14th June, 1904. From that list I take the names of the following postmasters - C. D. Logan, J. Jones, R. Flanagan, E. A. Graham, G. T. Alcorn, and F. C. C. Gillett. They were then receiving £160 a year, and were senior to six telegraphists in my electorate who were receiving £14° per annum. I wish now to direct the attention of the Minister to the list of officers published in the Commonwealth Gazette of 27th February, 1911, which shows that the six telegraphists who in 1904 were junior to the six postmasters whose names I have given, have been placed on a higher grade. For instance, one telegraphist named G. T. Leece, according to the list published in 1911, was receiving a salary of £210 per annum ; another, C. C. McGarry, was receiving £210; and J. P. Toose and three others, £185 per annum. All these in 3904 were receiving £140.

Mr Frazer:

– The Public Service Act provides that promotion shall be according to merit, and not necessarily by seniority.

Mr FULLER:

– I should like to know what facts were taken into consideration in reversing the positions of these two sets of men.

Mr Frazer:

– I presume that the Deputy Postmaster-General and the Public Service Inspector in New South Wales have satisfied themselves on the point.

Mr FULLER:

– That is only the Minister’s presumption. In the 191 i classification, every one of the six postmasters whom I have named, and who in 1904 were receiving £160 per annum, are set down at £180 per annum. The telegraphists, therefore, are now receiving higher salaries, and have become their seniors. We, as members of the general public, know that the responsibility of a postmaster is infinitely greater than is that of an ordinary telegraphist. The postmasters to whom I have referred have evidently not been given an opportunity to obtain advancement in the same way as the telegraphists have done. ^ Mr. McGarry, who in 1904 was receiving £140 per annum1, in 191 1 was receiving £210 per annum, and was senior to all these postmasters. What has happened since then? Although these postmasters were never given an opportunity to prove their fitness for promotion - although no inspector ever visited them with a view of giving them an opportunity to secure a higher position - this man, McGarry, has been appointed an acting-inspector in the Illawarra district at a rate of pay which I have not been able to discover.

Mr Frazer:

– It is considered very difficult to induce a number of the senior postmasters to accept the position of inspector. The position involves the exercise of considerable energy, much travelling, the making of valuations, and the carrying out of work with which a postmaster is not acquainted. The average postmaster prefers to remain in his office and to allow a junior man to take up the office of inspector.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– It does not follow that an inspector obtains a larger salary than does a postmaster.

Mr Frazer:

– In many cases he does not.

Mr FULLER:

– Will the PostmasterGeneral state why a man who a few years ago was an ordinary telegraphist should have been suddenly promoted, without having any experience as a postmaster, to the position of inspector over a large number of postmasters ? Where did he get his experience ?

Mr Frazer:

– How did Napoleon take possession of Europe - by the use of his brains.

Mr FULLER:

– As to the Napoleons of the Service, I agree with the PostmasterGeneral that merit should be recognised ; but I do not know whether the honorable gentleman will be able to show that none of the postmasters to whom I have referred have sufficient merit to justify their appointment to the position of actinginspector - a position to which this telegraphist, who has had no experience in the management of a post-office, has been appointed. These postmasters have to submit to the humiliation of being placed under a man who until recently was their junior.

Mr Frazer:

– Will the honorable member allow me to say that quite a number of inspectors’ positions have been offered to postmasters, and declined by them?

Mr FULLER:

– In not one of the cases to which I have referred was the position offered to the postmasters. I can quite understand postmasters who have families, and more or less comfortable places in which to live, not being desirous of taking up the positions of inspectors, which would entail a great deal of travelling and their being away frequently from their homes, but the opportunity should certainly be afforded to postmasters of either accepting or rejecting the position of inspectors. As regards the cases which I have mentioned, I would suggest to the Postmaster-General that the postmasters should be restored to the positions of seniority which they held prior to the classification of 1904 at a salary equal to the maximum salary of any officer who has been promoted over their heads. I trust that the Postmaster-General will, at the earliest possible date, have full inquiry made to see whether the statements which I have made are correct.

Mr Frazer:

– I am not disputing the position which the honorable member has placed before the Committee, but I say that postmasters are given the opportunity of taking these positions.

Mr FULLER:

– In reply to that, I say that in that district to which this particular inspector was appointed the postmasters were not given the opportunity of accepting the position. If that sort of thing occurs in one part of New South Wales, in all probability it is occurring all over the Commonwealth. If officers without any experience are specially picked out in this fashion, and placed over the heads of their seniors, it is bound to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Service.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member was Minister of Home Affairs for some time, and had control of the Public Service Commissioner’s Department. How much did he do in that direction?

Mr FULLER:

– Previously the report of the Public Service Commissioner was laid on the table so that honorable members might have the opportunity of perusing it. It was placed on the table in September, but this year the report of the Commissioner is not forthcoming yet. I believe that this is the first time that the report of the Public Service Commissioner has not been on the table for the use of honorable members when the Estimates were being considered.

Mr Frazer:

– I was not aware that die Public Service Commissioner ever presented a special report.

Mr FULLER:

– I am not referring to any special report. I am referring to the annual report of the Public Service Commissioner. We know that the whole of the Department is seething with discontent at the present moment. When I left Sydney on Sunday night I was informed that in consequence of grievances in the Telegraph Department of New South Wales it was certain that a strike would occur on Monday morning. However, I am pleased to say that counsel seems to have been given which prevented the threatened strike; but that is only a sample of the feeling which prevails amongst the officials of the Department in all parts of the Commonwealth. The Department is one which must be kept going in the interests of the public, and everything ought to be done by Parliament and the Government to see that the position of these officials is made as satisfactory as it possibly can be made, consistent with the duties they have to perform. . I do not want any special consideration given to the officials, but I desire to see justice meted out to them, particularly to those who hold positions in post-offices in our country districts. The case of a postmaster in one of the principal country towns of New South Wales was brought prominently under my notice about twelve months ago. I brought the matter before the Department, and the reply was that the official could not be reinstated at the salary which he had been formerly drawing, and that if he wanted to remain in the Department he would have to take a reduced salary. I am not disputing the decision which was arrived at as far as the status of that official was concerned, but it was certainly one of those cases in which the arduous work performed by these country postmasters should have been taken into consideration.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.I regret exceedingly that the Estimates of an important Department like this should be dealt with in the small hours of the morning, when honorable members are neither physically nor mentally fit to properly discuss matters affecting the administration of the Department. I am not one of those who are prepared to indulge in a sweeping condemnation of the Postal Department, or a strong condemnation of our Postmaster-General. As far as the constituency which I represent is concerned, I know that the Department is making commendable efforts to satisfy the needs of the public, more particularly in connexion with the establishment of country telephone lines. It is perfectly true that vexatious delays occur between the time when the contributions demanded are made by the public and the actual carrying out of the works; and I think the Postmaster-General should take action with the view of expediting works when those contributions have been made. It is not encouraging when the money has been raised and deposited to find that in some cases over twelve months is allowed to elapse before the work is completed. In a private business concern what is necessary is done quickly, but in a public Department there is a good deal of red-tape, with little chance of improvement in any direction. In the cable telephone line, we have a large enterprise that has been conducive to the public welfare; and I am pleased to sound a note of satisfaction in that regard. The great northern line to Albury and the Goulburn Valley is proving a great boon. I commend the Department for having adopted a. very commonsense alteration in reducing the length of telegraph poles, which, though apparently a small matter, is very important to many people. On the other hand, the public convenience has not been consulted in regard to the closing of post and telegraph offices at 6 o’clock in the evening to the great inconvenience of the travelling public and the community generally. In my opinion, the offices should be kept open later, though such a step might involve some cost ; and I point out that this is a matter which affects the country more than the cities, where there are all-night telephones. Then, again, the public interest has not been consulted in the matter of ate letter fees at railway stations. Whereever a mail train runs, that train should be constituted a travelling post office. I suppose the conditions in Victoria in this regard were altered to bring them in line with those of the other States; and it would, in my opinion, have been much better to bring the other States into line with Victoria. This is a matter in which the Postmaster-General might have asserted himself as against the inspectors in the States. I should like to know how far we have proceeded towards the completion of the various wireless telegraph stations.

Mr Frazer:

– There are eight wireless stations now completed, and before the end of May we hope to have eighteen.

Mr PALMER:

– All on the Telefunken system ?

Mr Frazer:

– No; only two of them.

Mr PALMER:

– I do not know why the Telefunken system has been abandoned, but I take it that we are getting the other system so much cheaper, that the law proceedings in regard to the patents have led to the departure, and that now we are getting the advantage of the other system under better conditions. If that be so, I am happy to be able to congratulate the Government. As to the Post Office officials, they had large expectations as to what was to happen if certain Government changes came to pass ; but I venture to say that those expectations have not been fully realized, and that there is much discontent in the Department. A petition has been presented bearing a large number of signatures, protesting against a number of officers of the Department being brought under the arbitration law, and my opinion is that the adjustment of all grievances should be settled in the Department, and not by any outside authority. Prior to the passing of the Act authorizing these men to apply to the Arbitration Court, they had the right to approach the highest officer, and, through the Minister, Parliament, in seeking to redress their grievances.

Mr Frazer:

– No Minister, however energetic, could decide those questions.

Mr PALMER:

– The Minister speaks with more experience than I have, but if theMinister has not the necessary knowledge, certainly the heads of the Department ought to be strong enough to conceive what is right.

Mr Frazer:

– And should not the Chairman of the Arbitration Court be able to do so after hearing evidence for and against ?

Mr PALMER:

-Yes ; but there is the matter of delay.

Mr Frazer:

– No doubt the honorable member is very anxious as to the delay !

Mr PALMER:

– I feel justified in making this appeal on behalf of those men who desire to have the right to apply to their superior officers.

Mr Frazer:

– Why did the honorable member not give them the right of appeal when he was behind the Government in power ?

Mr PALMER:

– The question did not then crop up. I do not think the Government I supported proposed to vest the power in any outside authority. In a large Government Department of this kind there should not be such elements of discontent if the men are treated fairly and honestly. It has been pointed out that the rights of the transferred officers no longer exist, in spite of section 84 of the Constitution, which provides that all existing and accruing rights shall be preserved.

Mr Frazer:

– And while this Government is in power, the men will get those rights.

Mr PALMER:

– Does the PostmasterGeneral declare that the conditions he indicates prevail?

Mr Frazer:

– I do declare so.

Mr PALMER:

– If the Minister makes that statement, of course we must be satisfied with it.

Mr Frazer:

– I do make it deliberately.

Mr PALMER:

– Then it is marvellous that the Postmaster-General has not corrected the statements made previously this evening. However, I have done valuable service in eliciting the declaration that every transferred officer will receive that which he is entitled to.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member has awakened six years after this matter was decided by a Court.

Mr PALMER:

– I hope I shall succeed in awakening the Minister. The postal and telegraphic facilities in a country like this ought to be in advance of civilization. It is certainly no inducement to decentralization when a great Department like this calls upon people in a new and sparsely-settled district to put up a guarantee against loss in connexion with the mail facilities provided.

Mr Kelly:

– I wish to point out that there is not a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr PALMER:

– When appeals are made for postal facilities in remote parts of the Commonwealth the Government should seriously consider whether it is wise to make demands on the people to “ foot the bill.” Their policy should be to provide those facilities in advance of settlement. The adoption of such a policy would make the Government more popular than would attention to a good many seemingly more important reforms.

Mr Higgs:

– I think that we ought to -have a quorum present.- [Quorum formed.]

Mr Wise:

– I wish to call your attention, sir, to the insulting conduct of the honorable member for Wentworth, who is smoking a cigar in the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - Order !

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Sneak ! Sneak !

Mr Thomas Brown:

– I rise to a point of order. I call your attention, sir, to the objectionable utterance of the honorable member for Richmond, who referred to the honorable member for Gippsland as a sneak.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I did not notice the remark in the exchange of badinage while I was busy counting to ascertain the number present.

Mr Kelly:

– I wish to direct attention to the fact that the honorable member for Gippsland, who has not yet been promoted, is addressing points of order to you, sir, from the Treasury bench. Is he in order in thus arrogating to himself an importance which he does not possess?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Members other than Ministers are not in order in speaking from the front Ministerial bench.

Mr Wise:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Wentworth, who had been absent from the chamber all trie evening, came in, and, after calling attention to the lack of a quorum, immediately began to smoke a cigar. Then the honorable member for Richmond, who poses as a gentleman, called out “ Sneak.” I wish to know whether the honorable member was in order in applying that word to an honorable member who called attention fo the most disorderly conduct I have ever witnessed - that of an honorable member smoking a cigar in the chamber?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Richmond was not in order in addressing that remark to the honorable member for Gippsland. But I would point out that at the time, my attention having been drawn to the state of the House, I found on counting heads that there was no quorum present, and the sitting of the Committee was, therefore, practically suspended until a quorum was in attendance.

Mr Frazer:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that this Committee is in existence irrespective of whether there is a quorum- present or not. I distinctly heard the honorable member for Richmond apply the term “ sneak “ to the honorable member for Gippsland. I ask, therefore, that he should be called upon to withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Seeing that the remark is regarded as offensive, although apparently made jocularly, I ask the honorable member for Richmond to withdraw it.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I withdraw.

Mr PALMER:

– I had almost completed what I desired to say upon this subject. I am satisfied that when the PostmasterGeneral wakes up he will be willing to give this question the consideration which it deserves.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– A little while ago I referred to the fact that, in 1905-6, according to the figures which are contained on page 60 of the Budget-papers, the average salary paid in the Postal Department was £133 per annum, whereas the average salary being paid during 1912-13 is only £130 per annum. I think that the Postmaster-General should be able to explain this reduction. I am not prepared to speak dogmatically on the question, but seeing that there has been an all-round increase of wages through the operation of Wages Boards, it seems strange that the average salary of postal officials should have been reduced by £3 per head. Then I would call attention to the fact that, although three years have elapsed since a thoroughly qualified accountant was appointed to this Department to prepare a report showing the whole cost of administration, separating the various branches of the Department, and setting out which services were paying, and which were not, no such report has yet been submitted to Parliament.

Mr Frazer:

– Owing to the necessity for adopting a common system of bookkeeping, it has been found imposible to get a report for the current year, but next year a report will be forthcoming.

Mr SAMPSON:

– This House is entitled to a progress report.

Mr Frazer:

– The Chief Accountant has left me.

Mr SAMPSON:

– That is certainly very unfortunate. But that does not palliate the position in which we find the Department at -the present time. If the accountant was not competent to do the important work which he was appointed to perform, it was the duty of the Postmaster-General to remove him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And if he was competent the Postmaster-General ought not to have allowed him’ to go for the sake of £250 a year.

Mr Frazer:

– I think that he was a very competent officer.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Then it was the duty of the accountant to have surrounded him self with an efficient staff, and to have presented to this Parliament a report showing the financial position of the Department long ere this. We have waited for three years for such a report, and it appears to me that that is a sufficiently long period to enable the affairs of the largest department in the world to be thoroughly investigated. We know that a good deal of confusion exists in respect of operations of the various branches of the Department. Whenthe Postal Commission presented its report in 1910, it showed that a net profit of something lake £70,000 per annum was made by the postal branches of the service. But after having taken exhaustive evidence, the Commission found itself unable to submit a balance-sheet respecting either the telephonic or telegraphic branches of the Department, although it was thought that the latter yielded a profit. Here is a Department, the expenditure of which aggregates something like £5,000,000 per annum - a Department which employs from 10,000 to 12,000 officers, and which has services extending all over the Commonwealth - and yet we have not a balance-sheet setting out the result of its operations. It is the duty of honorable members to assist the Postmaster-General in the enormous ta*k of managing this huge Department. But up to the present our efforts to criticise it have been paralyzed, because of the absence of any succinct statement of accounts. Three years ago a thoroughly competent accountant was appointed to make specific inquiries into the whole of its financial operations.

Mr Frazer:

– It is barely two years ago.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Very well. There has been ample time for that officer to present a report to Parliament regarding the finances of the Department, so as to enable us to initiate necessary reforms.

Mr Frazer:

– He endeavoured, with all the assistance he could get in one State, to secure a balance-sheet, but after two years had to close the books in despair.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Is not that rather a serious confession to make? If this huge Department is in such hopeless confusion that it is impossible to present a clear statement of its accounts, the PostmasterGenera! should have instructed the accountant to report the facts as he found them.

Mr Frazer:

– The result of his investigations led to the removal of those who were responsible for producing that condition of affairs.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Why have we not a report to that effect?

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member can get it.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Is the Postmaster - master-General able to supply us with any information as to the probable date when a report will be issued by the accountant, or will it be necessary, in view of the retirement of that officer, to appoint another accountant to traverse the whole ground again? If so, two years hence we shall occupy the same unsatisfactory position that we occupy to-day. In view of the tremendous development of our postal, telegraphic, and telephone business, it is extraordinary that we are not able to place this Department on a paying basis. I believe that the construction of new works should have been separated from the administrative branch of the Department, and that the works should have been constructed out of loan moneys and carried out in such a way as to provide for the repayment of interest and contributions to a sinking fund. We cannot initiate any sweeping or radical reforms in these matters unless we have a full statement of accounts, showing separately the operations of all branches of the Department, so that we may discover where the weakness lies, and where changes are necessary. Without waiting for a general report on this subject, we might have brought about salutary reforms by separating the new works from the administrative branch. In the old days in Victoria, the construction of new lines of railway was associated with the purely administrative branch of the Railway Department, and we were involved in all sorts of extravagance, which brought us almost to the verge of ruin. But it was decided to entirely separate new works from the administrative side of the Department and place them under a competent committee. This system has resulted in the reduction of the cost of construction from, say, £6,000 or £7,000 per mile to £2,000 or £3,000 per mile; and if we adopted a somewhat similar plan in connexion with our Postal Department I believe that we should effect similar economy. The Minister hasintroduced the use of shorter poles for telephone lines in country districts where the circumstances warrant the change. This will have the effect of enormously reducing the cost, because in the majority of instances suitable poles will be obtainable in the immediate neighbourhood. This is only one reform among the many that would have been brought into operation if we had had a properly ‘constituted body to exercise daily and close supervision over the construction of works. Instead of appointing a board of a bureaucratic character, entirely independent of’ Parliament, the Minister might initiate a very important change by endowing Deputy Postmasters-General and inspectors with greater powers than they now exercise. In> this direction the Minister could look forward to considerable relief from the centralizing influences now in operation. We know that it is difficult to introduce a system that would permit the separate heads in the various States to exercise large and elastic powers, because it is recognised that uniformity must be preserved. But in the construction of minor works, and in matters relating to the provision of improved facilities, and the modification of the conditions of the services to suit local requirements, much more authority might be left in the hands of the Deputy PostmastersGeneral and the inspectors. Under a system of this kind, we should be able to give infinitely better facilities to residents in sparsely-populated districts, whilst at the same time we should not involve the Department in seriously increased expenditure. The Minister promised to favorably and sympathetically consider the question of constructing telephone lines that were to be partly paid for by those who would derive benefit from them. I admit that the Minister has perhaps not received the consideration due to him, because of the great rush of work in connexion with claims for increased postal, telegraphic, and. telephone services. It is a good thing to know that the people are so thoroughly appreciating the advantages of telephone facilities that they are urging the Department to provide them in all directions. This fact is largely responsible for the congestion in the Department.

Mr Frazer:

– I have not received the recognition that I. expected from public bodies when I have told them we would give them telephone facilities if they constructed the lines themselves under our supervision.

Mr SAMPSON:

– The Department would be relieved of vast expense and pressure of work if encouragement were given to private individuals to construct private telephone lines on their own account, or to enter into partnership with the Department. I particularly wish to direct attention to these partnerships. Under existing conditions, when an application is made for an estimate of the cost of constructing a telephone line, the inspector reports upon the matter, and the applicants are informed of the estimated deficiency, and invited to contribute a certain amount in cash or material towards the construction of the line under Departmental supervision. If the amount asked for by the Department is paid by the applicants, and the line within five or six years becomes payable, the money contributed by the applicants is not refunded.

Mr Frazer:

– Suppose the line turns out to be unprofitable?

Mr SAMPSON:

– In that case, the Department will have had the money paid by the applicants as partners in the construction of the line. If it is estimated that a line will pay, say. three-quarters of the interest charge and cost of maintenance within the first seven years, the Department will probably erect it under the guarantee system ; but if it is thought that the line will yield only half the charges for interest and maintenance, the Department will probably offer to construct it on condition that the residents contribute half the cost. Under such circumstances, I consider that the money should be returned to the applicants, or that at least they should have half of the then value of the line returned to them if, within a reasonable time, it becomes a payable concern.

Mr Frazer:

– I hope that, . within two or three years, we shall be able to do away with those conditions altogether.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am glad to hear it. If the Minister were to amend the Act so as to provide for repayments in cases such as I have indicated, I believe a’ great impetus would be given to the construction of telephone lines throughout the country. No country in the world more urgently requires the extension of telephone facilities, which might be made a great developing factor, as well as a means of contributing to the comfort and convenience of the community We are still a considerable distance behind the United States of America and European countries in respect to the number of tele phones in use in proportion to our population. The Government, who have a monopoly in connexion with works of this kind, should take advantage of their position to infuse into the enterprise energy and progressive spirit which could not possibly be displayed by private individuals. 1 know that the Deputies and their engineering staffs are doing all they can, but I trust greater expedition will soon be possible in connexion with the construction of main trunk telephone lines, principally along main roads and railway lines. I know there has been a difficulty in securing sufficient material, but I hope that that has now been overcome. I also wish to call attention to the fact that, in Melbourne, the Post Office officials connected with the Central Staff are distributed over a very wide area, and that this cannot be conducive to efficiency or economy.

Mr Frazer:

– All the members of the Central Staff will be under my direct control in the new building.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I call attention to the state of the Committee. - [Quorum formed.’)

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– The state of this great Department is to-day anything but satisfactory. It is really in a state of chaos. The people are prepared to pay for an efficient post and telegraph service, and if we cannot get it from those who have had control of it for so many years it is time they made way for some one else. It will be remembered that the party at present in power forced the Deakin Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Department. The Commission sat for two-and-a-half years, examined hundreds of witnesses, and their inquiry cost thousands of pounds. They made a number of important recommendations, and one would have thought that when the Labour party got into power they would have endeavoured to carry out those recommendations. They have not done so except in a few minor instances. One of the principal recommendations of the Commission was that the Department should be placed under the control of an independent board of management. The Government have done nothing to give effect to that recommendation.

Mr Frazer:

– And do not intend to.

Mr RYRIE:

– Then of what use is it to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into anything? The present Government will only carry out the recommendations of a Commission if it suits their own purpose to do so. That does not reflect any credit upon them. The employes in this service, and especially those in the General Division, have not been treated as they should have been. They have for years been asking for the redress of many grievances, and the only answer given them by the Labour Government is to permit them to go to the Arbitration Court. They have been asking for bread, and they have been given a stone: Whilst officials in the higher grades have been given increments in salary, the members of the General Division have been told that if they want increased wages they must go to the Arbitration Court for them. The increases of wages given in the post and telegraph service do not compare in any way with increases given outside the public service. In view of the increased cost of living, some consideration should have been given to the employes of this Department. In the circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that the Department is seething with discontent. It is not in the interests of the Commonwealth that we should have a discontented service. It is up to the present Government, who profess a particular regard for the lower grades of the service, to see that the wages of these men are put upon a satisfactory footing, and the conditions under which they work improved. I should like to refer to the lack of accommodation at the Sydney General Post Office, which is the most important of all our post-offices. The accommodation provided should be sufficient to enable the employes to deal comfortably with the great volume of postal matter which goes through that office. It is not by any means sufficient. The Minister of Home Affairs was laughed to scorn when he proposed to purchase the rest of the block on which the Sydney General Post Office is erected, in order to permit of additions being made for the proper carrying out of the work of the office.

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

– The honorable gentleman wished to build a city there.

Mr RYRIE:

– I do not know to what length the Minister desired to go, but there was a good deal of common sense in his proposal. The purchase of the block would have turned out a good bargain for the Commonwealth, and I have little doubt that something of the kind will have to be done before many years are passed. The accommodation provided for the work of the sorters is nothing like sufficient to enable them to properly perform their work. We expect all our postal and telegraphic work to be properly carried out. I know of instances where, through delay in the delivery of telegrams, great loss has been occasioned to individuals.

Mr Finlayson:

– Does the honorable member know of any country in the world that has a better service?

Mr RYRIE:

– I do not know of any country that has a worse service. I should say that there is no country in the world that has a worse telephone service. If there is such a country, I do not want to go there. If a man wishes to work himself up into a paroxysm of rage he has only to use the telephone in Sydney or in Melbourne. A worse service than ours should be sufficient to drive a man mad. I do not, however, say that the fault is in the system. We have as good officers in our post and telegraphic service as are to be found in any service in the world, and I attribute our difficulties to faulty administration. I say, advisedly, that the present -Government have not the administrative ability to properly conduct this great service, and the sooner some one with the requisite ability is given the control of this Department the better it will be for all concerned. Whilst the accommodation provided in the Sydney General Post Office is inadequate, that provided in the post-offices of the principal suburbs is also insufficient. The post-office at Manly, for instance, is a disgrace. The present Government, when in opposition, were going to do everything at once when they got into power,, and though they have now had twoandahalf years of office, and have had the spending of any amount of money, they have done practically nothing. The post-office at North Sydney ranks perhaps next in importance to the Sydney General Post Office. It has been added to in a trumpery way from time to time. Wooden buildings, roofed with iron, have been attached to the main building. I have been upon the premises while the sorters were at work on the mails, and must admit that I should not like to be employed in such a place in the summer time. The heat was stifling. It is not fair that officers should be called upon to work under such conditions. I believe that an injustice has been done to the postmaster at North Sydney, Mr. Reid. He has been for eleven or twelve years on the same salary, and appears to have no prospect of promotion.

Mr Thomas:

– I suppose he is at the maximum of his grade.

Mr RYRIE:

– Surely the grade can be altered. During the last five years business ab the North Sydney office has doubled. Is it reasonable that the postmaster should continue at the same salary ? Another grievance is connected with the half-holiday of the letter-carriers. Recently I arranged for a deputation to meet the Postmaster-General to put before him matters connected with that subject. I think that a half-holiday could very well be granted to the lettercarriers on Saturdays. I doubt whether the public are anxious about getting mails on. Saturday afternoons. The general public of North Sydney would be quite satisfied to receive one delivery on Saturdays.

Mr Frazer:

– If the honorable member will present to me a petition from a majority of the residents in Manly or North Sydney statingthat they will be satisfied with one delivery on Saturdays, I will put the idea into operation at once.

Mr RYRIE:

– The Minister asks me for a. big order. I suppose that there are 50,000 inhabitants in the district, and he asks for a petition from a majority of them. That is to say, from 26,000.

Mr Frazer:

– I will put the idea into operation the day after the honorable member presents the petition.

Mr RYRIE:

– In my opinion, the lads who deliver letters are entitled to get their half-holiday. They see their mates who work at other occupations going off to play football or cricket, or to indulge in boating or some other sport, and it must be very gaJling to them to have to remain at work on Saturday afternoon. Many of them might make first-class cricketers if they had opportunity for practising. But a man has no hope in the world of becoming a good cricketer if he cannot get a. half holiday on Saturday.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member must be aware of the fact that the expresses fron Melbourne and Brisbane arrive in Sydney at between 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning. We cannot guarantee that tha delivery of the letters will be completed before 2 o’clock in the northern suburbs. Moreover, the honorable member should not forget that every letter-carrier, when he works beyond 1 o’clock, gets a half -holiday during the week, or a whole holiday per fortnight to make up for the couple of hours worked on Saturday afternoon.

Mr RYRIE:

– But a half -holiday on any other day in the week is not of much use to these lads. They want to share in the sports of their mates.

Mr Frazer:

– I have more consideration for the letter-carrier than for any other employe in the Service, and anything that I can do for him I will do.

Mr RYRIE:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister.

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

– I am sure that honorable members who have been listening to the interesting observations of the honorable member for North Sydney regarding the letter-carrier and his woes will regret that the speech was cut short under the standing order. But the Minister has supplied an answer. We are told that although the carrier is kept at his post to deliver letters which come by the expresses on Saturday mornings, he gets an equivalent amount of time at some other part of the week. We are told that it is quite impossible to carry on a great Department like this, and at the same time attend to every little want of the employes.. I quite agree with the PostmasterGeneral that letters must be delivered on Saturdays. It would be quite wrong to deprive the public of the opportunity of getting letters which arrive from Brisbane or Melbourne, merely for the sake of giving the letter-carriers their halfholiday at any particular time. Of course the half -holiday is a right. This country has settled down to the idea that we shall not work during the whole day on six days in the week. But if a service is rendered on the understanding that an equivalent shall be given on some other day, I do not think that there is any serious ground for complaint. At any rate the PostmasterGeneral should not be asked to break into the discipline of the Department to the extent of depriving the public of letters which arrive by Saturday mails. Since I last addressed the Committee, the PostmasterGeneral has stated that those officers who were taken over from the State services have had their rights under the Constitution satisfied. I doubt the correctness of that statement. Not many weeks ago I addressed some correspondence to the Minister from a number of officers in Sydney, who said that they had not yet been able to enjoy the constitutional rights which were supposed to have been secured to them. So far, I have not had an answer saying that those rights have been respected. These men pointed out to me that when they asked for their rights they were referred to the Arbitration Court. They do not consider that that is fair treatment.

The honorable member for North Sydney, referring to the General Post Office, Sydney, said that he considered that the Minister of Home Affairs was quite right in an attempt that he made to supplement the accommodation provided at that office. I quite agree that the accommodation at the Sydney office is insufficient. I have watched with interest the attempts repeatedly made to enlarge the existing building, which have only succeeded in disfiguring it by adding story after story, and even by placing unbecoming erections on the roof, to afford still more accommodation. I am sure that the honorable member for North Sydney does not mean that the Minister of Home Affairs was right in proposing to take up the balance of the land between the existing post-office and King-street for the purpose * of building some extravagant erection about twelve stories above the street, and halfadozen underneath it, in order that he might erect shops and let them out. The whole suggestion was based upon a misconception as to the province of government. It was on a par with a proposal the Minister made regarding the Perth Post Office, with which I shall deal a little later on. He has not hesitated to tell Parliament that he intended to erect a number of buildings at Perth quite apart from the post-office, so that shops, and even an arcade, could be erected and let. I am not aware that it is one of the functions of a Minister to speculate with people’s money by erecting buildings in order to get rents from them. We must have proper accommodation for the post-office in the great centres of popula1.ion ; but these schemes of the Minister are based upon an entire misconception of the province of Government, and I am sure that the honorable member for North Sydney did not intend to indorse that policy. That brings me to the question of appointing a public works committee. I had the honour during the three years when I occupied the position of Minister of Public Works in New South Wales, of seeing how beneficial a public works committee was to that great State. In New South Wales no public building is allowed to be erected costing more than £20,000 without its being required to go through the fire of criticism by a Committee appointed by Parliament at the beginning of each session. If a railway or tramway has to be built, and money is required by the Government for the purpose, a Bill must be brought in, not for the purpose of ‘ constructing ,the work, but to refer the question to the Public Works Committee. The Committee makes a thorough investigation, takes evidence on oath, and submits a report for the guidance of Parliament. I have known the Parliament to reject a recommendation of which it did not approve. What is the condition of things in the Commonwealth? The Minister of Home Affairs is able to embark on a scheme without the indorsement of such a body. There are buildings mentioned in these Estimates which it is absurd to allow him to embark upon without an indorsement by an impartial body. We have no assurance by anyone outside the Minister that the item of £38,300 towards the construction of the Sydney Parcels Office will be profitably or economically expended. It is the same with regard to the sum of £128,000 for the purchase of sites for post-office buildings. Why should not this Parliament have what all the State Parliaments possess - an independent body of members, who would regard these proposals from a point of view in which public economy and public expenditure are duly considered ? I believe that one of the first acts of a Liberal Government will be to take out of the hands of the Minister the opportunity of patronizing a district or locality with a building quite beyond its needs. Some reference has been made to the report of the Postal Commission, of which the honorable member for Gwydir was a member. He has frequently stated here that some of its recommendations have been adopted. It is a little unfair that no Minister has ever had the magnanimity to confess that he was making certain changes in pursuance of that Commission’s recommendations. I think that a frank acknowledgment would have satisfied people that it had been of some use. I wish also to protest against the failure of the Government to supply the House with the annual report of the Public Service Commissioner. It is the only publication in which he has the opportunity of telling us what he has done, and why he has done it, how his objects have been frustrated, how he has been assisted, and wherein he has had to differ from the recommendations of Ministers and others with regard to patronage. I should like to know what he had to say concerning some of the appointments which have been severely criticised here, and what he had to say when he was not consulted in regard to certain important offices which ought to have been filled by men already in the Public Service. It has a distinct bearing on these Estimates that we have not heard from the Commissioner why certain things have been done, or have not been done, in connexion with the Post Office staff. Indeed, I wonder why ‘he Minister has not insisted upon the report being tabled, in order to show that he has complied with the recommendation of the Commissioner. I wish to refer to Hie neglect on the part of the Government - and the reference really applies to former Governments - to observe the important distinction between expenditure out of loan moneys and expenditure out of Consolidated Revenue. I notice that hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent out of current revenue on permanent and revenueproducing buildings and assets. A Post Office is a revenue-producing asset. A site is bought for a new post-office, and from that moment the land near the site, as well as the site itself, enjoys an increment from the fact that it has been selected for the central service. A building is erected on the site, and that fact enhances the value of the land in the locality. Who gets the benefit of expenditure on the post-offices? not the people of to-day or to-morrow only, but the people of the future. Why should the people of to-day pay for the postal expenditure of the people of ten or fifteen years hence? If we look through these Estimates, we find that enormous sums have been spent on post-offices. Pages 28-30 of a statement which has been made available to honorable members contain a list of new post-offices, and so it is with pages 31, 32, 33> 34> 35.- and ~? on. Page 36 shows that nearly ?1,000,000 has been spent on post-offices. Surely the people of each generation should pay the annual cost of the capital expenditure which is made in their interests? If that consideration applies to railways, it also applies to post-offices. The bulk of the postoffices will last 100 years, and by that time the increment in the value of the land on which they stand will have increased so much that it will cover the cost of the building. I wish to say a few words about the Marconi-Balsillie matter. I am not at all satisfied with the attitude which the PostmasterGeneral takes up. I have every reason for believing that proceedings took place in England between the Marconi Company and Mr. Balsillie, in which the latter was shown to be wrong with regard to certain patent rights. I should like the PostmasterGeneral, if he is not already aware of the fact, to make an inquiry, and, if he finds that matters are as I am told, it should have the effect of putting him on his guard with respect to Mr. Balsillie’ s real rights to other patents.

Mr Frazer:

– I assure my honorable friend that I have taken the utmost precautions to guard the interests of the Commonwealth.

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

– I can assure the Minister that there are certain facts iri regard to his own administration which do not give the idea of that complete openness which is shown by the British Government with regard to patentees. I have had placed before me a copy of the English Hansard, in which a question was raised with regard to the Marconi patents, and the PostmasterGeneral of England, Mr. Samuel, said, in effect, !! We invite Marconi and Company, or any other patentees whose patents we use, to come into the Post Office and * make a most complete examination of any process we have, in order to see whether or not their patent rights are being infringed.” ls that the attitude of our Government? I do not think it is. A few months ago I saw in the press a report of some Court proceedings, in which the Government were denying to the Marconi Company the right to send independent people into their wireless stations in order to see whether certain apparatus was infringing their patents. “ If the Government have bought certain patent rights they have nothing to conceal. They ought to invite any patentees to see whatever they have purchased or aire using.

Mr Frazer:

– You ought to know Mr. Herbert Samuel’s opinion.

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

– The PostmasterGeneral of England has invited discussion and investigation, and that should have been the attitude of this Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.Without discussing patent rights, or the merits and demerits of various systems, I wish to express regret that, owing possibly to the proceedings which have taken place, the Postmaster-General has not given Parliament some information in regard tq what has been done in completing the chain of wireless stations with which, I understand, it is proposed to encircle the Australian coast, and has not announced his policy for the future.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We have a right to know what is being done, irrespective of anything that may be happening outside.

Mr GORDON:

– Proceedings connected, with patent rights may have caused the Postmaster-General to hesitate about giving information.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member may be sure that I am taking the course that I believe to be in the best interests of the people.

Mr GORDON:

– I do not suggest anything else. My complaint is that we do not know what has been done, or what is to be done. On the Estimates the sum of £160 is set down for “ South Australian wireless station.” So small a sum can scarcely cover the proposed expenditure in that State for the current year; but having looked twice through the Estimates, I cannot find any other. The policy of Australia should be to adopt whatever wireless system the experience of Great Britain has found to be the best. The system accepted should be the same throughout the Empire, to permit the fullest exchange of messages between vessels of war and land stations. Coming to another subject, I notice that there is now a loss of £16,000 in connexion with the All Red cable line, although the Royal Commission on Postal Affairs pointed out not long ago that Australia’s probable loss would be only £4,000 a year. Last year Senator Pearce proposed to the Imperial Conference the nationalization of an Atlantic cable line to cheapen and render more effective the telegraphic communication between Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. He put before the Conference some important facts, accounting for a part of the loss now incurred; and Mr. Samuel promised to carefully consider his proposal on behalf of the British Government. At the same time, Mr. Samuel submitted an alternative proposal, which was accepted by the Conference. It was that, in the event of considerable reduction in the Atlantic cable rates not being effected in the near future, the laying of a State-owned cable between the United Kingdom and Canada should be considered by a subsidiary Conference. We have not been informed whether the British Government has succeeded in bringing about a reduction in the Atlantic cable rates which will reduce the loss on the All Red line. According to the report of the Postal Commission, only 19,000 ordinary messages are sent from Australia via the Pacific, as against 77,000 sent via the Eastern line, though 1,000 press messages are sent via. the Pacific, as against 1 ,233 via the Eastern. The Commonwealth’s proportion of the loss in 1910 was only £4,700; now, as I have said, it is nearly £16,000. The time is not far distant when this matter will have to be carefully considered by the Australian Government. The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company did good work in connecting Australia with other parts of the world, and its enterprise was aided by the land lines constructed in South Australia. But the loss on the All Red line is so heavy as to be of serious concern to the Australian public, and the various Governments concerned should endeavour to attract sufficient business to make the enterprise profitable. Last year there was set down on the Estimates/ the sum of £375 for St. Peter’s Post Office, Adelaide; but that, I understand, was due to a clerical error. The post-office now in use does not meet the growing demands of the important suburb in which it is situated, and I propose to bring . under the attention of the Deputy Postmaster-General for South Australia the need for an up-to-date building. An important matter to which more atten- . tion should be given is the improving of our telegraph system by the greater use of Wheatstone instruments on the main lines. The Postal Commission reported that the Department might have utilized the Wheatstone instrument more than it has done. I am glad that the Department has given certain South Australian officers who failed in their first Wheatstone test a second trial, because the conditions under which they were given the opportunity to practise with the instrument were such that even proficient telegraphists who had been in the Department for a great number of years failed to answer the demands made on them. Undoubtedly the further use of these automatic instruments would increase the efficiency of the Department, and I can understand that the engineers desire that as many men as possible should become proficient in their operation. But the telegraphists should be given more notice of the intention to call on them to show their proficiency, and the examinations should be conducted under conditions which will give the operators every opportunity to pass the necessary tests and qualify for the higher salaries paid to proficient men. In the United Kingdom the Wheatstone system is largely used because it is capable of dealing with a pressure of traffic. In the central London’ office items of news may have to be transmitted to fifty or more towns simultaneously. Circuits are made up for their transmission, each dealing with a number of towns, some circuits being permanent, and others temporary, to meet special requirements. It is not often that operators in Australia are called upon to work the Wheatstone instruments, except at the main centres. Should the Prime Minister deliver a policy speech in his electorate the necessary instruments and operators would be sent to the town in which he was speaking to transmit the press reports throughout Australia as quickly as possible. But the instruments are difficult to work, and men should be given full notice that they will be called upon to show their proficiency in operating them. Something has been said about the construction of new works being removed from the control of the PostmasterGeneral, and there is a good deal in the proposal to recommend it. A Public Works Committee or some body of the kind to deal with the new construction work of all Departments would be more likely to secure the expeditious carrying out of those undertakings than is possible when they are taken in hand by each Ministerial head. There is much to be said in favour of the appointment of a Public Works Commission, in view of the expenditure that is taking place in connexion with this and other Departments, and it is a suggestion that may well receive the earnest consideration of this Parliament. Reference has been made by the honorable member for Parkes to the adop-tion of a borrowing policy for reproductive works. I have never been afraid of borrowing for reproductive purposes. But for a borrowing policy Australia’ would not have made the progress that it has. We should not have been able to build the 16,000 miles of railway which are such a credit to the States, nor should we have been able to provide the net- work of telegraph lines and the many other public utilities that have been established in the interests of the people. It is folly not to borrow money at 3 per cent, or 4 per cent, when we can find opportunities of earning 6 per cent, or 7 per cent, by its use, and at the same time developing and peopling the country. The Commonwealth will soon be faced with the necessity of borrowing in order to meet its national obligations in regard to the provision of many public necessities. It is impossible to raise sufficient revenue to meet the growing requirements of this and other

Departments. If we wish to encourage settlement in Central Australia and other remote areas, we must be prepared to extend our postal and telegraphic facilities. Those who visited the Northern Territory must have been struck with the importance of increasing such facilities in that part of Australia. It is absurd that those who are trying, for instance, to develop the Victoria River country should be cut off from all communication with the rest of the world. Only yesterday a young man called on me and made inquiries with reference to his settling on the Daly River. He asked whether there was any telegraph communication between that district and Darwin. I had to tell him that there was not, and that it would possibly take him weeks to transmit to Darwin his orders for the necessaries of life, and that probably many more weeks would elapse before they were executed. If there is one part of Australia’ more than another where the PostmasterGeneral will have to face a growing expenditure, it is in the outlying portions of the Northern Territory. I hope that whoever presides over that Department will be prepared to face even a borrowing policy in order to provide means of communication for the people who go into these remote places.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– At an earlier hour I referred to the treatment of certain postmasters in country districts,, and I trust that the PostmasterGeneral will cause inquiries to be made with a view to rectifying what seems to be a very substantial grievance. I agree with the honorable member for Boothby, and the honorable member for Parkes, that there should be no hesitation in borrowing for the purpose of constructing postal buildings and extending our means of communication. While none of us wish our children to pay our debts, it is only fair that those who come after us ‘should assist in the expenditure necessary for the development of the nation, more especially as they must, undoubtedly, secure a fair proportion of the advantages derived from the provision of these public utilities. I wish now to draw attention to a curious regulation in connexion with the Department. For a long time the residents of Mittagong have been anxious to secure the establishment of a local telephone exchange. The necessary number of subscribers have sent in their names to the Department, but since there is an exchange at Bowral it is said that the request cannot be complied with, owing to the fact that a Departmental regulation provides that an exchange shall not be established within three miles of another. As a matter of fact there is what is practically a mountain range between Mittagong and Bowral, so that the application of the regulation in this case is absurd. I have been treated with the greatest courtesy by the manager of the telephone branch in Sydney, and have requested him to supply answers to a series of questions which I have submitted. When I receive replies to these questions I hope to be able to convince the PostmasterGeneral that this exchange should be at once erected. It would be a good revenueproducing asset since Mittagong is a favorite resort for tourists, and for many engaged in business pursuits in Sydney. I am not blaming any one in the Department, but I sincerely hope that this rule will be relaxed. Several honorable members have said that the postal, telegraphic, and telephone services of the country make for our development. That is undoubtedly true, and every effort should be made to extend these public utilities. Within 55 miles of Sydney there is a silver-field which is full of promise. Its development, however, has been retarded largely owing to the want of railway communication and to the fact that the ore produced has to be carted over two very steep mountain passes. Some four or five years ago a telephone line was erected there in the cheapest possible manner, the wires being carried along from tree to tree, and no poles being used. This met the requirements of the people for the time being, but the line is constantly falling into a state of disrepair, and, in view of the fact that there are now 1,300 men on the field, the long and constant interruptions that take place constitute a very serious drawback. A new and up-to-date line is very urgently required. The silver-field to which I refer is that of Urangerie, and I hope that its wants in this respect will be immediately attended to. For some time I have given a lot of thought to the suggestion that the block of land bounded by Moore, George, Pitt, and King streets, Sydney, should be resumed, with a view to the erection of one magnificent building to meet the requirements of the Postal Department, the Commonwealth Bank, and various other Departments of the Federation. I do not know how such a scheme would be received by the people of Sydney, but I think it an excellent one. It would enable the present inadequate postal facilities of Sydney to be largely extended, and would provide much-needed accommodation for other Departments. Some time has elapsed since this suggestion was first made. It originated, I think, in the Department of Home Affairs, and I understand that during the last few months the Minister has given the matter his close attention. Two or three years ago the congestion of business in the Sydney General Post Office - the overcrowding and the ill-ventilation of the building - rendered it necessary that the pressure should be relieved. A block of land was, therefore, secured at the Central Railway Station, and upon it has been erected a large building, where the greater portion of the sorting of the country mails can be carried out. Even when all the proposed alterations to the Sydney Post Office building are carried out, the congestion will still continue, because there is not sufficient space for the enormous business that is conducted there. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the postal service made the following recommendations : -

That a portion, if not the whole of the block, on which the General Post Office, Sydney, is now situated be resumed, or that the Belmore markets site be considered as a site for a central mail dep6t.

The Commission further reported that -

Leading officials stated that the mail branch, the parcel post branch, the money order office, and the correspondence and record branches at the General Post Office, Sydney, are not only unsuitable for the purpose of providing effective control, but are totally insufficient for public and departmental requirements.

The congestion would be got rid of to some extent if the telephone branch were removed from the Post Office building, as has been done in Melbourne. As regards the accommodation, the Commission stated -

It was stated that the accommodation provided for the clerical branches was most inadequate, being based on requirements of thirty years ago ; that the present alterations in the mail room would lessen the natural light and decrease the ventilation. It was alleged that accommodation provided for the parcel post branch was unhealthy, that the letter-carriers’ room is too small to accommodate the number of men employed therein, that the light in this room is artificial and the ventilation bad, and that the room’s situation over the boiler connected with the electric light branch made it most uncomfortable during the summer months.

In a climate such as we have in Sydney during the months of January, February, and March, to have officials working in a room immediately over a boiler connected with the electric light is a state of things which should not be continued a moment longer than can possibly be helped. A good deal has been said about the advisableness of placing the management of the Post and Telegraph services under a Board. It is contended in some quarters that the management of these services should be placed beyond political control, and that a Board of Commissioners should be appointed to conduct the services on commercial lines in the interests of the people. On the other hand there are those who advocate that the Minister should continue to have a controlling power, and should be assisted in his administration by a Board. The Postmaster-General must have felt since he has been in office that it is absolutely impossible for him to attend to all matters in connexion with this great service, and that it would be advisable to have a Board that would visit all the chief centres and exercise direct personal supervision over the various branches. One objection that has been urged to the appointment of a Board is that no Post and Telegraph service in the world is under the control of Commissioners, but there is no reason why we should slavishly follow the practice of other countries. We are dealing with Australian matters, from an Australian stand-point under different conditions, in many respects, from those existing in other parts of the world. On this point the Commission states -

The growing tendency in progressive countries is to place the administration of such governmental services as are rendered to the public in return for specific payments in charge of non-political Boards. The introduction of such systems of management is the outcome of the desire for the application of more business-like and economical administration in the public interest. This object would be attained by the appointment of the proposed board of management.

The second objection urged was that the post and telegraph service is not a trading concern. It is true that the service is not a trading concern in many respects. The chief object, I take it, in having a post and telegraph service is to meet, as far as possible, the requirements of the people - to give them every opportunity to carry oil their businesses and their social and other relations, as well as to develop the resources of the country, and at the same time to so conduct the service as not to make it a losing concern. On this point the Commission reports - ‘

The Post and Telegraph Department is not a tra’ding concern. Your Commissioners agree with this contention when the words “ trading concern “ are read to mean a mercantile establishment conducted for profit; but they consider that a quick and safe conduct of mail matter and efficiently-managed telegraphic and telephonic services are essential. In the management of such services business-like methods must be adopted tor accomplish these results. The Post and Telegraph Department is not a purely commercial proposition, nor is it a taxing Department, but every effort should be made to conduct the services on business lines. The proposed board of management would undoubtedly make the necessary provision to achieve this result.

After a .most searching inquiry the Commission came to the conclusion that the establishment of a board of management was necessary.

Mr Frazer:

– Do you approve of the establishment of a board?

Mr FULLER:

– Yes ; I have always approved of that, but the Minister must understand that there are two classes of board. There is a board that would be outside of political control altogether, and there is another board that would still be under the control of the Minister as the political head, and that is the board which I advocate. Then it is stated that our post and telegraph service is a monopoly, but I do not think that any one would wish to disturb the present position. It is one of those public utilities which can be better conducted under the existing system than under any other.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– I should like to refer to the complaints that have been made about the delay in the delivery of telegrams. To insure reasonable despatch, the public are called upon to practically pay double rates, because, unless the telegram is marked as urgent, and paid for accordingly, there is no guarantee against delay in delivery. There are many other points in which the administration is irritating to the public, who are, I am sure, willing to pay any additional cost necessary to insure an efficient service. The discontent amongst the employes of the Department recently resulted in a critical position in New South Wales, particularly in the telegraph branch. 1 asked some questions in this regard the other day, and the PostmasterGeneral seemed inclined to make light of the matter.

Mr Roberts:

– That is not so. The Postmaster-General gave it the utmost consideration.

Mr RYRIE:

– At a mass meeting of an association of the men, a resolution was arrived at absolutely refusing to work under the staff hours announced, to come into force on 1 6th December, and expressing willingness to continue the existing conditions until the matter had been settled by the Arbitration Court. This meeting, and other circumstances, show that there is exceeding discontent in the Department. The new scheme, prepared by a man called Wilcox, has already been brought into operation in Tasmania and Queensland, where it has given anything but satisfaction. This new scheme is described by the telegraphists as “diabolical,” seeing that, according to them, it contains no fewer than twenty-one shifts. The Postmaster- General, in reply to questions by myself, told us that the new roster would do away with the broken shift.

Mr Frazer:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr RYRIE:

– At any rate, the new scheme accentuates the annoying inconvenience to a great extent. It is all the more objectionable in that it means that in five months there will be only two weeks on which a man will be able to get home for tea. The shift is now broken from half-an-hour to three hours.

Mr Frazer:

– Half-an-hour is the maximum.

Mr RYRIE:

– Such a time is of no use to a man unless he lives quite close to the post-office ; and it would be much better if a telegraphist could go on duty, do his shift straight out, and then go home.

Mr Frazer:

– Does the honorable member prefer a man to work six and a half hours without a spell of any description ?

Mr RYRIE:

– I understand that that is what the men are asking for, though, of course, they do not work all the time without a spell. The new roster also means that overtime is worked, for which no pay is given.

Mr Frazer:

– It is an extraordinary thing that, on averaging the Public Service, it is found that the public servant is paid for forty days in the year on which he does not work.

Mr RYRIE:

– I do not know now the Postmaster-General arrives at that. It seems an extraordinary statement, but we must, of course, take it as correct.

Mr Frazer:

– Public servants get their sick leave, statutory and gazetted holidays, pay for all the time they work over and above their shift, and six months’ leave of absence after twenty years’ service, and this averages just under forty days a year.

Mr RYRIE:

– That statement alters the position very considerably from what we supposed when the Postmaster-General first made the statement, and I do not regard it as a fair comparison.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Who worked these figures out?

Mr Frazer:

Mr. Trigg, the accountant of my Department.

Mr RYRIE:

– Under the new roster there are fifty-six men who go on at 8.30 a.m., and work until 3.30 p.m., with halfanhour off j sixteen men who work from 9 to 4 with half-an-hour off ; and eighteen men who work from 9.30 to 1, and from 3.30 to 6.30, which means a broken shift of over two and a half hours. Men living in North Sydney, who are employed as telegraphists, cannot possibly go home to lunch and return to duty again within that period. Consequently they have to loaf about the city. They would rather continue work without a break.

Mr Frazer:

– All that we expect of them is that they shall work while they are on duty.

Mr RYRIE:

– These eighteen men are practically on duty from half -past 9 o’clock until half-past 6 o’clock. There are . eighteen men also who work from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and from 3.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Here is another broken shift. Could not a scheme be prepared under which so much broken time would not be necessary?

Mr Frazer:

– This scheme is the result of the employes’ desire to get rid of roster duty. It has received the closest investigation by departmental officers and myself, with a view to having the telegraphists on duty when there is business to be done. If, after a trial, it does not work out satisfactorily, it may be further amended.

Mr RYRIE:

– There are six men who work from 11 a.m. to 1.30 ip.m., and from 3.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Mr Frazer:

– They start at n a.m. and finish at 7.30 p.m., and complain bitterly.

Mr RYRIE:

– I think that these telegraphists are deserving of every consideration. I know what it is to work in the operating room at the General Post Office,” Sydney. It is enough to drive one mad.

Mr Frazer:

– I know what it is to work there, too. I have worked double the time that the operators there work.

Mr RYRIE:

– It is very trying to men to work all day in that room. After being there for only ten minutes I know that my head becomes dizzy. I do not know how the men stand it.

Mr Frazer:

– I have seen them eating their lunch, reading the newspaper, taking a message, and writing it down at the same time.

Mr RYRIE:

– I think that points to the fact that they are harshly treated.

Mr Frazer:

– I am going to relieve them of the necessity of eating their lunch during business hours.

Mr RYRIE:

– Twelve men are engaged from noon till 3 p.m., and from 3.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eight are engaged from 1 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. On Saturdays there are fifty-six men who are employed from 8.30 a.m. to 1 p.m., sixteen who are engaged from 9 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., eighteen who work from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., seventeen who are employed from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., seven who work from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m., fifty-two who are employed from 1.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., fifteen who work from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., seven who work from 3 p. m. to 8.30 p.m., ten who work from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., and four who are employed from 6.30 6.30p.m. to 12 p.m. I have not much to say against the Saturday roster duty. The Evening News, of Saturday, 14th December, in speaking of this matter, says -

The pent-up feelings of the telegraphists after that day’s digestion of the above little menu overflowed on Friday night at a mass meeting of the Post and Telegraph Association, held in the G.U.O.O.F. Hall, Castlereagh-street, Sydney. The attendance was good. There were over 150 men present, and they showed that they were determined not to be forced to work under conditions they did not approve.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr.McWILLIAMS (Franklin) [5.10 a.m.]. - This matter is far too serious to permit of it being treated with hilarity. I pointed out the other evening that there are few spending Departments of the Commonwealth in which we can help the people. But the Postal Department is one in which we can assist the citizens of the Commonwealth. Every year I have sat in this House there has been a discussion on the want of consideration that has been extended by that Department to the outlying portions of Australia. Honorable members have repeatedly complained: of the lack of telegraphic and telephonic facilities in remote rural areas. Whereas the wealthier portions of the Commonwealth enjoy every facility which can be extended to them settlers in distant portions who desire telephonic communication have to enter into a bond to make good any deficiency which may result from the carrying out of the work. The PostmasterGeneral has endeavoured to lighten that load, but has utterly failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Mr Frazer:

– Within twelve months I have constructed 45,000 miles of telephone lines.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– In cases where those lines would be of enormous service to outback settlers, requests for their construction have been refused. The commercial aspect of such a proposition should not be the be all and end all of the Department’s existence.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member is getting just about as near to the truth now as he was the other day when he made statements concerning the Tasmania n mail contract.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Every statement which I made in connexion with that service was correct, and was taken from the Postmaster-General’s own file of papers.

Mr Frazer:

– Seeing that I fixed up the contract I ought to know what it is.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Any man of business ought to be ashamed to acknowledge that he has” fixed up “ a contract by renewing an absolutely combine contract without any alteration whatever being effected in it. No contract let by any Federal, Government has merited more condemnation than does that contract. In the carrying out of it two steam-ship companies trade to Tasmania. A deputation front Tasmania, representing both sides of the House, waited on the Honorary Minister, who was acting for the Postmaster-General during his illness, and urged him not to renew the joint contract.

Mr Frazer:

– What the honorable member said the other day was that the company were going to give a five days’ service between Tasmania and Melbourne ; but as a matter of fact the option given to the Government was for only six weeks with four weeks additional.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I was speaking; entirely of the summer tourist season, and the Minister will admit that the offer of the company was a great improvement on the existing service.

Mr Roberts:

– The improved service could not come into operation for two years from now.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The Honorary Minister knows nothing whatever about the matter.

Mr Frazer:

– The new arrangement would come into operation in the summer of 1914.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The company stated that if thiscontract were given to them they would order at once from the Old Country a second Loongana.

Mr Frazer:

– They said nothing of the kind.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The papers are in print and will show that what I say is correct .

Mr Frazer:

– I know what the papers contain, and here is a copy of them, which honorable members may see.

Mr Mcwilliams:

-I hope, for his own sake, the Minister does not know, because the papers do not bear out his statements. The offer of the company was that in consideration of an increase in the contract price from£13,000 to £15,000 they would place in the service a second

Loongana, giving the order for her immediately, but stating that they could not guarantee that she would be completed for two years. Owing to the congested state of the ship-building industry in the Old Country it was impossible for the company to give any guarantee in this matter. The increased subsidy would not come into operation until the new service was inaugurated.

Mr Frazer:

– What did they want beyond that?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– They wanted a seven years’ contract.

Mr Frazer:

– That is where I fell out with them. I said that in all probability ihe Tamar would be deepened and we would have a Commonwealth line of steamers running before that period expired. I was not prepared to give them a seven years’ contract.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The Minister renewed the old contract for two years, and now takes credit for having done so. Every one knows that the service to-day is unsatisfactory. The Rotomahana was trading in the same service twenty-five years ago.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– From what the Minister says now he is punishing the people of Tasmania with a view to bringing them into the socialistic scheme.

Mr Frazer:

– I am not punishing them, but unless we can get a better offer than at present we shall be compelled to come into the field of competition.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I believe that underlying the action of the Minister there is a desire to make the service so unsatisfactory that further discontent will be created, and the way will be paved for the new Commonwealth, service.

Mr Frazer:

– We have merelycontinued the service your Government brought into operation.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– When the contract was let, objection was taken to it, and it is idle for the Minister to contend that a service that was deemed good enough six years ago should be continued for all time. The Government have renewed for two years a service which every representative of Tasmania in both Houses condemns.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And now the Minister says that this has been done as a warning to the contractors that they must not do anything better.

Mr Frazer:

– If I am here I will give Tasmania a better service next time.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The Minister has been in office for nearly three years-

Mr Frazer:

– Only fourteen months.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– He was Honorary Minister before he took over his present portfolio. The Government have been in office for nearly three years, and, although they were warned that this contract was coming to an end, and that the service was totally inadequate, they took no action to meet the situation. The Minister deliberately gave a renewed contract to a combine, knowing it to be a combine. He signed a joint contract, and is practically bolstering up a monopoly.

Mr Frazer:

– I gave the contract to the only tenderer.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The Minister is trying to shift the responsibility from his own shoulders to those of his predecessor.

Mr Frazer:

– Nothing of the kind.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If any determination had been shown by the Government not to receive a joint tender the results would no doubt have been entirely different.

Mr Frazer:

– Does not the honorable member know that vessels of more than 16 feet draught cannot navigate’ the Tamar ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Yes, and that has an important bearing upon the childish interjection of the Honorary Minister that the new contract would not commence for two years. The company which has the fastest and the most serviceable boat south of the line - with a speed of seventeen knots on three boilers and twenty-one knots on four boilers - offered to order a second Loongana immediately.

Mr Frazer:

– No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member’s time has now expired.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am surprised at the action of the Government, at a time when the Post and Telegraphservice is seething with discontent, attempting to force these Estimates through in this disgraceful fashion. They must know that the conditions in the Department should be fully investigated, but instead of considering the grievances of the employes they turn them over to the Arbitration Court. I wish to say a word or. two concerning the difficulty that has arisen in connexion with the telegraphists in the Sydney office. I understood the Postmaster-General to say that his new scheme would do away with roster duty.

Mr Frazer:

– I said that I hoped it would do so.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I venture to say that in enforcing the new order of things on the Sydney telegraphists the honorable gentleman has strained the loyalty of these employes of his Department almost to breaking point.

Mr Frazer:

– The previous order was just as strongly objected to.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Judging by the attitude which the Minister adopts, I am led to believe that the whole of the difficulty is due to himself. If he would go into the matter sympathetically, and endeavour to. understand the objections of the Sydney telegraphists, he might arrive at a system of management which would meet, not only with their approval, but their loyal support. A notice appearing in the Age of this morning gives an account of the manner in which the new scheme is being received. It is headed, “Aggrieved Telegraphists - Another Appeal to the Prime Minister.” The men have apparently lost all hope of securing justice from the PostmasterGeneral, and are now appealing to the Prime Minister, though apparently they have done so before. The notice to which I refer reads -

The council of the Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Association met to-night and expressed full appreciation of the justice of the claims of the New South Wales men, and resolved to leave no stone unturned to effect a speedy settlement of the dispute. It was resolved to send another telegram to the Prime Minister, urging him to reconsider his decision to revert to the old schedule.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister has decided to revert to the old schedule, but if he has it would appear that there is a split in the Cabinet, as I understand that it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to adhere to the new system. The article continues -

It was decided to appoint Mr. Ward, President of the Victorian Association, to make the application to the Arbitration Court for a compulsory conference under the Act.

I understood the Postmaster-General to say that there was no question of the Sydney telegraphists going to the Arbitration Court, but they appear to have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to get redress from him, and that the only thing left them to do is to appeal to the Court. The Act recently passedby the Government is to be brought into operation in a way they little contemplated. The PostmasterGeneral is endeavouring to force down the throats of the telegraphists in Sydney a new scheme of work, and their reply is, “You sent us to the Arbitration Court, and to the Arbitration Court you shall go.” The report goes on to say -

The necessary documents were sent to Melbourne by to-night’s express.

I presume, therefore, that within the next forty-eight hours an order of the Court will be served upon the PostmasterGeneral, and he will be brought into compulsory conference with the employes whose grievances he has heretofore treated in a cavalier manner.

Mr Frazer:

– I shall hail that with satisfaction.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The report further says -

The President, Mr. Wilson, states that the new scheme imposes longer hours.

The Postmaster-General has said that it imposes shorter hours, but the men who have to work under it deny the statement.

Mr Frazer:

– My statement was that it was expected that the alteration of duties would relieve the officers in the Sydney office of certain hours of duty.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If that means anything, it means that under the new scheme the men would have shorter hours of duty.

Mr Frazer:

– In the aggregate, yes.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

- Mr. Wilson denies that statement, and says that the new scheme will impose longer hours. The report continues -

It will not do away with roster duty, and already it has broken down. It was understood that it bad been altered to bring the staff on at 6.30 p.m., instead of . 6 p.m., as provided in the scheme. It also had the advantage of being worked at the present time by 20 to25 more men than it provides for.

Mr Frazer:

Mr. Wilson appears to have time to make statements as to how the scheme is working.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– He should have plenty of time when off duty to ascertain whether he is justified in making these statements.

There were rosters on’ all the staffs yesterday. The 8 o’clock men getting away at 9, the 11.30 men getting away as late as 1.30 a.m., and, in the majority of cases, the half-hour break was lost sight of.

That was the half-hour break that the men were to be sure of, so that they should not have to eat their meals at their instruments. Mr. Wilson continues -

To-day matters were worse, and the men were kept on from one till two and half hours. above the scheduled time. The men resent the Deputy Postmaster-General’s statement that everything is working smoothly.

We should like to know where the PostmasterGeneral got his information from. Apparently he did not get it from the men most concerned.

Mr Frazer:

– To whom would the honorable member appeal for information if he were in my position ?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I should endeavour to get into touch with the men themselves and should ask whether everything was working smoothly and satisfactorily.

Mr Spence:

– Why not work themfor two hours a day, and pay the men £1 a day for it? The honorable member is encouraging men to strike.

Mr Frazer:

– They will never take the bait.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am simply astonished that the Minister should have . made the statement that the system . was working quite smoothly when it is evident that it is creating more discontent than ever. I sincerely hope that the action of the Minister in this regard will not induce the postal employes to go much further. In the statement that I have read there is evidence that they intend to exhaust every constitutional means- to secure redress of their grievances. They are going to compel the Minister to goto the Arbitration Court.

Mr Frazer:

– They will have no difficulty in getting there.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Not only are there grievances in connexion with the telegraphists. There are also grievances amongst the public withreference to telegrams. I know of cases in which telegrams have not arrived at their destination at all. An instance occurred to myself a little while ago. I had arranged to meet a postal inspector at a certain place. He was to telegraph to me when he would be there. In due course the inspector sent me the telegram.. I have not received it to this day.

Mr Frazer:

– Has the honorable member seen the original?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

-No, but I take it that the Postmaster-General would not doubt the word of one of his own postal inspectors when he says he sent the telegram.

Mr Frazer:

– I have to doubt the word of some one if the honorable member says that the telegram was never delivered.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– There was an inquiry and I believe that the explanation was that the telegram was sent, though it never reached me.

Mr Frazer:

– Will the honorable member supply me with the particulars about that case?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It occurred a considerable time ago, and has already been fully investigated, but, if the Minister desires to go into it again, he can do so. I will give another case. A lady went to Sydney from Melbourne. She died there. Her relatives wished her to be buried in Melbourne, and the corpse was despatched by rail. The friends in Sydney despatched a telegram at the same time. The corpse arrived before the telegram. In fact, the telegram is still awaiting delivery.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member makes a serious statement against the Department. If he will give me the facts, I will devote to them the closest investigation that a man can give to any subject.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have the departmental explanation, which is that the lad to whom the telegram was entrusted presumably tore it up. He did not deliver it, and sacked himself from the Department shortly afterwards.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

. -There is no reason; why the PostmasterGeneral should be vindictive or aggressive in his attitude with regard to the complaints that have been made as to his Department. There is a general principle held by the Minister’s party to the effect that an enormous increase in profits should be followed automatically by increased wages. I remind the Postmaster-General that, owing to the arrangements made by his Department the cost of sending a telegram has risen100 per cent. within the last few years. Not many years ago, one could send a telegram in Australia that would beat a luggage-train for exactly half the price that has to be paid for sending a telegram now. If you want to send a telegram with any hope of having it promptly delivered, you must mark it “urgent,” and pay double rates. This is an astonishing instance of the way in which a Government monopoly can be used to extort from the long-suffering public double pay for the same services.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member merely means that the sender can pay an additional sum to secure a certain precedence.

Mr KELLY:

– That is to say, to enable the telegram to attain a certain speed. In other words, if you want your telegram to go from one part of Melbourne to another as fast as you could walk, you have to pay double rates.

Mr Frazer:

– Do not be ridiculous.

Mr KELLY:

-I am trying not to be, but I am following the PostmasterGeneral’s explanation to a logical conclusion.

Mr Frazer:

– Try this sort of thing on some one younger.

Mr KELLY:

– It is the Minister’s great claim for congratulation that he is young, but I cannot congratulate him on being innocent. It is unfortunate that the Estimates of this important Department should have to be considered during an all-night sitting. Of course, it is a simple thing for the Government, with a good majority, to force their Estimates through, and stifle legitimate debate. But they cannot in this way decrease the dissatisfaction that exists ; because the proper ventilation of grievances affords a safety valve with reference to disputes of this character, and the suppression of. proper discussion will tend to increase the pressure of discontent, and perhaps lead to grave manifestations of dis satisfaction.. The services which the Department is rendering to the public are actually decreasing year by year. The telegraph offices remain open for a much shorter time than they used to do. If a, person wishes to send a telegram he has to go later in the morning, because the office’s do not open early enough, and earlier at night, because the offices do not remain open so long as they did.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I had to pay £1 1 2s. more last year for my telephone calls.

Mr KELLY:

– That process is going on right through the Department. There is an organized effort on the part of the manager of the Telephone Department to put up to the public the cost of the service supplied. Because I ask that the Telegraph branch should give at least the same service to the public, I am told that I want the telegraphists to work longer hours. It is possible to keep the telegraph offices open longer hours and to work the men less by providing a larger staff. The complaint is that there is a deliberate desire to skimp the number of hands, and make a profit in that way. Why cannot more hands be supplied, so that there should be less congestion and better conditions throughout the Department? It wants managing. I see signs of faulty management in a number of directions. The other day I asked a question regarding the establishment of telephones, and the length of time which applicant, subscriber’s have to wait for the installation of telephones in Sydney. An unfortunate applicant has to go to the Department, or he cannot get a telephone at all. He is kept waiting, nota few weeks, but a month generally, and sometimes three months.

Mr Frazer:

– I explained that it was because a contractor defaulted on the Department, and the only thing we could do was to impose the full penalty upon him.

Mr KELLY:

– Apart altogether from that, I would remind my honorable friend that there is always an excuse for the delay in supplying a public telephone. It is regarded as something phenomenal for a person to get a telephone within a week on urgent matters in the metropolitan area. The Department is actually using a monopoly to extort a month’s payment from each new subscriber without rendering a service.

Mr Frazer:

– Nothing of the kind. No subscriber is charged except from the. day his connexion is absolutely made to the exchange.

Mr KELLY:

– Assuming the Minister’s statement to be correct, the interest gained from the money of the individual subscriber, insignificant as it may be, becomes really important, having regard to the thousands of applications which the Department receives in a year. The Department offers -the gravest reason why no business should be run by the Commonwealth as a monopoly, whether nationalized or run in any other way. It is wonderful that honorable members opposite can have the temerity to suggest that the Commonwealth should take over great technical enterprises and run them on the incompetent methods of the Postal Department. It is, to my mind, the most difficult existing Department to administer, because it is the biggest in its operations. It is so big that the combined intelligence of the “ Ministry of all the talents “ is unable to set matters right In its compass. Yet it is a mere bagatelle compared with the difficult and involved nature of any great . manufacturing business which my honorable friends could take over under the powers they seek.

Mr Higgs:

– I do not think that this is in order.

Mr Thomas:

– They have to put in halfanhour each.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member for Barrier has put in time in the Postal Department. He is thrown into every Department where there is difficulty,” and thrown out again as soon as possible. What did he do to solve the difficulties of the Postal Department ? He was responsible for raising the telephone rates to the public. He did it by a Czar-like ukase. He said, “ I, Josiah Thomas, decree that on and after a certain date the rates shall be increased.” It was not the Department itself, apparently, which was determined in that matter, but the Postmaster-General for -the time being. The Ministry evidently wanted money, and so he had to do something.

Mr Mathews:

– Why did they not hang on to the £400,000 which they lost by introducing penny postage?

Mr KELLY:

– Their vehement opposition to penny postage when they were not in power made it, of course, consistent for them to grant it, and to claim credit for granting it as soon as their revenues were full. It is significant of this Government that they never can look ahead. They made that concession in one of their moments of aberration, when not looking ahead.

Mr King O’Malley:

– The Opposition is great at looking behind.

Mr KELLY:

– I think that if the honorable member would look behind occasionally he would see who was pulling his leg or tickling his “ Chinn.” I wish now to point out to the Postmaster-General that there seems to have been something happening - heaven only knows what - with regard to the ambitious schemes for the establishment of universal wireless telegraph stations.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– The honorable member for Gwydir, who is understood to be a friend of the Postal Department and of the Service, is hardly justified in describing my criticism of the administration, and my request for the investigation of certain complaints and grievances as puerile. My summary of the grievances of certain classes of officers was compiled from public records. The officers concerned have not approached me, and I have had to be content with what has appeared in the press. Newspaper statements, however, may sometimes be inaccurate, and I wished to ascertain from the Postmaster-General how far those to which I drew his attention were correct. I understand that he has not yet made a reply. The redress of grievances before the granting of supply is a fundamental principle of the British Constitution. I drew the honorable gentleman’s attention to the complaints of the middle classes of the General Division. Officers of higher grades have had increments amounting t0 £18,000 distributed amongst 747 persons, and £100,000 has been distributed amongst officers of the lower grades, beginners being given 8s. on attaining the age of twenty-one years. I urge no objection to these increases, but I think that something should be done for the men in the middle grades, who are receiving about £3 a week, and, notwithstanding growing families an3 increasing obligations, have no prospect of rising any higher.

Mr Thomas:

– Why did not the honorable member alter their condition when, Postmaster-General ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I was endeavouring to redress their grievances when the Government of which I was a member lost office. We were not in power for three years with an abounding revenue, unlimited resources, and a. triumphant majority. The grievances to which I direct attention have, notwithstanding the conditions under which the present Ministry hold office, become more pronounced than they were. I took the constitutional step of asking the Public Service Commissioner to report what he thought could be done by the Government, or by Parliament. I am a firm believer in the controlling’ of the Public Service by a Commissioner, and would do nothing to impair its effectiveness. The present Commissioner is a good and able man, but he is not above receiving representations regarding matters needing consideration. Possibly, were the Postmaster-General to ask the Public Service Commissioner to inquire whether the grievances of those to whom I refer could be remedied by fresh grading, or in some other way, a beneficial change would result.

Mr Thomas:

– What is the complaint ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– That a large number of letter-carriers and sorters who receive £150 or£160 a year have no prospect of being promoted to anything better.

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member raise the maximum salary of a letter-carrier above £150 a vear.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– If I could not see my way to do that, I would make provision to transfer them to some other position carrying a higher salary.

Mr Thomas:

– A letter-carrier may become a sorter.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– That line of promotion does not provide a sufficient outlet.

Mr Thomas:

– What would the honorable member do?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I would try to find other lines of promotion.

Mr Thomas:

– What are they?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Not being PostmasterGeneral I am unable to say, but were the Public Service Commissioner consulted something might be done. I understand that when there have been vacancies in the letter-sorting staff temporary hands have been appointed instead of lettercarriers being promoted. I have been told, too, that proper facilities are not afforded to letter-carriers to pass the sorting test, and that sometimes the Department appoints outsiders. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General whether those allegations are true. Coming now to fresh matters, I ask why the annual balance-sheet of the Department has not been submitted to Parliament. When Postmaster-General, I insisted that a resolution passed some years ago, on the motion of Mr. Dugald Thomson, should be carried into effect, and an annual balance-sheet prepared for submission and presentation to Parliament, showing the receipts and expenditure in connexion with the various branches of the service, and as a whole. The Department is a conspicuous example of Socialistic enterprise, performing services of a business character for the benefit of the public. It should, as far as possible, be run on business lines. That requires the production of an annual balance-sheet for the information and guidance of the public, who stand to the Department in the relation of proprietors to a business, or of shareholders to a company. I do not think, however, that a balance-sheet has been issued since I left office. What is the reason for that? We should know what branches are paying, and what, if any, are run at a loss. I ask whether the system which I instituted, of keeping distinct and separate accounts for the telephone and telegraph expenditure, is being continued. It is highly desirable that that should be done. A special Committee appointed by me sifted the accounts, and distinguished between the capital expenditure on telephones and that on telegraphs ; and recommended that the distinction should be maintained. There should be an annual statement, not only of revenue and expenditure, but also of the capital account. We, as an Opposition, would not be doing our duty if we did not draw attention to the lack of information. In my opinion, the time has arrived when the administration of the Postal Department should Be improved and strengthened by placing certain branches of its business under the control of a Board of Commissioners. The idea is not a new one, but when in office I formulated a scheme, which I submitted to the country, providing for a Chief Commissioner to deal with the mail service, a second Commissioner to control the telegraph and telephone services, and a third Commissioner to control the staff. These Commissioners would become authorities on their special branches, and would confer on general questions of management and administration. This arrangement would, I think, put the Department on a more satisfactory basis. The management of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department is at present vested in a Minister and Secretary, and, under them, in the various heads of branches. In proposing a board of management, I do not contemplate depriving the PostmasterGeneral of his responsibility in matters of policy. . All matters of finance and policy should be reserved to the Minister, who in turn would be responsible to Parliament. He would be in complete touch with the Board. There need not be any conflict or antagonism between them, because a line of demarcation between their respective functions could be clearly drawn by law. Therefore, whilst there would be a complete specialization of the work, there would be no impairment of political power in the last resort.

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member sweep away the Public Service Commissioner ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– No; in assigning the staff work to one of the members of the Board, I would give him primary jurisdiction, and reserve to the Public Service Commissioner a sort of appellate jurisdiction from the Board in special matters that might be defined by law. I would also reserve to the Public Service Commissioner the conduct of all examinations and tests for admission to the service, and of all examinations to be passed, as conditions precedent to promotion or the granting of increments.

Mr Thomas:

– Seeing that matters of policy and high finance would be in the hands of the Minister, and the Service under the control of the Public Service Commissioner, what would the honorable member leave to the Board of Commissioners?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The Board of Commissioners would act practically as superintending inspectors. It” would be their duty to keep in touch with the whole of the service.

Mr Thomas:

– But they would have no control of finance.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– They would have to apply to the Minister in matters of finance just as the Railway Commissioners in the States have to submit their Estimates to the Minister of Railways, who, if he disapproved of them, would not submit them to Parliament. There would still be a reserve control in the Minister as a gobetween between the Board and the Parliament. My proposal would create specialized officers, who would not merely be confined to Melbourne as the Secretary to the Central administration is, but would require to keep in touch with the whole ramifications of the Service and the Chief Officers in the States. I would improve and strengthen the position of the Chief Officer, or Deputy Postmasters-General defining their duties, and keeping them in constant communication with the Central Staff. I would see that they were not subordinate to any Public Service Inspectors. They complain now that Inspectors under the Public Service Commissioner occupy a sphere independent of them; that, although they are responsible for the administration, say, in Melbourne or Sydney, and in all the great outposts, they are subordinate to the authority of the Inspectors.

Mr Howe:

– Why not get rid of the Public Service Commissioner ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– No, I would amend the Public Service Act in accordance with the system I have outlined. We must recognise the importance of the positions occupied by the Deputy PostmastersGeneral. It must be a serious matter to them to find that they are powerless to deal with staff questions.

Mr Thomas:

– Why are they powerless ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Because they have to apply to the Public Service Commissioner on every important question of Public. Service equipment, promotion, and transfer. I should have mentioned before that I would reserve to the Public Service Commissioner the right to deal with complaints against officers, and with alleged offences committed by them, leaving the administrative Board power to deal with postal work, instead of requiring them to dispose of a number of details that might properly be reserved to the Commissioner. I have roughly, but freely, outlined my proposals., recognising that, like every proposed reform, they are open to criticism. We must be prepared, however, to grope our way to some better system. I make these SUBgestions for the benefit of the public and the Government of the country, believing that the present system is perfectly inadequate. The work cast upon the Minister is superhuman. It is absolutely appalling that a Minister who has great political duties and responsibilities to discharge should be called upon daily to go through masses of correspondence, and to consider details so terrifying in their extent that none but the strongest man could possibly face them. The Minister ought to cheerfully relinquish to such a Board as I propose the examination of the mass of papers relating to the purely internal administration of the Department. The Minister of

External Affairs, when Postmaster-General, must have felt, as I did, the appalling character of the mass of correspondence daily submitted to him, and in respect of which he had only to attach his signature. Before doing so, however - before initialling any document - he had to master the subject-matter.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He was not required to do so.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– But he ought to have done so. I found it most killing work to go through masses of papers that might well have been left to officers. I would not leave the work to the Secretary, or to one officer, but if a Board of Commissioners were created they might be trusted to deal with them, reserving the right of appeal to the Minister or the Public Service Commissioner in certain matters about which the Minister should not have to worry himself.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– For the first time since his appointment the Public Service Commissioner has failed this year to place his annual report in the hands of members before the consideration of the Estimates. In this respect there is just cause for complaint. I think that, almost without exception, during this session, not -one of the annual reports, dealing with the Departments, has been tabled before the Estimates relating to that Department have been considered. The Minister shrikes his head. If he says that there is an exception I shall accept his statement, although the exception proves the rule. In his last annual report, which was ordered to be printed on 29th September, the Public Service Commissioner made some important recommendations. The Postmaster- General has said that the whole Service is now running smoothly. That statement, however, is entirely antagonistic to the published reports of meetings of departmental officers in Sydney, and to the text of the resolutions carried by them. In his last annual report the Commissioner wrote -

In my last Report reference was made to the fact that notwithstanding the periodical ventilation of grievances in Parliament and elsewhere, a greater spirit of contentment and satisfaction was apparent throughout the Public Service under the present regime than probably ever obtained under pre-Federal management.

Mr Howe:

– Does the honorable member accept that report or the statement made so often by his own party that there has been nothing but dissatisfaction in the Service since we have been in power ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– That statement was made in a report for the year ended 30th June, 1911. We have had no report from the Commissioner since then. Nearly six months have elapsed since the close of the financial year, and yet the report is not available.

Mr Roberts:

– The reason is that the Public Service Commissioner took some extended leave this year, and was not back in time to prepare the report for presentation within the usual time.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I have urged more than once that a very necessary reform in connexion with our telephone service is that it should be placed as far as possible on the basis of the telegraph and postal service. We are adopting a wrong policy when we say that the further people go into the interior the more costly will their service be. It is just as reasonable to contend that you should charge1d. for a letter from here, say, to Albany, 2d. for a letter to Sydney, and 3d. for a letter to Brisbane as it is to have the zone system in connexion with the telephone service. The charge for long-distance telephoning is excessive.

Mr Thomas:

– Do you think that a charge of1s. should not be made for sending a telephone message from Melbourne to Sydney?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I say that in cases where you are using the telephone in substitution for the telegraph, the telephone charge should be the same as the telegraphic charge. For instance there is a township A, which is in telegraphic communication with township B, 25 miles away, and is also in telephonic communication with township C, which is 25 miles in the other direction. I say that in that case the telephonic and telegraphic charges should be the same.

Mr Thomas:

– Do you mean that a person should have three minutes’ conversation over a long-distance telephone for the same charge as is made for sending a telegram of sixteen words ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– No. What I say is that you ought not to charge any more for a three minutes’ conversation over a distance of 30 miles than you charge for a distance of 10 miles. There should be greater facilities given to people who live in the bush in connexion with the telephonic service, and you are not dealing fairly with those people when you say that the further they live away from populous centres the greater will be the telephone charges. The time is ripe for abolishing that system which compels people to guarantee a return of the interest on the cost of construction and the expense of maintenance before a telephone service is established. I know there are cases in which a telephone service would not pay, but the people living in those parts are the very people who should have a telephone service, because they are to a very large extent cut off from all communication, and their mail services are generally wretched. It is a cruel injustice to those people living in the bush to refuse them a telephone service because it will not earn sufficient revenue to pay interest on the cost of construction and maintenance. While we are spending large sums of money in improving the services in the centres of big population, where they have every facility for communication at their command, we ought certainly to provide services for those in remote parts who want it most. The cost of providing a service for those people living long distances from populous centres would be comparatively so small that the work should be carried out. We are spending about £23,000,000 a year on all our services, and the requirements of those who have gone into the bush to make homes for themselves have a first claim upon our Departments.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The people in the country districts are not receiving that consideration, they might reasonably expect in the way of telephone extension. Much, of course, has been done for them by the Department, but the Ministerial policy has not been such as to make the assistance of that benefit it might have been. Requests are constantly made to residents in the country to provide monetary assistance towards the construction of telephone lines, and to guarantee the Department against loss over a term of years. On the other hand, many services are rendered in towns for which the public are not asked to pay, such as the letter deliveries. The probable reason for the neglect of the country is that there is considerable waste of money in the administration of the Department. For instance, a little while ago the Department sent to the Manly Council a bill for £24 5s. 8d. for moving a telegraph pole at Pittwater. This bill was made up of £1 4s. 6d. for a foreman for two days at 12s. 3d., a day, £9 for nine men at 10s. per day, and the balance of 10s. per day for ten cable men, cartage, and, in addition, £2 8s. 3d. as 10 per cent, for supervision. The Manly Council regarded this demand as an outrageous charge, even in the case of a terminal pole with many wires, and simply refused to pay the account. If similar extravagance is going on in other branches of the Department, no wonder the country people are called upon to pay through the nose. A great deal of the difficulty in the Department is, I think, due to lack of business foresight on the part of the Minister, and the absence of systematic management. Efforts have been made during the last twelve months to cope with the work, but honorable members know, from letters they have received that, owing to the lack of wire, insulators, and so forth, many works are delayed. I was asked by the PostmasterGeneral to try to obtain labour locally for the erection of a telephone line, and I did so; but the work could not be commenced because there was no wire in store. That line is not erected yet, though I believe tenders have been called. The officials of the Department ought to have a much freer hand in the ordering of materials. The people in the country districts have always been willing to show their bona fides by complying with the severe terms laid down by the Department. This Parliament can render no greater service to Australia than to grant to country residents adequate facilities in the matter of telephones, mails, and post-offices. I am very sorry that the present PostmasterGeneral has gone back upon the policy of his predecessor, who promised to establish official post-offices in all cases where the revenue amounted to £200 per annum.

Mr Poynton:

– I thought that the PostmasterGeneral had promised to respect that pledge.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– That is so, but only in regard to certain post-offices in respect of which that pledge had been given. In three cases in my own electorate the promise has not yet been fulfilled. I wish now to say a few words in regard to wireless, telegraphy.

Sitting suspended from 8.5 to 10 a.m. (Thursday).

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– -During this debate a great deal has been said in regard to the administration of the Postal Department, and especially in regard to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the employes of that Department. I know from the public utterances of members of the Government that their general attitude is that it is practically impossible to comply with the demands of these officers. For instance, the Postmaster-General stated, by way of interjection, last evening, that the telegraphists are getting paid, on an average, tor forty days of the year upon which they do no work whatever. The importance of that statement lies in the fact that some person must have spent, a considerable amount of time in working out that calculation, seeing that the forty days includes sick leave, annual holidays, and the furlough which is granted to officers at the end of twenty years’ service.

Mr Frazer:

– It averages over the whole service nearly forty days a year.

Mr KELLY:

– But that includes furlough at the end of twenty years’ service, in addition to annual leave and sick leave?

Mr Frazer:

– Yes.

Mr KELLY:

– I have the utmost sympathy with the Postmaster-General, but I would suggest to him that the best way to quell the dissatisfaction which is rife in his Department is to avoid stirring up its employes by making statements which, to some extent, are unfair. An ordinary employer pays his employ^ who is absent through illness without bragging about it.

Mr Tudor:

– No. Ninety-nine per cent, of the workers do not get paid for absence through illness.

Mr KELLY:

– I have always paid my employes during the time that they have been absent through illness. Honorable members opposite appear to imagine that there is something extraordinary in the desire of the normal employer to tide a good employ^ over his time of illness. I do think that the Postmaster-General ought to be very careful not to offend the susceptibilities of the employes of his Department. I very much fear that the statement which he has made will be regarded as unfair.

Mr Frazer:

– What statement?

Mr KELLY:

– The statement that, on an average, they get paid for forty days each year on which they do not work.

Mr Frazer:

– Must I not speak the truth ?

Mr KELLY:

– The Postmaster- General should have said at the outset that that period includes sick leave arid furlough.

Mr Frazer:

– I did say so, and I have never said anything else.

Mr KELLY:

– Then I think that when officers of this Department are labouring under a grievance which is brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General, the departmental machinery ought not to be used to bluff them. Of course, I recognise that it is almost impossible for the PostmasterGeneral to keep in touch with everything that transpires in his Department. Take, for example, the answers which are given to questions put to him in this House. On the 19th November last I addressed certain questions to him, and I regret to say that the replies put into his mouth were admittedly inaccurate. One question was -

What effort is being made to pay officers the value of the work they are performing?

The reply was -

The new system of classification adopted specified that the number of telegraphists to receive £210 and ^235 per annum was not to be specified until the Wheatstone system was in full operation, and as soon as the system is in complete operation the necessary adjustment will be made.

Why, sir, the Wheatstone system has been in operation in New South Wales for the past year !

Mr Frazer:

– Is the honorable member sure that that is so?

Mr KELLY:

– I am informed on most reliable authority that it is.

Mr Frazer:

– Then the honorable member had better get another authority, because his statement is not correct.

Mr KELLY:

– I admit that the PostmasterGeneral cannot satisfy himself of the accuracy of the answers to questions which are supplied to him. I am informed by a person who ought to know, that this Wheatstone system has been in operation in New South Wales for some time.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member cannot bush me in regard to the telegraphists there.

Mr KELLY:

– It would be better for the Department to be absolutely frank in replying to questions relating to the employes of the Department which are asked in this House. The Postal Department has sufficient sins of its own to carry without being called upon to bear the sins of other Departments. On that account I rather resent the bad impression which is being created in my own electorate by reason of the arbitrary action of another Department in erecting additional postal buildings in Randwick, and refusing to abide by the municipal regulations in respect of alignment. I am sure, however, that the Postmaster-General will see that this matter is put right. I come now to the question of wireless telegraphy. Can the Postmaster-General inform me when the Fremantle installation will be in full swing? When will that installation be handed over to the Commonwealth ? ‘Years have elapsed since the installation was commenced, but, owing to the slackness of the Department of Home Affairs, in the early days of the present Administration, the work was hung up. The PostmasterGeneral has very properly declined to take over the installation until the terms of the contract have been complied with, though the original contractor is safe enough, because, thanks to the Minister of External Affairs when Postmaster-General, he was able to sell his .£5,000 syndicate right to a new company, with a capital of £65,000, for £45,000 in cash and shares, one of the most extraordinary stock exchange operations that has ever occurred. The whole of this transaction affords a striking instance of the business ineptitude of this Ministry, which is emphasized by what has happened in connexion with the issuing of the Commonwealth stamp. After twelve years of Federation, the Postal- Department has been unable to evolve a Commonwealth stamp, but we are now assured that it is coming with the New Year.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– At the expense of the employes engaged in the printing of it, who are to lose their holidays.

Mr KELLY:

– Yes, consequent upon the frantic rush to get the work done by the end of the month. When the electoral campaign is in progress, however, honorable members opposite will be able to say to the people, “ We gave you the new postage stamp.”

Mr West:

– The official opening of the Federal Territory is to take place in March.

Mr KELLY:

– If it is like the opening of the transcontinental railway, which took place without a sleeper or a rail being on the ground, it will not increase the reputation of Ministers. An Administration professing to represent Labour ought to understand the Labour problem sufficiently to know the obligation of starting at the date when you have announced your readiness to do so. Men were induced to go to Port Augusta to get work on the railway there, but were turned off because there was nothing for them to do. Although we seem about to get a Commonwealth stamp, the slow methods by which business is con ducted by this Administration will make it impossible to follow the practice in vogue in other parts of the Empire, and to change the design shortly after the death of a sovereign.

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

– The Department is an object lesson in Socialism.

Mr KELLY:

– Yes, and although its business is of the simplest kind, being merely the transmission of messages and the collection and distribution of letters, the cost of its services is yearly increasing, and the conveniences offered to the public are steadily diminishing. We have penny postage, which honorable members opposite fought against some time ago, but we pay more for our telegrams, and the hours during which business can be transacted have been shortened. Longer office hours should not have involved the overworking of officials, because enough should have been appointed to do all that was necessary without sweating. As the Department has an absolute monopoly, it should give a reasonable service.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We, on this side, are under a great disability in having to discuss the Estimates without the report of the Public Service Commissioner. That report should be available.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that it has been deliberately kept back?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Commissioner is a thoroughly conscientious, honorable, and painstaking public servant, upon whom I would not cast any imputation.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that the Government are keeping back the report?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– How far Ministers may be responsible for its absence I cannot say, but it is a singular thing, and one that cannot be allowed to pass without adverse comment, that a report which should have been submitted to Parliament in time to allow honorable members to digest its contents before beginning the discussion of the Estimates has not yet been laid on the table. No explanation of the non-production of the report’ has been given by the Postmaster-General, or any other Minister. Although we are placed at a disadvantage in not having this report, certain facts in connexion with the administration of the Post Office are so patent that attention must be called to them at this stage. The grievances of the postal officials are growing like the bulk of a rolling snowball, and the whole Department is seething with discontent. This condition of things seems to point to something radically wrong in the administration. The trouble cannot be due to lack of funds, because, although the Department may have been starved in the past, this Government has command of a revenue far in excess of that enjoyed by any of its predecessors. The discontent in the Sydney office, where the number of employes is larger than in any other, has been forced upon our notice, and honorable members generally are constantly in receipt of correspondence asking for their assistance in the remedying of grievances. Last year there was a conference of postmasters in Melbourne, and I was asked by the Secretary to introduce a deputation to the Postmaster-General, so that certain grievances” might be laid before him, and properly considered. One of the main grievances was the paying of rent for premises. In certain offices postmasters are compelled to live at the post office. Some of these premises, not only on account of their general unsuitability for residential purposes, but also because, in many cases, they are without ground space, are entirely inadequate to meet the requirements of their families. Realizing that their first duty is to their Department, postmaster’s, however, accept these disabilities, and really act as caretakers or watchmen, in addition to discharging their ordinary duties. That is a distinct service which should entitle them to an additional allowance. They also find themselves in another awkward predicament. At all times, and quite irrespective of their convenience, the practice of domiciliary inspection is carried out by officers of the Department, and not always in the most tactful way. This is an intrusion on their privacy, and, in some cases, is held to be unwarranted. These are matters of small matter to the Commonwealth, but mean much to the people affected. Some consideration should be extended to them. Due notice should be given of an intended domiciliary inspection, and the convenience of the household, as far as possible, should be studied. The officers should be granted the free use of such premises, even if they are not granted a bonus as well for acting as caretakers. Another point is that many of these gentlemen, being of an extremely obliging disposition, often supply the public with postal necessities after office hours. Generally “speaking, I have found the postal officials in my electorate most painstaking,, courteous, and obliging - officers of whom any service might be proud. I would also ask the Postmaster- General to represent tothe Minister of Home Affairs the desirableness of giving a little better considerationto postal officers who are acting as electoral registrars. In that capacity . they perform, in their own time, an immense quantity of work which, I fear, is not always appreciated either by the Department or the general public. I wish now to draw attention to a report of the Conference of InterState postmasters held recently in Melbourne. This conference met in the Temperance Hall, and among those present were Mr. J. R. Jackson, President of the Victorian Association, and Mr. R. Darton Secretary of the Commonwealth Association, representing Victoria; Mr. W. E. Grainger, Vice-President of the Commonwealth Association, and Mr. J. S. Roberts, Secretary of the New South Wales Association, representing New South Wales; Senator Stewart and Mr. W. E. Davis, representing Queensland; Senator de Largie and Mr. R. Parker, representing Western Australia ; Mr. C. W. Abbott, representing. Tasmania; and Mr. C. S. Clarke, representing South Australia. The report states; that, concerning the question of percentage deduction for postmasters’ quarters, Mr. Grainger pointed out that there still existed great discontent, and it was decided that a deputation should wait upon the PostmasterGeneral to advocate the adoption of the Royal Commission’s recommendation in the matter. I do not know how that deputation fared, but I understand that the conditions of which they complained still exist. The following telegram from the New South Wales Postmasters’ Association was read at the meeting : -

Large meeting postmasters held Queen’s Hall, Sydney, Monday evening, unanimously decided delegates be instructed use every effort secure payment, Commonwealth- Savings Bank work in event opening 7 till 9 o’clock one night weekly.

That is a matter with which the PostmasterGeneral will probably be asked to deal, if he has not already been approached on the subject. On the question of increased remuneration for electoral registrars, the Conference decided -

That this meeting affirms the desirability of Some additional remuneration being paid to Commonwealth Electoral Registrars for the extra work imposed on them under- the amended Commonwealth Electoral Act, and that a copy of the foregoing resolution be forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. O’Malley).

Another resolution carried was as follows : -

That this Conference affirms the desirability -of postmasters being paid for performing the -duties of State Electoral Registrars, otherwise -that they be relieved of the duties.

In view of the fact that at these Conferences, which are held annually, the same -complaints are made again and again, there must be some solid ground for the action of those concerned in continually emphasizing them in the face of the rebuffs with which they seem to meet when making representations to those to whom they alone can appeal. I desire now to refer to another branch of the Department. In a letter, dated 2nd instant, which I received from the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Letter-carriers’ -Association, the statement is made that-

I can assure you, with present prices of commodities, it is a great struggle to exist at -present rate of salary paid to our class - men with a growing family feel the high cost of living. I find that potatoes are 6s. 6d. quarter, retail; onions, ad. lb.; wood, 6s. 6d. quarter; =a’nd other articles have advanced considerably within the last two years. Yet nothing has %een done by the present Government to help -us to meet these high prices. £6 increases -every two years work out at is. a£d. a week, less than 3d. a day, so you can see if our wives purchased an extra pound of butter the whole increase for that week would be spent. This condition of affairs is tolerated by the ‘Labour Government, acting on the advice of the Public Service Commissioner, who, while ignoring our -claims, has increased the rate of pay to the higher paid, and left those who are more in -want of an increase to scramble for same by the aid of the Arbitration Court.

That puts the position of these men more clearly and concisely than I could, hope to state it, and I therefore make no apology for reading it. It sets forth what is a general complaint among all sections of postal employes. When the Public Service Conciliation and Arbitration Act was before the House, I, with others, pointed out that it was very unfair to force these men to go to the Court to secure the adjustment of their grievances when others in the service have not “to do so. They are undoubtedly placed at a great disadvantage, because of the expense and delay which must necessarily take place. This is a matter which should come under the direction of the Postmaster-General himself, and, without doing any violence to his own feelings or to those of his colleagues and the Public Service Commissioner, he ought to be able to offer some suggestions for- overcoming the difficulties which are the subject of .complaint. This is a branch of the Department which has rendered excellent work, and has been conspicuous for its loyalty and faithful service. It seems to me that even at this late hour some further consideration than has yet been given to their claims might well be extended to them. The increased cost of living has materially reduced the purchasing power of the wages paid, and this is especially hard on employes with large families.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I have on more than one occasion drawn attention to the fact that the General Post Office in Sydney is totally inadequate to the requirements of the service. The building was designed in 1874, and since then the city, and the State generally, have progressed beyond the wildest expectations of the most enthusiastic admirers of ‘ the country. The Government should certainly take advantage’ of the opportunity presented to purchase the central block which has been referred to, which, amongst other advantages, would obviate the necessity of going elsewhere to find premises for the Commonwealth Bank. On reliable information, I can say that the necessary land could be resumed for a little over £600,060 ; and there is not the slightest doubt in the minds of any one acquainted with the city that it would prove a most valuable asset. ‘ The National Bank purchased a piece of land in this block, 66 feet to Pitt-street, with a depth of 100 feet to Moore-street, for £100,000. It matters very little in which street the frontage is calculated, but the price comes out at something like £1,500 per foot in the case of Pitt-street, and £1,000 per foot in the case of Moore-street. The Post Office block consists of 291 ft. 7 in. to George-street, 356 ft. 4 in. to King-street, and 288 ft. 10 in. to Pittstreet, or a total frontage of 936 ft. 9 in. ; and the purchase money of £600,000 worksout at something like £600 per foot. The centre of the block is comparatively free of buildings, and the Post Office extension could be made there, leaving the occupants of the business frontages in possession of their places on a two or three years’ notice, and thus obviating the necessity of any monetary compensation. The Commonwealth Government are already renting premises in and around Sydney, and these are so difficult to obtain, and the rents are so high, that the present policy ‘does not, to my mind, operate in the interests of the community. There is no doubt that the Public Service Commissioner will have to find new offices, for all the space at the Customs House will be required for the accommodation of the Customs officials. Then, again, the Land Tax Department, the Crown Law Department, the’ Department of External Affairs, the Commonwealth Bank, and the proposed Public Works Department will all have to be provided for; and’ the truly business-like course would therefore be to purchase the Post Office block, and thus concentrate the Commonwealth Departments in one of the finest centres in Australia. The Post Office has certainly been improved of late, and much expenditure has had to be incurred in providing artificial ventilation ; but, as a matter of fact, the present space is altogether inadequate for the business. All enterprises, public and private, must have room to expand, and for the proper performance of work, commercial or otherwise, there, must be proper air space. Mr. Young, the. Deputy PostmasterGeneral, at a recent social -gathering of the employes, expressed his gratification that the staff were able, to carry on their work under existing conditions, but with the enormous increase in the volume of business, year after year, he was convinced that something would have to be done in the way of expansion. He pointed out that more working space is required, and that the ventilation is bad ; and we know that a hundred people cannot be crammed into a room capable of accommodating only forty, without vitiating the atmosphere, and leading to most undesirable results. _Mr. Young went on to say that if more space were not provided the growing volume of work could not be satisfactorily handled. That was a statement publicly made; and Mr. Young, who. is quiet and reserved in disposition, is not likely to so express himself without sound reason.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Could a couple of stories not be added?

Mr WEST:

– Two stories have been added, but, in my opinion, the result has been to spoil the original design. The Postmaster-General must not be offended if I say that a departmental reply that I have received in reference to private letter boxes is utterly at variance with facts. Some three -months ago I wrote to the Department on this subject, and on the 15th instant I received the reply to which I have referred. When I wrote, there were 300 applications in for private letter boxes at the post-office, and the applicants were told that there; was no space available, and that they must try at the nearest postoffices. As a matter of fact, however, there is no space at the other post-offices.

Mr Livingston:

– Is it not a fact that the letter boxes cannot be manufactured quickly enough?

Mr WEST:

– I am assured that the reason is that there is not sufficient space for the boxes ; and I have been approached on the question by many interested personsThere is another trouble in connexion with the sale of stamps. It is quite easy to buy a shilling’s worth of stamps over the counter, but if a merchant desires to buy £>2 or £3 worth the delay is considerable ; and this defect ought to be remedied at once. No business system is displayed in connexion with the sale of stamps in and around Sydney. It must be admitted that some retailers of stamps have in the past done what they ought not to have done, but there are numbers of people prepared to honestly conduct the business, -and, of course, the more stamps that are sold’ the better for the Department. Great inconvenience is experienced in connexion with the public telephone cabinets at the General Post Office. The verandahs of the building are very narrow, and from 9 in the morning till 6 at night it is almost impossible to move in the great pressure of the public. To) meet this state of affairs the Department has recently erected a number of wooden hutches, consisting of inflammable pine wood, and these are not only offensive to the sight, but a great, source of danger from fire. All this inconvenience could be obviated if the Government would only adopt the suggestion; I have made, and resume this block which possesses so much commercial value. I donot think that the Government are opposed to the suggestion, but rather that financialreasons stand in the way. It is highly probable that the cramped conditions under which the postal business is carried on leads to a good deal of discontent in the…

Department; and, at any rate, the present undesirable state of affairs in this connexion would at least be minimized by the improvement I suggest. There is not a commercial man of any standing in Sydney who is not of opinion that this resumption would prove a good investment, and that it is one that should have been made long ago. Some time ago some premises were rented alongside the post-office, and within twenty-four hours, although the lease had not even been signed, the place was so filled that I had to squeeze my way in. I trust that the Government during the recess will consider this matter seriously, and I think I can say that if they take the action I have suggested they will be supported by the electors of East Sydney whom I have the honour to represent.

Mr Palmer:

– I beg to call attention to the absence of a quorum. [Quorum formed.’]

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– In my opening remarks, I propose to address myself to the question of the wireless system which the PostmasterGeneral is establishing in Australia. This is a matter of the greatest concern to the nation, and is of particular importance, because it affects the Government in their relation to the chain of wireless stations which is to be constructed throughout the Empire. Yet honorable members cannot get a word of information about this wireless system.

Mr Frazer:

– We have eight wireless stations working at the present time, and about ten other stations on the verge of working.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That does not tell us very much.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– What does the honorable member wish to know ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I will tell the honorable member presently. It is well known that the recent Imperial Conference decided to establish a chain of wireless communication throughout the Empire, and for this purpose six high-power stations were projected, five of which are already in course of erection. These stations are being constructed by the Marconi Company, and in connexion with this very matter, I may tell honorable members that there was recently a debate in the House of Commons. The Home Government had been challenged by their own supporters as well as by honorable members upon the other side of the House to say why the erection of these stations had been given exclusively to the Marconi Company, and why the Government did not construct them themselves. A serious ‘ discussion followed with the result that Mr. Herbert Samuel, the PostmasterGeneral himself moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question.

Mr Frazer:

– He did that for pleasure, I suppose?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– He did it because he had Seen attacked.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Some serious allegations were made against the Department.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– But they were all disproved. The last word of the whole debate is contained in the reply of the Postmaster-General -

Honorable members have made many accusations and many criticisms. Is there any charge left against the Government? There is no response. Well, sir, I have done.

Mr Roberts:

Mr. Herbert Samuel had to order an investigation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Quite so. That investigation has completely justified the British Postmaster-General in giving the construction of these stations to the Marconi Company. He acted thus on the recommendation of experts from all the Imperial Departments - on the recommendation of a Committee of twenty persons comprising wireless experts from the Admiralty, from the Post Office, from the Board of Trade, and from the Exchequer. Indeed, every Department of the Government was represented on that Committee, which unanimously recommended that no risk should be incurred, but that the contract should be given to the Marconi Company, and that only in the last resort should the departmental experts have anything to do with it.

Mr Fenton:

– Was there not some reference to trafficking in the shares of the company ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes ; but that accusation was clearly disproved.

Mr Fenton:

– It was admitted.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It was not admitted. The honorable member’s statement is incorrect. The only thing which was admitted was that the brother of Sir Rufus Isaacs, who is a sharebroker, had something to do with one of those contracts. But it was clearly proved that Sir Rufus Isaacs himself knew nothing about that matter, nor did any member of the Government. However, I am not now dealing with that point. All the Imperial experts recommended that the Marconi Company should be given this contract.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– The honorable member must not forget that the Government of which he was a member let a contract to the Telefunken Company.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Quite so. But the present Government have not given a contract to any company. I am not here to say anything against the Telefunken Company, or in favour of the Marconi Company. My own impression is that the Marconi Company is a great trust, and therefore I have no particular sympathy with it. I am only concerned with seeing that we do the right thing. I know nothing about the Marconi Company. It appears to enjoy great privileges to-day.

I wish to insure that in constructing these wireless stations ourselves we shall do what is best for the people of Australia. In the first place, we must recollect that one of these six high-power stations is to the built at Port Darwin. As far back as the 31st May, 191 1, a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence considered the question of long range wireless stations. The following is the statement which Mr. Herbert Samuel made, with the permission of the Prime Minister -

The sub-committee resolved on 31st May, 1911, that the six stations ought to be built as soon as possible; that sites ought to be marked out, and the work ought to be put in hand upon them before the end of the year. On 14th December the matter was discussed before the Committee of the Imperial Defence itself, and the members of that committee strongly advocated the urgency of carrying out this work. Eight months after the first resolutions of that sub-committee, in the following January, those first resolutions having been arrived at in May, and further urgency having been expressed in December, I had to decide whether we ought to wait for a period certainly of a year before this contract should be made.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honorable member consider that his remarks are relevant to the question before the Chair?

Mr.JOSEPH COOK. - My point is that we know nothing about what is being done in the matter of the construction of one of these wireless stations at Port Darwin. Everything here is veiled in mystery and secrecy.

Mr Deakin:

– That is owing to the modesty of the Department.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The modesty of the Department which is doing some thing that the Government of no other civilized country has yet done. No other Government has acted in the way that this Government has acted in regard to patent rights. I should like to know whether the Port Darwin station is in process of completion ?

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member will get a reply to his charges, and then he will get admissions.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not understand the Postmaster-General.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member says that no Government has done what this Government is doing, and then he asks for information. He cannot get it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not asking for information in regard to patent rights.

Mr Frazer:

– The Government intend to construct a station at Port Darwin on the Commonwealth wireless system - a station which will be capable of communicating with Singapore, and which will thus link us up with the chain of stations referred to bv the British PostmasterGeneral.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why could not the Postmaster-General have said that before ?

Mr Roberts:

– It has been public property for a long time.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Is it not disgraceful that we should have to get information thrown at us in this way - that public money should be spent and that all this mystery and secrecy should be observed about a matter which relates to a published Imperial bargain ? We must go to the House of Commons for information concerning this matter.

Mr Frazer:

– I made the statement two months ago on the floor of this House.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I would be very glad if the Postmaster-General would give me the reference to it.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member raises his voice, but he does not frighten us very much.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If I am any judge the honorable member will wish that he had paid a little more attention to the criticism of others before he is much older. I presume that the Government intend to construct this high-power station themselves ?

Mr Frazer:

– Yes, on the Commonwealth wireless system.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is news.

Mr Sampson:

– What is the Commonwealth system?

Mr Frazer:

– It has stood the test up to the present.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Because nobody can get to know anything about it. So far we have the spectacle of the Government declining to give any information in regard to their system. It is about the only system in the world which has been patented, and of which people are not allowed to learn anything.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member should keep his eyes open.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is not a question of keeping one’s eyes open so much as. it is a question of keeping the door open.

I would like to point out the distinction between the way in which this Government are acting and the way in which the Imperial Government are acting. I should like to contrast the conduct of the former with that of the latter.

Mr Frazer:

– There is no Commission of Inquiry into my action.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is impossible to get one. There will be a Commission of Inquiry some day, but not while the Government are supported by the solid phalanx of honorable members opposite.

Mr Frazer:

– The day that a Commission is appointed I shall walk out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Icommend that statement to my honorable friends opposite. If they like to submit to that sort of dictatorial tyranny, well and good.

Mr Frazer:

– They will either trust me-

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Exactly; they are obliged to follow the PostmasterGeneral blindfold.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Does the honorable member wish to have a Commission of Inquiry into this matter?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I think that we ought to have a Committee. The question is so important in its relation to defence and to finance that we ought to know what the Government are doing. The British PostmasterGeneral says that if the British Government erect other stations on a different principle, the Marconi Company have the right to inspect the installations in the presence of an officer of his Department, and a representative of the system which is in question. The position taken up by him is that the Government gives the fullest publicity concerning any system that it uses, recognising that as it has the obligation of protecting the patent rightsof private individuals, there should be no question about its own patent rights. A Government should be the last to have anything to do with a system whose rights are in doubt. Our Postmaster-General knows that the rights of the system! which he is using are in doubt. He is fighting a casein the Courts, and will not let any one know what the system that we are using is.

Mr Frazer:

– Has the other side given any information ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Their patents are to be seen, and their system is well known. Why will not the honorable gentleman let his system be seen, so that it. can be known whether the right thingis being done? We have heard for the first time this morning that Mr. Balsillie’s system is capable of high-power transmission ; previously we knew only that he was constructing stations of medium and low power. It seems strange to me, as it must to an outsider, that Mr. Balsillie, who has invented a system which, according to the Postmaster- General, is equal to anything in the world, is content to remain in the employment of the Government at £600 a year when he could get £16,000 a year elsewhere. I understand, moreover, that he has given his system to the Government for nothing. If the Postmaster-Gcneral takes my advice, he will let the public know what he is doing.

Mr Frazer:

– I shall protect the public interests.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member asks us to trust him.

Mr Frazer:

– I shall not place my case in the hands of my opponents.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Is the honorable member in agreementon this matter with the Imperial Naval authorities and with the Naval authorities here?

Mr Frazer:

– Any action that I take has the indorsement of the Government.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I ask whether the experts in the employment of the Government, other than Mr. Balsillie, approve of what is being done.

Mr Frazer:

– That is a question to which you are not entitled to a reply.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

- Mr. Herbert Samuel published the opinion of his experts and of the Admiralty experts. He stated publicly what they had said, and what they had recommended. This chain of wireless is more for strategic than for commercial purposes, and therefore the public should know whether the Naval aird other authorities approve of Mr. Balsillie’, scheme.

Mr Frazer:

– Have I not said that the station at Darwin will be capable of communicating with Singapore?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not doubt the Minister’s intentions or his bona fides, but in a matter of such supreme importance the public might very well be assured that he is acting upon all the expert advice available.

Mr Frazer:

– Everything that has been claimed for the stations that have been erected up to the present time has been more than accomplished.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Will the PostmasterGeneral say that the system has the approval of the . Naval and Military authorities?

Mr Frazer:

– I make no statement in regard to the matter.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Can you communicate with warships?

Mr Frazer:

– Yes.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

- Mr. Herbert Samuel was desirous, of telling the House of Commons everything, and did so. He obtained the special permission of Mr. As- ‘ quith, who presides over the Imperial Defence Committee, to make certain of his statements. He said what the experts had recommended, and told those whom he was addressing the number of those composing the Committee, its members, and their opinions. But here, when one asks whether there is agreement among the experts on matters of supreme importance respecting defence, no answer is given.

Mr Roberts:

– Has the honorable member reason to think that there is disagreement ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have simply asked a question. I understand that the Postmaster-General is accepting Mr. Balsillie’s scheme, the latter giving it to the Government for nothing.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FENTON:
Maribymong

– The honorable member for Parramatta has relied for his statement on information that has come with the mails, and is fully six weeks old, but the Committee of Inquiry in regard to the Marconi system and its relation to the British Post Office is still sitting. The other day the statement was cabled to. the newspapers that Mr. J. A. Taylor, the wireless engineering adviser to the Post Office in London, in giving evidence before the Committee, had made the admission that he had been a buyer and seller of Marconi shares, and had made a profit of nearly 50 per cent. The PostmasterGeneral of Great Britain takes a serious view of the speculations indulged in by one of his chief advisers, and I think that he is right in doing so. I understand that the system introduced here by Mr. Balsillie is interchangeable, and permits of communication with the warships on which the Marconi system is installed. On Friday last our High Commissioner, in giving evidence in London regarding our- system, said that it was possible with it to sendcommunications at least 2,000 miles, and that Australia has led the way in the matter of wireless.

Mr Joseph Cook:

Sir George Reid appeared before the Committee as the representative of this Government.

Mr Frazer:

– Does the honorable member say that he was not expressing his own opinions, seeing that he was on oath?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not know.

Mr FENTON:

– No one would question the High Commissioner’s probity, and he is not the kind of man who would make himself look foolish in the eyes of the British public or politicians. Evidently he possesses considerable information on thesubject, because he said that the Common: wealth Government had given an undertaking to Sir Ed-ward Grey that a station would be erected in Australia capable of working in harmony with the Imperial chain. We. should be satisfied with that, our chief concern being to know that the system we have installed is interchangeable with that adopted by the British Government.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We .want to know, also, whether our system is a good one, and not an infringement of a patent.

Mir. FENTON.- The High Commissioner stated that the system installed by the Australian Government does not trench on the Marconi system. He would not have given that evidence without being fully posted on the subject.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- The fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department spent last year £3,842,894, and is estimated to spend th-iB year £4,253,410 - an increase of over £400,000 - shows that it is one of the most important

Departments of Government. It employs an enormous number of persons, and its working affects every citizen. But its employes are in a state of incipient insurrection.

Mr Fenton:

– Some of them should be bettertreated.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Both sides are agreed as to that. The employes of the Department are not satisfied, and the public is not satisfied, and since the administrative heads of the Department are very able men, whilst the Minister himself is above the ordinary level of intelligence, I am forced, in the circumstances, to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the system of management. There can be no doubt that it is impossible for the Department to be sucessfully managed with a political Minister in charge. The Minister has to attend constantly in this Chamber, and has also to look after the wants of some 30,000 or 40,000 constituents, so that it is unreasonable to expect him to be able to grapple with the situation. I am satisfied that until we change the present system of management there will always be dissatisfaction on the part of both the employes and the public. I have long advocated that every Government Department should be controlled by Commissioners. That system has been adopted in connexion with the railways of the States, and has given greater satisfaction than could be secured under Ministerial control. The Postal Commission, in the admirable report which they presented-

Mr Sampson:

– They say that the Department stole nearly all their recommendations.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– They did not steal the one to which I am about to refer.

Mr Fenton:

– Can the honorable member point to any Commission whose recommendations have been so largely adopted?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not know that I can. The most important recommendation made by the Commission was in regard to a change in the system of management, and that recommendation has not been accepted. In paragraph 53 of their report they state that -

The earlier portion of this report has amply demonstrated that the present system is most inefficient, and your Commissioners are compelled to recommend a new system of management.

After the most careful consideration the Commission came to the conclusion that the

Department should be administered by an independent Board of Commissioners - a system that I have always advocated.

Mr Sampson:

– Would the honorable member allow the Board of Commissioners to control the staff as well as new works and everything else relating to the Department?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Yes, just as the Railways Commissioners of the States control the railways. The recommendation made by the Commissioners in this regard is entirely in accord with my own views. There must have been on the Commission men of great business intelligence.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member for Gwydir was the chairman.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– And that honorable member has admitted in this House that he was previously in favour of Ministerial management, but that as the result of the inquiries of the Commission, he completely changed his opinion. In paragraph 55 the Commission makes the following recommendations : -

Your Commissioners consider that in order to insure sound and economical administration a basic change is essential, and recommend that a Board of Management, consisting of three directors, namely, a General Manager (Chairman), a Postal Director, and a Telegraph and Telephone Director, be appointed to control the Department. From a careful consideration of the requirements of the Department, it is deemed advisable to allot the functions and dutiesof the respective directors as follows : -

The General Manager should be Chairman of the Board of Management, and should be immediately responsible for finance and general administration.

The Postal Director should be responsible for the management and general supervision of the mail services.

The Telegraph and Telephone Director should be responsible for the construction and maintenance.

The honorable member for Wimmera will observe that under this recommendation new works would be dealt with by the third Commissioner, who would, of course, consult his colleagues. Under such a system, we should secure the best possible administration of the Department.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member would give the Board of Commissioners greater powers than the Railways Commissioners possess?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I think that there should be such control as would prevent the possibility of undue expenditure, and I would make the Minister of the day ex officio Chairman of the Board.

Mr Tudor:

– Such a Board would be a good thing for the town, but rather bad for the country, because the Commissioners would have regard to services that would give the best results.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not think that control by Commissioners would be worse than the present system under which we have complete centralization. At the same time, I do not consider that we should wholly abandon Ministerial responsibility, and therefore I suggest that the Minister should be added to the proposed Board.

Mr Tudor:

– The Railway Commissioners consider that they are above Parliament.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Only in regard to special matters which are assigned to them hy law.

Mr Tudor:

– The Railways Commissioners in Victoria refuse to pay rates which private employes have to pay.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Nevertheless, the railway employes of this State, are lar snore satisfied than are the postal employes.

Mr Tudor:

– That is not so.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I entirely disagree with the honorable member. By making the Postmaster-General ex officio Chairman of the Board, we should secure all the political control that was necessary. In this way we should obtain the best possible machine for the management of the Department, and the outcome of its creation would be contentment on the part of the employe’s, and better work for the public. 1 do not suggest that any new appointments should be made in order to carry out this scheme. We already have in the Department men who could fill very well the three positions which the Commission recommended should be created. An important consideration is that we should thus secure continuity of management. I forget for the moment how many PostmastersGeneral we have had since the inception of Federation.

Mr Tudor:

– About twelve, in as many years.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Is it not farcical that the management of a great business undertaking like this should be changed twelve times in as many years? I desire “to treat this as an extra-political question. The annual expenditure of £4,250,000 of the people’s money in carrying out important services is an all-important matter, and we should look at it from the point of view of how best to conserve the interests of the public. The great thing lacking under the present system is continuity of management. I strongly commend this proposal to the Postmaster-General, and ask him to give it his serious consideration. Another mistake of the present system is the dual control of expenditure. My own electorate has suffered because of it. In paragraph 41 of their report, the Commissioners state -

Your Commissioners strongly disapprove of a system which permits expenditure on account of buildings, repairs, and maintenance being vested in the independent authority of the Depart’ ment of Home Affairs, while permitting the much greater expenditure on account Qf telegraphs and telephone to be controlled by the Post and Telegraph Department. The practice of obtaining the sanction of another Commonwealth Department in regard to minor expenditure is absurd. This system involves unnecessary labour and circumlocution.

That is a very serious charge, and I can support it by referring to the case of the Prahran post-office, which I have previously mentioned in this House. An agreement was arrived at by the Prahran City Council and the Postmaster-General of the day, then the honorable member for Bendigo, in regard to this matter. The honorable member accompanied me on a visit of inspection’ to the local post-office, which he found to be wholly inadequate and un-‘ suitable. It is part of the municipal buildings, and was handed over to the State Government for £5,000, but the municipality ultimately said, “ We will take over the building, and return the £5,000, if you will erect a post-office somewhere else.” Letters were exchanged, and the bargain was made. Then the succeeding PostmasterGeneral, the present Minister of External Affairs, confirmed the bargain, but, after some little time, the Minister of Home Affairs “ took the bit between his teeth,” and said, “ Oh, those wretched Postmasters- General are overstepping their place altogether, and I do not care twopence about any bargain.” Fancy a bargain between a responsible Minister and a municipal body being simply discarded and broken ! The Minister of Home Affairs, who considers himself a great man of business, came to the conclusion that the building was worth £15,000. That may, or may not, be the case - I shall not go into the point - but it was a bargain, and a bargain ought to be kept, even if any amount of money is lost. This was a bargain made by letter between two responsible bodies, both acting for the people. The £5,000 was never supposed to be the value of the building, but was passed between the two bodies, as something representing what might be the value. We do not expect one great public body to make money out of another. I know that Ministers were not quite in accord with the Minister of Home Affairs, but rather deplored what was done. The case, however, only shows most emphatically that there should not be dual control and circumlocution in the administration of this Department. At present the Postal Department does the telephonic, telegraphic, and similar work, while the Department of Home Affairs erects the buildings, and the position is ludicrous and confusing to the public; who never know to whom they have to go to make a bargain. It was a perfect staggerer for the municipality of Prahran when they found this bargain, made with the two Postmasters-General, -repudiated by the Minister of Home Affairs; indeed, it is a most discreditable proceeding, one that I cannot understand. The Commonwealth may make £5,000, but it will lose vastly more in reputation ; in fact, we could not name a sum of money that would represent the loss of honour in a transaction of the sort.

Mr Tudor:

– One of the Prahran councillors said last Monday night that no poor were wanted in Prahran - that they should be sent to Richmond.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– It is not a question of rich and poor, but a question of good faith.

Mr Roberts:

– It is only fair to say that the arrangement between the PostmastersGeneral, and the council was only tentative - it has to be agreed to by the Home Affairs Department.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– That is what I am complaining of.

Mr Roberts:

– There is no breach.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not agree with that. The Prahran Council had no idea but that the Postmasters- General were acting with the fullest possible power.

Mr Tudor:

– The Prahran Council is now willing to go on with the bargain, because it will get about £10,000 out of it.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– This should not be looked upon as a question of money.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– The Minister withdrew when he knew he was making a bad bargain.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– The present Minister of External Affairs, as PostmasterGeneral, never did withdraw, but said that he had made the bargain fairly and? squarely, and it ought to have been kept.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable memberhas not told us whether the PostmasterGeneral was the buyer or the seller.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– He was the seller. However, I do not wish to discuss thequestion whether it was a bad or a goods bargain, but only to point out that a bargain was made and repudiated. I am quitein accord with the recommendation of theRoyal Commission that the practice of obtaining the sanction of another Department in regard to minor expenditure is absurd ^ indeed, in my opinion, it is most disastrous, to the management of the Department. The Royal Commission also says that thesystem entails unnecessary labour and circumlocution; and with that I am entirelyin agreement. I hope that the Postal Department will either do all the work itself or let the Department of Home Affairs doall the work - at any rate, let us have onemanager. I should like to refer to thetelephone balance sheet which we werepromised ever so long ago. In the course of the years a lot of money has been spent in getting the figures together and puttingthe Department in a position to debit thevarious construction works in the proper way, so as to produce a balance-sheet, anc? yet we seem to be as far off as ever fromany result.

Mr Sampson:

– Two years ago an accountant was appointed for the purpose,, and we have not had any report from him..

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I understand that the accountant has made a report. Thisidea was suggested by the honorable member for Bendigo, as Postmaster-General,, who proposed to do things in a- businesslike way. My own opinion is that everypublic utility ought to be treated as an ordinary business concern from a financial’ point of view, with a proper balancesheetrelating to each one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorablemember’s time has expired.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– I promised several postmasters with whom? I am acquainted that, when the Estimateswere under consideration, I should urgeon the Government the advisability of allowing postmasters, who live on the postoffice premises, to have their houses rent free. This would be only fair compensation for the work they do, and the attention they give to the premises after the usual office hours ; moreover, it is usual, in all businesses that I know of, to allow employes who are also caretakers, if nothing more, to have their houses free. Further I think that the Government ought to pay rates on the various post-office properties throughout Australia to the local municipal and shire councils. The postoffices are public utilities established for the convenience of, not only the local .residents, but of the people all over the continent ; and the cost should be distributed in a general way. The duty should not be’ cast on any local community to maintain the approaches, and so forth, to public offices; but at present the burden is unequally borne while the convenience is equally distributed. In regard to the lower classes of employes in the Department I am inclined to favour the creation of a- commercial Board to consider their conditions of employment. This Board need not necessarily be composed of men who have graduated through the Department, but rather of men who have acquired knowledge in the wider area of the world’s business.

Rather than refer our public servants to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court I should prefer to see some arrangement to permit of a graduated scale of payment according to length of service. A man who has been in a Department for 25 or 30 years should by that time be in receipt of an adequate salary. Whereas,, at the present time, there are many old servants of the kind who are not paid what they would receive for similar work outside. Many of these men occupy responsible positions, and it would be only an act of justice to pay them on the lines I have suggested.

Mr Bamford:

– Some of them would not be able to earn their salt outside.

Mr CARR:

– Then they have no right in the Department at all. I do not say that all should be paid on the same scale, but length of service should entitle a man to a certain rate of payment.

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member apply that plan to temporary employes ?

Mr CARR:

– If a man of twenty-five years’ service can be called a temporary man I should certainly apply it to him. I consider that the Department are resorting to a dishonorable subterfuge in trading on temporary employes. It may be that the Commissioner, in this way, saves expense, but we are here, not merely to save money, but to do justice. I should like to call attention to the condition of the Haymarket Post Office, Sydney. This building has been condemned by the health authorities, and I indorse all that has been said in respect of it. It is a most unhealthy and malodorous place; indeed, it is risking one’s life to go into such an unhealthy den. The honorable member for Wentworth, in speaking of the position in regard to wireless telegraphy, charged the present Government with having connived at some stock-jobbing business in allowing the company, who obtained the contract for wireless construction, to afterwards transfer it to a larger company, thereby increasing their capital, and, according to the honorable member, making a lot of money individually. As a matter of fact, the original company was formed with a very small capital, for the express purpose of securing the contract, if possible. Having secured it, they, could not carry it out with their limited resources, and, in order to increase them sufficiently, they had to take in more shareholders and form a fresh company. It was to this company that the contract was transferred ; and the shareholders were the same, with one or two additions. I have the assurance of those interested that no money was made by those concerned, but that their interest was increased only in the shape of shares, and not by any distribution of capital. I am not satisfied that the business in connexion with wireless telegraphy generally should, to a great extent, be conducted in darkness. It may be necessary to maintain some secrecy, but I think that the Government ought to have taken on themselves the responsibility of registering and securing their patent rights. This they have not done, but have wriggled over the matter. Their rights are now challenged, and I notice that some adverse comments, which I regret to see, have beenmade by one of the Judges on the attitude of the Government.

Mr Roberts:

– - The patent is registered, and we cannot control the utterances of a Judge.

Mr CARR:

– I do not suppose that the Government can control the utterances of a Judge, except, of course, in relation to “good behaviour.” I do not like the element of doubt that has been introduced into this business. Tha Government should have been high-minded enough to clear the ground absolutely, instead of, if not guilty of an offence, at least creating the appearance of evil.

Mr Roberts:

– Everything has been clear and above-board. In one breath, honorable members tell us that there should be a business-like conduct of affairs, and, when a business method is adopted, they deprecate it.

Mr CARR:

– I say that ordinary business methods have not been adopted. In the first place, a. discredited man was imported to take charge of the system - his former employers in England being restrained for infringement of patents. I cannot understand why he should come here and be received with open arms by the Government.

Mr Bamford:

– Is the honorable member referring to Mr. Balsillie?

Mr CARR:

– Yes.

Mr Roberts:

– Up to the present he has proved an excellent officer.

Mr CARR:

– I say that there is nobody here who is competent to judge,. On the appearance of things, the position does not look good enough. We are not without evidence that other things are not good enough. This gentleman has handed over a wireless system to the Commonwealth gratuitously, subject only to the condition that in the event of the Commonwealth incurring pecuniary loss he shall be protected. It seems to me that an air of mystery has been preserved about this wireless system. At any rate, it has not been adopted openly as it ought to have been. We all know that the Marconi patents will expire in 1914, and we have it on good authority that those patents have not been approached in any other part of the world. Can the Government be waiting for 1914? I believe that the Admiralty authorities have informed the Government that the Marconi patents are supreme. I have that upon good authority.

Mr Roberts:

– Upon whose authority?

Mr CARR:

– If the Government deny it, I accept their denial. But I would like some better and more definite statement in regard to the whole of this business.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– ‘-The claim that there should be better management of the greatest business concern conducted by the Commonwealth has been amply sustained on more than one occasion. During the past three years I would have liked to see some evidence of a desire on the part of the Government that the Postal Department should receive that business attention which this House has from time to time demanded that it should receive. Sometime ago we were assured that a special officer was to be appointed for a special purpose. He was duly appointed, but so far he has not submitted the balance-sheet which we were promised in regard to the operations of a purely trading concern - I allude to our telephone service. I am’ not going to reiterate the faults of that system, but I do urge most strongly that those persons who are engaged in commerce - and even those who use our telephones for private purposes - are entitled to better attention. The claim of the Government that a larger amount should be charged to subscribers has been met by the public. But will anybody suggest that the result has been an improvement in our telephone service? We were told some time ago that an officer had been appointed to get into communication with the various exchanges in great centres of population, and that when he submitted his report action would be taken. That gentleman has from time to time supplied voluminous reports which bear out the complaints made by the customers of the Department. He has reported upon the difficulties with which subscribers are confronted ‘ when they use our telephone system. Has there been any diminution of those difficulties? Has any real attempt been made to do away with the disabilities which irritate the public day after day? Certainly not; All that has been done is to give effect to the policy of a previous Government by adopting the metallic circuit. The best electrical engineers in Australia are confident that even in connexion with our present earth system a tremendous improvement -might be made in our telephone service. But no such improvement has been attempted. Where the metallic circuit has been introduced it has proved of great advantage, but it has not resulted in a diminution of that distracting crosstalking which takes place upon “ almost every wire that is in use. The public are entitled to better treatment at the hands of the Department.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Did the honorable member’s- expert tell him that crosstalking can be stopped on an earth circuit?

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– The honorable member has merely to consult the ordinary works on telephone matters, which are available, to ascertain that the system in vogue in Melbourne is the worst in the world from the stand-point of crosstalking. The cross-talking is due to causes which, with scientific treatment, could be to a large extent removed. Of course, we all recognise that the metallic circuit constitutes a great improvement upon it. The metallic circuit in Australia was first installed in Launceston-

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In Hobart. It was the man for whom I used to work who installed it.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Anyway, it was in Tasmania that it was first installed in any portion of the Commonwealth. Will the honorable member say that it has resulted in the abolition of crosstalking ?

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Where the lines are worked purely on the metallic circuit, it has. But the trouble is that an earth return is frequently brought in.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Is that not a matter which should have been attended to by the Government? I agree that we ought not to regard the Postal Department purely as a commercial proposition. But the telephone branch of that Department should be treated on strictly business lines. It is simply because it is a monopoly that people tolerate such a defective service. We have men of as high ability as can be found anywhere in the world ; we have a system which, if properly controlled, is capable of producing as good results as can be produced elsewhere. Yet we do not get those results.

Mr Higgs:

Mr. Bell says that our telephone system is the cheapest in the world.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I am not going to decry Mr. Bell. There are some persons with whom the honorable member for Capricornia is acquainted who said very harsh things about Mr. Bell while he was in Australia. There is no honorable member of this Chamber who is satisfied with our existing telephone system, or who believes that the public are getting value for their money.

Mr Higgs:

– If subscribers chose to pay - as they do in London - double the price which they are charged here, they could get a better service.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Although we are paying considerably more for our service than we used to pay, the fact is that we are getting a worse service. It was the Minister of External Affairs who was re sponsible for the introduction of the present telephone rates. The arguments which he adduced in support of those rates were all in favour of securing a better service for the public. He said that the public would be more than compensated for the extra charges imposed upon them by the greater efficiency of the service.

Mr Thomas:

– When did I say that?

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– In effect, that is what the Minister of External Affairs said over and over again.

Mr Thomas:

– When did I say it?

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I do not pretend to quote the Minister’s exact words. But I have a distinct recollection of his statement, and, possibly, during the afternoon, I shall have an opportunity of reproducing his statement literally. But if he did not say what I have attributed to him, he ought to have done so. Any business man would have said it. If the Minister did not assure the public that they would get a better service as the result of the increased rates charged them, he can lay no great claim to consideration on the present occasion. If he did not make the alteration in rates for the purpose which I have indicated, he must have made it for the purpose which has been ascribed to him - namely, by way of revenge upon a number of persons who had displeased him. That statement was made frequently at the time he brought forward this particular reform.

Mr Thomas:

– Let the honorable member ask the merchants whether they would like to go back to the old system.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

-I know of a great number who would. Personally, I am paying more for my telephone than I used to do under the old system, and I am not getting as good a service. If the Minister will take the trouble to visit business people, he will findthat many of them are paying double the amount they were previously charged, and that they are getting a very much worse service.

Mr Tudor:

– They are paying what they ought to pay.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– That is the argument which is always advanced by one who has had no experience of business. In business, one does not pay for what one uses, but one pays the value of it. It is values which govern prices. It is because the telephone service is a monopoly that the public are charged the rates which are being exacted from there to-day. If there were competition in that service, the owners of this public utility would not be able to treat the people in the way that they are treating them. I have not yet heard the Postmaster-General assign any reason why a statement of accounts connected with the Post Office has not been presented to Parliament. “The haphazard mariner in which the accounts of the Postal Department are kept struck the Postal Commission, of which I was a member, again arid again. If there be one thing more than another which requires immediate attention, it is the establishment of a proper system of bookkeeping in this Department.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. (Thursday).

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Ever since railways have been running in Victoria, the residents of country towns have had the privilege of posting their letters in receiving boxes on the stations, these being cleared without extra charge five minutes before the departure of each train. This convenience has been valued very highly, but has recently been withdrawn. When I questioned -the Postmaster-General as to the reason, he informed me that the practice had not prevailed in the other States, and instead of increasing the convenience of the people of the Commonwealth, he took the retrograde steps of lessening that of the people of Victoria. I do not know if the clearing of the letter-boxes at the railways involved extra expense to the Postal Department, but even if it did, that was not a justification for depriving the residents of Victorian railway towns of a great convenience. It must be remembered that many country railway stations are at some distance from the towns which they serve, having been so placed originally to save expense by the utilization of Crown land for their sites. The post-offices, on the other “hand, have been placed as near as possible to the centres of population. The result has been in many cases that the town has grown largely in the neighbourhood of the railway station, and the railway station has become a much more convenient place for the posting of letters than the postoffice. The Postal Department of Victoria has done what it could to meet public convenience by placing receiving boxes and pillars in different situations in the townships as they have grown, and occasionally by moving the post-office itself to a more central situation ; but, nevertheless, in many cases the post-office is at one end of a town and the railway station at another, so that it is much easier for a large portion of the inhabitants to go to the railway station to post their letters than to go to the town. I am glad that in response to requests which I have made to the Deputy Postmaster-General for Victoria, the old system of allowing letter-boxes placed on the stations to be cleared free of extra charge shortly before the departure of trains, has been . reverted to in many cases, but in many others it has not, and the residents of those places suffer great inconvenience, and are irritated and injured by the action of the Department.

Mr Frazer:

– The only persons who remember the change are the politicians.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Later I may read one or two letters from public bodies and private persons in my electorate, which show that the Minister is not correct. A request which I have made in respect to the town of Clunes, a great mining centre in the old days, is still under consideration. There, the post-office is at a considerable distance from the railway station, and a large part of the population is nearer to the railway station than to the post-office. If these persons go to the post-office, they have to travel some distance down a rather percipitous hill, and climb up it on their return. It is much easier for them to post at the railway station, and I cannot understand why they are not allowed to do this without extra charge, because the Postal Department is not to be regarded solely as a revenue earning Department ; it services has a great deal to do with the development of the country. The only objection urged by the officials against the old system was that it prevented the accurate counting and marking of the letters sent from each town. The letters posted on the railway station at Clunes are taken out of the receiving box five minutes before the departure of a train, and placed in the travelling post-box in the guard’s van. On arrival at Ballarat they are sorted and despatched to their destinations. Under this system no record is kept of the letters collected at intermediate stations. That, however, is a small matter in comparison with the inconvenience to which the public is subjected by the alteration of the old arrangement. To charge an extra fee amounting to 100 per cent, on the ordinary rate for a convenience that previously cost nothing is outrageous.

Mr Frazer:

– In every other State but Victoria the people have been paying that extra charge for years.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

– That is no reason why the people of Victoria should have to pay it.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- Unquestionably the Postal Department is a huge monopoly. It has no competitionto face, and many of its methods illustrate the evils incidental to monopolies.

Mr Archibald:

– What is a monopoly?

Mr PALMER:

– At the instance of the Labour party, Parliament has determined that any business is a monopoly which, by a resolution of the two Houses, is declared to be one. One of the evils of a monopoly is that it can charge what it likes, and the public has to pay. This is being done by the Postmaster-General’s Department, though the fact is not generally realized. At one time telegrams were despatched in the order in which they were received, but the practice has grown up of giving precedence to messages marked urgent and paid for at double rates. Now every one who uses the telegraph does so because his business is urgent, and he desires the quick despatch of his communications. Consequently the practice of marking messages “ urgent “ has grown rapidly, and the number of these messages has become so great that the despatch of other telegrams is delayed. That, of course, tends to further increase the urgent messages, so that the public thatuses the telegraph has now to pay double rates for practically all the messages it sends. That is a position which suggests the gay time that the community will have a century hence, when the Labour party has put everything under Government control. The length of time that has been occupied by this monopolistic Department in providing for the issue of the Commonwealth stamp is truly surprising. After great delay a design for the uniform stamp has been selected, and I can only say that it is an ugly one. If the PostmasterGeneral was lacking in artistic taste he ought to have consulted his wife, and have made a selection that would conform to our ideas of what is desirable. Two years or more elapsed before the design was accepted. The Minister is now determined, apparently, to bring the new stamps into use at the beginning of the year, with the result that a number of men in the printing trade will probably lose their Christmas and New Year holidays.

Mr Frazer:

– How anxious the honorable member is for them.

Mr PALMER:

– I have a right to express my anxiety that they should enjoy their Christmas holidays. The Minister, in his leisurely way, took some two years or more to make a selection, and since we have had to wait so long we may very well wait a little longer rather than that these men should be unduly pressed. The Government pride themselves upon their determination to reduce the hours of labour, yet they have forced us to sit all night, and may compel us to have another allnight sitting. I am dealing, however, not with any question of our own personal comfort, but with the position of men who are employed in the service of the country, and I say that we can well afford, if necessary, to wait another six months for the stamp rather than that an undue strain should be put upon these printers. Another matter of local interest to which I desire to refer is characteristic of all Government control. Honorable members opposite are longing for the “ glorious time “ that is yet to come when the Government will control all things, but I thinkit will be a bad day for Australia when that state of affairs is reached. At Picola, a town in my electorate, there is a post-office, the conditions of which the Department admit need to be improved, and representations have been made through the Deputy PostmasterGeneral to some other Department to make the desired alterations. Within the last week or two temporary arrangements have been made to relieve the pressure during the Christmas holidays, and I have some sort of a promise that before the month expires the whole matter will be attended to. It is by no means certain, however, that it will be. Doubtless there are many other places where similar circumstances prevail. Unfortunately, in connexion with all Government control, we cannot get away from the red-tape which binds down Departments, and prevents even energetic men from meeting the requirements of the situation. The most annoying delays occur in connexion with ourcomplex system of Government Departments. Even where the public contribute to the provision of a telephone service the experience is the same. In my electorate, and I am sure that my experience is by no means uncommon, those who contribute to the cost of a new telephone line are subjected to the most exasperating delays in securing the desired service. I do not say that this is due to any fault on the part of the Minister or the departmental head. I attribute it to the whole system of governmental control, which is by no means satisfactory. Some means should be devised of avoiding these vexatious delays. Certainly wherever money is paid by the people for the provision of a public utility that utility should be speedily provided. I must say in fairness to the Department, that the telephone business, more especially in country districts, is assuming very large proportions, and the demands made on the Department are becoming so great that it should take time by the forelock, and secure large stocks of the material necessary for these works. I have now to refer to the position of temporary employes, of whom there is a very large number in the service of the Commonwealth.

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

– Sixteen thousand, we are told.

Mr PALMER:

– I know that they run into thousands. Naturally it takes some little time for a temporary employe to become familiar with his work. He has necessarily to learn the business, and, unfortunately, just when his services are becoming valuable to the Department, his term of .temporary employment expires, with the result that he is discharged, and a new man is taken on in his place. Then the whole process is repeated. The more skilled and highly-paid officers Have to instruct these temporary hands, and much of the time which they should be devoting to their own work is thus taken up. Such a system would never be tolerated by any private firm. I do not know whether it is pursued for the sake of economy, but it is an erroneous idea that any economy is effected in this way. The system must of necessity be a most extravagant one, and should be no longer pursued. Why not allow temporary hands who have proved their worth to pass into the ranks of the permanent staff? That system is adopted in our Defence Force. A man enters the military force, and when he qualifies for a better position, it is open to him to secure it.

Mr Finlayson:

– The Public Service Act, which will not allow that to be done, was brought in by the honorable member’s leader.

Mr PALMER:

– I care not who introduced it; it is a bad one.

Mr Finlayson:

– I agree with the honorable member.

Mr PALMER:

– Then let us make a united effort to secure something better. Another matter which I desire to bring under the notice of the Postmaster-General is the rental which postmasters are required to pay for the premises they occupy. Postmasters have good reason to complain of the present system. I think it would be better to adopt, in respect of the pay of these officers, a scale which would cover the rental of the premises. I am not casting any blame on the PostmasterGeneral. The system is a defective one, which he has inherited ; but steps should be taken at once to improve it. Let us make the conditions of service as pleasurable as possible. Let the postmasters feel that their services are really appreciated by the Department. They are a fine body of men, and are deserving of consideration. Postmasters are called upon to exercise important functions quite apart from those which most of them* were required to discharge when they were appointed. They have to act at present as bank managers in connexion with the Commonwealth Savings Bank. It is true that they have been doing this work for years in connexion with the State Savings Bank.

Mr Frazer:

– -The honorable member is talking about something of which he knows nothing.

Mr PALMER:

– I ask that that statement be withdrawn.

Mr Frazer:

– I withdraw it.

Mr PALMER:

– In addition to attending to Savings Bank business, postmasters are required to act as electoral officers. A man who has to divert his attention from postal business to banking business, and from that to electoral business - who has to keep different sets of books and to deal with different sets of circumstances - must necessarily have a very alert mind. These officers are supposed to act as a sort of encyclopaedia to all who are in search of information. There seems to be a disposition to make the utmost use of these men, simply because they happen to be in our employment. The whole question of the Public Service ought to have been brought under our notice in the Commissioner’s report, which, however, has not come to hand ; and, in its absence, the duty devolves upon the Postmaster-General to give us full information on the subjects to which his attention has been directed.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

– I have to congratulate the PostmasterGeneral on the able way in which he has carried out the duties of his office ; and, so far as my own district is concerned, everything has been done that could reasonably be expected. A large and growing country like Australia makes great demands on any Administration, and, of course, there always must be some little defects to which attention may be drawn. The report of the Postal Commission suggests that the Deputy Postmasters-General are not quite up to the requisite standard ; but in the late Deputy Postmaster-General of South Australia, Sir Charles Todd, we had an official who did yeoman service to the country. It was through his instrumentality that the telegraph line was taken right through the Northern Territory, and other similar useful work carried out in that State. In regard to the present Deputy PostmasterGeneral, it is to be regretted that next year, owing to his reaching the age limit, he will have to retire. He is a gentleman who knows the business of the Department from start to finish, having started as a telegraph boy and worked his way up to his present position. It will be greatly to the advantage of the country if the business of a Department of this nature could always command the services of men like Sir Charles Todd, and Mr. Waddy, the Deputy Postmaster-General of South Australia, to whom I have referred. There is no doubt that men of wide and detailed experience are required in every business; and, despite what has been said, the Deputy Postmasters-General of Australia have now a much freer hand than hitherto in the carrying out of works. Of course, there must be continuity of policy, to attain which there must be a Ministerial head; and to my mind it is ridiculous to talk of handing over this Department to a Board of Management consisting of various officials, with a president at £2,000 per annum. I have no objection to large salaries for adequate services rendered, but this Board would only add to the number of Departments with which we are already threatened in the shape of an Inter- State Commission and other bodies. We are informed, on the authority of the PostmasterGeneral, that the employes of the Department are very well treated, and that, while the telegraphists in New South Wales. are working only six and a-half hours each day, they have forty days’ leave of absence on full pay in the year.

Mr Fenton:

– That includes statutory holidays, extended leave at the end of twenty years’ service, and so forth.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– I do not think that the Postmaster-General can be expected to do more than he does at present in the way of personal supervision and inquiry. In my own State, however, there are some of the employes of the Department who are not too well treated. When the various State Post and Telegraph Departments were taken over by the Commonwealth, the employes, as a whole, were enjoying good salaries ; and I know one officer in my district who, by reason of his transfer, has suffered a loss in salary to the extent of £50 per annum. That is not an isolated case; and I think something ought to be done to make the conditions easier in this connexion. Then, again, a postmaster in my district, to whom six months’ furlough was due, died; and I hope that the PostmasterGeneral will see that his widow receives the salary that would otherwise have been paid to her husband. This man, like many other postmasters in the country, did not confine his work to the official hours ; and, in view of the loyal service given by these man, I do not think that a too strict adherence to the official hours should always be insisted on. The postmasters in the country always do their best to deliver the mails at a time to suit the public, and, as educated, honorable men, they are quite fit to perform duties in connexion with the Savings Bank, if need be. Efforts are being made to provide country postmasters’ with quarters in the postoffice buildings; but I suggest that in the new erections they should be able to proceed to the business offices without having to go into the open air. We all know how easy it would be on a dark night for a postmaster to be knocked down and have his keys taken from him. As to the postoffices in my district, I have not much complaint to make. Needed alterations have been made at Glenelg and Yankalilla and other centres of population. At Port Elliot, I may say, there is a nice post-office, and the Department has been very careful indeed in its choice of a site. After going to no end of trouble, it has secured a site for the new post-office, with which the residents are abundantly satisfied. The honorable member for Wimmera has asked me a question in regard to Pinaroo. I am glad to say that there we have a post-office which meets the public requirements. At

Lameroo, too, there is a very good postoffice. Indeed, the whole of that large district is very well served in the matter of postal facilities. At Bordertown a new post-office has been erected, and a postoffice has also been decided upon for Tailem Bend. At Kalangadoo there was a little bit of a battle over the site. The PostmasterGeneral instituted inquiries, with the result that he has now obtained one of the best sites available at a very small cost. At Loxton, on the River Murray, another suitable site has been secured, and tenders have been called for the erection of a new post-office. I must also thank the Postmaster-General for what he has done in connexion with the Mount Barker Post Office. The original idea was that a small wing, which would be a disgrace to the Department, should be added to that office. This circumstance was brought under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral, who ordered careful inquiry into the whole matter. Finally he decided not to patch up the old office, but to erect an entirely new building, and I heartily commend him for his action. I am always prepared to give credit where credit is due, and if the Postmaster-General failed to discharge his onerous duties in an efficient manner, nobody would condemn him more quickly than I would. I am glad to recognise the service which he rendered to Australia the other day, when he piloted through this House a Bill providing that shorter telegraph poles may be used in the erection of lines in rural districts. We all realize the necessity for extending those lines throughout the length and breadth of the continent. For my own district the Department has done all within its power with the labour at its command. Mention has been made of the supply of letter-boxes. During the past two years there has been such a demand for those boxes that the available supply was soon mopped up. There are two or three places in my own district for which letter-boxes have been ordered, but, so far, they have not arrived. That, however, is not the fault of the Postmaster-General.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– Cannot those boxes be made in Australia?

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– They cannot be made quickly enough. I feel sure that the Postmaster-General will recognise the wisdom of linking up Casterton and Mount Gambier via Strathdownie, and also Goroke and Francis by means of a telephone line. Whenever a report reaches the Commonwealth from my old friend, Sir George Reid, I feel sure that any recommendations which it may contain are based upon sound premises. We all ought to be extremely-proud that we have such an able representative in England. He is respected, not only in the Old Country, but on the Continent, and in the United States of America. I am pleased to know that we shall have an opportunity of seeing him again next March. Whatever he may say in regard to wireless telegraphy is bound to be right.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– When I was interrupted by the application of the new standing order, I was about to appeal to the Postmaster-General to reconsider his attitude towards the additional late fee which is being charged on letters posted at railway stations. I was sorry to hear him say that the agitation in favour of the repeal of that regulation was confined to members of Parliament.

Mr Frazer:

– I said that it was chiefly confined to them.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Ever since that regulation was published I have been inundated with letters from private individuals and public bodies protesting most strongly against this innovation. Recognising as we do that the Post Office is one of the greatest aids to settlement, we ought to do all that we possibly can to extend to people in the more distant parts of this continent the conveniences and comforts which are enjoyed by the residents of our towns. But if we take away from them privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed, we shall be doing them a double injury. I need scarcely point out that the people of Victoria have treasured this privilege during the whole period that they have been able to exercise it. I wish now to say a word or . two in regard to the management of the Postal Department. The Postal Commission, it will be remembered, took evidence in every portion of Australia.

Mr Frazer:

– Why did the honorable member leave it?

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I thought at the time that it had done all that it possibly could. I felt that it had gathered sufficient evidence to warrant its members in arriving at a conclusion in regard to the more salient portions of its inquiry. One of those conclusions was that the management required vital alteration. In the report which I forwarded to the GovernorGeneral, the question of management was dealt with very much in the same way as it was subsequently dealt with by the Commission. There is no more important part of the functions discharged by the Post Office than that of finance. In paragraph 101 of the Commission’s report special stress is laid on the necessity which exists for proper financial control. That paragraph reads -

With reference to the question of funds, your Commissioners consider that the Treasurer is’ not the financial expert of the Post and Telegraph Department, ‘ because it is impossible for him to have a thorough grasp of the financial needs of that Department. In view of this, the assumptién of all power by the Treasurer in regard to the expenditure of the Post and Telegraph Department is a striking instance of one authority holding power and another authority being compelled to assume responsibility.

Surely the very essence of management depends on the co-ordination of power and responsibility. -So long as we divorce these two things, so long will there be a tendency for things to drift into a chaotic condition. Many efforts have been made in this House to secure from the Department that business-like treatment which its enormous expenditure undoubtedly demands. We were promised that an officer would be appointed who was accustomed to deal with high accountancy. As a matter of fact he was appointed, and we were told that, as the result of his appointment, a properly drawn-up balance-sheet would be submitted to us. But so far it has not materialized. I do not expect the PostmasterGeneral to undertake such a work. Bur until ;t proper system of accountancy is introduced into the central administration, ‘wo cannot possibly have proper criticism of its operations.

Mr Sampson:

– It is two years since the accountant was appointed. Surely that is long enough to enable him to submit a report.

Mr Frazer:

– I explained the cause of the absence of that report to the honorable member last night.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I think that at least a beginning might be made in the preparation of such a report. I admit that to bring the accounts which have been running for so many years in the various States into something like uniformity will be a monumental work. But we ought not to continue the methods which have hitherto been adopted, and which are the greatest stumbling block to the preparation of such a balance-sheet as we desire. We regard ourselves as the custodians of the moneys of the taxpayers. It is one of our primary duties to closely scan expenditure, to see that the revenue is properly distributed. How can that be done in the absence of the necessary data? Year by year honorable members ask for the information, and, happily, a system has been introduced of supplying them with tabulated statements which are of inestimable value. But these require most careful scrutiny before accurate results can be arrived at. We ought to have this information in a more concentrated form - in such a form that honorable members would be able to assimilate those portions of it to which they desire to direct special attention. But, save for platform purposes, the tabulated statements which are submitted to us from time to time are of little practical value. What we want in connexion with the Postal Department is a statement of receipts and expenditure which will be intelligible to the lay mind. But suppose that all effect should be given to all the projected schemes of the Government for the nationalization of industries, in what position would the country be in the future should the present mismanagement be. perpetuated on a. vaster scale? Ministers and their supporters will show their belief in the Socialistic principles which they advocate if they begin by putting into order those Departments which have already been nationalized, and thus give us some guarantee for the future. The Minister recently passed through the House a Bill providing for the shortening of telegraph poles, which will enable works that are urgently needed in various districts to be proceeded with, but there is still a great lack of wire and apparatus generally. In my district it is three years since a telephone line was first surveyed. Some time afterwards a demand was made on the residents for a contribution towards the cost. Later the construction was sanctioned. Then the route was pegged. Months afterwards poles were laid on the ground, and many months after that - indeed, only two or three weeks ago - the line was opened for public business. Such delays should not occur, and would not be possible under proper business management. No business house would tolerate them. The blame for them cannot, perhaps, justly be laid at ihe door of any individual, because they are due to the want of proper management generally. They affect very seriously, however, those who live remote from centres of civilization, where ordinary supplies are difficult to obtain, and where, without the aid of the telephone, medical assistance cannot be quickly summoned. Apparently, those in the Department who have the responsibility have not the power. The divorce of power from responsibility in administration has largely brought about the present chaotic condition of affairs. Another matter I wish to speak of is the great increase in temporary employment in the Department. The Royal Commission trenchantly referred to the need for competent and permanent staffs. It was thought that the Postal Department would have good prizes to offer to young aspirants for public service, but lack of funds makes it impossible for the Department to give the opportunities to its employes that they should have. Consequently, it has to fall back on temporary hands, who are without the privileges possessed by the permanent men, and are in constant dread of dismissal at the end of six months. Some 16,000 temporary hands are employed by the Postal Department, and their employment has a demoralizing effect on the permanent men. At the present time, a large number of temporary employes are engaged in assisting the permanent men to cope with the rush of Christmas work in the capitals. The Public Service Act says that only those shall be employed in the Public Service in positions of responsibility, or where special skill is required, who have proved their capacity ; but, although the work of dealing with the Christmas mail matter requires skilled labour in various Departments, a great many of those who have been taken on are without any kind of training in it. The Police Department, when extra police protection is required at any centre by reason of a race meeting, or other great public gathering, does not fall back on special constables, but brings in trained men from outlying districts. The Postal Department ought to be able to do something of the same kind. The employment of none but trained men would enable its work to be done efficiently with a much smaller staff than is required when untrained men have to be used in large numbers. The permanent men become disorganized under the present system, and the result is unrest and dissatisfaction. The Treasurer would do well to make proper provision for the various services of the

Postal Department, so that, even in times of rush, they could be carried on without dislocation. It is impossible, however, in two half-hour speeches to deal with the many important questions to which attention should be directed. I am here, not to criticise, but to make representations to the Department in behalf of the community. Every one rejoices that proper attention is now being devoted to the subject of defence. Although a great deal of money is being spent by the Defence Department, none of us grudges a penny of it, though we may feel that the expenditure in some directions is too great and in others too small. I should like the community to feel similarly in regard to the Postal Department. Unfortunately, owing to what has been spoken of as “the damnable lack of pence,” the Postmaster-General has not at his disposition funds sufficient to provide the public with opportunities and conveniences which in other countries are as near to them as the air which they breathe. The public, and especially residents of country districts, have no right to be asked to deny themselves the conveniences that a properly equipped postal service undoubtedly gives to every community. The benefit thus secured to a small community is out of all proportion to that conferred upon a large community.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– None of us can hope to reach that ideal time when, in a vast Department like that over which the Postmaster-General presides, grievances will be at an end. Grievances are part and parcel of the working capital of the Department, and I suppose that the man has not yet been born who is capable of managing it without, at least, a very substantial element of grievances being present. Grievances have recently been brought prominently before the public in connexion with regulations, which I understand have been issued by the Department, altering the system of roster duty for telegraphists. The system, having proved unsatisfactory, an effort has been made to place it on a more satisfactory basis. I believe that the new system provides for the assignment of nine hours’ duty to each man, two and a half hours of which represent a broken shift.

Mr Frazer:

– Why does not the honorable member get the facts before he attempts to deal with the matter?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– It is not within our power to secure all the facts. I can only go by statements that have been made in the press, and representations on the basis of those statements must find their echo in this Parliament. If they are foundationless, as in many instances they are, then the Postmaster-General should place the real facts before us. I understand that some of the Sydney telegraphists suggested that the Adelaide system should be adopted in preference to that proposed to be brought into operation on 16th inst. That system, however, does not seem to be very popular with the local telegraphists, for I find that recently the South Australian Post and Telegraph Association passed the following resolution : -

Executive of this association is opposed to broken shifts, strongly sympathizes with the Sydney telegraphists in the present trouble, and trusts that an amicable settlement will be arrived at, but considers that should a lockout occur the “ common platform “ should be at once put forward, and general meetings immediately held in each State to consider united action.

So far as the Victorian section of these officers is concerned, the statement has been published that -

In any case, the action of the PostmasterGeneral had been sprung upon the men. The men felt that it was an innovation to introduce broken shifts for clerical officers when the work was not of an intermittent character. No consideration had been shown for the home comforts of the men.

The further statement is made that -

Their hours were increased, in spite of the report of the Royal Commission which inquired into the matter, that six hours in the bead offices were quite equal to seven hours in a country office.

I do not know whether these views are correct, but they must necessarily be the subject of consideration by the PostmasterGeneral. It has been urged by honorable members that the coming into operation of these new regulations should be deferred until the men have been afforded an opportunity to appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. I do not regard that as the most fitting tribunal to deal with grievances of the kind, but when the law provides for recourse to it, it is the duty of these men to avail themselves of that means of securing a settlement of their complaint. We are extremely fortunate in having as Public Service Commissioner of the Commonwealth a very capable man, who, to my mind, is infinitely more competent to deal with these complaints than is the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. He has devoted almost a lifetime to this class of” work, and is specially qualified to deal*, with such questions.

Mr Howe:

– Has he been successful ?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– On the whole, I would say that he has been in this connexion. I regard him as infinitely morecapable of adjusting these grievances thanis the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The President hasgreat juristic ability, and, in regard tomatters of law, of course, is highly competent to deal with such questions. But as to matters of Public Service concern,, where special experience is required, it is a great mistake to remove their settlement from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commissioner to that of the Court. TheDepartment, both before and since Federation, has been under the control of a> Public Service Commissioner, and, speaking generally, the questions that have arisen* from time to time have been most capablydealt with. We have in the Public Service Commissioner a fair-minded, capable,, and experienced man, in whom the Parliament may implicitly trust. I do notwish to be unreasonable, but ‘ grievances in» the Public Service are often largely exaggerated. It became my duty some timeago, as a member of a sub-Committee of a former Cabinet, to deal with a public-, outcry concerning this Department. Wewere told that the Department was in a-, state of chaos, that strikes were imminent amongst its employes, that terrorism wasbeing exercised, and that seething discontent existed. I had to make a close investigation of’ the grounds on which someof these far-reaching statements weremade. In many instances 1 found that they were exaggerated, while in others I discovered that they came from unreliablesources, and were not at all justified by theactual condition of affairs. I remember one case in which the delivery of a postcard from England was effected, although, it was not directed to any town or State,, the street and “ Australia “ being the only, address. Then there was a complaint of the non-delivery of a letter which wassubsequently found in the pocket of a lady to whom it had been intrusted to post. Weinvestigated a complaint made by a Queensland firm, who ultimately reported that,, as the result of a search, they had found* 109 stamped letters which had never been, posted, hidden behind a case, and 120 unstamped letters secreted elsewhere. Lettersand cheques were also discovered in various- places on the premises. All these were supposed to have been posted. There was also a complaint of the non-delivery of three letters, one from Geelong containing a £1 postal note; one from Albury^ with i2s. 6d. in postal notes enclosed, and one from Lang Lang containing a £1 note and 10s. in postal notes, all addressed to the same firm in Melbourne. Upon inquiry, it was found that all three letters had been duly delivered, but afterwards stolen by a boy in the employ of the firm. There was likewise a complaint from a Riverina farmer that he had expended £50 in installing a telephone in his home, and that upon making application to be connected with the nearest post-office he was informed that no funds were available, although the cost would have been only £2. It was found, however, that there was no record of the application having been made, and that the postmaster at the office named by the complainant knew nothing about the matter.

Mr Howe:

– Does the honorable member hold that all this is relevant to the general argument?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Whilst it is true that there is some reason for the complaints that are made, I am not in sympathy with the extravagant allegations that the Department is reeking with discontent, that chaos prevails, and that wholesale complaints on the part of the public are justified. There have been brought under the attention of the Postmaster-General, however, some substantial causes of complaint. I wish to be fair to the Department. Every genuine case is entitled to be investigated, but we ought not to be led away by wild and general statements. Where specific complaints are made, however, they cannot be overlooked. There should be a distinct anxiety on the part of the Department to secure contentment :in the Service, but the adjustment of grievances is not to be achieved in the way provided by this Government to anything like the extent that would be possible under the control of the Public Service Commissioner himself. If it is impossible to control a vast commercial concern like that of the Postmaster-General’s Department by means of a Ministerial head, we have a right to consider whether it could not be more effectively managed by an independent Board such as has been adopted in connexion with the State railways. From the management of the State railways, political control, as far as possible, has been eliminated. So sensitive were the first Victorian Railways Commissioners in regard to political influence that they refused at the outset to listen to representations by members of Parliament, although they were ready, of course, to fully investigate any complaints that were made.That system establishes a precedent that might reasonably be followed by us in this case. The various railways of Australia, speaking generally, are effectively managed, and I think that, so far as practical management is concerned, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department might readily be placed under the control of an expert Board. While I do not suggest for one moment that Parliament should lose control over the Public Service, yet I think that if we had three expert Commissioners - men specially expert in the various departments of this service-

Mr Howe:

– How should we adjust the functions of the Minister and the functions of the Board in order to get effective work ?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That objection might be suggested in regard to the railways, yet the fact remains that the railways are effectively worked. The actual management of the’ railways is left to the Commissioners, while, on questions of policy, the Minister has to be consulted.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member not think that the postal employes ought to have the right of appeal to an independent Court?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– 1 do not think that the employes altogether relish that idea; but rather that they would be satisfied, as in the case of the railways, with Boards whereon they are represented, the ultimate control being left to the Commissioners. These Boards are appointed for dealing with the grievances of the employes, and, of course, they are more or less subordinate to the Railways Commissioners, to whom, in the last resort, there is appeal. In the case of the railways, this system has proved very valuable. Considering the multifarious nature of the work of the Post Office, and its widespread ramifications, I think that even a stronger case can be made out for a Board than in the case of the railways. There are many problems associated with the management of the Post Office. First, there is the investigation of complaints made in Parliament, together with statements made in the press and forwarded- by individuals. Further, there is the great and important question of decentralization. At first, an effort was made to manage the Post and Telegraph Department from the Central Office, but the result was congestion and serious delay, which proved a prolific source of complaint. As a matter of fact, it was found impossible to continue this system, although, of course, there are questions which must be referred to the central body for the purpose of securing uniformity in administration - uniformity which must be laid down on broad fundamental lines. The Deputy PostmastersGeneral in the various States should be allowed a greater amount of administrative power in order to attain that end ; and it is essential that they should meet the officers of the Central Branch to discuss and lay down the lines of administration to be followed. There is, however, a vast amount of detail in regard to which reference to the Central Office would mean serious delay. The staffing of the Department is a problem of great magnitude. The casual and temporary employes may represent at times thousands of individuals in the rushes incidental to the management; and this is a matter that only efficient and experienced men can deal with. It must, however, be dealt with on broad general lines. The question of overtime is a serious sort of grievance; and it has to be dealt with in some way on a uniform basis. As to discipline, while the public are entitled to the best services of the men, it must be recognised that the latter have their rights; and, above all, we must recognise that those who loyally do their work should have their merits fully recognised. Unfortunately, in any large Department, there must be shirkers, whose negligence and breaches of discipline are a serious reflection on the general body. Any such breaches ought to be sternly repressed in order to secure the best results.

Mr Howe:

– Is that not being done?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I am sorry to say, speaking generally, that there have been several complaints of breaches of discipline on the part of the officers; but this, as I pointed out, must be expected in any vast Department of the kind.

Mr Howe:

– These must happen at all times.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Necessarily, but the men who offend must be found out and dealt with.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
Balaclava

– A great source of complaint is the delay that takes place in the erection of postoffices even after they have been approved. More than twelve months ago the Government promised to erect a post-office at Mordialloc, and the plans were preparedSome ten days ago I wrote to the Minister of Home Affairs, asking the cause of the delay, and a few minutes ago I received a reply to the effect that the Postal Department had recently asked for modifications of the accommodation to be provided, thus necessitating the preparation of fresh sketch plans. These plans, the letter went on to say, when completed, would be submitted for the approval of the Postal Department, and instructions would be given for an officer to have preparations made for the calling of tenders. This delay of over twelve months is only one instance of many in connexion with the working of the Department of Home Affairs, and similar delays are experienced in connexion with other Departments. There seems to be no systematic plan on which buildings are provided when required. Last year, when we were discussing the Estimates, I suggested that there should be fixed plans of post-offices prepared suitable for towns and centres of varying population, as in the case of school buildings required by the Government of Victoria. This would do away with the necessity of preparing fresh plans for each proposed new post-office, and would certainly obviate the delays that occur of from two to five years. Either the Post and Telegraph Department ought to make its arrangements quite independently of the Department of Home Affairs, or the latter Department should be left to do the whole of the work. When I was Postmaster-General in the State of Victoria some years ago, I found a pile of correspondence a foot high relating to a piece of land 18 inches in width at South Yarra, in regard to which there was a dispute as to the payment of a rental of 30s. a year to the Railway Department. From a revenue point of view it did not matter whether the 30s. was debited to the Post and Telegraph Department or credited to the Railways, and yet the work of this correspondence must have represented over £100. When the matter came under my notice, as it had come under the notice, I suppose, of twenty-five previous PostmastersGeneral, I wrote on the corner of the file, “ This is infernal nonsense, and ought to be stopped.” At this moment I do not know whether the nonsense has been stopped, or whether the present PostmasterGeneral is still wrestling with the problem. The honorable member for Fawkner drew attention to the case of the Prahran Postoffice. While that honorable member was away on one occasion I introduced a deputation, on his behalf, to the then PostmasterGeneral, who confirmed the contract made by his predecessor. However, the present Minister of Home Affairs has objected; but I think that, if a Minister enters into an arrangement, good or bad, his successor ought to feel in honour bound to accept it. In my opinion, the Prahran municipal authorities have been badly treated. When the Prahran Town Hall was built the land belonged to the municipal authority, who gave up one or two rooms for postal purposes, the Department agreeing to contribute so much to the cost of the building. When the municipality required the premises for its own purposes the contract entered into by the PostmasterGeneral ought to have been honoured. Probably that land is more valuable now than it was five or six years ago. But it seems to me that these people have a grievance, and if the arrangement with them is not honoured by Parliament, where may we expect an agreement to be honoured? The honorable member for Barker spoke of the need of telephone extension in the country districts. I think that the Bill which this Chamber passed the other day, providing that shorter poles may be used in the erection of telephone lines in the country, will confer a great benefit upon rural residents. I know that it cost me between £70 and £80 to get a country line erected which might have been constructed for £20 if I had been permitted to run the wire along the tops of fences. But the Department insisted upon having it attached to poles which were nearly as high as this chamber, notwithstanding that the line traverses roads which are scarcely used at all. It would be a great boon to the farmers of Australia if every farmhouse had its own telephone: When I was in Canada some years ago, the Minister of Agriculture told me that he would never rest content till every farmhouse throughout the Dominion had its own telephone. The introduction of this instrument on all our farms would confer an inestimable advantage upon our producers, especially in view of the liability of many parts of this country to be devastated by bush fires. If the farmers paid only is. per week for the use of the telephone, the Department would collect a great revenue. I know of one country post-office in which a branch of the Savings Bank was opened. A Government contract was being carried out in the vicinity, and the postmistress informed me that a great portion, of her time was occupied on pay-day in receiving money from the men employed upon it; but that they withdrew that money almost immediately afterwards. That institution was, therefore, merely a bank for the publican. The postmistress received no extra remuneration for this work, although the performance of it was productive ot complaints regarding delays in the delivery of letters. Certainly better arrangements ought to be made. It is these little pinpricks that cause irritation, both to the public and to the officers in charge of these services. The Postal Department is a huge one, and if a better system of administering it were inaugurated - if, in short, it were conducted on business lines - it should run as smoothly as possible. What I would suggest is that the Commonwealth should be divided into districts. The person in charge of the pos.-office at a town like Albury should have the supervision of the twenty or thirty smaller offices scattered through the district. The officer in charge of the Melbourne office would act similarly in regard to the metropolitan and suburban offices. The same arrangement would be applicable to Sydney, Deniliquin, Broken Hill, Ballarat, Bendigo, and Geelong, and other large centres. I would remind honorable members that, although our banks are managed from the big centres, each banking company has an officer in charge of each of the districts in which it does business. Wool firms conduct their businesses upon the same principle. Each branch does its own business, and then makes a returnwhich is forwarded to hard-quarters. The Railway Department works upon simi- lar lines. There an officer is placed in charge of a district, and he is held respond sible for the general working of the railway system in it. If the Postal Department would take a lesson from the management of our railways, probably its business would be managed equally well. It is want of organization more than anything else that is responsible for so many ‘complaints. An accountant has been working for several years endeavouring to produce a balance-sheet setting out the financial operations of the Department, but every

Railways Department throughout Australia issues a balance-sheet annually. It is an extraordinary circumstance that the Postal Department cannot issue a balance-sheet, and show a profit and loss account, instead of doing everything by mere guess-work. Nothing is written down for depreciation or for wear and tear. The annual statement that is issued merely shows the total revenue and the total expenditure, and, of course, when our revenue increases our expenditure naturally increases too. But I regret to say that the increase in expenditure is out of proportion to the increase of revenue in that Department. That is due to a lack of system. If we had a proper system of bookkeeping it would be easy to make out a balance-sheet showing the exact financial position of the Department each year. We were promised some time ago that the automatic exchange system would be more generally used. Automatic exchanges have been introduced at Sydney and at Geelong, and if the automatic switchboard effects a saving of time, and confers other benefits, the sooner it is installed in every big centre the better. If we had a proper system of organization and management, I do not think we should have the discontent which now exists in the Postal Department. I cannot understand why we hear of so much discontent in the Post Office and of so little in other Departments. There must ‘be a screw loose somewhere. If proper systematic methods were adopted there should be little necessity for overtime or broken shifts. The men employed by the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company used to work nine and ten hours a day, and the company declared that if an alteration were made in their hours and conditions of labour, it could not continue to carry on its business. But an alteration was made, and the eight-hours system was introduced, but the trams still run as well as ever they did, and, probably, better. If that result could be achieved by the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company, surely it can be achieved by a huge Department like the Post Office. One of the troubles connected with our Public Service is that no provision is made for understudies. No Department ought to be solely dependent upon one officer in any position. There ought always to be a man who could take his place in case of emergency. Again, transfers are constantly being effected without sufficient warrant. I remember one man in the Postal Department who was described as an electrical engineer. When I inquirer! what examination he had passed, I was informed that he had received no special training, but that he used to be a carpenter in the Department. When electrical work, was given to him it cost the country a good deal of money. It would be well if, in these Departments, we had training schools, in which men could be prepared for the positions they aimed at filling. Opportunities should be given to every mair in the Service to pass the examination necessary to qualify him for a higher grade. If our telegraph messengers possess the necessary ability, there should be nothing to prevent them, from rising to the highest positions in the Service. In America big manufacturing concerns encourage their employes to make suggestions for the improvement of the business, and when those suggestions areapproved by the heads of the Departments, the authors are rewarded. Sometimes, those making the suggestions are promoted, and on occasions they have even been granted partnerships. Among the wealthiest men in America are several who have obtained their foothold in that way. Manyyoung Australians who have entered manufacturing enterprises in America are to-day holding high positions there merely because of their force of character and the encouragement which has been given to them by their employers. We need to copy the example of America in this .direction. We ought not to sit on a young man because lie makes a suggestion. There may be something in it. No business is being carried on which cannot be improved, and I think that officers of the Postal Department ought easily to be able to make suggestions which would be of great value to this country, and probably to the world. Encouragement and systematic working would do away with a great deal of the discontent of which we hear so much. There must be something radically wrong when we hear officers daily complaining of the way in which they are treated. Perhaps the PostmasterGeneral is not to blame for this, but it would be just as well if he would make a study of the position. When I was in charge of the Victorian Postal Department, I asked the Deputy PostmasterGeneral if he ever went round the Department, or visited offices in the country. His reply was that his time was fully occupied in attending to correspondence. One Saturday morning I said to him, “Let us stroll round and see what is going on iri the Post Office.” Accordingly we entered the Money Order Department, where we found between 400 and 500 persons waiting to deposit money, and to withdraw it. There were only two clerks behind the counter to deal with them. I said to my companion, “ This will never do. Did you know before that great crowds attended here on Saturday morning, and that no extra officers were put on to cope with the rush?” His reply was, “I never heard of it previously.” I then said’, “ It is no wonder that the officers are overworked, and that the public are disappointed.” We then went to the accountant’s department, with the result that on the following Saturday we had eight officers in the Money Order Department to attend to the requirements of the public. The consequence was that, instead of having to wait an hour to transact their business, people had to wait only a few minutes. That reform was brought about by my strolling through the office with the permanent head of the Department to see what was going on. It would be well if Ministers made similar inspections. I visited a number of offices, and those in charge were only too glad to point out where improvements could be made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
Cowper

– The fact that the discussion of the Estimates of the Postmaster-General has now occupied twenty-six hours, shows the importance of the Department, but it evidences also the discontent which permeates its various branches, and the dissatisfaction of the public with its administration. No other department of government affects the citizens so closely, and the condition of affairs which has been so much commented on is, therefore, the more to be regretted. There is not a representative who could not give instances of disabilities suffered by the people of his district through the lack of good administration. But, instead of -calling attention to particular delays that have occurred in my district, I propose to indicate the seat of the trouble. The Department lacks a proper system of administration. A very important branch of its work is that done by postal inspectors, but they have so much to do, and their districts are so large, that it is impossible for them to give that attention to the various matters which come under their notice that is re quired of them. Some of the men whose work I am acquainted with have to examine and report upon about 200 officers. These inspectors are the eyes of the Department, and everything affecting their districtseven the most trifling matters - must go through them. Their time is so much taken up with small things, that they cannot give the attention required by larger things. Their first duty is to inspect and report on the various post-offices; but this inspection is as nearly farcical as it can be. An inspector dashes up to a country office, counts the cash, the stamps, and the postal notes, signs the last page of the book, and goes off again. The local residents have no chance of interviewing him on any matter. He has not time to make a proper examination of the buildings, or to come into contact with, and thus be able to judge of the character and fitness for their work, of those employed in the office. Thus men in isolated offices, possessing ability, have no opportunity of making their qualifications known to the head office, and great dissatisfaction results. Inspectors are required to report on the condition of the post-offices, but, not being architects, and having for the most part risen from the rank of postmaster, or from some other position in the Department, they have no architectural knowledge, and are not really in a position to say what repairs, if any, are needed, what these should cost, and whether the designs submitted for alterations are suitable. Not only are they not trained to deal with such matters themselves, but they have not time to get the opinion of persons who could advise them. The public should have opportunities for stating its grievances to the inspectors. But the leading citizens of a town have no advice of the intention of the inspector to visit it, and, therefore, cannot put before him suggestions, for the alteration of time-tables, or other matters of local concern to which they would like attention directed. I urge the PostmasterGeneral to consider, during the recess, the work of the postal inspectors, and to do what he can to improve their conditions, in their own interests, and in that of the public. I ask him, too, to consider their remuneration. In my opinion, these officers are now greatly underpaid. They are almost constantly away from home, and their travelling expenses are heavy, because, often they cannot avail themselves of railway facilities. Very capable men frequently refuse to accept the position of inspector because of the hardship it involves and the smallness of the remuneration. I know one man who, having acted as an inspector for a time, went back to the position of postmaster in order to obtain an increase due to him. The gaining of an inspectorship should be the ambition of every postmaster and of every subordinate officer. Every officer in the Service should be inspired with the hope that he may some day become Deputy Postmaster-General. We cannot, however, arouse ambition in the lower ranks if the hardworking postal inspectors are not better paid. Let me refer to another branch of the Service which causes trouble by reason of the inefficient administration. As most honorable members are aware, the Electrical Engineer is expected to keep all lines in repair, both telegraph and telephone, to keep all instruments in repair, to erect all new lines, and to establish telephone exchanges; but the work is more than one man can deal with. The work of the Chief Electrician for New South Wales is out of all reason. In that State, as perhaps in all the others, there is too much centralization. Whenever you call to see Mr. Nelson, you find him with files of papers that he has scarcely time to look at. The following statement in the Sydney Morning Herald of June last illustrates the delays and inconvenience which are created by the present system of centralization -

The electrical engineer is charged with, amongst other things, keeping all telegraph lines and instruments in repair. If a line breaks and is off a pole at, say, Wallendbeen, it is reported to the postmaster at Cootamundra. His linesman is absent at, say, Temora, so he queries the postmaster, at Wallendbeen by telephone or by a roundabout way if he can get some one to fix it up, and at whose cost ? Wallendbeen replies he can have repairs done for 2S. 6d. Mind, the work is not done at once, nor can it be until authority is sent from Sydney. Cootamundra tells the electrical engineer that he can have the work done for 2S. 6d. Perhaps he may receive a reply stating that 2s. 6d» is considered too much and 2s. is enough. Or he may wire authority 542,681, approved, pay John Danks 2s. 6d., repairs to line at Wallendbeen. Cootamundra then speaks to Wallendbeen, quotes the number of the authority, and requests him to pay the amount. This ‘ is no exaggeration. It is the exact routine followed by this cumbrous, creaking branch. All the time people interested are wondering why the line is not put right at once, and the Sydney-Cootamundra line gets a few “on service” messages in addition to its usual load.

It. is absurd to say that a postmaster cannot, be trusted to spend half-a-crown, or even £1 or more, on necessary repairs. If a postmaster had more responsibility, the delays due to the breaking of a pole or something of that kind would not be nearly so serious as they are. Apparently, some of the officials have as many papers as possible sent to them to make it seem that they could not be done without. The sooner we get rid of this centralization the better. The honorable member for Bendigo, whenPostmasterGeneral, deputed a considerable amount of power to the Deputy PostmastersGeneral, and those in their turn should depute many of “their powers to local authorities. Those who have had anything, to do with the management of men know that you get the best work by giving responsibility. There is not a postmaster in New South Wales, or in the Commonwealth, probably, who could not be trusted to see to the carrying out of small repairs to the best advantage to the public and in the most economical way. In my own district, where the rainfall is heavy, and storms frequently occur, communication is sometimes interrupted for days by the falling of a pole, and it could be restored, much more quickly and cheaply were the local authority able to deal with the case on his own responsibility.

Motion (bv Mr. Joseph Cook) agreed to-

That the Chairman do report progress and ask. leave to sit again.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the House will again resolve itself intothe said Committee at a later hour this day.

Mr J H Catts:

– I beg to call attention to the want of a quorum. * Quorum formed.”]*

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– - I move -

That the words “ at a later hour this day “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ as soon as the New South Waleselectoral scheme has been considered.”

I have no object in moving this amendment save that of ascertaining our position in regard to the electoral redistribution scheme of New South Wales. I invite the Prime Minister to tell us the mind of the Government concerning that scheme. Twoschemes of the kind have already been turned down - a fact unparalleled in the political history of Australia.

Mr Mathews:

– The position is not as bad as it was three years ago when the Government of which the honorable member was a member did not try to secure the return of a scheme that had been sent back.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In that case only one seat was involved.

Mr Webster:

– The principle is the same.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Whatever was done on that occasion was done decisively. There was no “shilly-shallying” as there has been in this case. There has never been an exhibition of such conduct in connexion with a scheme of redistribution in the political history of this Continent. There is now a third scheme-

Mr Cann:

– No, it is really the first scheme, and the honorable member is preventing the Government from bringing it forward.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I desire that it should be brought forward. That is the purpose of my amendment. I have simply taken advantage of an opening that presented itself to me to try to remove the block - in the shape of the Estimates of the Postmaster- General’s Department - in the way of the introduction of that scheme in order that we may know exactly what we have to face. I do not wish to obstruct business. I desire only to know what the Government intend to do. They have in both Houses a majority sufficient to carry any proposal.

Mr Mathews:

– And we ought to use it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It would be far more straightforward for the Government to use it instead of to go on as they are doing.

Mr Charlton:

– The honorable member has received an assurance that the scheme will be dealt with.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– We have no assurance of the kind from the Prime Minister. It is quite true that statements have been made concerning the conduct of business in this House, but we have had no statement whatever regarding what is to be done in another place, which is controlled and directed by the Government. I invite the Prime Minister, in all good faith, to say what the Government propose to do, so far as this scheme is concerned, both in this House as well as in another place. Every other State has had its electoral divisions re-arranged. In their cases finality has long since been reached. But here we are, practically at the end of the year, and we know no more now than we did twelve months ago as to what is to be done regarding the redistribution of the electoral divisions of New South Wales. I do not wish to speak strongly about this matter. I desire merely to make an appeal to the Govern ment to tell the House and the country what they propose to do in respect to this important matter. One-third of the seats in this House are, so to speak, out of plumb. A redistribution in respect of them is necessary, yet we cannot ascertain in any decisive way the mind of the Government in regard to it.

Mr Webster:

– Why does the honorable member block the introduction of the scheme ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why keep making that statement?

Mr Webster:

– I make it deliberately.

Mr Charlton:

– The Opposition have deliberately blocked it all night.

Mr J H Catts:

– For the last twentyfour hours.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is quite evident that the rule of reason has been entirely superseded in the minds of a great many honorable members opposite. It is perfectly clear, from their interjections, that they are having a little game on their own. All that we want is a scheme of redistribution.

Mr Riley:

– There is one in readiness, but the honorable member will not give us an opportunity to go on with it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Here is an opportunity to bring it on.

Mr J H Catts:

– At the honorable’ member’s dictation?

M.r. JOSEPH COOK. - I invite the Prime Minister to tell us what the Government propose to do in. regard to this scheme, both here and in another place, and to let us know exactly what we have to face.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I am sure that honorable members generally are pleased to hear that the honorable member for Parramatta is anxious that we should proceed with the business of the House. We are most anxious to do so, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we intend to push on with it. The chief business before us just now is to deter others from preventing the business of the country being proceeded with. The Government will take care of their reputation, and of the reputation of the House, and when they are no longer able to do so, will give place to others. When this controversy started, the honorable member for Parramatta threatened that he would do certain things. No Government worthy of the name would submit to that sort of treatment.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is an absolutely incorrect statement.

Mr FISHER:

– I ask honorable members to make some allowance for the honorable member for Parramatta’s failure of memory.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Parramatta at the time distinctly repudiated any desire to make a threat.

Mr Wise:

– But he made a threat, all the same.

Mr FISHER:

– It is unfortunate that so many honorable members should misunderstand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We must leave the matter at that point. The position is that we are going on with business. I think that a wiser Opposition would have allowed us to proceed with it. More than that I cannot say. The Government are just as anxious to get on with the business of the country as some members of the Opposition appear to be desirous of obstructing it. I can say for the Government that everything that a Government should do will be done, and I can speak in the same way for my party.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7478

BILLS FROM SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment -

Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) B ill.

Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill.

Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill.

Sugar Excise Repeal Bill.

Sugar Bounty Abolition Bill.

page 7478

QUESTION

ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed, vide page 7476) :

Postmaster-General’s Department

Division 106 (Central Staff),£22,041

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
Cowper

– I wish to call attention to a matter affecting the Postmaster-General’s Department that has caused considerable irritation to the public. I refer to the system that is adopted in regard to what are known as “ delayed telegrams.” In many country districts residents receive telegrams marked “ Delayed owing to interruption of line.” They are not aware whether, as a matter of fact, an interruption has taken place, and it is significant that very often a man who is prepared to pay double rates will get his message through, whereas those on which the ordinary rates are paid are marked “ Delayed by interruption to line.” The Department ought to find out why the telegrams were delayed. It is very hard to understand, if there was an interruption in the line, how the urgent telegrams got through. Our telegraphic service ought to be useful to the community as a whole, irrespective of the rates paid; and if the regular rates are sufficiently remunerative, no preference ought to be given. No doubt there are cases where urgent telegrams are very desirable, insuring, as they do, special messengers, and no person can have any complaint on that score; but I think the whole facts go to show that there is much congestion, and an absence of proper business methods. Only the other day, the Minister of External Affairs read a long telegram from the Northern Territory that must have caused some private business to stand aside.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There could not be anything more important than that telegram.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– I do not know that it was more important than many private telegrams; and I think that the departmental information might well have been conveyed by mail.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is important to stop a vile slander, and that is what that telegram did.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– I do not think we can compliment the Minister on the way the slander was stopped.

Mr Frazer:

– It was most effectively stopped.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– Then the Minister is easily satisfied. As to the Stores Branch, any one who has had anything to do with efforts to obtain telegraphic and telephonic facilities knows that the usual official reply is that material is not available. As a reason for this we are referred to the strike in England about eighteen months ago; but this is too silly for words. Any warehouse in Sydney can supply material, and the disabilities under which the Government suffer have to be faced by all private traders. The trouble is that those in charge of the Stores Branch do not look far enough ahead, and adopt proper business methods; and if a private business were carried on in the same way the Bankruptcy Court would be inevitable. On several occasions the Department has accepted small tenders for 50 tons of wire.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Sometimes 25 tons.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– After the requisition has gone through the usual redtape methods, the order has to be sent to England, and the people here have to wait until it is fulfilled. This excuse about the strike in England is all nonsense ; the fault really lies with the man in charge of the Stores Branch. When it is possible for an honorable member to receive a letter in September stating that there will be no material available until March of next year, there must be incompetence somewhere. I do not blame the Postmaster-General, who sees that the means are provided; the fact is that those at the Stores Branch are not equal to their job. There is no warehouse in Sydney that cannot supply any material asked for.

Mr West:

– For three months, the warehouses could not give out supplies owing to the strike in England.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– That was not my experience. The man in charge of the Stores Branch knows nothing of business or business methods. A man may be taken from another Department and put into the Stores Branch, although he knows nothing about keeping stock or indenting stock in sufficient time to be here when wanted. Only yesterday there was brought under the notice of honorable members a list of lines, the construction of which has been delayed owing to the want of material ; and the sooner the qualifications of the officer in charge are inquired into the better it will be for all concerned. I desire to take this opportunity to express my disapproval of the present system of charging postmasters a rental for their quarters. Every postmaster is charged 10 per cent, on his salary as rent, irrespective of the class of building or his family requirements. In my own district a man with a large family had to occupy a small cottage of two or three rooms in a most undesirable quarter, and for this he was charged £21 a year. I must say, however, in justice to the Department, that, in the case I have just cited, arrangements have been made for temporary quarters of a more suitable character; but this man and his family were left in this wretched place over a winter to his great inconvenience and danger to his health. There are many other cases of the kind ; and I desire to emphasize the injustice- of the system. The policy of the Department in requiring these postmasters to live on the premises may be open to discussion, but I should like to know why they are charged rent for doing caretakers’ work. In cases where the postmasters are not compelled to live on the premises, caretakers are paid ; and, indeed, that is the system adopted by private business people. I do not say that the Department should find houses absolutely free, though there is much to be said in favour of that plan. We ought to take care, however, that fair treatment is meted out to these men, and I think a fair way of testing the matter is to compare the position of stationmasters and schoolmasters with that of the postmasters. At Sutherland, on the south coast of New South Wales, a schoolmaster is paid a salary of £258 a year, out of which he pays £30 a year as rent, leaving his net income at £228 ; the stationmaster receives £270 a year, pays an annual rental of £50, and, therefore, has a net salary of £220 ; and the postmaster, with a salary of £190, has to pay £19 a. year rent, leaving a net income of £171- There are quite a number of similar cases, and postmasters occupy this unenviable position, although, in addition to their postal duties, they have to do banking, electoral, and other work, so various in character as to make them a sort of general rouseabout. In New South Wales the State Government got over the difficulty by giving the stationmasters and schoolmasters increases in salary equal to the rent they were called upon to pay, and something of the kind ought to be done in the case of country postmasters.

Mr West:

– They do not like living on the premises.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– That is a matter of policy for the Government to consider ; I am only trying to show the unfairness of the present conditions. Then, I think that after a man has been in the Public Service for a number of years, perhaps from boyhood, he should be able to look forward with confidence to the receipt of a decent salary. As a matter of fact, quite a number of men in New South Wales, who have spent some of the best years of their life in the service of the public, are receiving such small salaries as to offer no inducement to others to follow their example. I have here a list of thirty-eight officers, whose ages range from fifty to sixty-three years and some of whom have seen thirty-nine years’ service, and who yet are receiving salaries as low as £”8o, out of which they have to pay rent.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There may be some misfits amongst them.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– I do not saythere are not. At one time the salaries of these postmasters were fixed according to the amount of work they did, and, at another time, according to the revenue of the offices, and the position has been complicated by the grading system, which has much to do with the salary. lt was found that the grading, which entailed the moving of men from one office to another, meant considerable expense; and it was decided, in order to obviate this, that all other things being equal, the man in charge of an office might be allowed to remain at an increased salary. Many of these men, however, have, under the circumstances, been kept back; and the fact that they live in far-away country districts entitles them to some consideration from the Department in the way of increased salary or some equivalent. If a man has shown himself to be not altogether incapable over a long term of years, he should certainly receive more than £180 or £200 a year; and my own opinion is that any man who is fit to be placed in charge of a post-office ought not to be paid less than £250. I believe that the Department would benefit if reasonable salaries were paid, because it would encourage the best and most capable men to seek the positions. If a man, after many years’ service, is not worth such a salary as I suggested, he ought to have no appointment at all. I much prefer to see the best men well paid, than second-rate officers engaged at lower salaries. The present PostmasterGeneral has more money at his disposal than had any of his predecessors ; and I think he might do something for the class of men for whom I have been pleading, and who, as is well known to all who travel about, are doing loyal service for this country. I was not at all satisfied with the reply I received the other day to the effect that post-offices are not graded on a revenue has:s, but on the value of the work performed. I know that it is extremely difficult to estimate the value of work in a number of post-offices. Quite a number of them are doing repeating work on telegraphic and telephonic lines. The officers, in those cases, receive no credit for the work which (hey perform, apart from the mailSags which are despatched from the offices, so that the present method of assessing their status is anything but satisfactory. Some time ago the present Minister of External Affairs promised to give post-offices which return an annual revenue of £200 the status of official offices. For some reason, effect has not been given to that promise. I am of opinion that, inasmuch as the public had been promised these official offices, they should have been granted them. To-day some of the persons who are in charge of semi-official offices are in receipt of only £78 per annum. That, I contend, is a miserable remuneration. Indeed, there is a man discharging the duties connected with a semi-official office in my own electorate who is getting even less than that salary. He is rendering the public good service, and yet he is being sweated by the Government. Only the other day a woman who was in charge of a semi-official office, and who is in receipt of a very small salary, became ill. A young man from a neighbouring post-office consented to relieve her, with the result that the unfortunate woman had to pay, not merely his salary, but also his hotel bill. The woman was confined to her bed for some days, and after she had paid for this relief a friend, who had been connected with a post-office some rime previously, volunteered to gratuitously discharge her duties during her absence.

Mr Archibald:

– Has that case come before the Department?

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– Yes, and the Department says that it can do nothing - that the regulations must be followed. I wish now to refer to another regulation which was issued some time ago, and which related to the introduction of a new system of accountancy. That step was decided upon in order that we might ascertain what branches of our Postal Service are self-supporting, and what are not. I exceedingly regret that the gentleman who was appointed to take charge of this branch of the Department was asked to accept the paltry salary of £700 per annum. I spoke to the Postmaster-General upon die subject, and told him that it was unreasonable to expect to secure the services of an officer of the necessary calibre for such a small remuneration. He assured me that he was about to appoint a man who was well qualified for the position. That officer, I am not surprised to learn, has since left the Department. We want to get for our Postal Department the best men available; but from the Deputy PostmastersGeneral down to the lowest messenger, the Commonwealth is paying less than it ought to pay, with the result that it does not get the services of the best men. The sooner we abandon that system, the sooner we shall obtain an efficient service. I come now to the question of automatic telephones. For some years I have urged the advisableness of introducing that system, and when I was travelling in England last year, I took advantage of the opportunity to make myself thoroughly conversant with it. Our Postal Department, in adhering to the old metallic switchboard, plainly shows that it is utterly out of date. Under the existing system, we are obliged to install fresh switchboards of this obsolete type every few years, and to provide necessary accommodation for telephone attendants. We all know that a telephone exchange which earns a revenue of £150 a year is entitled to a continuous service. Immediately its revenue reaches that sum three boys have to be appointed as attendants, and sleeping accommodation has to be found for them. But under the automatic system as I saw it in operation in Calgary, in Canada, practically no attendants are required. In that town of 50,000 inhabitants, three attendants were able to attend to the whole of the switches, and to give the people a very much better service than we have in the Commonwealth. The automatic telephone system has been installed at Geelong, but, for some unknown reason, it has taken the Department a long time to determine whether or not it is a success.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:

– Order ! the honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I desire to indorse all that has been said by the honorable member for Cowper regarding the out-of-dateness of our telephone system. When we recently visited the Old Country, we could not avoid being struck with the vast advance which has been made in the telephone system which is in operation there, as compared with the system which is in use in Australia. Here the telephone, instead of being regarded as a public boon, is frequently regarded as a nuisance, especially by those who have recourse to it with a view to expediting their business arrangements. It often happens that resort to the telephone results in delay, and that time would have been saved if the subscriber had sent a special messenger instead of waiting to get into communication by phone. Even in the Opposition room of this building, when 1 have desired to communicate with honorable members in a sudden emergency, I have frequently been obliged to spend twenty or twenty-five minutes in a vain endeavour to do so. It is almost as difficult to raise a subscriber as it is to some members to raise the wind.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What did the honorable member think of the telephone service which is provided in London i

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is an excellent service; and I especially refer to the system of private bureaux, under which a person may enter a tobacconist’s shop, or other place of business, and, by paying the prescribed fee, get immediately connected with the subscriber with whom he wishes to communicate, or if the number is then engaged, the attendant will see that you are connected the moment the line is clear. The telephone service in the Old Country is far in advance of the service in Australia. In Canada, and America, too, the system in vogue is very up-to-date. In those countries, when one wishes to communicate with a subscriber, he has merely to manipulate the figures appearing on a little dial so as to make them correspond with the number of that subscriber. I mention these facts merely with a view of showing how far we are behind the times, and how advantageous it would be to the Commonwealth for some of our postal officials to visit countries where up-to-date systems are in operation, for the purpose of becoming thoroughly conversant with their systems.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Thursday.)

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON.Our telephone system has steadily gone from bad to worse, so that, instead of being a blessing to the community, it has been responsible for more annoyance and bad language than any other institution. The remedy for the ill-administration of the Department is in our own hands. .We have insisted on the departmental heads sticking too closely to their offices, and have not allowed them the advantages to be obtained from travel ; so that they have not been able to keep abreast of the times, and alive to all new developments. On this point, let me refer honorable members to the following passage on page 11 of the report of the Postal Commission -

Several witnesses in subordinate positions in the Department, of their own volition and at their own expense had collated valuable information in regard to Post and Telegraph- Departments in other countries. This was especially exemplified in an official in the General Division of the Service in the State of New South Wales. The absence of an extensive knowledge of the working of Post and Telegraph Departments in other countries was common to all the high officials, with the exception of the Chief Electrical Engineer. It may be said that the neglect to possess themselves of this information was to some extent occasioned by their too close adherence to duties of a merely clerical nature. The practice of confining the Permanent Head to minor secretarial duties deprived him of an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with outside conditions, and acquiring knowledge which would have tended to the solution of many of the difficult problems of administration now troubling the Department. It would have been prudent if some of the higher officials had been afforded an opportunity of visiting Great Britain and foreign countries for the purpose of making themselves acquainted with modern post and telegraph management, equipment, and improved methods of organization. The only instance evident in which an opportunity was provided of acquiring a personal knowledge of these matters was when the present Chief Electrical Engineer was deputed to visit foreign countries in 1905. There was, however, evidence of endeavours having been made by officers to keep abreast of the times by studying technical and other publications dealing with postal, telegraphic, and telephonic matters. The rapid stride made in telegraphy and telephony, and possibly in post-office administration, warrants more frequent visits than have hitherto been made to other countries.

The reading of books and papers, and the study of illustrations is a good thing in itself, but the knowledge to be obtained thereby is not equal to that which is gained by close contact with the working of modern systems and the study of apparatus in use. In visiting the Department on business, I have discovered that the overwork that has been complained of is not confined to the subordinate officers, and that, possibly, the departmental heads are more overworked than any one else. The Chief Electrical Engineer for New South Wales is probably as much overworked as any one. I trust that the strain on his mental and physical endurance may not result in injury to his health; but the Government would be well-advised to send him on another trip to Great Britain, Europe, the United States of America, and Canada, for the recuperation of his own energies and the gaining of further knowledge in regard to the progress made in other countries. Whenever I interview him, I am struck with the fact that he seems to be gradually breaking down, and urgently needs rest; but, like a willing horse, he is one of those who faithfully and honestly carry out their work right to the death. No doubt other departmental heads are suffering a similar strain. Many of them not only do their work in office hours, which is subject to frequent interruption; through interviews and other time consuming interventions, but have to take part of it home ; so that they cannot enjoy the advantages of domesticity to the full, and their families are deprived of much of their society. This condition of things should be brought to an end. Another passage in the report to which I invite the serious attention of the Postmaster-General is clause 18, on page 11 -

The responsibility for local management should have devolved upon the chief officers of the respective States, instead of the Central Executive overloading itself with unnecessary details of solely State concern. The Central Executive should have confined itself to matters, of general policy, and to establishing uniformity of administration in the Department throughout the Commonwealth.

That recommendation should appeal to anyone possessed of ordinary business instincts, because circumlocution in the end means congestion and delay. Every honorablemember could illustrate that from his own experience. To cite a case, a municipality in my electorate which proposed to erect a new town hall desired to have pulled down; and removed to the opposite side of the roadway a tumble-down wooden shed which was encroaebing on the footpath. They promised to build a new shed in a better position than that occupied by the old one, and to have everything ready for the removal of the materials stored in the old shed, whenever the Department wasready to remove it, and to remove the shed themselves. The request was a reasonable and a simple one, and it might have been thought it would be dealt with off-hand. I introduced the mayor to the Deputy Postmaster- General, and he made the request on behalf of the council ; but we found that the matter had to be submitted to the Central Office in Melbourne, after which it formed the subject of numberless reports, letters, and visits of inspection; so that in the end many pounds of the taxpayers’ money must have been wasted on red-tape procedure about the removal of a shed not worth £2 in its then condition, and it was many months before the matter was finally dealt with. Probably, had the delay lasted a few weeks longer, the shed would itself have tumbled down. The Deputy Postmaster-General should be able to deal with matters of this kind, reporting afterwards to the Central Administration. At one time a pane of glass could not be replaced without the matter being referred to Melbourne, so that what might have been done for -6d. or is., cost, in official time consumed, paper, postage, and reports, pounds. I would like honorable members to pay attention to this recommendation of the Postal Commission regarding the Chief Electrical Engineer. It is contained in clause 21 -

The Chief Electrical Engineer, instead of being employed mainly as a consulting and supervising engineer, has been engaged in doing too much detail work, and performing administrative duties apart from his professional functions. The liberation of the Chief Electrical Engineer from minor duties would have allowed that officer greater opportunities of gauging the requirements of the Department, and would have furnished him with an opportunity to make a close study of electrical engineering developments, particularly telephone engineering, thus equipping him with ample knowledge to effect economies. To achieve this purpose the Chief Electrical Engineer’s Branch should have been adequately staffed by appointments of assistant engineers. Since the commencement of this in- quiry some action has been taken to remedy le serious defect of want of sufficient staff, but your Commissioners are convinced that the necessity for providing an efficient and complete professional staff was not fully recognised by the Central Executive.

I regret that time will not permit me to make further reference to the Commission’s report, but those who study it will find it a most interesting document. Although it has been in existence for many months, -the present Government have taken little notice of the recommendations, which were the result of two or three years’ investigation of the working of the Department. The report is a valuable one, and the adoption of the suggestions embodied in it would have saved the country an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of pounds. The present Government, however, have failed to pay attention to the recommendations, and the country, consequently! has suffered considerably.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr

Chanter). - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– When interrupted this afternoon I had not completed the statement I desired to make regarding the question- of wireless telegraphy. During the debate many statements were made all round the chamber, including some by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, in which the name of the High Commissioner was introduced. I have no doubt that Sir George Reid was instructed to give evidence before the Commission in question on behalf of the Government. He would not think of speak ing for ‘the Government unless he had been instructed, and there was, therefore, no need for the honorable member to make any insinuation.

Mr Fenton:

– - I made no insinuation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member insinuated that I was suggesting that the High Commissioner was not acting’ on his own convictions.

Mr Fenton:

– No.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There is no evidence how as to what are his convictions. As a good and able servant of the Government, he is striving, as far as possible, to represent their views. He is there to do whatever the Government wish him to do that is legitimate, as a servant of the Commonwealth, whether he agrees with it himself or not. So far as wireless telegraphy is concerned, a new departure is being made, and repeated asseverations are made that the Minister will back up Mr. Balsillie in all his proposals. It is a pity that the Minister cannot give us some information regarding this supremely important matter. We have never had a more pronounced indication of the party feeling that prevails in this Chamber than was given this afternoon. I made no charge against Mr. Balsillie, but was almost howled down j whereas a member of the Labour party, who made suggestions against him, saying that he came here as a discredited man, and that the whole thing wore an ugly look, was heard by his party in perfect silence. I have no purpose to serve except to warn the Government that they are making, I fear, a mistake. The matter was before the Courts to-day, when a sworn declaration, which seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous, was put in. Why is it that the Postmaster- General will not allow any one to inspect his invention, or give any information concerning it? Mr. Oxenham, in an affidavit, stated, according to this evening’s issue of the Herald, that he was directed by the Postmaster-General - to inform the Court that it would be prejudicial to the public interest and welfare of the Commonwealth to allow any inspection of the wireless stations at Melbourne, Hobart, Brisbane, Mount Gambier, Thursday Island, Cooktown, Townsville, or Port Moresby. Mr. Oxenham further stated that the Postmaster-General bad directed him to state that his opinion was not based upon the pecuniary or commercial interests, or upon any desire to defeat the plaintiffs’ claim, but it was solely in the interests of the public welfare and the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth.

The British Minister in charge of the world-wide ramifications of the defence of the Empire, however, courts inspection, and actually agrees with Marconi to give him inspection whenever he introduces a wireless novelty of any kind. In view of the contract made by the British PostmasterGeneral to give publicity, the statement that our defence interests will be prejudiced by giving inspection in this case is ridiculous. Mr. Oxenham said in his affidavit that there was nothing secret about the apparatus, and that the action taken by the Department was only in the interests of the defence ot Australia. When I asked this afternoon whether the naval authorities here were in favour of the Balsillie scheme, the Minister said that I had no right to put such a question, and he declined to give us any information.

Mr J H Catts:

– Did the honorable member expect him to do so, in view of the fact that there is now a case before the Court relating to the matter?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why not? I say, as does the British PostmasterGeneral, that a Government has no right to touch a patent as to which there is a scintilla of doubt. The Government is expected to guard the patent rights of others, but it is setting a fine example to private individuals in this matter.

It is strange that Mr. Balsillie has so readily handed over the whole of his invention to the absolute control of the PostmasterGeneral without stipulation or payment of any kind. If he can construct the high-power stations which he says he can - stations that are equal to the Marconi stations - he ought to be a rich man, and this Government should recompense him well.

Another point that is worthy of notice is that Mr. Balsillie has already been singularly unfortunate in his scientific ventures.’ Only last year he was held by a Court in the Old Country to be an “ infringer.” That was the expression used bv Mr. Justice Parker in summing up in trie case brought by the Marconi Company against the British Radio Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited. His Honour said, in giving judgment on 26th April, j 91 1 -

Having come to the conclusion that Marconi’s 1900 patent is a good and valid patent, I must now proceed to consider the question of infringement.’ The defendants propose to make use of a system of wireless telegraphy called the Balsillie system, and fully described in a pamphlet entitled “The Balsillie System of Radiotele graph)’,” which was put in at the trial. It is admitted that they have offered for sale apparatus made in substantial accordance with this pamphlet, and have actually sold and installed such apparatus on board a ship called the Nonsuch.

I do not pretend to follow the technical reasoning of the Judge, but this was his conclusion -

I hold that the defendants, who, in my opinion, have taken all the essential parts of the invention, are infringers.

Mr. Balsillie, he says, has taken all the essential parts of the Marconi system. People outside describe that sort of thing as pirating. Mr. Balsillie has pirated these parts, and they constitute infringements of the Marconi patents. Consequently, his proposals, and the company which took, them up, have had to go by the board. Immediately after the judgment in that case, Mr. Balsillie was engaged by the Prime Minister to come here. As soon as he reached here he proposed another system. Whether it is the same or not we do not know; but the Postmaster-General is behind him and is going, we are told, to back him for all he is worth against the world. I hope that the Minister is right. If he is, he is a lucky man to secure the invention for nothing, and a man to operate it for only £600 a. year.

Mr Higgs:

– Does the honorable meNTber think he is doing any good to the Commonwealth by talking in this way against the expert?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am warning’, the Government not to be precipitate. My contention is that no Government ought to touch a patent as to which there is any doubt.

There is yet another matter to which I wish to refer. I understand that a certain Father Shaw is supplying the bulk of the material used in connexion with Mr. Balsillie’s new scheme. No tender was called for the supply of the material, and apparently no inquiry was made as to other sources of supply. I do not know what price is being paid, or what arrangement is being made. I hope that the Minister is not making a mistake; but it seems to me that he is proceeding in a way contrary to that followed by the Governments of other civilized communities. Then, again, Admiral Henderson, in his Naval Defence scheme, recommended a scheme of wireless telegraphy for Australia. Is that scheme being carried out? Are the stations which he suggested being erected? After all, this is only another phase of the question which the Minister refused this afternoon to answer, namely, whether the authorities who are responsible for our new . Naval Department are in unison with the PostmasterGeneral in working out Mr. Balsil lie’s new proposal. The Minister will afford us no information. We are left to draw our own conclusions. We are absolutely in the dark. The Minister says, “ I will do nothing; and if 1 am compelled to disclose anything i will walk out.” A more tyrannical attitude than that has never, to my knowledge, been assumed by a Minister. I marvel at the complacency of the supporters of the Government. Perhaps later on they will find that another mistake has been made. I hope not. Our Departments are far too important to be played with, as I am afraid they are being played with at the present time. We do not know whether there is an agreement or not between the Department and the Naval authorities. i am afraid there is no cordial agreement between the two. The Minister point-blank refuses to give us any information. i congratulate honorable members opposite, who sit supinely behind a Government that will not give to the Parliament of Australia, the slightest information concerning these matters of wide importance to the country. The Government will not say whether the experts of the Government are behind the scheme, or whether it is merely Mr. Balsillie and the Postmaster-General against the rest of the scientific authorities in the pay of the Government.

It is very much to be regretted that no reports of any kind have been laid on the table during the discussion of the Estimates. There is no report from the Auditor-General, the Public Service Commissioner, or the PostmasterGeneral ; and it is nothing short of a public scandal that millions of money should be voted under the circumstances. Do honorable members opposite mean that Parliament ought not to have these reports? The present condition of affairs is an indication that Parliament ought to be dissolved at the earliest possible moment ; and there is the one comfort that the public are to be appealed to.

Mr Riley:

– Honorable members opposite have been tried and found out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Every indication shows that the people are beginning to regret returning the present Government to power. The reports have been kept back for some reason or other.

Mr Roberts:

– They have not been kept back ; we have no control over the AuditorGeneral or the Public Service Commissioner.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is no answer at all. The Auditor-General has twice censured this Government for not giving him the accounts to audit; and the third session is expiring without any report for consideration in connexion with the Estimates. The Auditor-General says that for the eight preceding years he was able to report during the session, when his report could be of service in the discussion of the finances, but that he has not been able to do so since this Government came into power.

Mr Roberts:

– He does not say that.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– He does; and I have quoted his language in Hansard. The report is promised to-morrow, but, in the ordinary course of things, this Parliament would have finished to-night. The Government are, I am afraid, making a great mistake in connexion with wireless telegraphy. It would be far better for the Government to take the House and the country into their confidence, thus following the example of the infinitely more experienced and responsible Imperial authorities. Here we have nothing but mystery ; and the plea of the Postmaster-General as to prejudice to public welfare and to the naval and military defence of the country is one of the most ridiculous ever made in a Court of Law. I wish heartily, for the sake of our credit and reputation, that it may be found that we have discovered an invention equal to that of Marconi or any other person, and that it will give us highpower stations for nothing on a novel plan. If the Government succeed in so convincing the Courts, I hope they will recompense the gentleman concerned, and place him in the forefront as an inventor and patriot. He certainly will deserve it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The question of wireless telegraphy is one to which I do not think honorable members on either side have as yet devoted sufficient attention. Personally, I am unable to discuss the matter as fully as I should like, because I am professionally connected with one of the parties. That’ fact, however, ought not to prevent a member of this House from discussing a matter of the greatest public importance. Without referring to the merits of the controversy, I may say that it does seem most extraordinary that this Commonwealth, one of the most important parts of the British Empire, should be entirely alone and an exception to all the other parts in the particular scheme of wireless telegraphy it has adopted. If the Government were in a position to give an assurance that Mr. Balsillie has discovered some entirely new and superior method, the House and the country might be satisfied; but the Postmaster-General asks us to rely on his assurance that the expert, engaged at a salary of £600 a year, has been able at last to solve an extremely complex question that has engaged the attention of nearly the whole of the scientific world for the last ten or twelve years. I intend to say no more on the subject, because I might be embarrassed in speaking more of the details; but it is a matter which, I think, deserves a fuller explanation from the Postmaster-General and the Government than has yet been given. I propose to address myself to a somewhat old Departmental scandal, which has not acquired any sweeter taste by keeping. I refer to the matter dealt with by the honorable member for Fawkner earlier in the debate,namely, the breach of faith by, I shall not say which Minister - because there appear two Ministersat variance - with regard to the sale of a certain piece of land connected with the Prahran Post Office. Nothing of this kind can ever be covered up - it is either right or wrong. I shall remind honorable members of the facts, and leave them to judge whether there is or not a breach of public faith. The Prahran Town Hall is occupied mainly by the Prahran City Council, a portion being postoffice property. The municipality found that the present accommodation is, admittedly, insufficient for such a centre of population, and negotiations were entered into with the Postmaster-General of the day for a sale of that portion now devoted to postoffice business. On 28th June, 1909, the then Postmaster-General wrote to the honorable member for Fawkner, the member for the district, suggesting that the council should submit an offer ; and I am going to prove that there has been a distinct breach of public faith.

Mr Roberts:

– The honorable member is going to assert it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am going to prove it. The Prahran Council wrote, in reply, to the honorable member for Bendigo, who was then Postmaster-General, offering £5,000 for the surrender of the lease and the right to resume possession, and a letter of acknowledgment was sent in the ordinary way from the Secretary of that honorable gentleman. That letter, dated 21st July, 1909, is the proof of what the Honorary Minister says cannot be proved. It is in these terms -

Sir,

With reference to the letter recently presented to you from the Town Clerk, Prahran, Victoria, offering on behalf of the Prahran City Council the sum of £5,000 for the right to resume possession of the post and telegraph offices and quarters attached to the Town Hall buildings, Prahran, and for the cancellation of the lease dated 8th September, 1879, between the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Prahran and Her Majesty the Queen, I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that the Postmaster-General has approved of the acceptance of that offer, and the matter is being referred to the Department of Home Affairs for the necessary action.

  1. I am to add that the premises in question cannot, of course, be vacated until other provision has been made for the requirements of the Department.

It was never suggested then that this transaction could not be a complete transaction without the assent of the Minister of Home Affairs. On the contrary, it was treated as a complete transaction without the assent of the Minister of Home Affairs, although that Minister had certain duties to perform in connexion with the carrying out of the contract, for which purposes it was referred to him. That letter is as clear and distinct evidence of a contract as any letter could be. If the then Ministry had lemained in power, and if the honorable member for Bendigo, who was Postmaster-General at the time, had refused to carry out that agreement, every honorable member opposite would have been loud in his outcry against a palpable and gross breach of public faith. What happened afterwards? There was some delay - as there was bound to be - in ascertaining what other site the Postmaster-General could obtain on which to establish the post-office in Prahran. When the present Government came into power in 19 10, nothing was done. On the 21st March, 1911, the Prahran Council waited on the Minister of Home Affairs to urge that this agreement should be carried out. It has never been disputed that the facts, as stated by the honorable member for Fawkner, are correct. The council waited on the Minister - to urge the carrying out of the agreement entered into between Council and PostmasterGeneral in respect to the surrender of the lease on the payment of £5,000.

The Minister replied that the PostmasterGeneral had nothing to do with the matter beyond intimating that the premises were not suitable for the Department’s requirements.

Does the Postmaster-General concur in that opinion ? Does he say that he is incapable of entering into any such agreement as was entered into by his predecessor? He has not yet said so, and I assume that he will not say so. The thing is absurd. The Postmaster-General is always in occupation of all portions of the public property which are used by his Department. He is the Minister upon whose advice the GovernorGeneral in Council could enter into such a contract.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the Honorary Minister can show that I am wrong, I am prepared to admit it.

Mr Roberts:

– All matters relating to the acquisition and sale of land are under the control of the Department of Home Affairs. That has been the case for years.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the Honorary Minister can prove that, he will make his case so much the better. I say that the Postmaster-General is in control of the whole of these matters so far as his Department is concerned. But, even if the contract required the formal assent of the Minister of Home Affairs, the fact remains that there were not two separate authorities

Mr Riley:

– When I wanted a post-office in my electorate, the Postmaster-General agreed to a site, and the Minister of Home Affairs had to purchase it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is another matter. In that case, the PostmasterGeneral merely said that the site selected was acceptable to him, but that the Minister of Home Affairs was the proper channel through whom the acquisition of land should take place. But when we find a responsible Minister entering into a definite contract, it cannot be urged that the Minister of Home Affairs can set up a position which is inconsistent with that contract. Otherwise we should do away with the whole solidarity of government.

Mr Fenton:

– I should not have regarded it as a finished contract until I had dealt with the Minister of Home Affairs

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member knows that now. But would any honorable member read the letter from the Secretary to the Postal Department as any thing else than a complete acceptance on behalf of the Government of a definite offer? If it were regarded from any other stand-point, the Postmaster-General, as soon as he came into power, should have said, “ My predecessor had no authority toenter into that contract.” But has the present Postmaster-General taken up that position ?

Mr Fenton:

– It was the honorable member for Barrier who succeeded the honorable member for Bendigo as PostmasterGeneral .

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It was the honorable member for Barrier who indorsed the action of the honorable member for Bendigo, and he never took up the position, that the latter had no right to enter into, such a contract. The whole question turns upon this : How is that letter to be read ? Is it possible to read it as meaning that the Postmaster-General took up this attitude - “ As far as the Postal Department is concerned, I would be quite willing togo into other quarters, but if you are going to purchase the property, you must go tothe proper authority.” I say that that is not the meaning of it. The Prahran Council were asked in a previous letter to make an offer to the Postmaster-General. They did so. Then the Secretary to the PostalDepartment wrote -

Sir,

With reference to the letter recently presented’ to you from the Town Clerk, Prahran, Victoria, offering on behalf of the Prahran City Council the sum of .£5,000 for the right to resume possession of the post and telegraph offices and’ quarters attached to the Town Hall buildings, Prahran, and for the cancellation of the leasedated 8th September, 1879, between the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Prahran and Her Majesty. the Queen, I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that the PostmasterGeneral has approved of the acceptance of that offer, and the matter is being referred to> the Department of ‘Home Affairs for the necessary action.

I leave it to honorable members to say whether he had the right to do so. The particular functions of Ministers are not set out in the Constitution. They are largely a matter of arrangement between Ministers themselves. But this is not a question of what was arranged between the Minister of Home Affairs and the Postmaster-General. The simple question is, “ What is the meaning of that letter?” I again venture to urge upon honorable members that it is an extremely serious thing for the Minister of Home Affairs to deliberately take it upon himself to repudiate an arrangement made, not only on behalf of a preceding Government, but one which was sanctioned by his own colleague. If honorable members will recollect the circumstances, the chief reason advanced by the Minister of Home Affairs for taking that extraordinary action was that he did not intend to part with Government property for less than it was worth. If he had thought that the bargain was a good one, he would have kept it; but, being under the impression that more could be got for that land, he said, in effect, “ It is my duty to repudiate it.” It is a very serious precedent to establish, that one Minister has a right to say, “ Though a former Postmaster-General, purporting to act on behalf of his Government, entered into a complete contract, I do not intend to abide by it.”

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does not the honorable member think that it was intended to bind the Government?

Mr Roberts:

– It could not be, because in no previous instance had a PostmasterGeneral been able to bind the Government.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– lt is not a question of the ability to bind them. A Minister, acting on behalf of the Government, must be assumed to have authority to do what he purports to do. The relations of Ministers with one another is not a matter which is set out in the Constitution ; it is a matter of arrangement largely amongst Ministers themselves. One Minister may, with the consent of his colleagues, arrange to deal with matters which fall within the ambit of another Department. But when he enters into an agreement he purports to bind the Crown. That letter, if it means anything, means that the PostmasterGeneral, acting on behalf of the Crown, accepted the offer which was made, and said that the necessary steps to give effect to the purchase would have to be carried out through another Department. When once it is admitted that that is the meaning of the letter, no arrangement between Ministers, no practice as to the particular parts of business which are usually performed by them, can alter the relationship which has been established. If it could, we should be setting up a rule under which one Government would have the right to repudiate definite engagements entered into by another Government. I propose now to say a few words about another matter of much wider importance - a matter largely of policy. The trouble in connexion with the Post Office, the unbusiness-like position of its accounts, the unbusiness-like position of many Departmental details, not excepting the treatment of a good many of its employes, has already been referred to by previous speakers. I think that most of these troubles flow from the fact that this great Department, which is essentially a business Department, is more or less conducted on business principles, which necessarily involve from time to time an alteration of the whole basis of management in many respects. I cannot help thinking that the time is approaching when we shall have to place the whole management and ordinary control of the Post Office in the hands of a Commission. It has always been found, in connexion with railways and other services which are placed in the hands of an independent body of Commissioners, that a difficulty arises, in that Parliament ought to have some say in regard to matters of policy. That is perfectly true. That has been felt wherever railways have been placed in the hands of Commissioners, and it will undoubtedly be felt if the control of the Post Office be vested in a similar body. But in Victoria that difficulty was largely overcome by a scheme which was adopted, so far as the railways of this State are concerned, at the instance of the late Mr. William Shiels during the period that he filled the office of Minister of Railways. Under that scheme, whilst the control of the railways was vested in the Commissioners, who were made by Act of Parliament completely independent in their ordinary control of the business of the railways, the right of Parliament to determine upon and to deal with questions of policy was preserved to it. The simple device by which this object was achieved is set out in section 24 of Act No. 1250 of the Victorian Acts. It is couched in the following terms -

The Minister may at any time, in writing, request the Commissioners to propose, in writing, a scheme for effecting an increase of income or a decrease of expenditure, or for carrying out any matter of general policy specified by the Minister, and if the Minister approves of the same he may direct the Commissioners to take all necessary steps to carry out the same.

If the Minister does not approve of any scheme proposed by the Commissioners he may himself transmit to them any proposition for effecting and carrying out such increase, decrease, or matter of policy, and thereupon the Commissioners shall take all necessary steps to give effect to such proposition.

If any doubt or difference of opiniop occurs respecting the provisions of this section, the same may be finally determined by the Governor in Council.

Another section was made part of that scheme - it may have been embodied in a later Act - and it provided that if the adoption of any scheme of policy involved an increase of expenditure or a decrease of revenue, without corresponding advantages to the Commissioners, the Commissioners should estimate the amount of such increase or decrease, and should have a right to claim that that amount should be placed on the Estimates. Such a scheme is well worthy of the consideration of honorable members, because it affords us the key to vesting the management of a great public concern in the hands of Commissioners. It is better to remove the management of such a concern from the continually fluctuating currents of politics. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed for a moment that great Departments are agencies with regard to which Parliament must retain continuous control over their policy. Take the Postal Department as an example. It may be a matter of the highest importance, from the stand-point of developmental policy, that in certain portions of the country postal facilities should be granted, even though the returns from them may not for a good many years represent anything like interest upon the capital outlay. That is essentially a matter over which Parliament should retain control. It is quite consistent with allowing the general control and management of policy to be vested in Commissioners. If such a system as that, which for many years has worked efficiently in Victoria, were adopted in regard to the Post Office, nothing would be easier than for the Minister representing Parliament to formulate any scheme which the Government desired to have carried out. If the carrying out of it would disturb the ordinary fundamental or economical working of the Post Office as a business concern, the people should make good to the Department, through the Treasury, the loss occasioned by it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ROBERTS:
Honorary Minister · Adelaide · ALP

– One is tempted, in the circumstances, to offer some words in reply to the efforts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who shouted and waved his arms in characteristic fashion, but we who know him so well pay little attention to him, and excuse what he said this evening because for the last forty-eight hours he has had to keep himself awake. I do not think that I need make more than a passing comment on the unfortunate remark of the honorable member for Flinders, that some of the honorable members on this side of the Chamber are reclining on the benches, and have provided themselves with pillows so that they may be a little easier than they would otherwise be. I remind him that they have been continuously at work for thirty-five hours, and are regular in their attendance, whereas he is seldom in his place.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is a pretty wide assertion.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The honorable member was away asleep last night when others were attending to their public duties. I desire to offer some few words of reply to the attack made on the Government in regard to the asked- for transfer of land at Prahran connected with Postal administration. The honorable member charged the Government with a distinct breach of faith, and said that he would prove his charge, but, at the end, admitted that it rested entirely on the construction placed on the letter which he read.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I said that at the beginning.

Mr ROBERTS:

– If some place a different construction on the letter than that which the honorable member, in his political partisanship, placed on it, his case is not proven.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– To speak of what I said as political partisanship is not argument - certainly not the kind of argument that I used.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The statement which the honorable member put before the Committee in support of his charge would not be considered proof by the Judges before whom he so often appears.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– T should say that we could not have better proof than that letter.

Mr ROBERTS:

– Briefly, the facts are these : In 1909, the then PostmasterGeneral, the honorable member for Bendigo, after inspection I presume, approved, in so far as he as Minister was able to do so, of the acceptance of the offer of the Prahran Council of the sum of £5,000 to be paid to the Government for a property then occupied by the Department for postal purposes. His secretary, writing for him, conveyed the approval in these terms -

I have the honour by direction to inform you that the Postmaster-General has approved of the acceptance of the offer, and the matter is being referred to the Department of Home Affairs for the necessary action.

What was the necessary action?

Mr Harper:

– To complete the bargain.

Mr ROBERTS:

– My honorable friend does not understand the matter.

Mr Harper:

– I understand it better than the Honorary Minister does.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The honorable member is an elderly gentleman, and particularly touchy when spoken to. Therefore, I should like him to refrain from jumping into this controversy. If any one interjects when he is speaking, he at once seeks the protection of the Chair, and becomes unmistakably angry. What was the necessary action? Iask the honorable member for Bendigo. Could he, as PostmasterGeneral - I submit the question to him as a lawyer of undoubted standing in the Commonwealth - have completed the transaction ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Completed the contract.

Mr ROBERTS:

– Could he have completed the contract?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes.

Mr ROBERTS:

– He knows that he could not have done so.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– They are answering for him.

Mr ROBERTS:

– Yes; because they have asserted that they can prove certain things, and have not done so.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The letter is absolute proof.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The PostmasterGeneral of that day, like the present PostmasterGeneral, could not complete a contract of that description.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He could make a contract, and he did so.

Mr ROBERTS:

– He could not make a contract, nor has any Postmaster-General in the past made a contract of a similar character, or completed one.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I say that he purported to make a contract and to bind the Government.

Mr ROBERTS:

– In view of the methods which have long been in force, and were in existence when the present Government took office, I ask those who have been Postmasters-General if they have made contracts of a like character?

Sir Robert Best:

– Speaking from experience, I say that a matter of this kind is referred to the Department of Home Affairs formally to carry out what has been agreed upon.

Mr ROBERTS:

– Unquestionably, no. The matter was referred to the Minister of Home Affairs for the “ necessary action,” but you must find out what the necessary action was.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The action necessary to complete the contract.

Mr ROBERTS:

– You must prove that there was a contract.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I have heard the honorable member speak of legal quibbles !

Mr ROBERTS:

– My honorable friend honours me too much if he suggests that I am able to make legal quibbles. Had I ability in that direction, I might have sought to enter the profession to which he belongs.

Mr Finlayson:

– To enter the legal union.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I should have been a unionist had I entered that profession. The system now in force has been in force for many years, and was not instituted by the present Government. All matters relating to the acquisition or sale of land rest wholly and solely with the Minister of Home Affairs, who is the Minister administering the Lands Acquisition Act. He alone has the right of advising the GovernorGeneral on matters of this kind. The honorable member for Flinders admitted that if that contention were correct, his case was weakened. It is beyond doubt correct. Every Minister of Home Affairs has been the Minister administering the Lands Acquisition Act, and sales or purchases of land on behalf of the Government are completed by him.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the Minister of Home Affairs choose the sites that are to be acquired ?

Mr ROBERTS:

– No. The PostmasterGeneral or an inspector may choose a site, and say that it is suitable for postal purposes, and then it goes to the Minister of Home Affairs for the “ necessary action.” It is not an uncommon thing for the Minister of Home Affairs not to buy the site so selected.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then it comes to this, that the Postmaster-General had not authority to enter into the contract that he purported to enter into.

Mr ROBERTS:

– If so, the fault does not lie with this Government, but with the honorable member for Bendigo, who sent the letter which I have read, and, according to the honorable member for Flinders, entered into a contract. I say that he did not enter into a contract, and thatno contract was entered into.

Mr Harper:

– It is the Minister’s authority to enter into the contract that the Honorary Minister is questioning.

Mr King O’Malley:

– The Minister of Home Affairs of the day thought it was such a bad bargain that he would not agree to it.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The letter which I have read was written on 21st July, 1909, and I presume the matter was at once sent to the Minister of Home Affairs for the necessary action. I ask why the honorable member for Illawarra, who was then Minister of Home Affairs, did not take this necessary action between July, 1909, and April, 1910, when his Government left office. In 1910 the honorable member for Barrier, who was then Postmaster-General, made a speech in Prahran, admitting that the premises in their then condition were not suitable for postal purposes, and that he would start the action necessary to secure another site. The moment that these papers got into the hands of the present Minister of Home Affairs, who is a worker, he took the necessary action. He looked at the matter from the point of view of the man who was responsible to the Government and to the country for the purchase, and found that the sum offered by the municipal council was altogether too small, so that it would not be a fair and clean thing to part with Commonwealth property worth about ?12,000, for that amount.

Mr King O’Malley:

– £20,000.

Mr ROBERTS:

– According to the papers, ?12,000, the sum offered being ?5,000. He at once intimated his opinion to the council, whose members recognised his authority, because I find from the papers which the honorable member for Flinders had in his hand, but evidently overlooked, that in March, 1911, they waited on him to urge the carrying out of what they considered to be an agreement.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They recognised his authority to carry it out.

Mr Harper:

– The letter of the PostmasterGeneral was like a letter instructing one’s lawyers to make a conveyance.

Mr ROBERTS:

– My honorable friend has had a lot of experience in instructing lawyers. The council asked the Minister of Home Affairs to, in effect, take the necessary action, which it rested entirely with him to do.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The action necessary to complete the purchase for ?5,000.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The Minister of Home Affairs, as trustee of public moneys, said that the offer of the council was not one that he could accept.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It having been already accepted.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There the matter ended. There is reason to believe that the council knew that the first offer was particularly small, because they are about to double what they offered only a year or two ago. If the honorable member for Flinders believes that he has proved his case, he is welcome to that belief ; but I have grave doubts about it. The Minister of Home Affairs declined to purchase the property, and the council had no agreement. If it had an agreement of the kind suggested by the honorable member, it would have taken action.

Mr Fairbairn:

– It thought that the letter was good enough.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I am surprised that the honorable member, who is the representative of the district, did not see that the necessary actionwas taken between July, 1909, and April, 1910, when a Government which he supported was in power. That is what I should have done under the circumstances.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– According to the argument of the Honorary Minister, the Postmaster-General may say, “ I accept the offer of ?5,000,” and the Minister of Home Affairs may say afterwards, “I repudiate the acceptance.”

Mr ROBERTS:

– I come now to correspondence which the honorable member overlooked. After the Minister of Home Affairs had declined to take the necessary action, believing that to do so would be against the interests of the country, the council in August, 1911, wrote to the honorable member for Barrier, who was then Postmaster-General. They forwarded a draft agreement of the lease, and stated that they were ready to pay the sum of ?5,000 at any time on the execution of the surrender. We find a vast differences between the position taken up by the honorable member for Barrier and that which had been adopted by the honorable member for Bendigo. He replied in a different strain.

Mr Fairbairn:

– The honorable member for Barrier verbally confirmed the arrangement. He will not deny that.

  1. ROBERTS.- Of course, I I accept the honorable member’s statement.
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If he meant to repudiate it, he should have done so.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I am dealing only with the correspondence which the honorable member for Flinders had in his possession, and upon which he tried to build up a case, not in the interests of the council, but hoping that it would hurt the Government.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Apparently it has done so.

Mr ROBERTS:

– When the council communicated with the honorable member for Barrier, this is what was done -

Reply received from Postmaster-General stating that before transfer could be effected it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the Governor-General under sections 63 and 64 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906, and that the matter had been referred to the Department of Home Affairs.

That, according to the papers, was the first official communication that went through the honorable member for Barrier when he became Postmaster-General. As soon as he had received the letter of the Prahran Council he replied, in unmistakable language - not in the language, in which the honorable member for Flinders has sought to give it a twist - that under the Lands Acquisition Act the whole matter rested with the Minister of Home Affairs. How, in the circumstances, the honorable member for Flinders can continue to assert that there has been a breach of agreement, so far as this Ministry is concerned, I am at a loss to understand. If there has been a breach of agreement, the responsibility rests with the late Ministry, because between July, 1909, and April, 1910, they took no action. This is not the first time that this matter has been brought before the House, and presumably it will not be the last.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Hear, hear !

Mr ROBERTS:

– I gather from the bitterness of the tone in which the honorable member interjects that he believes that he thinks that he has here an opportunity to attack the Government.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I feel a little bitter regarding a flagrant breach of public faith.

Mr ROBERTS:

– And we feel with equal keenness the action of honorable members opposite in indulging in flagrant breaches of their professed principles. I think that in the circumstances the flagrant breach of a professed principle was a greater violation of honour and justice than was the action of the Minister of Home Affairs, which was well within his legal right. He declined to enter into a contract which, if carried out on the terms suggested, would have been unjust to the people of Australia.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

. -In dealing with this question we cannot overlook the important fact that it relates to an agreement entered into by means of correspondence between two public institutions - the Government on the one hand, and the Prahran City Council on the other. That being so, the immediate value of the property need not be closely taken into consideration. The agreement was made in the public interest between two public Departments. First of all the PostmasterGeneral’s Department invited the Prahran City Council to make an offer for this property, and in good faith the Council made an offer of £5,000. In equally good faith the Postmaster-General’s Department replied

Mr Thomas:

– Who was then PostmasterGeneral ?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The honorable member for Bendigo. In specific terms the Postmaster-General’s Department replied, “ We accept your offer for this property.” Such negotiations between individuals would constitute a complete contract. According to this correspondence, the matter was then formally referred to the Department of Home Affairs to complete the transaction so far as the question of title was concerned. If the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of Home Affairs bad desired to carry out this agreement, and the Prahran Council had refused to recognise it, there would have been a right of action by the Government to enforce the specific performance of the contract.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And the Prahran Council could not have said that the PostmasterGeneral was not the Minister to carry out the transaction.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is so. The correspondence discloses a complete legal ( contract, and if it had taken place between two private individuals, there is no doubt that action would have been taken, and that the contract would have been enforced in the Law Courts. The PostmasterGeneral accepted the offer, and the matter was referred to the Department of Home Affairs for necessary action. As one who has been a. Minister, I know that it has been found convenient to intrust to the Department of Home Affairs the forma! carrying out of these transactions. The Postal Department knows what sites are most eligible for its purposes, and it would be useless to ask the Department of Home Affairs to select any other. The Postmaster-General’s Department selects the site that is required, and then calls upon the Department of Home Affairs to secure a title for it. My honorable friend might just as well say that the Department of Home Affairs would be justified, in such a case, in selecting another site altogether.

Mr Thomas:

– It has often done that.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Because the Lands Acquisition Act is administered by the Department of Home Affairs. I put the position from another stand-point. We have here a deliberate repudiation of, if not a legal, certainly a moral, contract.

Mr King O’malley:

– Do not get excited.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– There would be some reason for the honorable member becoming excited over this repudiation of an honorable obligation of which he has been guilty. The agreement in this case was a fair and honorable one, and could be justified in the public interest. For obvious reasons, however, I do not wish to further prolong this debate.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- One would gather from the speech just delivered by the honorable member for Kooyong that members of the late Government wholly failed to recognise the responsibility attaching to either one or other branches of the Public Service affected by this question. My honorable friend tells us that the Postmaster-General has not only the power to select a site, which is undoubtedly true, but power to offer any money that he pleases for that site. As a matter of fact, the business rests with the Department of Home Affairs, which is supplied with the machinery necessary for investigation and valuation. The honorable member has sought to throw dust in the eyes of the public by talking of what he did as an old Minister of the Crown. But it seems to me that the Postmaster-General, at the time in question, should be asked to state why he exceeded his powers by taking upon himself the duty of acting as valuer of property, and why the Minister of Home

Affairs in the late Government did not take action, between 1909 and 19 10, to safeguard the interests of his own Department. The Postmaster-General in the late Administration had no right to do what he is said to have done, and the Minister of Home Affairs in that Government should have taken care that his colleague did not trench upon the rights and privileges of the Department of Home Affairs. It is wise that there should be a check against any Postmaster-General setting himself up as a valuer of sites required for postal purposes. The Postmaster-General and the Minister of Home Affairs in the late Administration should certainly give us an explanation of their action in this case.

Mr Thomas:

– When the honorable member for Coolgardie held office as Minister of Home Affairs he refused to ratify a certain proposal.

Mr WEBSTER:

– With the result that in that one small transaction the Government were saved a sum of £500. Like many others, I desire to discuss these Estimates, affecting as they do a very important Department. I maintain that they should be reasonably discussed, and that we should place on record any suggestions or criticisms that we may have to offer in regard to the great Department to which they relate. I have been pleased to hear the complimentary references that have been made during this debate to the report of the Postal Commission, and to find that honorable members opposite are beginning to look into that report, and to recognise its merits. Whilst the observations made by them in regard to the recommendations we made have afforded me a good deal of satisfaction, I have also been amused by the attempt of the honorable member for Bendigo to show that when he held office as Postmaster-General he conceived, long before the Commission presented its report, the main recommendations that we made. The honorable member may say that he did, but the scheme outlined by him last night was very imperfect, and could not be supported by any one who understands the conditions of the service. Dealing with the cardinal recommendation of the report of the Commission, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he recognises the need for a drastic change in the control of this great Department. It is quite beyond the power of any one man to master the vast developments and growing details of the service. If I needed any support for the decision at which we arrived in regard to the desirableness of controlling the Department by a Board of Commissioners, I should have only to go to New Zealand. After our report was made available to the public, the people of New Zealand evidently found that their Postal Department was in a condition similar to that of our own, and, as the result of inquiry, the decision was arrived at that the whole service should be placed under a Commission.

Mr Thomas:

– The recommendation of the Commission was practically for the appointment of a Public Service Commission.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have here a newspaper statement regarding the decision arrived at -

The Royal Commission appointed by the previous Government to report upon the condition and control of the Civil Service has submitted its findings to the Governor. The leading feature of the report is that the Commissioners have found a great lack of efficiency in the direction of the Public Service as a machine working in the public interest, and recommend the appointment of a Board of Management. The Board of Management, the Commission thinks, should be under the Cabinet, and not responsible to Parliament only, and its actions should be subject to review by the Cabinet. A single Minister should not be able to interfere with the actions of the Board. All officers in the Service should have the right to appeal direct to the Board of Management by letter, and the Board would .give these appeals their consideration, and their decision would in all cases be final.

Mr Thomas:

– The Commission recommended a Board of Management for the whole Public Service.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I take it that that is so, but the Postal Department was the real bone of contention. The Board was inaugurated, and I believe that the administration of the New Zealand Postal Department has since been considerably changed.

Mr Thomas:

Mr. Triggs is not over there yet.

Mr WEBSTER:

– If he takes as long to get to work there as he was in arriving at the financial position of our Department, Heaven help the New Zealand Postal Department. Perhaps it is a good job that he has gone. This officer was going to put the finances in order, so that they might show whether each, branch was or was not paying, and to otherwise place us in possession of most useful information. He was appointed over twelve months ago, and all the data were collected; and had he been capable of presenting all the facts, we ought to have been by this time in possession of some re port. It is deplorable to think that a great public Department, that spends over £4,000,000 a year, cannot be afforded some reliable guidance as to the financial position of the various branches. I rely on the Postmaster-General, before this debate closes, to tell us how far Mr. Triggs has progressed with his report, or whether it may be necessary to appoint some other officer to occupy another year or two in, preparing a document of the kind. Thedecision of the Postmaster-General to provide shorter telephone poles will reduce the expenditure that subscribers in country districts have hitherto been called on to bear; and this most desirable change hasmy fullest sympathy. The marvel to me is that the shorter poles have not been adopted long before this, and that the Department has insisted on a system so expensive as to deprive many people of the advantages of telephonic communication.

Mr Frazer:

– It is a marvel that the Postal Commission made no recommendation in this regard.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The Postal Commission could not go into every detail .when the newspapers kept on criticising that body for making pettifogging inquiries instead of dealing with great principles. Had the Postmaster-General been in my place, and had he had to submit to the indignity which such criticism imposed, he would not have uttered the interjection he did just now.

Mr Frazer:

– Is it a detail?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes ; it is a detail’ when we compare it with the scope of the inquiry by the Postal Commission.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Let there be no dissension between Christians !

Mr WEBSTER:

– Quite so; but for a gentleman, who is in a paid position, to ask another, who has acted in an honorary position, why he did not do so and so, is, I think, a bit strong. The postmasters who are now called Ul)011 to pay rental have been asking for some determination of their case, and have not been able to get it. The Postal Commission recommended that this deduction for rent should not be insisted on,, and I should like to know what the Government’s intentions are in the matter? I should also like to know whether the Government propose to do anything in regard to the senior sorters, or whether the end of the concessions has been arrived at, so taras this section of the service is concerned? I regret that the Government seem to have abandoned the proposed amendment of the

Public Service Act, which would have removed some anomalies, small, perhaps, in themselves, but amounting to the kind of pinpricks that cause constant irritation. I fully realize that the Government have done a great deal for the Public Service, and for that I am grateful ; and I regret that the public servants have not shown that appreciation of the action of the Government that one might reasonably expect from such a body of men. Honorable members opposite tell us that the Postal Department is “ seething “ with discontent, but, as a matter of fact, there are no conditions to which the word “ seething” could, by any stretch of the imagination, be applied. The bulk of the officers are contented, and only an infinitesimal part, as compared with the whole, suffers disabilities which it thinks ought to be removed. 1 do not see why the Government, who have removed 99 per cent, of the injustices under which the Service suffered four years ago, can be charged with neglect simply because, for the time being, the 1 per cent, remains unadjusted. The honorable member for North Sydney was very declamatory in regard to the broken shifts of the telegraph operators, but this represents a mere bagatelle in proportion to the grievances that have been settled. It is most unfair on the part of honorable members opposite to use press slanders, purely for party purposes, and to constantly magnify what discontent there may be in the Department.

Mr Finlayson:

– - They are trying to incite a strike all the time !

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is not possible, in my judgment. I do not approve of the arrangement by which the lower branches of the Service are compelled to resort to the Arbitration Court, while the higher branches may have their difficulties settled by this House. If one branch of the Service is called upon to work under an award, so should the other branch of the Service. The honorable member for Bendigo said last night that the bulk of the money voted for this Department had gone in paying wages of 8s. a day; but, as a matter of fact, the bulk has been devoted to raising the minimum and maximum in each grade, and considerably improving the condition of the Service as a whole when compared with what prevailed four years ago. I should like to see this Service contented, because only in that way can the public get a proper return. In public employment, as in private employment, the better men are treated, and the more they are respected, the more efficient .service they give; and the Government Departments should provide an example of fair play to the whole business world. This is a Department which touches every man, woman, and child in their daily life, and all day, and it is a Department peculiarly difficult of administration, considering the immense distances and the large sparsely settled areas in this country. It is marvellous how such a vast business can be carried on with such a small percentage of telegraphic and postal errors. We have from time to time to readjust our telephone system, and bring the appliances up to date, in order to meet the constantly improving modern conditions ; and, on the whole, I do not think that there is much to complain of. In all the States, except New South Wales, the telephone exchanges are now up to modern requirements ; and on this account there are grounds for legitimate complaint in the mother State. When we are discussing matters of this kind it is not fair that we should be met with misrepresentations. If we constantly cry “ wolf “ the time will come when none will listen. Honorable members opposite are most assiduous in trying to create strife in the Department, in view of the election next year; and we all know how dangerous it is to introduce political considerations into the working of a public Department. I keenly lament that a big Department of this kind should be dragged into the mire of party politics. The day is not far distant when this service will have to be brought under a different kind of management, and when there will have to be considerable improvement in regard to the standard of the men who are called upon to control it. Any business man will recognise the inexpediency of leaving the conduct of a Department, which has the spending of over £4,000,000 a year, to a Secretary in a central office at £1,000 a year. No director of any private business in the world would dream of expecting efficient service of the kind for such a paltry salary. The day is coming when it will be necessary to engage the services of the most capable men obtainable, in order to give that return which the public have a right to expect; we require a new garment if we are to be saved constant patching. If 1 have the good fortune to be returned to this House again, and I believe I shall, every effort will be made by me, quite apart from any party considerations, and purely in the interests of the community at large, to do what lies within my humble capacity to bring about those desirable changes which I believe will make this great Public Service an undoubted credit to the country.

Mr Fuller:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Fawkner and the honorable member for Flinders have brought before honorable members the subject df the agreement entered into by the Prahran Municipal Council and the Postal Department for a transfer of a portion of the Prahran Town Hall now used for postal purposes. I desire to say that had I remained in the position of Minister of Home Affairs I should have felt it my duty to loyally carry out the contract entered into by my colleague the Postmaster-General.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- The history of the Prahran Town Hall transaction is not familiar to me, but I understand the Opposition to complain that there has been repudiation on the part of the Government. It is alleged that it is unusual for a Minister to reverse the action of his predecessor in acquiring property. This is scarcely correct so far as my experience goes. I recall a case in point. During my connexion with the Home Affairs Department, I found it necessary to repudiate a bargain entered into by an official of the Post Office Department. The transaction was peculiar. No valuation had been made of a certain piece of land, but the postal official referred to inspected it and gave the owner to understand that he would recommend the Government to purchase it for £2,000. In the meantime the papers came before the Home Affairs Department, and I had a look at the land, which is adjacent to the Melbourne Post Office. I strongly objected to a postal official entering into an arrangement to buy the land without first obtaining a valuation from a recognised firm of valuators ; and the upshot was that I refused to ratify the bargain. I obtained valuations from two leading firms, and offered the owner the higher valuation, which was £500 less than the price agreed upon by the postal official. Eventually the owner accepted the amount offered - he said it was under duress - and the Department saved £500 by the transaction. In that case I found it necessary to repudiate what seemed to be a lawful bargain.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It would not be a lawful bargain if it were made by a subordinate officer.

Mr MAHON:

– But if the officer concerned had been in the habit of purchasing land for the Government, and owners of land had come to recognise his authority to do so, they might have reasonably supposed that a lawful contract had been made in this case.

Mr Thomas:

– Was not the amount placed on the Estimates by the ‘previous Minister ?

Mr MAHON:

– Yes.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What has that to do with it? There are hundreds of thousands of pounds on these Estimates that will not be spent.

Mr Thomas:

– It shows that the transaction was sanctioned, not merely by the subordinate officer, but by. the Minister himself.

Mr MAHON:

– That is so. However, it should not be necessary to discuss the point further. I regret that we have not had a reasonable opportunity to consider these Estimates. I would have liked to refer to a number of matters, but I did not wish to assist the operation in which honorable members opposite have been engaged for some time. I had hoped that the Government would have initiated a reform in connexion with the extension of telephone and postal facilities in the interior. If we are ever to settle the remoter parts of this continent, we shall have to link them up with civilization more extensively than hitherto. One of the great drawbacks connected with the settlement of the interior is the isolation of our settlers, and this should be minimized, as far as possible. Some years ago we sent Mr. Hesketh to the United States of America to discover how it was possible to give farmers telephones for £1 per annum. I think that is the ideal after which we should strive in Australia. Had there been time this session, I intended to submit a motion to give every rural home a telephone at a nominal annual cost, and also to liberalize our inland mail services. Whatever the cost, the benefit to the community would amply justify it. In view of the large extent to which business with the outside world is now transacted by cable, I think we might reasonably divert some of the large amounts we pay by way of subsidies to oversea mail steamers to the improvement of the mail services in the interior. In some cases our settlers have to

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Coolgardie will recognise the immense difference between a so-called contract entered into by a subordinate officer without authority and a solemn engagement entered into by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of the Crown.

Mr Scullin:

– The amount was put on the Estimates, and, therefore, must have been approved of by the Minister.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That does not lend any authority to the transaction. A sum may be placed on the Estimates and removed the next day. It is entirely a matter of informing the House as to the money to be voted.

Mr Scullin:

– Surely .the vote was approved of by the Minister before it was placed on the Estimates.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not approved of in the sense of sanctioning the arrangement entered into. The Honorary Minister took occasion to reply to the arguments advanced by me in his characteristic style, and I do not propose to notice the accusations made against me of twisting words or using partisan arguments, because I am not accustomed to doing either of these things. The honorable member rested his argument very largely on the fact that, under the Lands Acquisition Act, the Minister of Home Affairs was the Minister vested with authority to enter into transactions of this kind. If he had read the Act, he would know that that is not so. The only provision of the Lands Acquisition Act dealing with this matter is section 63, which gives the Minister - who may be taken to

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

– Seeing that I had something to do in the matter referred to by the honorable member for Flinders, I wish to say a word or two. The position of a Minister is that of a responsible public trustee, but, apparently, my honorable friends opposite have not paid much attention to that aspect of the case. They were accustomed to unquestionably accept the valuations of their officials, and to act on their recommendations; but, when I took office, I made up my mind to set aside the valuations of the. officials, and to bring to bear my own knowledge of values. I went out to Prahran, at the solicitation of the honorable member for Fawkner, and I had a look at the place. Before I went out, I thought that the land would be a fair bargain, but I went in search of a site upon which we could build., and I found I could not obtain anything suitable for less than £2,000 or £3,000. The cost of a building worthy of the important city of Prahran, would have amounted to at least £7,000, and, therefore, the total outlay would have amounted to £10,000. Yet we were to hand over a property at the corner of Greville and Chapel streets worth £20,000 - I would give £12,000 for it tomorrow. The Department put down the property at a valuation of £12,000; but I said it was worth £20,000. However, we agreed upon a valuation of £15,000. Deducting £5,006 from the £15,000, and adding the balance of £10,000 to the £10,000 for the new post-office, we have a total of £20,000 which we were asked to present to the municipality. I saved that £20,000. I have made the position of the Minister of Home Affairs an honorable one, and have insured that the Department shall perform its real work, one portion of which is to buy properties for the people of Australia as cheaply as possible, and to deal fairly and justly with all concerned. It is sad to think that men are made Ministers who are content to dance a hornpipe to the tune of the officials under them. My colleagues have had a great battle to fight, because they have inherited all the red-tapism of their predecessors in office, and also their bad methods. If my honorable friends opposite ever return to office, I hope they will start a business kindergarten, so that they may learn something of business methods.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- For three years I have been endeavouring to obtain the erection of a new post-office in my electorate. After devoting a great deal of time to the matter, the Department at length agreed to purchase a site. But almost immediately the Minister of Home Affairs came along and declared that the site was not a suitable one, and that the cost of erecting a retaining wall would be too much. An interval of twelve months followed, and then another site was selected and plans of the new building were prepared. The present post-office at Botany is about the size of a pigeon-box. Two or three employes have to work in it, and the public have to crush into it to transact their business. I should like an assurance from the Postmaster-General that he will push forward the erection of the new post-office.

Mr Frazer:

– My honorable friend may accept my assurance on that matter.

Mr RILEY:

– Then I will leave that subject and pass on to another. I wish to bring under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral a case of great hardship. For sixteen months a man was employed as a temporary hand in the telephone branch of the Postal Department in Sydney. At the end of that time he was advised to pass a medical examination in order that his position might be made permanent. He happened to have a mark on the side of his head, which he had received in boyhood. Because of that mark the doctor would not pass him for the permanent staff. He affirmed that he must have been hit with a bottle when he was young, and that therefore he could not be of very good character. The man is married and has a small family. As the result of the doctor’s declaration, he has not only been prevented from becoming a member of the permanent staff, but he has been deprived of temporary employment. I hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this matter.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member knows that I have already done so.

Mr RILEY:

– With the result that, the Postmaster-General has sided with the medical man. I hope he will see that this individual . gets a fair deal. Why should he be deprived of his livelihood because of a mark on the side of his head, especially after he has demonstrated his ability to do the work upon which he was engaged. If the Minister will promise to look into this matter-

Mr Frazer:

– I will promise to look into it, but I am afraid that I cannot do more.

Mr Cann:

– Why, the doctor ought to be examined.

Mr RILEY:

– There are a good many complaints made about medical men in Sydney,. The Department appears to regard the decision of this doctor as final. Then I have another grievance to bring forward. I find that every person joining the Commonwealth Service has to insure his or her life. Thus a lad who receives about. 15s. per week has to pay about is. 6d. per week for life assurance. Whoever is responsible for this regulation must be very much interested in insurance companies. Is it not possible to exempt boys and girls entering the Commonwealth Service from this life assurance disability for a number of years ? It frequently happens that girls enter the Commonwealth Service, and after a few years get married and retire from it, thus losing several pounds which they have paid in premiums. I do not think that the Postmaster-General should make a hard and fast rule to the effect that men should insure before they are employed. I trust that he will give the point serious consideration.

Mr Frazer:

– I certainly will.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– During the course of the debate several attacks have been made upon Mr. Balsillie, the Commonwealth wireless expert. I am not personally acquainted with him, and therefore have no interest in defending him. .But, nevertheless, it is evident to me that we have made fairly good progress in the installation of wireless telegraphy in Australia, and we have reason to be fairly well satisfied with what has been done in that direction. I regretted very much, therefore, to hear the Opposition making unfair and un-Australian attacks upon the expert. It is often said that “ It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest,” and if the members of the Opposition have done anything to-night that is what they have been doing. They have been endeavouring to belittle our expert, and to prove that he is unfit for his position. If their intention was to attack the Government through Mr. Balsillie, their conduct was unworthy of them. If they desired to obtain more light upon the Question of wireless telegraphy they were quite justified in trying to obtain it. No one could object to that. But they adopted very peculiar methods if that was their intention. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know why the Postmaster-General will not submit the wireless secrets of his Department to private companies who are endeavouring to exploit the world. The rival companies have gone to law amongst themselves concerning allegations of infringement of patent rights. Why should representatives of the Australian people in this House attack the Government for not handing over secrets to companies who, if they could, would fight us in reference to this question? I take it that the Opposition did not bring up this matter purely for stonewalling purposes, but with a desire to attain some public end- At any rate I give them credit for such an object. But it was hurtful to my feelings, as an Australian, to hear honorable members opposite trying to deride the efforts made by the Postmaster-General and his staff to develop a policy that is essential for the well-being of this country. Every up-to-date country nowadays has adopted a wireless system. It is essential that Australia should be encircled with wireless apparatus, and that our Dependency should be linked up with the continent by the same means. For three years, while the Opposition were in office, they were negotiating with certain companies. We give them credit for having been in earnest in what they did. But, nevertheless, they found it impossible to adopt a wireless system for Australia. The present PostmasterGeneral and his predecessor grasped the question firmly, with the result that we have a satisfactory system of wireless established. It comes with very bad grace from the Opposition, who are supposed to be the representatives of money in all its forms, that they should endeavour to throw derision upon a system that has been so successfully inaugurated.

It is the moneyed interest of Australia that will be benefited by the wireless installation directed by the Postmaster-General’s Department of recent years. The Marconi, Telefunken, and other companies have been perpetually quarrelling in the Law Courts, each claiming to be the “ real Mackay,” and the Governments have come to no effective arrangement with any of them. The honorable member for Fremantle time and again blamed the Government for not proceeding as expeditiously as they should, and now his party says that the Postmaster-General has gone too far, and he and his expert are attacked for making a success of their system.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– Is it a success?

Mr Frazer:

– Certainly.

Mr MATHEWS:

– We are much better off than we should have been had we waited for the various companies to settle their differences. It is asserted that our expert is working on an idea which is not his own, and the endeavour is being made to prove that. The Government was out to get a wireless patent, and the one they have got is the only one which they could get quickly, and which would do the work efficiently. Now certain representatives on the other side would hand over our wireless system to the “money-bags” who control the other wireless systems. A case was taken into one of our Courts, and the presiding Justice offered an expert to examine the Australian system, but the other side wanted their own expert.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Crown, through its counsel, Mr. Duffy, declined to take the order made by Mr. Justice Higgins.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Opposition wants to hand over to rival companies any unique and original idea that may be in the possession of Mr. Balsillie and those superintending our wireless installations. Is it fair that we should play into the hands of those people? Throughout the debate, and on other occasions, the Opposition have appeared to desire the defeat of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, with a view to assist those on the other side.

Mr Frazer:

– Vet within twelve months we got eighteen stations under way.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If the system which’ we are using had not been adopted, we should not have got one station in eighteen years. The Opposition have been anything but Australian in its action. Instead of considering the interests of Australia, they have looked after the interests of the “ money-bags “ of the world, who are well able to look after themselves.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- The members of the Opposition profess to be overflowing with sympathy for the postal employes.

Mr Ryrie:

– We want them to get justice.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member is a Tory squatter, and yet he tells us that his heart burns with the desire to help these men. When the wages of the employes of the Postal Department are placed on a decent level by the representatives of Labour, we find the Opposition pretending to have a desire to do something more for these men than has been done by the Labour Government. A large amount of money has been expended by the Government during the last three years in improving the conditions of the postal employes. I should have liked to see more money spent in improving the conditions of those employes, but the revenue is limited, and it is not possible to do as much for them as we should like to. We were instrumental in having the minimum wage raised to 7s. a day some little time ago, and now we have been instrumental in fixing the minimum wage at 8s. a day. There is not a Tory Government in Australia that has fixed 8s. a day as the minimum wage for their employes. For instance, in the State of Victoria we have a minimum of 8s. a day for our postal employes; while the Victorian Government is only paying 7s. 6d. a day to railway fettlers who have been in the service possibly fifteen or twenty years. It is not possible to do very much for the postal employes this session, but I have no doubt that when the new Parliament meets the Labour party will be prepared to still further improve the conditions of these men.

As regards the question of furlough, I believe that six months’ leave of absence on full pay is allowed to public servants after twenty years’ service. Those officers who are in close contact with the high officials of the Department have their six months’ leave of absence granted to them almost without question; but when a letter-carrier applies for leave of absence he is asked, first of all, if he is not aware that there is a provision that when he dies his nextofkin will get an amount equivalent to his salary for that six months. That does not afford very great satisfaction to the employe who wants a holiday for the purpose of recuperating his health. Leave of ab sence should be granted to all employes, not as an act of grace, but as a matter of right.

Mr Thomas:

– It is a matter of right, but they cannot always get it immediately they apply for it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– When an application is made for leave of absence by a lettercarrier, the first question put is -

Are you aware of the amended statutory rule which provides for furlough?

payment in the event of death to nextofkin.

That is one way of shelving the application.

Mr Frazer:

– Supposing a man who has no wife or family dies, but he has a brother who is in affluent circumstances, should that brother get the money?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do not think that the brother would have a very strong claim, but apparently the Government provide that the next-of-kin, whether he is in affluent circumstances or not, should get the money.

Mr Frazer:

– No; the word is “may.”

Mr J H CATTS:

– The word “may “ in a number of Acts means “ shall.” The next question is -

What are your reasons for wanting furlough?

After the reasons have been given, he has to present himself to a medical officer for examination. The Minister of External Affairs says that an employe gets six months’ leave of absence after twentyyears’ service as a matter of right. Do I understand that the Postmaster-General agrees thatthe New South Wales employes get that leave of absence as a matter of right ?

Mr Frazer:

– Yes, practically so.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That settles my grievance. I know that as regards the railway employes, the same regulation existed. In the State service a railway employe who had twenty years’ service was told that if his health was bad, and he wished to recuperate and come back to the Department, he could get a month’s holiday. There seems to be a way of discriminating between officers. One man could obtain furlough and another could not, and there was intense dissatisfaction. This furlough should be given in all cases, without question, after twenty years’ service. If an employe does not do his duty, he should be dismissed, but if he remains in the Service, then, after twenty years, he should be granted furlough. There should not be the anomaly qf a high official, who is in close and social relationship with heads of Departments, being able to obtain furlough while obstacles are thrown in the way of the letter-carrier who has no such relationship. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give his attention to this matter, and that furlough will be granted as a matter of right, and not as a matter of privilege.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

.- By the action of one section of the Committee the fair and legitimate criticism of these Estimates has been, deliberately denied us, except under circumstances involving the test of physical endurance. I rise, not for the purpose of delaying business, but to ask the Minister what action is to be taken in regard to allowance offices in country districts. My contention is that a definite system should be laid down, and that no discrimination should be shown. The Minister knows that adequate remuneration for services rendered is not given to allowance officers.

Mr Frazer:

– Is the honorable member referring to the case of an allowance officer just outside Deniliquin?

Mr CHANTER:

– I am referring to a number of cases, of which that is one. The rule has been laid down that the remuneration shall be based upon the revenue derived from the office, but that principle, which is a strong, commercial one, should not be rigidly followed.

Mr Frazer:

– I have placed on the Estimates for this year £45,000 to increase the allowances to these officers.

Mr CHANTER:

– The Minister deserves credit for his action, but my desire is to make sure that the proposed increase will apply fairly to all, so that the Minister and our party shall not ‘be exposed to the charge of sweating the employes of the Commonwealth. In the case of many of these offices, the revenue is so small that the remuneration based upon it does not constitute anything like a living allowance for the person in charge. I have brought individual cases under the notice of the Minister, and am sure that he will do justice to them. I wish, also, to see justice done to other allowance officers in respect of whom, perhaps, direct representation has not been made in the House. The honorable member for Boothby brought before the Committee the case of certain transferred postmasters in South Australia, and was supported by several other representatives of that State in demanding that their accrued rights should receive recogni tion. When the matter was under consideration I interjected that South Australia was not the only State in which there were officers whose accrued rights at the time of their transfer to the Commonwealth had not been recognised. All should be treated alike. I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister the case of Mr. Keoham, now postmaster at Hay. Before his transfer to the Commonwealth the Public Service Commissioner of New South Wales determined that he was entitled to be- placed in a certain grade, but his right in that respect has not been recognised. He has been seeking, ever since Federation, for an independent inquiry into his case, but has not yet obtained one. He was told that he would have an opportunity to place all the facts relating to it before the Postal Commission, but that opportunity was denied him. Mr. Thomas.- By whom?

Mr CHANTER:

– By those who were, controlling the Commission. My contention is that the rights of every transferred officer, as at the date of transfer, should be considered, and that the Minister cannot deal with the case of the South Australian officers without dealing in the same way with that of officers similarly situated in other parts of the Commonwealth. State officers transferred to the Commonwealth Service believed that they carried their State rights with them. I believe that the PostmasterGeneral is prepared to do justice to the officers of his Department; but he is leg-roped and hobbled by another institution of this Parliament, namely, the Public Service Commissioner. Honorable members are aware that officers in remote districts are given what is termed a district allowance to cover the extra cost of living in such places. I have a complaint to make in this connexion. Matters of this kind have to go before the Public Service Commissioner, who says, “I did it, and there is. an end of it.” I can refer to an area in which officers stationed beyond a certain radius from a common centre receive the district allowance, whilst those inside that radius do not receive the allowance. I can quote cases, also, where Commonwealth officers stationed in certain places do not receive a district allowance, while State officers stationed in the same places do receive such an allowance.

Mr Frazer:

– I am having a special report made in regard to the cases the honorable member refers to.

Mr CHANTER:

– I am glad to hear that; and I am satisfied that the Minister will do all he can to remedy the grievance. I wish to refer now to another matter upon which I have always held a very strong opinion, the expression of which may not be agreeable to some persons. A discussion took place to-night upon the employment of Mr. Balsillie, and the adoption by the Commonwealth of his system of wireless telegraphy. I was greatly surprised to find that the honorable member for Flinders, who is a professional man engaged in the case, not only took part in the discussion of a matter which is sub judice, and should not L.-.ve been discussed here, but failed to check other honorable members who dealt with the same question.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I did not speak on the merits of the controversy.

Mr CHANTER:

– The matter, being sub judice, should not have been referred to at all. I hold the opinion very strongly that no member of this Parliament, whether a professional or a layman, should accept fees to fight the Government or Parliament. This is the first instance I have known of a professional gentleman, representing an electorate of the Commonwealth, engaging himself to attack the Government and Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member say that this is the first time he has ever known such a thing to be done?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes, I do, and I ask the honorable member for Parramatta to give me an instance of anything of the kind. I have known professional members of the Parliament of New South Wales accept briefs to defend the Parliament or the Government, but not to attack them.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member not remember that two State Ministers left office in New South Wales on account of taking briefs against the Railways Commissioners?

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member has but proved’ my case. The thing was so strongly condemned in New South Wales that the gentlemen referred to left office, because they knew that the Parliament of New South Wales would not stand them acting professionally against the State.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Those men were members of the Cabinet.

Mr CHANTER:

– If I or any other lay member of this Parliament engaged in business, and took a fee from the Government, we should forfeit our seats ; but there is no law to prevent a professional man taking a fee to do his best to injure the Parliament of which he is a member. We know what would follow if any lay member of this ‘Parliament took a fee of £5 or £500 from the Government. Mr. Speaker would” soon tell him that he was no longer a member of the House. It would be more patriotic for a legal member of the House to refuse to accept a brief against theGovernment, or to take a part in attacking,, or attempting to do an injury to, that body of which he is a member.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the Government, complain of my action?

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not know what the Government thinks in this matter, but: I complain of the honorable member’saction. I have spoken on this subject before, but not so publicly as I am doing now, because I think that it is an absolutely wrong practice. It really gives to certain honorable members the opportunity to do as they please, within the bounds of their profession, while denying a similar opportunity to every other member of the House. If that is not a discrimination I do not know what is. I leave it to honorable members from the country to judge whether it is patriotic or not.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course, it applies to every other honorable member of the House.

Mr CHANTER:

– If the honorable member accepts a brief and a fee to appear for a person against the Government, he as an honest man, must do his best to gain an advantage, if possible, for his clients.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– To see that justice is done.

Mr CHANTER:

– Knowing that if he should succeed he will gain the benefit for his client to the disadvantage of the Government and the taxpayers. This practice, I think, should not be allowed to continue. If 1 were a business man, and disposed of any articles to the Government, I would forfeit my seat in the House. Why should the honorable member be in a different position from’ myself, simply because he happens to belong to a. profession ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I, too, am precluded with every other honorable member from offering my services to the Government for a reward.

Mr CHANTER:

– There is nothing to prevent the Government from employing the honorable member.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes, there is. I stand on exactly the same basis as every other honorable member of the House.

Mr CHANTER:

– If that is so, I stand corrected. The honorable member is in receipt of a remuneration from the taxpayers for his services in this House, and he has no moral right to engage in any professional work to injure them. I have not entered into the merits of the case, which is sub judice, but am merely commenting upon the position of the honorable member in relation to that case. I make no personal reflection upon him. I have noticed several cases of this kind, and, in my opinion, it is quite time that an alteration was made. 1 am not physically fit to deal with other matters which I should like to bring under the notice of the Postmaster-General. I shall content myself with having brought under his notice two or three subjects, and called the attention of the Prime Minister to the appearance in the Court of members of the House to damage the interests of the Government and the taxpayers, who may serve here. I ask the right honorable gentleman to look into the matter, and see if some alteration cannot be brought about by which every member of the House shall be on the same footing.

Mr. MATHEWS (Melbourne Ports) (11.46]. - I desire to know whether in his Supplementary Estimates the PostmasterGeneral has made provision for widows of officers or any persons who during their lifetime were employed in his Department?

Mr Frazer:

– To-morrow we propose to introduce Supplementary Estimates providing gratuities for certain relatives pf deserving officers of the Department.-

Mr MATHEWS:

– I noticed that the provision in these Estimates for compensation to widows for injuries did not include the case of the widow of an officer of his Department. I shall defer what I have to say on the case until I see the Supplementary Estimates.

Proposed vote agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the pleasure of the Committee that I put the whole of the remaining Estimates?

Mr Mathews:

– I object. Let them be taken line by line.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that the subdivisions on pages 168 to 203 inclusive be agreed to.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

.- I must object to this procedure being followed. AVe listen for a day to a discussion on one line of the Estimates. I took the punishment like a bar of iron or a bar of soap, and now we are asked to put the remaining Estimates through in globo. In my opinion that is not fair. I consider that the Opposition ought to get a taste of their own gruel. Perhaps, if they get these Estimates line by line, they wil” appreciate what I had to suffer last night. Therefore, I must object to this proposal, unless, of course, they promise not to do this thing any more.

Sit Robert Best. - Oh, don’t.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Very well.

Division 107 (Cables), £20,000 ; division 108 (Mails via Suez), £170,000; division 109 (New South Wales), £1,518,752 ; division no (Victoria), £968,975; division in (Queensland), £635,281; division 112 (South Australia), £333,047; division 113 (^Western Australia), £406,080; division 114 (Tasmania), £160,022 ; division 115 (Northern Territory), £19,212 - agreed to

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the following resolution be reported to the House : - That, including the several sums already voted in this present session of Parliament for such services, there be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1912-13, for the several services hereunder specified, sums not exceeding in each case the following amounts, viz. : -

Further Supplementary Estimates, 1910-n.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the following further sums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1910-11, for the several services hereunder specified, viz. : -

Further Supplementary Estimates for Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1910-11.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1910-11, for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c., a further sum not exceeding £58,492.

Resolutions reported.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the remaining stages to be passed without delay.

Resolutions of Ways and Means covering resolutions of Supply adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hughes do prepare and bring in Bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 7504

APPROPRIATION BILL 1912-13

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher, and passed through all its stages.

page 7504

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL1910-11

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher, and passed though all its stages.

page 7504

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1910-11

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher, and passed through all its stages.

page 7504

BOUNTIES BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with an amendment.

page 7504

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7504

WOOD PULP AND ROCK PHOSPHATE BOUNTIES BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 7504

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : NEW SOUTH WALES

Motion (by Mr. King O’Malley), by leave, proposed -

That the House of Representatives approves of the fresh distribution of the State of New South Wales into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs. F. Poate, H. Langwell, and J. G. McLaren, the Commissioners for the purpose of distributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before Parliament on the 18th day of December, 1912.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– It seems to me that we are being required to act very hastily in this matter. In the dying hours of the session we are asked to agree to a redistribution of the electoral divisions of New South Wales before the report of the Commissioners is in our hands. I have had an opportunity of looking at the maps, but I have not been able to peruse the report until this moment. I find that in clause 4 the Commissioners say -

In making the proposed distribution, your Commissioners have complied with those provisions of the law which require that - “ The Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Community or diversity of interest;

Means of communication ;

Physical features;

Existing boundaries of Divisions ;

Boundaries of State electorates.”

I unhesitatingly say that the Commissioners have not paid proper regard to the considerations set out in their report. If honorable members like to allow any set of men to flout and insult this Parliament, they must take the responsibility. I contend that the report is an insult to Parliament. What is the history of these proposals? In the first place it was necessary to re-arrange the electoral boundaries of all the States, and in every case except that of New South Wales, reasonable time was allowed to the representatives of the people to consider the recommendations of the Commissioners. The reports in regard to the other States were made available months and months ago ; whereas the report with regard to the distribution of the New South Wales electorates was not presented until the very last moment.I should like to know why this treatment has been metedout to the most important State in the Federation. For some reason best known to themselves, the Commissioners did not get to work as soon as they should have done, and when they did enter upon their duties, they performed their functions in such a manner as to please no one.

Honorable members, in their hearts, know that this redistribution is absolutely unjust. It was the intention of the Act that community of interest should be studied as tar as possible. The idea was that more particularly commercial interests - whether connected with the mining, pastoral, or agricultural industry - should be kept in. view. I venture to say that the mandatory provisions of the Act in this connexion have been absolutely disregarded. The same remarks apply to the matter Of communication. It is required that due consideration shall be given to boundaries of State electorates, the object being to sa.ve expense to the taxpayers by permitting of the use of one roll for both State and Federal purposes. On a previous occasion I showed that these conditions could be complied with by extending the Barrier division eastwards, so as to make it embrace Mount Hope, Gilgunyah, and other places. I pointed out that the Parliament of New South Wales had already authorized the construction of a line through that country to Broken Hill, so that means of communication could have been preserved. Yet the Commissioners have simply flouted this Parliament by sending back the very scheme that it rejected, with a miserable alteration which affects 180 votes in George-street, Sydney.

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

– The scheme was accepted here.

Mr CHANTER:

– But it was rejected by the Senate. This House made a .request -

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

– It made no request.

Mr CHANTER:

– It did, and it must be within the knowledge of honorable member that before the system was adopted of appointing three Commissioners, the redistribution of electoral boundaries was in the hands of a single Judge. What did he do? Immediately he was appointed as Commissioner he sent a circular to every member of this Parliament asking him to confer with him. A similar circular was sent to every municipal body throughout the State. He laid maps upon the table, and asked for certain information, with the result that there was no demur against the redistribution which he proposed. It was accepted by Parliament, because the people, through their representatives, had had an opportunity of laying before him the real conditions of the country. Have the elec tors of New South Wales no right to determine what shall be the boundaries regulating their own electoral powers? The Act distinctly provides that after plans of the proposed electoral divisions have been prepared, a copy of them shall be forwarded to every’ post-office in the State affected, and that they shall be exhibited there for thirty days, during which period objections may be lodged to the Commissioners’ proposals. What is the idea underlying that provision of the Act? It is a recognition of the electors. But, in the present instance, a plan has been placed before the House, and the electors have no opportunity of seeing or considering it. This is a matter which ought to be treated absolutely from a non-party stand-point. Whether it will be so regarded, results will show. I say that this Parliament has already rejected the scheme which is now presented to it. Yet the Commissioners have no hesitation whatever in flouting the will of Parliament by throwing it upon the table and saying, “Take it or leave it.” As the representative of Riverina, I say that the portion of that electorate which the Commissioners propose to cut out of it is wholly agricultural and pastoral. There are no mining interests in it. Practically, it runs from a line at Tootoomurra - which is situated on the Murray, 180 miles from where I am standing, and 560 miles from the electoral centre of the Barrier - northerly by the Murrumbidgee, and thence westward by that river until the Murray is reached. Under this scheme the extreme portion of southern New South Wales is to be added to the most remote northern’ portion of that State. The redistribution is an outrage on common sense, and a flouting of the requirements of the Act. When we were asked to accept it previously, the Commissioners solicited objections. They received them from practically every one of the 12,000 electors in that portion of the country which they propose to carve out of the Riverina division and to add to the Barrier. There was not one representative body within that large area which did not send to them direct objections to the scheme on the very grounds which I am now stating. Those electors do not know to-day that this scheme is again before Parliament. Is that fair to the electors ? It has been said that the Commissioners are masters of the situation, and the truth of the allegation is to be found in the fact that they have sent us back the very proposal which we previously rejected. I ask the Prime

Minister whether he considers that this redistribution is a compliance with the requirements of the Act ?

Mr Fisher:

– They have sent back the scheme with only a technical alteration.

Mr CHANTER:

– A purely technical alteration which affects only one electorate in the heart of Sydney.

Mr Fisher:

– I agree with the honorable member.

Mr CHANTER:

– And this Parliament should have no hesitation in rejecting the scheme.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Why ?

Mr CHANTER:

– Because justice should be meted out to the electors of New South Wales.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Commissioners think that they have meted out justice.

Mr CHANTER:

– Under this redistribution the electors resident in a large tract of country have been disfranchised, because their remoteness from Broken Hill is such that they will never see that place.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It is longer by rail from the portion which the honorable member wants to add than from Deniliquin.

Mr CHANTER:

– I deny that. I deny that the honorable member has any right to make such a statement.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Let the honorable member prove by the map that Cobar is nearer by rail than Deniliquin.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member has been in a state of semi-somnolence, and has not heard my argument. I never mentioned Cobar. I mentioned Mount Hope, Gilgunyah, and Condobolin. I also mentioned that the railway has been passed by the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– There will be a fresh distribution before that railway is built.

Mr CHANTER:

– I have greater faith in the honour and probity of the New South Wales Government than the honorable member has. I believe that when the Parliament of that State has authorized a public work, and provided the money to carry it out, the work will be completed as rapidly as possible. Will the honorable member venture to say that the distance from Condobolin to Broken Hill will be 2,000 miles there and back?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Not when the railway is built.

Mr CHANTER:

-I have said that the line is to be built.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I say that the distance is longer to-day, and the honorable member cannot deny it.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member does not know thedistrict. I venture to say that there will never be railway communication from south to north to reach Broken Hill. It is not to the interest of any State except Victoria that such a line should be built, and Victoria, of course, has no power to build a railway in that country. New South Wales has a direct interest in not building it.

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

– The Railways Commissioners of New South Wales recommended a railway from Wilcannia to Broken Hill twenty years ago. I was Minister of Public Works at the time.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member has been asleep. I was speaking of the unlikelihood of a railway from north to south being built. I was not referring to a line from east to west.

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

– The honorable member’s contention is that the Electoral Commissioners should consider future railways, not present conditions.

Mr CHANTER:

– Certainly they should. They are charged to consider means of communication.

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

– Not future means.

Mr CHANTER:

– They should have considered the fact that the New South Wales Parliament has passed an Act authorizing the construction of the railway I have mentioned.

Mr Gordon:

– Have they let a contract?

Mr CHANTER:

– It does not matter whether they let a contract or build the line by day labour. A Parliament does not pass an Act for the construction of a railway and allocate money for the purpose without intending that the work should be done. Honorable members opposite know nothing about the conditions in the electorate.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does any one know anything about the subject except the honorable member?

Mr CHANTER:

– I should have great respect for any statement which the honorable member might make concerning the electoral district of Parramatta. I claim the same right to speak with authority upon thedistrict of Riverina, because I am more familiar with it than any other member of this House can be. I have lived in the district for thirty years, and ought to know something about it. There are very few places in it that I have not seen. I say again, that the residents of

Deniliquin, Moama, Balranald, and Moulamein cannot possibly get to Broken Hill without first travelling to Melbourne, and then to Adelaide. Indeed, the physical and natural features of the country are such that after heavy rains they cannot even travel to Broken Hill by motor car. The electors who object to this scheme have a right to consideration. They say that under it they will not be properly represented, because, so long as Broken Hill remains a mining centre, its influence will dominate the constituency. I am not speaking because of any personal interest, nor have I, in discussing any of the three schemes which have been submitted, considered my personal interests. I admit that the new Riverina division will be more compact, and that community of interest, and the means of communication, have been considered. My objection to the scheme is that electors who should be in that division have been taken out of it and put where any political action they may take will have no effect. The Commissioners could have done justice to them, and to the whole State, including the Mount Hope and Gilgunyah gold-fields, and I should be a craven and a coward if I had not stood up for the rights of those who so strongly object to their proposals. I am not, like some’ honorable members, considering party interests, and I am not considering personal interests. I have raised myself above that position. It is now for Parliament to come to what decision it likes. If it adopts the scheme, it does wrong to at least 12,000 electors.

Mr CANN:
Nepean

– When this scheme was under discussion before - because it is the first scheme with which we dealt, with small modifications - I spoke strongly against it, and voted against it, though, as I said, I did not blame the Commissioners, believing them to have done their best with a very difficult job. I still think that the Nepean boundaries -could be improved. But I would rather -see this scheme adopted than an election held in accordance with the existing distribution, under which the people of the State would not be fairly represented. In my opinion, Harris Park and Parramatta should have been taken into the Nepean electorate, -making it a metropolitan electorate. At the same time, I do not wish to be misunderstood regarding my attitude towards -the inclusion of Richmond and Windsor. The honorable member for Parramatta has told me that there are very nice folk there, -and I have a lot of friends that way, and hope to make more very shortly. It is not because I was afraid of the people of that district that I spoke against the proposal of the Commissioners. My view was that the Commissioners had gone to extremes. The scheme rejected in this House was not, taking it all round, quite as good as this, because this does greater justice to the country electorates. I think that I have been unjustly dealt with by having a large country area put into what should be a compact metropolitan electorate, and I hope that when another redistribution takes place, there will be some arrangement between the Commonwealth and State authorities for making the Commonwealth and State boundaries the same.

Mr Fisher:

– Parliament will have to alter the system.

Mr CANN:

– The present arrangement is clumsy, and a difficult one for the electors to understand. As there is not time to get another scheme this session, I think that this should be accepted, because it would not be right to have an election under a distribution . which would mean that one member would represent 50,000 and another only 22,000. It will not be many years before- another redistribution will be required, and I hope that, in the interim, steps will be taken to have uniform boundaries and rolls for the Commonwealth and States. If I thought that the rejection of this scheme would mean that we should have to adhere to the existing boundaries I should vote for it in preference to holding elections on the old boundaries.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I quite realize that the Commissioners appointed to deal with this matter had a very difficult and intricate task, and they are deserving of special credit for the manner in which they accomplished that task.

Mr Riley:

– I do not know where the credit comes in.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I do not say that the scheme is perfect. If there was a possibility of getting a re-adjustment of boundaries under which the interests of the people would be better conserved, I should not be found accepting either this scheme or the second one that was submitted ; but I am strongly impressed by this fact : that all the other States have secured redistributions of their electorates, and this is the first opportunity after the completion of the census returns for this Parliament to give to the State of New South Wales the same treatment as has been meted out to the other States. That is my reason for supporting this scheme. This particular scheme apparently was devised for the purpose of keeping the electors within the quota provided by the Act, and, at the same time, securing a maximum of representation for the country districts. When the first scheme was disallowed by the Senate, the second scheme submitted was .on the basis of . obtaining a mathematical quota for all electorates, and under that scheme the country districts would have been deprived of two members. While it is very desirable that we should have one man one vote, and one vote one value, there are other factors to be considered, and one of those factors is that, whilst it is easy for a city member to keep in close touch with his constituents, and vice versa, that condition does not apply to the country electorates. Some country electorates are so large that it is impossible for a man to travel over them in six months, and it is also impossible for him to keep in touch with a very large percentage of the electors. That being so, I prefer this scheme to the second .scheme which was submitted, and which more nearly approached the application of a mathematical quota to each of the electorates. I recognise that, as regards the electorates of Riverina, Werriwa, and Nepean, certain divisions are made that run counter to community of interest, both as regards the electors getting into touch with one another and likeness of conditions. That applies particularly to the Werriwa electorate. Nothing will bind people more closely together than a railway, and yet we find that, in that electorate, the main southern railway is intersected by another electorate, and community of interest is disregarded for no apparently valid reason, because the electorate might, with equal advantage, have been extended in another direction. The same remark applies to the electorates of Nepean and Riverina in a lesser degree. This House only carried the redistribution scheme by one vote on the last occasion, and a number of votes were reluctantly given in favour of it. My own vote was a reluctant one, and in addition to that the electors affected made representations direct to the Commissioners. . It seems extraordinary that, in view of the criticisms of this Chamber, and the representations of electors affected, the Commissioners on this occasion should have only technically complied with the requirements of the Act. “Instead of re-submitting the original scheme, they should have endeavoured to alter it so as to meet the objections that were raised, more particularly by the electors who were vitally concerned, and. whose representations ought to have had. consideration. Instead of that, Number i. scheme has been submitted as Number 3, with a technical change only - the transfer of 118 votes from East Sydney to West Sydney - so as to comply technically with, the requirements of the Act. The Commissioners are not to be congratulated on losing the opportunity they had on this, occasion of giving to the electors of New South Wales a scheme that would have met the objections raised and have perfected, I might say, -their original scheme. As we are at the tail end ot this session and this Parliament, whatever may have been said at an earlier stage on this question, honorable members must realize that it is not reasonable to suppose that we can again transmit this scheme to the Commissionerswith any hope of their being able to deal with it. We have either to accept thisproposal with all its defects or have the general election fought out on the existing electoral boundaries. I hope honorable members who are opposed to thisscheme will take that phase of the question into serious consideration, and before they decide to vote against it will consider whateffect it will have upon the State of New South Wales by leaving it in the undesirable position that, while one electorate returns a representative on the votes of 20 000 people, another electorate, withnearly 50,000 voters, has only the same representation. I hope honorable memberswill forego their objections and accept thisscheme with all its glaring defects, and give the State of New South Wales that measure of justice which I hold she isentitled to under the conditions that obtain.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I regret that so much time has been wasted that we are compelled to restrict, toa large extent, the remarks that we should like to make upon this very important subject I was not present when the vote wastaken on the first scheme submitted to the House, but I had no objection to it so far as my own electorate was concerned. I may say the same of the scheme now before us, save that under it I shall part with old friends, and with many who have been very good to me during my political’ career. It isnatural that a measure of sorrow should be associated with a parting, and” partings irc this case are inevitable. I was influenced, to some extent, by the representations made by certain honorable members that, in respect of other divisions, greater consideration might well have been given under this scheme to the provisions of the Act with regard to the observance of community of interest. At this late stage of the session, however, we could not hope to obtain another redistribution, so that we must cither be prepared to accept that now before us, or to go to the electorates on the basis of the existing electoral boundaries with their glaring inequalities. That could not possibly be done, and, therefore, even at the risk of some sacrifice of community of interest in respect of certain electorates, it seems to me that this redistribution must be accepted. I am not one to blame the Commissioners for any defect in the scheme. I recognise that they had a very difficult task to perform. Many conflicting interests have tobe reconciled, and it is impossible for them to please every one ; but I have no doubt that they have done their best according to their lights. I do not know whether the Opposition have really been in earnest in their demand for this scheme. It seems to me that they have been “ stone-walling “’ other legislation until they could stand out no longer, in order to prevent this redistribution being submitted for our consideration. If they are looking at the matter from a party point of view, and are fearful of the new electoral boundaries, I can sympathize with them, because I can see very good prospects of our capturing Fusion seats. For instance, in the case of the Illawarra electorate, some of the Conservative areas in the neighbourhood of Moss Vale have been cut off, whilst there have been added to the electorate areas comprising Democratic communities. There are about 1,000 navvies engaged on the duplication work who were not there when the sitting member last won his seat with a margin of a few hundred votes. I look upon Illawarra under this redistribution as a safe Labour seat. Then, again, the electorate of Lang under this scheme consists almost entirely of Marrickville, Tempe, and St. Peters, all of which are strong Labour districts. A small portion of Annandale South has been transferred from Cook, and in that area I was fortunate enough to secure a majority at the last election. The remaining portions of Lang are distinctly Democratic. The portions that have, been cut off, such as Rockdale and Kogarah, have always voted strongly for the Fusion ticket, and I have no doubt that, with this alteration of the boundaries of that electorate, the Labour candidate will have a much better chance of winning the seat than he had on the last occasion. The prospects of Labour successes in those two electorates are greatly enhanced, whilst, on the other hand, I see no chance of our losing any of the existing Labour seats. In conclusion, I am sorry that, under this scheme, I shall have to part with my old friends at the Darlington, end of my present electorate who have always given me a very heavy majority. The small portion of Annandale South which I am losing, and which previously voted on the so-called Liberal ticket, also extended sound support to me. In that portion of the existing electorate of South Sydney, which has been added to the electorate of Cook - I refer to North Botany - I have many sterling friends, and I have no doubt we shall get on very well together. There is undoubtedly community of interest between North Botany and the rest of my electorate, which, in the main, is a manufacturing district. For these interests, I shall be found with a lively and sympathetic desire for their advancement. I am sure that the people of North Botany will not like parting with their present representative, for he has represented them faithfully and well. I hope that this scheme will be accepted, and accepted without any call for a division, so far as the Government side of the House is concerned. I trust, also, that the Senate will realize that there will be no opportunity of obtaining another redistribution before the next general election and that,- although they rejected on a previous occasion a scheme practically identical with that now before us, and will feel, perhaps, that their objections ought to have received more attention, they will recognise it is well that they should indorse this redistribution.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I rise to offer my congratulations to the honorable member for Nepean on the manly and straightforward speech that he made this evening.

Sir John Quick:

– Hear, hear ! It was most creditable to him.

Mr FISHER:

– Probably no honorable member is hit so hard by this redistribution as he is, and no one could listen to the honorable member’s remarks, and to the way in which they were delivered, without being impressed with the fact that he had no regard for his own personal interests, but believed that those of the State should come first. Much has been said in regard to this question which, I am sure, honorable members opposite would very much like to forget. Allegations of insincerity on the pant of the Government and those who sit behind them have been made. Charges of the most serious character have been levelled at us, and an attempt has been made, because the Government had determined, very properly, .that a certain order of dealing with business should be observed, to convey to the people that they were acting in the interests of certain members of their own party. I am about to place on record a fact which I should not have brought forward had these statements not been repeated again and again. Let me remind honorable members of what occurred in connexion with the scheme for the redistribution of the Western Australian electorates in 1909. There were at the time the gravest anomalies existing in the various electorates of that State. The Commissioners’ report was received by the then Minister of Home Affairs in the Fusion Government, the honorable member for Illawarra, on the 14th October, 1909. The report was presented to Parliament on the following day, and it was allowed to remain on the table untouched until the 23rd November of the same year - thirtynine days after it had been presented to Parliament.

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

– Does the honorable gentleman think that three archangels could submit a plan of redistribution which every one would approve of?

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member for Parkes raises the question whether any Commissioners could submit a perfect scheme. That is not my point. The Commissioners for Western Australia did submit a scheme in 1909, and the Government allowed it to remain on the table for thirty-nine days before bringing it on for consideration. Then the Minister of Home Affairs brought up the scheme, and recommended it to the House, and with a single exception the whole of the members of the Ministry voted against it. The honorable member for Darling Downs, I am aware, challenges that statement. It is quite true that the honorable gentleman did not vote, but was paired against the scheme; and every other member of the Govern ment went across the floor of this Chamber arid voted against the scheme. For thirtynine days it had been allowed to lie on the table before the House was given an opportunity to discuss it - and what for? I leave honorable members and the people outside to answer. When the Commissioners’ scheme for the redistribution of the New South Wales electorates was presented to the House this year, it was taken up practically at once bv the Government. Schemes were twice rejected, and properly rejected, by this House; and in all probability the third -scheme submitted by the Commissioners would also be rejected were there time to remedy its defects. But each scheme was brought up for consideration at the earliest possible moment after it was presented to Parliament. It is necessary that the public should be made aware of the facts of the case when we find honorable members opposite assuming a virtue though they have it not, and claiming to be the true champions of the people’s rights. When they had the opportunity to deal with a redistribution scheme, they delayed taking action in connexion with it until it was absolutely impossible for it to be referred back to the Commissioners and a new scheme presented.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member for Ballarat admitted in his speech that it could not go back to the Commissioners.

Mr FISHER:

– It does not matter whether the honorable gentleman said so or not. 1 have given the bare facts of the case. The Government of the day were in full control of the House, and were most arrogant in the expression of their power. If any honorable member contended with them in any way they closured him. . On one occasion when I wished to speak as Leader of the Opposition, I had not uttered a single sentence before they closured me. These are the men of virtue and high standards who profess such a desire to protect the public interests. The same members did what they could when they were in possession of place and power to crush the people of Western Australia, without having a single reason to justify their action. I ask honorable members and the public to contrast their action with the statement of the honorable member for Nepean to-night, who recognised that the scheme now under consideration does not represent a fair distribution of the New South Wales electorates. Speaking with all the weight which attaches to my official position, I say that, although I believe the Commissioners have acted in good faith, they have not realized completely the terms of their commission, but have made a merely technical alteration of a previously rejected scheme in order to bring the new scheme within the law. I am convinced that the existing method for the redistribution of the electorates of the various States cannot bc allowed to stand. A better method must be discovered by future Parliaments. I hope that, whoever may have the honour to represent the people of Australia, will deal with the matter in a way which will not only give greater satisfaction to the peopleimmediately concerned, but will make provision to enable the electors to be represented in this House as they desire and should be represented. I do not wish to say anything further on that matter. Bygones will be bygones in a very few months hence, when the people, who alone can make this Parliament a National Parliament, with national ideals, will be called upon to decide graver questions than any that are here involved. But the equal representation of the people is the basic principle of Democratic government, and I am proud of the attitude taken up by my friends and colleagues on this side, who, recognising the fact that a fair redistribution is not practicable at this stage, have preferred to accept the scheme now before the House to that under which this Parliament was elected. I thank them for their patriotic, and, shall I say, representative action, when they might very well have taken another course, which, possibly, would have led to unfortunate circumstances, and a failure to secure, in the next Parliament, a true representation of the Mother State of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7511

INSCRIBED STOCK BILL

Motion by Mr. Fisher (by leave) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911.

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher and read a first and second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– In two sections of the Inscribed Stock Act of 191 1 there is a reference to½ per cent., and the aggregate amount is 1 per cent. The inten tion of Parliament, and the policy of the measure, was to have a½ per cent. sinking fund, and the object of this measure is to give effect to that intention. Section 45, as amended by this Bill, will read -

The Treasurer shall on the last day of March and on the last day of September in each year pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated for the purpose, into the Trust Fund, under the head of the Stock Redemption Fund, such sum as if fixed by any order directing the sale of any stock, being not less than ros. per centum per annum on such stock.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7511

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I desire leave to introduce a Bill of one clause to validate certain Orders in Council dealing with the acquisition of property. The Crown Solicitor has informed the Government that the acquiring of property for the general purposes of the Commonwealth is not strictly in accordance with the law. Therefore, this measure provides that the acquisition of lands shall be for postal and other purposes, and validates the acts of the Executive Council up to that point. I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to validate certain notifications of the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Fisher, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

page 7511

ADJOURNMENT

Compensation Cases

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

There is a Bill prepared to deal with a number of cases of compensation, which, though not strictly legal, were equitable, and have been accumulated under more than one Government - two or three, I think. Now that we have a Commonwealth Workmen’s Compensation Act, I think it is about time that we cleared up these cases as far as is practicable. It will be introduced under a Governor-General’s Message at the next sitting of the House, and I presume that there will be no difficulty in passing it. Honorable members are very anxious, I know, to meet at half-past 2 o’clock to-day, but I should like them to meet at half-past 10 o’clock, so that we may be able to complete the business. I hope that they are willing to make the sacrifice, because we have a good deal of work to do, and I feel sure that the other House will cooperate with us as far as practicable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 1.16 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 December 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19121218_reps_4_69/>.