Senate
3 April 1902
1st Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 11290
SUPPLY BILL (No. 7)
Royal assent to this Bill reported.
page 11290
PAPERS
Senator DRAKE laid upon the table the following papers : -
Correspondence between the Premier of Tasmania and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth re transmission of letters to Tattersall’s.
Ordered tobe printed.
Coloured immigrants added to the Commonwealth. (Return.)
page 11290
QUESTION
THE TARIFF
Remission of Duties on Resolution of House of Representatives.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia
– Before the business of the day is called upon I wish to bring before the notice of the Senate a matter of urgent importance, and for that purpose I move -
That the Senateat its rising adjourn until eleven a.m. to-morrow.
Since we last met the financial economy of the States has been considerably altered by a vote carried in another place, which, of course we shall consider when the Tariff Bill reaches us. No language is capable of expressing the disastrous effect of that vote on the various States. The matter of urgent necessity to which Iwish to call attention, and which does not merely relate to the tea duty or to the Tariff, is the taking off of duties, which have been imposed by the consent of both Houses, on the vote of one House. It is a quite recognised axiom of the Constitution - as much as if it were written in it - that duties have to be imposed at first without the consent of either House, and both Houses by keeping in office the Government recognise that the Government have to impose the duties, and that the duties have to remain until the legislative sanction or legislative condemnation of both Houses is given. “We know from our own experience that these duties are always imposed with very great care, following very much on old lines, and trying to reconcile the old with the new as much as possible In the beginning of this Commonwealth no doubt particular care was taken that there’ should be no great convulsion brought about by the manner in which the duties were imposed. We all knew that the duties were imposed ; we all recognised the necessity for their imposition. It is as much a part of the Constitution for the Government to do this as if it were written within the lines of the Constitution. In cases that have occurred in England there have been postponements of decisions by the Judges because that was absolutely necessary to enable the proper tribunal to decide whether the duty should or should not be enforced.
Senator Best:
– In New South Wales and Victoria decisions have been postponed.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– I should think so. The Judges at home have recognised that this unwritten law of the
Constitution is necessary to bring about a good administration, to secure what is just and right, and to prevent frauds on the revenue. So when a tax is imposed - what I am speaking about has nothing to do with the question of whether it should be ultimately adopted - it remains until Parliament has had an opportunity of coming to a decision. If in the course of the parliamentary inquiry a tax is increased, then the increased tax is always collected. I appeal to my honorable friends who have sat in local Legislatures whether that is not the principle which has always been followed. A Government imposes a tax ; it is increased in one House or the other - practically it is always done in the lower House - and then they collect the higher duty, because they can return it if in the end they find it wise to do so, and in the meantime no injustice is done. But we have a new Constitution in which the Senate occupies a much higher position than did any Legislative Council in a State. The Senate represents the States, and it is for the States I am speaking now. When the Government brought down their Tariff it became the Tariff of the Constitution until it was altered by Parliament, and that is the only understanding on which I fancy we would have endured anything of the kind. There may have been occasions when nobody objected to duties being waived, but that .was done by concession, I contend, and not by right. A great duty has been taken off by a bare majority in the other House, and it has had a most serious effect on the smaller States, filtering their whole fiscal system. I do not blame the Government, for I believe they did all they could to get their policy carried out. On the mere decision of one House, without consulting the States House, the duty is taken off tea ; and if, when the Tariff comes to us, we restore that duty, as it is not improbable that we shall, then in the interval there will have been lost to the revenue of the States an enormous sum which cannot be recovered. My honorable friends say that I am mad on constitutional questions. I think they ought to congratulate themselves that some one is mad on these questions, because it is a matter of our rights that I am speaking about, and a matter of the vastest importance, and substance. The very principle on which the Government is allowed to levy duties without parliamentary authority implies that they ought not to relax the collection of them until they get parliamentary authority. The whole argument in the one case is an argument for my contention, that when duties are imposed by a Government, and it is allowed to remain in office, that in effect means an assent by the whole of the Legislature to. those duties, which are not to be altered, except by way of increase, without the consent of the whole of the Parliament. This is the first time we have really had before us a matter which concerns the very life of the Senate. Whatever concessions we chose to make from time to time, I ask honorable senators, if they wish to preserve the Constitution, not merely to insist upon the observance of every right which the Legislative Councils previously had, but to insist upon the rights that we endeavoured to embody in the letter and substance of our Constitution. I know perfectly well that this informal motion can only produce discussion, and can have in action no immediate effect, but I take the first opportunity to raise my protest against the Senate’s rights being sacrificed. We may have only the shadow to deal with in the present financial year ; the substance may be gone in the interval between taking a vote in the other House and the time when the question reaches the Senate. To many States this may be a matter of small consequence. To some States it is a matter of great consequence. Por instance, it is a matter of great consequence to South Australia. I noticed to-day a speech by the Premier of South Australia in which he said that as the result of the non-collection of the tea duty it is proposed in that State to reduce the exemption from income tax from £200 to £100 and to impose an increased stamp duty. The point I am dealing with is not the question of whether this tax should or should not be imposed, because that will come before us in due course. What I ask honorable senators to agree with me in, is that whenever a duty is imposed, it should be on the understanding that it is to be collected until Parliament provides that its collection shall no longer continue. This is a question of great importance Co us. We can deal with the tax, but we cannot deal with the mischief that happens in the interval. I think I am not trespassing on the rules of the Senate when I say that this is a matter of urgent and pressing importance on which we ought to express a very clear opinion.
Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist
– The honorable and learned senator has raised a very interesting point, but I think no constitutional question can be said to have arisen recently in consequence of any vote that has been taken in another place, because previously action had been taken there of an exactly similar character. The honorable and learned senator lays great stress on the vote which was taken recently, and which will undoubtedly cause a great deal of inconvenience, financially, to the States. I understand that he presses the matter upon the Senate now, not on the ground that any new question has arisen, but that the other House, in taking the same course as had been taken previously, though in perhaps a larger matter, has drawn greater attention to it, and therefore he desires to have an expression of opinion. I am very glad that he agrees as I do, that the uniform practice of collecting customs duties from the time that the Ministerial proposals are laid upon the table of the House is correct and constitutional. He is strongly of that opinion, and I think it cannot be questioned, although, of course, we know that strictly speaking there is no legal foundation for that action. Therefore, it being admitted that the Government have a right to collect duties from the time that they are proposed by the Minister - and further, that they have the right to collect increased duties in consequence of a resolution of the House of Representatives - the question arises whether they have not the right to collect decreased duties; or, going further, to allow an article to be admitted free on exactly the same ground as they have the right to collect an increased duty.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– That has not been the practice in the States.
Senator DRAKE:
– I think the honorable senator is wrong.
Senator Best:
– In Victoria the practice was regulated by the decision of the Legislative Assembly every night. If the duty was decreased, then the decreased duty was collected the next day.
Senator DRAKE:
– To go away from the particular case which has been so strongly referred to by Senator Downer, in a way, perhaps, to withdraw attention from the general operation of the practice which has been followed, if we take an ad valorem duty we found a different duty in the Tariff of every State, and in each State the duty was collected by force of its Customs Act.
The Minister for Trade and Customs comes down to the House of Representatives and proposes that the duty upon that article shall be 20 per cent. ad valorem, whereas in one of the States the duty has been 25 per cent., and in another it has been 15 per cent. Can it be contended for a moment that the Minister would be compelled to collect the 25 per cent. in the State where that had been the duty, because he had no power, in consequence of having laid the schedule upon the table, to collect the reduced amount of duty ? That is to say, where the duty had been 15 per cent. the Minister could collect the 20 per cent. because that was an increase, but where the duty had previously been 25 per cent. he could not reduce the amount to 20 because there had been a reduction. I think that cannot be contended. Then we go a step further. Where during the discussion the House of Representatives has declared in favour of the lower duty - which, we will say, is 15 per cent. - is it tobe contended by my honorable and learned friend that the Minister for Trade and Customs would not be justified at once in collecting the lower duty ?
Senator Sir John Downer:
– Certainly not. He ought to collect the higher duty until Parliament decides the question.
Senator DRAKE:
– If we adopt the principle - as I said before it has no legal basis but it is the constitutional practice - that the Minister may collect the duty from the time when the schedule is laid on the table of the House of Representatives, and may collect the increased duty upon an increase having been decided by that House, then I submit that he may, if the House passes a resolution reducing the duty, collect the reduced amount. Otherwise this might happen. Suppose the Government in the first place proposes a duty of 20 per cent. and the House by resolution raises it to 25. My honorable and learned friend admits then that the Government would be justified in collecting duty at the rate of 25 per cent. Suppose that on recommittal the committee again reduces the duty to 20 per cent. Does my honorable and learned friend contend that the Minister is not justified in reducing the amount which he collects upon that article to 20 per cent.?
Senator Glassey:
– Certainly not, without getting the consent of this House.
Senator DRAKE:
– But the Minister would not have the consent of this House to collect the duty at 25 per cent, instead of at 20 per cent. If he may do that, by what process of reasoning can it be said that the Minister cannot do the same when the amount of the duty is reduced from 25 to 20 per cent1? My honorable and learned friend speaks of an injustice in the matter of collecting lower customs duties. We must look at it from both points of view. If it is said that there will be an injustice involved in collecting the lower amount, surely by the same reasoning there might be an injustice involved in collecting the higher amount.
Senator Sir John Downer:
– Not so much.
Senator DRAKE:
– We must look at that matter nob only from the point of view of the Treasury, but, in addition, from the point of view of the taxpayer.
Senator Millen:
– It would be as well if the present Government occasionally did that !
Senator DRAKE:
– I think all Governments do it. My honorable and learned friend looks at the matter from the point of view of the Treasury and its financial necessities, but the taxpayer, if consulted, would probably contend that it was a. greater wrong to tax him at the higher amount instead of at the lower amount. But, looking at it from the constitutional point of view - if it is a constitutional question - it appears to me that there is exactly the same reason for collecting the lower amount of duty on a resolution of the House of ‘Representatives as there is for collecting the higher amount of duty solely at the instance of a resolution of that House; and I do not think that a constitutional question can possibly be said to arise on account of the magnitude of the amount involved in this particular duty. If it is wrong, constitutionally speaking, in a big matter like the duty on tea, it would be equally wrong as to any one of the smaller matters that up to the present time have passed entirely unnoticed. With regard to the real trouble, if I may use the expression, that is upon the mind of my honorable and learned friend, Senator Downer, as it is upon the mind of a very great number of others - that is to say, the question as to whether the particular vote referred to will meet with the approval or otherwise of this Chamber - that is really a matter that will have to be discussed by us hereafter. When it comes before us in a proper manner we shall have full and ample opportunity for expressing our opinions on the subject. I trust that there will not be any prolonged debate on the matter now raised. It is very interesting, but, at the same time, it seems to me that no constitutional question is now raised, and that whatever difficulty has arisen in consequence of the action of another place can be amply and fully dealt with at the proper time.
Senator BEST:
Victoria
– I think, sir, that Senator Downer has discharged a very important duty in bringing this matter under our notice, for the purpose, at all events, of agitating our thought* in respect of it. If any objection can be taken to his action it lies in the fact that we can be charged with having been somewhat dilatory in this regard. What is now complained about has been done repeatedly by another place for a period extending over something like six months. Perhaps we may be more or less excused for having made a mistake, or for some want of thought, by the fact that the practice of the States has been followed. Speaking so far as the practice of the State of Victoria is concerned - and I think I am justified in speaking also for Kew South Wales, and for most of the other States - the constitutional practice that has been established for over 100 37ears has been followed - that is to say, the practice of the British House of Commons. It has become so recognised a constitutional practice that in many cases coming before the English tribunals,, and likewise before the local tribunals, the courts, recognising the commercial exigencies of the situation, have delayed their judgments.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– Not always.
Senator BEST:
– My honorable friend has in his mind the case of Stevenson which occurred in Victoria.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– There was another case.
Senator BEST:
– But I think that with very few exceptions, the general rule has been that the courts, recognising the political and commercial exigencies of the case, have delayed giving judgment until Parliament by its legislative enactment has put into the form of law what the real Tariff was to be. In Victoria, when we dealt with our Tariff some five or six years ago, we followed largely that practice. Immediately the Minister introduced his proposals, those proposals to all intents and purposes became law ; and when any alteration was made in them, whether by increasing or decreasing the proposed duties, the following day the Commissioner of Customs gave his instructions that the higher or lower duty should be collected. The Commonwealth Government has seen fit largely to follow that practice. We cannot ignore the fact that they sought by a clause of the Customs Bill as originally introduced, to somewhat extend the usual practice. That provision, however, was withdrawn, and the terms of the Customs Act now provide that the Government or Commonwealth officers are not to be made liable by any legal procedure, until the end of the session, for their actions in this respect. So that both the Government and the Customs officers are indemnified for the collection of these duties, until the Tariff finally becomes law. This provision affords every opportunity for the Senate to deal with the several Tariff items, and almost contemplates its doing so. We have, in our Customs Act, gone far in the direction that lias hitherto been followed by the English Government, and in our own local Legislatures. But now comes the all-important question. It is quite true, that so far as our local Legislatures are concerned, this practice of altering duties from day to day according to the resolutions of the Legislative Assembly has been followed. But is that practice applicable to the new condition of affairs 1 The reason why it was not objected to in New South Wales and Victoria - and I speak especially with regard to my knowledge of those States - was that the upper Chambers had not the power to alter, or even to request an alteration in, a Bill imposing taxation, but only the power of rejecting the Bill as a whole. But by the terms of our Constitution the Senate has the right to suggest amendments, which practically amounts to the right of amendment ; and consequently I claim that the old practice cannot reasonably.be held to obtain so far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned. I am in complete accord with my honorable and learned friend, Senator Downer, in that connexion. But, sir, as I say, we have been somewhat dilatory ; and the question is. how we are to amend what has been done. The matter is one of the very greatest difficulty. It appears to me that nothing short of legislation, having for its object the crystallization of some part at least of the practice hitherto adopted, can avail. I quite see that if by legislation we attempt to say that the mere fact of the Tariff proposals being laid on the table by the Minister gives them the force of law, the political and commercial objections hitherto taken will immediately apply. But a modification might be brought about by legislation ; and it is the right of this Senate, I think, to demand legislation to which we shall be parties, constitutionally fixing what shall be the practice, and the law, in this matter. I do not see the force of the argument which the PostmasterGeneral has advanced in reply to the speech of my honorable and learned friend, Senator Downer. He has said that if the House of Representatives has the power to increase duties and collect the higher amount, it is an equally desirable practice that that House should have the power also, in the event of it passing resolutions for the reduction or remission of duties, to make the collection on the basis of that reduction or remission. I think that the line that should be taken, for all present purposes, is this : - Proposals affecting the Tariff should be accepted as Jaw, and if the duties are afterwards increased, the law should be that the increased duties should be collected at once. It would be a most dangerous practice to say that if duties were remitted by one House they should not be collected in the meantime, because that would amount to an invasion of our rights. If the duty was originally 20 per cent., and it was subsequently increased to 25 per cent., to attempt to continue the collection of the duty at the 20percent. rate would mean that merchants knowing that ultimately when the law was passed the duty would be 25 per cent., would rush their goods in as the lower rates, and thereby the duty would be made practically inoperative, probably for years to come.
Senator Glassey:
– And the revenue which ought to be raised would be lost.
Senator BEST:
– Quite so. From that stand-point, therefore, there is a great differ’ence between the collection of increased duties and the collection of reduced duties, or the remission of duties altogether. Consequently I feel that the Government should have power to collect the increased duties, although possibly there might be no interim power to collect at the reduced rate, or to acknowledge the remission of duties. However, what is prominently brought under our notice now is the desirability of establishing m constitutional practice at once, in this regard ; for although, as I say, we have prejudiced ourselves to some extent, somewhat thoughtlessly, during the period of six months, yet, when once we have had attention drawn to the matter, it is our bounden duty to see to the enactment of some law to which we shall be parties, laying down definitely and conclusively what shall be the practice in the Commonwealth.
Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia
– I was never more surprised in my life than when I heard that in Adelaide, in consequence of a resolution passed in another House, persons who held tea in bond were rushing it out. They were collecting all the spare drays they could, and were clearing their tea/ duty free. Up to that time I did not know, and I do not suppose that the majority ,of jj the members of the Senate knew, that duty free tea was being taken out of bond in consequence of a resolution passed in another place. I did not know that duties were being collected at a higher rate, or at a lower rate, or were not being collected at all, as the result of resolutions passed by the House of Representatives. I had no idea that any such state of things was going on, and I think it is a most reprehensible state of things to have existed. This House has a right to be consulted in a matter of this kind. Although the collection of duties before the Tariff has been passed into law is not legal, but has been recognised as necessary in the particular circumstances of the case, still I- always understood that when that was done the duties could not be altered in any way, without the consent of the two Houses of the Parliament. We .have departed from what has been the usual practice in the States. In 1S87 I passed a Tariff in South Australia, and on that occasion we followed what I believe has been the general rule. We placed on the table of the House a statement of the duties we proposed in lieu of those which were then in existence. When a rate was altered we collected the duty, pending the settlement of the Tariff, at whichever was the higher rate, whether it was in the Tariff wc proposed or that previously in force. That practice has been departed from.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– That was the old Victorian practice.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– The rule has also been departed from in another direction. In South Australia we agreed with the merchants that if any duty was finally passed at a rate lower than that which was originally proposed, or that which> was in force under the old Tariff, any excess paid would be refunded.
Senator Drake:
– In the meantime the merchants would have been obtaining the higher price for their goods.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Very possibly. I know that it did not work to the advantage of any one but the importers, but that was the custom. I do not blame the Government for having departed from that particular rule. Having laid the Tariff on the table of the House, and having commenced the collection of duties under that Tariff, ignoring altogether the former State Tariffs, it was not possible for them to adopt the practice I refer to, because there were six different State Tariffs, with varying rates. But it was agreed amongst us, at all events in quiet conversation, that we would approve of the Government laying the Tariff on the table and collecting the duties under it straightway. I am surprised that that course has not been adopted, and that they have not continued to collect the duties as originally proposed, until Parliament otherwise ordered.
Senator Drake:
– That was not part of the arrangement.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– That is the common sense view of the ‘ matter, and I thought it would have been adopted. It is only by the adoption of such a course that the Senate can be properly consulted. I understand, of course, that in any case where a duty is raised by another place the Government have immediately to. collect it at the higher rate, because, as Senator Best has so ably pointed out, the merchants would otherwise take advantage of the position to the injury of the public revenue. So far as the remission of duties or any reduction of duties is concerned, the Government should continue to collect at the rate originally proposed by them until both Houses of Parliament have been consulted. As it is, our power has been completely taken away. We seem to have no power whatever. The other House can strike out a line in the Tariff and the duty ceases to be collected immediately. What is the result. If we are strongly of opinion that the remission of any particular duty should not have taken place, at all events, until the interests of the smaller States had been considered, we who are sent here to protect the interests of those States can only protect them when the Ministry collect the duties on the rates originally proposed until our views have been made known. I am astounded at the position taken up by the Government. They ought to collect the duties at the original rate up to the very time that Parliament has finally determined what they should be. The Parliament means the two Houses and not one. By the action of the Government’ we have been practically placed at the mercy of another branch of the Legislature. If the duty on tea is re-imposed, or if as the result of a conference between the two Houses a modified duty is fixed, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth will still lose a large sum of money, because all the tea that can be cleared will be cleared in the meantime. I think that £15,000 in revenue was lost in one day in South Australia as the result of the remission of” the tea duty, while in some of the larger States the loss was still greater. That loss can never be made good. In consequence of the action of the House of Representatives tea is now selling at lower prices. If we re-impose the duty prices will be raised, and trade must be dislocated. If the duty is re-imposed those who were in a position to clear their tea while it remained free will gain a great advantage. They will be able to sell at the usual rate, and to pocket the money which ought to have gone into the coffers of the States. We know what is the financial position of Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania. Under any circumstances they will have to impose additional taxation, and unless the tea duty is restored the taxation will be almost unbearable. The Government have made a great mistake, and something should be done, so that in future we shall know that in matters of. this kind the Senate will be consulted before any vital alterations are made. As it is, we who represent the smaller States cannot do other than protest against what has taken place, for which I blame principally the Ministry.
Senator EWING:
Western Australia
– I do not agree that any constitutional point is involved in this question. I think it is purely a matter of administration. Every honorable senator knows perfectly well that thereis no Federal Tariff at the present moment, and that the collection of any duty is illegal . Realizing, that that would be the position, we inserted in the Customs Bill a clause indemnifying the Customs authorities against any action for doing that which we knew -would be illegal. The passing or the remission of any duty by the House of Representatives does not affect the question, because the Tariff under which the duties are being collected is illegal. The object which we havein view, and which the Government ought to have in view - and that is why I say it is an administrative and not a constitutional question - is the effectual protection of the revenue, more especially when the Senate has taken action to indemnify the Customs authorities. It is merely a question of capable administration on the part of the Government. It is not a question of whether or not tea. ought to come in free. I do not say that I would think of voting for a duty on tea ; but the question is, why did not the Government see, when the duty imposed in the Federal Tariff was removed, that the various duties on tea under the State Tariffs were collected in order to protect the revenue ? It would be just as legal for them to do that as to allow tea. to come in free. I do not think it is a question between the two Houses.
Senator Millen:
– It is a question between the Senate and. the Government.
Senator EWING:
– I think we might say that it is a question between Parliament and the Government. The other House might just as well condemn the Government, for failing to protect the revenue.- All that I suggest is that, whether the Government were in favour of the remission of the duty on tea or not, they ought to have collected such duties, as would effectually protect the Commonwealth revenue, and, indirectly, the State revenues, in view of the provision in the Customs Act to which I have referred. We have given the Government an instrument by which they can effectually protect the revenue, but they have failed to do so. Therefore; the Government, and not the other House or any section of the Parliament, should be condemned at our hands. I admit freely that if the duty on tea is ultimately restored, the people of Australia will not receive the benefit. Every one knows into whose pockets the» advantage will go as the result of tea having been cleared in the meantime. The people would have been protected if the Government had acted in a capable and proper manner.
Senator Sir John Downer:
– Is the honorable and learned senator opposed to a duty on tea ?
Senator EWING:
– lam not going to vote for a duty on tea ; but that is quite beside the question. There are some honorable senators who believe in a duty on tea, and I agree with them that we ought to protect the revenue so that no individual, by clearing larger quantities, should be able to take advantage of any change in :politics.
Senator Drake:
– Supposing we did not collect the duty, and that eventually it was not imposed, who would have got the benefit.1!
Senator EWING:
– We recognise that the importer would not give the money back to the people, and why should the people give it to the importer? Therefore, the people, through the Treasurer, should keep it.
Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia
– I can scarcely understand why all this stir is being made at the present stage. It seems that something very extraordinary has happened about which we ought to be very much alarmed. I agree to a certain extent with Senator Downer that there is a constitutional question of some seriousness involved in this matter. ‘ I believe that, -so far as the Tariff is concerned, the Government should continue to collect the duties on the schedule as first laid before the House of Representatives, until’ the duties are finally settled by Parliament. If that course had been adopted, the Senate would have had an opportunity of giving expression to its wishes in the matter, but having regard to the fact that the practice of the Government which is now complained of has been followed ever since the Tariff went into committee in another place, why is this stir being made at the present stage ? Senator Playford seems to be greatly exercised in his mind by the fact that South Australia has lost £15,000 of revenue owing to something that has taken place recently. But is that honorable senator serious when he talks in the way he has done 1 Does he not recognise that South Australia, as South Australia, has not lost a penny? The only result of the change is that a sum of 15,000 is still in the pockets, not of the merchants, but of the people of South Australia, and that it is not in the Treasury.
Senator Best:
– There is a share of it in the pockets of the importers.
Senator MCGREGOR:
– Honorable senators are sneering and laughing in the belief that they are ultimately going to enforce the duty on tea, and that then they are going to put the money into the pockets of the importer.
Senator Pearce:
– The price of tea was lowered as soon as the duty was struck off.
Senator McGREGOR:
– -Yes. Did Senator Playford or Senator Downer protest when the duty was taken off galvanized iron some time ago, and as the result of which South Australia lost a few thousand pounds of revenue ?
Senator Playford:
– We did not know what was talcing place
Senator MCGREGOR:
– Were the honorable senators attending to their duties’! Do they imagine that their duty, so far as the people of the Commonwealth are concerned, is only to come here and protest, when they wake up to something that is taking place? Why do they not keep their minds alert all the time, and know what is going on 1 Do they not know that the duties have been struck off a considerable number of articles which are consumed in South Australia, Victoria, and other States where similar duties were previously imposed ? And do they not know that to a great extent articles have been cleared at the Custom-house by the merchants in anticipation that the duties might be re-imposed or in some instances increased ?
Senator Sir John Downer:
– I am sorry to say that I did not know.
Senator MCGREGOR:
– I am very sorry for the honorableand learned senator’sintelligence or alertness, because he ought to have known.- Although I am half blind I have known all about it, and could have told him if he had asked me. Honorable senators do not seem to consider these things until some action to which they take objection takes place. They did not object to the duty being taken off galvanized iron or babies’ food. But when a duty was remitted which beneficially affected a very large majority of the people, and might injuriously affect a small section of the community who have evaded their fair share of the burdens of the State for a very long time, then they be-
I came alive and began to make a noise here.
So far as the constitutional aspect of the question is concerned, we should have taken action long ago if we were serious.
Senator Sir John Downer:
– The honorable senator ought to have done it then.
Senator MCGREGOR:
– I have never set myself up here as a guardian of the Constitution, but simply as one who was ready to defend the Constitution when I thought it was necessary. Honorable senators who characterized themselves all over the Commonwealth as the protectors of the Constitution allow it to be torn into shreds so long as it does not affect the section of the community to which they belong. But when it affects that section of the community which they have endeavoured to burden for the last 50 years, then they are very seriously concerned. I hope that in future these honorable senators will not only have an eye on the Constitution, but will have an eye on what is going on in the community, and will be prepared to protect the Constitution, not after the damage is done, but before it is done. I have been very much amused to see that legal members of the Senate differ with respect to the magnitude of the constitutional question. Probably if there were two or three other lawyers here to speak we should get into still greater confusion. I hope that in future the Senate will be more alert in protecting its constitutional rights, and will see that in the framing of the Tariff it is consulted before serious alterations are made. Of course a great deal might be said on the question of the remission, the increase, or the decrease of duties. But ample opportunities for discussion will be afforded by-and-by. I hope that those honorable senators who imagine that the States they represent are losing a large amount of revenue will soothe themselves with the belief that the money is still in the pockets of the people, and that either the Federal Government or the State Government has ample powers to get it out of those pockets if it is necessary. But when we know, according to estimates furnished, that the Commonwealth is to have a revenue of between £S,000,000 and £10,000,000, and when a great many persons have declared that a revenue of from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 would be quite sufficient to keep the States in a solvent condition, I do not think there is any necessity. for alarm, because the revenue will be j much greater than that which is offered by many of those who are opposed to the Government.
Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales
– The last speaker has given us another instance of the many inconsistencies which he has brought under our notice. He admits that the complaint lodged by Senator Downer is well founded, and his only grievance is that it was not lodged earlier. Why did he not move earlier in the matter ? He admits that he was in possession of knowledge. If he knew all about the matter, and it was one to bring before the Senate, why did he not call attention to it ?
Senator McGregor:
– But I have no dignity to maintain like the honorable senator.
Senator MILLEN:
– It is not a question of maintaining dignity, but a question of doing right. I have never accused the honorable senator of any superabundance of dignity. If he can found a complaint against Senator Downer for not bringing it forward earlier, he condemns himself for a neglect of duty.
Senator MCGREGOR:
– We are like a dog barking at the moon now.
Senator MILLEN:
– I can see one reason why it is desirable that it should have been brought before the Senate. Probably it would have been better if, when the first departure from the practice which previous speakers think is the correct one was made, some notice had been taken of it in the Senate. But we all know that, as a matter of human fallibility, very often legislative houses, like individuals, will pass over little breaches until, by the multiplicity of them, or until a more serious one is committed, they feel forced to take action. I assume that that is the position to-day. The tea duty does not affect New South Wales very much.
Senator Best:
– We should not discuss the question from that stand-point.
Senator MILLEN:
– I make that remark because Senator McGregor seems to assume that honorable senators have brought up this matter now only because the action of the Government touches the finances of the States they represent. That is absolutely unfair. I am free from any unwarranted imputation of that kind. Senator Downer has put forward a claim that the Senate should exercise some control over the administrative acts of the Government. That, of course, would appear to be a startling claim to put forward on behalf of a second Chamber in a State Parliament, but, as Senator Best points out, the Senate is constituted upon an entirely different basis from a colonial Legislative Council, or from the House of Lords. The point arises as to whether it will be possible for the Senate to give effect to that demand, and this brings’ me face to face with u difficulty which has always been present to the minds of those who have considered the Federal Constitution, and that is whether a demand on the part of the Senate to exercise that power is compatible with responsible government. I am not prepared to say whether the two systems can work side by side, but I am prepared to give full effect to the very reason of the existence of the Senate - that any material action of this kind should have the approval of both the people speaking through the other House and the States speaking through the Senate. In this case the Government proceeded by an administrative act not merely to impose a new duty, but to abolish an old one, because by the collection of the new duty they did practically abolish existing State duties. Surely honorable senators have a right to be consulted, and to express their opinions as to the removal of old duties. I ask honorable senators to recollect that the moment a new duty was collected the old State duties went by the board ; and now that the Government have dropped the new duty it means that, without any Act of Parliament, there has been a repeal of certain duties. The Government’s action amounts not merely to the collection of an illegal or an ultra-illegal duty, but the repeal of existing State duties. Surely the Senate had a right to be consulted before so serious an action was taken. Fully prepared as I am to stand by all the rights conferred on the Senate by the Constitution, I still see a difficulty in giving effect to that wish. Senator Best has made a practical suggestion, and I trust that he or some one else will take the necessary steps to give effect to it. It is that some legislation should be introduced which would define exactly the duty of the Government in these circumstances. There would probably be some little difficulty in carrying it out, and there might be some difficulty in getting it adopted by the other House. I feel that Senator Best would do a great service, not merely to the members of the Senate to-day, but in the satisfactory working out of the federal problem with which we are confronted, if he were to introduce a Bill of that kind. It would define clearly the duty of the Government. It would allow’ each House to know exactly what it had to do and what it had to expect, and it would tell the trading community exactly where they stood. We should know then, no matter what alterations were made in committee in one House or the other, that from the time the Tariff was tabled until the Governor-General assented to the Tariff Bill there would be no alteration made except by way of increases. That course of action would be in accordance with the best traditions, for it is a guiding principle that when a matter is in doubt the revenue should be protected.
Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania
– I not only rise to express the pleasure I feel, that Senator Downer has brought this very important matter before the Senate, but to ask what practical result is going to flow from this discussion. I was very much struck by the remark of Senator Ewing that this is not a constitutional question, but- a question of administration. Most certainly it is one of administration, in which I am inclined to think Ministers have blundered, and inflicted a very great loss of revenue on States which are not able to bear it. Senator Best has said that for 100 years the House of Commons has been in the habit of adopting the practice which the Minister for Trade and Customs has adopted. I gather from his remarks that the British Government have been collecting reduced duties whenever the House of Commons has reduced the amount of a duty which has been suggested.
Senator Best:
– I did not say that. I said that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays his proposals on the table they are accepted.
Senator DOBSON:
– As I understand it, not once in 50 years are the duties proposed by a Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced, because we all know that the duties are contained in the Budget, and that if he does not carry his Budget, out go the Government. With reference to the practice in Victoria, I suppose it would be a constitutional practice, where the Upper House had no right to amend, and had no power to suggest an alteration. But when the Senate, representing the States, has the power to suggest that a duty should be altered, and to stand by its suggestion, and when it can take up such a position that Parliament is compelled to go before the people and ask them to say whether we are right or wrong, it does appear to me to be a breach, I shall not say of the written Constitution, but of the unwritten Constitution, not to have consulted us. Not one of us can put his finger on a section of the Constitution, and say that the Senate has suffered a constitutional wrong, but I take it that our Constitution will yet grow to a better thing than it is now, because we shall mould it to the wants and conditions of the Australian people, and the time may come when the unwritten part of the Constitution will be as important as the written part. No case of this sort I suppose has ever happened before, and therefore it is very difficult to find a precedent. But, as honorable senators have pointed out, by a bare resolution of one House of Parliament a tax, which for all time almost has been a most important revenue tax in five out of the six States, has been repealed. When Senator Downer was speaking, I was struck with the thought whether the argument could be put that a resolution of one House, is stronger than an. Executive minute, but a moment’s consideration will show that it is not. Neither of them is according to law, but the Executive minute is looked upon, according to practice, and according to how the courts view the matter, as an authority to the Collector of Customs to collect the duties, and I do not think that a resolution of the House of Representatives carries that Executive minute one whit further. Therefore, I am inclined to think that a constitutional blunder has been committed. I thought that Senator Millen would have enlarged a little on an interjection which he made, and with which I thoroughly agreed, that if it is not a breach of the Constitution it certainly is a very grave constitutional question between the Houses. I can hardly conceive how Ministers could have blundered into letting tea’ come in free of duty. We know that the Government proposed that the duty should be 3d. per lb. on loose tea, and 4d. per lb. on packet tea. The moment that proposal was rejected by the other House, and when nine o’clock the next morning came, did the Collector of Customs think about the matter ? Did the Minister for Trade and Customs give him any instruction 1 Was it not apparent on the face of it that the Senate might modestly suggest that the duty should be restored 1
Senator Drake:
– That is the practice which has been followed for six months.
Senator DOBSON:
– I am pointing out to my honorable and learned friend that no practice will govern this case, and if he is going to search for a precedent he will go on blundering. It appears to me to be almost an atrocious blunder. Surely it must have struck the Minister that the Senate might have some say about the tea duty. Supposing that it is restored, what then ? It simply means that thousands of pounds will for this year have been lost to each State by a blunder in administration. I think the blunder is the more to be deprecated, because as the Constitution is entirely new, it requires some little thought. I should like to know whether the Collector of Customs or the Minister gave any thought to it. If they gave no thought to it, there is the blunder; and, if they did give thought to it, are they going to give away the rights of the Senate? Are they going to Jay down a rule that in all cases in which a duty is reduced in another place below the rate which the Government thinks fair, the collector must at once remit the duty. I quite agree with Senator Downer, that if it is not a written part of the Constitution it is certainly an unwritten right of the Senate to be consulted in a matter of this sort.
Senator Drake:
– Every time that a-duty has been altered a date has been fixed Surely the honorable and learned senator has seen each resolution in the newspapers.
Senator DOBSON:
– Some of us are absolutely objecting to that. We say that it is constitutionally wrong, and it is the magnitude of the tea duty which has stirred us up, and made us see what an important matter it is. May I put this point to the Minister. Suppose we had more of a protectionist Senate - thank goodness we have not ! - than of a freetrade Senate, and suppose that the Senate deliberately set to work to suggest that higher duties should in every case be put into operation. It is a most reasonable suggestion. It is probable that the Senate may in years to come have a protectionist majority. I hope it will not, but it may. Suppose that 100 items were at once raised to the higher amount. What course would the Minister take ? I must confess that I knew the tea duty was not being .collected, but the point raised by Senator Downer did not strike me. Before it was decided whether the Government should collect the duties by an Executive minute, or whether they should adopt Dr. Quick’s idea by passing an Act, I heard it suggested that the higher duty in each State should be collected, and it seems to me that that was a suggestion worth thinking about. We should not allow a lower duty than that proposed by the Ministry to be collected simply because one half of Parliament thinks fit to reduce it without the consent ofthe other. As to what is to be done, I can see that the passing of a special Act of Parliament would raise many objections. There would be considerable difficulty in passing such a measure. It appears to me that this is one of those matters in which we shall have togo along and make our own practice under the Constitution. That is why the importance of the point raised by Senator Downer cannot be exaggerated. But I think we may expect to have one practical result from . the discussion which has taken place. That would be secured if my honorable and learned friend the Postmaster-General would consult with his colleagues to see if he could not get back to the practice, which I am sure is the right one, for the protection of the revenue. That is, that wherever duties are being raised without the authority of an Act of Parliament, the principle to be followed should be simply and solely one of protecting the revenue.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia). - I was sorry, sir, to hear Senator McGregor speak of this matter as reminding him of a dog baying at the moon. I am afraid that my honorable friend does not care as much for the preservation of the rights of the Senate as I do.
Senator McGregor:
– Oh, yes, I do !
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– He reproached us because we had not noticed other matters on which duties had been collected previously, and upon which duties were no longer collected in consequence of resolutions passed in another place. Speaking for my own part, I had not the least idea in the world that these duties were not being still collected. When somebody told me in Adelaide- and it was a man high in the Customs - that this was being done, I could not believe it. He said to me - “I cannot believe it is true that the
Government are at once going to take off the duty on tea in consequence of a resolution passed in the House of Representatives.” I said - “That is nonsense! They cannot do it !” It may have been very blamable on my part not to make inquiries on the subject, and not to know what the Government were doing in respect to other matters. But it was also blamable on the part of Senator McGregor if he knew all about it, and I do not know whether he did.
Senator Stewart:
– Does not the honorable and learned senator believe him?
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– I believe Senator McGregor with regard to every statement he makes. But I think it was a little blamable on his part that he did not happen to mention it ; and I believe he did not mention it, because he did not bother much about it, or because he thought that the rights of the Senate were a matter of no consequence - that we were only to be looked upon as a kind of Legislative Council, and that the other branch of the Legislature was to rule the roast. That is what I am afraid was in my. honorable friend’s mind more than any other question - that the Senate was to have the brand of inferiority placed upon it, and was not to have the benefit which the Constitution gave to it, but be put in the position of a House of Lords or a Legislative Council. But so long as I am a member of this Senate - and I do not care how soon I cease to be - I mean to stand by the principles for which Australia voted in the establishment of the Commonwealth Constitution. I am very much obliged to Senator Best for calling attention to what I ought to have remembered in regard to the Customs Act. In moving this motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I said that it is an unwritten law, but as true and as good as if it were written in the Constitution, that for the purpose of right and justice Governments can impose duties arbitrarily, which duties are to remain until Parliament has decided to the contrary ; subject only to increases which Parliament makes from time to time in the course of the passage of the measure through the two Houses. But in the Customs Act we have a distinct and authoritative recognition of that principle. We have a declaration in section 226 of that Act that -
No proceeding, whether against an officer or otherwise, for anything done for the protection of -the revenue in relation to any Tariff or Tariff alteration proposed in Parliament, shall, except as mentioned in the next section, be commenced before the close of the session in which such Tariff or Tariff alteration is proposed.
We have there a complete recognition and declaration of what our duty is. Surely if any one in this Senate wants to preserve our rights, he ought to agree with me, as Senator McGregor does, although grudgingly, in saying - “ Let us devise means for giving effect to what ought to be our position in this matter.” How are we to give effect to it 1 At present I am inclined to agree with Senator Best’s suggestion that we should pass a Bill denning the practice. It would be convenient, and it would have the effect of quietening both Houses, and also of quietening trade, if we established the proper practice to be followed. As at present advised, I think that would probably be’ the best course to take. But I always nave this fear, in resorting to precise legislation, that it does not give rights, but generally operates in the direction of limiting rights ; and whilst we are asking to make the position of the Senate pure, clear, and unassailable, we may be practically limiting our position, whilst we desire to assert it. I do not want, however, to express my opinion on the matter conclusively.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– An Act cannot limit our powers under the Constitution.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– It appears to me that it would be very well if we had an Act relating simply to questions of Customs and Tariffs.
Senator Best:
– Crystalizing the practice.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– Crystalizing the practice, as my honorable and learned friend says. With reference to the paint as to the legislative duties of both Houses, and putting into law the conditions under which the Government may impose a Tariff, I think the suggestion is a good one. At all events, this discussion will not have been wasted if, as I think is the case, we are all agreed that a great departure has been made from the intentions of the Constitution, and a great injury done to rights which this House has authority to exercise. I hope that out of this discussion some good will come. If Senator Best will assist me, I will endeavour to frame something that will bring into actual legislative substance the intentions which I fancy are practically unanimous, as expressed in the opinions of honorable senators. I do not agree with Senator Ewing, by the way, that it is simply a question of administration. He says that it is not a constitutional question. But it is, I think, very much a question in which our constitutional rights are involved. While Senator Ewing said that it was only a question of administration, he admitted that he wanted the remission of the duty on tea, though he said at the* same time that the consumer would have to pay pretty -much the same price for his tea as before. I do not think it necessary to follow the honorable and learned senator in that matter, as he did not appear to reach any satisfactory conclusion so far as the consumer is concerned. We are not discussing the tea duty or whether its remission was right or wrong. We are discussing a much greater and more vital question, which goes ‘to our very life blood as a Senate.
Senator McGregor:
– Is not Senator Downer glad that the poor woman is getting her tea cheaper ?
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– She is not getting her tea any cheaper.
Senator McGregor:
– Oh ! yes she is.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
– Then I am glad to hear it. But apart from the question of the tea duty, we have to consider a question which goes to the very life blood of the proper objects of this Chamber, and involves the question of whether Ministries are to be made and unmade only in the other House, and whether we are to have no voice in Such- matters. It involves the whole question really of whether the Government established under our Constitution is tobe a Constitutional Government as understood in the local Parliaments. In that is involved the protest I have always made against assuming that there is any necessary relation between the position of the Senate and that of a State Legislative Council. If the Government can act merely on a resolution passed by the committee of another place, it is because the Government suppose that a majority in another place can turn them out. In that is involved the constitutional question of the Senate and the question of the absolute inferiority of this portion of the Legislature. Against that idea I intend to struggle as long as I have the honour of a seat in this Chamber, with the object of carrying out the intentions of the Constitution. Our relations with the House of Representatives are not those of the House of Lords to the House of Commons, or of a Legislative Council to a Legislative Assembly, but we are practically a co-equal House. Although for convenience, limitations in a certain direction have to be placed upon us, we are practically a House with co-ordinate rights with the other House, and I hope we mean to assert them.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
page 11303
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
In Committee - (Consideration of message of House of Representatives.)
Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist
– I should like to say before we proceed to consider the message of the House of Representatives, that out of 61 amendments that were made in the Public Service Bill by the Senate, the other House has agreed to 47. It has agreed to several more with amendments, and there are 10 of our amendments with which the other House disagrees.
Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland
– May I be permitted to urge once more that some common-sense method should be adopted in showing the amendments made in the various Bills ? I confess that I am utterly at a loss to follow some of the measures as returned from another place. Words that are struck out should be shown in erased type, and words that are inserted should be shown in large black letters. It is utterly impossible for us to conduct our business properly when Bills are brought before us in the way in which they reach us from the House of Representatives.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– I think that the amendments are perfectly clear.
Senator GLASSEY:
– Yesterday I obtained one copy of the Public Service Bill, which differed from a second copy with which I was supplied. Subsequently, I received yet another copy, which was at variance with the other two.
The CHAIRMAN:
– It will be convenient to take the amendments in the order in which they appear on the printed list, and I propose to follow that course.
Clause 5 -
- Out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth there shall be payable to the commissioner a salary at the rate of fifteen hundred pounds per annum, and to each inspector a salary at the rate of eight hundred pounds per annum.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to insert “ seven,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on.
Sub-clause (6) of clause 5 incidentally provides for the salary of the commissioner, which this Chamber reduced from £1,500 a year to £1,200 ayear. We also reduced the salary of the inspectors from £800 to £700 per annum. The House of Representatives have re-inserted the word “eight” in lieu of the word “seven,” but they have put before it the words “not exceeding.” That is to say, the House of Representatives desire that instead of fixing the salary at £800 per annum, we shall provide that the payment shall be “not exceeding £800 per annum.” That would be the maximum salary, and it would be open to the commissioner and the Government in appointing inspectors to fix their salaries at anything under £800 a year.
Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia
– I would prefer to see the clause stand as amended by us, for I think £700 a year is ample. I can understand, however, that there is some little reason for the amendment made by the House of Representatives. I realize that an inspector would have more work to do in States like New South Wales or Victoria than he would be called upon to perform in South Australia, Western Australia, or Tasmania, and, therefore, the salaries of these officers may vary. An inspector in Tasmania might receive £400 a year,’ the officer appointed for South Australia might be paid £500 or £600 a year, while a still higher salary might be given in those States where the work would be heaviest. On the understanding that the inspectors will be paid in proportion to the work they have to perform, I am agreeable that the amendment made by the House of Representatives should be adopted.
Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia
– I think the committee might very well disagree with the amendment made by the House of Representatives. Senator Playford was one of those who pointed out when this Bill was last before us that £700 a year was quite sufficient for these officers, and surely he has had no reason to change his opinion since then ? Once a maximum salary is fixed, the inspectors for the several
States will consider they have an equal claim to it. That fact has been brought home to us already in dealing with the Estimates. Because a certain official received a salary of £900 per annum while in the employ of one of the States, it was said that the same remuneration should be given by the Commonwealth. I believe this proposal by another place is only one method of getting over the Senate’s objection to the proposed payment of £800 a year. If we agree to it there will be no peace until all the officers receive the maximum salary. I should like to point out that, unless some scale of living and travelling allowances is fixed, the inspector for Western Australia will be in a worse position than the inspector for Victoria. He will have to do a great deal more travelling, while the cost of living will be higher.; I fail to see how it would be possible to fix a -sliding scale of payments, although I would be prepared to provide that the salary paid -to the inspectors should not exceed £700 a year. At present there is a great outcry for economy. Apparently people are be- coming dissatisfied with the high salaries paid to civil servants. It is said that we :are making the civil service too attractive, -and yet when the Senate makes a proposal such as this for economy, the House of Representatives, backed up by the Government, opposes it. I see no reason why we should depart from the amendment originally made by us.
Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria
– I intend to support the amendment made in another place. While I believe in economy I consider that it should be true economy. We’ should not en- deavour to get important work carried out by men who are paid insufficient salaries.. It is distinctly in the interests of the public that there should be a few prizes in connexion with the public service. I do not think £800 a year is too much to pay the ^inspectors, having regard to the class of work required of them, and it seems to me -that the proposed saving of £100 a year -would not be wise economy. I agree with Senator Pearce that the labour and resposibility thrown on the inspector in Western Australia will be in many respects in excess of those which the inspector in Victoria will have to face, and I should be pleased to ;see him receive £800 a year while the officer in Victoria received only £700. In the commercial world we have to pay higher salaries in Western Australia than in Victoria because of the increased cost of living over there.
Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania
– I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is intended to allow the inspectors the whole of their travelling expenses in addition to their salaries, and also whether he proposes to ask the committee to insist upon its amendment in regard to the commissioner’s salary.
Senator DRAKE:
– I presume that the inspectors will receive travelling expenses on the ordinary scale provided for under the Bill. They must either receive their actual expenses, or an allowance according to scale. To require an inspector to pay his expenses. out of his own salary would be to discourage him to travel. I propose to ask the committee not to insist on their amendment reducing the salary of the commissioner.
Senator Dobson:
– More extravagance.
Senator DRAKE:
– It relates only to one official, and involves only a few hundred pounds. It is a case in which we require to give a good salary in order to obtain the services of the best man available, although, so far as I am aware, the Government have no particular man in view.
Senator STEWART:
Queensland
– ! intend to oppose the amendment made by the House of Representatives. In dealing with these salaries I think we should be extremely careful. There is a good deal of talk about economy, but whenever any effort in that direction is made some honorable senators seem to interpose every possible obstacle in the way. ‘We have a very clear duty before us, and that is to keep down expenditure as much as possible. It will be easy for us subsequently, when we ascertain what the duties of these officers are and what the paying capacity of the Commonwealth is, to increase their salaries. In my opinion we can obtain just as good an officer for £700 a year as it is possible to secure for £800 a year.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– That has npt been my experience.
Senator STEWART:
– It appears to me that that is the case at any rate so far as the public service is concerned. Then the honorable senator said that there should be some prizes. I agree that there ought to be some prizes in the civil service as there are in other walks of life, but, as a matter of fact, promotion in the public service, especially to the higher officers, is more often the result of back-stair influence, button-holing members of Parliament, and intriguing with Ministers of the Crown, than the result of sheer hard work and merit. The inspectors have an opportunity of showing what is in them at a maximum salary of £700 per annum. If we find that they do their work well we can increase their salaries, but until we see how they acquit themselves, and what the Commonwealth can afford to pay, we ought to be extremely careful in increasing the salaries of these officials.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia
– I intend to oppose the amendment proposed by the other House. I regret to see that there is a tendency on the part of honorable senators to be particularly cheese-paring with regard to the salaries paid to junior officers, and a disinclination to allow a living wage to the younger members of the civil service, while there is an extreme generosity in discussing the salaries of the higher officials. For an inspector a salary of £700 a year is ample. I should have preferred a provision that it should not exceed £700 a year, so that a differentiation could be made in the various States. I do not know whether it is the intention in the first place to appoint six inspectors. The Bill says that the inspectors shall not exceed six in number. It does not say that there shall be an inspector for each State. I should have thought that there would be two or three inspectors appointed for the Postal and Telegraph department, and other inspectors, who would be thoroughly au fait with the work of the Customs department. There is a general feeling in the various States that the Commonwealth Government is inclined to be rather extravagant, and it is in the civil service that the chief expenditure will be incurred. The new expenditure of the Commonwealth, up to the present at any rate, is not above the estimate of the Adelaide Convention, but the danger is that the control of the transferred departments will be more expensive than it was under the States. When we are appointing these officers we should see that high salaries are not paid. If we adopt the suggestion of the other House, and say that the salary shall not exceed £800, there is not the slightest doubt that every influence will be brought to bear to secure for each inspector that maximum, and if only one or two receive it, the others will look upon it as an invasion of State rights. I shall oppose unnecessarily high salaries being paid to the inspectors and to the commissioner. It would be far better to see that every civil servant is allowed a living wage, and that officers in very high positions are not paid salaries out of proportion to the services which they render.
SenatorGLASSEY (Queensland).- When the Bill was originally before the Senate I fought very strongly for the commissioner receiving a salary of £1,500 a year, and the inspectors a salary of £800 each. No doubt the Minister for Home Affairs has given considerable attention to this matter, and feels that in order to obtain the services of first-class inspectors good salaries should be paid. Taking into account the position which the inspectors will occupy, and the want of enthusiasm for reasonable salaries to men in the lower grades, I think that a salary of £700 a year is a fairly generous one. The finances of the States are not in too good a position, and economy must be practised. In many instances salaries must be reduced, and probably dismissals will have to take place. The Postmaster-General will act wiselyin not pressing the matter to a division.I must adhere strictly to the compromise which was arrived at.
Senator Drake:
– There was no compromise.
Senator GLASSEY:
– It was a question between £600 and £800, and as a compro-. raise I moved that the salary of the inspectors be fixed at £700 a year. I am not prepared to vote more than that sum now, especially as I believe that the finances of some of the States are desperately straitened. If we had abundance of money at our disposal we might give a salary of £800 to induce first-class men to apply for the positions, but from correspondence in my possession I know that some of the best men in Queensland are quite prepared to accept appointment at a salary of £700 a year. I know that the same thing applies in Victoria and New South Wales. We shall get men of as great capacity as is required for the positions at that salary.
Question - That the amendment of the Senate, to insert “seven,” be not insisted on - put. The committee divided -
Ayes … … … 5
Noes … … … 16
Majority … … 11
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment insisted on.
House of Representatives’ consequential amendment disagreed to.
Clause 52 (Appointee to assure his life).
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– The Senate struck out this clause, and inserted the following : - 52a. Subject to the provisions of the Act every officer on the confirmation of his appointment shall effect an insurance of his life with some life assurance company or society carrying on business in Australia, providing for such benefits asmay be prescribed, and for increasing from time to time the amount assured. Provided that this section shall not apply to any officer who at the time of his appointment is already assured in such company or society for benefits equivalent to those prescribed.
The other House is willing to accept our new clause with two amendments, namely : a verbal one to substitute “ this “ for “ the “ before “ Act “ in line 1, and to omit “ carrying on business in Australia “ with a view to insert “ approved by the GovernorGeneral, registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth, or as may be prescribed.”
Senator Matheson:
– What is meant by the words - “ as may be prescribed “ ?
Senator DRAKE:
– I take that term to mean that the Governor-General may by regulation prescribe particular offices for civil servants to assure in.
Senator Millen:
– It gets back to the original provision.
Senator DRAKE:
– The Government could choose an office, and in case of approval by the Governor-General, that would throw upon the Government the responsibility of saying whether it was a fit office for civil servants to assure in. I must say thatI do not like the amendment. I move : -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives substituting “ this” for “ the “ before “ Act” be agreed to.
Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales
– I propose to stand by the amendment of the Senate. I ask honorable senators to consider what the previous amendment was aimed at. It was originally proposed that the assurance should be limitedto companies which had their head offices in Australia. That was a distinct bar against companies which had their chief places of business in other countries. We know very well that it was distinctly aimed at two offices. The Senate taking a liberal view, put in an amendment which allowed civil servants to take out their policies in any society doing business in Australia. The other House, without objecting strongly to our amendment, proposes a new one, which has the same effect as if they had ob jected to it ; because what they propose to put in is that an officer may assure in any office doing business in the Commonwealth or as may be prescribed by the Governor-General . That means that the Government of the day may prescribe an office having its head office in Australia, and the clause as amended leaves it in the hands of the Government to say whether an officer shall be able to pick his office, or whether he shall be limited to particular offices. In the first place, I do not believe in leaving more to the Government than is absolutely necessary. In this case it is not necessary to leave it to the Government to prescribe the office in which the policy of a public servant shall be taken out. This power might be used unjustly towards a section of the officers, or a section of the offices doing business in the Commonwealth.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by the omission of the words “ or as may be prescribed.”
Senator HIGGS:
Queensland
– Senator Millen takes exception to putting power in the hands of the Government; but what is the meaning of the words “ approved by the Governor-General,” which the honorable senator agrees to allow to remain in ? The Government will suggest certain offices, I suppose. I take it that Senator Millen’s objection would better be attained by striking out the words “approved by the GovernorGeneral,” and allowing the words “ or as may be prescribed “ to remain in the clause. We shall have an opportunity, if we wish, of disagreeing with the regulations, whereas, if we strike out the words “ or as may be prescribed “ there will be no such opportunity. Personally, I think that the amendment of the House of Representatives is a good one. Otherwise, members of the civil service may assure in bogus offices. The Government could, by regulation, prescribe certain offices, and I take it that bond fide assurance offices will be able to apply to have their names placed upon the list of offices in which Government servants may assure their lives.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia
– The mistake on the part of the Government has been in forcing civil servants to assure with private companies. As the Government fought so strongly against State assurance, the responsibility should rest on them of selecting the offices in which civil servants may assure. I cannot agree with Senator Millen that the officers should be allowed to select the offices in which they desire to assure their lives. That would be a wrong principle, because the fact of the Government insisting upon their assuring their lives in a private company carries with it the moral responsibility of assuring the stability of that company. If we force civil servants to assure with private companies, and a company suspends payment, we are morally bound to make good the payments made by the civil servants. It would be a great mistake to give the officers the option of assuring in any society they like, which would mean that societies that are not in a financially sound position would make great efforts to obtain business from civil servants by offering policies at low premiums. I desire to leave in the words “approved by the Governor-General,” and to strike out the words “ or as may be prescribed,” because otherwise the Government will shift the responsibility from their own shoulders and place it upon the House of Representatives or the Senate, with the idea of getting them to sanction what the Government have done. The mistake made was in voting against ray amendment in favour of State assurance, which it will be remembered was rejected by one vote. Now the Government desire to shift from their shoulders the responsibility of selecting the societies in.which the officers may insure, and giving the Senate and the House of Representatives the odium of objecting to any office that is unsound.
Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia
– I am sorry I cannot agree with
Senator Millen in his proposed amendment, which does not go far enough. I do not see what is to be gained by striking out the words “or as maybe prescribed,” and leaving in the words “approved by the GovernorGeneral.” If we are going to strike out the one phrase we should strike out the other. If the Governor-General in Council - that is to say, the Ministry - is to be given the right of dealing with this question, a mistake will be made. It is candidly admitted on the part of those who desire that the Ministry should intervene that the object of that intervention is to give security to the persons being assured. But tins is not the proper way to go about it.. If the Ministry is going to discriminate as to the goodness or badness of assurance offices, it should be done by express enactment in that direction. It is extremely undesirable that we should attempt -to gain that end through a clause in the Public Service Bill. If the Government think that offices carrying on business in Australia are unsound, they should bring in legislation to restrict the operations of those offices, but they should not by means of this Bill try to make one class of the community secure and not the whole community. It should not be attempted to cast a slur on a number of offices by proclamation through the medium of this measure. I quite agree with Senator Smith that it would have been desirable for the Government to start a system of assurance of their own ; but seeing that they have not seen fit to do that, they are bound to leave every civil servant open to assure in any of the recognised assurance offices in the Commonwealth. That is secured by the words “registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth.” Every company carrying on business here has tb have a certain amount of assets in the Commonwealth or in a State. I think the clause was excellent as it left the Senate, and that it cannot be improved in the way proposed. I shall, therefore, vote against the amendment of Senator Millen and also against the amendment of another place.
Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia
– It would be much better to disagree with the amendment of the House of Representatives. We have passed the clause in a very ‘simple form. We have provided that our officers may assure in any company carrying on business in Australia, and why do we want to bother any further about it? If we enter into any further complications we may find ourselves inserting an amendment which we do not mean. The clause, as it stood as we passed it, expressed exactly what we meant. No company can carry on business in Australia unless it is registered, and the object of the clause is to insist that companies in which our officers assure shall be those which are being conducted here. The shortest way of dealing with the matter would be simply to insist upon the clause as it stood when it left the Senate.
Senator DRAKE:
– It would be well for us to leave in the word “ registered.” I am not sure that in all the States assurance companies carrying on business are required to be registered. Rut there is some ground for objecting to the expression “ approved by the Governor-General,” because certainly it throws a great amount of responsibility on the Government in deciding whether an office shall be approved or not. I am therefore willing to accept an amendment to strike out the words “ approved by the Governor-General,” and the words “as may be prescribed.” The amendment of the House of Representatives will then read -
Registered and carrying on business in the Commonwealth.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - With the permission of the committee, I am willing to withdraw my amendment, and accept the suggestion of the PostmasterGeneral.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by the omission of the words “‘approved by the Governor-General,” and the words ‘ ‘ as may be prescribed. “
Amendment of the House of Representatives, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 (Rent charged to officers residing in Government buildings).
Senator DRAKE:
– Clause 63 was struck out of the Bill as sent by the Senate to the House of Representatives. It relates .to making a charge for quarters occupied by officers. There was a difference of opinion as to what would be a fair rent, and as to whether the rent should be deducted from the officer’s salary or not. The House of Representatives has decided that there should be some provision of the kind in the Bill in order to enable a uniform practice to be adopted with regard to the arrangements as to quarters. The other place therefore proposes to re-insert in the clause two amendments. The first of these provides that the rent charged shall be a sum “not exceeding 10 per centum on the salary of such officer.” That will meet the objection that a number of honorable senators pointed out - that it will be a hardship to charge an officer for expensive quarters which are larger than required for the necessities of his family. It is also proposed to insert before the word “commissioner,”’ the words “Governor-General on the recommendation of the.” It is necessary to have some provision of this kind in. order to be able exactly to fix a man’s salary for the purposes of classification, and so on. At present a man may be enjoying a salary of £500 a year and the free use of quarters valued at £50 a year, which would make his remuneration equal to £550 a year. Another officer may be receiving £550 a year, from which a deduction of £50 is made in respect of quarters. The result is the same ; but while one man’s salary would appear on the estimates as being £550 per annum, the other officer’s remuneration would appear as being £500 a year, with the result that the former might’ gain an advantage when a higher position was being filled. With the safeguard now provided I think that there is nc danger of any officer being charged for quarters entirely in excess of his requirements. I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit clause 63, to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on ; and that the consequential amendments of the House of Representatives be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 5 -
- The commissioner and inspectors shall each be appointed for a term of seven years, and shall be eligible for reappointment.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– The House of Representatives has disagreed with the amendments made by the Senate omitting the words “ and inspectors,” as well as the word “each,” from sub-clause (2) of clause 5. These amendments relate to the status of the inspectors. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the subject : but I would ask honorable senators to consider the importance of the position which will be occupied by the inspectors under the Federation. This is a matter in which we should have some regard to the conditions and necessities of the various States. It would be almost impossible -for the civil service of the Commonwealth to be managed from one centre in the same way as a public service can be managed in a small country with a unified Government. As the inspectors will be engaged in the outlying States, far removed, probably, from the centre of administration, I think it is desirable that they should have a certain defined position. I feel sure that if we insist upon our amendments, and by so doing reduce the position of the inspectors to that of an ordinary civil servant, we shall in course of time have serious complaints made that their opinions are being over-ridden. The inspectors Will have to report to the commissioner. If in the course of time it is found that they do not make recommendations which some people believe they ought to make, or that having made recommendations they back down, no doubt the complaint will arise that they are too much under the control of the commissioner. The object of giving them a seven years’ tenure of office is that they may be placed, not exactly in the same position as that occupied by the commissioner, but in a position somewhat approximating it. We trust that whatever they see in the discharge of their duties they will report to the commissioner, and stand by their reports if there are good grounds for them. In these circumstances, it is desirable that we should give them something like a position of independence by providing for a secured tenure of office. The object of the Bill, as drawn originally, was to place the inspectors in a position somewhat more secure than that occupied by an-ordinary civil servant in order that they might be removed from any pressure which might be brought to bear upon them. I think there is nearly as much reason for making that provision as there is in the case of a commissioner. I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit “and inspectors,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on.
Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania
– I cannot follow the Postmaster-General’s contention. If (he clause remains as we passed it there can be no difficulty in securing suitable nien. The probability is that they will all be selected from the ranks of the civil service. It will be very easy for the GovernorGeneral to propose that if a man vacates a position already held by him in the service in order to take the office of inspector he may go back to that position, so that if the office of inspector is done away with at the end of three years, employment will still be found for him in the federal service. It seems to me that that would be a more business-like proceeding than to provide that the inspectors shall be appointed for seven years.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– It would be impossible to keep a place open for any of them under this Bill.
Senator DOBSON:
– Then it must be a very faulty Bill. It only shows that the statements made in another place, in order to coax honorable members to accept the clause, were inconsistent with the statements made here for the same purpose. I object to the appointment of inspectors. As I have said before, Tasmania will not be able to find sufficient employment for one of them. When the inspectors have reported on all the officers of the service, and the service is properly classified, their work will be materially reduced, and it would be unwise to provide for a seven years’ tenure. It is wrong to say that, by giving these high salaries and this long tenure of office, we are likely to obtain heaven-born men for the offices of the commissioner and inspectors, and we shall make a mistake if we do not insist upon our amendment.
Senator EWING:
Western Australia
– I think that the suggestion of the House of Representatives is the right one, and that it is consistent with a prior amendment made by us. Originally the Bill provided that the inspectors should exercise certain power “during the pleasure of the commissioner.” We struck out the words “during the pleasure of the commissioner,” so as to make the inspectors more independent of that officer and to give them greater freedom in furnishing their reports. It seems quite consistent to me that the inspectors as well as the commissioner should have security of tenure. From time to time an inspector may get at loggerheads with the various heads of departments, and we should make him independent so that he will be able to fight them when they are in the wrong. An inspector may be taken out of the ranks of the service. If that is done, and no security of tenure is given him, he will have to look to the head of the department in which he was formerly employed to get back to the service in the event of his office being abolished. Is it not manifest, therefore, that under such circumstances he would not be prepared to quarrel with the head of a department if he could avoid doing so? I voted against the appointment of a commissioner and inspectors, but if we are going to have these instruments for the protection of the community, let us by all means expend our money in a way that will make the officers most efficient in the duties which they have to perform.
Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia
– Senator Ewing should remember that, even if we appoint the inspectors for a term of seven years, they will still be under the control of the commissioner, because the power of suspension is placed in his hands.
Senator Drake:
– That is all the more reason why we should give the inspectors the tenure of office proposed.
Senator PEARCE:
– I think not. If we do not insist upon our amendments in this sub-clause, inspectors will be placed in no better position so far as the commissioner is concerned, but Parliament will be in a worse position in regard to its power of dealing with them. We may find in the course of two or three years that we can dispense with the services of the inspectors, and if we allow them to be appointed for seven years we may find ourselves in the position occupied by the Victorian Government, which, when it desired to dispense with the services of one of its railway commissioners, had to pay him some thousands of pounds in order to get rid of him. It has been said that we could not keep a position in the service open to an inspector, but we have power to make special appointments. If Parliament decided that these inspectors were unnecessary, or that their number should be reduced, they could be transferred to some other division of the service, provided that there were vacancies and that there was nothing against them. Parliament must retain a certain amount of power in its hands. It was decided only by a majority of one that inspectors should be appointed, and are we to provide that they shall have a seven years’ tenure of office, thus taking away from Parliament the right to say at any time that the time has arrived when they can be dispensed with ? If we wished to retire them before the end of seven years we should have to compensate them.
Senator Barrett:
– It would be very difficult to remove them at any time.
Senator PEARCE:
– Just as difficult as it would be to remove a Judge of the High
Court. No reasons were given by the House of Representatives for disagreeing with our amendment. I ask the committee to retain a certain amount of control over these officers, who, it has been said, will be merely the eyes and ears of the commissioner. If that is the case, it affords a greater reason for placing them under his control.
Senator DRAKE:
– There will be plenty of control over them. The commissioner’s report will have to come before Parliament, and if we find that the commissioner is not acting up to the reports of his inspectors we shall have to decide who istoblame. We shall be doing right by not insisting upon our amendment.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia
– If we desire to get really strong men in the position of inspectors, we should give them a fixed tenure of office. There isno doubt that in reclassification they will have a very difficult duty to perform, and one that will raise up very strenuous opposition from many civil servants. If an inspector’s tenure of office is equal only to that of an ordinary civil servant, it will be a temptation to him not to make drastic proposals. I believe that there are cases where the civil service is over-manned. We wishto keep down expense as much as possible. It will be the duty of an inspector, if such a case occurs, to point out that the civil service is over-manned and that certain officers should be dismissed. It may be his duty to make proposals with regard to civil servants perhaps in high positions. And it may be necessary at times for him to send in reports that are not according to the wishes of the commissioner. If he is not to feel that he may speak exactly as he thinks, a very great injustice will be done to our civil service. Our desire is to have a civil service which is not over-manned, and in which every officer will have his allotted work and be paid according to the value of the services which he renders. In reclassifying the civil service a great deal of dissatisfaction will occur ; the position of some officers will be altered ; and, therefore, it is necessary for each inspector to be a very strong man. Unless he has a fixed tenure of office I feel absolutely certain that there will be a great temptation to him to make as few alterations as possible, so as not to raise a nest of hornets about his ears.
Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia
– Some of us who opposed the appointment of the board in the .first place argued that the work might be accomplished in less than seven years, and that then it might be necessary to dispense with the services of some or all of the inspectors. It has been decided that the commissioner is to be a permanent officer and that the in- spectors are to be his assistants. I presume that when the board is appointed the Government will appoint the six inspectors in order that the service may be re-organized as quickly as possible. After having weeded out the unnecessary officers and put all the departments in good working order, surely it will not be necessary to retain the inspectors ? “Why should we be compelled to engage their services for seven years when they may be able to accomplish all the work within a period of three or four years? Although we retain the commissioner as head over all the public servants, lt is not necessary to ask for the same permanency of office for his assistants.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I have heard only one reason against a definite tenure which seems to call for any notice, and it is the possibility of the inspectors’ work being exhausted before the seven years’ term has run its course. Itseems to me to be stretching things much too far to suppose that in these large States, with an ever-growing public service - and it must grow as public requirements grow - the duties which the inspectors will be called upon to perform will become exhausted. In my opinion they will be required as long as the Act lasts in order to exercise supervision over the service at large, and not only to carefully note the grievances of individual officers, but to correct errors in grading. The best work which is being done in New South Wales to-day is that of revising the work which was necessarily in the first case so hastily pei-formed. As I believe that the inspectors are more likely to discharge their duties fearlessly and properly if they have a definite tenure of office, I shall vote with the Postmaster-General.
Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia
– I quite agree with the remarks of Senator Millen, who might have strengthened his position by quoting clause 11. It is provided in that clause that the commissioner shall furnish ‘ an annual report. The only method by which he could furnish an annual report would be by receiving reports from the six inspectors.
Senator Charleston:
– And from the heads of departments.
Senator MATHESON:
– Obviously it would never do for the commissioner to take the inspectors’ reports only; he would require to get independentevidence. We should make the inspectors, as far as we possibly can, independent of any pressure from any department. They will still be subject to a considerable amount of pressure, because it is perfectly clear that they will be practically civil servants. The least we can do is to give them a seven years’ tenure of office, so that they_may be in a position to make impartial reports on any official whose actions they think should be commented upon. We might certainly accept the suggestion of the other House.
Senator STEWART:
Queensland
– I intend to support the proposal that the inspectors shall have a definite tenure of office. Surely honorable senators who are opposed to that proposal have not considered the work which the inspectors will be called upon to do? It will be a difficult, disagreeable, and dangerous work. If an inspector finds that a department is overmanned, and in a state of confusion, he may make a report in which he will attack the head of the department, exposing his incompetence, and bringing him into disrepute generally. .That official will immediately go to a prominent Member of Parliament,’ and if the member is sufficiently, influential, he may be able to bring pressure to bear on the Government, and things may be made very uncomfortable for the inspector. If there is a seven years’ tenure of office, there will be very great trouble in dismissing an inspector, and the dismissal of an inspector would not be tolerated, unless very good reason was shown. Senator Pearce, who is opposed to the appointment of inspectors, should bow to the will of the two Houses, and try to put these officers in such a position as will enable them to perform their duty to the country with the greatest freedom, efficiency and independence. I cannot see how that can be done, if we make the inspectors the sport and plaything of any casual political influence which may be brought to bear upon them. Supposing that an inspector makes an enemy of a high official, and is dismissed from his inspectorship, he may have to serve under that official, and we know perfectly well that this newly found superior may wish to get even with him. Why do we desire to ‘ appoint the inspectors ? Have not honorable senators read “ Papers for the People,” which have appeared in the Age, showing how the Victorian civil service is overcrowded with temporary officials 1 Our purpose in appointing these inspectors is to keep down the expenditure as much as possible, and at the same time to secure the greatest amount of efficiency. It is a common saying in every State that the civil service is overmanned and inefficient, that the “Government stroke” is prevalent in every department; that three men in Government employment do less work than two men in private employment. If I remember aright, I read in a Melbourne newspaper lately that three creatures in the public service do as much work as one man does in private employment. We do not know whether that statement is true, but we know that the expenditure on the public service in each State is great and is increasing every year. We read in the press that there are over 1,000 temporary employes in the Government offices in Melbourne. Supposing that the Victorian Government had active inspectors, would they not discover that the offices are being overmanned ? I do not know whether inspectors are employed here, but they employ commissioners, and these are under political influence. Let us give our inspectors a fair chance. If an inspector is given seven years’ tenure of office will he not have the courage to do his best for the Commonwealth, report on extravagance where it exists, and to point out cases of maladministration 1 We ought to give to the inspectors the same tenure of office as we give to the commissioner. We do wish the inspectors not to be the mere creatures of the commissioner, but to be men not afraid of his frown or likely to court his smile. Let us give them an opportunity to render the best service to the Commonwealth, and if they do not avail themselves of that opportunity we shall have their punishment in our own hands.
Senator STYLES:
Victoria
– Some of the reasons just given by Senator Stewart are precisely the reasons why I shall oppose the tenure. It appears to me that whether an officer has a fixed tenure or not, political influence can be used. The chances are that if he has a fixed tenure, he will be more influenced by politicians than if he has not. What do other employers do 1 Senator Sargood is one of the largest employers in Victoria. I wonder whether he, in his . private business, ever thought of giving an employe a tenure ?
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– Yes.
Senator STYLES:
– Probably the honorsenator makes an agreement with a man for a certain number of years, but he can deal with that man at any time he likes.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– For breach of the agreement, as we can under this Bill.
Senator STYLES:
– Under this measure an inspector is appointed for seven years fixed, and cannot be removed without the consent of Parliament; and we are told that it is the politicians who will keep such a man in his place. Surely if one man under this measure, namely, the commissioner, has a fixed tenure, that is sufficient. But it is proposed to give a fixed tenure to a man with £700 a year who is to be able to criticise an officer at the head of a department receiving £1,000 a year. If an inspector knows that he may be removed he will do his best to please the people, and to do that he must please the people’s representatives. If he does that his tenure is safe enough without being fixed. If fixity of tenure is such a good thing, -I wonder why Victoria found it necessary to disband the Public Service Board.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– It was. false economy.
Senator STYLES:
– I happened to be on an inquiry in Victoria where I came in contact with a good deal of the work of the Public Service Board, and I was by no means favorably impressed with what they had done. No doubt they did it honestly enough, but I was not impressed by their business capacity. If I had had to pay them out of my own pocket, or as agent for any one else, I should have tried to find better people for the work they had to do. Can any one point to a single instance in Victoria where a man with a fixed tenure has done much good for the State? Of course, I do not refer to the Judges of the Supreme Court, but to civil servants.
Senator Dobson:
– Was not Edward Irving a good man 1
Senator STYLES:
– The honorable and’ learned senator must be referring to the last generation. I have heard my father speak of the gentleman he alludes to.
Senator Glassey:
– Was not Mr. Matheson a good man 1
Senator STYLES:
– He was a good, careful, hard working man, but there was nothing phenomenal about him.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– Some people think so at home.
Senator STYLES:
– I am asked my opinion and am not giving the opinion of persons in England. Mr. Matheson was a good man, but he would have been just as good if he had known that at the end of any month he might have received notice to quit.
Senator Drake:
– Victoria would never have got him on such terms.
Senator STYLES:
– They had about done with him in Queensland from what I heard. Why should an officer with £700 a year have a fixed tenure, when an officer at the head of a department, who has worked his way up, may be dispensed with at any time? Senator Stewart has said that he wishes the inspectors to occupy an independent position. They will perhaps be too independent if they have a seven years’ tenure. They will be independent of every body. The weak spot in the management of the Victorian railways is that the Minister of the day is a mere go-between standing between the commissioner and Parliament. He has no real power.
Senator Pearce:
– Yet, according to the reports, the temporary hands are more numerous in the Victorian Railway department now than they ever were before.
Senator STYLES:
– One of the great complaints in former times was as to the number of temporary hands employed under the Public Service Board. Mr. Fosbery, one of the members of that board, told the committee of inquiry that the Minister had no control over him. If that were so the board must have been responsible for the emplywent of those temporary hands.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– It was Ministers who made the temporary appointments.
Senator STYLES:
– Ministers could not have made the temporary appointments without the board’s sanction. The whole system under the Public Service Board in Victoria was, in my opinion, as “rotten as a pear,” and I do not wish to see any similar system under the Commonwealth. There-, fore, I object to appointing the inspectors for seven years at £700 a year. It is just as reasonable to give a man with £300 a year a seven years tenure as to give such a tenure to a man with £700 a year.
Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria
– I intend to support the proposal to give the inspectors a tenure, for exactly the same reasons that Senator Stewart has advanced, namely, that it is in accord with true economy. Senators Charleston and Dobson have suggested that after a few months the work of the inspectors will be comparatively light. Having had to do with the introduction in 1884 of the Victorian Public Service Bill, I recollect well that that was exactly the impression that was held at that time, and the remarks made recently in this Chamber practically echo what was said in Victoria then. The Ministry of the day thought it well to make arrangements with the three commissioners, under the impression that probably after about twelve months the use for their services would be exhausted. But we had not gone far into the matter before we saw the mistake that had been made, as the work of the commissioners varied and was added to from month to month.
Senator Playford:
– Perhaps they made work for themselves.
Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
– No, they did not make work for themselves. Senator Dobson has suggested that a great deal of the work might be done by the auditors. In Victoria in 1 890, in a fit of false economy, we dispensed with the Civil Service Board, and the duties of that body devolved upon the Audit Commissioners, with most disastrous results. That is why I think Senator Styles made a mistake in what he said with regard to temporary employment. It was after the board was abolished and their duties devolved upon the Audit Commissioners that the things of which he has complained took place. The door was thrown open to the engagement of temporary officers by the thousand. I am afraid that a similar mistake has been made in this measure. If we desire to have our public service kept well in hand we must have a proper system of control by some authority which is independent and in a strong position.
Question - That the amendment of the Senate be not insisted on - put. The committee divided -
Ayes … … … li
Noes……… 10
Majority…… l
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment not insisted on.
Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit the word “each,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– The next amendment raises the question of the salary of the commissioner. The Senate proposed to make the salary £1,200 per annum instead of £1,500. The reason given by the House of Representatives for disagreeing with that amendment, is -
Because the position of the single commissioner is one of very great responsibility and importance, and a suitable officer is not likely to be obtained for the salary proposed by the amendment.
That is a very good reason for deciding that the salary fixed upon by the Senate would not be sufficient to obtain the services of the best possible man for the purpose. The position to be occupied by the commissioner is such that it is worth while to use every effort to obtain the best man available in the Commonwealth to discharge the important duties required of him under the Bill. Therefore, it is not wise to quarrel over an amount of £300. I can understand the desire for economy in the minds of honorable senators, but this is the one position upon which the welfare of the service will to a large extent depend. We have also to look to the commissioner to see that economy is maintained in the service. The extra £300 a year may make a great difference in the ability of the Government to obtain the services of the most suitable man. It must be remembered that we do not want a man who is at present out of employment. The man we want may be in some position which carries a high salary, and we might not be able to get such a man for £1,200. If we are in a position to offer £1,500 a year - I am not referring to any particular individual - we may. be able to secure the services of a man whom we should find it impossible to securefor £1,200 ayear.Forthe sake of £300 per annum, I do not think it is worth whiletying the hands of the Government in this way. I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit “fifteen” and insert “twelve,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on.
Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania
– Having regard to the way in which officers in the Tasmania State service, as well as officers in some of the other States are paid, I feel that the Senate should insist upon its amendment. We give our two puisne Judges in Tasmania £1,200 a year, and our Auditor-General about £650 or £700 per annum.
Senator Drake:
– Tasmania is a comparatively small State.
Senator DOBSON:
– If we turn to Western Australia or South Australia, we shall find that there are salaries paid to officers which would be grossly insufficient if the commissioner were to receive £1,500 per annum. Of course, we want to secure the best man for the office, but we have no guarantee that we shall do so by offering £1,500, or £15,000, a year for the position. It seems to me that we are becoming most extravagant, and unless we put our foot down firmly, Ido not know where we shall find ourselves.
Question - That the amendment of the Senate be not insisted on - put. The com mittee divided -
Ayes …. … … 3
Noes … …. …18
Majority … … 15
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment insisted on.
Clause 9 - (1.) The commissioner shall determine the division, class, subdivision of class, or grade of every officer, and
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– -I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit the. words “ shall determine the division, class, subdivision of class, or grade of every officer” be insisted on.
This is a matter which was very fully discussed by the Senate, and we came to the conclusion that these words were apparently contradictory of clause 8. The other House disagreed with the amendment, and gives this as its reason for doing so -
Because this provision is administrative only, and is not inconsistent with clause S.
I have read the Hansard report of what took place in the House of Representatives, and I cannot see that any reason was advanced against this amendment.
Questition resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment insisted on.
Clause 21 - >
- Upon the receipt of such report….. the commissioner shall determine whether such officer is entitled to the full amount or any part of the prescribed increase as a reward for earnest application to duty and meritorious public service, and in the case of a female as being as capable of satisfactorily performing the work as a male.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to omit the words “and in the case of a female as being as capable of satisfactorily performing the work as a male “ be insisted on.
Here again I am not * quite satisfied that in disagreeing with the amendment, the House of Representatives clearly understood the point at issue. Throughout the service, or at all events in the Postal department, a lower salary is paid to women than that which is paid to men for doing similar work, on the ground that females are not supposed to be as efficient as are men. That being so, if the words struck out by this committee were allowed to remain a great number of women would not be able to get the increase provided for, notwithstanding that the commissioner might report that they were entitled to it as a reward for earnest application to duty and meritorious public service. We might have a woman receiving a salary of £60 per annum, whereas a nian doing similar work might be receiving a salary of £120 per annum on the ground that he was supposed to be able to perform that particular work more efficiently. But if this clause stood without our amendment, it seems to me that the woman who was receiving only £65 a year would be debarred from receiving any increase, even although a report was made that she had shown earnest application to duty, and had performed meritorious service. When a woman does that she ought to be entitled to the increase just as a man would be entitled to it. The reason given by the House of Representatives for disagreeing with the amendment made by the Senate, is as follows : -
Because the amendment would injure the prospects of women obtaining employment in the service.
I hardly think that that can be said to be a good reason. I think that it shows that the House of Representatives, in discussing the matter, could not have fairly grasped the significance pf the amendment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment insisted on.
Clause 21 -
- Every Such officer shall be entitled, if of the age of 21 years, to a salary of £110 per annum, provided he has been employed for a period, of not less than three years in the public service, of which one year has been in such division, and provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which the salary of that amount is attached.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– In sub-clause (6) it was originally provided that the officer, before getting the minimum wage, should show by passing the prescribed examination that he was capable of doing the work of an office to which a salary of that amount was attached. When the clause was before the committee an objection was taken particularly, I think, to the word “examination,” because it was considered that it was undesirable, or, perhaps, unfair, to ask officers under certain circumstances to pass an examination. An amendment was carried to omit the words “ shows by passing the prescribed examination,” and to insert the words “ provided that he satisfies the commissioner.” Under the amended clause the commissioner might satisfy himself by means of an examination, or by any other method, that the officer was capable of doing the work of an office to which a salary of that amount was attached. In another place a different view has been taken with regard to that amendment. It has been urged there that although our amendment was intended to be advantageous to the officer, it would operate to his disadvantage, because it would be entirely in the power of the commissioner to be satisfied or dissatisfied. ‘ It would rest entirely with him to say whether he would agree to the payment of the minimum wage, and it would be exceedingly difficult to show that he was not justified in saying that he was not satisfied. Whereas, if there was a prescribed examination - that is to say, an examination fixed by regulation - it would become the prescriptive right of any officer who had been in the service for three years, and had attained the age of 21 years, if he passed the examination, to get the increase. That is the way in which the matter was represented in another place, and honorable members there seemed to be strongly impressed with that view, and they disagreed to our amendment. I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal in the contention that it will be an advantage to have an examination prescribed by regulation, because then an officer who has fulfilled the requirements of the clause in other respects may claim the right to be examined, and having passed the .examination he will become entitled to the increase. Under these circumstances I move -
That the amendment oi the Senate to omit “ shows by passing the prescribed examination,” and insert “ provided that he satisfies the Commissioner,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on.
Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland
– I shall’ oppose the motion very strongly. It certainly seems to me very peculiar that the amendment of the Senate should be detrimental to officers in the clerical division, as has been suggested by honorable members in another place. In all the States, more particularly in the larger States, every officer in the clerical division had to pass an educational examination prior to his entrance into that branch, and also before, their appointment all of them had passed technical examinations in telegraphy and other subjects. Before they can participate in this boon of the minimum wage - a wage infinitely less than the bulk of them have earned in years gone by - they must pass another examination, and, of course, it is held by some honorable members in the other House that if this is not done it is likely to be detrimental to a number of persons in the clerical division. I have never listened to such lopsided reasoning as that. I ask honorable senators once more, is it fair to ask these persons in the clerical division - some of whom are receiving exceedingly small salaries, more particularly the assistant postmistresses and telegraph operators, the bulk of whom receive £84 a year - to pass another examination before they can get the paltry salary of £110 a year? Let me point out the inconsistency of the other House. In clause 25 it insists that there shall be no examination - that the officers shall not even be asked to satisfy the commissioner whether they are worth the salary of £110 or not. I find no fault with that provision. Although many of the persons in the general division have undergone no examination, educational or technical, yet the other House says that a minimum wage of £110 is little enough for them to receive, as “indeed it is. Is it reasonable, just, or equitable that the persons in the clerical division, who have undergone two examinations, should undergo a third one before they can get that boon ? In the interests of fair play and justice to those who should have been paid a far higher salary in days gone by, I shall oppose this motion most strenuously. It means that the salary of a number of persons in the general division occupying places subordinate to a number of officers in the clerical division will immediately rise, in some cases, from £50 or £60 to £110 a year. Many persons in the clerical division who have filled important offices, and who in some cases have arrived at the age of 50 or 60 must undergo another examination, whilst their subordinates in the general division are to advance at once to a salary of £110 without having passed an examination. In many instances it will be cruel and unjust to insist on a number of the officers in the clerical division passing further examinations. Many of these officers are women who have reached a time of life when it would be manifestly cruel to ask them to undergo an examination to entitle them to a boon which they should have received years ago, by reason of their service and ability. I am astonished that any representative House in this enlightened age should act so inconsistently as the other House has done. I wish it were possible for the committee to strike out the words “ provided that he satisfies the commissioner.” What satisfaction is required by the commissioner ? I could take honorable senators to office after office in this city and point to young persons, male and female, in most subordinate places, whose salaries will be raised at once to £110, while their superiors in ability and education will be required to pass an examination before they can get that salary. I ask for fair play and justice all round. I find no fault with clause 25, because I think that £110 a year as a minimum wage is reasonable. I appeal to honorable senators not to strike a blow at a number of deserving persons who should have received higher salaries in the past. The words, “provided that he satisfies the commissioner,” were only inserted in the clause as a compromise because we could not carry another proposal. Supposing that the officers in the clerical division should get this increase, it will amount in the aggregate to £10,000, according to the figures which have been placed before us. This examination is only imposed as a barrier to prevent this money from being paid. The increases to those who are engaged in the general division - the bulk of whom are not asked to pass an examination or to satisfy the commissioner in any way - will amount to £34,000 a year. Will it be fair or just to ask a man or a woman who has served for twenty years to go up for another examination? Can Senator Drake defend the position he has taken up?
Senator DRAKE:
– Senator Glassey has not addressed himself to the particular argument that seems to have moved the other House : in fact he has avoided it entirely. The reason which it gave for disagreeing to our amendment was that it - might defeat the efficacy of the provision for a minimum wage in the clerical division.
The ground it took was that the Bill as it stood originally, would be better for the servants in the clerical division than it would be with our amendment. It was pointed out in that House that with the words “ shows by passing the prescribed examination “ any officer who had attained the age of 21 years and had been in the service for three years could insist on passing the prescribed examination, and that when he did so he was bound to get the minimum wage, whereas with our amendment, although it was put in with a good intention, he would have to satisfy the commissioner, and there was nothing to show what extent of knowledge he would be required to disclose in order to give that satisfaction. It was pointed out in the other House by an honorable member who spoke on behalf of the civil servants, that if -the clause remained as it was originally, it would give a prescriptive right to an officer when he had attained the age of 21 years and had served three years in the service, to insist upon being allowed to pass the examination and to claim the minimum wage. The point that I think Senator Glassey did not address himself to is the position taken up by the House of Representatives, that they object to our amendment on the ground that it is hostile to the interests of the officers, and that to agree to it would be to impair the efficacy of the minimum wage provision. I take that view also.
Senator EWING (Western Australia).I think that the reasons given by the House of Representatives for its action are rather inconsistent with that action. The clause we are dealing with refers to the clerical division. Subsequently we shall deal with the general division. What is good for the general division is good for the clerical division, and if a minimum wage is justifiable in the case of the general division, it is equally justifiable for the clerical division. The provision which I voted against before I saw the condition of the departments in the various States, and before I saw that there were dozens of people in the service receiving under £80 a year, . who had been in the service ten, fifteen, and twenty years, was a principle which I believe strongly to be wrong, but nevertheless I am going to vote for it to-night. I do not believe in the principle of the minimum wage, but I am willing to adopt it in this instance in order to cure the defect I have pointed out. My position is that though I do not like the minimum wage as applied generally, yet I believe in the payment of a reasonable and fair wage under the conditions in which a man is working ; and when I find that if we do not put something of this kind in the Bill we shall probably perpetuate the conditions under which some men have been working for fifteen or twenty years, I am prepared to accept the minimum wage as the only remedy that is at hand at the moment. If we had in this Bill a principle by which a man by appealing to some system of wages boards could ascertain what he was entitled to receive, I should not be prepared to accept a minimum wage provision. But we have nothing of that kind. Consequently I shall vote for such a provision as will enable a man after three years’ service, and on attaining the age of 21 years, to receive the salary of £110 per annum as a minimum. I also urge that if officers are to get this boon as a matter of right in the general division
Ave should bring the clerical division as nearly in touch with that provision as possible.
Senator GLASSEY (Queensland). - I want to clear up the point raised by the Postmaster-General with regard to his suggestion that I had evaded the question raised by the House of Representatives as to whether it was better or more beneficial for officers in the clerical division before getting the minimum wage of £110 to undergo an examination to be prescribed, or to receive that wage on satisfying the commissioner that they are entitled to it. As the Bill came to us the clause in question contained the words - “ and shows by passing the prescribed examination.” We removed those words as a matter of compromise, to satisfy all sections in the Senate as far as possible, and inserted in lieu thereof the words - “provided that he satisfies the commissioner.” Now the PostmasterGeneral says that the reasons advanced by the House of Representatives wei-e, that it is much better to have a prescribed examination for the officers in the clerical division, prior to their getting £110 per annum, than to leave the matter in the hands of the commissioner. There I disagree with the House of Representatives. I prefer to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the commissioner, accepting the assurance given by the Postmaster-General when the question was being discussed on a previous occasion, that the commissioner would merely ascertain the kind of work being done by the various officers, and that if they were faithfully and diligently discharging their duties, they would get the increase. As a person who was employed in the post-office for some little time, I should much prefer leaving this matter entirely in the hands of the commissioner, to having some prescribed’ examination laid down. The members of the House of Representatives must have known full well that every officer in the clerical division will already have passed two examinations, one technical and the other educational. Yet they provide that before such an officer shall get the minimum ‘ wage he shall undergo another examination in the form to be prescribed. The minimum wage provision, so far as concerns the clerical division only, would’ not involve an increase exceeding £10,000 a year. But the same class of reasoners say again that it is not necessary to have another examination for. the officers of the general division. They are to get £110 a year without hav-, ing undergone any examination previously, and without being required to undergo an examination now. I strongly object to the officers in the clerical division having to undergo a third examination. Some of them have been in the service for many long years, and have expected to get reason-, able remuneration for the services they, perform. But the members of the House, of Representatives say, “ Oh no,- you shall not get your minimum wage until you undergo another examination.” Is that fair? It is manifestly unjust, and would be very cruel to a number of aged persons who for many years have done work which was worth far more than the Governments of the various States had paid them.
Senator MCGREGOR (South Australia). I am as anxious as Senator Glassey can be that every section of the civil service shall be liberally paid, and l am sure that I. have’ fought as hard as any one to make the Public Service Bill a measure which will do justice to all sections of the service. I want to point out to Senator Glassey that the position in which we are now placed is different from that in which we were situated when, on the recommittal of the Bill, he drafted an amendment about 15’ yards long.
Senator Glassey:
– We do not want any sneers ; deal with the question in a proper way.
Senator McGREGOR:
– Senator Millen then proposed an amendment which was much shorter, and which met with Senator Glassey’s concurrence, and was accepted, by the committee.
Senator Glassey:
– Simply as an alternative.
Senator McGREGOR:
– That amendment went to the House of Representatives,, which disagreed with it. Now we have really to decide between the clause as passed originally by the House of Representatives, which they have no power to amend, and the amendment proposed by us, which we have no power to further amend . It seems to me that it would be far more in the interests of the officers themselves to accept the proposal for an examination prescribed by regulation, which would come before us. We should, then be able to see whether it was of such; a character as to be calculated to defeat our intentions with respect to the minimum wage. The other position is that we should leave it to the option of the commissioner, who would be able to test any applicant in Greek, Latin, or anything else he pleased, and we should have no control over him. So far as the clerical division is concerned the prescribed examinations would be to prove that the officer could write a fair legible hand, and add up a column of figures, and that he was generally intelligent. That is all that would be required, andIam sure there is no one in the clerical division who would not be able to pass a reasonable examination of that kind. Consequently, I would rather have a prescribed examination than’ allow an officer to be at the mercy of any commissioner or inspector in this respect. It has, been pointed out that no examination is passed by officers in the general division. In that division, however, a good many of the officers are general labourers, and there is not the same necessity for an examination as there is in the clerical branch of the service. Of course I would prefer that the question of whether an officer should receive the minimum wage should not be left to the option of the commissioner or to the passing of an examination, provided that he had been a certain length of time in the service, and shown himself capable of doing the work of his office; but we must accept the position in which we find ourselves placed, and adopt that course which, in our opinion, will be best.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).Senator McGregor has made the statement that there are only two alternatives open to us; but we are not yet reduced to the position of either absolutely standing by the amendment made by this Chamber or of conceding the point raised by the House of Representatives. In the way in which the message comes to the Senate there is another course open to us.It is competent for us to insist upon one and not upon the other amendment made by us in the clause.
Senator Drake:
– That would make nonsense of the clause.
Senator MILLEN:
– I am not saying that the clause would be a workable one, but I. agree with Senator Ewing that the committee can stand by its amendment to omit certain words while not insisting upon the insertion of the words “ provided that he satisfies the commissioner” in lieu of them. As to the question before us, I hope that we shall not fall in with the wishes of the other House. The question is now narroweddown to the point of whether a civil servant should receive the minimum wage of £110 per annum, by reason of length of service, and the fact that he is 21 years of age, or whether he should also undergo an examination to show his qualification to occupy a position to which that salary attaches, or satisfy the commissioner of his fitness in a way not prescribed by the Act. The difference is not very great. Such an examination as that suggested by Senator McGregor would be an utter farce. The honorable senator wants to put a civil servant in a position to demand £110 whether he is worth it or not. I do not. There must be some power for an officer standing between the service and the State to see that the State is receiving fair value for the money which it gives. I hope, therefore, that the committee will stand by its amendment. Assuming that we have a reasonable and fair man as commissioner, I cannot see that there will be anything to fear from the limited power proposed to be given to him under this clause. He is to be satisfied that an officer in the clerical division, who is an applicant for the minimum wage, is competent to discharge the duties of an office to which the salary of £110 attaches. If he deems it advisable to submit an applicant to the simple examination which Senator McGregor has outlined, there will be nothing to prevent him from doing so. I believe that in the end it will be found that he will not require an. examination, but simply a report from the heads of departments as to the good conduct and the efficiency of the members of their divisions who claim the increase.’ The reason given by the House of Representatives for disagreeing with the Senate’s amendment is -
Because the amendment might defeat, the efficacy of the provision for a minimum wage in the clerical division.
How is it possible to imagine that that provision might be defeated, except on the supposition that the commissioner will be either incompetent or unfair ? I decline to’ believe that we are to have such an officer in a position of this responsibility and importance. I venture to think that he will discharge his duties faithfully, and I sa)*- that in providing for this minimum wage it is necessary that some guarantee shall be given to the tax-payers that they will receive fanvalue for their money.
Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia
– After listening attentively to the arguments which.have been advanced, and recalling the long discussion that we had on this clause on a prior occasion, I certainly think that the amendment made by the Senate is really an improvement, in the interests of the public service, on the clause as passed by the House of Representatives. We were alarmed at first lest various officers throughout the Commonwealth might not have an opportunity of passing the examination. Our fears in that respect were removed by the Postmaster-General, but finally the committee decided to strike out the words, “shows by passing the prescribed examination,” because it was thought to be unnecessary that an examination should take place in order to show the educational qualifications o£ an officer who was an applicant for the minimum wage. We felt that all that was required was that the capability of an officer to fulfil the duties of an office to which the salary was attached -should be ascertained. Who should be better acquainted with an applicant’s qualifications than the officer under whom he serves ? We left it to the commissioner to decide on the reports of his officers, and I fail to see why the House of Representatives should have disagreed with our amendment? I am inclined to think that we should insist upon our amendment, because it will be in the interests of the officer who is seeking the minimum wage, as well as to the advantage of the service generally.
Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia
– It seems to me that we are face to face with three questions. Senator McGregor has said that we have to choose between what, in my opinion, are two evils - whether an officer should have to pass a prescribed examination, or satisfy the commissioner - but if, as Senator Ewing has pointed out, we can insist upon our first amendment striking out certain words, while not insisting upon the subsequent amendment, so that the clause would not require an applicant for the minimum wage to pass any prescribed examination, or to satisfy the commissioner, I shall be prepared to support a motion in that direction.
Senator Sir John Downer:
– How would the honorable senator leave the clause 1
Senator PEARCE:
– It would then provide that the minimum wage should be paid to an officer if he was capable of doing the work of an office to which a salary of that amount was attached.
Senator Drake:
– Beautifully indefinite !
Senator PEARCE:
– -It would not be indefinite, having regard to the fact that the Bill gives the commissioner power to decide whether an officer is able to do the work of his office. “Under another part of the Bill it would be possible for the commissioner to practically dismiss an incompetent officer, but under this clause such a man might be retained in the service, and paid less than the minimum wage. If we amend, the clause so as to provide for an applicant passing the prescribed examination, or satisfying the commissioner of his fitness, that state of things will still exist. I am not prepared to vote for allowing any incompetent officer to remain in the service, and if Senator Ewing will move in the direction he has indicated I will support him. If that is not in order we are face to face with this question - Do we prefer that these officers should pass a prescribed examination, or that it should be left to the sweet will of the commissioner to say whether they should get the minimum wage? We may have a commissioner who is opposed to that principle. Some honorable senators have spoken against the principle time and again. That their view is largely held by the heads of the departments has been proved by a return which has been circulated. What have permanent heads of departments done where there has been no such rule to prevent them paying a starvation rate of wages ? In one case a man who had been in the service for nineteen years was getting only £9.0 per annum. If we have a commissioner like the permanent head under whom that salary was paid, we shall get a similar state of affairs in our public service. It will be far better to have a prescribed examination than to leave the whole question to the sweet will of the commissioner.
Senator GLASSEY (Queensland).- This question was discussed in the Chamber on the 31st January, when I moved an amendment which Senator McGregor has described as fifteen yards long. Of course I know that my honorable friend only spoke in a figurative sense. I do not believe in a prescribed examination for the clerical division, because the officers have already been examined. I do not believe in an examination for the officers in the general division, because I think a salary of £110 is little enough for them, and because many of them being labourers, are working for more than that sum. I do not agree with the provision for an examination so far as the minimum wage is concerned, and I entirely agree with the proposal for a minimum wage. Senator McGregor implied that I wished some examination to be prescribed for the officers in the general division. I have no such wish. I shall contend as persistently as my honorable friend for a decent rate of wages to those persons. I desire that the officers in the clerical division shall participate in the benefits of a minimum wage, and shall not be penalized if they fail to pass the prescribed examination. The amendment which Senator McGregor described as fifteen yards long, occupies only five and a half lines of print as follows : -
No examination shall be prescribed for officers who have passed an entrance examination for this division of the public service, or who have been in this division of the service for a period of not less than five years at the date of the passing of this Act.
I accepted Senator Millen’s amendment as an alternative, although I preferred my own. But who supported his amendment? It was supportedby Senators Barrett, Charleston, Ewing, Ferguson, Glassey, Higgs, Keating, McGregor, O’Keefe, Pearce, Smith, Stewart, Styles, and Millen. These honorable senators are coming back to the prescribed examination. If the prescribed examination is just and fair, why did they support the amendment on that occasion? What is the reason for this change of front on their part? Is it because some honorable members in the other House have thought fit to take up a certain attitude ? I decline to acquiesce in what is done by the other Chamber if it is wrong. Let us now see who opposed the amendment of Senator Millen. It was opposed by Senators Baker, Best, Dobson, Downer, Drake, Gould, O’Connor, Playford, Symon, Walker, and Clemons. If the prescribed examination is good now,itwas equally good then. I believed it was bad then. I believe it is bad now. The change of front is not with me, but with my honorable friends on the other side. I shall vote for adhering to our amendment.
Question - That the amendment of the Senate be not insisted on - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 9
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment not insisted on.
Clause 25 -
Any officer in the general division who shall have served for three years and shall have attained the age of twenty-one yearsshall be paid a salary of not less than £110 per annum, provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached.
Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist
– Our proviso to this clause has been disagreed to by the other House for this reason -
Because the amendment might defeat the efficacy of the provision for a minimum wage in the general division.
I know that opinion on the subject seems to be very equally divided in both Houses. It is very desirable that we should come to some understanding with the other House in order to get the matter settled. I feel now, as I felt before, that with a proviso of this kind the clause would operate inequitably because it would give a very large increase to some officers under certain conditions without any corresponding provision for increasing the salaries of others who may be equally deserving. There is, of course, the financial aspect of the matter, and it is a very serious one as regards some of the States. I shall not go into the figures again, but it has been shown pretty clearly that it will involve an increased expenditure of about £30,000. That expense in the case of some States can be ill-afforded, but still I lay some stress on the fact that a proviso of this kind will compel us to give an increase, which may amount in some cases to 50, 60, or 70 per cent., simply in the event of an officer attaining the age of 21 years, and having been three years in the service.
Senator Charleston:
– Will the Minister tell us what the general division will be 1
Senator DRAKE:
– I am not able to do so, for the very good reason that the general division in one State does not exactly coincide with the general division in another State. Sometimes an officer will be classed in the general division in one State and in the clerical division in another State. I recognise that it is hardly right to put this burden on the finances of some of the States. If there were a sum of £20,000 available for increasing the salaries of civil servants in the department which I control, I should prefer to have a free hand to distribute that money in such a way as to reach those who, in my opinion,’ were particularly deserving of an increase, instead of being bound down, as I should be, by this proviso. If we insist upon our amendment, I am afraid from what I have observed that the other’ House will adhere to its disagreement, and then we must hold a conference which may take up a great deal of time, and perhaps may be abortive. I would suggest as a compromise that if we do not insist upon our amendment, we should propose an alteration in the term of service which should qualify an officer for this increase. If we raise the term from three years to five or six years we should give this increase which, in some cases, may be a very large one, to a fewer number of officers at the start. I think that if that were done, it would establish the principle of the minimum wage in the first place, while it would be a very great benefit to those officers who would be qualified to receive that wage, and would not put such a severe financial strain upon the ‘States.
Senator Stewart:
– The age might be altered from 21 to 23.
Senator DRAKE:
– As 21 is the age in respect to the clerical division, and as a man comes of age at 21, it is hardly worth while to attempt to make any alteration in that respect. The better plan would be to extend the term of service that should be necessary before the officer qualifies to receive the minimum wage. I propose to do that by suggesting to the House of Representatives that it should strike out the word “ three” in the clause, and substitute the word “five.”
Senator Millen:
– The Chairman has ruled that that cannot be done.
Senator DRAKE:
– No; the Chairman has not ruled that. If what I suggest is not agreed to, I suppose we shall have again to thrash out the question of the minimum wage, and probably the Senate will insist upon its amendment, in which case, of course, there will be a long debate here. I presume that if the amendment is insisted upon there will be a strong effort made in another place to disagree with it. I would urge, therefore, that the course I suggest should be adopted, and with that object in view, I move -
That the amendment of the Senate to add the words “ provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached,” to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, be not insisted on, provided that the word “three,” in the second line of the clause, be omitted, and the word “ five” substituted therefor.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The amendment which has been moved by the PostmasterGeneral necessarily raises a very important point. So far as I have had an opportunity of considering it, I do not think that it is competent for the committee at the present stage, or at all, indeed, under the circumstances, to make the amendment suggested. In addition to our own rules, May lays down the following principle : -
It is also a rule that neither House may at this time leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves ; unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon the acceptance or the rejection of an amendment of the other House.
It is now proposed that the words which were added by the Senate, namely -
Provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached, should, in deference to the disagreement of the House of Representatives, be omitted, and that we should go back upon the clause and strike out the word “ three “ and substitute the word “five.” I do not regard the proposed amendment as in any way consequent upon the deletion of the words which I have already read, containing the proviso which was the Senate’s amendment.
Therefore I do not think that the amendment of the Postmaster-General is admissible.
Senator Dobson:
– The Chairman will recollect that earlier in the evening I mentioned a desire to move an amendment upon an amendment by another place. The Chairman then gave practically the same ruling as he has given now upon the Postmaster-General’s amendment. Without for a moment saying that that ruling is wrong, it appears to me that the Senate and the House of Representatives will be deprived of a power that ought to be vested in them, unless we can make the method of dealing, with amendments more elastic.
The CHAIRMAN:
– Is the honorable and learned senator discussing my decision ?
Senator Dobson:
– To some extent I am.
The CHAIRMAN:
– If Senator Dobson is going to challenge my decision, it must be done in a formal way.
Senator Stewart:
– I will take the opportunity of moving -
That the ruling of the Chairman be disagreed with.
The CHAIRMAN:
– Will the honorable senator put his disagreement in writing ?
Senator Stewart:
– Certainly.
In Senate :
Senator BEST:
- Mr. President, in dealing with the schedule of amendments made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, the committee came to amendment No. 28, clause 25 -
At end of clause add “provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached.”
The Postmaster-General moved that the amendment be not insisted on provided that in the second line of the clause the word “three” be omitted, and the word “five” substituted therefor. Upon that I ruled that if the words -
Provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached, - which were the amendment of the Senate - were now struck out, it was not competent for the committee to go back on the clause, and to strike out the word “ three “ and substitute the word “five.” The clause as it originally read, was as follows : -
Any officer in the general division who shall have served for three years, and shall have attainedthe age of 21 years shall be paida salary of notless than £110 per annum ; to which the amendment I have already referred to was made by the Senate by way of addition. My ruling, therefore, was that the striking out of the proviso in question would preclude the committee from going back and making an amendment in an earlier part of the clause.
Senator Playford:
– We did not propose to strike out a word, but to suggest such an amendment to the other House.
Senator BEST:
– No; the motion of the Postmaster-General was that the committee should not insist upon the addition of theproviso, provided that something which occurred earlier in the clause was altered. What I ruled was that it was not competent for the committee to go back upon the clause and alter the word “ three “ to “five.”
Senator Playford:
– We never proposed to alter it.
Senator BEST:
– That is what was proposed, and I ruled that we could not make that alteration, because it was not consequent upon the striking out of the amendment. I quoted, in support of that ruling, May at page 478 of the 10th edition. Exception was taken to that ruling by Senator Stewart, and I have embodied what he desired to say byway of protest in a memorandum in the following terms : -
It was moved by the Postmaster-General that amendment 28 be not insisted upon provided that in the second line of the clause the word. “ three “ be omitted, and the word “five” substituted therefor. The Chairman ruled that such proviso or amendment was not consequent upon the omission of the proviso to the clause, and could not be put.
Senator Drake:
– In this case, as has been stated by the Chairman of Committees, the amendment which was made by the Senate was a proviso to the clause, in the following terms : -
Provided that he satisfies the commissioner that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which such salary is attached.
The House of Representatives objected to that amendment ; and the Bill came back to the Senate. The motion I moved in committee was that the Senate do not insist upon that proviso being in the clause, provided that an amendment is made in the earlier part of the clause altering the term of three years to five years. I moved that on the ground that it is consequential upon our acceptance of the view taken by the House of Representatives. I submit that the fact of the word “three” occurring earlier in the clause has no weight whatever. It is purely a matter of accident that that word occurs earlier in the clause than the proviso which we inserted. I think there could be no doubt whatever that if the clause were worded in such a way that the provision we put in came before the term of years, the alteration of the term of three’ years to five would be a consequential amendment ; because we are willing to accept the clause without the proviso if it applies to officers who have served for five years, and not to officers who have served for three. It can easily be imagined that the clause might be worded in such a way that that term of years would come at a later part of the clause than the proviso ; in which case I think there can be no doubt whatever that the amendment I desire to move would be consequential. It is an amendment, to quote the words of May - consequent on the acceptance or rejection of an amendment of the other House.
The position no.w is, that we sent the Bill back to the House of Representatives containing this proviso to clause 25. They have disagreed with us in regard to that proviso. We say that we are willing not to insist on our amendment - that is, we say we will agree in their disagreement - provided the clause is so altered that the term of years shall be different from what it is now.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– The Senate has already passed that clause.
Senator Drake:
– My contention is that the whole of the clause was before us when we dealt with it in committee, and before the House of Representatives when they dealt with our amendment. W7hen the amendment comes back to us the whole clause is before us, and we can accept or reject the view that has been taken by the House of Representatives. We can either agree with them, disagree completely with them, or agree or disagree to their proposal with a certain consequential amendment. The position that we propose to take up, as shown by my motion, is that we do not insist upon our amendment provided that a certain other amendment is made in the clause. That makes the proposed amendment clearly consequential upon the amendment that we have been discussing. It is merely a matter of form, and not of substance, that the reference to the term of three years occurs at an earlier part of the clause than does the proviso.
Senator Millen:
– The PostmasterGeneral, in dealing with this matter, has affirmed that when the Senate is invited to consider a message of the House of Representatives, the whole clause dealt with in that message is under review. That is so utterly opposed to all parliamentary practice that it is hardly necessary for nae to take up the time of the Senate in attempting to dispose of it. If I recollect rightly, the Postmaster-General’s second point is that an alteration in the term of years stated in the earlier portion of the clause could be held to be consequential to the proviso added by us. If you look at the clause, Mr. President, you will find that it lays down first of all two primary conditions which are to entitle an officer to the minimum wage. One is that he shall have been three years in the service, and the other that he shall have attained the age of 21 years. The effect of the amendment has been to add a third condition. The other two conditions, however, stand independently, and have been dealt with independently of it. Both Houses have agreed to the three years’ term of service.
Senator O’Connor:
– With the proviso.
Senator Millen:
– The first two conditions can stand without the proviso ; how, then, can they be held to flow from it t So far as I can understand the word, “consequential “ means something springing from.
Senator Ewing:
– Something which is a necessary result of the alteration.
Senator Millen:
– Exactly. We have nothing to show that the term of three years’ service has ever been considered in connexion with the proviso, while the clause itself indicates that it is something which is to be considered entirely apart from it. Senator Drake’s proposal is to the effect that we do not insist upon our amendment provided that another place agrees to a further alteration of the clause. I contend that it cannot be submitted in that form. The only “motion which can be submitted in these circumstances is that we either insist or do not insist on the amendment. The proper way to give effect to the object which the Postmaster-General has in view would be to ask the committee to insist upon its amendment, with a view of bringing about a further alteration at a later stage by means of a conference, or something of the kind.
Senator O’Connor:
– This point was not discussed in committee, and the Chairman had not the advantage of hearing the views held upon it by honorable senators. Therefore, agreeing as I do with Senator Stewart, that the Chairman’s ruling is not correct, I propose to. put before you, Mr. President, a few reasons which I think justify my attitude. I think you will agree with me that generally all rules and orders ought to be interpreted in such a way as not to unnecessarily restrict the will of the Senate in carrying out its own views. These rules are necessary for the conduct of business, but they ought not to be strained in any way so as to prevent the House from carrying out’ what is obviously its intention in regard to any particular matter. The position is this : A clause, consisting of one sentence, came up to us from another place, affirming that certain rights were to be given to officers after three years’ service, and after they had attained a certain age. We were willing to assent to that clause of one sentence, subject to a proviso. That is to say, if the provisions in the proviso applied, we were willing to assent to that clause. I submit that the proviso affects and covers and alters the effect of every word of the sentence which comes before it. It seems to me that it would be a reductio ad absurdum to say that because a clause of one sentence comes before us, to which we agree subject to a proviso which alters the meaning of the whole clause, it is to be taken that a portion’ of that clause with which we did not deal has been agreed to by both Houses. What is the principle upon which the ruling in May proceeds? It is that once we get something which has been definitely agreed to by both Houses, we cannot go back upon it. That is a very good rule; but when a clause of one sentence comes before us, it is not to be said that because we have added a proviso to one part of it - and would not have passed it without that proviso - that we have passed the first part. We agreed to the clause because the proviso was in it. I submit that the rules laid down in May are not to be read as if they were Acts of Parliament. You must apply them to the circumstances and read them reasonably. The rule in May to which reference has been made, sets forth that -
In 1078 it was stated by the Commons at a conference “that it is contrary to the constant method and proceedings in Parliament to strike out anything in a Bill which hath been fully agreed and passed hy both Houses. “
Thai/ does not mean that because two or three words at the beginning of a sentence have been passed it can be said that anything has been agreed to. “ Anything “ means, at all events, some completed sentence, and not a few words. May continues - and in allowing subsequent amendments, either in the body of the Bill or in the amendments, the spirit of this rule is still maintained.
That principle was laid down a long time ago. It is a very good principle which has been adhered to ever since 1678, but I contend that these rules ought to be interpreted in such a way that we should be their masters instead of the rules being masters of us. If we feel ourselves tied down in such a way that we are willing now to make a compromise with the other House to strike out a proviso - which gives a certain meaning to the whole sentence - with a view of giving another meaning to it, Senator Millen says that we cannot adopt that course unless by means of a conference. I do not see that a conference would improve the position. The agreement arrived at by a conference can only be carried out by parliamentary methods, and if our parliamentary methods will not allow us to make the alteration now, how could we make it after holding a conference ? The only way in which the amendment could be made would be by some statutory form of amendment.
Senator Millen:
– Suspend the standing orders.
Senator O’Connor:
– We are on the question of the application of a principle of parliamentary procedure. I submit that, applying the touchstone which is laid down in May, the House of Representatives has agreed to the sentence without the proviso, and that we have agreed to the sentence with the proviso - two totally different things. The whole clause is open to us now, because it consists of one sentence, and the rules must be interpreted in such a way as to enable us ,to carry out what we wish in such a simple matter as this. I hope, Mr. President, that you will be able to read the rule of Parliament, as laid down in May, in a way that will accord with what I think would be the common-sense view of any one who knew what we required to do - that is to say, that we break no rule in carrying into effect this compromise, which is eminently desirable, and which, I think, will be agreed to.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– The discussion on this point of order is certainly a novel one. Senator O’Connor is right in saying that we are masters of our standing orders, but as long as they remain we must obey them. If we disagree with them the only course open to us is to alter them. We are asked to request another place to do that which we cannot do ourselves. We have dealt with the clause up to the words “per annum,” and we certainly have no power to go back upon it and deal with the word “three.”
Senator Sir John Downer:
– We did not agree to the clause, but to the clause as amended.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– Another place has . also passed the whole of the clause up to the words “ per annum.” If the question had beenraised when the proviso was under discussion in the House of Representatives, that the word “three” should be altered to “ five,” it would have been rightly held by the Chairman that the committee could not go back upon what they had already done. The position is exactly the same in both Houses. The only question at issue between the two Houses is the proviso, and there is no power for us to say that we will agree to the decision of another place provided that they do something which would be absolutely antagonistic to their standing orders. The only way to get over the difficulty would be to have a conference if it were thought to be worth while to hold one in regard to this clause.
Senator Sir John Downer:
– I admit that there is great subtlety in the arguments on both sides, but I do not think that at the initiation of our career we should be too precise in our relations with another place if it can be avoided. A conference may be necessary on this and other matters, but there is no necessity to unduly urge a conference when we may arrive at the same result by the ordinary course of procedure. I am not strongly against the view taken by the Chairman, but I think it would be inexpedient to adopt it. The question before us is simple enough. We never agreed to the clause ; on the contrary, we disagreed to it, because we amended it. It is impossible to interpret the clause without interpreting the proviso which limits it and regulates it. The question before the committee, when the Bill was last before us, was first of all that the amendment be agreed to, and then that the clause pass as amended. It is not at all an exaggerated view of our standing orders, which Senator O’Connor has clearly stated. I venture to submit to you, sir, that without any insistence on a conference, it would be a very convenient interpretation of our standing orders, if the contention of Senator Drake and Senator O’Connor were regarded by the Senate as being well laid down.
Senator Dobson:
– It has been pointed out by Senator O’Connor and Senator Downer that this clause is contained in one sentence, and that we added a proviso, without which we should not have accepted the clause. I think our practice should enable us to say to the other House - “ We will not insist on our proviso if you will agree to our substituting the word ‘five’ for the word ‘three.’” Iam sure that every honorable senator sees that it will be to theinterest of our parliamentary practice if what we propose to do can be ruled in order.
Senator Charleston:
– What will our position be if we follow out the suggestion of Senator Drake, and the House of Representatives refuse to substitute the word “ five “ for the word “ three “ in that part of the clause which has been agreed to by both Houses ?
Senator Matheson:
– Originally Senator Drake suggested that the amendment should be made as a consequential one, and it was only in that form that he pressed it on the committee. I think it was made clear that the word “ consequential “ could not properly be applied to the amendment. Then we had Senator O’Connor, addressing himself to the situation. He laid no stress upon any consequential condition of the amendment, but he boldly claimed that we were perfectly within our rights in making a substantial amendment, simply because this was a clause of one sentence. Next we had Senator Downer, who, while practically agreeing with the position that the Chairman of Committees took up, said it was “ expedient” that we should frame some course of action by which it would be possible to amend a clause which we had practically passed and sent in a certain shape to the other House for its approval. It strikes me from -all I have heard that it is only possible to justify the amendment on the ground that it is a consequential onn. I never heard the suggestion made before that it was possible to introduce an entirely fresh amendment - an unconsequential amendment - to a clause which we had passed.
Senator Ewing:
– There is nothing consequential about’ the amendment which Senator Drake proposes to make, lt is laid down in May that an amendment which is consequential upon a disagreement or otherwise may be moved.’ Surely consequential means something which has resulted from the altered conditions in which we find ourselves. The question of three years or five years is absolutely independent of the proviso. How are wo to divide on the question which was put from the Chair - that the committee insist or do not insist on its amendment ? We have to say either that we insist or that we do not insist. We have not to say to the other House “ If you will do something which we admit we cannot do, then we sholl agree with you.” Surely we cannot send a qualified message of that kind to the other House. It is admitted that we cannot go back and alter words to which both Houses have agreed, but we wish to say to the members of the other House, “ We shall not give you’ an answer to the question you put to us, but if you will do something else we shall agree with you.” I do not think that that is the question before the Chair.
The PRESIDENT:
– This Bill originated in the House of Representatives, and to clause 25 we added a proviso which has been disagreed to ; so that the other House has twice affirmed the proposition that the clause down to the words “ per annum “ shall stand, and we have agreed to the clause with a proviso. The contention is that because a proviso has been inserted and because the clause has been qualified by the Senate, it can go back and alter words which have been twice agreed to by the other House and once agreed to by the Senate. It is true that there is no standing order on this subject, and that therefore we have to foll back on Standing Order number I -
In nil cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders resort shall be had to the rules, forms anil practice of the Commons House of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, which shall be followed as far as they can be applied to the proceedings of this House.
It does not appear to me to be my duty or my province to say whether it is a desirable thing that we should or should not make the suggested alteration. I am here to administer the standing orders as I find them. By our first standing order I am driven back to the practice of the House of Commons, and I have to decide what it would consider its practice should be in these circumstances. I do not think it is competent for us- to go back and alter words which have been agreed to by both Houses. It is quite true that the Senate has agreed to the clause in a qualified form, but every word which is introduced qualifies a clause. If the proposition were admitted that we could go back and alter the clause we should have to follow it out to its logical conclusion, and affirm the proposition that we could go back and alter any clause which had been agreed to by both Houses, in case of a disagreement as to any amendment of the clause. The quotation which has been read from May does not appear to me to apply. It is as follows : -
It is also a’ rule that neither House may at this time leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves ; unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon the acceptance or the rejection of an amendment of the other House.
That, it appears to me, would have applied if this discussion had taken place in the House of Representatives when it got the Bill back from the Senate with this proviso to clause 25 ; but I do not think it applies to us now, and we must bc guided by the words of May which follow : -
It is contrary to the constant method and proceeding^ in Parliament to strike out anything in a Bill which hath boon fully agreed and passed by both Houses.
It has been, contended that we have not fully, agreed to and passed this clause because we have only agreed to it in a modified form. I have already dealt with that contention, and it appears to me it would be contrary to the practice of the House of Commons, so far as I can gather it if I were to rule that we could go back and alter a part of the clause which had been agreed to by both Houses. The committee has only a qualified power, and that is to decide whether it insists or does not insist on the amendments, or whether it makes amendments, if at the proper stage, which are immediately consequent on them. But I think that stage has been passed. It was thought that this question would crop up, and tho Clerk of Parliaments has been kind enough to go through all ihe records of the House of Commons. I hold in ray hand seventeen decisions, but in none of them can I find that any such thing has been done as has been contemplated here, and I therefore rule that the decision of the Chairman of Committees is correct.
Progress reported.
Senate adjourned at 10.3 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 April 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020403_senate_1_9/>.