Senate
10 December 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- ADELAIDE CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS
QUESTION
- DURATION OF RECESS
QUESTION
- BOUNTY ON FISH
QUESTION
- EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) ACT
QUESTION
- COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- MATERIALIZED “ APPORTS
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- DRY FARMING
QUESTION
- NAVIGATION LAWS
PAPERS
APPROPRIATION BILL
QUESTION
- PRINTING COMMITTEE
ADJOURNMENT
- Case of Ex- Postmaster Brand

page 2984

QUESTION

ADELAIDE CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last night, the Minister of Defence, replying to a question asked by me early in the day, said that the honorable member for Hume had explained a previous statement, to the effect that if, when he made it, he had been in possession of information which he received later he would not have made it. But, according to a report in this morning’s Argus, which the Minister has probably seen the honorable member did not withdraw the statement, or suggestion, that an action which should have been proceeded with was dropped, and that the Customs Department has been negligent in the performance of a duty to the public. I therefore ask the Minister again if he was correct in saying last night that the honorable member for Hume had withdrawn his statement, and whether, if it was withdrawn, there was anv reservation?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have seen the press accounts referred to, and have obtained a proof of the official report of the speech made by the honorable member for Hume in the House of Representatives. He referred to two South Australian Customs cases, admitting in regard to the first that action had been taken of which he was not aware, and that, had he known of it, he would not have made his statement, though, later on, he expressed dissatisfaction with what has occurred. With regard to the second case, he indicated that, in his opinion, it is unsatisfactory that no action has been taken. In the first case, the Adelaide firm of Messrs. Harris, Scarfe, and Company was prosecuted by the Customs Department. The honorable member for Hume seemed to be of opinion that the prosecution had not been proceeded with; but that is not so. Seventeen charges were made, fourteen alleging evasion of the payment of duties, and three alleging fraud. On the matter being referred to the Crown Solicitor, he reported that the evidence to support the charges of fraud was very weak, and when the prosecution was commenced the firm entered a demurrer against these charges, pleading guilty to the charges of evading the payment of duty.

Senator Clemons:

– Pleading guilty to the fourteen charges?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. Subsequently counsel on both sides agreed as to a settlement, in regard to those charges, which left it to the Court to determine what penalty should be inflicted. The following statement of the judgment was forwarded to the Minister, by the Crown Solicitor, on the j st November last : -

I have the honour to inform you that His Honour, Mr. justice Isaacs, this morning delivered his reserved judgment as to the penalties to be imposed on the above-named defendants.
His Honour said inter alia that, in his opinion, the payment of Customs duties was a public duty, and it was no excuse for .an importer, when duties were not paid, to say that he had trusted his servants to make payment, and the servants had fraudulently retained the money. The defendants were, in his opinion, not justified in accepting their servants’ assurance that receipts were not given by the Department for duties paid, and should have satisfied themselves on the matter, as they would have if informed that a private individual never gave receipts for money paid to him.
His Honour, therefore, intimated that he would impose a penalty of £$ for each of the seventeen offences charged, in addition to the minimum penalty under the Act, whatever that might be. The question whether the minimum penalty is lone-twentieth of £100), or onetwentieth of three limes the value of the goods, when that amount exceeds ^100, was reserved for the opinion of the Full Court.

As to the settlement arrived at as the result of the conference between counsel, the following letter was forwarded by Mr. Smart : -

I have the honour to enclose a copy of the settlement made by your direction in this matter.

The question of penalties has to be decided by the Court at the first sittings of a Justice of the High Court in Adelaide.

The refunds mentioned in the latter part of paragraph S, Mr. Stevens, the Collector for South Australia, promised to let me have, but was unable to do so on Monday last.

The terms of the settlement were these -

The plaintiff to withdraw the charges of intent to defraud set out in the statement of claim as against the defendants not already withdrawn, and to make all necessary and consequent amendments of the statement of claim. The offences charged in each of the seventeen sets of charges to be treated as one only, namely, the making of an entry by the defendants by their agent, which was false and untrue in certain particulars.

The plaintiffs to admit that the other charges in each of the said seventeen sets were merely alternative.

Defendants, as regards the seventeen charges to admit that in each case an entry for goods imported by the defendants false and untrue in certain particulars was made by the defendants’ agents, authorized to pass entries for them, and that in respect of the making of each such entry by the agent, a penalty was incurred by the defendants, and to make such necessary and consequent amendments of the statement of defence (if any) and to submit to such penalty in respect of the making of each of those seventeen entries as the Court mav see fit to impose.
Defendants to admit the values of the goods, in respect of which such entries were made, to be the two invoiced prices where mentioned, plus 10 per cent, on such prices, and the value to be agreed when no invoice was produced for the goods referred to in any such entries or where such invoice is not now available.
The penalties to be determined by a Justice of the High Court at the next sittings of such Court to be held in Adelaide. On the question of penalties, the plaintiff to be at liberty to state to the Court that frauds were committed by the defendants’ servants on the Customs and any other grounds short of an intent by the defendants to defraud or the knowledge or benefit by the defendants from the frauds by their servants.

– The matter is now under consideration ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.

page 2986

QUESTION

DURATION OF RECESS

Senator GIVENS:

– I wish to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether it is true, as stated in this morning’s Argus, that, in order to avoid a crisis, the Government intends to accede to the wishes of the Opposition regarding the length of the recess? If the Ministry has not vet arrived at a decision on the matter, will the members of the Labour Party be consulted, to ascertain their wishes?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Neither myself nor any other Minister is responsible for the statement in the Argus. The Government, in advising the Governor-General as to the length of the recess, will study the best interests of the Commonwealth.

page 2986

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON FISH

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister of Defence yet furnished with an answer to my question regarding the payment of bounty on fish?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– On the 3rd inst. the honorable senator asked the following questions -

The total amount of bonus paid on dried or smoked fish in the Commonwealth since the passage of the Tariff.
To whom such bonus was paid, giving names of persons or company.
If any sums were paid for smoked or dried fish so smoked or dried before the passing of the Tariff.

The answers with which I have been supplied by the Department of Trade and Customs are these -

,£1,290 6s. 4d.
H. Lowe, Brunswick, Victoria; D. H. Jenkins, South Melbourne ; Tuckey, Western Australia; Hosking and Bissenberger, Western Australia; F. Pender, W. Gates, W. R. Burnett, W. G. Bowtell, Hobart.
Yes; £251 16s.

page 2987

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) ACT

Senator CLEMONS:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs inform the Senate to-morrow approximately to what extent Victorian distillers have taken advantage of the provisions that we put in the Excise Act in order to bring about, if possible, an increased production in the Commonwealth of spirits of high quality? I do not want elaborate details, so long as the answer is generally informative.

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– If the honorable senator will repeat the question to-morrow, I shall give instructions for the information to be obtained.

page 2987

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MACFARLANE:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Have the Government decided to amend the Regulations under the Commerce Act as to marking cases of fruit for export, as promised to a deputation of fruit-growers should be considered ?
If so, to what extent?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : - 1 and 2. This subject has already received the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs, who hopes within the next few days to arrive at a decision.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Will that decision be made known to the exporters of fruit?

Senator PEARCE:

page 2987

QUESTION

MATERIALIZED “ APPORTS

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What steps have been or are being taken to collect duties on the so-called “apports” alleged to have been recently materialized in Melbourne at seances held by a certain spiritualist called Bailey?
What is the estimated Customs valuation of the so-called “ apports,” with relative amount of duties payable thereon?
What is the technical difference between “apports” and “imports?”

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : - 1, 2, and 3. The Minister for Trade and Customs does not consider the evidence at his disposal justifies any further action in this case.

page 2987

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Letter Carriers and Sorters

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a number of Letter Carriers who were called on to undergo a severe test, in order to qualify as sorters, have been Letter Sorting for over 12 months without receiving Sorters’ pay?
If so, why?
Is it the intention of the Department to appoint these men permanently?
Is it a fact that some of them have been sent back Letter-Carrying this week, and that temporary unqualified men are being applied for to fill their places?
Has the Postal Department applied for and been refused additional Sorters?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I ask the honorable senator to postpone the questions, as he has not indicated any locality. I take it that he does not require the information regarding the whole Commonwealth. Will he indicate the locality to which he refers?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Melbourne is. the locality to which I referred. I shall repeat the question to-morrow.

page 2987

QUESTION

DRY FARMING

Senator GIVENS:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, uponnotice -

Is it a fact that, as stated in the Argus of the9th inst., the Government is considering the advisableness of appointing a delegate to represent the Commonwealth at a Conference on dry farming, to be held in the United States?
Is it a fact that, as stated by the Argus, the Government propose to appoint Senator McColl as the Commonwealth representative to that Conference?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : - 1 and 2. A letter on the subject has been received, but has not yet been considered.

page 2987

QUESTION

NAVIGATION LAWS

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Referring to the statement made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, on 2nd December, in response to a question by Senator Pulsford, that a reply was being drafted to the Despatch of the Colonial Office, dated 3rd September, relating to Navigation Laws, has the reply now been sent, and will the Government lay a copy on the table?
In case the reply is not sent till after the close of the session, will the Government see that it is made public when forwarded?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

It is expected that the reply will go forward by next week’s mail.
This document and any other correspondence that may pass on the subject will be made public before the consideration of the Navigation Bill is resumed by the Senate.

page 2988

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -

The Defence of Australia - By Colonel H. Fester (Director of Military Studies, Sydney University).

The Naval Director’s remarks thereon.

Public Service Act 1902. - Fourth Report on the Commonwealth Public Service by the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner.

Ordered to be printed.

Copy of Statutory Rules 1908, No. 119, being new Regulation under the Bounties Act 1907.

Audit Acts 1901-1906. - Transfers in connexion with the Financial Year 1907-8. - Approved 8th December, 1908.

Copies of Original Schedules of the Valuations of the Transferred Properties in each State, signed by the Official Representatives of the Commonwealth and States.

page 2988

APPROPRIATION BILL

In Committee : (Consideration resumed from 9th December, vide page 2984). Second Schedule -

Parliament : The President - Usher of the Black Rod - Senators’ Luggage Expenses - Official Dress and Uniforms - Hansard : Sessional Typists - The Library - Sanitary Conveniences - Lift Attendant.

Divisions 1to 10 (The Parliament), £31,080.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item “ The President, £1,100,” by £500.

I need not give reasons for this proposal. I did so upon several previous occasions. The sum proposed is extravagant, and the President of the Senate ought to be very well paid with a remuneration of £1,000 a vear as President and Senator.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I do not care to allow this request to go to a vote without discussion. Senator Stewart will agree with me that the request cannot be regarded as in any way reflecting upon the present holder of the office. The honorable senator and my self more than once joined in voting for such a request when someone else held the office, and I am sure that in the event of any other member of the Senate becoming President in the future we shall take exactly the same action. I find an additional reason for supporting the request, in that I intend to endeavour to effect economies in other directions in the Estimates, and it is well to begin with ourselves.

Senator Gray:

– With our own salaries, for instance.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator knows my views on that question, which, however, is not relevant to the issue before the Committee.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 16

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe negative.

Request negatived.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “ Clerk of Select Committees, Usher of the Black Rod, and Secretary of the Joint House Committee, £475”

I have always considered the position of Usher of the Black Rod to be a sinecure, and have had no reason lately to alter my, opinion. The late Government had an excellent opportunity to make a new departure in this connexion, but neglected it, and I, therefore, invite the Committee to support my request.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I notice that according to a foot-note to the item the officer occupying this position is entitled to three annual increments of ^25 each, “subject to the recommendation of the President.” I object to such a provision. The Usher of the Black Rod is an officer of the Parliament, and it is for the Parliament and not for the President to say what he shall receive.

Senator Pearce:

– He is placed under the President by the Public Service Act.

Senator GIVENS:

– That- is a mere fiction.

Senator Pearce:

– It is not.

Senator GIVENS:

– He is under the absolute control of Parliament, and it is for Parliament to say whether he shall or shall not receive an increase. I am objecting, not to the fact that he may receive certain increments, but to the system under which they are to be granted. Strong opinions have previously been expressed in the Senate as to the office of Usher of the Black Rod. It is a remnant of old world worn-out superstition, pageantry, show, and grandeur. In these days, when sensible people are supposed to manage their business in a sensible way, why should we think it necessary to have an officer wearing a swallow-tail coat, with brass buttons, knee breeches, silk stockings, patent leather shoes, with pointed toes and buckles on them, to walk with a black stick in his hands before the President, or to announce the arrival of the GovernorGeneral ? If a body of savages were to adopt such a practice one would not be surprised, but it is astounding that sensible men in this twentieth century should resort to such ridiculous “ flummery.” The present occupant of the position is far too good a man to be degraded by so menial an office. In the old days the office was certainly regarded as a menial one, and we should do away with it. If this officer is required for other purposes, let us sayso plainly and put it in black and white, that we pay him for those services. It is a mere waste of good material to have in the position a gentleman of the ability of the present occupant. I have not a word to say against him, nor had I a word to say against the former occupant of the office when I raised a similar objection. I have a most friendly feeling towards both gentlemen, but personal considerations should not lead us to continue to countenance so absurd an office. Who pays for the silk stockings, the knee breeches, the swallow-tailed coat, the pointed leather shoes with buckles, and the black rod? While people are going hungry, is the community to be taxed to provide such things? I shall support ‘ the request because I believe it is time the Senate took up a strong stand and attempted to cleanse itself of this remnant of an Old World superstition.

Senator Gray:

– Why does not the honorable senator attack members of Friendly Societies for wearing regalia?

Senator GIVENS:

– If I were elected to supervise or manage their business I should do so, but as I am not, I leave them severely alone. There is another matter that I should like to mention. The former occupant of the office of Usher of the Black Rod received a grant of ,£50 per annum as Controller of the Refreshment Rooms, but no such item appears on these Estimates. On a former occasion I protested against the system of providing for the remuneration of an officer in different items, believing it an excellent principle that the emoluments of an office should appear in one item, so that we may see at a glance what any officer receives. I should be glad to know what i.= the new arrangement with regard to the position of Controller of the Refreshment Rooms.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [11. 9]. - Senator- Stewart has always consistently opposed the item on the Estimates providing for the salary of the Usher of the Black Rod, and if the sole duty appertaining to the office were that of remaining in the Chamber while the Senate is sitting there would be strong reason for taking exception to it. But as has been explained over and over again, the Usher of the Black Rod has other very important and special duties to perform, and it is really in relation to those duties that his salary is voted.

Senator Givens:

– Why supply him with a ridiculous uniform ?

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD.That is a trifling objection. Senator Givens has spoken very1 favorably of the present occupant of the office as a man, but says that he is degraded by being called upon to act as Usher of the Black Rod. I would remind him- that in the House of Lords the position has always been regarded as one that should be held by a man of ability enjoying the esteem of his fellow citizens, and so with the office of Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons, as well as in another place. The Usher of the Black Rod is also Clerk of

Select Committees, which includes the Printing Committee, the Joint House Committee, and the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. As Secretary to the Joint House Committee he has supervision over the Refreshment Rooms, the Parliament Gardens, the Queen’s Hall, and repairs to the building. As Usher of the Black Rod he has to deal with the Press gallery and other galleries generally during the sittings of the Senate. Then, again, he assists in the work of the office, such as preparing Bills, as amended for the Printer, and drawing up schedules of amendments, which cannot be done by the Clerks as the work in the Chamber proceeds. Honorable members will recognise therefore that he has to discharge multifarious duties many affecting the comfort and convenience of every member of the Parliament. If we did away with the office, and so» reduced our staff, the work of the Senate would speedily fall into arrears and confusion, since the remaining Clerks would not have time to attend to the additional duties that would devolve upon them. As to the granting of increases, we all recognise that Parliament has supreme control, but, as was perti nently pointed out just now by the Minister of Defence, the President stands in the position of the Public Service Commissioner so far as officers of the Senate are concerned. The Public Service Act provides that-

Unless inconsistent with the context any action or approval required by this Act to be taken or given by the Commissioner may, so far as officers of the Parliament are concerned, be taken or given by the President or the Speaker or the President and the Speaker (as the case may be) in substitution for the Commissioner, and any action required or authorized by this Act to b<* taken by a permanent head or chief officer shall or may be taken by the Clerk of the Senate so far as relates to officers of the Senate and by the Clerk of the House of Representatives so far as relates to officers of that House and by the Librarian so far as relates to officers of the Library and by the Chief Parliamentary Reporter so far as relates to officers of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and by the “Clerk of the Joint House Committee so far as relates to officers under Ihe control of that Committee.

The officers of the Senate, the officers of the House of Representatives, the officers of the Parliamentary Library, the officers of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and the officers of the Joint House Committee, shall be de- med to constitute separate departments under this Act.

Honorable senators will therefore see that the President and the Speaker, so far as the officers of their respective Houses are concerned, are in the position of the Commissioner under the Public Service Act. It was considered inexpedient that the officers of the Parliament should be placed under the control of the Commissioner.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Request (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the asterisk attached to the item, “ Clerk of Select Committees, Usher of the Black Rod, and Secretary of the Joint House Committee,£475, “ and the accompanying footnote.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I rose in consequence of the quotation made by Senator Gould. I took it to be not only accurate, but conclusive, so far as it dealt with this question. He used the term “ may,” and said - so far as the question of promotion, and, as I understood, the question of increase of salary, were concerned - that Parliament had placed him in the position of the Public Service Commissioner. Taking him as an authority on this Act, I immediately rose to submit a request. Having heard the statement of Senator Pearce, and having done what I ought to have done in the first instance, and that is to refer to the Public

Service Act, I, in order to save time, ask leave to withdraw my motion. I have no desire to waste time. I am sorry that I did not acquaint myself with the provision in the Act, instead of taking somebody else’s quotation.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Request (by Senator Stewart) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “Clerk of Select Committees, Usher of the Black Rod, and Secretary of the Joint House Committee, £475-“

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Yes, and at a considerable saving upon the present expenditure. My parliamentary experience has taught me that the Usher of the Black Rod is almost an unknown quantity. In the Legislative Council of South Australia, which maintains just as much dignity as does this Senate, his principal duty is dispensed with by the ringing of an electric bell. The only other duty which is discharged by our own Usher of the Black Rod consists of bearing to the other Chamber a message announcing that His Excellency the Governor-General desires the presence of its members in the Senate. That work,.- I maintain, could be equally well done by the Clerk Assistant. If the Clerks at the table require extra assistance, by all means let us provide it, but do not let us make provision for continuing the office of Usher of the Black Rod. I recognise that there is an absolute necessity for some officer to be in training to fill the positions of Clerk Assistant and Clerk of the Senate. But there is no necessity whatever to retain the office of Usher of the Black Rod.

Question- That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “ Clerk of Select Committees, Usher of the Black Rod, and Secretary of the Joint House Committee,£475 “ - put.

The Committee divided -

Ayes … … … 7

Noes … … … 20

Majority … … 13

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -There is an old saying that charity begins at home. But I think there are other virtues which we might practise, such as economy. In this connexion I wish to draw attention to item 7, which reads -

Travelling expenses, including cost of conveyance of senators’ luggage.

I venture to say that we have not the slightest justification for voting the money. I do not wish to use too strong language, but I regard the proposed vote as one to appropriate other people’s money. Why should we vote ourselves£100 for the conveyance of our luggage? Upon what ground ? Is the object in view that we may add to our parliamentary allowance, which comes in quite another category, and which is not voted in the annual Appropriation Bill ? If we carry the idea thus far,

– I do not intend to enter into minute details. But I say that the principle is utterly wrong and indefensible. I do not think that we have the slightest justification for voting this amount. As we are entering upon the consideration of this Appropriation Bill with a desire to effect economies, let us start at home, and reduce amounts affecting ourselves. The very fact that the money is spent on senators from only three States - including my own - is a reason for not agreeing to it. Imagine the effect if it were published throughout the Commonwealth that we voted this money for our

– I pointed out how the vote affected senators from certain States, because, as Senator Millen knows, sometimes an argument that does not appear to be powerful to one’s own mind, has an unsuspected effect upon the minds of others. I might have been open to suspicion if I had not pointed out that the item mainly affects the senators from three States. But my objection to the item is one of principle, and I hope that other honorable senators will join in supporting the motion -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “ Travelling expenses, including cost of conveyance of Senators’ luggage, £100.”

Senator MILLEN:

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “Travelling expenses, including cost of conveyance of Senators’ luggage, £100 “ - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 20

Majority … … 13

AYES

– Until I know what is covered by the item to which the honorable senator is addressing himself, I am unable to say whether his remarks are in order or not.

Senator GIVENS:

– I wish to know whether this item covers the cost of the uniforms, wigs, and ridiculous paraphernalia of the officers of the Senate.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [12.57]. - As Senator Givens has referred to what he calls the ridiculous wig worn by the President of the Senate, I may be allowed to say that the President bears the whole cost of his official dress.

Senator St Ledger:

– Senator Givens is aware of that.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– That may be so; but when such statements are made in this Chamber, people outside may be led to believe that there is some truth in them. No portion Of the President’s official dress is paid for by the Commonwealth. As to the purpose of the vote to which the honorable senator has directed attention, he must be aware that, in all large Departments, contingencies have to be met. The vote is used, among other purposes, to provide uniforms for the messengers, and for the cost of such requisites as typewriting machines, which have been secured at the request of honorable senators, for their convenience, and other necessary and reasonable requirements. Honorable senators will recognise that £80 is a very small vote to cover the incidental and petty cash expenditure of such a large establishment as the Senate.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I am glad to know, on the authorityof the President, that he meets all the; expenditure necessary to provide his official dress ; but I must still expressthe opinion that it is exceedingly ridiculous.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GIVENS:

– I desire to obtain an expression of opinion from the Committee as to whether the officers of the Senate, such as the clerks at the table, the Usher of the Black Rod, and the messengers, should be burdened with uniforms, wigs, and other paraphernalia, which I regard as perfectly ridiculous. As the proposed vote of£80 covers the expenditure incurred under this heading, I intend to test the feeling of honorable senators upon it. Personally, I am strongly opposed to the wearing of uniform by any of our officers, but especially by the messengers. I claim that by putting them in uniform - just as every big nob doeshis servants - we reduce them to the level of lackeys. The practice does not accord with the democratic spirit of the Senate.I wish the Senate to resort to more sensible methods of conducting its business, and therefore I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, “ Incidental and petty cash expenditure, £80,” by £10.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 14

Majority …… 6.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I desire to direct attention to the item in division 3, “ Parliamentary Reporting Staff, Sessional typists, at £4 10s. per week.” I understand that a desire has been expressed by some honorable senators that these officers should be secured continuity of employment. I have been assured that the typists themselves would prefer to accept even 10s. per week if they were placed upon the permanent list of public servants rather than continue at their present salary of £4 10s. per week whilst the Houses are in session. Of course, it may be urged that only limited employment can be provided for these men whilst Parliament is in recess. But I would point out that they are not ordinary typists, but men who represent the very best class of operators to be found in our cities.

Senator Henderson:

– They are fairly well paid when they are working.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They are quite willing to accept a substantial reduction in their salaries if continuity of employment be secured to them.

Senator Turley:

– There is nothing for them to do during the recess.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I understand that work can be found for them. Seeing that the very best class of typists are required in connexion with the transcription of our Parliamentary Debates, it seems rather hard that they should be employed only for a certain number of months during the year. In view of the large number of Departments which are under the control of the Commonwealth, it ought to be easy to provide them with constant employment. I understand that they are willing to accept a reduction of £1 per week in their salaries if they are placed upon the permanent staff, and I think that the Government ought to consider whether something cannot be done for them.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.26]. - The matter to which the honorable senator has alluded was brought before Mr. Speaker in the other House, and he promised to consult with me with a view to seeing if any recommendation in favour of providing the typists in question with permanent employment could be made. Upon making inquiry, we found that there are six sessional typists employed at a salary of £4 10s. per week. Their salaries average about ^170 or ;£i8o a year. During recess, they are perfectly free to enter into any engagements that they choose, and if their services during the previous session have been of a satisfactory character, they are always re-employed if they are willing to re-engage. But, during the recess, there is not sufficient in their own class of work to keep them employed, and, as a result, they would - if appointed permanently - really be idle during that period. Of course, if they were appointed to the permanent staff, they would be precluded from accepting outside work.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I understand that there is not one of them who is not an expert shorthand writer, in addition to being a skilled typist.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– We are not discussing the question of whether they are expert shorthand writers, but of whether it is desirable that they should be appointed to the permanent staff. The honorable senator has suggested that there are other Departments in which their services might be utilized during the recess. Upon this point, the Public Service Commissioner has been consulted, and he reports that in response to previous communications on this subject, very little work of the nature in question could be found in the Departments for parliamentary typists, the clerical staffs, including typists, who in ordinary circumstances are not in need of relief, being quite able to cope even with many of the exceptional demands made upon their services. So that, from the departmental point of view, there would be no advantage in transferring these typists to the permanent staff. Nor do I think it is desirable, in their own interests, that they should be permanently appointed at a salary of £i&o a year. It is very necessary that they should be very expert typist, and, with that object in view, an effort has always been made to secure the most efficient men offering. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has informed me that he experiences no difficulty in obtaining typists of this character. Whenever vacancies occur, the practice is to fill them ‘by drawing in turn upon the different States. The Department has carefully abstained from keeping these positions open only to applicants from a particular State. I mention this matter, because it is desirable that honorable senators should know the plan which has been followed. I believe that the last typists appointed were secured .from Adelaide. Previously they had been obtained from Sydney. Although the mat1ter has not been formally settled, I maysay that, after consulting with Mr. Speaker and the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, it does not seem to me that the present position would be improved, from the stand-point of efficiency, by the appointment of permanent typists.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– With regard to the vote of £1,800 in division 4, “The Library,” for “Books and book-binding, including insurance against fire,” I wish to ask whether it is true that an alteration is proposed to be made in the present system affecting the privilege of members of this Parliament to borrow books from the Library ? I understand that the Government contemplate stopping or curtailing the present privilege. Whether it is intended to save money I do not know ; but if there is to be an alteration, I should like to know the reason for it. It is a great convenience to honorable senators to be able to take from the Library standard works having reference to questions under consideration by Parliament. It will be a disadvantage if we are deprived of the opportunity of studying those works at home, and have to come to the Library every time we want to look at them.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales)[2.33]. -I do not know whether Senator St. Ledger alludes to light literature or standard literature.

Senator St Ledger:

– Both.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Given a strict interpretation, the vote of£1,800 for books and book-binding is, in the opinion of the Library Committee, intended for the purchase of books to be added permanently to the Library. That view being taken, the question arose as to whether any portion of that sum should be spent on the purchase of books which are not intended to be added to the Library, but which belong to the class of light literature. As a rule, books of that character are supplied to us at an agreed price. We keep them for six months, and then they are repurchased from us at9d. per volume. We pay 2s. or more per volume for the books in the first instance. Personally, I have always regarded light literature as being of considerable service to members of Parliament, who have to travel to and from Melbourne in the Inter-State trains. Many complaints have been made as to the class of books obtained in this way, and when we inquired as to obtaining a more expensivetype of book, we found that the extra expense would be considerable - over 50 per cent., in fact. The Committee deliberated, and the decision was that the present arrangement should be continued until after the recess, and a request was made to the Government to place a sum upon the Estimates for the acquisition of books which are not intended to be added to the permanent library. It will be open to honorable senators to say whether they desire the continuance of the convenience which they have hitherto enjoyed; but until honorable senators have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion, it is proposed to continue the present system. Another question relative to the Library is this. There are certain reference books as to which the rule has been that they shall not be removed from the Library. The reason for that is that they should always be available for the use of the members of this Parliament.

Senator Givens:

– That rule has not always been observed.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Unfortunately the rule has not been adhered to strictly, and the Committee have given instructions to the Librarian that it is to be strictly enforced in future. An exception has, however, been made to the rule. We possess a number of books relating to constitutional law, and particularly embodying and discussing decisions given by the Courts in the United States. As honorable senators are aware, American decisions are in many instances pertinent to points of law arising in our own High Court. At present the Library of the High Court does not embrace the whole of the valuable works possessed by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. Consequently the Judges have been in the habit of sending to the Library to obtain the loan of such books as it might be necessary for them to consult before giving judgment. The Library Committee considered that it was wise to permit such books to be borrowed by the Judges as long as a written request for the loan of any particular work was sent. The Committee were largely actuated by the consideration that the judgments of the High Court affect the public interest to such an important degree that it is desirable that every facility should be given to the Judges to consult works dealing with constitutional questions. Until the High Court Library is fully supplied with the necessary works, we consider that if there is any book in our Library whichthe Judges would like to see the public interest demands that it should be lent to them. I have no doubt, however, that steps will be taken by the Government to supply the necessary funds in order that all books which ought to be in the High Court Library shall be furnished.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I might mention that a petition was forwarded to the Library Committee by members of both Houses of this Parliament asking the Committee to continue the system of lending out books to honorable senators. Those who wish the system to continue will, I hope, support the Committee in their request for an additional £100.

Senator St Ledger:

– I am not aware as to whether the rule referred to by Senator Gould affects ordinary books or simply works of fiction?

Senator Sir Albert Gould:

– There is no change in the practice with regard to ordinary works.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

. -I am not quite clear as to whether the Library Committee have given to the Judges of the High Court the right to remove books from the Parliamentary Library, and to keep them for any length of time. I point out that these are standard works, which may be required by members of Parliament. I consider that a rule ought to be made to insure that books which are borrowed by the Judges shall not be kept by them for an unreasonable time.

Senator Sir Albert Gould:

– Hear, hear.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The rule should be that works of reference should not be removed from the Library under any circumstances. If a member of this Parliament wished to consult a book dealing with American constitutional law he might find that it had been removed for the use of the High Court. Steps should be taken to furnish the High Court with its own Library.

Senator Pearce:

– There is an extra sum of £200 on these Estimates for that purpose, being £100 more than last year’s vote.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I hope that the Library Committee will bear in mind that the first right to standard works in the Parliamentry Library is that of members of Parliament, and not to Judges of the High Court. If any books are required by members of Parliament, and have been borrowed by the Judges, they should at once be returned.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.42]. - It is not intended that books shall be kept for an unlimited time by the Judges. It is intended that they shall be borrowed to enable the Judges to perform their duties more efficiently. The members of the Committee are fully seized of the necessity of safeguarding the books lent to the fullest extent.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I take it that division 6, “ Water power for Parliament House,” covers the supply of water to the urinals and other conveniences at Parliament House. Changes have recently been made affecting the draining of the building. So far as concerns the supply of water to the urinals on the floor on a level with this chamber, I consider that the new system is less satisfactory than the old one. It may be economical, but there is not the slightest doubt that the place opposite the lavatory is inclined to smell more than it did before the structural alterations were made - and that is saying a good deal. I am not prepared to ask the Government to have the system altered, but I do not think that we can be very well satisfied with the new plan under which you press a knob and water does not come. At any rate,some improvement should be made, so that when the knob is pressed water may come.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Under the head of Joint House Committee I notice an item of£110 for a lift attendant. Apparently he has received that amount before. I have not made any inquiries into his antecedents, but I understand he has been employed in this capacity for six or seven years? I desire to know the process by which he can hope to look for promotion. Is he to remain always as lift attendant unless he severs his connexion with Parliament House and looks for employment in another direction ? Is he to remain here as lift attendant until he grows grey-haired, and is pensioned off under the old-age pensions system ? Every youth who enters the parliamentary service should be able to look forward to reasonable promotion, if he does his work properly and behaves himself. I suppose that this youth is now twenty-six or twentyseven years of age. I shall be glad if the Minister can explain whether such an employe has any possible opportunity of getting promotion here.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustralianMinister of Defence · ALP

– Honorable senators are aware that the staff under the immediate control of the President and the Speaker is limited, and that in such circumstances the opportunities of advancement are few. A position is always accepted with the knowledge that the possibility of advancement is extremely limited. The lift attendant is receiving the minimum wage laid down in the Public Service Act, but I am not going to say whether that is sufficient. I am sure that honorable senators will not say that the working of the lift requires very great skill on the part of the attendant.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Have any additional messengers been -appointed since he has been working the lift?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is a question which the President can answer. I should take it that if a vacancy were to occur the President and the Speaker would promote this young fellow, and engage another young fellow as lift attendant. But a vacancy must be a rare thing, because the staff is very small.

Senator Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.48]. - So far as I can judge, the only promotion open to this young man is to the position of a cleaner or a messenger. If any position for which he was eligible became vacant his claim would be carefully considered. There would be no desire on the part of either Mr. Speaker or myself to introduce a stranger to fill any position to which he could fairly and reasonably expect promotion. But as the Minister has pointed out, the opportunities for promotion are very limited, while possibilities of exchange from one Department to another are very remote.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Last year £180 was voted for incidental expenses, but nothing was spent; and this year we are asked to vote *£160. I should like to be furnished with some information as to the reason for the increased vote.

Proposed vote agreed to.

External Affairs : Secretary - Honorary Ministers’ Expenses - Commonwealth Offices, London : Captain Collins - Papua - Immigration Restriction Act - Literary Fund - Advertising the Commonwealth - Repatriation of Pacific Islanders - Congress of Chambers of Commerce : Press Representation.

Divisions n to 16 (Department of External Affairs), £75,442.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I move -

– If I may be permitted to quote Scripture, “ Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, seemeth wise.”

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I grant that this officer frequently appears to be wise. But does he hold his tongue? Last year, when he was in London, whither he had accompanied the then Prime Minister, he allowed himself to be interviewed. That interview forms the subject of an article by Mr. Murray Eyre, which was published in the Pall Mall Gazette.

Senator St Ledger:

– I believe that the Pall Mall Gazette is the great Tory organ of England.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– It may be a Tory organ, or it may be an organ of the workers. The article in question was republished in the newspapers of Australia. In the course of that article, Mr. Eyre, in speaking of the Northern Territory, says -

Discussing with me when he was in London for the Conference the possible methods of developing the Northern Territory and the best means of utilizing its rich alluvial tracts, Mr. Atlee Hunt said that they proposed to attract people by free grants of land, and that the chief industries would be the pastoral and dairying. “Will not tropical agriculture be encouraged ?” I asked. “ No,” he replied. “ That would mean something akin to slave labour, impossible to admit amongst a people who hope to build up a free, white nation.”

Evidently honorable senators opposite who interject “ Hear, hear,” think that we cannot have tropical agriculture in Australia withouthaving a slave race amongst us. Personally I believe that we can. Just about the period that Mr. Atlee Hunt was being interviewed, Mr. Deakin, in addressing the Colonial Conference, after having dealt at length with the conditions of labour in the Queensland sugar plantations, and after having replied to the circular which was issued by the Immigrants Information Office, London, spoke of the ability of white men to work in tropical industries as follows -

They can work, not only with the black man, but as has always been the case in our experience, they can beat the Chinaman out of the field in cane cutting in any climate in Australia.

– No. I think that the latter is primarily responsible, because it has had a great deal to do with the exclusion of them by means of an education test.

Senator Guthrie:

– But Customs officers do the work.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– At any rate, all the judicial proceedings which have arisen out of the Immigration Restriction Act have passed through the Department of External Affairs, which I hold responsible. About four or five years ago, this question called for a great deal of consideration in Queensland. I happened to be present at an interview which had been arranged by the Minister of the Crown with on-i of the largest planters in Queensland for the purpose of discussing a probable influx of Chinese. The planter said: “We do not want to get Chinese into this country. We should prefer to have the white man all the time, because, economically, he is, as a rule, the best of all labour. But we cannot get him, ‘ ‘ and they were forced to use the kanakas they could get until they were finally deported. The planter in question made a remarkable statement to me. He said : “ If we wanted to get Chinese in today, we could.” I pointed out to him the difficulty under the Immigration Restriction Act, and also the precautions which previously had been taken. “ In my opinion,” he replied, “ they are not worth the paper on which they are written “ ; and he gave me his assurance that if he wanted 1,000 Chinese labourers he could, by writing to a certain quarter, have them delivered at a certain time almost like bales of goods. “ But,” he added, “it would be ruinous to try to get Chinese labour so long as there was a possibility of getting white labour.” At that time, the planters were endeavouring as far as they could to look for white labour in every direction to supplant the labour of the kanakas, which had been displaced by our legislation. These facts were related to the Department of External Affairs. Whether it is strictly responsible or not, I am not going to consider at this moment, but it was informed of the facts, and they were practically laughed out of court. That shows a want of both attention and vigilance on the part of the officers of the Department regarding a most important subject, which, at any rate, requires some reflection, and it calls for some censure or remonstrance on the part of the Senate.

Question- That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item “ Secretary,£900,” by£100 (Senator

Henderson’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 9

Majority … … 9

AYES

– I thank Senator Turley for his suggestion. I wish to give some force to my protest in this matter, and I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, “ Allowance to Captain Collins while acting as representative of Commonwealth in London, £150,” by £1.

– I do not think that my honorable colleague meant that. He was merely explaining to honorable senators that it would be an embarrassing position for. the Government to be placed in. It would mean, either the recall of Captain Collins, or the immediate appointment of a High Commissioner and the establishment of Commonwealth offices in London. It would mean a great many things which there is no time to discuss this afternoon. I may add that Captain Pethebridge is acting in place of Captain Collins, and carrying out the work very efficiently. The Commonwealth is gaining by the temporary absence of Captain

Collins in London, and it is not losing here. I hope that the temporary position will be continued until such time as some definite action can be taken by Parliament.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, “ Allowance to Captain Collins, while acting as representative of Commonwealth in London,£150,” by £1 (Senator Clemons’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 21

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– Last year we voted £20,000 towards the expenses of administering Papua, and £5.000 towards its development, but this year we are only asked to vote , £20,000 for the former purpose. If we earnestly desire to bring Papua into profitable use to enable it to realize its destiny and become a prosperous land under the control of the Commonwealth, the vote of £5,000 towards its development ought to be continued. I believe that the vote of £20,000 is pretty well absorbed by the cost of administration. An annual vote of £5,000 would not be too much to devote to the development of the Territory. It is a rugged, new country, with very considerable rivers and high mountains, and many parts are inaccessible owing tothe dense scrub which clothes the valleys and sides of the mountains. If £5,000 were expended yearly in the simple process of making roads, it would do as much to develop the Territory as, perhaps, anything else. Persons experience an immense diffi culty in travelling from one portion of Papua to another. They find that it is almost impossible to travel over and explore territory in search of land, minerals, timber, or anything else. If, however, fairly decent roads were provided, that difficulty would be minimized very much, if not removed. The miners on the gold-fields, and persons engaged in business of one kind and another in various places, are very heavily handicapped owing to the fact that there are only pads where there ought to be roads. A man cannot even take a pack mule over’ the pads, because they are not cleared or made accessible in any way. Consequently the residents have to employ native carriers at, in some cases, almost prohibitive cost, for carrying tools of trade, stores, machinery, building material, and other things. If money were expended in making good roads, which would be suitable for vehicular traffic, or even for pack mules or horses, the expenditure would be exceedingly profitable, and would, I believe, do more to open up the Territory than anything else which could be done. I now desire to bring under the notice of the Committee another matter concerning Papua. The late Government were exceedingly dilatory in ending a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs there, and I was glad to notice that the present Government were not in office very long before they accomplished that object. I allude, of course, to the appointment of a permanent Lieutenant-Governor. The matter hung fire for a. very long time, and it seemed to be impossible to induce the late Government to make up their mind. I understand that when they were displaced they had pretty well decided on a definite course of action, and that it was the one which was adopted by the present Government. I do not believe, however, that the best course was taken in appointing, not only a Lieutenant-Governor, but also an Acting Lieutenant-Governor, who is Administrator too. These two gentlemen aspired to the higher office. I had reason to believe that when ex-Senator Staniforth Smith received the appointment of Director of Agriculture, Mines, and Lands, he dropped his aspiration for the LieutenantGovernorship; but afterwards I was informed that I was incorrect in that supposition, and that, as a matter of fact, he did aspire to it.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– That was his stepping-stone.

Senator GIVENS:

– He told me once that he was satisfied with his appointment, and that he was willing to forego any claim upon the Lieutenant- Governorship. The method adopted by the Government in deciding between the claims of these two rival aspirants was extremely unsatisfactory, because we shall now have one occupying the position permanently and the other occupying it temporarily, always ready to step into the other’s shoes at any moment. I believe that the right thing was done by the Government in appointing Judge Murray as Lieutenant-Governor. I have not met him, and do not know him, except from reading and hearsay. I believe that I have as many correspondents in Papua as has any man in Australia. They represent every shade of political opinion, and are engaged in every walk of life. From time to time they have all expressed a very high admiration for Judge Murray, and indulged in the hope that he would be appointed LieutenantGovernor. I am bound to add that I have received nothing but the best accounts of the work of Mr. Staniforth Smith in Papua. A certain rivalry appears to have existed between these two gentlemen, which led to the formation of two rival factions. I know that anything which would encourage such a condition of affairs in the Territory would be most obnoxious to members of the Committee, who, I am sure, desire that the utmost good feeling should prevail amongst the officers there. In the circumstances, I think it would have been very much wiser if the Government had followed the course previously adopted, and had been content with the appointment of Judge Murray as Lieutenant-Governor, leaving Mr. Staniforth Smith to continue to occupy the high position he formerly held. However, the Government, apparently in order to gratify rival aspirations and to placate a rival faction, appointed Mr. Smith as Administrator and Acting Lieutenant-Governor. I am afraid that the course which has been pursued is not calculated to put an end to the rivalry and jealousy previously existing in the Territory, and which we know are so injurious in a small community.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I hope that the Government will next year take into consideration the advisability of increasing the vote of £20,000 towards the expenses of the administration of Papua. I hope also that no time will be lost in connecting Papua with the main land, either by wireless telegraph, or by means of a cable. We ought to have facilities for daily communication with the Territory. It may perhaps interest honorable senators to learn that a former Administrator of Papua, Captain Barton, has received an appointment as British representative at Zanzibar, and the experience he gained in New Guinea is now to be availed of by the Imperial Government.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I might say, in reply to Senator Walker, and other honorable senators, who are anxious about the development of Papua, that the present Government will do all they possibly can to further the interests of that Territory. The additional vote of £5,000, which appeared on the Estimates last year for the development of Papua, was specially applied to the making of roads, and works of that description, such as Senator Givens has referred to.

Senator Givens:

– It would be a good thing if that work were continued.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The matter will receive attention from the Government, and if next year they consider it advisable to put an additional sum on the Estimates for the purpose, honorable senators will have the pleasure of supporting it. With respect to the appointment of the Lieutenant-Governor and Administrator, I may be allowed to say that the present Government have no great anxiety to take the credit which is due to the late Government in connexion with these appointments. But they are satisfied with the arrangements made, and accept responsibility for the appointments. I may inform Senator Givens that the appointment of an Acting Lieutenant-Governor is provided for in the Papua Act.

Senator Givens:

– When the need for such an appointment arises.

Senator McGREGOR:

– No ; the Act provides that such an officer shall be appointed, and specifies his duties. The honorable senator might have learned as much from the reply given to a question recently asked in the Senate on the subject. It will be admitted that the Lieutenant-Governor might sometimes be prevented from discharging his duties by illness, or absence, and it is necessary that in such an emergency there should be some one in New Guinea to carry out the duties of the office. The absence of telegraphic communication referred to by Senator Walker is one of the strongest arguments in support of the appointments that have been made. I hope it will be in the power of the Government at an early date to provide better means of communication between the mainland and Papua.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Perhaps the Minister will give the Committee some information about the item “ Commonwealth Literary Fund, £55-“*

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Clemons:

– Is that so always?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Yes. Butprobably the officer has been instructed to place no obstacle in the way of the admission of any desirable immigrant, and to use every precaution with a view to preventing undesirable immigrants from entering the Commonwealth.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item, “ Advertising resources of the Commonwealth,£20,000.”

– There is a large amount of pioneering work to be done in all the States.

– I agree with the statement of Mr. Higinbotham that immigration, to be just, should be applied equally to all classes. But it is proposed to apply it only to a few - to bring to Australia-mer and women who have only their labour to sell. The employing class hope that wages will be reduced owing to the increase of the number of persons- seeking employment.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Labour is all that my father had to sell when he came here, and he got through all right.

Senator FINDLEY:

– When we were discussing the methods which the previous Government adopted with respect to advertising, and When the question was asked whether certain organizations had received Commonwealth money for the purpose of advertising throughout the United Kingdom, we were informed that Dr. Arthur, the President of the Australasian Immigration League, which has its head-quarters in Sydney, had received money, and that Dr. Arthur had advertised in a way that was advantageous to the Commonwealth. I have here a copy of the overseas edition of the Daily Mail, which is dated 19th September, and. contains a letter in which Dr. Arthur says -

In the United Kingdom there are at least a million more females than males, while in Australia there are nearly 250,000 more males than females, and this disproportion is increasing, because the majority of the immigrants coming here are young men. As it is certain that the men cannot go to the women, it should be the duty of Empire builders to endeavour to send the women who are willing to leave the Mother Country to lands where husbands and homes are awaiting them.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Hear, hear !

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is a cheer from one of those who, I expect, want cheap servants.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Does not the honorable senator want one of them ? He cannot get an Australian to suit him, and he had better import a woman.

Senator St Ledger:

– It may be the other way about.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Of course, it is very gratifying to some honorable senators that, if Dr. Arthur gets his way, 25,000 women are to be induced to come to Aus- tralia every year for many years to come, and to be in the position of experiencing no difficulty in finding husbands and work.

Senator Vardon:

– What does he know about it?

Senator FINDLEY:

- Dr. Arthur is President of an Immigration League. In that capacity, he received a subsidy from the previous Government, and he may be receiving money now to advertise in a way which is objectionable to me. He continues -

Australia and New Zealand could take at least 25,000 girls and women annually for many years to come, offering them work first as domestic servants, lady helps, workers on farms, &c, until they settled down to their natural place in life. There are openings, too, for women with a little capital to take up fruit-growing, poultry farming, and even dairying.

– I recognise that this is a matter which affects a very large number of people. In the first place, I desire to point out that no member of the Labour Party is opposed to desirable immigrants being permitted to enter the Commonwealth. Although Queensland has expended £[3,000,000 in an endeavour to attract population to her shores, its public men to-day realize that a great mistake was made when it inaugurated the system of indiscriminate immigration. No member of the Queensland Parliament would now dare to advocate a renewal of that system. They say: “We are prepared to assist immigrants to come to Queensland if they have had a training upon the soil, and are prepared to take up land.” Nobody objects to that. But it cannot be denied that there are large numbers of persons scattered throughout the Commonwealth today who are desirous of obtaining land, but who are unable to do so. Australia is certainly a wealthy country - from the stand-point of its material well-being there is none wealthier. But we must pay regard to the experience of other countries. Senator Pulsford has remarked that it would be a mistake to promulgate the idea that an influx of population would be accompanied by depression. Mav I point out that nobdy has ever given utterance to such a foolish notion. The more people there are settled upon our country lands the greater will be the prosperity in our cities.

But the fact remains that in every State of the Commonwealth there are persons who are unable to obtain land at a price which will suit their pockets. Only the other evening, Mr. Swinburne, the ex-Minister of Agriculture in Victoria, declared that something would have to be done to promote land settlement in this State. He affirmed that it is losing population, and that there are large tracts of country in this State upon which fewer people are settled today than were settled there twenty years ago. Such a condition of things does not spell prosperity.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4s p.m.

Senator TURLEY:

– We do not assert, as alleged by Senator Pulsford, that a large population necessarily means depression. But what do we find in the principal countries of Europe? In Germany, where there are fairly good imposts on land, and manufacturers have been encouraged for years, there is an enormous amount of employment offering, and emigration has dropped off to a very large extent. There was ‘a large emigration from Germany some years ago, but it is now practically non-existent. In France, where there are also large imposts on land, a considerable proportion of the population is engaged in agricultural pursuits. The consequence is that there is not the amount of poverty in France that is found elsewhere, whilst there* is practically no emigration. But in England the state of things is quite different. The Government say that they have to find employment for 45,000 men. Millions of money are being spent at the dockyards. Only last week there was a deputation of members of the House of Commons to the President of the Local Government Board, and the statement was made to him that there were in England 6.600,000 of people out of employment. The Minister admitted candidly that the unemployment evil was serious. There is a considerable agitation with the object of getting land for settlement. The cry of a large number of people in England practically is that the unemployed must be chased out of the country. They say, “Go to Canada or to America, or to blazes, if you like, as long as you clear out and relieve the pressure upon the labour market.” If we look nearer home, we find that things are very awkward in some of the Australian States. Two years ago I was in Tasmania. Senator Mulcahy says he is satisfied that room could be found for 25,000 adult femalesevery year. But when I was in the State herepresents I found that a large number of people were anxious to leave. The young men have been going in hundreds, either te* the Mainland or to New Zealand. I cannot see what inducement there is to bring out. adult females. I observed in the newspapers a few days ago a paragraph from. Western Australia relating to the strike in the timber industry. A large number of men from Southern Europe have gone toWestern Australia. They fell out with those who employed them, and went on. strike. They did not strike in the ordinary British way, but got possession of guns, with which they were determined te* prevent other men from going to work. I notice that a member of the Western Australian Parliament said that the fault lay with the Commonwealth Government for allowing these people to enter theState. Only this week I observed that the Queensland Premier stated that a man who had been brought to this country by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company had beet* thrown on the State, because the company refused to accept any responsibility for him. The Premier admitted that the Government had to do something, from a humane point of view, but he objected tothe Federal Government giving permits for such people to be brought into Australia without consultation with the State Government. When the exPrimeMinister, Mr. Deakin, approached the Premiers of the States on the subject of immigration, he said : “ We do not mind spending money in advertising, but you must tell us exactly how you are going to place the people when we bring them here.” The State Premiers, in answer, practically said : “ Mind your own business,” and declined to give any information as to the land they had for settlement purposes. Wherever one goes in this country at present, one finds people who say that the want of Australia is immigration. But if one says, “What is your occupation?” and the. reply is that the person is a carpenter or a saddler, they do not listen kindly to the suggestion that we should bring out a number of people to follow those occupations. They say, “ We do not want such people at all ; there is not enough work to go round at present. We want’ people who will enter into competition with the labourer.” The labourer apparently does not take sufficient interest in such matters to protect himself. I remember that when there was an agitation in Queensland for the importation of kanaka labour many artisans signed petitions in favour of the proposal. They said that the kanakas would not affect their avocations, and -they did not seem to think that it made much difference if coloured people were brought in to compete with labourers. I a.m reminded of what took place in the western -part, of Queensland at the time of the big strike. Large numbers of the hotels employed Chinese cooks, and in the towns many people were getting their bread for their families from the Chinese. The union men came to the conclusion that it was hardly fair for them to be patronizing hotelkeepers and storekeepers who employed Chinese, and they carried a resolution to the effect that they should . cease to deal with tradesmen who did so. The result was that the hotelkeepers and storekeepers were soon almost tumbling over each other to get rid of their Chinese. They saw that there was some reason in the position taken up bv the union men. It is just “the Raine in connexion with this question. People are quite willing to have immigrants brought to Australia so long as competition in their particular avocations is not increased. It is said that domestic servants should be brought out, and that there is plenty of employment for them. A few months ago I was in the back country a few hundred miles from Brisbane. At the hotel where I put up there was a young! woman who had recently been brought out from England. I was talking about the immigration question with the hotelkeeper. He told me that this girl had been brought out under misrepresentations. She had no idea of what the conditions in Australia were. She had been planted down in a little place, to reach which she had had to travel about 300 miles bv train and about 120 miles by coach. She was thoroughly dissatisfied, although the hotelkeeper said that she was a. good girl, who understood her work. “The girl herself was of opinion that she had been induced to come under false pretences, and she had sent letters home to her friends warning them to have nothing to do with Australia, and pointing out how she had been treated. That is a bad advertisement for Australia. It does a great deal of harm. So long as misleading reports are circulated in the Old Country, so long shall we have such conditions existing. Not many years ago

Queensland was doing a good deal in connexion with immigration. There were just a few persons coming out, and, in response to an agitation for female domestic servants, the representatives of Queensland in the Old Country became particularly active. Girls were brought out, and I was informed that one leading spirit in the agitation had had no less than fourteen girls in her house in twelve months. The labour was available. .A girl would be engaged at the lowest possible rate; she would stay in the house until she could find time to mix with the people and ascertain the local conditions and rates of wages, and then, becoming dissatisfied with her lot, she would ask for an increase of pay. During the time that immigrants were coming in regularly, women were to be seen at the immigration depot, whenever a ship arrived, searching for fresh servants, and always complaining that the supply was not sufficient. This sort of advertising resolves itself into a question of labour. Employers want to use the power and the credit of the State with the object of introducing a surplus of labour, upon which they may be able to draw at practically their own terms. On the other hand, there is a large number of persons who have labour to sell, and who realize what the conditions are. There are primary industries which afford employment for only a certain portion of the year. Take, for instance, the sugar industry. In the harvesting season the planters require hundreds of men to be rushed into a district. The men make fairly good money for a time, but as soon as the crop is harvested they ca.11 go where they like. That is not a matter which interests the planters, who depend upon there being a sufficient surplus of labour to compel the men to return to the district for the next harvesting season. During this session, Senator W. Russell has stated that the same thing takes place in South Australia. The farmers offer £2 a week to nien for harvesting operations, but the work lasts for only a month or, perhaps, five weeks, and afterwards the men can go where they like. Probably there is very little work available to them for a number of months. Honorable senators on this side have no objection to any number of persons coming into Australia, provided that on the other side of the world they are told that there is casual labour here for a portion of the year, and that there is a possibility of their being able to .get land and settle down on it.

That is the class of immigrants whom we require, and to whom I think no one has raised any objection. It has been said that those who are opposing this item are working in the interests of Chinamen and Japanese. Ever since I have been in Australia, the one force .which has compelled the various Parliaments to pass legislation against the importation of the Asiatic has been the Labour Party. In New South Wales they carried on an agitation for years. In Queensland they were employed for years and years in educating the public mind, until sufficient influence was brought to bear to induce the Government to ask Parliament to pass preventive legislation. Why was it done? Simply because they had had a very salutary lesson in 1878. Had it not been for the organization of the seamen on the coast, the” boats would have been manned from stem to stern with Chinese, and they would have been retained until to-day. That is the sort of lesson which taught the workers that they must use their power and influence to compel the Legislatures to carry out what they believed to be the will of the majority.

Senator Guthrie:

– And the shopkeepers helped us to knock out the Chinaman.

Senator TURLEY:

Question - That the House of Representativesbe requested to leave out the item, “ Advertising resources of the Commonwealth, £20,000 “ (Senator Findley’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 19

Majority … 13

AYES

– The honorable senator would not have voted for that item had he thought that the money would be spent.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes, I would. So far as Victoria is concerned, there is no need to advertise its resources, because under existing conditions there is not much room for further expansion. For my own part, I shall not hang back when an endeavour is being made to tell the people of Great Britain that there is room in Australia for persons with a little capital who will not be competitors in our labour market when they arrive here. I intend to vote for the item, in the belief that the proposed expenditure will be productive of good results.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria) [8.41.]. - I confess that I am somewhat amazed at the opposition to a vote of this kind.

Senator Givens:

– Of course.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– One reason that recommends it to me is that it was placed on the Estimates by the late Government, and that it was not placed there lightly. I should have thought that in having a meeting within the Commonwealth, of representatives of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, we would have regarded ourselves as privileged. But we cannot invite a large number of guests to our shores without incurring a considerable expenditure. The Chambers of Commerce of the States have already shown the extent of their own hospitality by providing something like . £5,000 towards the expenses of the visiting delegates. New South Wales is contributing £500, Victoria , £500, and some of the other States, I think, are also contributing.

Senator Findley:

– Who is subscribing £5,000 ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The Chambers of Commerce of the States, who are to be the hosts. That is the sum which they have provided towards the expenses that will be incurred by these delegates in visiting Australia. The States, I repeat, are also contributing, and an appeal was made to the Commonwealth to follow their example. In reply, the Commonwealth stated that it desired to encourage the visit of representatives of the British press in order that we might have the benefits that would flow from their observation of our resources and of various other matters of interest to the Empire. Therefore, the late Government saw their way to ask Parliament to contribute the sum of £1,000 towards the expenses of visiting press representatives. We are constantly boasting of our anxiety to make our resources known, to attract capital, and to have industries established in our midst. Now, there is no more effective means of achieving those objects than that of bringing to our shores pressmen who will be induced to talk about us, and to disseminate information regarding the possibilities of trade and commerce in this quarter of the globe. Under the circumstances, it cannot reasonably be. urged that the expenditure of £1,000 for an advertisement of this kind is extravagant. In the highest and best interests of the Commonwealth we ought not to hesitate to authorize it. Why honorable senators should grumble at the expenditure of such a miserable sum in obtaining such a magnificent advertisement passes my comprehension. I hope that honorable senators will see their way to withdraw their objection in view of the explanation that has been made, and will rather give encouragement to the Chambers of Commerce to assist in making the Congress a complete success.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I trust that the item under discussion will be struck out. Senator Best cannot understand why any one should be opposed to it. The reason why I am opposed to the vote is this : I should be very glad to see the Chambers of Commerce come to Australia, but I am opposed to a subsidy because I regard the Congress as purely and simply a political body.

Senator Pulsford:

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes. The Chambers of Commerce are all prepared to advocate as much Socialism as suits themselves - and so does every anti-Socialist on the other side of the chamber - but when it comes to a question of sharing the benefits of collective action with the rest of the people they decline, because it would remove those people out of their clutches, and they could not fleece them any more. That is a privilege which they want to keep to themselves. The item shall have my strenuous opposition.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item, “ Towards expenses of press representatives to the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce, , £1,000 “ (Senator Findley’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 21

Majority … … 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney - General : Secretary and Parliamentary Draftsman - High Court : Travelling Expenses.

Divisions 17 to 20(Attorney-General’s Department), £15,518.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I find that an increase of £100 is proposed for the Secretary and Parliamentary Draftsman. Earlier in to-day’s proceedings honorable senators showed that they are indisposed to vote increases of salaries to officers who are already in receipt of substantial salary. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, “ Secretary and Parliamentary Draftsman,£900, “ by£100.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.-I am sorry that Senator Findley has submitted this request. If there is one officer in the Public Service of the Commonwealth who is deserving of an increase in salary it is this officer. Perhaps more of the responsible business of the Commonwealth rests upon Mr. Garran than upon any other officer in the service. He has had to be guide, counsellor, and friend to every Attorney-General we have had since Federation was established. The excellence of his parliamentary drafting is recognised by every one, as is also the soundness of his views. He is a trained constitutionalist, and is thoroughly well up in the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. I should say that he is perhaps the most diligent and deserving public officer we have. In my opinion, £900 a year is not a large salary for one who has to perform the duties which devolve upon Mr. Garran, and I trust that the proposal to increase his salary will be upheld.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I hope this increase will be carried. The officer occupying a similar position in the service of the Government of Victoria receives a salary of £1,300 a year. In New South Wales the Secretary to the Law Department gets . £900 a year.

Senator Millen:

– And does no parliamentary drafting.

Senator McGREGOR:

– In most of the States the parliamentary sessions seldom last longer than from three to six months ; hut since Federation was established we have had this officer giving all the assistance he could to Parliament, sometimes for seventeen months at a stretch.I remind honorable senators that Mr. Garran’s position is entirely different from that of the parliamentary draftsmen in the service of the States Governments. He is launched, as it were, upon a new sea of operations, and in the work he has to do he has very little precedent to guide him. I am sure that the work that has been done by this officer has been of such a character that very few members of this Committee will refuse the proposed acknowledgment of his services.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I must express my surprise at the change which has come over a number of the members of the Committee. Only a little time ago we had under consideration an increase of salary proposed for the permanent head of another Department.

Senator Pearce:

Senator Keating:

– There is a maximum scale of expenses.

Senator STEWART:

– It appears to me that hitherto the Justices of the High Court have aspired to travel in a way that is not in harmony with Australian ideas. In this connexion, one might almost compare them with European potentates and American millionaires. Apparently, they must be surrounded with every luxury that the heart of man can desire. I do not object to them being made comfortable while travelling, but that they should have special reservations at the expense of ordinary travellers by rail is objectionable. The excuse that is usually urged for this kind of thing is that it is essential that their Honours, should be kept apart from the general public if they are to discharge their duties impartially. But we know perfectly well that they associate very freely with a certain section of the public. Most of them attend races, some of them go to prize-fights, I suppose that they all go to dances, and generally they enjoy themselves, just as do ordinary human beings. I do not object to that. But when it comes to travelling, or to living at an hotel, they appear to set up for themselves a Holy of Holies - a sort of inner sanctuary, which nobody is permitted to enter. I think that something very much lessthan£3,250 ought to be sufficient to cover their travelling expenses. This matter was threshed out very thoroughly when Senator Symon was Attorney-General, and it was then clearly shown that a good deal of extravagance had been indulged in, and that there was ample room for the exercise of a little retrenchment. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, division 19, " The High Court, Travelling expenses, *£3,250,"* by £250. {: #debate-10-s82 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- It is rather difficult to deal with an item of this description, because there are a great many details which ought tobe taken into consideration, and because alterations may be made in the future which will to some extent obviate the necessity for expending such a large sum. But when SenatorStewart considers that the maximum amount allowed to each Justice of the High Court and to his Associate {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- It represents nearly £700 to each Justice. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR: -- That is the maximum. I would point out to the honorable senator that three guineas per day is the maximum amount of the expenses which may be incurred by each Justice. Last year, their Honours were engaged in travelling upon about 150 days, and it is upon that fact that this estimate has been based. The Justices of the High Court are not permitted to draw three guineas per day from the Commonwealth, and to spend what they choose. But they have the powerto spend up to that amount. Last vear the sum actually expended by them was equivalent to £2 18s. per day. The amount upon these Estimates also includes the expenses of their associates, and10s. per day for each of their tipstaffs. I, too, further remind **Senator Stewart** that this expenditure is due entirely to the popularity of the High Court. Whenever a legal difficulty arises in any part of Australia, there is a desire that the High Court should visit that centre for the purpose of settling it. The different States of the Commonwealth can obviate the expenditure by abstaining from dabbling so frequently in litigation. Personally, I do not think that three guineas per day is an excessive sum to allow their Honours for expenses, seeing that it has also to cover the expenses of their associates and tipstaffs. I agree with **Senator Stewart** that if anything can be done to obviate the necessity for spending all this money it ought to be done. Probably the time will yet come when instead of the High Court being called upon to travel all over Australia, it will be established at the Seat of Government, and suitors will be compelled to prosecute their claims there. But if that plan were adopted at the present juncture, I should like **Senator Stewart** to tell me what would be the cost to litigants? {: #debate-10-s83 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- When the constitution of the High Court was being considered, I recollect **Senator Stewart** declaring that in his opinionit was necessarv that the Justices of that tribunal should be brought as close to any litigant in the Commonwealth as that litigant might desire. When he gave utterance to that opinion, honorable senators were entirely in sympathy with him. Notwithstanding the assertion which was made when we were providing the necessary machinery for the establishment of the High Court, that it would have very little to do, it cannot be denied that it is the hardest-worked tribunal in the Commonwealth. Every week it is to be found discharging its judicial functions in one State or another. It visits each State at least once a year. I know of no corresponding tribunal in any part of the world which does anything like the same amount of travelling. **Senator Stewart** has stated that when the Justices of the High Court travel by rail they enjoy special reservations in the shape of parlour cars. Having seen their Honours travelling between Melbourne and Sydney on more than one occasion, I confess that I have not observed any provision of the kind. Certainly for themselves and their officers they have had one or two reserved compartments, but not more than the number of their party demanded. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- I saw one Justice with a whole compartment to himself. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- That may be so. The honorable senator knows that it is often possible for a man to travel a considerable distance in a railway compartment without there being any other occupant of that compartment. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- The window was up, and had " engaged " upon it, and the blinds were down. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- And the honorable senator saw through the blinds ? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- There is not the slightest reason why a Justice of the High Court should not enjoy the privacy that is provided by a reserved compartment. If three, or even four, Justices were travelling together they would probably occupy the same compartment. There is every reason why men occupying positions such as these gentlemen do should have complete privacy if they wish. They should not be compelled to travel in a car where anybody may, within his own rights, proceed to criticise the administration of justice, or even discuss a case that is being, or has been, heard by the Court. I believe that in every State of the Commonwealth it is the custom for the Judges to have special compartments reserved for them. This is not done in the interests of the Judges themselves, but in the interests of the purity of. justice, and, indeed, of the seeming purity of its administration. As far as concerns the other remarks of the honorable senator, I point out that when the Judges of the High Court visit one of the capital cities, practically no accommodation for them is provided by the Commonwealth. They have to take rooms, for consultation amongst themselves, at an hotel. Let me give an illustration : I think I am perfectly right in saying that when the High Court sits in Melbourne, and the Judges desire, in the evening, to meet together to discuss the arguments in a case to enable them to come to_a decision, the only place in which they can do so is at the hotel where they are staying. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Why should they not meet at the Law Courts? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- The Courts are not open at night, and, what is more, the Commonwealth has no control over the Court buildings. We have to depend, for accommodation, upon the. goodwill of the States to enable the High Court to sit and hear arguments. It is necessary for the Judges to engage quarters at an hotel, and, in addition to their sleeping accommodation, they must have one, two, or, perhaps, more' rooms in which to .meet and consult. We have nol a single building in which we can put them in any one of the capitals. Under these circumstances, the ordinary hotel bill which is paid by a private individual cannot be the measure of the expense to which a Judge of the High Court will be put. I may add that it has been a matter of admiration and wonder amongst members of the legal profession throughout Australia that the Judges of the High Court have sat day after *duy,,* sometimes for weeks at a time, hearing arguments in cases till four or half-past four in the afternoon, and the next morning, after concluding a long case, at half-past ten, have delivered most exhaustive and conclusive judgments. The Judges would not be able to do that unless they met at night. The accommodation that has to be secured for this purpose necessari.lv swells the expenditure. I hope that after this explanation my honorable friend will see the wisdom of not pressing his request. Request negatived. Proposed vote agreed to. Home Affairs : Secretary - Meteorologist - Governor-General' s Establishment : Non-Recurring Works - Map of Australia - Gratuities for Valuable Suggestions - Members' Room, Adelaide. Divisions 21 to 29 *(Department of Home Affairs),* £289,515.' {: #debate-10-s84 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria .- I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, " Secretary, *£900,"* by £100 In submitting this proposition, I wish to make it clear that I have the highest regard for all the Commonwealth departmental heads. I have ever found them courteous, obliging, and, so far as I have been able to judge, men of great capacity. But when the Committee at an earlier stage made it clear by a large majority that they were in favour of reducing the salary of one departmental head, I took it that they were indisposed to vote for increases for the heads of other Departments. It is true that some honorable senators did challenge the ability of one executive officer. I made no comment on that gentleman's capacity. The action that I took was not based on personal grounds. I do not say that any of these officers are incompetent. On the contrary, I maintain that they are highly capable, thoroughly qualified, kindly disposed, and courteous gentlemen. But, because we have made it clear that the Committee was against an increase in one case, I maintain that we should, to be consistent, reduce the other salaries on which increases have been made. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Does the honorable senator say that all men in all positions should be paid alike? {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- No, I do not. These proposed increases have the unanimous support, not merely of the late Government, but of the present Administra, tion. It is not, however, contended that the officers in question are badly paid. They are fairly well paid. It would be manifestly unfair to single out one departmental head for a reduction. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Surely the honorable senator would allow something in respect of the importance of the work done and the capacity of the officer. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- According to the statement of the Minister, the work done by the permanent head of the Department of External Affairs is of the highest importance to the Commonwealth. He is sometimes intrusted with difficult and intricate negotiations. If rumour be correct, he has for a long time almost run the Department. It appears to me to be unfair to knock down that officer's salary to the extent of £100, and to approve of the other recommendations for increases. I, in common with other Labour members, am opposed to increasing these salaries. I think that they are fairly large for the work performed. If there is a justification for a decrease in one case, the Committee, to be consistent, should vote against proposed increases in others. {: #debate-10-s85 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- I hope that **Senator Findley** 's request will not be adopted. If there is a Department in the Public Service of the Commonwealth in which the work is multiplying rapidly, it is the Department of Home Affairs. The officer who is intrusted with the administration of such important work should receive fair consideration, and his industry should be rewarded. Besides carrying on his ordinary departmental work, he has had additional functions intrusted to him from time to time. His work has been swollen enormously. The office of the Public Service Commissioner, the Census and Statistics Office, the Electoral Branch, and works and buildings have been placed under the control of this Department. If we consider the vast sums of money that are spent by the Department in different directions, we shall recognise the necessity of having an officer in charge who will possess the absolute confidence of the Minister, will have the energy to carry out his duties properly, and the fidelity to act towards the Commonwealth in a manner that will be creditable to himself and beneficial to the public. {: #debate-10-s86 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- I should be very sorry indeed if **Senator Findley's** request were agreed to. I know that the officer affected is a man of great experience and of proved ability. I am acquainted with the duties pertaining to his office. They are multifarious and very wearying. An officer, to discharge the functions of the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs effectively, must be endowed with good business capacity, must possess a great amount of tact, abounding energy, and much enthusiasm. I know of the abilities of this officer, and am familiar with the work that he has been doing. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Was it a mere coincidence that all the Ministers thought that their permanent heads should have increases of salaries in the same year? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I recommended some time ago, without Colonel Miller's knowledge at all, that his salary should be increased. I venture to say that people are apt to forget that we have in our Public Service men whose qualifications, abilities, and energy would earn for them outside the service considerably larger salaries than they are now receiving. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- We have mine managers in Western Australia who are receiving larger salaries than this. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- So we have in Tasmania. If honorable senators will consider the responsibilities cast upon such an officer as this, they will realize the great savings that can be effected by a proper discharge of his duties and By due watchfulness on his part. They will see that an increase of £100 in the case of an approved officer is very paltry beside those savings. Take the position of a man who is elected to this Parliament. The allowance to which he is entitled amounts to £600 a year, whether he resides within a stone's throw of Parliament House, or in the most extreme portion of the Commonwealth. He has the option - subject, of course, to what might happen at the next election - of attending to his legislative duties at such times as may best suit his own convenience. He may withdraw from attendance for a certain period in order to give undivided attention to his own affairs, or he may give practically the best part of his time to his personal affairs. Notwithstanding that those opportunities are open to every honorable member, none of us, I think, is disposed to say that the allowance is too much. On the other hand, let us take an officer who, as head of a Department, is dealing with matters of supreme importance to the Commonwealth, affecting the expenditure of millions in some instances. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Is that not also true of a member of Parliament ? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Yes ; but we must recognise that the officer devotes his life to the service of the Commonwealth. He does not go into private service, nor can he enter into various fields of activity which would enable him to increase his income. When we come to consider all these circumstances, I think it will be admitted that to good officers the Commonwealth ought to be prepared to pay at least the highest amount which would be paid to men of corresponding ability and attainments in private service. I venture to say that a man who is doing similar work for a private firm would receive a very much larger salary. I hope that the increase will be voted. {: #debate-10-s87 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia -- I think that the last speaker failed entirely to dissociate the office from the holder of it. That is not a fair method to adopt when we are discussing the remuneration of an office. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- I expressed myself to the contrary. I spoke of the duties of the office. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- Yes ; but by other words the honorable senator gave the Committee to understand that he had recommended this officer for an increase of salary because he possessed certain qualifications. There is not one of us but has the highest respect for the officer, and thoroughly appreciates his honesty, his integrity, and his willing service. But I consider that any head of a Department is exceedingly well paid with a salary of £800. If we had in the Treasury a few millions to scatter here and there, I might take the view which some honorable senators on the other side are taking, and say that it was a fitting opportunity to vote for a particular officer an honorarium for rendering extra service. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- That is the argument a number of employers bring in - that they pay what they can afford. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- The honorable senator knows that that remark does not apply. Where is a workman with a salary of . £800 who has thought of grumbling about the small amount he is receiving? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- In Western Australia mine managers get twice or three times as much as this officer. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- And in that State we have miners who are working for less than , £3 a week. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- In Western Australia some of the managers get nearly £3,000 a year. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- There may be some who are receiving a salary of . £5,000. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- They are cheap at the price. ' {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- They may be cheap at the price. But the position of Commonwealth officers is totally different. When we pay a salary of £800 to an officer, we pay what may well be considered a fair and reasonable wage. I fail to appreciate the argument that if a public officer were employed in private service he would receive practically as' much again as he is getting from the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Probably, he would. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- It is rather strange that there is always a number of persons ready to accept a position in the Public Service. There is really no parallel! between a public servant and a man in private employ. The latter has to contend with all the exigencies of the business in which he is engaged. But the former, so long as he is able to render good service, goes along quietly and smoothly. He has no trouble to contend with, nor has he more than the ordinary worries of a man's daily life. His bread and butter are assured to him. The other man, however, may be in to-day and out to-morrow. I have nothing to say against any public officer. But I hold that £800 a year is sufficient remuneration for the head of a public Department. I sincerely hope that honorable senators who voted against an increase to another officer, and support an increase to this officer, will be disappointed by a vote in another place. If such is the case, I shall be very willing to recast the vote I gave on a previous occasion, if they make fish of one and flesh of another. {: #debate-10-s88 .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator GRAY:
New South Wales -- My only regret is that the Government have not increased the salary of this officer-- {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- To £2,000? {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator GRAY: -- Yes. I venture to say that private firms are giving that salary to gentlemen who, from a business point of view, do not possess higher qualifications than those of the officer whose salary we arediscussing. I do not know him personally, but I have some knowledge of the work which he has done for the Commonwealth. We, as trustees for the people, should consider this matter from a purely business standpoint. If we have an officer who, by reason of his ability, his integrity, his tact, and his organizing capacity, greatly advantages the Commonwealth, he should be remunerated adequately. Take, for instance, the visit of the American Fleet. I had the honour of being on the Northern Committee, and I venture to say, to a very large extent the success of the reception of the Fleet was due to the services rendered by Colonel Miller. I believe that, by the tactful economy which he practised, as well as by the exercise of his ability, he saved some thousands of pounds to the Commonwealth.. This officer had to undertake enormous responsibility in connexion with the valuation of the transferred properties, a work which was as much outside his immediate duties as that which he performed in connexion with the visit of the American Fleet. When we have such officers as Colonel Miller in the service of the Commonwealth, it is our duty to treat them, not generously, but justly, so that we may retain their services. {: #debate-10-s89 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I very much regret that the personal element should be introduced into the discussion of the salaries of officers of the different Departments. I intend to vote on this occasion as I did on two previous occasions in which we dealt with increases of salary, but I am not actuated by any reasons personal to the officer in question. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- But only by a fatal consistency. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I cannot help that. I. ask myself whether the performance of the duties of this office is worth £800 a year or more. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- It is worth £2.000 a year. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I think that the occupant of this office is well paid at £800 a year. I do not intend to question in any way the ability of the gentleman who at present fills the office; but I hold that the salaries hitherto paid to the heads of these public Departments represent a fair remuneration for the duties attaching to their offices. I recognise that Colonel Miller is a very amiable, as well as a very able, man, but I do not think that the Commonwealth can be accused of sweating in paying £800 for the performance of the duties of this office. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Then we are very much overpaid. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- If **Senator Gray** thinks that he is over-paid, he has an easy remedy at hand. He has only to refund a portion of the allowance he receives. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- I meant by comparison with Colonel Miller. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -I oppose the proposed increase because I believe the salary attached to this office is quite sufficient. {: #debate-10-s90 .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator VARDON:
South Australia -- I do not think that we ought to lay down a rule that the head of every Department in the Commonwealth Public Service should receive exactly the same salary. We have a right to exercise some discrimination. If there is greater responsibility and more work attached to one office than to another, that ought to be taken into consideration. If honorable senators enter the premises of a large business firm in which there may be a dozen different departments, they will not find that the head of each is paid exactly the same salary. The private employer values the positions filled by those in his employment according to their responsibility and the work they entail. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- The honorable senator will remember that these departmental heads were all recommended for the same amount of increase. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator VARDON: -- I hold that we have a right to exercise our own judgment in the matter. If we believe that one officer is deserving of an increase, and that another is not, we have a right to discriminate. I rather object to the lectures to which we have been treated by Senators Turley and Findley. It was suggested that if we supported an increase of salary in one case, and denied it in another, we should be altogether inconsistent. In casting my vote, I am not responsible to any member of the Committee, any more than any other honorable senator is responsible to me. My responsibility is to my constituents, and if I think that one office is worth £900 a year, and another only £800 a year, I claim the right to exercise my own judgment in the matter. Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item "Secretary, £900" by £100 - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 9 NOES: 17 Majority ... ... 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. {: #debate-10-s91 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria . -I see that it is proposed to increase the salary of the Meteorologist from £600 to £650 ; and, as I have moved requests in previous instances where increases have been proposed, I intend to test the opinion of the Committee upon this item. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- This may be a departmental increase under the Public Service Act. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- If it isI shall not submit a request in connexion with it. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- This increase is recommended by the Public Service Commissioner. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I wish it to be understood that I have no desire to delay the Committee in discussing increases due to officers under the Public Service Act. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- I am assured that this is a statutory increase. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Then I shall not submit any request in connexion with it. {: #debate-10-s92 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- In connexion with the Governor-General's establishment, I notice an item, " Nonrecurring works at Government House, Sydney, £1,053." Under this heading the sum of £698 was appropriated last year, of which £229 was expended. There is also another item on these Estimates for " non-recurring works at Government House, Melbourne, £1,506," in connexion with which £923 was voted last year, and £732 expended. I should like some explanation regarding these items. The year before last a certain amount of work of the same kind was authorized, and we were then assured that the expenditure under this heading would become less each year. Instead of that being the case, it has been increased by about £1,000 in respect of these two items. {: #debate-10-s93 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- The items to which **Senator Turley** has directed attention relate to nonrecurring expenditure in that it is expenditure which is intended to cover the cost of repairs to the Vice-Regal establishments in Melbourne and Sydney. It includes such things as the erection of a brushing room and wood-house at the GovernorGeneral's residence in Sydney. When these works have been carried out the expenditure will not recur. It also covers the cost of a new carpet, and of a gas range for the kitchen, at Government House, Melbourne. These things are necessary to keep the two residences of the Governor-General up to date, and to maintain the credit of the Commonweal th. I trust, therefore, that these amounts will be voted without further discussion. {: #debate-10-s94 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- Last year we expended £732 upon Government House, Melbourne, and during the current financial year it is anticipated that we shall spend another £1,506, or a total of £2,238. I do not know what Government House carpets cost, but certainly no carpet that I have ever possessed, has cost anything like £2,000. I think that some further explanation of these items is necessary. As **Senator Turley** has pointed out, in a previous year when we were asked to authorize expenditure upon the Vice-Regal establishments we were assured that the expenditure would be of a non-recurring character. I should like full information in respect of these items. {: #debate-10-s95 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The item " non-recurring works at Government House, Sydney, £1,053,"in addition to the sum of £585, representing the cost of the services authorized during the last financial year which have not been carried out, includes the following services for the current financial year : - Brushing room, wood-shed, framing and propagating ground for garden, fence, general repairs, and painting. The item, " Nonrecurring works at Government House, Melbourne, £1,506," includes papering and colouring walls, renewing carpets, providing gas range for kitchen, painting external woodwork, repairing asphalt tennis court, extra linen, crockery, and furniture to meet requirements of increased staff, general repairs to lawns, pathways, drives, and gravelling. {: #debate-10-s96 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- I should like to know what will be the total cost of compiling the map of Australasia, for which a vote is set down in these Estimates. Will the Minister also inform me how far the work has progressed ? {: #debate-10-s97 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- In making a statement upon this matter the other day, the Minister of Home Affairs said that the total cost of the map was estimated at £4,000, and it was being compiled by the New South Wales Lands Department on the polyconic projection, about twentyfour miles to one inch. The sheets of the projection of their respective States had been forwarded to the Governments, with a request for certain data to be shown on them. The map would probably take another two years to complete, as the work was of such a nature that to secure accuracy and uniformity only one or two men could be employed on it. {: #debate-10-s98 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I should like some information upon the item " Gratuities to officers who, during the preceding twelve months, have offered valuable and practical suggestions leading to the introduction of useful reforms, and to greater economy and efficiency, £200." Will the Minister be good enough to say whether this is a new system which has been introduced into the Departments, and whether any of the departmental hands who have been recommended for increments are to participate in the vote? If the Public Service Commissioner or departmental heads are to be empowered to recommend officers for gratuities on account of suggestions which they may make, goodness knows where we shall be landed. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- £200 was voted under this heading last year, but only £5 was expended. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Surely we appoint officers to positions because we think that they are qualified to fill them. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -But this vote is for work outside of their ordinary duties. {: #debate-10-s99 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- The practice to which the honorable senator has alluded, is one which has been adopted in the Post and Telegraph Department, and is intended to encourage officers to make suggestions which will be of advantage to that Department. The Broken Hill Proprietary, and many other mining companies, have adopted the same plan for encouraging their employes to make suggestions, the adoption of which will be to their advantage. This is a beginning upon right lines, and one which I think **Senator Findley** in particular ought to encourage. {: #debate-10-s100 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- I wish to direct attention to the item " Maintenance members' room, Adelaide, £60." I find that last year we appropriated £60 under this heading, of which £44 was expended. I understand that a room for the use of members of this Parliament is also provided in Sydney, Brisbane, and other State capitals. I should like to know where the provision for the maintenance of those rooms is set out? {: #debate-10-s101 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia. · ALP -- The room which is provided for the accommodation of members in Adelaide, is situated in the parliamentary buildings, and consequently it was not desirable that it should be grouped under the Department of Home Affairs with the other items to which **Senator Chataway** has referred. If that honorable senator ever does Adelaide the honour of visiting it, I shall have much pleasure in showing him. over this particular room. Proposed vote agreed to. Treasury : Secretary - Government Printing Office : Staff : StampPrinting - Royal Commission on Postal Services - Treasurer's Advance. Divisions 30 to 36 (Department *of the* *Treasury),* £354,314. {: #debate-10-s102 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- I intend to propose a reduction in the salary of the Secretary of this Department. The discussion which has taken place this evening has clearly demonstrated that the system of granting increases which is at present in vogue is one which should be abrogated as soon as possible. Although it may be deemed desirable to continue these officers under the control of Ministers, rather than under the control of the Public Service Commissioner, it seems to me that the latter should be vested with . the power to grade them, and to say what salary they should receive. If that plan were adopted, it is quite possible that the particular officer whose position I am now discussing would be graded at £1,200 a year. I. have but little personal acquaintance with him, but I hear only the highest accounts of his ability. I have not a word of criticism to make against him. But I should like to point out that we have here a slipshod method of carrying on public business, so far as concerns increases of salary. Either this office was underpaid before, or it is proposed to overpay it now. The work to-day is no more important than that which was performed two or three years ago. Therefore, to have a properguide as to what should be done in this case, it is necessary to adopt some other system than the one in vogue. The system that I advocate is that the grading of these officers and the fixing of their salaries should be a responsibility laid upon the Public Service Commissioner rather than left to the sweet will of the Minister for the time being. **Senator Keating** made an invidious .comparison between one officer and members of Parliament. But public servants have enormous advantages as compared with members of Parliament, who also have critical and important functions committed to their charge. Public servants occupy permanent positions. ' They receive higher emoluments than members of Parliament do, and they have not to fight for their existence periodically. Every shilling of extra expenditure which they incur in discharging their duties is refunded to them, and quite rightly ; whereas the unfortunate member of Parliament, in addition to having a most insecure tenure, has to spend large sums of money in travelling round the country at his own expense and has to put his hand in his pockets at frequent intervals at the instance of people who have formed the false idea that he is a kind of minor millionaire. Some honorable senators have taken up the position that this method of granting increases of salary is bad in principle. I propose to give them an opportunity of emphasizing that opinion in connexion with this item. But T have absolutely no feeling with regard to the gentleman occupying the position we are dealing with. The matter should' be dealt with purely as one of principle. I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, " Secretary, £900," by £100 {: #debate-10-s103 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I do not think that we need to bring into the discussion a comparison between what is paid to members of Parliament and to the higher officials of the Public Service. I shall not discuss that aspect of the question. The officer whose salary is under review holds one of the most responsible positions in the Public Service. If it be true " that government is finance,1' then the Secretary to the Treasury must necessarily be the most important officer in the service. Let honorable senators consider the magnitude of the issues that this gentleman has to deal with. During last year he had to handle £14,000,000 of revenue and upward of £6.000,000 of expenditure. He has continuous control under the Minister of these vast transactions. Shortly this officer will have to take a leading part in settling the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. He will have to grapple with the States debts question, and practically provide brains to work out the problem in order to lay a scheme before the responsible Minister. If we only consider what lies before this officer during the next few years, and the serious and anxious duties that he will have to perform, we shall agree that that alone warrants a very high salary being paid to him. It does not follow that because we believe in paying officers possessed of special ability who are holding high positions good salaries, we also believe in paying inadequate salaries to those who are doing mere routine work. Neither does it follow that those who are supporting the cutting down of the higher salaries are in favour of increasing the lower ones. But I remind the Committee that there is such a thing as competition for men of ability, and if we do not pay adequate salaries we shall simply get the leavings. We shall have to put up with officers who have not been attracted by the hope of higher reward elsewhere. The Under-Secretary iti New South Wales receives a salary of £1,000 per annum, although he by no means holds such a responsible position as does this officer. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- He has to handle just as large a revenue. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- But when we consider the magnitude of the questions with which the Secretary to the Treasury has to deal, we must recognise that the officer holding the corresponding position in New South Wales has not to perform duties nearly so important and complex. Take the Auditors-General of the various States. They are not called upon to deal with such large and difficult questions as come before the Secretary to the Commonwealth Treasury. A State Auditor-General is mainly concerned with routine expenditure and bookkeeping. In New South Wales and Victoria those officers are paid £1,000 a year. I can safely ask the Committee to retain the salary as proposed. {: #debate-10-s104 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- I do not think that **Senator Givens** has attacked the officer, in this case. Indeed, he spoke in the highest terms regarding his ability. He acknowledged that the position was a most responsible one, and that the officer was thoroughly competent to discharge the duties intrusted to him. Every officer at the head of a Department of the Commonwealth has to discharge important functions. The permanent head of the Treasury has to be behind the Treasurer to advise him in connexion with financial matters. But still, it is the Minister who has to undertake the responsibility. It is said that there is great competition for men of capacity and special ability. Everyone admits that. But how many men who have been at the head of a State or Commonwealth Department, has the Minister of Defence known to throw up their positions to go and earn their living in the outside world ? I have been connected with politics for several years, but I have never known a man at the head of a Department, either State or Commonwealth, who has been prepared to leave the service because he has been offered a higher salary outside. That argument is simply a piece of special pleading. There is nothing in it, and the use of it shows that the Minister had to find a reason for retaining the high salaries proposed. **Senator Givens** has argued that the present system in relation to increasing salaries is a bad one. I agree with him. There may be a very good .officer whose manner is against him. Such a man will be likely to be kept back, not because he has not ability, but because his manner may not have been attractive to others. The Minister has compared the salary paid to the Secretary of the Treasury with the salaries paid to the Auditors-General of two of the States. But if there is one man in the service upon whom Parliament has to rely for a truthful account of the finances, it is the AuditorGeneral. It is his duty to speak out plainly and honestly. He is not there to ingratiate himself with the Public Service Commissioner, with Ministers, or with any one else. He can only be removed by a vote of Parliament. Within my own knowledge an Auditor-General has spoken out plainly and straightforwardly in connexion with matters where in his opinion officers and Ministers were acting beyond the law. I know that in a number of cases they have been spoken of by Ministers as officers who assumed too much, and took their responsibilities too seriously. It is not more than a month since the Auditor-General for New South Wales submitted, iri his annual report, a matter with which he thought he had a perfect right to deal. What was the result? In the Legislative Assembly, the Treasurer said : " Who is this man who criticises the actions of Ministers? He knew what the opinion of the Government was, and we shall make him sit up before we are done with him." I was glad to notice that the officer stuck to his guns. Since that time the Ministry have climbed down, and are not going to attempt to do anything with him. In my opinion, there is no comparison between the two offices, because one of them is subject .to parliamentary control only, and does not get an increase except by its action. I believe that in some States a two-thirds majority is required to deal with an AuditorGeneral. We have nothing to say against the officer whose salary is under consideration. In Queensland the Government deal with the heads of Departments according to the same system. When one head received an increase, the other did. Taken all round, it seemed to" me to be a fair position for the Minister to take up, but, of course, it had to be indorsed by Parliament. If honorable senators believe that it is a wrong system to adopt for the Commonwealth, they should vote accordingly. If it is not considered wise to put the heads of Departments under the control of the Public Service Commissioner as to their remuneration, surely to goodness some authority outside the Minister should be allowed to appraise their services, without, of course, any right to interfere with the working of their Departments. I intend to vote with **Senator Givens.** {: #debate-10-s105 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- We ought to endeavour to promote an *esprit de corps* in the Public Service, and there should be certain plums to which every officer, by rendering faithful service, may aspire. As an old banker, I have no hesitation in saying that the Secretary to the Treasury would not get a penny too much if he were paid £[1,000 a year for his services. I hope that next year he will receive another increase of £[100. {: #debate-10-s106 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania, -- When this Parliament assembled in 1901 I think it was the general opinion of members of .each House and the community generally that its sessions would be of very short duration. That expectation has not been realized. On the contrary, the sessions, by comparison with the sessions of the State Parliaments, have been inordinately long. Apart from that, we know that both here and elsewhere provision was made very early for the attendance of heads. of Departments, in order that Ministers might be kept closely in touch with everything of a departmental character which might be affected by debate. Not only have their services been availed of by Ministers, but they have been freely asked by honorable senators generally, and freely given. I believe that the departmental heads have attended through- out these lengthy sessions, on many occasions at considerable personal inconvenience, and worked many hours overtime, but I do not think that a single claim for extra remuneration has been preferred. Those circumstances could not have been thought of at the time when their salaries were being fixed. I think that honorable senators will recognise that the officers have given services which were not contemplated, both to Ministers and to members of each House. Those services have been of almost incalculable value in many instances in connexion with our discussions. I understand that no claim for a single halfpenny in respect of these extra duties has been preferred, although I believe that under the Public Service Act every officer could, if he chose, claim payment for working overtime. I hope that these facts will be remembered by honorable senators in connexion with any proposed increase. {: #debate-10-s107 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I understand that this discussion is largely proceeding on the supposition that the salaries of heads of Departments should be the same. I altogether dissent from the view, that necessarily because a man is the head of a Department, the duties require the same remuneration in the one case as in the other. I dissent from the view that an individual officer, simply because he is head of a Department, is entitled to exactly the same salary as is paid to the head of another Department. It is for that reason, and not from any personal feeling, or desire to be unfair, that I have voted for one reduction and against other eductions. I understand that later on an attempt will be made to make the salaries of departmental heads uniform, restoring an increase which the Committee decided to-day should not be paid. If the effort is made, I shall have to vote in that case for a salary which. I think is too high, or in this case for a salary which I think is too low. I believe that in the present instance, the proposed increase is honestly due. So far as I can understand, there is no officer on whose behalf it might be more justly stated that he is a cheap officer than in this case, and I can make that remark with greater freedom because I do not happen to know him. The position placed before me is an awkward one. I believe that the proposed increase is honestly due, but I am confronted with the indefinite information that an attempt will be made to force me to undo the vote on another item. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- We can resist that attempt. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Yes; but the honorable senator will see that it means playing off one section against another. I do. not want to be played off. If the Government intend to make an effort to secure uniform salaries for the heads of Departments, I shall vote to keep the salary in each case at £800, and leave it to a future Parliament to do justice to officers who, I admit, would be penalized under the step I propose to take. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Does not the honorable senator approve of my suggestion to leave the fixing of these salaries to the Public Service Commissioner ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Yes. Four years ago the same view was ventilated here, and I believe that my honorable friend joined with me in agreeing that it was impossible for the Senate to adjudge the relative values of different officers. I am prepared to vote for the increase in this case, if the Government can give me an assurance that they do not intend to ask the Committee to undo its work in regard to a previous item. {: #debate-10-s108 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I do not think that is a question which ought to be addressed to the Government. The honorable senator has to take the responsibility of voting on this item, just as he took the responsibility of voting to reduce a previous item. I ask honorable senators to vote for the item on its merits. I assume that they acted on that principle when they voted to reduce the salary of another officer. If **Senator Millen** considers that the Secretary to the Treasury, is entitled to an increase in his salary, we have a right to, ask him to vote with us, and leave the matter to the judgment of the Committee. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- What are the Government going to do as regards the other item? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I cannot say at the present time. {: #debate-10-s109 .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator STORY:
South Australia -- In the first instance, I voted for a reduction in a salary, believing that the departmental heads . were fairly well paid, and that in the present state of the finances, we could not afford to be extravagant. I voted for two other requests of a similar nature, but they were defeated. On this occasion, I propose to vote against the proposed reduction, because I consider that it is not fair to treat these officers differently. I propose to reverse the vote I gave previously, and if I had an opportunity of reversing the vote I gove against an increase to **Mr. Atlee** Hunt, *1* should be very pleased to do so, in order that all these officers might be treated in exactly the same way. {: #debate-10-s110 .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator GRAY:
New South Wales -- I intend to support my leader in his action, and I shall be extremely sorry to do so, but I believe that a great principle is involved. If we are asked to recommit the Bill for the purpose of placing every departmental head on an equality, then, much as I should like to vote for an increase in the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury, I feel that if I were to do so, I should be assisting to establish a bad precedent, and therefore I shall be compelled against my will to vote with my leader. {: #debate-10-s111 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia -- I intend to support the request. We have had eight years' experience of the work of the various Departments under Federation, and it does seem strange that four of these Departments should have developed in that time in such a way that the officer at the head of each is now to be paid the same salary, *£900* a year. We have been told by almost every honorable senator who has spoken that these officers differ so much in ability and capacity that these differences should be taken into consideration in fixing their salaries. A previous Government of the Commonwealth fixed their salaries in the first instance at *£750,* and later on the salary of each of these officers was raised to *£800.* {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- To put them on an equal itv. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- With that object absolutely. That was done four years ago, and I remember that I opposed the increase proposed for one of these officers at that time. Another four years having elapsed, the last Government came to the conclusion that it was again necessary to increase the salary paid to each *of* these officers, and strangely enough they appear also to have come to the conclusion that on their merits, these gentlemen are still equally deserving in even1 respect. They proposed an increase of *£100* in each case. If there is any reason why 'we should differentiate in the salaries paid to the heads of these Departments, should not those who held Ministerial office, and have had the best opportunities to become acquainted with the capacity of these officers, have been the first to discover that one of them was worthy of an increase of -£100, whilst another was worthy of an increase of only £[5 ? {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator Story: -- Does the honorable senator suggest that? {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- No, but **Senator Millen** and other honorable senators have declared that there is a difference in the capacities of these officer's which should be taken into account, and for that reason they denied the increase proposed in the case of one of them, and have supported the proposed increase in the case of the other three. It would seem that Ministers must have failed in their duty when they have not recognised that these officers differ in ability. I have come to the conclusion that there is practically no difference between them. Each of these gentlemen is the head of a public Department, is in a very comfortable position, knows that he is well paid, and will stick to his position as long as he can. {: #debate-10-s112 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I should not have spoken upon the request were it not for the statement made by **Senator Millen** that there is a movement on foot to recommit an item' on which the Committee gave a certain decision. The honorable senator said that should that movement be successful he will vote in a certain direction. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I have asked the members of the Government whether they intend to support the recommittal of the item, and they have said that they do not. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I do 'no care whether the Government intend to support it or not. I am afraid that the threat held out by **Senator Millen** may have the effect of clouding the issue, and that because of it certain honorable senators, as has been admitted by **Senator Gray,** are likely to vote on the request now before the Committee iri a way in which they would not vote on the merits of the case. I do not know of any movement to ask honorable senators to reconsider the vote given in a previous case, and I intend to vote on this request as I have done previously, against the proposed increase. I may say that if I were sure that the Government proposed to recommit the previous item to which I have -referred, it would not affect the vote I shall give on this occasion. In the circumstances, I think that **Senator Millen** ought not to have made tthe statement that he did. {: #debate-10-s113 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I do not care to let the request go to a vote without expressing my cordial thanks to **Senator Needham** for the trouble he has taken to tell me how I should vote. I said nothing in the nature of a threat ; but it seemed to me to be the honest thing to do to tell the Committee the view I took of the movement which I was informed was on foot. The fact that **Senator Needham** was ignorant of the movement need not surprise any one, as those in charge of it probably did not consider it worth while to inform the honorable senator. I felt that I was being placed in a somewhat invidious position, and I thought it honest to tell the Committee and the Government that if we were to have all reductions or no reductions, I was going for all reductions. On the other hand, if honorable senators were to be left free to vote for increases where they thought they were called for, and against them where they thought they were not called for, I indicated how I would vote in this case. How that could he interpreted as a threat, I do not know. I certainly did not intend the statement to be regarded as a threat. Our relations in discussing these Estimates have been of an extremely cordial nature. I desire that they should continue so, and it did not seem to me that the Government, in lending any countenance to the movement to which I have referred, were acting quite fairly to those who, like myself, gave an honest vote on the previous item. I asked the members of the Government whether they intended to recommit that item. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- They could not do so, without the consent of the Senate. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- **Senator Givens** will see that **Senator Story** has said he believes in all reductions or no reductions ; and if the Government favoured the movement referred to, some honorable senators might be prepared to reverse the vote they formerly gave. I arn trying to apportion the salaries according to the value of the services rendered. I have asked the Government, in all frankness, whether they are content to accept the decision arrived at in connexion with the previous item, or intend to support the movement to which 1 have referred. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The Government do not propose to ask the Committee to reconsider the salary of the Secretary to the External Affairs Department. {: #debate-10-s114 .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I voted for the first request submitted for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of the External Affairs Department, and neither the Government, nor any one else, will make me change my vote. On the request now under consideration, I take a different view of the proposed increase, and will stand by the Government. I am very sorry that **Senator Needham** should have got into the mood he did. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- What mood wasI in? {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I do not think that the honorable senator knows. When I told him that the members of the Government had informed me personally that they did not intend to ask for a reversal of the previous vote, the honorable senator said that he did not care whether the Government did or not. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Let us get to a vote. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This is the first time that I have spoken to-day, and I intend to be very brief. It was scarcely fair for those who, as a rule, support the Government, to assume the attitude which they have taken up to-day. Several times during the present sittingI was almost induced to think that **Senator Givens,** and not **Senator Millen,** was leader of the Opposition. Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item " Secretary,£900," by£100- put. The Committee divided. AYES: 8 NOES: 21 Majority ... ... 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. {: #debate-10-s115 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- In connexion with the division relating to the " Government Printer," I should like to know whether the Ministry have considered the advisableness of granting holidays to those who are employed on the night staff at the Government Printing Office at the close of the session. I understand that last year the ex-Treasurer granted those employes who had been obliged to work very long hours owing to the late sittings of this Parliament, and the heavy work which the Tariff entailed, holidays ranging from five days to three weeks.In view of the undue strain to which these men have been subjected, I think that the Government might consider the justice of treating them in the same way at the close of the current session. {: #debate-10-s116 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The Prime Minister has promised that he will go carefully into the matter referred to by the honorable senator, and do his best to grant a concession in the form of reasonable holidays to the employes at the Government Printing Office. I may add that some alterations have been made in that office, which I think will" meet with the approval of those who from time to time have descanted upon the unsatisfactory relationship which has existed between the Commonwealth and the Victorian Government. **Mr. Cook,** who has had charge of the stampprinting office in Adelaide, is to be brought to Melbourne as a Commonwealth officer to take charge of the stamp-printing office here. **Mr. Mullett,** who has been acting as computer for the Victorian Government, is also to be taken over by the Commonwealth, and it will be his duty to supervise Commonwealth printing generally, and to see that all accounts between the Commonwealth and the Government of this State are properly adjusted. {: #debate-10-s117 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- Is **Mr. Cook,** who at present is in Adelaide, an employe of the State or the Commonwealth ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- He is a member of the Commonwealth service. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Do I understand that he is to be transferred toMelbourne, and intrusted with the whole and sole control of the stamp branch ofthe Government Printing Office? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- He will have control of the printing of the stamps for all the States except New South Wales and Queensland. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- He will have charge of all the machinery usedin the stamp printing? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Yes. {: #debate-10-s118 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- There is an item here of £3,500 for the Royal Commission on Postal Services. I should like to know the total cost of thatRoyalCommission up to date. {: #debate-10-s119 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- In view of the very considerable sum provided on the Estimates, I should like to know when we are to have a progress report from this Commission. The Commission has been in existence for some time now, and we are entitled to know when it is likely to conclude its arduous labours. {: #debate-10-s120 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I understand that this Royal Commission is considering the advisableness of submitting a financial report. I am not in the confidence of that body, and, though there are several members of it within the Chamber, I do not know whether they will disclose " Cabinet " secrets. As to the cost of the Commission, the item shows an approximate amount. Of course, we cannot tell what a Royal Commission will cost, but if honorable members refer to the Estimates, they will find a table showing what other Commissions have cost ; and the sum set clown is considered sufficient to meet requirements. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- A footnote says the . £3,500 does not include cost of printing ; and I take it that the item is for fees, and so forth. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- The item is intended to meet travelling expenses, secretary's salary, and so on. {: #debate-10-s121 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland . -I should like to know up to what date the item of£3,500 will carry the Commission. I have an uneasy feeling that the more money we vote the longer the Postal Commission will continue. It is evident that the Commission is very like Pope's wounded snake - it is dragging its slow length along - and I do not feel inclined to feed it unduly. {: #debate-10-s122 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- It is hoped that the Postal Commission will conclude its labours before Parliament reassembles, or before the end of the financial year. When we get into recess, the members of the Commission will be able to practically devote the whole of their time to the investigation. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- When will Parliament re-assemble ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I am not good at answering conundrums. The sum of £1,000 has been expended on the Commission up to date ; and it is safe to assume that the £3,500 will be more than sufficient to meet the entire cost. {: #debate-10-s123 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- The sum of £200,000 is set down as an advance to the Treasurer. Are we to vote this money, and afterwards be given particulars of the manner in which it is proposed to be expended ? The item seems very indefinite. {: #debate-10-s124 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- As a matter of fact, this £200,000 was voted in the first Supply Bill in June, and it represents the usual advance to the Treasurer. Proposed vote agreed to. Trade and Customs : Inspectors - Analyst - Fisheries - Patent Office : Case of **Mr. Brown** - Collector of Customs, New South Wales - Undermanning, Queensland - Gratuities. Divisions 37 to 45 *(Department of Trade and Customs),* £333,343. {: #debate-10-s125 .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART:
Queensland -- I should like to know from the Minister of Defence how far it is proposed to go with the Estimates to-night? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The Government propose to ask the Committee to be good enough to sit until half -past 12 o'clock, adjourn until 1 o'clock for supper, and afterwards to proceed with the remaining Estimates. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- This is the kind of thing I have constantly objected to during my whole parliamentary experience. I have characterized it as shameful and scandalous, depriving as it does Parliament of a proper opportunity- {: #debate-10-s126 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I must ask the honorable senator to devote himself to the division before the Chair. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- To put myself in order I move - >That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Motion negatived. {: #debate-10-s127 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- In subdivision 1 of division 37, £1,200 is set down to provide for the salaries of three inspectors attached to the Central Staff. As this is new expenditure, I wish to know what duties these officers are called upon to perform, and generally what is the new policy of the Department in regard to inspection. I take it that, in addition to their salaries, we shall have to pay a good deal in travelling expenses, if they are to go all over Australia. {: #debate-10-s128 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The statement supplied by the Department is this - >These officers were chosen from the whole of the Department, and will make periodical inspections of all ports. It is anticipated that each port will be visited at least once a year. In addition to checking the work the inspectors will be in a position to advise officers on any local question or on any matter of procedure. It was felt for some time that some system of inspection by officers of the Central Staff was necessary, and it is hoped by these appointments that the difficulty of Customs supervision will be overcome. Responsible officers of the Central Staff have informed me that the reports already received from the inspectors justify their appointment, the result of the change being considered absolutely satisfactory. {: #debate-10-s129 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- I division 37A, provision is made for the salaries of an Analyst, three assistants, and three junior assistants, amounting to £1,060, which, according to a footnote, is for a portion of the year only. Will the Minister tell us what these officers do, why the new Department has been established, and what will be its annual cost? {: #debate-10-s130 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- The amount set down for the Analyst provides salary for eleven months; in the case of the other officers, salary for nine month's is provided. The explanation of the appointments with which I am furnished is this - >Owing to the requirements of the Central Staff and the Victorian Customs Office it became essential that the Department should have an office of its own to carry out expeditiously the business of the public and avoid bitter complaints of delay. The increase of work caused by the requirements of the Commerce Act increased the staff and the expenditure, and the payment to the State Government had to be increased accordingly. As the analyst was a State officer this Department had only the second call on his services which led to very inconvenient delays on most important matters. The expenditure in the past has been - In addition, the State Government claimed an increased allowance owing to commerce work and such claim was justified. The expenditure proposed for salaries and contingencies for the present year is£1,360, very little in advance of payments made under the old system, but the expedited service will more than compensate for the slightly increased cost. In addition, young officers are being trained in this office, and their services will be availed of, if necessary, in other States as the work expands. **Mr. Wilkinson,** the State Government Analyst of Victoria, has been appointed at his present salary of £700 per annum. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Who is the Director of Fisheries whose salary is provided for in division 37B? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- **Mr. Dannevig,** formerly expert to the New South Wales Government. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- When was he appointed, when will he commence his duties, and when shall we receive his first report? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- He was appointed on the 1st July. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I notice that only £130 is to be given to the Assistant Naturalist. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- That amount is for six months. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Are his services to be retained? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- Yes. He will be used in connexion with the trawling investigations. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- I notice that last year £150 was appropriated. For what was the money required, if the Director of Fisheries was not appointed until this year ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- The money was appropriated, but not expended. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- In subdivision 2 of division 37B, £200 is provided for travelling expenses. Are not the officers of this Department to be housed on board the trawler? If so, what travelling expenses will they have to pay ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- The Director has occasionally to leave the vessel to come to Melbourne or visit other parts of the Comwealth, without taking the trawler with him. {: #debate-10-s131 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- When will the investigation of our fisheries commence? We have already had a gentleman appointed at a salary of £600 a year. Assistant naturalists have also been appointed, and last year £300 was appropriated on account of fisheries. None of it appears to have been spent. This year we expect to spend . £3,574. Can the Minister supply any information as to when the actual operations of the Fisheries branch will commence? I do not see that anything is going on at present, although the trawler has been launched. {: #debate-10-s132 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The trawler is being completed in Sydney, and is expected to be in commission in January next. Applications have been invited) for filling positions on the trawler and are being considered. {: #debate-10-s133 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I observe that an increase of salary of £50 for the Commissioner of Patents is recommended. His previous salary was £800. Having previously moved requests for reductions in respect of departmental heads, it is not my intention to move requests for further reductions. But I have risen to draw attention to the case of **Mr. Brown,** an officer in the Patent Office. I believe that he has been in the officesince its establishment. Latterly he has been declared to be an excess officer. It is said that because **Mr. Brown** has expressed opinions in regard to matters affecting the office and the manner in which patents have been dealt with, he has made himself unpopular. I hope that **Mr. Brown,** who seems to have a grievance against the Department, will receive that consideration to which his claims entitle him. I am informed, also, that **Mr. Brown** cited a number of patents which he declared to have been faulty or invalid. Will the Minister be good enough to say whether any of these patents have since been officially declared invalid or faulty? There seems to be a disposition to make **Mr. Brown's** lot uncomfortable. I know nothing of the circumstances personally. {: #debate-10-s134 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- It is quite true that **Mr. Brown,** an officer in the Patent Office, was declared by the Commissioner to be an excess officer. That is to say there was no position for him in the office. He is now in the Trade Marks Office, and the Minister has his case under consideration. It is also a fact that **Mr Brown** did make certain charges as alleged by **Senator Findley** against certain patents issued; but, so far as my information goes, the patents referred to have not. been proved to be incorrect. {: #debate-10-s135 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- It appears from the schedule that the salary of the Collector of Cus- toms, New South Wales, has been reduced. The salary of the inspector is also less than the salary paid last year. I wish to know whether the officers have been changed or whether their salaries have been reduced ? {: #debate-10-s136 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- **Mr. Lockyer,** the former Collector of Customs, New South Wales, has been appointed Assistant Comptroller- General at the Central Office, Melbourne. **Mr. John** Baxter, formerly inspector, has been appointed State Collector. **Mr. Lawson,** who is the senior qualified officer available, has been appointed inspector. These alterations in the staff account for the differences in salaries. {: #debate-10-s137 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- Have the Government taken any steps recently to meet the constant complaints of excessive overwork of the officers of the Customs Department in certain parts of Queensland? The system has really amounted to very serious sweating of a large section of the Public Service. {: #debate-10-s138 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- In a number of the outports of Queensland it has been found absolutely necessary to increase the staff to enable the officers to get the recreation leave to. which they are entitled, to avoid the employment of temporary assistants, which is costly and unsatis factory, and to avoid complaints of delay. The Inspectors from the Central Office are now inspecting the outports, and are instructed to look carefully into the duties of each officer to see that there are no excess officers. I understand that that action has been taken in consequence of the complaints referred to by the honorable senator. {: #debate-10-s139 .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia -- Under "Miscellaneous" in the Estimates of the Department of Trade and Customs for South Australia appears a gratuity of £190 to the widow of the late E. J. M. Newman, subcollector, Adelaide, equal to six months leave. I raise no objection to that, because it is a matter of justice. The man was entitled to his long-service leave when he died. Have the Government any intention to take similar action in regard to other cases where applications for similar gratuities have been refused? Why is this case singled out? An employe named F. R. Bradwell died two months after getting his long-service leave, but the Government of the day refused the widow's application for payment in lieu of the remaining four months. Will the Minister cause that and other cases to be taken into consideration and treated in the same way as Newman's case has been? {: #debate-10-s140 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- There were very special circumstances in Newman's case. He had thirty years' service, he worked from November, 1901, to August, 1903 many hundreds of hours overtime, and received no compensation for the extra service. He was entitled to six weeks recreation leave and six months furlough on full pay ; but owing to the stress of work, was unable to take his leave. He left a. family of seven children. The widow stated that the mental and physical strain caused by worry, anxiety, and overwork in his position in Melbourne, helped to cause his early decease. Only £33 compensation was due and payable by the South Australian Government; but it was decided to grant the widow a gratuity equal to the six months furlough on full pay to which her late husband was entitled. Provision was made accordingly. My colleague the Minister of Trade and Customs states, in regard to the late **Mr. Bradwell,** that his death occurred during 1901, when the State Public Service Act still applied to transferred officers, there being no Commonwealth Public Service Act at the time. He adds that he is unable to say why no gratuity was provided, but that whatever action was taken would be under the State law. I shall again! bring the matter under his notice, with a request that he should cause inquiries to be made. Proposed vote agreed to. Defence : Secretary - Exchange Officers - Military Board - Chief Clerk - Thursday Island Fort : Explosion : Telephone Communication : Japanese Servants : Garrison - Protection of Forts - Cadet Uniforms - Arms and Ammunition - Compensation for Injuries : Case of Ex -Bandsman Wakerley - Instructional Staff - Promo tions : New Regulation. Divisions 46 to 188 *(Defence),* £722,543. {: #debate-10-s141 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- The Defence Estimates are debited with £900 for the Secretary of the Central Administration. We are informed by a foot-note that that officer is at present acting as officer in charge of the Commonwealth offices in London. Consequently, this item has no business to appear under this Department. It was suggested earlier this evening that the Government should re-arrange the Estimates in such a way that this salary should be charged to the Department of External Affairs. The Secretary is not doing anything in connexion with the administration of the Defence Forces, and therefore to the extent of at least .£900 this statement of the expenditure on defence is an absolute fraud and delusion. The Government should include this officer's name and salary in the Estimates relating to the Commonwealth offices in London. To emphasize my disapproval of the present arrangement, I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item, " Secretary, £900." If the Minister is prepared to indicate what the Government will do to put the Estimates straight, and charge this amount to its proper place, I shall be willing to meet the wishes of the Committee to get on with the business. {: #debate-10-s142 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- There is really no force in the point raised by **Senator Chataway.** If we struck out from the Estimates of the Defence Department all reference to this officer we should practically declare that, in our opinion, Captain Collins, on the appointment of a High Commissioner, should act as his secretary. If, when the High Commissioner was appointed, the Government of the day considered that Captain Collins was not a suitable officer to act as his Secretary, his position in the Defence Department would have been filled bv some one else, and a new position would have to be created for him, or he would have to leave the service. I do not think that we should commit ourselves, as we should practically do, by striking out the item, to the view that Captain Collins ought to be appointed Secretary to the High Commissioner. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Does the honorable senator think it is fair that his salary should be charged against the Defence Department whilst he is in London? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- It is not fair to the Department, but so far as the taxpayer is concerned, the point is immaterial, since his salary must come out of the Consolidated Revenue, regardless of in what part of the Estimates provision is made for it. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- /The honorable senator might just as well argue that portion of the Defence expenditure should be debited to the Postmaster-General's Department. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- But Captain Collins is Secretary for Defence, and was only appointed temporarily to act for the Commonwealth in London. He is doing work there relating to the Defence Department. {: #debate-10-s143 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- I suggest that we should debit the London office with a portion of the salary of the officer. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- There is no reference to the London office in these Estimates. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER: -- But the Depart.ment of External Affairs controls that office, and portion of Captain Collins' salary should be debited to it. {: #debate-10-s144 .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator VARDON:
South Australia -- I do not think that the suggested amendment is necessary. The Estimates show the exact position, since it is stated in a footnote to the item that Captain Collins is at present acting for the Commonwealth in London. {: #debate-10-s145 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- We are 'told that this officer is now doing all the work of the Defence Department in London. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- I said not that he is doing "all" the work; but that he is doing work relating to the Department. **Mr. Savage** passes our purchases of warlike stores there. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Is he competent to examine and pass warlike material purchased by the Commonwealth in London. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- He is, and he is doing the work. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Is the Department paying an engineer, or some other military man in London to supervise the purchase of warlike stores there? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- No. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Who passes the warlike stores that we purchase there, and what expenditure do we incur in that direction? Prior to Federation, each State employed an engineer connected with the British Army who was competent to pass the warlike material that it purchased in London. Have we such an officer acting for us? {: #debate-10-s146 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- If thehonorable senator will examine the Estimates of this Department he will find,, under the heading of administrative staff,. the item " Director of Stores, £380." That officer is a **Mr. Savage.** {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- He is an accountant. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- He examines and passes the defence material that we purchase at Home, and also acts as an accountant in the small office in London over which Captain Collins presides. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Is he what is technically known as the " fire-master," and is he competent to pass explosives? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- He was doing that work here, and was sent Home to relieve Captain Collins, who had previously been attending to such duties, and also to assist him as an accountant. {: #debate-10-s147 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- This is a very complicated position. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- There is no complication. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The honorable senator is one of two or three wealthy senators who can afford to take a trip Home, and have a good time with Captain Collins. He, therefore, thinks that nothing ought to be said about the matter. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- Nothing of the sort. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- Two or three wealthy honorable senators who have been able to take a trip Home say that Captain Collins was very kind to them, and, therefore, no one must criticise him. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- Nothing of the sort. I had been in London six months before I saw Captain Collins, and I was not with him for more than two hours. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- We have had *ad nauseam* the story of the kindness displayed by Captain Collins to honorable senators visiting the Old Country. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- He would be kind to the honorable senator. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- This is a matter, not of personal kindness, but of public service. An officer may be kind to me, but that is no reason I should not see that the interests of the Commonwealth are safeguarded and the Estimates passed in proper order. I was about to say that the position is exceedingly complicated, because when we asked for information with regard to this officer during the consideration of the Estimates of another Department we were told that he was employed exclusively in the Department of Defence, and that when we reached the Defence Estimates we could more properly ask for such information. We are now told that we have already discussed the duties of the officer, and should not again refer to them. I do not subscribe to that view. Captain Collins having been appointed Secretary for Defence, is either necessary for that position or is not. If he is necessary, then there has been a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Government, who took him away from the Defence Department for three years. *Sitting suspended from 12.30 to J. 5 a.m. (Friday).* {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- When we adjourned for a pleasant interlude I was pointing out that either Captain Collins was necessary to fill the position of Secretary for Defence, and should be brought back to fill it, or that he was unnecessary, and somebody else should be appointed to fill it. It is absolutely ridiculous to have the Secretary for Defence in London for a lengthy period doing other work, whilst all the time he is drawing the salary of that office. When this matter was being discussed on a previous item we were told that it was not the time to criticise his appointment in London or to cavil at it, and that the matter should be allowed to slide, as it had been allowed to go on for three years. I entirely disagree with that view. Captain Collins was appointed to go to London temporarily for a specific purpose, which mav have been exceedingly proper, and Parliament was informed that that purpose was to supervise the purchase ©f warlike stores. Nobody cavilled at that time, nor do I think that anybody was entitled to do so, because it was a very laudable and legitimate purpose. But when we find that the so-called temporary appointment has degenerated into what is practically a permanent one, it is time to offer a protest and to take such action as will clearly inform the Government of the intention of Parliament. The Defence Department costs a great deal of money every year. On these Estimates we are asked to vote in round figures £750,000. It is a very serious question whether the Commonwealth is getting full value for that very large expenditure. But apart altogether from that, it is a matter of serious concern to the people to know whether proper steps are being taken to provide for their defence or not. The whole object of having a permanent head of the Department is to supervise its internal affairs,, and to see that they are properly administered. How can Captain Collins, the permanent head, supervise, when 14,000 miles away, the working and administration of this great Department, and assure us that we are getting value for. the very large expenditure in which the Commonwealth indulges? I do not want it to be understood for a moment that I am cavilling at. that large expenditure. Whilst I remain here I shall cheerfully vote a larger expenditure for defence, but at the same time I shall always be anxious to get at least reasonable value for it. We cannot have a Department properly organized whilst its permanent head, who is supposed to be so necessary for its. proper conduct, is practically permanently absent in London filling another position. Captain Collins is either necessary or unnecessary. If he is necessary then his temporary appointment should have ceased long ago. If he is not essential to the Department then he should be appointed to .the position in London, and somebody else put at its head. It is only by adopting a system of that kind that we can ever hope to have anything like proper organization in -the Department, which I believe is one of the most important Departments in the Commonwealth. It is the Department on which in the hour of danger we shall have to rely most. I do not intend to allude to the history of Captain Collins' appointment in London, any further than to say that when Parliament consented to it we were informed that it would be merely of a temporary character, and that this officer had been sent Home to perform a .specific duty. When that duty was performed, Captain Collins should have been recalled. If it is contended that we are still purchasing warlike stores, and that it is necessary that Captain Collins should remain in London to supervise their purchase, he should be permanently appointed to carry out that work, and some one else should be appointed as permanent head of the Defence Department. In order to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter, I intend, at the close of my remarks, to submit a request for the reduction of the item bv *£1.* {: #debate-10-s148 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- A request has already been moved to leave out the item. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I. intended to take a milder course. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- What difference does it make? {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The difficulty is that if the request before the Committee be agreed to. it means the abolition of the office, and another thing is that, as half of the financial year has elapsed, half the vote has been properly expended in anticipation that it would be passed, and a serious position would be created. If itis necessary that we should have a representative of the Commonwealth in London, Parliament should be consulted in thematter. It cannot be contended that Captain Collins is being paid *£900* a year as Secretary for Defence when we know that he has not been carrying out theduties of that office for a very long timepast. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Captain Collins' services in supervising the purchase of defence material in London have been worth' the salary paid to him many times over. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- The point is that Captain Collins is paid the salary as Secretary for Defence, and he is not here toperform the duties of his office. As **'Senator Turley** suggested some time ago, I think it is extremely doubtful that Captain Collinspossesses the necessary qualifications *to* effectively supervise the purchase of warlike stores. If that work is to be done properly, the officer intrusted with . it should possess qualifications which are not required in an ordinary soldier. He should" be what is known as a " fi remaster," and should be able to test explosives. We have no guarantee that Captain Collins possesses such qualifications. If the whole of the items in these 'Estimates were properly scrutinized, we might discover that the Commonwealth has to pay very considerable sums for outside assistance inLondon to deal with these very matters. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The inspection and supervision before Captain Collins went Home was very perfunctory. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- I am not denyingthat Captain Collins has done excellent work in London. It is probable that he has been able to procure competent assistance to protect the interests of the Commonwealth in the purchase of warlike stores of the proper quality. Unless something it done to alter the existing state of affairs, the people will have no guarantee that they are getting fair value for the large expenditure incurred by the Defence Department. {: #debate-10-s149 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- **Senator Chataway** has submitted a request for the omission of this item. But T do not see my way to support it. Captain Collins has done the work which he was asked to do in London for six months of the financial year, and. if the item is left out, the responsibility will be thrown upon the Government of paying him for the time he has put in, and his office will then be abolished. There is a "great deal in the contention that it is very questionable whether either of the officers ^provided for in this vote are competent to <do the work necessary in the Old Country in passing warlike materials and ammunition. The Minister has informed us that -a man who is put down on the Estimates as an accountant is inspector of stores, and has gone Home to perform this work. I find it difficult to believe that a man possessing the necessary qualifications to pass warlike material would be in this Department at a salary of £600 a year. We have been told "that Captain Collins was sent to England because the Government were spending large sums of money in the purchase of warlike stores, and because this work had previously been done in a very perfunctory fashion. That was the ostensible reason why he was removed from his position as Secretary of the Defence Department. But I think that the «real reason is sti'll in the background. The men who were previously intrusted with the task of purchasing warlike material for the -Commonwealth were paid a commission upon the amount of their purchases. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- We were dependent upon the Home authorities. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Exactly. That was the system adopted by all the States prior to Federation. Because their AgentsGeneral were not competent to undertake this -work, they appealed to the military authorities in England, and obtained the assistance of a competent ma.n, who was paid, bv the State foc which he acted, a commission upon the amount of his purchases. But that arrangement was not regarded as satisfactory, and Captain Collins was accordingly despatched to the Old Country to see that the work was carried out in a proper manner. It has not been suggested that he himself was capable of undertaking that work. We have been told that he has other duties to perform: in connexion with the Treasury Department, and that in the discharge of those duties he has saved the Commonwealth an enormous sum. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Surely that is a good recommendation? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I said that " we have been told" that that is so, not that it is so. The honorable senator might read the story of the "Arabian Nights," but the -wonderful doings which it relates may never have happened. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Does the honorable senator wish Captain Collins to be recalled ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I think that that is a fair question. If it be necessary to have a Secretary of the Defence Department, Captain Collins should be recalled to take up the duties for which he is paid, but if it is not necessary to have such an officer, then he should be continued in his present position. We have also been told that Captain Collins has succeeded in getting upon the track of large sums of money belonging to the Commonwealth, which were distributed over London, and that he has thus been able to effect considerable savings. It requires a more vivid imagination than I possess to suggest any explanation as to why these moneys were floating about London. Let us reverse the present position by assuming that certain sums belonging to the Commonwealth were lodged in different portions of that city, and that there was also a large amount of work' to be done there in connexion with the purchase of warlike stores. What would have been 'said if the leading officer in the Treasury Department had been sent to London to get upon the track of all these moneys, and also to undertake the purchase of warlike material? Such a communication, I venture to say, would have been received with the utmost derision. Why? Because it is questionable whether any officer from the Treasury Department would be competent to examine warlike stores. The result would have been that Parliament would have said, " This officer was sent to London ostensibly to look after matters connected with the Treasury Department." Captain Collins has been three or four years in London, presumably looking after all the Commonwealth work which has to be transacted there, while he is paid for work which is supposed to be done in Melbourne. Then we have the ActingSecretary of the Defence Department, who receives, I suppose, £600 or £700 a year, doing the work of a man whose salary is £900; and I regard that as most unfair. If it were a temporary arrangement for a few months, not much could be said, but we expect this acting official to take the whole of the responsibility for an indefinite period ; and I can only regard the arrangement as sweating in one of its worst forms. If it is necessary to pay £900 a year for a competent official, how can we expect the work to be done in a satisfactory manner by a man in receipt of about two-thirds of that amount? In anyof the ordinary occupations of life, if a man receiving£3 per week be called away, and the next in rank, whose salary is *£2* a week, be called upon to do the work, he would, if a member of a union, be considered a scab if the arrangement continued for more than a very short time. I am sure that the Senate does not desire to countenance such a state of affairs for one moment. I cannot blame the present Government, and I should be sorry to think that any Government would countenance anything such as we have been told by rumour in connexion with the matternow under discussion. I cannot support the amendment submitted by **Senator Chat-** away, but I understand that, if that amendment be defeated, as I have no doubt it will be, **Senator Givens** is prepared with another which will convey to the Government an intimation that some alteration is necessary, and that if there is no change by next year the Estimates will not be dealt with in the perfunctory manner which is now inevitable owing to want of time. If honorable senators realize that there is something wrong, they ought notonly to say so, but to give the Government to understand that they have power under the Constitution to put an end to an arrangement which is so much to the detriment of the Department. {: #debate-10-s150 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I am not disposed to vote to strike out the item, because I think that Captain Collins should be compensated for the work which he has done in London; but I intend to support a subsequent amendment to reduce the amount by as an indication of the opinion of the Committee that the present arrangement is unsatisfactory. Captain Collins seems to be a sort of Pooh-bah. He was sent to London to do certain work, the opinion being that a High Commissioner was soon to be appointed, but no appointment has been made. This officer may be the most competent in the service, yet I fail to see how he can satisfactorily fill the position of Secretary to the Defence Department while attending to duties devolving on him as representative of the Commonwealth in London, where, in addition to supervising the purchase of defence material, he has to deal with financial and other matters.If the salary is reduced by *£1,* I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as a direction that a permanent appointment must be made. I have nothing to say against Captain Collins personally. {: #debate-10-s151 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- The speeches which have been made in connexion with my amendment have elicited information on a good many points which require to be cleared up. In my opinion, an officer who spends the whole of his time in London cannot act as Secretary to the Defence Department, and the amendment was moved to protest against the present arrangement. The position of the Committee reminds me of some lines of Banjo Paterson's - " Oh, take your swag to the traveller's hut," said Smith, " and save your breath. You've a first class chance,' if you lose the fight, of talking your man to death." However, as I do not wish to cause delay, I ask leave to withdraw the request. Request, by leave, withdrawn. {: #debate-10-s152 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- To secure an expression of opinion from the Committee in opposition to the present arrangement - and I trust that if the amendment is carried the Government will regard the vote as a direction to bring it to an end as soon as possible, I move- That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item, " Secretary,£900," by £1. Question put. The Committee divided. AYES: 8 NOES: 16 Majority ... ... 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative: Request negatived. {: #debate-10-s153 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I notice that the schedule contains an item of£500, salary for an exchange officer from the Imperial Army. I should like to know whether the Commonwealth officer now serving with the Imperial Forces is being paid at the same rate, how he is progressing, and whether he has a standing similar to that of the Imperial officer now serving with our Forces? The practice of exchanging officers is an excellent one, and will have the effect of bringing our instructional staff up to date. {: #debate-10-s154 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- The officer whose salary is provided for in the schedule is Captain Wilson Roy, an artillery officer from England. The Australian officer now in England is Captain White, who has been sent Home for four years. He has been in England only about six months, I think. Naturally we have not yet received reports as to how he is progressing. We exchange not only with Great Britain, but with the Indian Army. The system has' been going on for some time. It works satisfactorily, enabling our officers to gain experience abroad, whilst we get the benefit of the services of experienced British and Indian officers during their presence here. {: #debate-10-s155 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- Can the Minister give me any information as to the civil member of the Military Board? What are his qualifications and who is he? I do not know anything about him, but I think we should have some information. {: #debate-10-s156 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The civil member of the Military Board is **Mr. Pethebridge.** If honorable senators turn to the next page they will see that the Chief Accountant acts as finance member of the Board. The Chief Clerk acts as civil member, and he receives £100 per annum for his services in that capacity. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- The extra amount should be set down opposite his salary. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- This is an allowance which he received as a member of the Military Board. It is not a permanent appointment. Next year, probably some other officer may fill the post, which does not necessarily go to the Secretary or Acting Secretary of the Department. {: #debate-10-s157 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- I think that it is very undesirable that honorable senators should have to glance from page to page, and to interrogate the Minister in order to learn what remuneration a particular officer is receiving. It would be perfectly easy to set down the ' total amount received by the officer, and by an asterisk and a footnote indicate that the officer was receiving portion of the total amount for acting as a member of the Military Board. **Senator Lt.-Colonel** CAMERON (Tasmania) [1.59 a.m.]. - I desire to know whether the Commonwealth pays the whole of the salary of the exchange officer, or whether the Imperial Government pays a portion of it. Is the £500 set down in the schedule an addition to the officer's pay from the Imperial Government, or in substitution for it? I know that we pay the salary of the officer sent to England. I presume that we find the Imperial officer in quarters and travelling allowances. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The practice is that we pay the salary of the Imperial officer serving with our Forces) and get a refund from the Imperial Government. {: #debate-10-s158 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I observe that the chief accountant of the clerical division is set down for a salary of £600 a year. The Chief Clerk receives £600 also. Both officers are on the same plane. But the Chief Clerk in the Post and Telegraph Department receives £40 per annum less. That seems an anomaly. Is it the intention of the Government to persist in giving increases to the Chief Clerk, and in placing him in a much better position than the Chief Clerk in the Post and Telegraph Department? {: #debate-10-s159 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- These two officers are: Chief Accountant, **Mr. J.** A. Thompson, £600, and £100 allowance; **Mr. Pethebridge,** £600, and £100 allowance as a civil member of the Military Board. Both officers are classified by the Public Service Commissioner, who also classified the postal official referred to by **Senator Lynch.** The Commissioner evidently thinks that their positions are worth more. With regard to the votes for examination service, Naval Militia, in connexion with the Western Australian and Tasmanian Naval Forces, it is more than probable that none of them will lie spent, but we propose to leave them on the Estimates. **Senator CHATAWAY** (Queensland). 1 2.6 a.m.]. - Is the Minister able to supply any information as to the explosion which took place some time ago at Thursday Island? If the Department has discovered how it occurred, have any steps been taken to bring the offenders to justice? {: #debate-10-s160 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I was interested in that question myself, and made inquiries regarding it almost immediately after taking charge of the Department. I am informed by the officers that they have not been able to discover anything, but that they attach no great importance to the occurrence. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- Have they abandoned the inquiry ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -They are still continuing it. {: #debate-10-s161 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- Precautions should be taken at all the forts to prevent their examination by improper persons. The military authorities in every country very properly desire to keep the contour and exact location of their forts as much a secret as possible. Some time ago at various forts in Queensland and elsewhere it was the practice of the officers' mess to have Japanese cooks and valets. The Japanese are a very aspiring military nation, and are prepared, as other nations have been, to resort to all sorts of devices and subterfuges in order to get information that may be valuable in the near or distant future. While officers are allowed to have Japanese servants in the forts, there is nothing to prevent Japan from having her emissaries there. No Japanese would think it a degradation to him to accept any menial position if it was for the benefit of his country. This is a matter that calls for serious consideration, and the Minister would be well advised to frame a strict regulation providing that only white British subjects should be allowed within the precincts of the forts on any pretext whatever. Without something of that kind, we have no guarantee that the Japanese Government, which in the dim and distant, or perhaps in the near, future may be brought into antagonism with us, will not be in possession of complete plans and information regarding our forts and their equipment. I hope this important matter will receive the serious attention of the Committee, the Minister, and the Military Board. 1 do not know whether these men are so employed in Queensland at the present time, but I know that they have been, and I believe that what is true of Queensland in this respect is also true of the other States. {: #debate-10-s162 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- When the Estimates were before us on a previous occasion I pointed out that the Commandant's head-quarters at Thursday Island were not connected by telephone with the barracks or the gun station, although the barracks and the officers' quarters were so connected. I was then promised that the matter would be investigated, and I should like to ask the Minis ter of Defence whether the anomaly has been removed. {: #debate-10-s163 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I cannot speak as to the practice in regard to the fort at Thursday Island, but I know that a certain area around the fort at Albany is reserved, and that any member of the general public entering that reserve is liable to be arrested, prosecuted, and fined. The men stationed there are empowered to arrest any person found within the reserve. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Does that rule apply to servants of officers found within the reserve ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I cannot say ; I am speaking only of the general public. I shall certainly be very surprised to learn that Japanese servants are employed by officers in the way described by **Senator Givens.** {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- It is within my own personal knowledge that they were so employed. I do not know what is the position to-day. SenatorPEARCE. -If the practice still continues I shall have no compunction in immediately taking steps to put a stop to it, for I certainly recognise that it is fraught with danger. As to the point raised by **Senator Chataway,** I can only say that I shall have inquiries made. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The honorable senator realizes the importance of having the Commandant's quarters at Thursday Island connected by telephone with the barracks and the gun station? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I do. {: #debate-10-s164 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania -- Will the Minister of Defence inquire who was responsible "for the selection of the last company of men sent to Thursday Island? When I was there I learned with regret that some eight or ten of the men were a very bad lot, that they were constantly in trouble and seemed to get beyond control. My informant, who appeared to be a reputable and leading resident of Thursday Island, said that two of them had already been sent away. I do not know whether he meant that they had been court-martialled and sent away in disgrace or whether they had simply been got rid of. I gathered from a report on Thursday Island, signed by the Resident Magistrate, that the men were a very good lot, but another resident of the island, who was a passenger on the vessel by which I was travelling, and who must have known the character of these men, confirmed the statement of my first informant. He said that they were most disorderly fellows, and that it was unpleasant for women and others to meet them in the streets since they were constantly fighting and quarrelling. They were a disgrace to the service. He also said that there were still two or three unruly men there. Thursday Island has a very warm climate, and the Minister, I think, will admit that it would be well to send there men who can be easily controlled. I hope that he will ascertain whether or not the reports made to me were exaggerated. {: #debate-10-s165 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP .i - Reports appeared in the Brisbane press as to the alleged' drunkenness of some of the men sent to Thursday Island, and the matter was at once inquired into by the Department. I have not. the papers at hand, but my recollection of them is that they showed that the reports were unfounded. I shall make a note of the honorable senator's statement and cause inquiries to be made. {: #debate-10-s166 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania -- May I say that one of my_ informants, who is a rifleman, said that the shooting of these men, with one or two exceptions, was inferior, and that the great bulk, of the civilians in the local rifle clubs were infinitely superior shots. {: #debate-10-s167 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I have a few observations to offer with regard to the item relating to the clothing of cadets. In the procuring of uniforms for the cadets, a very great saving could be effected without destroying that pride which they take in their drill and discipline. In my opinion, it is nothing short of cruelty to ask them to wear hard and close-fitting uniforms, in the warmer portions of the Commonwealth, especially in the summer months. For the purpose of disciplining them, as well as giving the necessary stimulus and enthusiasm, I think that a hat and a cap, with a belt, would be quite sufficient, and in this view I have the concurrence of some military men. I mention the matter now with a view to the Minister bringing it under the notice of the Military Board. I feel that, without destroying the efficiency of the system, a very great saving could be effected by adopting my suggestion. In view of the fact that the Treasury is rather hard pressed, it is of no use to spend money on the purchase of uniforms which the lads grow out of very quickly. A hat and a cap, with a belt, would be quite sufficient to distinguish the cadets from other lads, and they would take just as much pride in their exercises as they would if clothed in a full-dress uniform. {: #debate-10-s168 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- Under the head of " Maintenance of existing arms and equipment" for Victoria, we are asked to vote an increase of £5,668. I hae no objection to voting any reasonable expenditure ' in connexion with defence. In his report, InspectorGeneral Hoad drew attention, amongst other things, to the unsatisfactory condition of the rifles. Last year, the appropriation was £9,020, which I take it was devoted largely towards straightening up the small arms of the Forces. Of that sum, only £6,322 was spent, and we are now asked to vote £j 2..000. Does the increased vote mean that the Department intend to see that the whole of the arms and equipment of the Forces are put in proper order ? On the other hand, I notice that there is a decrease of £5,047 in the amount required for ammunition. In his report, the Inspector-General stated that in many cases there were complaints about an insufficient supply of ammunition for the Artillery. Seeing that last year, no less than £10,000 was voted, and that practically ever, penny was spent on ammunition, how is it that this year the Department can do with one-half the expenditure? Is it intended to cut down the rifle practice or the gun practice, or have the Government managed to build up a reasonable reserve of ammunition so that in the future they can do with a smaller annual expenditure than in 1907-8? It will be recollected that on one occasion, in the Old Country, a Government fell in consequence of the supply of certain ammunition being deemed by Parliament to be deficient. Is the Minister of Defence in a position to say whether, in case of an emergency, our supplies of ammunition would be sufficient for all reasonable requirements until fresh supplies could be brought into the country ? {: #debate-10-s169 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- On the 30th June last, the Department had onhand 33,964,664 rounds of ball ammunition. For the last two or three years, a reserve varying from that quantity up to' 35,000,000 rounds has been kept on hand. The quantity used during last year was 1 s., 400,000, so that we have in reserve now twice as much as was used during that vear. The Department has ordered to be delivered during the present year, 13,800,000 rounds, so that we have ordered for the present year more than we consumed during last year, and we have on hand a reserve of 33,000,000 rounds. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The Department has not reduced in any way the quantity of ammunition available for rifle practice or gun practice? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- No. Not only that, bi't the number of rifle clubs is increasing very fast, and the quantity of ammunition issued to the cadets, as well as our reserves, has been increased. As regards the maintenance of existing arms and equipment, not only do we ask for a larger vote for Victoria, but in nearly every State an increased vote is required. In 1907-8, the appropriation for Queensland was *£4,535* and the amount expended ,£3,135, while this year we propose to spend ,£4,065. Up to a few years ago, we had not the short Metford-Lee-Enfield rifle, but the long one. The long barrel has not the same wearing capacity as the short barrel, because the latter has the same number of turns in a shorter space, and therefore there is greater friction. We find that with the use of cordite the wear and tear is much greater with the short barrel than it was with the long one. We are beginning to experience the difficulty now, as the rifles are being brought into use. This year the whole of the troops are armed with the short rifle. They have been using it now for about twelve months, and it is being issued also to the rifle clubs. This accounts for the enormous increase in the maintenance vote. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Is the Department overtaking the arrears in the maintenance of the equipment ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- That is being done also. The honorable senator will see that in -these Estimates provision is made for more armouries. The matter referred to by **Senator Lynch** is one which must be dealt with, but it is a most difficult problem to deal with. The cadet uniforms have been allowed practically to develop themselves, and with some very peculiar results. The matter is riot quite so simple as **Senator Lynch** supposes. In my blissful ignorance, I thought that it would be possible to utilize the ordinary coat, and I still think we may do so in the case of the junior cadets, if we give them physical, instead of military, drill. If we are to continue to train them as if the were soldiers^ - and that is how they have been trained in the past - the ordinary coat, being loose and open, is found to be in the way. The soldier's tunic buttons closely, and there are no tails to get in the way when he is engaged in firing or bayonet drill. It is found that the ordinary sac coat gets in the way of the rifle. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The cadets could train in their waistcoats. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- They could; but they have to do a great deal of training in winter, and sometimes in the rain. What I have in mind is that the junior cadets should be taught physical drill, and merely the rudiments of. military drill. I should not put a rifle into the hands of a cadet between the age of twelve and fourteen ; but I think that at each school we should have a miniature rifle range, at which the cadets should be taught elementary rifle shooting. If this course were adopted, there would be some inducement to the lads to look forward to the time when they would be given a uniform and rifle as senior cadets. I should give them a uniform and rifle after they left school, and teach them a little more advanced military drill. After they reached the age of eighteen years, I think they should be passed into the militia.. where they would undergo the full course of military training. Another difficulty has arisen in connexion with' school cadets. Different schools have been permitted to select their own uniform, and we are getting a large number of different units of senior cadets with varying uniforms. I can mention a case which came under my notice last week. A boy going to a particular school joined the cadet corps, and became a lieutenant. He went to the expense of purchasing a uniform, and when he left school last week, he found that his uniform was of no use to him, as there is no senior cadet corps in the metropolitan area which he can join with that uniform. He could continue as a. supernumerary of the school which he attended, but he desires to join a cadet corps apart from the school. I think that the uniforms of all the senior cadets should be the same. Honorable senators can rest assured that if I can bring about any reform in the matter of cadet uniforms I shall be most happy to do so. {: #debate-10-s170 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- I wish to bring up a matter under the item " Compensation for injuries on duty," in the general contingencies subdivision of division 130 in the Estimates for the Queensland Military Forces. I received a letter recently from the Defence Department about the case of a. man who was injured while in the service of the Department. He was connected with one of the military bands. He was an enthusiastic bandsman, and also took an interest in rifle shooting. I believe that we should encourage men of this description, who take sufficient interest in matters of defence to give their services for very small pay and train themselves as soldiers. This man was a carpenter by trade, and was carrying out a small contract. He went to the rifle range to do some shooting, and, while there, one of the officers asked him to attend a camp which was being held at Lytton, as he was the only one in the band who could play a particular instrument. I forget what it is called, but it is a heavy brass instrument, weighing some 20 lbs. The man said that he could not afford to give the time to attend the camp. He was asked at least to put in a few days at camp, and he undertook to do so. It was explained that as he was a small man, there would be no trouble about his instrument. He would, of course, have to carry it when the band was playing, but at other times a man would be provided to carry it for him. However, he went through the camp, and as soon as he returned to his home he was obliged to take to his bed. He sent for the doctor, who examined him, but could not diagnose his complaint until one day upon visiting his patient he noticed the instrument to which I have referred. He at once asked his patient, " Have you been in the habit of blowing that instrument?" The reply was, " Yes. I have been playing it in the military band for some time." The doctor then said, "I am afraid that you will never be able to play it again. If you have been blowing it whilst you have been subjected to the strain imposed by marching, that in itself is sufficient to cause your illness.'' Thereupon the man waited upon the military authorities, but they declined to certify that the playing of the instrument was the cause of his illness. Later on, he made an application to the Department for compensation for the injuries which he had sustained whilst attending camp. Months elapsed, but he could obtain no satisfaction by reason of a regulation which provides that all claims for compensation for injuries must be made within two or three days of the date upon which such injuries are received. The man was unable to do any work, and as a result had to pay a few pounds to get the wooden building which he was erecting at the time he was seized with illness completed. Thus, instead of making anything out of the contract he lost money, and as he was very hard up at the time he felt it severely. I did not hear of his case till some months later. When he visited me in Brisbane he certainly was in a very bad condition. He assured me that he had indeed fallen upon evil days, seeing that he was unable to work, although he was an expert tradesman. The result was that two of his boys had to leave school and accept employment in order that the family might be maintained. I approached the Minister of Defence, and put the facts before him. He recognised that it was an extremely hard case, but pointed out that the Department had not received any certificate to the effect that the man's illness was the result of attending camp. But some time' afterwards the sufferer succeeded in obtaining a letter from his doctor alleging that, in his opinion, the playing of the instrument to which I have already alluded was the cause of the illness. Thereupon I again waited upon the Minister of Defence, and also upon the Treasurer, and succeeded in inducing the latter to grant him £50 as compensation. That amount, in my opinion, did not represent anything like the sum to which he was entitled. I endeavoured to secure £100 for him, but did not succeed. The £50 which he was granted was wholly absorbed in liquidating the debts which had accumulated during his illness. Once more I approached the Minister, and pressed him to grant the sufferer more compensation, or to provide him with some light employment which would enable him to tide over the worst of his difficulties. As a re sult, he was granted two or three months' work at the barracks, during which period he was ill for twenty days. Only the other day I received the following letter from the Minister in connexion with this case - Melbourne, November 30th, 1908. Dear **Sir,** The Minister desires me to let you know that he has looked into ex-bandsman Wakerley's case and finds that in April last he was awarded£50 as compensation for injuries alleged to have been caused while on duty as a bandsman. Since then authority was given for his temporary employment for three months, but the Commandant, Queensland, states during that time he was ill twenty-one days, and that only expert assistants are required for the temporary work there is to do. The vote for temporary labour being so small, the Minister regretsthat he canonly see his way to authorize the employment of men who are physically fit to dp the work. I cannot quarrel with the Minister for saying that, as the vote for temporary employment is so small, he wishes to get the best labour he can for the expenditure ; but it appears to me that this case does not offer any inducement to people to offer their services voluntarily to the Defence Department. Had he been in private employ, there are two or three different Acts of Parliament under which he could have secured reasonable compensation ; and even now there is no reason why the Department should not endeavour to do him justice. It cannot be said that up to the time he was induced to give up his work, and give his services as a bandsman, he was unable to make a living at his trade of carpenter ; but, since then, he has been unable to work, and there is no doubt that the Department should do everything possible to extend pro,per treatment to him. It does not appear creditable that the Department should be prepared to use men only until they become ill, or receive injury while carrying out their voluntary work; and this man ought, I think, to either have some additional compensation, or be given light employment. His children have had to be taken from school, and sent out to assist in maintaining the family ; and those who know him bear out the story he told to me. I do not regard the *£50* as reasonable compensation, considering he gave his time and the best of his ability to the service of the Commonwealth, so as to be able to take some part in the defence of his country {: #debate-10-s171 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- This is a very sad case ; but I cannot admit that the Department ought to be saddled with the responsibility for this man's break-down in health, seeing that he was not a permanent employ^, and did not contract his physical weakness in the Department. For some time previous to the break-down, he must have been in a very bad state of health. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- He was able to earn a living as a carpenter {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- He could not have been in a robust state of health, or blowing a brass instrument would .not have caused his break-down. If the Department accepted responsibility for every man who, owing to his weak state of health, collapses after taking part in certain exercises, and paid him sufficient recompense to provide for his future, thousands of pounds would be required. Of course, if Parliament pass a law to that end, I shall be glad to administer it, though I point out that it is proposed todeal with such cases in a different fashion by the provision of invalid pensions. The man must have known he was in a bad state of health when he took up his duties. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- That has not been, proved. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- It is evident heknew he was in ill health, because he did. not desire to play, and the doctor told, him not to perform on his instrument. It. is not as though he had met with an accident while on military duty ; and, in any case, he was paid *£50* and given temporary employment, for, 1 believe, about, three months, during twenty-one days of which he was absent on sick leave. It would be impossible to bring the Forcesinto a state of efficiency if men who are unfit to labour for private employers had to be taken into the Government workshops. I may say that the late Minister of Defence wrote to the Commandant, Queensland, and urged that, if there was any suitable work, this man ought to be given an opportunity. The Commandant replied that he had no work for the man to do. I wrote to him, and .got the same reply. I cannot take the responsibility of pensioning the man off, although I feel that his case is a hard one. {: #debate-10-s172 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- If volunteers in the Defence Department are to be treated worse than they would be treated by private employers, it will not be easy to obtain recruits in the future. The Government should at least give as good wages and fair treatment as private employers, and should assist any one who is injured in its service. It is all very well to say that this man was weak and unable to work before he went to the camp ; but, as a matter of fact, he was building a house - which he could not have done had he been so weak as the Minister says - and left his work on the Saturday at 1 o'clock to go to the rifle range. On two Saturdays running an officer pressed him to go, because he was the only one who could play a particular band instrument. Afterwards, when the doctor heard what he had done, he said that it was enough to have injured him, because he had had to march over ploughed ground, blowing an instrument weighing something like 20 lbs. He was able to earn his living when induced to go to the camp. Had he thought that he could not take up his work again on his return, he would not have gone. It would be unreasonable to ask that he be pensioned off ; but, as I told the "Treasurer in the first instance, he has a ;good claim to compensation. His children bring in a few shillings a week, having been taken from school to earn something to keep the home together, and I asked for £100 so that he might open a shop. Now, however, he is to be thrown aside. The Minister sa s that we have an Act providing invalid allowances; but it is not to take effect until a proclamation issues, and we were told when the measure was being considered by Parliament, that that proclamation would not be issued for some time. In the meanwhile, the man may die, "for all that the Defence Department will -do for him. Those who hear of this case will not think it a good advertisement for the Department, and will not be desirous -of joining the Forces. I thought that Ministers would deal better with this man. The Treasurer awarded him £50 compensation, and the Minister of Defence promised to try to fmd him employment. He recognised that it was a hard case. When I heard that the employment to the man had ceased, I went to the ex-Minister of Defence again. A crisis- was then pending, and he did not care to undertake to do anything in the matter, but advised me to see his successor. I saw **Senator Pearce** a few days after he took charge of the Department. The letter that I have since received is the only reply I have had. This treatment seems to me to be harsh and cruel ; and I am very sorry that a Minister in a Labour Government should take up a position like this in a matter almost of life -and death concerning a man who has don-: his best to serve the country. {: #debate-10-s173 .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS:
Queensland -- I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister a question relating to the Instructional Staff. I understand that a regulation has been issued providing that the examination for promotion may be waived in the case of officers who have proved their capacity for command on active service. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- That is not the whole of the regulation. It is only part of it, and taken by itself is misleading. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator GIVENS: -- Cannot the same consideration be shown to those members of the Instructional Staff who have been a long time in the service? I questioned the Minister's predecessor on this subject, and asked whether consideration should not be given to officers over thirty-five years of age who had been a long time in the service, making them eligible to go up for examination, just as do juniors, with a view to promotion. That was an eminently fair request. If senior officers are to be debarred from promotion, the service is deprived of the benefit of their experience. With regard to warrant and noncommissioned officers of the Instructional Staff, I think it would be a good thing to appoint those who by long service and exhibition of capacity have shown their quality, to the position of adjutants in regiments. These points are agitating members of the Defence Force, and the case put forward seems to me to be eminently reasonable. ' {: #debate-10-s174 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- Apparently some one has supplied **Senator Givens** with a portion of a new regulation conveying quite a different idea from what the whole regulation conveys. Practically the effect of the new regulation is that if an officer was promoted in South Africa from, say, the position of lieutenant to that of captain, he shall in the event of a vacancy for the position of captain in his regiment be available for promotion to that rank. Hitherto an officer who came back from South Africa was not permitted to ha.ve his rank recognised, although he had received promotion for service in the field. The new regulation therefore enables an officer who was promoted in South Africa to retain the rank to which he was promoted, by becoming an applicant for such a position in his regiment, and being appointed without undergoing further examination. With regard to .the Instructional Staff, and warrant and noncommissioned officers, it should be understood that most of these men before they got their positions were well over twenty-five years of age. There was a regulation that a man could not take a commission as lieutenant if over thirty-five years of age. That practically meant that permanent men on the Instructional Staff were debarred from advancing beyond the rank of sergeant or sergeant-major. A new regulation has increased the age from thirty-five to forty - an advance of five years, which is considerable. {: .speaker-KLS} ##### Senator Givens: -- Since when has that new regulation been in force? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- Within the last three or four weeks. Proposed vote agreed to. Postmaster-General: Police Services - Bank Exchange - New Caledonia Cable - Pacific Cable - Case of **Mr. Brand** - Railway Servants doing Postal Business - Queensland Mail Services - District Allowances - Cable Communication to King Island - Tasmanian Mail Service. Divisions 189 to 195 *(Department of Postmaster-General,.* . £2,955,917. {: #debate-10-s175 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- Provision is made for the payment of . £595 to the Police Department in New South Wales for the services of officers. No such charge is made in Western Australia or South Australia. Is this difference due to any jealousy arising between the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth? If the police have been so obliging as to do the work without charge in the other States, why not in New South Wales? {: #debate-10-s176 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- It is the practice of the Police Department in New South Wales to set aside a special officer to patrol the General Post Office, Sydney, and the corridors. That building is practically a place of assembly. The expense of the officer is borne by the Commonwealth, which is not the case in other States. {: #debate-10-s177 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- Bank exchange on departmental transactions within the Commonwealth, amounts to . £350, and beyond the Commonwealth,£200. Is it not possible for the Department to transmit money through the Money Order Office, and thus save the charges made by private banks, especially in the former case? {: #debate-10-s178 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP -- The officer of the Department informs me that these sums represent the ordinary business exchanges on money which cannot be sent through the Money Order Branch. It isnot always cheapest or practicable to use money orders. Accounts have to be paid in many cases where there is no money order office, while big drafts have always to be paid through the banks. The officer informs me that this is the practice followed in all the States in the payment of accounts by the Department. {: #debate-10-s179 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- The proportion payable by New South Wales towards the New Caledonia Cable . guarantee is . £2,000, and Queensland pays the same amount. The proportion of loss payable by New South Wales in the case of the Pacific Cable is £5,000, and the same amount is paid by Victoria and Queensland. On what basis is this expenditure apportioned, so as to make States with differing populations and widely differing revenues contribute equally ? {: #debate-10-s180 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- These amounts are in pursuance of an agreement entered into prior to Federation by the States. In the case of the New Caledonia Cable, an agreement was entered into between a telegraph company in Paris and the Postmasters-General of New South Wales and Queensland, providing that France, New South Wales, and Queensland should guarantee the company £12,000 per annum over and above an expenditure of , £2,400. It is divided as follows: - Two-thirds, to be guaranteed by France, , £8, 000 ; onesixth by New South Wales, . £2,000; and one-sixth by Queensland, , £2,000. The rest of the States pay nothing. With regard to the Pacific Cable, the total deficiency on 31st March, 1908, was £62,362 ios., recoverable as follows : - Great Britain and Canada, each fiveeighteenths, . £17,322 18s. 4d, respectively; New Zealand, two-eighteenths, , £6,929 3s. 4d. ; and Australia, six-eighteenths, £20,787 ios. That six-eighteenths is distributed in equal proportions between New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria. On the 25th ultimo **Senator Chataway** asked a question regarding the case of a former postmaster at Dalby.. I have here the papers relating to it, and as they are very lengthy I shall not read them, but will give the honorable senator an opportunity to peruse them. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Will the Minister give me an outline of the attitude that the Department is taking up towards the Public Service Commissioner in regard to the case. I do not wish him to read the "whole of the correspondence? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -I have not read it myself. I have it here, and shall be glad to hand it over to the honorable senator. {: #debate-10-s181 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- This is a case in which the Department and the Public Service Commissioner are at variance. The Department holds that a certain officer is entitled to certain leave of absence under the Public Service Act, but the officer concerned cannot obtain it except on the recommendation of the Commissioner. The Public Service Commissioner, for a reason best known to himself, and possibly also to those who have read the papers, has refused to make the necessary recommendation. This leave of absence for which the officer has asked is held out under the Public Service Act as an inducement to men to enter the service, but in this case it has been withheld. I do not wish to enlarge upon the matter, but I would ask the Minister of Defence whether the Department has yet made up its mind to fight the Commissioner, or whether it intends to allow the whole matter to drop? {: #debate-10-s182 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- I can give the honorable senator what is practically the gist of the report. The paper before me, after setting out the circumstances of the case, states that - >Under these circumstances it was thought advisable to retire **Mr. Brand** from the Public Service under section 73 of the Act on the ground of his having reached the age of 60 years. The papers were referred to the Public Service Commissioner for action and executive authority, obtained accordingly in October, 1907. **Mr. Brand** subsequently applied for six months' leave of absence prior to' retirement. This was questioned by the Commissioner on the assumption that the granting of furlough is discretionary only and dependent on merit, zeal, and general conduct (opinion of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs as Attorney-General), and in view of the fact that but for legal technicalities **Mr. Brand** would probably have been criminally prosecuted or dismissed the service. This view was concurred in by the Minister. Under these circumstances the leave applied for prior to retirement was withheld. These facts will show that the action of the Commissioner in refusing to grant the leave desired by **Mr. Brand** was warranted by the circumstances; that so far from the Commissioner having overriden the Board's recommendation, no board was appointed in connexion with the second series of charges which were admitted by **Mr. Brand** and that the ultimate action has been concurred in by the PostmasterGeneral. {: #debate-10-s183 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- I should like to know who wrote the report, an extract from which has just been read. The papers in the PostmasterGeneral's Department were referred to the Public Service Commissioner, and he was advised that in the opinion of the Department leave ought to be granted this officer. I. should like to know who is the author of the statement just read, to the effect that although the Board appointed to inquire into certain charges against **Mr. Brand,** found that they were not sustained, he would probably have been criminally prosecuted but for certain legal technicalities. There is at the back of all this a de termination to absolutely ruin the reputation of a man who has served Australia properly for the last forty years. I haveexamined the papers in the Department, and have no hesitation in saying that this officer has been retired nominally on theground of old age, but really because the Department was not satisfied with him. Not satisfied with fining him, I think it was £2, for alleged neglect, the Department now withhold from him the leave towhich he is entitled under the Public Service Act. I know that the present Government have little or no knowledge of thematter, and I only mentioned it casually the other day in the hope that the PostmasterGeneral would inquire into it. The statement that we have had quoted by the Minister is not in accordance with the minutes on some of the documents that have been sent to the Public Service Commissioner. Although the Board which inquired into his case acquitted him of thecharge preferred against him, the authorities now say, " We will find a way of" punishing him." I ask the Minister to investigate this matter, and to see whether there is not underlying all this a desire toget behind the decision of a legallyappointed tribunal, and to impose- upon this man a penalty that he ought not to be called upon to bear. {: #debate-10-s184 .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART:
Queensland -- I should like to know what arrangement there is between the Railway Department of Queensland and the Post and Telegraph Department with regard to the remuneration of railway servants whotransact postal and telegraph business, as- I have received a number of complaints on the subject. It appears that at a largenumber of railway stations the postal' duties are performed by the wives of lengths' - men and porters, and that they are remunerated with only a very small sum per annum. The Department pays the- Queensland Government £8,400 a year for the performance of the duties, and' it ought to see that those who discharge them are not sweated. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- The Railway Department declined to allow the Commonwealth Government to deal directly with their servants. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The Commonwealth Government ought to make another arrangement, because it is simply shameful to pay £3, or £4, or £5, or *£6* a year for attendance, all day in many cases, though, of course, for- shorter periods in other cases. Even if it were to make up only one mail, a payment of 2s. per week amounts to £5 12s. per year, and that is, I think, the average amount which a large number of these persons get. It is a very inadequate payment, for which the Commonwealth is getting the blame. I explain that the Commonwealth pays the Railway Department a lump sum, and apparently it is not interested in whether those who do its work are paid or not. Some araangement ought to be made with the Railway Department or State Government which would compel them to pay decently. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- How could we compel them ? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- If I were a member of the Government I should try to find out a way. Thesepersons expect to be paid for their services, according to Commonwealth rates. As we go round the country, we talk about the minimum wage and a.11 the advantages which are enjoyed by Commonwealth servants as compared with State servants, but at every little railway station one cry is raised of Commonwealth sweating, and inadequate payment. The persons I refer to dare not complain, because if they did, their husbands would be moved to another place, while they themselves would be deprived of their living, which, although it is a small thing, is of very great value to them- This is the only opportunity we have to bring forward these matters, but it must be patent to every one that in the time at our disposal, it is absolutely impossible to do justice to the Estimates. I do not know what I shall say to my constituents when I go back. I shall be asked why I did not bring up this matter or the other matter, and the only reply I can give will be that the Government, insisted upon rushing the Estimates through the Chamber at one sitting. Of course, I shall be asked why I permitted that to be done. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- If the honorable senator had a hundred sittings, he could not remedy the matter which he is now speaking of. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- It is from the want of necessary consideration that such things are permitted to continue. That has always been my complaint against Governments. I have held out the hope to the people that if we had a Labour Government there would be a chance of righting these things, but now that we have one, I find that exactly the same conditions prevail in regard to the Estimates, and even worse. There has been no session in which the Estimates have been so shamelessly rushed through the Chamber as on this occasion. Hitherto we have had more than twenty-four hours in which to deal with them. Every Labour man, not only in Australia, but in Great Britain, has made a stock grievance of the capitalist rushing through the Estimates. But here we have a Labour Government doing exactly the same thing, and in a much more aggravated form than any other Government. I am willing to come back after Christmas, and to discuss the Estimates minutely. There is a number of other complaints which I had intended to go into, but I decided that it was absolutely impossible to deal with them in the time at our disposal. I protest against this sort of treatment from any Government. We have heard a great deal about the dilapidated condition in which this Department is everywhere, and how complaints of insufficient services are coming in from all parts of the country. I desire to bring forward one matter which has been agitating Queensland. According to a report in the *Western Star,* published at Roma, on the 25th November - >A meeting of the subscribers to the MuckadillaThe Wommles mail service was held at Blairmack, the residence of **Mr. J.** Grieve, on Thursday evening last to protest against the demand of a subsidy of £11 for the carriage of mail matter once a week between the places mentioned. **Mr. P.** Hoskin was elected chairman, and **Mr. A.** Walker was appointed secretary, on the motion of Messrs. R. Grieve,senr., and John Grieve. It was announced that the lowest tender for the service was £37 per annum, of which the Government would pay £26, and the subscribers were notified that, unless they were prepared to pay the balance of £11 for the coming year, it would be discontinued. Is it not a fine state of affairs that if these people in the back country cannot find 33 per cent, of the cost they get no service at all? Why not apply that principle in large cities ? I should imagine that if consideration is to be given to any one, it ought to be given to the pioneers in the backblocks. But no. Government after Government, while affording the best facilities in the thickly populated parts, penalize those who go out and settle in the back country. The report continues - >The burden falls on the shoulders of Messrs. P. Hoskin, O'Sullivan Bros., W. Munro, sen., W. Munro, jun., J. Grieve, R. Grieve, sen., and Adam Grieve, who, for their own convenience, and that of their employes, last year had to pay a similar amount. This novel method of levying further taxation on settlers who have already a fair amount to meet what with income tax, Divisional Board, Marsupial Board and other rates, was considered grossly unjust, and it was pointed out that if the Commonwealth Government can afford to spend thousands of pounds on entertaining the American fleet and distinguished visitors, it would surely not begrudge, on the principle that " charity begins at home," a paltry " tenner " for the convenience of a class of people it professes to be most anxious to serve. On the motion of Messrs. J. Grieve and R. Grieve, the secretary was requested to write to the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, through **Mr. J.** Page, M.H.R., and to the Deputy Postmaster-General, through **Mr. J.** M. Hunter, M.L.A., asking that the demand for further subscriptions towards the carriage of the mail in question be cancelled, and pointing out that if inquiries are made it will be found that the amount of subscriptions is nearly, if not altogether, made up by the large increase in mail matter which has come into existence since the arrangement was entered into last year. On the motion of Messrs. Hoskin and R. Grieve any further correspondence on the matter was to be left in the hands of Messrs. J. Grieve and A. Walker. 1 understood that the Post and Telegraph Department was intended to be run on the collectivist principle for the convenience of people in every part of the Commonwealth ; but according to the statement I have read, people in the back country are denied postal conveniences unless they are prepared to subscribe 33 per cent, of the cost of the services they require. That may well have been a principle laid down by previous Governments, who conducted the affairs of the nation to a greater or lesser extent on capitalistic lines; but I hope that it will not be continued by a Government whose policy is supposed to be socialistic. I trust that the Postmaster- General will review this matter. The case I have quoted is typical of a number of similar cases to which I might refer. In many places demands are made for telegraphic, telephonic, and postal facilities, and the answer given is that the Commonwealth cannot afford to comply with them. The fact, is that for the last seven year the Common wealth Government have been handing back huge sums of money to the States, and have allowed this Department to fall into a state of ruin. I should like some information from the Minister in charge of these Estimates about the allowances to officers in outlying districts for increased cost of living. I see that a sum of £8,360 is put down for the purpose, and I should like to know in what parts of Queensland these allowances are paid ? **Senator PEARCE** ("Western Australia- respect to the railway employes who do postal work, **Senator Stewart** must recognise that these people are not in the employ of the Commonwealth Government. We .make no arrangements directly with them. In some parts of the Commonwealth the only people in a central position able to carry out postal work are railway officials. In such cases, the PostmasterGeneral asks the railway authorities if they have any objection to their employes doing a certain amount of postal work. They are not engaged in this work all their time, or anything like all their time. The Railways Commissioners, through the State Government, state the amount for which they will allow their officials to do this work for the Commonwealth, and we pay the amount asked for to the State Railway Department. The Railway Departments of the States are controlled by the States Parliaments, as our public Departments are controlled by the Federal Parliament.. It is to be presumed that the people of Queensland, or any other State, are as well able to guard the interests of the railway employes as we are, and it is their duty to see that their railway employes are not sweated ox worked excessively long hours. The charge of sweating in these cases does not lie at the door of the Commonwealth Parliament. In the matter of the subsidy asked for, I may point out that in some scattered districts, where there is a weekly or a bi-weekly service, the residents meet and decide to ask for a more frequent service. When the request is made, the Department makes inquiries, and if it is found that the revenue is not sufficient to cover the extra cost, they tell the people that if they will make up the amount they will be given the increased facilities for which they ask. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- As I understand the case submitted by **Senator Stewart,** if the people do not agree to pay the subsidy, they will be given no postal facilities at all. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- In most of these cases, the request is for the extension of an existing service, but it may be that where a new service is asked for, and the expense involved is considered too great, the Department ask that a certainamount shall be paid by the local residents. The complaints in connexion with these matters are not confined to Queensland, asthe practice followed in all the States is the same. In some instances the States Governments have been asked to subsidize services. The extra allowances referred to are paid in parts of Australia where, by reason of climatic or other conditions, the cost of living is very high. This applies particularly to the northern and western districts of Queensland, and to Western Australia, and these extra allowances arc very much appreciated by the public servants in those districts. In connexion with the question which was asked to-day, I wish to inform the Committee that the cost of connecting King Island by cable is estimated at £5,81110s., and the revenue to be derived is estimated at from £75 to £100 per annum. {: #debate-10-s185 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- In this division there is an item of £13,000 for the conveyance of mails between the mainland and Tasmania, which is debited to "other'' expenditure. I desire to know whether that expenditure represents exceptional treatment in the case of that State, seeing that the cost of the conveyance . of mails between the other States is charged for as "transferred " expenditure. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It certainly is not so in the case of Western Australia. The expenditure for the carriage of mails there has always been borne by the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- No. We pay poundage rates to Western Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- But poundage rates are paid only to non-contract vessels. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- The expenditure in the case of Tasmania is charged upon a *per capita* basis. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- So it is in the case of the other States. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- I do not think so. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- I am sure of it. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- So far as I can ascertain the conveyance of mails between Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia is charged as "transferred " expenditure. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Only within their own borders. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Upon the other hand; the conveyance of mails between the mainland and Tasmania is borne by the whole Commonwealth. {: #debate-10-s186 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The question raised by **Senator Lynch** has reference to the mail service between the mainland and Tasmania, which is provided by the steamer *Loongana.* The expenditure in question constitutes a recognition of the special circumstances in which Tasmania is placed. All the other States are debited with the cost of the conveyance of mails up to their own boundaries. The expenditure to which attention has been directed is a recognition of the exceptional position in which Tasmania is placed, and is charged upon a population basis. Proposed vote agreed to. Postponed clauses 2 and 3 agreed to subject to request in division 11. First schedule agreed to subject to request. Bill reported with a request. Motion (by **Senator Pearce)** agreed to - That the report be adopted, and that the Committee have leave to sit again on receipt of a message from the House of Representatives in reference to the Bill. {: .page-start } page 3080 {:#debate-11} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-11-0} #### PRINTING COMMITTEE Report (No. 4) presented by **Senator Henderson,** and read by the Clerk. Motion (by **Senator Henderson)** proposed - That the report be adopted. {: #subdebate-11-0-s0 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland -- Some time ago, I asked that a return should be prepared in reference to the number of persons in each State holding agricultural areas ofcertain values, and the amount of revenue raised in land taxation in the respective States by municipalities. But that information is not yet forthcoming, and I desired that it should be included in the papers referred to the Printing Committee. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- I might explain to the honorable senator that, only to-day, I inquired for the paper to which he has referred, and was informed that it had not yet been laid on the table of the Senate. {: #subdebate-11-0-s1 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- I shouldlike to explain thatI showed **Senator St.** Ledger the skeleton of the return in question, which is in course of preparation, and promised that I would secure all the information which could be obtained on the subject to which he has referred without subjecting the Commonwealth to an enormous expenditure. That information has not yet been received. The paper is being prepared, and as soon as it has been completed, it will be laid on the table of the Senate when it may be dealt with either by the Senate or by the Printing Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 3081 {:#debate-12} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-12-0} #### Case of Ex- Postmaster Brand {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP -- I move - That the Senate do now adjourn. In doing so, I wish to inform honorable senators that it is absolutely necessary that we should meet again at half-past 10 o'clock this morning in order that business may be concluded to-day. For the convenience of honorable senators who may desire to return to their homes immediately cabs have been provided, but I would urge upon them the necessity of being present when the Senate reassembles, to enable us to complete the business of the session at an early hour. {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland , - I desire to ask the Minister of Defence whether he will take steps to supply me, before the session closes, with definite information regarding the refusal of the Public Service Commissioner to accept the recommendation which is to be found in the minutes of the Post and Telegraph Department to grant the leave of absence that is required by Thomas Brand, postmaster in Queensland? {: #subdebate-12-0-s2 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP -- The honorable senator will recognise that the time in which to comply with his request is very limited. But I will ask my secretary to take a note of it, and to endeavour to obtain the desired information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.26 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19081210_senate_3_48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 December 1908

QUESTION

ADELAIDE CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Clemons:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Guthrie:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Givens:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Givens:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

DURATION OF RECESS

Senator GIVENS:

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON FISH

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator SAYERS:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) ACT

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

MATERIALIZED “ APPORTS

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:

QUESTION

DRY FARMING

Senator GIVENS:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

NAVIGATION LAWS

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

PAPERS

APPROPRIATION BILL

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Gray:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Gray:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Givens:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senate
10 December 1908

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP