Senate
30 November 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
QUESTION
- MILITARY OFFICERS
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
PAPERS
APPROPRIATION BILL
CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL
QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL
- Playford -
QUESTION
- PROPOSED NEW STANDING ORDERS
ORDER OF BUSINESS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
ADJOURNMENT
- Public Service Commissioner

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 6024

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Aus tralia

– I ask the indulgence of the Senate to make a brief explanation. At an early hour this morning - between 2 and 3 o’clock, I think - I spoke on the motion to reconsider the request for a reduction ofthe item for travelling expenses, under the head of the Senate in the schedule of the Appropriation Bill, by the sum of £10 10s. I said that it was my intention to again vote in favour of the reduction of the item. Exhausted nature, however, was too much for me, and, suffering, as I am, from a very severe cold, I happened to fall asleep. My honorable friends, recognising that my vote would not alter the result, refrained from arousing me from the very refreshing sleep which I was enjoying, and therefore it was recorded in the opposite direction.

page 6024

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Linotype Operators

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer, without notice -

If he will request the Government Printer, Mr. Brain, to provide a statement covering a period of twelve months showing -
1. The amount of work done for the State of Victoria on the Commonwealth linotype machines?
2. The amount of work done for the Commonwealth on the linotype machines?
3. The amount of wages paid (based on signed pay-sheets) to the linotype operators by the State of Victoria?
4. The amount of wages paid (based on signed pay-sheets) to the linotype operators by the Commonwealth ?
Will he lay such return on the table of the Library ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I shall make the necessary inquiry if the honorable senator will give me a copy of his question.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

-I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether it is the rule, to avoid paying overtime to our compositors, by counting their week’s work at 42 hours, although they may be called upon to put in that time in three shifts or working days?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– If the honorable senator will give notice of a question, I shall ascertain.

page 6024

QUESTION

MILITARY OFFICERS

Administrative and Instructional Staff

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice -

Will he lay upon the table of the Senate a list of the officers of the administrative and instructional staff, Commonwealth Military Forces, arranged is the order of their present seniority, with the date of joining the permanent forces, and their years of service ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– If the honorable senator will hand to me a copy of his question, I shall be pleased to get the information for him.

page 6024

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether, now that the Appropriation Bill has been passed, he can state definitely what further measures he proposes to submit for our consideration this session? I should like to be permitted to mention that I shall in no way consider his answer as being exclusive, or as in any way binding him not to go any further than he may indicate if, in the opinion of the Ministry, that should be warranted. I simply ask the question in order that honorable senators may be able to form an opinion as to what further demands will be made upon their time by their public duties this session.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I am not in a position to give the honorable senator the information which he desires. The noticepaper of each House shows the business which the Government has before the Parliament; but, as regards other measures, I cannot give the honorable senator definite information.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Is it the intention of the Government to go on with the Government business on the noticepaper of each House?

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

-Yes.

page 6025

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator Playford:

– We shall have plenty of time next week.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not wish to attempt to interfere with the arrangement of Government business, but the session is getting prolonged, and as honorable sena tors are here prepared to go on with business to-morrow, I would ask the Minister to give a further reason, if he can, why he proposes to abandon the sitting on that day. My only desire is to get the business done. We are all prepared to go on with work to-morrow. I ask the honorable senator to reconsider the matter.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I have considered the matter in all its bearings. In answer to a question by Senator Pearce, I said that if the Government business were disposed of I should agree to private business being taken on Thursday evening. The Government business has not been disposed of, and therefore I propose to take it to-night after dinner. I believe that it will be disposed of at this sitting, but if it is not, there is no necessity to ask honorable senators to come back on Friday to do what little work may require to be done. On Wednesday the business will include a motion, of which I shall give notice presently, and perhaps the conclusion of the debate on the Queen Victoria memorial.

Senator Givens:

– What is the good of asking the Senate to sit on Wednesday if the Government have no business to submit?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– We shall have business to submit, but whether it will be sufficient to occupy all the sitting I do not know.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 6025

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : - “ Tropical Australia “ : Suitability for a Working White Race. By Dr. Elkington.

Ordered to be printed.

Banking Returns of the various States of the Commonwealth and New Zealand, for the quarters ended 30th June, 1904, and 30th June, 1905.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Passage of Appropriation Bill: Proceeding with Business.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– I rise to move that the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until half -past 10 o’clock on Wednesday next, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announced intention of the Government to proceed with business after the passage of the Appropriation Bill.

Four honorable senators having risen in theirplaces,

Question proposed.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– Yesterday when we were dealing with the Appropriation Bill. I intended to call attention to this matter. But as it was then after 4 o’clock in the morning, I thought I should better study the convenience of honorable senators if I deferred what I had to say until to-day. I desire to direct attention to the fact that although the passing of the Appropriation Bill ought to be the last business of the session, the Government propose to proceed with other measures. To some honorable senators the importance of this matter may not be very apparent at first blush. I have, however, taken pains to ascertain what has been the practice in the mother of Parliaments, and I discover that it is regarded as highly unconstitutional for a Government to proceed with any business whatever after the Ap propriation Bill has been passed. An opportunity for the airing of grievances having been afforded, and supply having been granted, the one regular constitutional course is to at once prorogue Parliament. Honorable senators naturally want to know my authority for the statement that the course now being pursued by the Government is unusual. On referring to May, I find-

On the 12th October, 1799, the Appropriation Act received the royal assent, when both Houses adjourned till the 21st January, 1800.

What was the special occasion of the adjournment on that occasion I am not aware. The next instance on which there was an opportunity afforded to the House of Commons to deal with business after the passing of the Appropriation Bill was in 1820. According to May -

On the 24th July, 1820, the Appropriation Act received the royal assent ; and on the 26th, the Commons adjourned, and continued adjournments, and the transaction of business, until 23rd November.

The next instance occurred in 1882 -

On the 17th August, 1882, the Appropriation Act received the royal assent ; and on the following day both Houses adjourned until 23rd October. On the reassembling of Parliament, the regularity of the adjournment was challenged in the Commons on the ground that the Appropriation Act having been passed, no further business could be proceeded with. But the adjournment was approved by a large majority.

– No.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- It was repeatedly said, on behalf of the Government, that they hoped to be in recess long before Christmas, and the whole circumstances point unmistakably to the conclusion that it was the intention to prorogue before 30th November. I give the

– In dealing with the way in which supply is taken in the House of Commons, Todd, in his work On Parliamentary Government in England, says -

The constitutional effect of this proceeding is that until the Queen and the House of Lords have assented to the grant of ways and means the appropriation of the public money directed by the vote in supply of the House of Commons is inoperative. . . . The final grant of ways and means to cover the whole of the supplies voted in the session is always reserved for the Appropriation Act, thus, although the House of Commons, at an early period of the session, might have voted the whole of the supplies of the year, they could still hold their constitutional check upon the Minister by limiting the grant of ways and means to an amount sufficient only to last such time as they might think proper to give him the means of carrying on the public service, and they are by such limited grants at all times enabled to prevent the Minister from dissolving or proroguing Parliament.

Again he says -

When the Appropriation Bill has passed both Houses, and is ready for the Royal assent, it is returned into the charge of the Commons until the time appointed for the prorogation of Parliament, when it is carried by the Speaker to the bar of the House of Peers, and there received by the clerk of the Parliament for the Royal assent.

That is the principle laid down, and while I recognise that we have adopted some practices which have not been adopted in the House of Commons, the reason why Parliament should withhold the Appropriation Rill until the close of the session is as applicable to us as to any other Parliament in the world. May contains this statement -

When the Appropriation Bill has passed both Houses, and is about to receive the Royal assent, it is returned into the charge of the Commons until that House is summoned to attend Her Majesty, or the Lords Commissioners in the House of Peers for the prorogation of Parliament; when it is carried by the Speaker to the bar of the House of Peers, and there received by the clerk of the Parliaments, for the Royal assent.

So that the same practice is laid down by May and by Todd. I have pointed out that there are only three instances in the history of the House of Commons for more than a century in which the practice proposed here was followed. I have shown that there were exceptional circumstances, and a specific purpose to be served in each of those instances, to suit the convenience of Parliament in one case, and to suit the convenience of the nation in connexion with the trial of Queen Caroline in another. This shows how very careful we should be in connexion with what we are doing at the present moment. The Government cannot justify their action at the present time by either of the instances to which I have referred, because they propose to go on with a large volume of general business.

Senator Playford:

– When I brought up a Supply Bill, I was grumbled at because the Appropriation Bill was not before honorable senators.

Senator HIGGS:

– Naturally, the desire of a Minister is to get his Estimates through. He does not want to hear any criticisms. Each Minister likes to be a benevolent dictator.

Senator Playford:

– It has been the practice of the House of Representatives to keep back the Appropriation Bill until the last moment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that his remarks are relevant to the subject, which is whether we should go on with business after the Appropriation Bill has been passed?

Senator HIGGS:

Senator TURLEY:

– I am satisfied that Senator Gould has done good service in submitting this motion, although I cannot agree with the reasons he advanced. I understand that his principal object was to get a declaration from the Government that the course pursued on the present occasion, somewhat under compulsion, should not be made a precedent.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - The remarks of Senator Turley explain pretty clearly the object of the motion. I am aware that it is impossible to achieve any immediate result on a motion of this character, which, however, affords an opportunity for full and free discussion. I do not think that I owe any apology, either to the Government or to the Senate, for having brought the matter under their notice in this way. Senator Playford has said that we are not bound by the precedents of the House of Commons. That I admit at once, and I also admit that we should lay down our own precedents. We must, however, take advantage of any information we can gain from the mother of Parliaments, as well as from other Parliaments under similar Constitutions. I repeat that there are only three cases reported in which the British Government have proceeded with other business after the passing of the Appropriation Bill, and that there were special circumstances on each occasion. I admit that this Senate does not stand in the same position as the House of Lords, and that we should have an opportunity to discuss the Estimates amply. I hope, on another occasion, to give the Senate an opportunity to discuss how far this Chamber may be left free to effectively and efficiently deal with the Estimates, without injuring the constitutional control of either House in any way. I should like to make one or two observations in reply to Senator Keating, who pointed out that in February, 1895, it was reported to the New South Wales Parliament that the ‘State Governor had assented to the Appropriation Bill, covering supply up to June, 1895, and that from the wording of the message, it was clear that the Bill must have been passed before the 27th December, 1894. Honorable senators have to bear in mind the fact that that Parliament was elected in August, 1894, and in the Governor’s Speech, which was placed before the members, was a statement that it was intended to alter the date of the financial year. Previously the financial year had always ended on the 31st December, and Mr. Reid introduced and passed a Bill in that session which made the financial year close on the 30th June. It was then thought that, instead of taking Supply for two or three months, the change afforded an opportunity to pass an Appropriation Bill covering the whole vear. This was done without one word of objection or opposition on the part of any Member of Parliament.

Senator Fraser:

– And it was done for a specific purpose.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- That is so.

Senator Keating:

– The object could have been gained by means of Supply Bills.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- That Parliament introduced the land and income tax proposals of Mr. Reid, and came to an end with the session, because the Legislative Council refused to accept the Bills passed by the Assembly. An appeal was then made to the country. So that the occurrence to which Senator Keating referred took place at a period when there was a considerable amount of feeling in regard to the taxation proposals, and when the date of the financial year was being altered.

Senator Playford:

– These circumstances did not justify a course which the honorable senator described as unconstitutional, and for which he said there was no precedent.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– Senator Keating has pointed out a precedent, and I admit its correctness. But there is no justification for the course now being pursued by the Government in relation to the Appropriation Bill ; and I do not want it to be taken as a precedent. The Governmenthave made certain proposals which I cannot prevent being carried into effect but I ask them not to make a precedent of introducing new legislation at this stage. The Government ought to be content with carrying out the proposalswhich were on the business-paper at the time the Appropriation Bill was passed.I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 6043

APPROPRIATION BILL

Assent reported.

” WHITE AUSTRALIA “ POLICY.

Pearl Fishing Industry.

Debate resumed from 2nd November (vide page 4471), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That, in the opinion of this Senate, the time has arrived when, in order to effectively carry out the policy of “ a White Australia” legislation should be introduced to provide for -

The cessation of the importation of coloured labour, under regulations, to carry on the pearl fishing industry in North Australia.

The return of the coloured labourers imported under agreement to work in the industry.

The assisting of the industry by bonus or otherwise to enable the replacement of the coloured labour by white labour.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words be added to paragraph a - “ except to replace existing crews, but so as not to increase the number of Asiatics now employed.”

The amendment will not apply to the Papuans, or any of the men of the islands who are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Senator Clemons:

– That is a big order. Does the honorable senator recognise the same principle in regard to the sugar-fields of Queensland?

Senator TURLEY:

– No; that has not been attempted. The pearl-fishing industry is carried on between the shores of the northern part of Australia and New Guinea itself, except that branch which is conducted on the coast of Western Australia. In the latter case the industry is, however, practically carried on, afloat. So far as we know, the aborigines have been employed in this industry since it was started.

Senator Clemons:

-i understand that the industry is carried on within the three miles radius.

Senator TURLEY:

– This motion will do nothing to prevent the Papuans from being employed in their own waters.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It strikes me that it would if it were strictly enforced; but of course the Government would take care that it was not. We have had a great many reports on the question of employing coloured arid white crews in the pearling industry. We have had a report from Judge Dashwood, the late Resident Magistrate of the Northern Territory ; from Mr. Warton, and from Mr. Lockyer, the Collector of Customs for New South Wales. I have had an opportunity of seeing my frie’nd, Judge Dashwood, since he returned to fill the position of Crown Solicitor and Prosecutor in Adelaide. He told me that, after visiting the pearling fleets at Port Darwin and Thursday Island, he had come to the conclusion that the pearls are not so plentiful as they used to be, and that therefore the boats have to go into considerably deeper water to find them. He said that it will be impossible to carry on the industry successfully if European rates of wages be paid. We have also the report of Mr. Warton, the Resident Magistrate at Broome, on the condition of the pearling industry in Torres Strait and the North-west coast of Australia. Both Judge Dashwood and Mr. Warton have reported adversely on the suggestion, that the industry could be carried on with white labour. At the request of the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Lockyer, the Collector of Customs for New South Wales, made an investigation at Thursday Island. He reported to the Government that, in his opinion, the industry could not profitably employ white crews, and that, whether as diver, or tender, or crew, the work is not suitable for white men. We also have the opinion of the Secretary of External Affairs, who has just returned from a visit to British New Guinea. When he was at Thursday Island he made a close inquiry into the condition of the pearling industry, and he says that he is obliged to agree with the opinions expressed on the subject. We have a very valuable pamphlet on the Western Australian pearlshelling industry by Senator Smith, who has treated the subject very fully, and given us the benefit o’f his opinions. In the course of his pamphlet he says -

In considering the advisability of excluding or allowing coloured labour on our pearling fleets, two important questions have to be decided.

Does the manning of the boats by coloured crews endanger or is it opposed to the principle of our White Australia policy?

Would legislation insisting on white labour being employed have the desired effect, or would it mean the loss of the industry to Australia?

In answering those questions, he says, in effect, that if we were to insist upon the employment of white crews, .the pearlshelling industry would leave Western Australia, and go to some port in the possession of the Dutch. He points out that so far as pearl-fishing is concerned, we have only exclusive rights within the three-mile limit, and that all water outside that limit is open to foreign fishermen. He goes on to say -

Does this pearling industry give an alien an opportunity of settling in Australia? That is really the crux of the matter; and to make sure on that head was one ‘of the principal reasons that led to my visit to Broome. I went very carefully into the question, and have no hesitation in saying that if the Acts and regulations are strictly administered as they are at present there is not the slightest danger.

Under the circumstances, I think we may agree to paragraph a of the motion. It can do no good and no harm, because under the regulations we only allow a certain proportion of Asiatic labour to ‘ be employed. There is 110 necessity for me to refer to paragraph S, because it is to be deleted. Paragraph c reads -

The assisting of the industry by bonus or otherwise to enable the replacement of the coloured labour by white labour.

We have no information to guide us as to whether that can be done at a profit, and Senator Pearce does not say that it necessarily follows that it must be done by means of a bonus. I do not know that it will do any special harm to pass the paragraph, but the honorable senator must not assume that the Government are going to do very much in that direction.

Senator Pearce:

– It may be by some other means.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I have read very carefully Senator Smith’s pamphlet on the subject.

Senator Pearce:

– I hope that the Minister will read my remarks on some statements which he made therein.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– In his pamphlet, Senator Smith says -

The working expenses of the fleets would be increased by at least 30 per cent, if white men were employed for the pearling season (eight months) instead of coloured crews all the year round. The average wage paid to a coloured crew, including the diver, is about 18s. a week, while white crews could not be expected to do the work for less than 6s. a day and found, with 10s. a day for the diver, or an average of £2 a week.

– Senator Smith has already told us that the only New Guinea natives addicted to liquor are those who have been employed in the pearl-fishing.

Senator PEARCE:

– I have pointed out that they are dodging the regulations, and that 400 of them were in seven years added to the population of Western Australia. 1 now propose to quote from evidence given by Mr. Hodel before Mr. Justice Dashwood. At page 1053 of the Senate Papers for 1901-2, vol. 2, the following will be found at question 1474 : -

You consider they could be got if the wages were paid that the white men would require? - It depends upon what source you touch for your labour. I think if tenders receive ^5 per month there would be no difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tenders. At the present stage I Think we could not get white crews. Assuming that at one swoop coloured labour were done away with, we could not at once replace it with white labour.

If Senator Clemons were present, I should refer him to that as a reason why I do not wish to abolish coloured labour at one swoop. Mr. Hodel went on to say -

I think it could be worked gradually in the way suggested, and in ten years one third of the men employed would be white mcn, and there would be reared here a seafaring race. If the licences were restricted to white divers, some of the floating stations would probably leave, and the beds would have the rest required. The lesser the quantity got the firmer are the prices.

The beds at Thursday Island are more exhausted than are those at Broome.

Senator Givens:

– It is only a question of time when the beds at Broome will also be exhausted.

Senator PEARCE:

– They are being exhausted now in the shallow waters. At question 1477 there is this evidence -

What do you think would be the prospect of the pearl-shelling industry if regulations were made compelling its being carried on with white labour only? - It would be all right so long as the price of shell kept at its present rate.

That is to say, if the price of shell was maintained, at the rates ruling at that time, in Mr. Hodel’s opinion the industry could be worked profitably with white labour.

Senator Dobson:

– That is a big risk, because if the price of shell went down the industry would collapse.

Senator PEARCE:

– That might happen under existing circumstances where black labour is employed.

Senator Dobson:

– Yes ; but there is a difference of between 30 per cent, and 40 per cent., less expense, where black labour is employed.

Senator PEARCE:

– Referring to white labour that had been employed, Mr. Hodel, in answer to question 1491, said -

With reference to the capabilities of white divers, I wish to draw your attention to a statement made by Mr. P. P. Outridge in evidence taken before the Pearl Shell Commission in 1S97 - Question 518 - “ Some white divers, are even better than the blacks.” Question 519 - “ White divers are as. a rule the best divers”; also question 773 - “ Mr. George Smith - I have seen white men working alongside Manillamen, natives, and Japanese, and they are infinitely superior.” (774) “ It would be a splendid thing to have British natives and white divers alone engaged in the industry.” These are the views of persons who are now most adverse’ to the employment of white divers.

Paragraph a, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph b negatived.

Paragraph c agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 6054

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ Message) :

Clause 3 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “Dwelling” . . . includes any ship or other vessel in any port of the Commonwealth or in any inland waters thereof. . . .

Senate’s Amendment. - After “thereof” insert “ or any ship or vessel registered in Australia on a passage between any two Commonwealth ports.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment disagreed to.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Senate’s amendment be not insisted on.

This is the amendment which was moved by Senator Guthrie with regard to any ship registered in Australia that might be on a voyage between any two Commonwealth ports. The reason given by the House of Representatives for disagreeing with our amendment is -

Because it is impossible to state to which State the persons on board any ship or vessel should be credited.

Provision is made in clause 15 of the Bill for obtaining returns with regard to persons who are not abiding in dwellings; and a ship or vessel between two Commonwealth ports would not be a dwelling within the meaning of the clause. There is no intention on the part of the Department to avoid obtaining the necessary particulars as to persons on board such ships, but it is deemed desirable that arrangements for that purpose shall be made by means of regulations, instead of by providing in the Bill that such ships shall be dwellings.

Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia).I do not think that the reason given for not insisting on our amendment meets the case. So far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing in clause 15 which requires the Department to register persons on board vessels. It merely makes provision for obtaining such returns and particulars as are prescribed. The clauseis taken from the New South Wales Act. We have no more guarantee that in the Commonwealth census particulars will be obtained of persons on board such ships than was the case in New South Wales. A number of particulars are required in regard to persons who are at sea on the census night. But we want to know to what State they shall be credited for electoral purposes. We also want to know their nationality and a number of other things. In the past, in all the States, such persons were merely bunched together as being on a certain vessel; but under the Commonwealth a looseness in this respect may make such a difference as to deprive a State of a representative. For statistical purposes also it is absolutely necessary to obtain these particulars. If the Government assures me that a special form will be prepared to meet the case of vessels at sea on the census night, and that the regulations will provide for the distribution and collection of schedules, I do not know that it will be necessary to insist on the amendment. But unless I have an absolute assurance, I feel inclined to insist on it.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think that Senator Guthrie ought to insist on this amendment. It relates to the definition of a dwelling, which is made to include vessels travelling between ports of the Commonwealth. The schedules could easily be left with the captains of vessels leaving ports within a certain number of clays of the census day. Of course, proper regulations would have to be framed to carry out what is intended. We do not need to put in the Bill the machinery for carrying out the idea. But we ought to require that a dwelling shall include a ship which may be between two Commonwealth ports on census day. It should be remembered that the census papers are not left at dwellings on one particular day. They have to be filled up on a particular day, but they can be left a number of days before the census. The captain of a ship should be made just as much responsible as a householder for seeing that schedules left with him are properly filled up. They can be collected when the vessel arrives in port. The regulations might provide that the Customs officers shall be empowered to collect them. The provision will apply only to coastal vessels. I am afraid that in the tremendous excitement over the union label clauses in the other House, not much attention has been given to this matter. Senator Guthrie has had considerable ex- perience, and take’s a keen interest in shipping affairs. What is there that is impracticable in this amendment? I think it ought to be insisted upon.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I agree with what Senator Pearce and Senator Guthrie have said, and if a division is called for, I shall vote for insisting on the amendment. I do not see why persons on board ships travelling between port and port of the Commonwealth at about the time of the census should not be enumerated. Schedules can be left with the captains of vessels on the occasion of leaving ports if the census day occurs while those vessels are at sea. With regard to not knowing to which State the individuals on board are to be credited, I reply, let each passenger choose his own State. If a man says, “ I came from Queensland,” let him be credited to Queensland.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

– I do not think that any proper answer has been given to the contention that Senator Guthrie’s amendment should be inserted in the Bill. It seems to me to be necessary for the purpose of making the measure complete. What is desired is very simple. Clause 15 hardly covers the case. It may cover a number of casual cases, but the fact is that there will be necessarily a considerable number of persons travelling between ports on the census day. It is surely desirable that methodical means be taken to ascertain their number. It is within the capacity of the Department to secure this information. I should say that we ought to insist on the amendment. To my mind, the reason given by the House of Representatives for rejecting it is totally inadequate.

– Certainly not. The regulations will provide for all the possible circumstances which may present themselves in connexion with travellers by sea. I think, as I told the Committee before, that it would be a far -wiser plan to leave the collection of statistics relating to such persons to be arranged for by regulations, and thus provide an elasticity which would enable all varying circumstances to be met, than to describe in the Bill a ship which may be a long time in passing from one port in the Commonwealth to another, such as a sailing vessel, as a dwelling to be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary dwelling on land. I assure Senator Guthrie that there is no desire not to get these particulars; in fact, it is quite the opposite, and that is the reason why we wish to provide elastic machinery.

Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia).What I desire to ascertain is whether it is intended to adopt the old custom, under which the clearing or entering officer merely took from a ship her papers and calculated that she had, say, 300 passengers on board. I know the way in which these returns have been prepared. Take, for instance, a vessel which is trading between Melbourne and another port in the Commonwealth. For some statistical purpose, in Victoria, the purser has to return a sheet containing the names of the passengers, together with their sex and age. A man who is sixty years of age may be returned as being twenty years of age, for no one is ever asked his age. I am sure that no honorable senator who has travelled along the coast by steamer has ever been asked to state his age for the purpose of this statistical return. Yet the returns come in regularly, with the age and sex of every one given. Probably such returns would be obtained under the proposed regulations. For the census, it is just as necessary to get accurate returns in regard to those who are at sea as in regard to those who are ashore. All that it is necessary to do is to provide in the schedule an extra column, in which persons afloat could give the State to which they belonged. All the other particulars would be given in the ordinary way. It is the most difficult thing to ascertain the number of men who are sailing on the Australian coast at any one time. Our passenger statistics are absolutely incorrect, because the persons who are going from,, say Fremantle to Melbourne, are returned first at Adelaide and next at Melbourne. Under my amendment, these persons could be returned only once; otherwise they might be counted two or three times over, or perhaps not counted at all. When I moved my amendment, I pointed out that there was a chance of all those persons who were at sea on censusnight being left off the rolls of their respective States. In the past it has been the custom to leave with the census schedule a form of application to be placed on the electoral roll. If the forms are not left, then the probability is - unless, of course, the persons apply, which very often they neglect to do - their names will be left off the electoral rolls. I hope that the Committee will insist upon the amendment, because it is designed to secure absolutely accurate returns.

Question - That the Senate’s amendment be not insisted on - put. The Committee’ divided.

Ayes … … … 7

Noes … … … 12

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 16 -

The Statistician shall, subject to the regulations and the directions of the Minister, collect, annually, statistics in relation to all or any of the following matters : -

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out of paragraph a the word “ statistics.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Omission of the word “ statistics “ agreed to, and the word “ matters “ inserted in place thereof.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– In paragraph a of this clause the Senate left out the word “ statistics,” which was redundant, as will be seen upon reference to the governing words of the clause. The House of Representatives has proposed to substitute the word “matters” for the word “statistics.” I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate’s Amendment. - Insert new paragraph ” ca. Postal and telegraphic.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Agreed to, with an amendment to insert the word “ matters “ after the word “ telegraphic.”

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Honor ary Minister). - The House of Representatives has made this amendment in order to bring our amendment in conformity with the previous amendment. I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 6057

QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL

Debate resumed from 22nd November (vide page 5578) on motion by Senator

Playford -

That, in the opinion of this Senate, the

Commonwealthof Australia should join with Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, the Cape Colony, Natal, Newfoundland, and other parts of the Empire in the erection of a memorial in honour of the personal worth and beneficent reign of the late Queen Victoria.

That this Senate is prepared to approve of a grant of , £25,000 for that purpose.
That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted by Address to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, -

Upon which Senator Stewart had moved by way of amendment -

That paragraph 3 be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ Provided that such memorial be a public hospital to be erected in an Australian city chosen by the Commonwealth Parliament, and that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia be invited to contribute by private subscription the balance of such sum as may be necessary for the erection and endowment of such memorial hospital.”

That in the opinion of the Senate, the Commonwealth of Australia should join with Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, the Cape Colony, Natal, Newfoundland, and other parts of the Empire in the erection of a memorial in honour of the personal worth and beneficent reign of the late Queen Victoria ; provided such memorial be a public hospital, to be erected in an Australian’ city chosen by the Commonwealth Parliament, and that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia be invited to contribute by private subscription the balance of such sum as may be necessary for the erection and endowment of such memorial hospital.

Senator Stewart:

– That is quite right.

Senator Keating:

– It would be all right if we could get the other countries mentioned to join in.

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not think that Senator Stewart can have any expectation that the various countries named in the motion would contribute to the erection of a hospital in Australia. In the first place, I decline to have anything to do with the motion as submitted by the Government ; and in the second place, I think. that if the motion were amended, as Senator Stewart proposes, it would simply, make the whole thing ridiculous. We do not want to appeal to Canada, Cape Colony, and Newfoundland to assist Australia in erecting a hospital as a memorial to Queen Victoria. We prize our independent spirit too much for that. if the people of Australia wished to put up such a memorial in this country, they would not appeal for assistance to any other part of the globe. I am, therefore, just as much opposed to the amendment as to the motion. I am also opposed to the idea of erecting a hospital as a memorial. There are many difficulties in the way. In the various States it is already extremely difficult to raise money by voluntary subscriptions for the support of local hospitals. And where is the memorial hospital to be erected? Are we to ask the people of Queensland to contribute to the erection of a hospital in Sydney, in Melbourne, or at Monaro? Are we to appeal to the people of Western Australia to assist in erecting a hospital in some populous centre of Australia? In Queensland the Government has had to step in, and take over practically the management and support of institutions which are considered as the basic hospitals of Brisbane, and other important places. The Government did not want to do it, but it was found to be absolutely impossible to obtain sufficient public contributions to maintain the hospitals. The people who went on hospital committees did a great amount of very hard work. They devised various schemes with the object of raising money. Yet they found it to be impossible to keep their institutions out of debt. Ultimately, the Government had to step in and provide the money. When such difficulties are experienced in maintaining hospitals in populous centres, where people have the opportunity of visiting, their sick friends, and seeing the splen did work that the institutions are doing, how much more difficult would it be to induce people in the distant parts of Australia to contribute towards the maintenance of a hospital which they might never see, and of the working of which they would know nothing. Again, the proposal is objectionable, because it would throw upon the Government the odium of selecting the site for the -memorial.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Put it up in New Guinea for the benefit of the natives.

Senator TURLEY:

– It would not be necessary to spend £25,000 there. It would be sufficient to build a place up a tree. I do not think that either of the proposals before the Senate is in consonance with the opinion of the majority of the people of Australia. For these reasons, whatever term may be applied to my conduct, I propose to vote against both motion and amendment.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I sympathize very much with the remarks of Senator Best, and consider it to be both a pleasure and a duty to support the motion. The Senate ought to be unanimous in regard to the matter. It is true that there are many local memorials to her late Majesty throughout the Empire. But I take a special pleasure in voting for a motion which will connect the name of her late Majesty with a memorial significant of the whole Empire. There are enduring memorials to her in the names of some portions of the Empire. For instance, Victoria and Queensland are named after her. Cities, towns, and rivers bear her name in many parts of the British Dominion. Lake Victoria Nyanza, in the centre of Africa, recalls her to mind. But all these are merely local memorials. The time has come for this great Empire to erect an Imperial monument to celebrate for all time one of the most glorious reigns in the History of the world. Can any one name a reign of any Sovereign that is fit to bear comparison with that of Queen Victoria? London is the capital of the British Empire, and a more suitable place in which to erect a national memorial I cannot imagine. Those who have had the privilege to visit London within the last few years must Have been delighted ‘to find that the great city is growing even more grand in its buildings and in its streets than it was in days gone by. It is, unfortunately, the case that the extremes of poverty and riches are to be met with there-. We must’ admit and deplore that fact. But we mayhope that this very national memorial will have an effect upon the people of London, reminding them that they belong to a great Empire, and that it is their duty to look to the improvement and benefit of the people of that Empire. Twenty-five thousand pounds is, of course, a considerable sum of money ; but, divided amongst 4,000,000 of people, what does it mean? It means 3d. per head. Does any one mean to tell me that there is a person in Australia who would object to contribute 3d. towards a worthy memorial celebrating not only the late Queen but the Empire over which she reigned ? It is a mere trifle ! Nowadays, a man can get a nobbier for 3d. This national memorial will symbolize for all time the unity of the Empire to which we belong. I trust that the motion will be carried unanimously. We have our little differences from time to time, but we are all loyal men. Let us show that we can be of one mind on such an occasion as this. Our young people have a day in the year which they call Empire Day. It is a valuable celebration, as promoting the spirit of loyalty. I believe that Australia is as loyal as any part of the British Dominions. There is a beautiful system of co-operation working towards the erection of this memorial. Canada, Cape Colony, Natal, New Zealand, and Newfoundland will all contribute their share. I have no doubt that the great Indian Empire will join. Those who had the privilege of being in London at the time of the coronation of the King, can never forget the men we saw there who were representative of all portions of the British Empire, its States, Dependencies. Colonies, and subject countries. I do not wish to take up more time, but, as its sole representative here at the present moment, I think it right to say that in New South Wales, at any rate, there will be great disappointment if the Senate does not fall in with this proposal.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator PEARCE:

– I think it could be made practicable, but, at the same time, I do not wish to split hairs over details. I would not urge Senator Stewart to press his amendment to a division; in fact, I would urge him to withdraw it, and to let the motion pass on the voices.

Senator Stewart:

– I wish, sir, to withdraw my amendment. ‘

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 6064

QUESTION

PROPOSED NEW STANDING ORDERS

Consideration of Standing Orders Committee’s report (vide page 5531)-

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– It will be remembered that on the 7th October, 1903, the Senate passed the following resolution: -

This Senate is of opinion that members of the Senate should, on motion “ That the Senate do now adjourn,” be permitted to debate questions not relevant to the motion.

In most cases a member of a legislative chamber enjoys the privilege of discussing on the ordinary motion to adjourn the House practically any matter which, in his opinion, is of urgency. That practice has teen followed since the resolution of the Senate was arrived at, although it has never been formally embodied in a standing order. In a recent report the Standing Orders Committee has recommended that the following be a new standing order, in lieu, of standing order 59 : -

The adjournment of the Senate may be moved at any time by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, and on such motion matters irrelevant thereto may be debated.

I move -

That the report be now adopted.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia).Contingent on the consideration of any report of the Standing Orders Committee, I gave notice of ray intention to move -

That the following new Standing Orders be adopted, viz. : - “319A. On a Bill to amend an existing Act an

Instruction can be given to a Committee to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Sill, provided that such amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the Act which it is proposed to amend.” “ 319B. An Instruction to a Committee of the

Whole requires notice, and can be moved before going into Committee on any question.”

I ask leave, however, to amend the notice of motion.

Leave granted.

Senator PEARCE:

– I now move the following amended motion : -

That the following new standing order be added to the report : - “ An instruction can be given to a Committee of the Whole on a Bill to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, provided that such amendments shall not deal with an entirely different matter.”

The object of this standing order is to make the instructions given to a Committee of the Whole of some practical use - to enable the Committee to deal w’ith subjects not strictly relevant to the Bill under consideration.

At present the instructions are of no use, because the Committee possess the power without instructions. This matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee, but my suggestion was rejected. I think, however, that we have unduly cramped our powers under the present reading of the Standing Orders, and that the amendment I have suggested is absolutely necessary.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think it would’ be wise, after I, and, perhaps, other honorable senators, have spoken, to -adjourn the consideration of this matter. The motion before us now is quite a new one, and is fundamentally different from that of which Senator Pearce gave notice. The Standing Orders Committee considered’ this question of instructions, and I think we were unanimously of opinion .that if some scheme could be devised whereby instructions could be given to a Committee to consider subjects not strictly relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill, and whereby the powers of the Committee of the Whole might be enlarged, that course should be taken. The only difficulty was that the Standing Orders Committee could not devise any scheme which was not open to more objections than is the present system. I entirely sympathise with those honorable senators who say, “ We do not think we have sufficient liberty in a Committee of the Whole on a Bill ; we wish by instruction to have power to deal with matters that are cognate to a Bill.” But if honorable senators will bear with me for a moment while I shortly state the history of standing orders concerning instructions, they will see the difficulty of the position.- In the House of Commons, it was formerly competent to give an instruction to deal with a matter not relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill, but the practice was found to be open to a great many objections. It led to matters being included in th’e same Bill which had no proper relation to each other, and which could not come under the same title. ‘ After the system had been tried for a considerable time in the House of Commons, it was abandoned, arid it has been abandoned by every other Parliament that I know of. Even the United States Congress have adopted the same system that we follow, though their standing order is not precisely in the same words as the standing order of this Senate. I do not wish to express at present a decided opinion about the pro- posed new standing order, because I should like time to consider it. As a matter of fact, I suggested this standing order to Senator Pearce, not, however, as, a wellconsidered proposal, but merely as a matter for consideration. Indeed, the motion as handed to meis partly in my own handwriting. As I say,I should like some further time to think over, not only the scheme itself, but the words by which it is proposed to bring it into force. I think, therefore, that the Senate would do well not to act rashly in the matter.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dobson) adjourned’.

page 6065

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I made a promise that after Government business had been disposed of, the consideration of private business might be resumed if honorable senators desired. As our last sitting was protracted until early in the morning, I think that this sitting ought not to be continued beyond, say, a quarter-past 10 o’clock.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Let us go on until half-past 10 o’clock.

Senator Dobson:

– What business is there for next week?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– For Wednesday, I havean important notice of motion on the business-paper, namely, the motion to ratify the agreement that has been entered into by the Commonwealth with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. This agreement was discussed on. a former occasion, but was left hanging up like Mohamet’s coffin, pending the receipt of the report of the Pacific Cable Board.

Senator Best:

– Surely we are not going to meet for that business alone?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I anticipate that there will be considerable discussion upon* it. Then, on Thursday, I expect that the Trade Marks Bill will have been received from another place, and it will have to be read a first time.

page 6065

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

Debate resumed from 26th October (vide page 4121), on motion by Senator Staniforth Smith-

That the female employes in the Civil Service possessing equal qualifications and aptitude should be placed in the same class and receive equal remuneration as male Civil Servants doing similar work.

That at least one-half of the total number of telegraphists should be in the fourth class.

That the three grades in the General Division should be abolished, and increments substituted up to at least£150.

That district allowances should be more in conformity with those previously allowed by the States, and should constitutea more equitable compensation for increased cost of living, isolation, and climatic conditions.

That the composition of the Appeal Board should be altered so that one member should represent the Government, one member the Civil Servants, to be presided over by a Judge or stipendiary Magistrate,

Upon which Senator Millen had moved by way of amendment -

That the words “ be more in conformity with those previously allowed by the States, and should,” be omitted from paragraph 4.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– In replying to the discussion on this motion-

Senator Playford:

– I suppose the honorable senator will withdraw his motion ?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I shall certainly not withdraw the motion, and I am anxiously waiting to see whether the Government will redeem their promise to give the Senate a fair opportunity to discuss it. On a previous occasion, the Government showed considerable anxiety to prevent any decision being registered in the Senate. Senator Keating is an able and forcible speaker, but I never heard him less forcible or less convincing than he was in his reply to my remarks. I listened to his speech more in sorrow than in anger, and a subsequent reading of it confirmed me in the opinion I have just expressed. When I submitted the motion, I distinctly said that the public servants as a whole had benefited as an immediate result of their transfer to the Commonwealth. According to the Constitution, public servants so transferred retain all their existing rights, and it is mandatory that the laws concerning them shall be uniform throughout all the States. These provisions of the Constitution, of course, necessitated a levelling-up, which meant increased salaries in five of the States. I dwelt on this point at some length, and showed unmistakably that the transfer had resulted in an immediate advantage to the public servants. At the same time, I pointed out that the public servants are now receiving less increments than they did when in the service of the States, and I compared the position to a case wherein a bonus is given., and dividends cut off. Senator Keating, instead of addressing himself to the arguments I adduced, devoted the whole of his speech to a laboured tabulation of figures, showing that each particular section of the service had received immediate increases of salary as a result of the transfer - a fact of which we were all aware, and which was inevitable, however parsimonious the Commonwealth might be. I do not blame him for his paucity of ideas, because he had a great many matters to consider, and simply spoke, as barristers do, from a brief which had been prepared for him by the Public Service Commissioner. While Senator Keating made a tedious and laboured comparison between the conditions immediately prior, and the conditions immediately subsequent, to Federation, he failed altogether to refute any one of my arguments, or to show why the various proposals I made in the motion should not be carried out. There is another matter we must consider in regard to the Commonwealth public servants. The Commonwealth pays no pensions whatever, though the practice of the States Governments was to make provision of the kind for public servants. In. this respect alone, the transfer from the States to the Commonwealth was undoubtedly detrimental to the interests of the public servants. The Public Service Commissioner contends that it is mandatory to grade the general division, but, with all respect, I hold the opinion that he is absolutely incorrect. In the Public Service Act and regulations there is not a sentence which makes this grading mandatory, the provision being that the general division may be graded, and, therefore, it was a matter entirely for the volition of the Public Service Commissioner. As to female public servants, we laid it down as a fundamental principle in the Act that there should be absolute sex equality, and that we should, therefore, pay for the labours of our public servants according to the value of the service rendered, without any regard to sex. I say that in this classification the rule we insisted on in the Public Service Act has been departed from by the Commissioner. In the first place, female employes are practically prevented from, entering the clerical division. They are classed in the general division, in which the emoluments and opportunities of increase are less than they are in the clerical division. In Western Australia, out of fifty postmistresses, forty-six are classified, and their salaries fixed. Twenty-six of the forty-six have salaries fixed at less than the minimum wage of £110 decided upon by Parliament. Yet Senator Keating, reading from the brief prepared for him by Mr. McLachlan, stated that it was incorrect to say that any difference whatever had been made between male and female employes in the Public Service. Throughout the classification there is a succession of injustices inflicted” on the civil servants. Here and there it may be that this has been intentional, in order to save money ; in many cases it may be accidental ; but there can be no denying the fact that the classification scheme is honeycombed with injustices. A large number of the officers of the Telegraph Department are excluded from the rank of telegraphists. They are dubbed as “assistants,” with the result that the number of officers in the fourth class is unfairly curtailed. The proportion between the numbers in the fifth and fourth classes is as two to one. The officers who are called “assistants” are really in the fifth class, but are not included in the ratio I speak of. Prior to Federation these “assistants” were termed “operators.” They not only do telegraphic work, but work in the Savings Bank, in connexion with the issue of postal notes, and the parcels post, and if the postmaster is ill, they occasionally take his place, with all his responsibilities. Yet these men are classed in the general division, and are not allowed to obtain the advantages which their position and the examinations they have passed absolutely entitle them to, and which we, in passing the Public Service Act, undoubtedly intended that they should possess. This proposal is very farreaching in its effect, and the number of officers in the fifth class is swollen unduly as a result of this scheme of the Public Service Commissioner. I come now to the question of district allowances. When that question came up, an Inter-State conference of lettercarriers, representatives of these officers throughout the Commonwealth, and those assembled at a meeting of the Electric Telegraph Association of Australia, carried resolutions asking that Western Australia should be put on a different footing to the other States in the matter of district allowances, because of the increased cost of living and the disabilities in other respects which the public servants in that State suffer under. Not only has that not been done, but the civil servants of Western

Australia are in an absolutely, worse position under the classification scheme than they were in prior to Federation. If wo take, as an illustration, the towns of Brown Hills, Boulder City, Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie, and Lake View, we shall find that the civil servants working in those towns prior to Federation received an annual district allowance of £30 per head, irrespective of salary or position. As a result of Federation and the classification scheme, the majority of those civil servants have had their annual district allowance reduced to £18 10s. per head. There is absolutely no warrant for this reduction. The cost of living on the gold-fields has not been reduced, and the disabilities of civil servants in these towns .are as great now as they were prior to Federation. It was embedded in the Constitution that the rights of these public servants should be retained when they were transferred to the Commonwealth. Whether we are breaking the letter of the agreement or not, I unhesitatingly affirm that we are breaking the spirit of it by the way in which we are treating these civil servants in the matter of allowances. In the case of civil servants employed in the most populous towns on the gold-fields, the .allowances have been reduced practically by onehalf, and in Senator Keating’s speech there was not even an excuse offered for this great injustice which has been inflicted on the public servants in Western Australia. I shall deal with the question of the Appeal Board in a word. I was instrumental in having it provided for under the Public Service Act, but I candidly admit that it has not been the success which we hoped and desired. An improvement would undoubtedly be effected if we had a Judge or Stipendiary Magistrate to preside,, with a representative of the Government, who are the employers, and a representative of the public servants. By the constitution of such a Court we should follow practically the principle of the Arbitration Courts, where we have a representative of the employers and the employes respectively, with a Judge to decide as umpire between them. When we ask that a principle which is deemed good enough for a trial of industrial disputes shall be applied to the settlement of the question of whether civil servants are in certain circumstances right or wrong, Senator Keating tells us that it would be unfair. The honorable senator said that a Judge or a magistrate would not be familiar with the minutiae of the case. It is not necessary that a Judge should be au fait with all the minutiae of such a case. What is required is that he should hear the evidence, and give his decision upon it. He should not enter upon the consideration of a case with a preconceived conviction or previous knowledge of it, and it is therefore puerile for Senator Keating to tell the Senate that the proposal to have a Judge or a Stipendiary Magistrate at the head of the Appeal Board would be wrong because he would not know the facts of the case. It should be the duty of those who come before him to impart to him the knowledge of the facts of the case upon which he has to form his judgment. I have given some illustrations from Western Australia, because it is impossible that I should give illustrations from the whole of the States of the Commonwealth. I have pointed out that in every particular the civil servants in Western Australia are in an absolutely worse position as the result of Federation than they occupied under the State Government. I now take for illustration the case of the letter-carriers of Victoria, and I shall show by actual figures and facts, which have been checked and proved, that the letter-carriers of Victoria are in a worse position than they occupied prior to Federation. There are 450 men under the classification, and allowing that they all received the maximum salary of their respective grades, which is not likely, they would receive altogether £56,100 under the classification scheme. Under the State the total was £59,400, so that there is an absolute saving to the Commonwealth in the salaries paid to the letter-carriers of Victoria of £3,300. The Public Service Commissioner says that, at the time of the classification the annual rate of the same number of officers was £56,660, whereas the salaries paid to these men at the date of transfer amounted to £52.994, or an increase of £3,666 per annum. But this gentleman adroitly omits to mention the fact that if they had remained under the Stare Government these men would have received two rises of £14 each, which would have brought their salaries to an amount higher than that which they at present receive. Under the Commonwealth they are now getting an average salary of £125, and if they had remained under the State Government they would have been getting £132, or an average of £7 per head more than they are now getting. Yet the Public Service Commissioner states, and Senator

Keating naturally re-echoes him, .that, as a result of Federation., these men have been immensely benefited. I say unhesitatingly that the civil servants have not been benefited. I admit that, as the result of Federation, what was practically a cash bonus was distributed amongst them, because it was necessary to level up in order to bring those employed in the States which paid the lowest salaries on a level with those employed in the States which paid the highest. That necessitated an immediate increase in salaries ; but the fact remains, and cannot be disputed, that their opportunities of increment of salary are not so great under Federation, as they were beforeIn the long run, if the Public Service Classification is to be adhered to, the public servants will be in a worse position than they were in under the States Governments. If that is so, we have absolutely broken the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution, because the public servants of the States who voted for Federation were promised that when they were brought under the jurisdiction of the Federal authority all their rights would be preserved. It was never intended, and never for a moment desired, that they should be in a worse position after Federation than before it was accomplished. I have proposed in my motion. -

That the female employes in the Civil Service possessing equal qualifications and “aptitude should be placed in the same class and receive equal remuneration as male civil servants doing similar work.

If, as Senator Keating has said, that is done at the present time, there is absolutely no reason why my motion should not be carried. It will not alter existing conditions, and can do no harm.

Senator Playford:

– It will do no good.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– As a matter of fact, I have shown that female civil servants are not treated in the same way as males. There is a prejudice against their sex, and while many of them are doing equally good work, and are quite as competent as are male civil servants, they are receiving less salary, and are being denied the opportunities of advancement afforded to their brothers in the service. I ask in my motion, further -

That at least one-half of the total number of telegraphists should be in the fourth class.

I have done so because that would as nearly as possible place them in the same position as they occupied prior to Fede ration. That is, they would have increases of salaries practically commensurate with their condition prior to Federation. I have asked that the district allowances should be more in conformity with those previously allowed! bv the States, and that they should - constitute a more equitable compensation for increased cost of living, isolation, and climatic conditions.

I have also asked that the composition of the Appeal Board shall be altered. An amendment has been moved on the latter provision, and if it is the wish of honorable senators I have no objection to it being carried, though I cannot see that it is necessary. In conclusion., I say that I think that the Federal Government, as the largest employer of labour in the Commonwealth, should set an example to ‘Other employers. It should carry out ‘its contract when it has made one. When a contract has been embodied in the Constitution, the rights of public servants under it should be carried out. Very often, as we know, the largest employer of labour sets the index as to the wages paid in any locality. If the Commonwealth sets a bad example by paying lower wages than private employers, its action will have the effect of bringing ‘ down the pay of all wage-earners to the same level. The Commonwealth has, in respect of district allowances, set a very bad example indeed. The Commonwealth rate to make up for the extra cost of living on the gold-fields of Western Australia, and at places in the interior of Queensland and South Australia, is £18 ros. per year; whereas the banks there, as Senator, Walker knows, pay to their officers £1 per week extra as district allowance. That is to say, the Commonwealth Government, as the employer of 13,000 public servants, says that £18 ros. per annum is the actual difference in the cost of living. If we set that as a standard, private employers of labour will say that the extra cost of living, and the extra amount that should be paid owing to climatic conditions, is no more than our rate. Instead of paying miners £4 per week as at present, employers will pay them Victorian rates, plus £18 ros. per annum. It would be a gross wrong for the Commonwealth to set such an example. It should be a model employer. It should pay its men well, and should expect good service from them. If we do not adopt such a position as I recommend,we shall have the knowledge that we have been instrumental in reducing wages, and in preventing the equal distribution of wealth in these States, by reducing the emoluments of the wage-earners. I sincerely hope that the Senate will assent to each of the paragraphs in my motion, and that we shall do justice to those civil servants who have been so very hardly treated under the classification scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall now put the paragraphs of the motion separately.

Paragraph 1 agreed to.

Question - That paragraph 2 be agreed to - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 6

Majority … .,. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That paragraph 3 be agreed to - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 6

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph 4, as amended, agreed to.

Question - That paragraph 5 be agreed to- put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 6069

ADJOURNMENT

Public Service Commissioner

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I wish to refer very briefly to a passage in the recent report of the Public Service Commissioner. It was my intention to refer to the matter when the schedule to the Appropriation Bill was under consideration; but, unfortunately, the endurance of Senator Stewart last night outlasted mine. I left the Chamber for a few minutes, and during my absence the Estimates for South Australia were passed. In his recent report, the Public Service Commissioner refers to some remarks I made when I was dealing with the position of the postmasters under his classification scheme. On that occasion I took six post-offices in South Australia, and gave the salary of each postmaster.

The PRESIDENT:

-The honorable senator must not refer to a former debate of this session.

Senator STORY:

– I wish, sir, to make an explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senatoris forbidden by standing order 399 to mention what he said in a former debate in the session, otherwise we might have all the debates over again.

Senator STORY:

– In my speech I referred, amongst others, to the case of the postmaster at Mount Barker, and in his report the Commissioner says -

Reference has been made to the salary paid to the postmaster at Mount Barker, and his position has been compared with those of bank managers and State Government officials stationed at that place. It is pointed out that the salaries of these persons range from£320 in the case of one of the bank managers, to£240 in that of the railway station master, while the postmaster’s salary has been graded at £210.

Before I made that statement, I had ascertained, by careful inquiry, that the postmaster at Mount Barker was in receipt of £210, subject to a deduction of £21 for rent, thus leavinghis net salary at £189. In his report, the Commissioner goes on to say -

The salary paid by the State Government for this position was £270, with an additional amount of about£50 per annum as commission on sale of stamps and Savings Bank allowance. This office was thus costing the State Government about , £320 per annum. The salary to be paid for the same work by the Commonwealth Government is£210 without allowances, and similarofficers throughout Australia are graded at the same amount. The postmaster at present at Mount Barker continues to draw his State salary of £270, which has not been reduced, and when opportunity offers he will be transferred to an office appropriate to his salary.

When I saw the statement in the Commissioner’s report, I made further inquiries, and I am told on the best authority that the postmaster at Mount Barker is in receipt of only £210. The Commissioner should have made careful inquiries before Be furnished a report, because, if that statement be incorrect, and I am prepared to say that It is, it detracts very largely from the value of the report. If, in his opinion, the postmaster at Mount Barker is worth £270, and is receiving that amount, surely an injustice is being done to the officer when he is really in receipt of only £189. I would ask the Minister who represents the PostmasterGeneral to request the Commissioner to explain why, in his report, he made a statement which directly contradicts the statement which I made to the Senate, and which I felt perfectly sure was quite correct.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at10.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 November 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051130_senate_2_29/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate30 November 1905

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator HENDERSON:Western Aus tralia

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Senator CROFT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

MILITARY OFFICERS

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Playford:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

PAPERS

Senator Lt Col GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Playford:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Henderson:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Henderson:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senate
30 November 1905

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Aus tralia

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP