Senate
1 September 1915

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
QUESTION
- EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
QUESTION
- K A LGO ORLIE -PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- PANAMA EXPOSITION
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2), 1915-16
- Second Reading
OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION BILL
WAR. CENSUS (POSTAL MATTER) BILL
- Second Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATORS’ TERM OF SERVICE) BILL
- Second Reading
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
PAPERS
INSURANCE BILL
SUGAR PURCHASE ‘BILL
COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
- Second Reading
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Income Tax Assessment Bill - Conduct of Business

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6442

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

The President laid on the table the following paper: -

Commonwealth Bank Act 1911. - True copy of aggregate balance-sheet of Commonwealth Bank of Australia, made up to 30th- June, 1915, together with AuditorGeneral’s Report thereon. ‘

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– In view of the fact that the Printing Committee may not have an opportunity to meet, I move -

That the document be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 6442

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Rejections at Claremont Camp : Troops tor the Front.

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice - 1.Is the Minister aware that many complaints have been made in Launceston with reference to men who, after being passed for service by the Launceston medical officers, arerejected after reaching the Claremont Camp?

Is Dr. von See the doctor in charge at Claremont?
Is.Dr. von See responsible for the rejection of -men who have been passed in Launceston?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are -

I understand complaints have been made in some cases where country medical officers have failed to strictly observe the clear instructions issued for their guidance.
No.
No.

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the 10th Battalion, partially trained men, has received orders from HeadQuarters to proceed to the front, whilst the 9th Battalion of fully trained men has not received such orders?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer is: -

The 9th and 10th Battalions are at present fighting at Gallipoli. The question apparently refers to the 9th and 10th Reinforcements for the 13th Battalion. Orders were issued for the 10th Reinforcements to embark on a transport, which, it was subsequently found, would leave Austrafia prior to the departure of the 9th Reinforcements. These orders have since been countermanded.

page 6443

QUESTION

K A LGO ORLIE -PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Cooks and Waiters

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

What is the number of hours worked each day of the week by the cooks and waiters employed at the main camp departmental dining rooms on the transcontinental railway, Western Australia ?
The total -hours worked each week ?
The time of starting and finishing work each day?
The time, if any, off duty allowed to the -employees during the course of the day?
The number of days worked by each employee in each and every week?
If the hours worked by each employee exceed forty-eight weekly, will the Minister increase the staff so as to reduce the working hours to forty -eight?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– The information is being prepared, and will, I anticipate, be laid on the table to-morrow.

page 6443

QUESTION

PANAMA EXPOSITION

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

In what way does the Government intend to inform Parliament and the public of the contents of the report of the Chief Commissioner of the Commonwealth to the Panania Exposition?

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer isIt is intended to lay before Parliament any report received by the Department of External Affairs from the former President of the Commission immediately on its receipt.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– May I ask a question arising out of the question answered, sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The answer is beautiful humbug.

Senator Needham:

– I will try it again.

– The honorable senator is very sweeping in his opinions.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then why did the Minister let a contract to one firm only at the Liverpool Camp?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not aware of the conditions which obtain in regard to that contract, nor do I know the conditions of that contract, if it exists. The Minister of Defence is to be complimented on having eliminated, in various directions, the contractor who in years gone by, according to Mr. Crichton’s own statement, has made substantial profits in catering and other ways; and, whilst making these huge profits for himself , has failed to recognise what are just industrial conditions for the men he has employed .

-Such a proposal is sheer madness. On the railway 2,471 persons are directly employed, and, adding the number indirectly employed, we should probably get a total of about 5,000 people who would be adversely affected by the stoppage of the work. There are 650 people directly employed on Federal Capital works, and that number may be multiplied by two or three to include those indirectly engaged ; so that the stoppage of those two works would mean the displacement of from 8,000 to 10,000 persons.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that the proposition put forward by a certain newspaper for the cessation of works at the Federal Capital and the stopping of construction work on the transcontinental railway would mean the displacement, directly and indirectly, of between 8,000 and 10,000 persons at the very least. When this proposition is seriously suggested we have a perfect right to ask ourselves why it should be put forward in these times. We know that prior to the submission of the Constitution Bill to the people of Australia this newspaper was on the fence, so to speak, in regard to the question of Federation, and also the Constitution itself. It was on the fence watching to see which way things would go, and because the feeling in Victoria was growing stronger and stronger every day in favour of Federation, it came over to the side of the Federalists, and strongly supported the movement. In the Constitution Bill it was specifically laid down that the Federal Capital should be in the State of New South Wales and at least 100 miles removed from the city of Sydney. Any man who knows anything about the Constitution is aware that we cannot alter that provision unless we alter the Constitution itself. Whilst I think that no Constitution should be so framed that it would not be capable of amendment, I would not favour or support a proposition to amend our Constitution to break a bargain which is binding on the people of all the States, and that is in respect of the Capital being in New South Wales. Is it seriously proposed that we shall meet for evermore in the city. of Melbourne? I dare say that it would be to the advantage of a certain newspaper that we should continually meet here. But have we a right, in the interests of the people of Australia, to sit here indefinitely? What earthly reason can be put forth why this Parliament should for evermore assemble in Melbourne? I am a Victorian, and if I were to view this question from a Victorian stand-point I would say, “ Stop here for evermore.” My home is here, and is situated within, so to speak, a hop, step, and jump of this building. I know the State of my birth better than I know any other State. But are there not others besides Victorians assembled here ? Is their convenience not to be studied ? Are the wishes of the people of Australia who voted for Federation and for the Capital to be located in New South Wales to be set aside? Certainly not. In accordance with the provision in the Constitution and in compliance with the wishes of a majority of the people of Australia, we chose a site for the Capital, and that is binding on all of us. Having made that choice, what do we propose to do with the site? To look at it - to let it be for all time a white elephant, or to act as business men and make it a profitable proposition? That is what the Government intend to do. There are in progress to-day works which will yield, when the Parliament assembles at the Capital, substantial revenues by way of rentals. The desire of the Government, further, is to centralise Commonwealth activities in the Capital, and before very many years have passed away I am hopeful that it will be a real live city, with a substantial population and activities which will mean the employment of a large army of workmen. As regards the transcontinental railway, there are about 2,500 men directly employed on its construction. Ever since it was seriously proposed to build the line, a certain newspaper did all in its power to prevent men from being returned to the Senate and another place who favoured its construction. I have never wavered in my support to the proposal. I believe that I was the only Victorian to support the Bill authorising a certain expenditure on a preliminary survey. I supported not merely the Survey Bill, but also the Construction Bill. I do not think for a moment that we shall ever have a true Australia until it is crossed by a steel riband from one end to the other. Prior to the construction of the line being commenced, West Australians, although many of them came from Victoria - as a matter of fact, the bulk of them came from the different States - were known by the name of T’othersiders. In Australia there should be no T’othersiders, but all Australians. The fellows in Western Australia were looked upon as foreigners as compared with the men in the other States, mainly because the latter had’ railway communication. The transcontinental railway will link up the east and the west in a truly Federal manner. We talk about expedition. Commercial men speak of an hour’s delay as meaning substantial losses in respect to the delivery of their communications. The transcontinental railway will shorten by probably a couple of days the period for the conveyance of mails between Australia and the old country. Will not expedition in that regard mean something to the people of Australia ? If it is not a payable proposition from the passenger and freight view-point, it is absolutely essential, if we want to adequately defend Australia, that the line should be completed as quickly as possible. The newspaper to which I have referred had the same objection to military expenditure eighteen months anterior to the outbreak of the war. It urged on the taxpayers of Australia the necessity of curtailing military and naval expenditure, and inferentially said that those who favored the continuation of such expenditure here should not be supported. It contended that we were as far removed from war as we were from the millennium, and it said, “ Let us get back to sanity.” When the war did break out this newspaper - the Age - got back to sanity, because, since then, we have not heard a word in respect to the curtailment of either military or naval expenditure for the defence of Australia, and to help the defence of the Empire. To stop the works at the Federal Capital, and the building of railways; to tax the poor man’s light, and the drink of teetotallers and others, is the great national policy of this so-called national newspaper. It says, “Stop all the works which you have in hand; sack all the men, women, youths, and girls whom you employ on non-productive undertakings, no matter in what State they may be, and after you have thrown them out of work tax their light and ‘their tea.” God knows there is a number of them who cannot pay for any kind of light now. Although there are difficulties in the way of the average man in respect to the cost of living, this newspaper says, “ Do not hesitate to tax his light.” The man in the bush who cannot get the electric light or gas light, and who cannot afford an acetylene plant, has to resort to kerosene. That article, we understand, is in the hands of a monopoly. The Age, which is apparently concerned about that monopoly, says, “ Tax everybody who uses kerosene,” and then comes out with the brilliant idea of taxing tea. It is a wonder that it does not propose to put a tax on all persons who are out after dark. That would be about as sane as a proposal to tax kerosene. According to a return which was obtained a few days ago from the Trade and Customs Department, at my request, a greater quantity of tea was imported into the Commonwealth during 1914-15 than during the preceding financial year. We are told in the return that, according to the importers’ invoices, there has been approximately an increase of Jd. per lb. on the tea imported. We are told by the Age in its financial columns that ‘certain persons in the tea trade in Australia have bought the crops on all the main plantations in India. The Customs invoices, which ought to be reliable - and if the tea imported has been undervalued the importer should be made to sit up - show approximately an increase of Jd. a lb. Yet we know that a certain brand of tea which I consume in my home - and I think that I consume as much as the next man - has been increased by 3d. per pound. Tea that was ls. 3d. has been increased to ls. 6d., and tea that was sold at ls. 6d. has been increased to ls. 9d., and yet it has been seriously suggested that on top of these increases, which are not legitimate, so far as some merchants are concerned, there should be an additional tax, which will make it almost impossible for some people to get even a cup of tea at the average meal. We know the condition of the labour market in this State. No one regrets more than members of the Labour party the presence of an army of unemployed in any part of Australia. Unfortunately there came upon Australia a drought as severe as any we have ever experienced, and on top of that came the Titanic struggle in which we are at present engaged, which havehad a marked effect on the labour market of the Commonwealth. I do not expect that any State has felt this condition more acutely than Victoria. I read in the paper to which I am referring a paragraph published on Friday last regarding the distress in different parts of the State, particularly at Ballarat, with the conditions of which city Senators

McKissock and Barnes are better acquainted than I am. The conditions at Ballarat for some time past have been extremely bad, and I notice that at a meeting at the Trades Hall of the Labour Council in that city on Thursday night last it was stated that during the winter there had been 1,400 families in destitute circumstances in Ballarat, 1,300 of whom resided in Ballarat East.

Senator Guy:

– Fourteen hundred families ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes ; and 1,300 of those families were residing in Ballarat East.

Senator Guy:

– That seems almost incredible.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The report also said that -

There are still in Ballarat many unemployed miners, tradesmen, and others, and the prospects of the summer, should the war continue, were not regarded as cheering.

In the’ same issue of that paper I read an article headed “ Destitution in Melbourne. - Action by the Trades Hall Council.” The following motion was carried unanimously by that body last Thursday night: -

That, in view of the distress and destitution amongst the people, and for other reasons, this council holds that the institution of a Federal destitute pension is imperative, and therefore instructs its executive to organize a deputation to the Prime Minister to urge the case for the immediate legislative recognition of the principle of destitute pensions.

The mover of the motion said -

During a visit to Prahran that day he had seen 58 children partaking of soup, and had been informed that it was made from leavings of the military forces. The meat was boiled off the discarded bones, and the bread, which was stale, also came from the same source. The ladies in charge had letters from the teachers of the schools attended by the children that they came to school hungry, and had to sit all the morning in that state. There was also the case of a family within five minutes’ walk of that hall, the members of which had to subsist for three months on bread and jam, and when the case was brought under the notice of Dr. Bottomley he said the husband would have to be placed on a special diet. The man subsequently collapsed at work. Another case was that of a married woman who had to bear the sufferings of motherhood in the most abject conditions, both as regarded food and furniture. Those were only a few of many cases that might be cited to prove that destitution «nd famine were rampant in and around Melbourne, and it was only right that the Federal Government, which had promised so much, should do something to relieve the situation.

These, I believe, are the absolute facts with regard to the destitution existing in the metropolitan area. As a matter of fact the destitution is wide-spread. This paper says that all Government works should be stopped, notwithstanding the fact that children are going hungry to school, that men collapse at their work, and that women who are in a critical state bordering on motherhood have insufficient food and clothing. I shall be no party to a policy of this kind. I say to the Government, “ Go on. Never mind this criticism levelled against you by a paper that never had any love or regard for Labour in politics or the Labour movement, but which respects Labour only because it fears its strength.”

Senator Needham:

– Where there is no love a little fear is sometimes necessary.

Senator FINDLEY:

– This paper has never had any love for the Labour movement. Read the preface to the Life of David Syme, written by Mr. Alfred Deakin. That preface makes it clear that a Government in Victoria was, at the time to which he refers, impossible unless the late David Syme had a say in regard to it3 personnel. We know that before the birth of the Labour party men humiliated themselves by going up the stairway at that office, cap in hand, so to speak, and asking, “ By your leave, can I get your support in respect of my candidature if I come forward?” Because the Labour party would not stoop to that kind of thing, and because they came into the opeD and fought for the recognition of the rights of labour, as a result of which that party knocked the stuffing out of the so-called Liberal party, we are now told that party government has had its day. Of course party government, their party government, has had its day. When our opponents had this great party newspaper behind them, everything in the garden was lovely. We have party government in Australia to-day as we never had it before, a Government in the interests of the people, and representing a majority of the people, a Government that puts forward a bold and progressive programme that will mean the employment of more and more people, and an increase of happiness and comfort for those who have had too little of it in days gone by. I am not going to say anything more this afternoon except that, so long as the Government continue as they are doing to-day, they will have my undivided support and the support cf every member of the party to which I belong. I urge them not to hesitate to complete the transcontinental railway, And to proceed with the Federal Capital works as speedily as possible, so that in the not far distant future we may see the Government removed from Victoria to the Federal Capital site, where we shall then - provided the Labour party is in power - have a truly national Government in a truly national atmosphere.

Senator WATSON:
New South Wales

– I desire to offer a few remarks in regard to our recruiting system. There is no doubt that the State Governments, up to the present, have shown a most zealous spirit in the prosecution of this war, and have done all they could to assist the Defence Department. I have taken some little part in the recruiting campaign, and I have noticed that there are certain difficulties in the way which might be overcome if attention were drawn to them. One of the suggestions I wish to mention is the fact that men who owing to faulty teeth have failed to pass the medical test should have an opportunity of getting dental treatment at the camps, so that while the defects are being remedied no time need be lost in their training. Under present regulations, recruits with marked dental caries have to be turned down. If a dental depot could be formed at Camp, the local medical officers could accept these cases, and send them on to the Camp for treatment. While their teeth were being attended to, the recruits could be trained, and the Empire would not lose a lot of good, hard-fighting men. The reason for this suggestion is that a large percentage of bush workers have decayed teeth, and are not in a financial position to have them attended to locally. Speaking generally, it would oust about £3 3s. per man to rectify these defects. These men represent an asset of the nation, and if we can see our way to spend about £200 in equipping and preparing a man to send him to the front, it is not asking too much that we should spend an additional £3 3s. to overcome the physical disabilities of men with defective teeth who are willing to enlist. With regard to the selection of men for the work for which they are best fitted, another suggestion of the recruiting committees of several of the centres I have visited is that, as the local medical officer of a district will usually know most of the men offering in that district, and the kind of work they have been doing, he could roughly draft them into various branches of service, and the military officer in charge of the different units would then have a number of selected men, whose qualifications he could test himself. With regard to the vaccination of recruits, I may mention that, after they are sworn in, recruits at the present time get fourteen days’ leave. During that leave they are practically idle, as they are physically unfitted to follow their ordinary avocations. This has been unfavorably commented upon by the recruiting committees, and it is contended that the men should receive pay from the time of their vaccination. Many of the recruits have no money of their own, and to meet such necessitous cases it is suggested that a sum of money should be sent to each local association to cover the expenses of the men. Apart from necessitous cases, it would be well if all recruits were regarded as being entitled to pay from the date of their vaccination. It is considered that the financial arrangements are somewhat unsatisfactory, inasmuch as no adequate provision has been made for meals for recruits on the journey from the local centres to the Camps. It is further suggested that when soldiers are given their final leave they should be granted passes to and from their homes. These are a few suggestions offered, which, if acted upon, would be of great advantage to our recruiting system. In my opinion it is the duty of the Government to see that a systematic effort is made, from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, for the enlistment of as many recruits as possible. Whilst I am not an advocate of conscription at this stage, I think that a step in advance might be taken by the Government by the institution of compulsory drill for all men of military age. It would have a salutary effect upon the whole of the manhood of Australia. If it were adopted, and the necessity arose for every available man being pressed into the service, they would then be qualified to render the service demanded of them. Certain difficulties may present themselves in giving effect to this proposal for the compulsory drill of allmen of military age. I have endeavoured to get into touch with those who understand what would be required to give effect to the proposal. I met a man at Inverell, engaged in the training of recruits, who strongly favours this project.

– The honorable senator challenges the distribution of the camps in this State. The Minister gave as the reason for that distribution the outbreak of cerebro-meningitis.

Senator TURLEY:

– Where did that outbreak originate? I am told that it originated amongst civilians, and that it spread to the Broadmeadows Camp.

Senator Russell:

Senator Findley:

– No; about 12,000.

Senator TURLEY:

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I would impress on the Minister of Defence the fact that there is a wider range for selection from among the young students and doctors who have kept in touch with the advancement of medical science, and who to-day are practising their profession in many parts of Australia. I want now to call attention to a matter in connexion with the letter carriers. Recently they went before the Arbitration Court, and during the hearing of that case the representative of the Public Service Commissioner made a statement which I think should not have been made. He charged these men with unfaithfulness in more ways than one, and the matter is of such importance that I intend to read the comments of Mr. Justice Powers when referring -to that matter. This is a copy of Mr. Justice Powers’ remarks when delivering judgment in the Letter Carriers’ case in the Arbitration Court on 8th April -

As the award is subject to the disapproval of Parliament, there is one other matter I feel it my unpleasant duty to refer to before 1 read the minutes of my proposed award and to explain why it has not affected my award in any way.

Mr. Skewes, who appeared on behalf of the Commissioner during the hearing of the case, and who, until after- the evidence had closed, conducted his part of the case with fairness and marked ability, at the close of his address on the 26th day of February last made a statement reflecting on letter : carriers generally - as all general charges do - without the slightest justification for it on the evidence before me. The first statement appears on page 1433 of the notes -

Whilst we have honest, hard-working mon in the ranks of the letter carriers, we have also by far too great a proportion of men whose consciences are fairly elastic, and who do not scruple to rob the Government of valuable time.

That was a very grave charge to be made by Mr. Skewes representing the Public Service Commissioner against a body of - men who were appealing for justice before the Court under the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act. The Judge goes on to say -

I immediately pointed out that there was no evidence of that.; but Mr. Skewes persisted in pressing it, adding, “ I am expressing the opinion of the Public Service Commissioner as well as my own opinion” (page 1434).

Later on (page 1435), Mr. Skewes stated - “ We go further than suspect it, because we know it.”

When Mr. Dalton was addressing me (see page 1487) according to the notes Mr. Skewes said - “ I said too great a proportion robbed the Government 5 per cent, to 10 per cent.”

After full consideration of the charge, I called the parties together on the 3rd of March last, and pointed out that, so far as I could judge, the charge could only have been made to influence me in fixing the hours of labour, stretch of shift, and the salaries to’be paid to letter carriers, and therefore should be withdrawn absolutely or proved or disproved (page 1490 ) . I also asked whether the Honorable the Postmaster -General or the Public Service Commissioner indorsed what Mr. Skewes had said. Mr. Westhoven stated the Minister could not agree to the correctness or otherwise of the statement. Mr. Skewes, on behalf of the Commissioner, said - “ The Public Service Commissioner having read the minutes of the proceedings, indorsed the statement made by myself” (page 1491).

I thereupon adjourned the hearing until the 11th of March to enable the Public Service Commissioner to prove the general charge made, and to allow the letter carriers the opportunity of calling evidence in reply, if necessary.

On the 11th of March, Mr. Skewes appeared for the Commissioner. I asked what percentage of the letter carriers the Commissioner proposed to prove were guilty of the charge. Mr. Skewes said (page 1494), “I do not propose to prove any percentage, but to prove there was ample justification for the opinion held by the Commissioner.” I then asked whether I was to disregard any of the evidence given on behalf of the letter carriers because the witnesses were included in the dishonest section. Mr. Skewes answered : - “ That as far as the witnesses were concerned, generally speaking, they were the most reputable of mcn whose evidence was given honestly” (page 1406). Mr. Skewes said that the only reason why he made the statement was because he was hopeful that, having mentioned the matter, I would be able to see my way in framing my judgment to make some reference to the fact that the statement had been made (page 1495).

He also stated, that when the evidence to be” submitted was given, he intended to ask me to close my eyes to that evidence (when making my award) .

I declined to shut my eyes to it; and asked for a statement as to the evidence the Commissioner was in a position to prove, putting it at its worst, giving me the full extent of the evidence available (1509).

Mr. Skewes then informed me that the evidence he intended to produce would prove that (in addition to verbal cautions or admonitions for wasting time) in three years there had been 100 cases in which men had been found guilty of wasting time, and that was sufficient to justify the opinion the Commissioner had expressed (page 1498). Mr. Skewes admitted that in these 100 cases the men had been cautioned, fined, or otherwise punished. The general particulars of the different charges were stated when I pressed for them (see page 1509), adding, “ that includes all cases in which officers have been charged, have given explanations, and have been dealt with under the Act” (page 1510). Mr. Skewes referred to the 100 cases as about 7 per cent., I suppose in justification of his vague qualified reference to from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., but the 100 cases were in three years. If he had taken thirty years it would, on the same reasoning, have been 70 per cent., if for forty years, over 90 per cent. What it really amounted to was that thirty-three or thirty-four out of 1,709 letter carriers each year had been found guilty “of some of the offences mentioned; that is, slightly less than 2 per cent, each year; whether they were members of the claimant organization or not was not disclosed. Only one offence was serious enough to be sent to a Board of Inquiry, and the 100 offences included -

Coming late; neglecting to ‘ deliver letters at the end of a round, taking longer over a walk than was necessary; claiming overtime the letter carriers were not justified in making; and an unknown percentage of the 2 per cent, were guilty of the more serious offence of -

Falsifying the attendance books by making false entries as to the time they started and left off work.

Being found in hotels wasting time on their delivery.

Being found drunk while on delivery.

I could not find out what percentage of the 2 per cent, had been found guilty of any of the more serious offences, or in “fact of any of the offences. All these had been dealt with and punished ( page 1512).

In conclusion, I asked (page 1513), “I want to know whether you wish to put in this evidence or any evidence with a view of influenc ing me in any way in making an award?” Answer, “No, your Honour, &c.”

If the evidence referred to had been fully proved, the percentage of offences in any case would not have influenced me in deciding what the innocent 98 per cent, should be awarded, and the fact that the supervision is so strict that letter carriers are cautioned, admonished, fined, and otherwise punished for any act that amounts to neglect of duty and for more serious offences, makes it safe for me to ignore the general charge independent of the fact that the Commissioner did not desire to tender any evidence on that charge with a view to influence my award.

In making my award, I do so as if no such general charge had been made. Not only was the statement not justified in the slightest by the evidence, but I do not personally think it was justified by the facts the Commissioner later on said he was prepared to submit to the Court.

General charges are easily made, and necessarily include the innocent and the guilty; I personally detest general charges, because they are unjust every time they are made; there is no chance of disproving them; and I trust that no representative of the Commissioner or the Minister will, in future, in this Court, make any general charge against his fellow officers, or make any comment that is not justified by the evidence he has previously submitted to the Court. In this Court, particularly, where all evidence is received, whether legally admissible or not, comments not justified by the evidence are specially objectionable.”

In spite of the foregoing remarks of His Honour Mr. Justice Powers, the Commissioner comes along with a statement which attempts to gloss over the foregoing incident. In our opinion, he even makes the position worse against Mr. Skewes by upholding him.

I have only quoted that much of the statement to call attention to the fact that officers of the P.ublic Service who submitted their claims before the Court, should not be accused in this manner by the Commissioner or any representative appointed by him. In view of that statement of Mr. Justice Powers, the least the Public Service Commissioner can do is to withdraw what he said, and apologize to a body of men who are doing good service for the Commonwealth to-day. In connexion with the report of Mr. Anderson on Postal administration, I venture to say that if the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Postal services had been given effect, there would have been no necessity for his appointment. In the first paragraph of his report, Mr. Anderson pays a very high compliment to the work of that Commission. One of his recommendations is that there should be a board of experts appointed in connexion with the management of the

Department, and I believe the Government have taken some action in that direction. I think they should go further than they have done, and appoint a Board on the lines of the expert Boards that have been appointed to assist the Minister of Defence. The head of the Defence Department has the advantage of the assistance and advice of a Board of military experts, and the Minister for the Navy has the assistance of a Board, the members of which are experts in naval matters. I think that the PostmasterGeneral should be given the assistance of a Board of men expert in the different branches of work carried on by his Department. The Post and Telegraph machine, as we know it to-day, is too huge for any one man to control. I should like the Minister of Defence, when replying to the debate, to give honorable. senators some idea of the cost of construction of the cruiser Brisbane, which is to be launched in a few days’ time, the length of time she has been on the stocks, and particularly what it will cost to launch her. Some little time ago we debated here the necessity of constructing a coffer dam to assist in the launching of that vessel. I thought then, as I think now, that if the launching ground, in view of the declivity of the ways, had been properly chosen, there would have been no necessity to expend money on the erection of a coffer dam for the launching, of that vessel.

Senator Grant:

– It is a good permanent job.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I understand that the coffer dam is intended only for the launching of this one ship.

Senator Grant:

– The honorable senator is mistaken; it will last about . 4,000 years.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was not asking Senator Grant for information. Perhaps the Minister of Defence will say what has been the total cost of the Brisbane, the time she has been on the stocks and the cost of launching her, and whether arrangements may not be made to avoid the necessity for the construction of coffer dams for the launching of any of our vessels in future. There is another matter which I should like the Minister to take into consideration during the forthcoming adjournment. I refer to the pay of armourers’ assistants, which I have mentioned several times before. The honorable senator has seemed to me to confuse armourers’ assistants with artificers’ labourers. In connexion with this matter I received the following letter dated 4th June, 1915: -

I am directed by the Honorable the Minister to inform you that the rates paid by this Department to artificers’ labourers are from £146 to £1645s. per annum, whereas under a recent Arbitration Court award, which takes effect from the 1st July next, the rates of pay for labourers in the Post and Telegraph Department are from £1.32 to £144 per annum.

I have also to state that, in addition to their pay, artificers’ labourers arc paid a uniform allowance of £5 per annum, and receive free medical attendance and medicine.

Yours faithfully,

Trumble, Acting Secretary.

The armourers’ assistants to whom I have referred are engaged in the armoury at Perth, but I speak not for them alone, but in the interests of all armourers’ assistants employed in the Commonwealth. The award to which I have referred in connexion with this matter, is the award of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the case of the Postal Electricians Union, the members of which were awarded payment as follows by the Court : -

The minimum wages to be paid per annum to employees of the mechanical sections of the telegraph and telephone branches of the Postal Department, if they are members of the claimant organization, shall be as follows: -

Mechanics (telegraph or telephone), £168.

Senior mechanics, £198.

Foremen mechanics, including foremen mechanics, electric light and power, £228. and so on. The Minister of Defence will see at once from the letter which I have read from Mr. Trumble that there is some confusion in the Department about the pay of armourers’ assistants, and I thinkhe will recognise that an injustice has been done to these men by the Department, though no doubt it has been done unintentionally. These men are practically all-round mechanical engineers. They are able to work any milling machine or lathe, and are required to be able to temper all materials, including bayonets. I do not think that it would be possible to get any man in the Postal Officials Union who could temper a bayonet. I am not saying that the postal electricians receive too much money, but that the armourers’ assistants receive too little for the work they are called upon to perform.

Senator Guy:

– Does the honorable senator say that they have to temper bayonets ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yea, I have seen them doing that work in the armoury at Perth, and it is very skilled work indeed. I venture to say that there are many blacksmiths who would not be able to temper steel of the quality used in bayonets. I wish now to say a word about a contract let to Hudson and Ritchie, of North Fremantle. I find that this firm was given a contract for the construction of locomotive bogies, and they have not been paying the wages which they should pay to their tradesmen, and have not, as they ought to have done, employed boilermakers in connexion with the contract. The State implement works had a similar contract, and they paid the recognised wages to boilermakers who were employed in the construction of these bogies. This private firm next door did not employ boilermakers on their contract at all. When I complained of this to the Minister of Home ‘Affairs in a letter, I received a reply through him from the Chief Engineer of Commonwealth Railways, Mr. Bell, stating that the firm in question employed at this work a foreman blacksmith, draughtsman, and foreman fitter. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist in connexion with future contracts let by the Commonwealth. We cannot expect a fitter to do a boilermaker^ work, nor can a blacksmith do a boilermaker’s work. The making of the frame above the wheels of the bogie” is boilermaker’s work, and it requires the employment of two boilermakers to knock down the rivets and what is called a “ holder on.” This firm had a foreman fitter doing this work, and a draughtsman who should have been engaged in their office instead of bond fide boilermakers. I understand that this contract is about completed, but I hope that the Minister of Home Affairs will in future contracts of the same kind stipulate that properlyqualified tradesmen shall be employed upon the work. I may mention that qualified boilermakers apply to this firm in vain for work, because the work at which they should have been employed was being done by the mon I have mentioned. I have to bring under the notice of the Department concerned a matter relating to the administration of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. I asked some time ago that there should be laid on the table of the Library the file of papers dealing with the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner for Old-age Pensions in Perth against Police-constable Campbell. It appears that this constable was asked to report upon the cases of Mrs. Mary Ann Paul, Levi Green, and Eli T. Lethbridge. The constable made the necessary inquiries, and in sending in his report for the third time to the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions he used these words -

It is no use following the man up- as you are doing, for the simple reason that, so far as I know, he lias nothing.

Twice the constable reported to the Deputy Commissioner that the man in question had nothing. He told him that, as a constable, he had already tried to execute a warrant of distress against the man, but could get nothing. Still, for the third time, the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions insisted that the constable should follow up this man, and because in his report he used the words I have quoted, the Deputy Commissioner made a complaint against him to the Treasurer as head of the Old-age Pensions Department. On perusing the file I found an extract from the Sunday Times, of Western Australia, condemning Constable Campbell because in the exercise of his rights as a man he had tried to secure better treatment from the Police Department of Western Australia. I found also that the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions attempted to buttress his charge against the constable by quoting from the Sunday Times matter concerning the constable which had nothing at all to do with the case in which he was himself concerned. I may mention that not only were pensions eventually paid to the three persons to whom I have referred, but as a result of the representations made by Constable Campbell the allowance paid to them per week has been increased.

I remember one occasion on which the present Minister of Defence, when he was a private member of this Chamber, made a somewhat similar complaint in reference to Mr. Green. He practically affirmed that that gentleman was not a proper person to fill the office of Public Service Inspector in Western Australia. If this is the way in which he discharges his duty, I most certainly agree that ho is not the right man in the right place. I trust that the Minister will institute an inquiry into this matter, with a view to seeing that in future a constable, after sending in his report, shall not be followed and persecuted in the way that Constable Campbell has been.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I am. sure that honorable senators will be very glad to learn that the subscription for the first instalment of our war loan has been a pronounced success. The number of applications received is 16,747, and the total amount subscribed is £12,932,410 -a shade less than £13,000,000. It is evident that the banks have supported the loan in the proportion of £5,000,000 to £20,000,000 and have applied for one quarter of the amounts they were prepared to take up.

Senator Bakhap:

– Are all the applications in yet?

Senator PEARCE:

– The applications from places which are more than one day’s postal distance from the capital centres have yet to come to hand. Later on these will be added to the total. When they are received, the aggregate amount subscribed will be in excess of £13,000,000. In order to show honorable senators the proportion of the total which has been subscribed by the various States, I quote the following figures : - From New South Wales there are 4,750 applications, and the amount subscribed is £5,383,710; from Victoria there are 8,072 applications, and the amount subscribed is £5,137,560; from Queensland there are 1,523 applications, and the amount subscribed is £1,007,720; from South Australia there are 1,347 applications, and the amount subscribed is £844,120; from Western Australia there are 456 applications, and the amount subscribed is £206,560; whilst from Tasmania there are 599 applications, and the amount subscribed is £352,740. The island State has certainly covered itself with glory. The public have responded generously, although the launching of an Australian war loan of £5,000,000 was a new experiment, and the Government wish to acknowledge the very great service which the press has rendered in keeping to the front the necessity for applications being made for it. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank has also supplied us with particulars of the principal subscriptions, which shows that the Mutual

– It may be. But no very great amount of skill is required to do that. In regard to the general debate upon the Bill, I have no regret for having adopted the attitude which I did respecting the general criticism which has been directed against the Department and against myself. I do not resent criticism in respect of which I am afforded a fair opportunity of reply, or of rectifying mistakes, which must occur in such a huge Department. Upon the whole, the debate has served to show that the great majority of honorable senators are prepared to extend consideration to the Department in the difficulties with which it is contending. I have to acknowledge that, taken as a whole, the members of this Parliament have extended to me every consideration. Senator Bakhap, for example, has time after time approached me privately in respect of matters which, if he had followed the example of some other honorable senators, he might have ventilated on the floor of this chamber. But he has first afforded me an opportunity of rectifying any trouble which existed. I know that other honorable senators have, from time to time, had correspondence forwarded to them the mere reading of which would have created a sensation, and would have insured for it a front page in most of the newspapers throughout Australia. But they have preferred to come to me first to ascertain If there was any substance in those statements. After they have heard the departmental explanation they have recognised the other side of the question, and have not thought it necessary to pursue it. The trouble arises from the fact that when allegations are made concerning an occurrence, it may be in a distant State - an occurrence of which the central administration has no knowledge - those allegations go out to the world without being accompanied by any explanation. By the time an explanation is forthcoming the impression has become rooted in the public mind that every statement embodied in the allegations is absolutely correct. I am glad to say that the great majority of the members of this Parliament have first afforded me an op portunity of ascertaining whether there was any substance in the complaints which have reached them. After they have heard the departmental reply - if they have not been satisfied with it - they have brought the matter in which they were interested before Parliament, and criticised the Department for its laxity. But there is a vast difference between that class of criticism and criticism which seems chiefly concerned with scoring political points, and with showing that everything is rotten in the state of Denmark. If this debate leads to a better state of things in the future it will have accomplished some good. My purpose was not to stifle criticism, but to insure that the Department shall be subjected to only that healthy form of criticism which is aimed at assisting the Minister rather than at scoring political points off him.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator STEWART:

– Everybody knows that. The Government will say that people must be kept employed, and I quite admit it. I wish to point out to the Senate that if the Government had taken my advice in the past, and broken up land monopoly and established industries by means of Protection, the need for the assistance at the present hour would not be anything like what it is. It will be seen that we are now suffering, much earlier, probably, than many persons ever imagined, for our sins. We are suffering because we did not do the correct thing at the right time, and will suffer more as the days go by. So far as I can see this will never be the same Australia to many of us in our life-time as it has been. I am very doubtful whether even the coming generation and the generation following will see anything like the prosperity, the comfort, and the happiness which have hitherto existed here, and all on account of this unfortunate war and the deplorable want of foresight on the part of the Government of the Commonwealth in not taking measures to establish industries in the towns and to break up land monopoly in the country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

InCommittee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 postponed.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– In connexion withe the Department of Defence, I wish to direct attention to a trifling vote of £12,000,000 for the Expeditionary Forces. My object is to refer to some of the methods by which this money is being expended. At an earlier stage of the Bill we had some discussion as to whether business methods were being adopted by the Defence Department. Some examples were brought forward to illustrate what a keen businesslike Department it is. I want to show that some of this money is, in my judgment, scandalously wasted. I take the case of the Crichton contract. It was alleged that this affords evidence of great business capacity, and of the money-saving appliances of the Department. It has been said that the contract was cancelled because it was carried out in an unsatisfactory way. What are the facts of the case? I do not want to raise the question of a contract as against direct dealing by the Department, but it is worthy of note that in this case tenders were never invited. A letter was addressed to five firms inviting them to submit quotations.

Senator Pearce:

– By whom?

Senator MILLEN:

– By Major Dowse. I am reminded of an interjection which the Minister made yesterday, the purpose of which, I venture to suggest, was to convey the idea that a good deal of the business of the Department is being done, not by military men, but by men who, .although they may have military titles, are not soldiers, or by some Board of outside people. I mention this in order to say that this matter of the Crichton contract was initiated and carried through solely by military men, of whom Major Dowse was one. Acting, of course, upon a general order from his superior officers, he wrote a letter to five different firms. The Department seemed to think that they would get the best results by allowing three days to intervene from the time the letter was sent out to the time they received the quotations. I take no exception to the fact that there was in this case no advertisement calling for tenders, because in these times of urgency it is not possible to follow the ordinary advertising methods. I refer to the matter to say that this is not a fair case to take to show the failure of Hip contract system, because in connexion with it the ordinary methods of the contract -system could not be observed. The Department wrote their letter on the 11th of the month, and gave the people to whom they wrote only until the 13th to submit their quotations. It- is extremely doubtful that the firms in question received the letter on the day on which it was posted, but even if they did that gave them only three days in which to prepare their estimates and submit their quotations. There was not in the letter a single word <as to any agreement existing between the Defence Department and the Caterers Union. Nothing was said about that, nor was there a word said about the -amount of money the Department was required to find, in order to furnish a plant. Senator Findley has endeavoured to make it appear that the Defence Department derived some financial advantage from it, but he should remember that some allowance should be made for the fact that the Department had to find the money necessary to provide a plant. The officers, in putting their recommendations before the Minister, estimated the cost of the plant at £100. The Minister no sooner signed the document than they found that they hai. overlooked the most important item, and that was a stove, which was to cost £45. They had, therefore, to seek supplementary authority for the purchase of that article, so that the Department had to find £145 before it could start business on its own account. Passing from that incident, what I wish to emphasize is, that in spite of the statement which was made here to-day that this contract was being carried out in a way that failed to give satisfaction to the authorities, the official documents show that the contractor was performing his work efficiently. Colonel Tivey, the principal instructor at this school of instruction, evidently felt that something was wrong, because he took the quite unusual course - after the Min- ister had decided to cancel the contract - of forwarding to the Department the following minute, under date 18th January of the present year -

Attention is invited to the fact that the catering for both No. 1 and 2 schools has been entirely satisfactory, and Mr. Crichton’s charges are lower than any previous tenders for many years. A thoroughly efficient staff and plant is provided, and it is suggested that the question of terminating this contract be given a second consideration.

To-day we were told that Mr. Crichton was carrying out his contract unsatisfactorily, and that that was the principal reason for its determination. Let us see what Colonel “Wallace, under date 10th March last, had to say about the matter -

There has been no complaint whatever against Mr. Crichton from the Department in regard to the manner in which he carried out his contract, and the inference taken from the Minister’s memorandum, dated 8th December, 1914, was that he was desirous of having the contract terminated, and the work carried out by the Department itself, in order that members of the union above referred to could be engaged direct by the Department.

If I can read plain language, that means that the Commandant had formed the opinion that the Minister desired to cancel the contract in order that the work might be given to members of the union which had made representations to him. I cannot help thinking that in this matter the Commandant himself was a little to blame, for it appears to me that he made his recommendation to the Minister because he thought that the Minister desired to cancel the contract. Apart from inference, however, it is clear that the State Commandant alleges that there was no fault to find with Mr. Crichton for the way in which he was carrying out his contract. But evidently the Commandant had formed the opinion that the Minister wished to terminate the contract in order that the work might be given to members of the Hotel and Caterers’ Union. With a view of showing that Mr. Crichton was regarded by the Department itself as a satisfactory contractor, I propose to read the following letter, which was forwarded to him by the Department, under date 12th February of this year -

With reference to your letter of the 4th inst., I have to inform you that inquiries have been made, but no tenders for catering are likely to be invited at present. Instructions have been issued, however, that you are to be afforded an opportunity of tendering when quotations arc being called for.

Now, if he had been carrying out his contract in an unsatisfactory way, the Department would surely never have told him that in connexion with future tenders he would be given an opportunity of tendering. The only person who appears to have been dissatisfied with the manner in which he carried out his contract was the Minister himself, and he, in turn, appears to have been influenced by the members of the union. Subsequently, this matter reached the hands of Crichton’s solicitors, who referred it to the Department. The Department then sent it on to the Crown Solicitor, who wrote, under date 16th April, 1915-

Such contract having been terminated by the Department without any default on the part of the contractor, he is, in my opinion, legally entitled to such damages as would compensate him for any loss he has thereby sustained.

It is quite clear that there is a complete chain of evidence that Crichton was in no way to blame. The Crown Solicitor, following up the reports of the officers whom I have quoted, stated that the Department had terminated the contract without any default on the part of the contractor, who was therefore entitled to be paid compensation. Having arrived at this pass, the Minister of Defence, with a desire to wash his hands of the whole business, wrote the following minute to the secretary of his Department, under date 24th April last-

Request that Attorney-General’s Department take this matter up to arrange best terms possible.

Here i3 an evidence of the business incapacity of which I complained this morning. In order to suit his own party, or the members of a union, the Minister came along, without any legal justification, and cancelled the contract which he himself had accepted.-

Senator Pearce:

– That is not correct.

Senator MILLEN:

– If the honorable gentleman did not accept it, who did?

Senator Pearce:

– Produce my approval of the contract. I said this morning that the Commandant accepted the contract under the general authority that he possessed to accept contracts without reference to the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Minister cancelled the contract without first looking into his legal position. After having cancelled it, he handed it over to the Crown Solicitor for the latter to make the best terms possible in the circumstances. The Crown Solicitor in dealing with it said, under date 5t’h July last -

In the absence of any evidence to show that Mr. Crichton’s claim is excessive, I think it would be unwise to allow the matter to he taken to Court, and I therefore recommend t’-at the claim bo settled by payment of £f.lO 10s.

Honorable senators with any knowledge of legal gentlemen will know what the odd ten guineas represent. The Minister of Defence accepted the recommendation of the Crown Solicitor. Then Mr. Fisher, the Prime Minister, summed up his opinion of this transaction in the following minute -

This should not have occurred; but there is now nothing better to do than to approve the Crown Solicitor’s recommendation.

I venture to say that the transaction does not reflect very great credit upon the business capacity of the Defence Department. The Minister has stated that he did not accept the tender of Mr. Crichton. As a matter of fact, I believe that no contract was actually signed. But the contract having been made, without looking into the legal position at all, and merely urged on by the members of the Hotel and Caterers’ Union, the Minister cancelled it, although it would have terminated in three more months, and then found that he was called upon to ask the public to pay £500 to make good the default for which he himself was responsible. I can understand the desire of my honorable friends opposite to see the daylabour system adopted in preference to the contract system. But seeing that this contract had only three months to run, and that it was being satisfactorily carried out, the wise course would have been to allow it to expire, and then to have introduced a new system. But the Minister was not prepared to do that. He cancelled the contract, found himself in a difficulty, threw that difficulty on to the Attorney-General’s Department to make the best terms possible in the circumstances, and then had placed upon record a condemnatory minute by his chief that this thing ought not to have occurred. No ‘ explanation can wipe away that minute - a minute written by Mr. Fisher, his chief, and his old political associate. If the Prime Minister had any bias in the matter at all it would most naturally be in favour of his colleague, the Minister of Defence. Yet he was compelled by the outrageous character of this transaction to place on record the fact that it ought not to have occurred. Of course, the Minister of Defence may urge that the contractor was not paying the scale of wages approved by agreement between the Department and the Caterers’ Union. Whether that be so or not, he had still to stand by the terms of the contract. If when that contract was made it was not stipulated that the wages paid should be in accordance with the scale to which I have referred, the fault was that of the officers, and not of the contractor. Before cancelling the contract, it was incumbent upon the Minister to ascertain what was his legal position. All the papers, I repeat, show conclusively that the contractor was faithfully discharging his duty. But because the Minister failed to ascertain his legal position before determining this contract, the country has been called upon to pay quite unnecessarily the sum of £500. I have brought up this matter because particular reference was made to it to-day for the purpose of indicating the contrast which exists between the business methods which prevail in the Department now and those which existed whilst I wa3 at the head of it. There is the position, and I am content to leave it at that. I want nothing more than Mr. Fisher’s minute as a justification for the strong condemnation in which I have indulged regarding this transaction.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I wish to say a few words in reference to this Crichton contract. In the first place, it was a contract made under the general authority issued to Commandants in the mobilization orders at the time Senator Millen was in office. They were then empowered to accept contracts without reference to the Contracts Branch of the central administration, or to the Minister. Under that authority the District Head-Quarters in Victoria called for quotations for the catering at this Camp, and Mr. Crichton being the lowest tenderer, was given the contract without any reference to me. After he had obtained the contract, a series of complaints was made by the union representing the men employed in this industry, to the effect that he was not paying the rate which the Department had, in a written agreement with that union, consented to pay for labour employed at the Camp. These representations were made not once, but many times. Associated with them was a number of other complaints as to the way in which Crichton engaged hia labour, and as to the class of labour that he employed. Now, it is the policy of the Government to insure that proper labour conditions are observed in the carrying out of its contracts as well as in connexion with labour directly employed by it. When these complaints were made the contract was first brought under my notice. I then found that Mr. Crichton held that he was only obliged to pay the rates which were laid down by the Wages Board in connexion with restaurants in the city. Now, it must be remembered that these military camps are located outside the. city, and that men employed at them have to travel from . their bornes some distance to their work. They have to be there very early in the morning, and to remain late at night. Consequently what might be a fair wage in a restaurant in the city would probably be an unfair wage at a military camp some distance outside of the city. Recognising that fact, the Department had agreed with the union that a higher rate of wages should be paid to the cooks employed in the Camp than is paid under the Wages Board to employees in a city restaurant. I was faced with the position that I would have to allow the contract to continue, with this unfair rate of wages, side by side with a system under which the Department was carrying on the same work itself, for we had at that time commenced a system of doing our own catering direct, without any contractor. We should thus have had two classes of men, one employed by the Department getting a higher rate of wages, and the other getting a lower rate from the contractor. That being the case, and Mr. Crichton not agreeing to pay the rate of waged that the Department was paying, I decided, if at all possible, to do with that contract what we had done generally - that is, to do the catering ourselves, and the Commandant rightly interpreted my state of mind. The honorable senator speaks of the inference the Commandant drew, as if there was something mysterious about it; but I am glad to know the Commandant had no difficulty in finding out what was in my mind in that regard. There was no mystery about it. It was a declared policy on my part, not once, but many times, that when we could do things to the best advantage ourselves we should do them. There was, therefore, no clairvoyance necessary on the part of the Commandant. When the Commandant replied to my memorandum to the Secretary for Defence, he recommended that a fortnight’s notice be given to cancel the contract. I naturally assumed, when I saw the Commandant’s recommendation, that under the conditions of contract it was possible to terminate it by giving a fortnight’s notice, because the Commandant had the papers. I acted on the recommendation, naturally thinking that the Commandant would have turned up the conditions of contract to see whether it was possible, and had satisfied himself that it was. A fortnight’s notice was given. It was only subsequent to that, when the conditions of the contract were submitted to me, that I found it was not possible to cancel it by giving that notice. The honorable senator will see that this was so if he will refer to the file, which he has evidently been -studying so assiduously. I dare say he was quite aware of it all the time, although, with that innocent manner of his, he never referred to it. He will find that it was only after the contract had actually been cancelled that I became aware of the fact that the quotation had been in arbitrary terms for the duration of the camp, or up to a given date, and that, therefore, the Commandant was in error in making the recommendation, because if he had done his duty he would have pointed out to me that it was not possible to terminate the contract because of the terms under which it had been made. I admit that I cancelled the contract, and that the Crown Law officer, when he got the whole of the papers before him, said it could not, and ought not, to have been cancelled, because there was no power to cancel it unless the contractor broke some of the conditions. Those aTe the facts. The effects also are very instructive. The £500 compensation was assessed on the basis of what Mr. Crichton said he was making out of the contract. I would remind honorable senators that that catering is still going on, and, according to our information, we are carrying it on for £100 per month less than we were paying him, while, according to his own statement, he was making £60 a month cleaT profit, although carrying it out for £235 less than any previous contractor had carried out a similar contract for a given number of men. Mr. Crichton’s contract had to run on for three months after that, and, on his own showing, he would have made in that time a profit of at least £60 a month, and, according to our experience, probably nearer £160 a month. Yet when it did expire, if the honorable senator’s policy had been continued, there would have been another contract, and probably we should have had a still higher price to pay for provisions, owing to the rise in prices. I venture to say,, therefore, that the country has benefited by the cancellation of the contract, even though it cost £500 to cancel. I admit that a blunder was made in that the Commandant did not draw my attention tothe fact, the papers being in his office, that it could not be cancelled at a fortnight’s notice, but must run for the term. I am, however, quite prepared, apart from that, to bear the responsibility of the cancellation. The honorable senator drew attention to the incident as one of the bad business moves of the Government or the Department, but he himself was a member of a Government which made a present of £5,000 to the Marconi Wireless Company for the cancellation of rights which they were legally advised did’ not exist. Mr. Swinburne, the highest wireless expert in the world, gave a considered opinion - being brought out herefor the purpose - that the Balsillie process did not infringe the Marconi patent, or any other existing system, and, in addition, the Marconi patents expired” shortly after the demand was made. That is what the last Government did just before they went out of office, yet thehonorable senator has the audacity to challenge me with want of business capacity.

Senator Millen:

– You know you arenot stating the full facts of the case.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am, and I defy the honorable senator to disprove any oneof them. The late Government gave- £5,000 for rights which would not hold water in any Court. Of course their doing wrong would not justify our doing wrong. I do not plead that as an excuse; but the cancellation of the Crichton contract did no injury to the Commonwealth; in fact, it had good effects, in that we are now carrying out our owncatering much cheaper than Mr. Crichton was doing it for us, and axe doing it as well, if not better, than he was doing it, while the men employed are getting a decent rate of wages and proper labour conditions! They do not have to par labour registry sharks for the privilege of getting a job. They get the job through the secretary of their union, and do not have to pay him anything for it. That is the advantage that- the country has gained from the cancellation of the contract. I am prepared to put the £500 compensation on one side, and the effects on the other, and. let the country judge which is right. I am now in possession of the following information on the matter of the alleged contract with David Jones Ltd., of Sydney, for nurses’ uniforms and equipment : -

In regard to the statement of Messrs. David Jones Limited, that they had had a contract for ten years under Government seal, the managing director of the firm was asked by letter on the 25th ultimo to furnish particulars as to which Government the contract mentioned was entered into with, and the duration of same.

A reply has not yet boon received from the firm; but the following report has been furnished by the Commandant, 2nd Military District : -

David Jones have no contract with any Government. They allege arrangement made by them with Matron Gould ten years ago, when they presumed she acted officially. No writing produced. No record this office. Practice appears to have grown up whereby matron directed nurses to David Jones, though no evidence she either derived benefit or had official authority to do so. Gould at the front. Matron Creal states she was under the impression that David Jones held a contract, and believes her predecessor, Matron Gould, was under same impression. Ground for this was alleged representation that David Jones had the sealed pattern. Thought this to have meant they had a contract.

Thus it appears that- the matrons told the nurses to go to the firm, believing that they had a contract, and it seems that some ten years ago there had been something in the nature of a contract or arrangement. As regards the use of riflemen to instruct members of the Australian Infantry Force in musketry, the Com:mandant of the 2nd Military Districtsends the following memorandum: -

In connexion with my telegram of the 21st inst. to the Minister, in reply to his of the 19th, I have to state that fifteen members of the National Rifle Association were some time ago employed instructing in shooting on the rifle ranges in Sydney, and at the present moment Lieutenant ]?. L. Clay, who is a member of the Association, is at Liverpool Camp assisting in Musketry Instruction under Major Heritage. The difficulty I have met with in availing myself of the services of the members of the Association is, that few, if any, can give the necessary instruction as laid down in Musketry Regulations and Circular No. 323 of 2nd August.

I am now asking the Association if they can supply instructors who are possessed of the necessary qualifications; in addition, the S.O. of Rifle Clubs is ascertaining if any of the members can undertake tire work.

My authority for saying that the business arrangements of the Defence Department have been largely taken out of the. hands of the military authorities is that, since the removal or cancellation of the mobilization order, all the main expenditure has to be authorized by the Minister, and there is a Contracts Branch in the Department which calls for, receives, and inquires into tenders, and makes recommendations to the Minister. None of the officers of that branch are military men. None of them have been military men. They happen to have military titles, because they are what are called military staff clerks. They have all had a long training in connexion with contracts, and are doing very good work. Mr. Anderson’s recommendation for the establishment of a Supply and Tender Board is also under consideration. The reason for deferring it has been the splitting up of the Defence Department into two, which would have necessitated, in any case, a re-arrangement of any such Board if it had been constituted previously. As that had been the contemplated system, it was decided to hold over the question of creating a Supply and Tender Board until the division of the two Departments had taken place. I hope, at an early date, to establish a Supply and Tender Board. From the time that that order was cancelled, the letting of contracts, the arranging for contracts, and the recommendations as to contracts have’ been practically taken out of the hands of the military, and placed in the hands of civilians associated with the Department.

Senator MILLEN:
New South “Wales

– I heard with a great deal of pleasure the announcement which the Minister has just made indicating a tendency in the Department to give effect to a suggestion which is not a new one, and which I ventured to repeat last night, and that is to draw, as far as possible, the business side of the Department away from the military side. I welcome the innovation, because I believe that it is only the first step to that fuller scheme which I feel satisfied circumstances will force the Government, sooner or later, to adopt. With regard to the matter of nurses’ uniforms, I take this opportunity of reminding honorable senators of the statement made here last night by the

– I happen to be unfortunately placed at this moment. I have not brought with me a communication I received from a member cf the

National Rifle Association, giving me all the details, but I will take an early opportunity of putting it in the hands of the Minister, and trust that he will make further inquiry and see if there is an attempt to load the conditions unfairly with the view to defeat his own decision. I have brought up here, once or twice, the unsatisfactory nature of the arrangements for recruiting at Sydney. The Minister has referred to my remarks as pinpricks, and has not received them as I had hoped he would do. I cannot stand hers and not speak about things which 1 know are having a deterring effect on recruiting. I want the Minister, in spite of all the official denials he has received, to call for further information. I received to-day the following declaration from a man, over his own signature, which is attested by another person- 24th August, 1015.

I, Albert Smith, of 05 Albion-street, Annandale, do hereby declare that on Sunday last, the 22nd inst.: I went to Victoria Barracks, Paddington, for the purpose of enlisting, and that, as there were no doctors present, I was turned away.

I further declare that a large number of others were also turned away for the same reason, and during the period I was waiting, from 2 o’clock till 2.20, I should estimate that twenty were so treated.

Recruiting hours distinctly state from 9 till 5, yet I was told that sometimes the doctors are there in the afternoon, and sometimes they are not.

Albert Smith.

Witness - Stanley Willmott.

Once or twice the newspaper paragraphs T have brought forward have made the same declaration, that there were no doctors in attendance, and the Minister ref erred to them as coming from unknown Sydney scribes. But here is a declaration from a man, giving dates and hours, and it only confirms what the newspapers have said. I tell the Minister that I bring forward this matter reluctantly, but lie can sea for himself that even the publication of such statements must have a prejudicial influence on recruiting.

Senator Pearce:

– Will you let me have that declaration ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes; it was sent to me by Senator Gould, who is unable to be present to-day. I take the view that I am serving recruiting by trying to bring these matters under the notice of the Minister in order that they shall be ramedied I feel confident thai with the document in his hands he will 3ee that some steps are taken to prevent any cause of complaint in the future. I did not think that the Minister referred to any other matter which excited my special interest. There is another matter connected with Defence, but in view of the hour I will reserve it for a future occasion.

Schedule agreed to.

Postponed clause 2, abstract, preamble, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6491

OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION BILL

Assent reported.

Sitting suspended from 6.2S to S p.ni

page 6491

WAR. CENSUS (POSTAL MATTER) BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The measure makes provision for the free postage of war census cards, because it is obvious that the people ought not to be put to the expense of paying postage on them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 6491

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATORS’ TERM OF SERVICE) BILL

Second Reading

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SENIOR:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Rotation of senators).

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– In the course of a parliamentary experience extending over many years, I do not know that I have ever listened to a more extraordinary speech than that just delivered by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who has affirmed that if I will shoulder the responsibility of moving an amendment the advantage of which I have urged, he will consent to adjourn the consideration of this measure until to-morrow. I do not know why he thought that I would shrink from the acceptance of that responsibility. I have made my position upon this measure abundantly clear, and I have yet to learn that I have ever hesitated to give expression to it. If I were a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill I should move the amendment without hesitation; but, on the grounds already stated, I am not prepared to give it my support, and in the circumstances I shall not submit any amendment. The fundamental error made in the Constitution was to put in certain rigid proposals which were all right so long as everything went along in the ordinary normal way ; but the moment we struck the obstacle of the double dissolution we were thrown out of our stride. The next time there is a double dissolution the same thing will occur again. The only satisfactory amendment of the Constitution will’ be one that strikes out all these limitations and confines the constitutional provision to a simple declaration that the House of Representatives shall’ not last longer than three years, and that a senator shall not hold his seat longer than six years, leaving the rest to be filled in by the electoral law itself. That would be a fundamental change; but I am not going to deal partially with the question, as would be the case if I submitted the amendment I suggested. I shall not accept the responsibility of submitting any amendment, seeing that I am not a supporter of the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I do not doubt the honorable senator’s sincerity; but he suggested an amendment which I believed would be an improvement, and I offered to accept it, if he were prepared to move it. As he is not prepared to do so, I shall not go out of my way to alter the measure, because it has come from the other House. The Government have a majority in both Chambers, and had we wanted to do what the honorable senator suggests, we should have introduced the Bill originally in the form suggested by him, because both he and I know that the matter was discussed. If he will not take the responsibility of moving the amendment he has suggested, I can only say I am sorry, because Senator Senior and others can testify, and the records of the House show, that it has been my invariable practice to accept suggested improvements in measures of which I have had charge.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 6497

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Colonel the Honorable Cyril St. Clair Cameron, CB.

The PRESIDENT:

– I notice in the gallery Colonel Cameron, who was for many years an honoured member of this Senate, and who has just returned in rather broken health from the front, where he has been rendering distinguished service to the Empire. I regret to inform honorable senators that he has also had the misfortune, in which he has all our sympathies, to lose a loved son in the service of the country. I propose, with the concurrence of the Senate, to show him a mark of honour by inviting him to occupy a seat on the floor of the Chamber.

Colonel Cameron having been received with cheers and given a seat on the right of the President,

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I am sura the Senate is proud, and feels a deep senso of honour in being able to welcome so distinguished a soldier of the Empire as Colonel Cameron, who was once a mem ber of this Chamber, and who has been, and still is-, playing an important part in the great war that is proceeding. I am but echoing the opinions of honorable senators when I say that we have followed with interest and pleasure the career at the front. of our old friend and erstwhile colleague. This is not the first time that he has done service for the Empire, and we know how valuable were the services that he gave on the former occasion, and how they added lustre to the reputation of Australia. We feel sure that in the present war he is doing equally good service for his King and country. It is indeed an honour, as well as a pleasure, to have him with us, and Ave trust that the spell he is taking will restore him to full health and vigour, so that he may again take his place at the front, which I know to be his ardent wish, and continue to play the solid and useful part that he has played in the past. On behalf of those who sit on this side of the chamber I welcome him back, and wish him a speedy return to the fullest health and strength.

Senator MILLEN:

– Colonel Cameron, having been a member of this Chamber, will understand me when I say that I could speak much more freely on this occasion if he were not present. I join with the Minister of Defence in extending to the gallant Colonel, our old comrade, a very hearty welcome, not only on his return to Australia, but also on his reappearance in these halls. We who had the pleasure of association with him had never any doubt as to the part he would play when the dogs of war were let loose. He has more than justified the very high estimationwe formed of him, for he has again rendered very distinguished and valuable service to the countryhe loves so well, and by doing so has established a still stronger hold upon our esteem and respect. May I take: this opportunity of expressing my ownsympathy and that of the Senate with him, in that, in addition to the troubles which have fallen upon him by reason of impaired health, he has suffered a bereavement, which I am sure he feels far more than the indisposition from which he is at present suffering? I desire to express the confident hope that the knowledge that his gallant son gave his life for the Empire will at least soften, the blow that has fallen upon him, which I know he feels acutely. I trust that a few months in his own sunny country, amidst surroundings which he loves, will restore his health, and put him in a position to offer his sword once more to his King and country.

The PRESIDENT:

– I propose, on behalf of the Senate, to have a number of copies of the official report of the proceedings at this reception of our distinguished visitor printed separately for presentation to him - a compliment which, I am sure, he will very much appreciate.

page 6498

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act 1903-1915. - Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 143.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired under, at -

Broadmeadows, Victoria - For Defencepurposes.

Kalgoorlie, Western Australia - ForPostal purposes.

Bight of carriage-way acquired over land at Guildford, Western Australia - ForDefence purposes.

Royal Commission on Mail Services and Trade Development between Australia and’ the New Hebrides: Appendices to Report.

Sitting suspended from 9 to 10 p.m.

page 6498

INSURANCE BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed! from 26th August, vide page 6145) :

Clauses 57 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 -

Every policy shall state the periods for which the reserve value allowed by the company for the purpose will maintain a policy in force after the cessation of premium payments.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

.- I thought that it might be as well to postpone this clause, but I have since been able to give it a little more consideration, and the view that I take of it has been strengthened by the arguments submitted by Senator Guy. The clause provides quite clearly that every policy shall state the periods for which the reserve value allowed by the company will maintain it in force after the cessation of premium payments. In a period of exceptional prosperity, these reserve values will go up by leaps and bounds, but the table adopted by a company in issuing a particular policy will show the period for which the reserve value will keep it going. If the reserve value is £10 it will keep a policy going, we will say, for two years. If owing to increased prosperity the reserve value increases to £15, the period during which it will keep the policy in force may be increased to three years, and if the reserve value is increased to £20 tho period may be increased to four years. In a year like the present, when probably a large number of life policies will have to be paid owing to the war, the companies will make very little profit-, but that will in no way affect the guarantee as to the period during which the reserve value of a policy will keep it in force. We might allow the clause to pass in its present form, and later, if Senator Senior desires to recommit it, I shall offer no objection.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is acting wisely by adhering to the clause as it stands. It is a clause which guarantees that whatever a man’s life insurance policy may be worth shall be clearly stated upon it. We all recognise that the principle underlying all insurance is that everybody will not die on the same day. If the law of averages did not operate, our life insurance companies would go broke. If a big conflagration occurred in Melbourne similar to that which happened at Chicago, the fire insurance companies here would be summarily bankrupted*. Life insurance companies experience their spells of prosperity and adversity. The people who do business with them must have their interests safeguarded, and it seems to me that this clause will accomplish that end. In strict equity, the clause is more favorable to proponents than it is to insurance companies. For that reason I am inclined to support it, because the companies have every possible means of safeguarding their own interests. They base the premiums which they fix according to the constitution of the proponent. If he be a healthy, strong man, he has to pay only a light premium. On the other hand, if he be not of a robust constitution, he has to pay a heavy premium. We must recollect that insurance companies, like all other commercial concerns, are primarily out for profit.

Senator Guy:

– Nearly all insurance companies now are mutual companies.

Senator LYNCH:

– There are a number of proprietary companies as well. We need to zealously safeguard the interests of those persons who are doing business with proprietary concerns. We know that in the past some persons have been very harshly dealt with by these companies. In the circumstances we need to be specially careful to protect those who have reposed confidence in . insurance companies, and who will continue to do so. I appeal to Senator Senior to recall the position of a man who insures his life with a company in any of our capital cities, and afterwards drifts into the interior of the continent to follow a lonely occupation there. He naturally cherishes the belief that that company is bound to treat him equitably. This clause is intended to safeguard his interests. But Senator Senior apparently desires to put the company in a more favorable position. . I would remind him, however, that proponents are always confiding, whilst insurance companies are always watching. I ask him to reconsider his position, and if he does so he will recognise that the clause has been framed with a view to safeguarding the interests of those who have placed so much confidence in our different insurance companies.

Senator SENIOR, (South Australia) grip the idea which I have in my mind. I am merely desirous of obtaining something more than the irreducible minimum. In a subsequent clause provision is made that the policy of a man shall not lapse after it has been in force for two years, so long as it possesses a surrender value. But the clause under consideration provides that there must be a clear statement upon the policy of its surrender value. Now, it must be patent to all that if a company is obliged to prepare a table of values it will be careful to incur no risks. The proposal which I have foreshadowed is that when the payment of premiums has ceased, a policy-holder should be entitled to receive from the company with which he is insured a statement as to how long the payments he has already made will keep his policy in force. If any policy-holder survives beyond the average period of life his payments naturally increase the surrender value of his policy. We have all read of the cases cited by the Australian Mutual Provident Society, in which the accumulated bonuses represent more than the amount of the premiums paid. Those cases are the result of persons having outlived the average duration of life. Under this clause a policy cannot have indorsed upon it more than its average surrender value. But under my proposal there will be indorsed upon it its actual surrender value. So far from standing by the companies - as Senator Lynch has alleged - I am endeavouring to secure to policyholders the fullest measure of justice. I would suggest, therefore, that the VicePresident of the Executive Council should take time to reconsider this clause, with a view to accepting the amendment I have outlined, so that when the payments of a man’s premiums cease there shall be indorsed upon his policy the amount of its reserve value, and the period during which that value will keep it in force. I am quite aware that certain statistical tables which have been prepared in England are in use amongst insurance companies here. Anybody who has read the quinquennial reports of life assurance societies in Australia must have noticed that the expectations of mortality have not been realized. According to those tables, so many more persons ought to have died than have died.

Senator Guy:

– That is nearly always the case.

Senator SENIOR:

– That means that the policies in existence have a correspondingly greater reserve value. The full amount of the reserve value should be credited to the man who has paid his premiums.

Senator Guy:

– You would have to provide that they make these particular valuations.

Senator SENIOR:

– They are made in the books of tile insurance office, and the bonus varies according’ to the amount paid by the policy-holder. Every premium paid in by a man who goes beyond the average expectation of life is to the company an unexpected payment, and I want the man who has paid more to receive the benefits due to him.

Senator Guy:

– Will he not get that from the bonus addition ?

Senator SENIOR:

– In one sense, but the surrender value of a policy or bonus h? much less than its* face value. My proposal would benefit the policy-holder, and deserves sympathetic consideration.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– The honorable senator, for whose arguments on this Bill I. have great respect, admits that the Bill will be an improvement on existing conditions, and I admit that he can probably improve the clause itself. If, therefore, he wishes a later opportunity of amending it, I am willing to postpone it.

Clause postponed.

Clause 66 -

A policy-holder who desires to discontinue further premium payments on a policy which has been in force for two years or upwards shall, on application to the company, be entitled to receive a paid-up policy of such amount as would bo purchasable with the reserve vu lue of his policy at the due date of the next premium payable in respect thereof.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– A very large proportion of the profits made by companies - considerably more than is generally thought - is made up of payments on policies that have been surrendered or have lapsed, and this provision is a distinct improvement on the practices of the past, as it will give the policy-holder the full benefit of what he has paid in.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– We may to some extent congratulate ourselves on this provision, and I am glad the honorable senator has called attention to it. His speeches in Ilansard will show that he has not approached this measure in any cavilling spirit, or with any other desire than to make it even more beneficial than it is at present to the policy-holders and to the companies themselves. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable assistance he has given me in the consideration of the measure.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 67 -

In the event of any premium due on any policy remaining unpaid for a longer period than thirty days, the company may charge compound interest thereon at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed, and the policy shall not lapse until the premiums due and unpaid, together with the interest charged thereon, are equal to the reserve value of the policy. . . ‘. .

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– How will the rate of interest mentioned be prescribed ? I suppose it will vary as interest varies, because compound interest is to be charged.

Senator Keating:

– It will be prescribed by regulation. The word “prescribed “ has, under the Acts Interpretation Act, only one meaning throughout our legislation.

Senator Gardiner:

– Senator Keating’s interpretation is perfectly correct. The rate will be prescribed by regulations made in accordance with the Bill. The clause is of distinct advantage to policyholders, and will put all the companies on the same footing.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 68 -

Where the premiums have not been paid, but the policy has not lapsed, the company shall, during the second year after the cessation of the premium payments, give notice in writing to the insured ……… offering, if the insured so desires, to grant him a paid-up policy to an amount such as the reserve value,- less accumulated unpaid premiums at the commencement of the succeeding’ year of insurance, would purchase at the then age of the insured.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– This is an excellent provision, and marks a distinct advance in the consideration shown to those who are not the wealthiest in the land. By it, if the policy has a value sufficient to retain it in force after the holder wishes to cease paying on it, he can obtain a paid-up policy to the value which his payments would have purchased for him.

Senator Guthrie:

– Only the reserve value, not his payments.

Senator SENIOR:

– I am not objecting to it. I am simply pointing out that it is a marked advance on the practice which has obtained in the past, except in the case of a few companies. It will impose this better practice on all the companies, whether proprietary or mutual. It is, I think, one of the best provisions in the Bill.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- There is little doubt about the meaning of the clause. It does not say that the company shall grant a paid-up policy to the man, but that it shall offer to grant. It is possible that if it made an offer the terms of the offer might constitute a contract, but it does not say distinctly that the company shall grant a policy to the man.

Senator Keating:

– If an offer is accepted it will be a contract.

Senator GUY:

– I have known a somewhat similar term to be used in a measure, but after it had been put into operation it proved to be faulty. I remember a clause being framed to the effect that a person should be entitled to receive. That proved to be faulty because the clause did not enforce on the other party the obligation to pay.

Senator Senior:

– That clause is quite clear.

Clause, agreed to.

Clause 69-

A forfeiture of an industrial policy issued by any company, on which more than thirteen weeks’ premiums have been paid, shall not be incurred by any person insured thereunder by reason of any default in payment of any contribution or premium until after -

notice stating the amount due or payable at the date of the notice, and informing him that in default of payment by him within . a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice, and at a place specified in the notice, his policy will be forfeited, has been served upon him by or on behalf of the company, either personally or by being left at his usual or lastknown place of abode or business, or by being sent by post addressed to him by registered letter at his usual or last-known place of abode or business; and

default has been made by him in paying his contribution or premium in accordance with that notice, together with any additional contribution or premium which has become due or payable up to the date of payment.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– We are now dealing with an entirely different class of policies, that is, with industrial policies. In most cases the premium is paid weekly. It is a class of policy which, as the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, it is most costly to work. He pointed out that, according to English statistics, the advantages from this class of policy are not so great proportionately as the advantages from the other classes, because of the excessive cost of collection. I suppose that the service referred to in paragraph a of the clause would be at the holder’s last-known address, because the information he is to receive is supposed to be sent there. I wish to be quite clear on that point. ‘ Does the provision mean that, instead of the premium being collected on that occasion, the holder of the policy will have to go to the company’s office to pay it ? 1 wish to know whether, after the cessation of payment, the premium has to be paid at the office or whether it will be received by the collector in the usual way. I do not wish the conditions to be made more difficult for industrial insurers than for ordinary insurers. If we impose additional restrictions, it is just possible that the company may, in many cases, impose difficulties. Suppose, for instance, that a man who has been paying his premium weekly removes from Melbourne to a suburb, and that the company gets no notice of the removal, will he be required to pay in the city during the ordinary office hours? I want the Minister to look carefully through the clause, so as to safeguard the poorer class of insurers. Does he read it to mean that a man will be required to attend at the company’s office to pay the money, or where will it be payable?

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I think that we can pass the clause without putting in any safeguards. I cannot imagine a case in which a company would not want to take the money anywhere it could get it. One of the worst features of industrial insurance is that for every 20s. paid in only 6s. is employed for the real “benefit of the insurer. That is due to the smallness of the premiums, the frequency with which they are paid, and the number of, not only collectors, but clerks who have to be employed. This makes the cost of managing industrial insurance so great that, to my mind, any intelligent community will adopt a different system as soon as all the methods of insurance are covered by one Act of Parliament. In my opinion, the only successful system will be the institution of a huge Government scheme, which could be run as cheaply as the old-age pensions scheme is managed. Instead of two-thirds of the premium moneys being taken for defraying the cost of business management, we would have a provision under which nearly the whole of the money would be devoted to the purpose for which it was collected, and that is for the benefit of insurers, and not for the costly running of huge societies which compete with each other. In my view, we are within easy distance of the time when this kind of industrial business will, because of the growing intelligence of the community, have to be run oh rea.sonable lines, which will give a very much larger return than is obtained at present. No possible system of industrial assurance could give a much less return, because of the excessive cost of collection and management. A careful analysis of this class of business has shown that extraordinarily few persons continue their payments right through and gain the benefits which they had in view when they insured. I. thank Senator Senior for calling attention to the provision, which, in my own opinion, can be allowed to go as it is.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 -

A policy which remains in force at the expiration of three years from the date of its issue shall not be subject to forfeiture for any cause other than fraud or want of insurable interest, unless prior to the expiration of the three years the cause of forfeiture has. been notified in writing by the company to the policy-holder.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I suppose that, under this provision, no policy, not even a policy which has been in force for two years, will be subject to forfeiture for any cause other than fraud or want of insurable interest. I fail to see what advantage there can be in a clause which deals entirely with a policy of three years’ duration. The Minister will surely see that exactly the same conditions must apply to a two years’ policy, as to a three years’ policy. The latter will not be voidable except from lack of insurable interest. It means that a policy is to be held in suspense for three years. I understood that, under a previous clause, only twelve months was allowed to a company to make sure that a proposal had a just right to be accepted. But this clause hangs up a three years’ policy, and says that if a company can find a justifiable cause, it shall have an opportunity to void it. Why is the period fixed at three years any more than at two years, or at four years ? I submit that the provision we made with regard to a previous clause might apply here.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I am not aware that there is’ any special reason for fixing the term at three years. Honorable senators will remember that in an earlier clause we provided that if a society accepted the second year’s premium in respect of a life policy that acceptance bound the society to admit the age of the proponent. In the clause under discussion some period will have to be fixed, and I think three years is short enough. Let us consider what might happen. In the case of a fraudulent insurance, of course there could be forfeiture, but let us assume that after a policy-holder had taken out a policy something wrong had happened that, perhaps,. was not in the nature of a fraud. The company could then within the period of three years notify the holder of the forfeiture of the policy. A shorter period might be undesirable, because it might be necessary for. a society in the case of a policy suspected to be fraudulent, to go to the ends of the earth before it could get the actual facts which would justify the taking of the necessary steps to deal with a policyholder in accordance with this clause of the Bill. The proof might not be forthcoming within a shorter period than three years.

Senator Guthrie:

– A proponent might develop some trouble or disease.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes ; and I think three years is a reasonable time to fix in order to safeguard the interests of all concerned.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I admire the heroism with which the gentleman in charge of this Bill has been talking, presumably with his mind on the Bill and his eye on the clock.

But I would suggest that, instead of proceeding with this measure, which we all know there is no hope of passing before we adjourn for some weeks, the Chairman might leave the chair until such time as we receive from the other House the business for which we are waiting.

Senator Gardiner:

– There is a Bill from the other House here now.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then let us get on with it. It is useless in the circumstances to hammer at the Bill now before the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– There are some clauses iu the Bill now before the Committee which I want to amend. The measure came on rather unexpectedly tonight, and had I known at 10 o’clock that the business from the other House would not be here till nearly 12 o’clock, so far as I am concerned I would have done as the honorable senator suggests. I expect the other measure will be here in a little while.

Senator Millen:

– Then let us get on with the Bill that has been received from the other House. It is only a farce and a waste of time to talk about finishing the Insurance Bill now.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not happen to be the Minister in charge of the Bill referred to.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

.- To test the feeling of the Committee, I move -

That the word “ three “ where first occurring he left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “two.”

If a company has one year in which’ to determine the age of a proponent, surely two years i3 long enough to hold, in suspense a policy which may be voidable for other causes.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I wish to say, with regard to the amendment, the clause, and the Bill generally, that when the sitting was suspended it was anticipated that certain business was about to Tse received from another place. It was never expected then, that we should be asked to address ourselves to the consideration of this Bill. We are doing so now only to fill in time. This is a highly technical measure. I suppose that no member of the Comm’ittee professes sufficient knowledge of the subject to enable him to say what ought to be done with each particular clause. I have obtained a good deal of information) . to enable me to decide what course totake with regard to this and other clauses ; but I had no reason to suppose that theBill would come on for consideration tonight. It is not fair to honorable senators who, like myself, have taken an interest in the Bill, that it should be considered in these circumstances, and that we should be asked to approve or disapprove of this amendment. There could not be so much objection if it were important that the Bill should be finally dealt with before we adjourn to-morrow, but it is common knowledge that we are dealing with it now only to keep the Senate occupied until business is received from another place.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am prepared to report progress.

Progress reported.

page 6506

SUGAR PURCHASE ‘BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and read a first time.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is intended to give power to the Treasurer to borrow money from the Commonwealth Bank for the purchase of sugar, and to pay the Bank moneys received in respect of the sale of the sugar. The indebtedness of the Treasurer to the Bank must not exceed £500,000 at any time. Interest is to be payable at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. An account, called the Commonwealth Treasurer Sugar Account, is to be established in the books of the Bank. When the need for such account has ceased, it is to be closed, and the credit or debit, as the case may be, is to be adjusted by a payment to or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The object of the measure is to enable sugar to be purchased by the Commonwealth Government to meet an anticipated shortage at the close of the sugar season now being entered upon in Queensland. It relates solely to the purchase of sugar overseas, and does not deal with the refining or distribution of that sugar. That will be the subject of an agreement at a later stage. We cannot now anticipate the arrangements that will be made, but we have reached a sufficiently definite stage to enable us to say that we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements for the refining and distribution of the raw sugar imported and purchased under this Bill. When those arrangements have been made an agreement embodying them will be made with the necessary parties, whom I think honorable senators know, and that agreement will be laid on the table.” This Bill is necessary to empower the Government to enter into negotiations and purchase sugar to meet the shortage of the article expected in the Commonwealth early next year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

Sitting suspended from. 11.56 p.m. to 12 J/5 a.m. (Thursday).

page 6507

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

This measure makes a number of small amendments in the Public’ Service Act, which can better be explained when we reach the Committee stage. Its principal object is to safeguard the positions of those public servants who have volunteered for service with our Expeditionary Forces- r-to maintain their rights to leave, and other rights. The Government have not been filling the permanent positions vacated by these officers, and we think that our actions should be validated by legal enactment. This Bill will accomplish that, and those officers who have passed examinations and have gone to the front will thus have their rights safeguarded.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of section 3).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– The late Attorney-General, Sir William Irvine, held that an “ officer “ is a person who holds an office. But there are a large number of employees in the Commonwealth Service who do not hold offices. This clause extends the definition contained in the principal Act .so as to make it include employees or any classes of employees.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Amendment of section 9).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Section 9 of the principal Act provides that the Public Service Commissioner shall annually publish particulars relating to the length of service of officers - not merely their service under the Commonwealth, but also their service under a State if they are transferred officers: It is thus obligatory upon him to load his report with a lot of unnecessary material. Obviously this information is not required, and consequently it is proposed to omit it in the future.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section 2 thereof the words “ One hundred and ten pounds per annum,” and inserting in their stead the words “ One hundred and twenty-six pounds per annum.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Under the principal Act,, the minimum wage of adults in-the Commonwealth Service was originally fixed at £110 per annum, but in 1913, by an Order in Council, it was increased to £126. This clause will give statutory authority to what has been done by the Order in Council to which I have referred. Senator GRANT (New South Wales) [12.51 a.m.]. - It appears to me that a minimum wage of £126 per annum to adults in our Public Service is altogether too low. The present occasion affords a splendid opportunity of increasing the amount to £138 per annum. The addition will not represent a very great deal. Seeing that we have been prepared at very short notice to vote millions of pounds under another Bill, we surely ought not to object to sanctioning this small increase to our Public Service employees. I move -

That the words “twenty-six” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ thirty-eight.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I must ask the honorable senator not to press the amendment. I would point out to him that when a Bill of this character is under consideration it is scarcely the time to raise the question of a general increase of the minimum wage which has been adopted for some time. This measure does not represent the last word in the amendment of our Public Service Act. The Government are aware that there are many provisions in that Statute with which honorable senators are not satisfied, and . it is their intention at a later period to introduce a general amending Public Service Bill. If honorable senators will take the trouble to peruse the measure which is now before us, they will see that it is merely intended to validate action , that has already been taken, or that has been necessitated by the circumstances of the war. I can think of quite a dozen amendments which might be brought forward with perfect justice. But this is not the time to submit them.

Senator Mullan:

– A number of the proposals embodied in this Bill are not necessitated by the war.

Senator PEARCE:

– In the main, the measure deals with questions arising out of the war. As we had to bring it forward in that connexion we thought it wise to include in it one or two proposals for validating Orders in Council. I appeal to Senator Grant not to press his amendment.

Senator BLAKEY:
Victoria

– I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the advice which has been .tendered by the Minister, and I confess that 1 am rather disposed to favour the amendment submitted by Senator Grant. I am not wedded to any particular sum as a minimum wage, but I would point out that £138 per annum represents only about £2 10s. per week. Even admitting the necessity which exists for economy, it cannot be urged that that is an extravagant wage to pay to any adult who is working in a clerical capacity. The Minister of Defence stated that this is merely a validating measure. He told us that in 1U13 an Order in Council was passed, under which the minimum wage in our Public Service was increased from £110 to £126 per annum. But he must recognise that the cost of living to-day is much higher than it was two years ago. It has been laid down by Mr: Justice Higgins that linemen in our Postal Department shall receive £138 per annum. That is the amount of their remuneration, which was fixed by an award of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on the 29th April, 1914. As one who has had experience as a clerk, I say that clerks are just as worthy of receiving a fair remuneration as are the men who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. I hope that the Government will recognise that position. The Minister of Defence has told us that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with this question later on. But if the principle be a right one, why should we not give effect to it now ? If the Bill be permitted to pass in its present form the chances are that men in our Public Service who are not receiving a fair wage will never receive it. If Senator Grant presses his proposal to a division I shall be found supporting him. I know that many persons outside imagine that the officers engaged in the clerical branch of our Public Service are more or less “ curled darlings.” I admit that they have security of tenure, that their salaries aro paid regularly, and that they are employed by a good master. But I desire that they shall get a wage that is proportionate to the excessive cost of living to-day. I hope that the Government will recognise that £2 10s. per week is not too much to pay even to a simple humble clerk.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McDougall:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In my opinion the proposal of Senator Grant is out of order. Section 53 of our Constitution provides -

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

– Including our own ?

Senator GRANT:

– Including our own, undoubtedly. However, we have not arrived at that stage, but if it does come no doubt honorable senators will face the question in a proper way. I move -

That the words “ One hundred and twentysix per annum,” be left out.

I submit the amendment, not with the intention of causing any inconvenience to the Ministry, but merely to express my own opinion, and, I believe, the opinion of a considerable number of honorable senators, that the request from the association is a most modest and reasonable one, with which we can comply very easily. It is quite possible that, in the rush of business, this measure received only scant consideration in another place, and that the other House would be only too pleased to comply with a request from the Senate.

Senator GARDINER(New South Wales - Vice-President of the Executive

Council) [1.25 a.m.]. - I am surprised at the moderation of Senator Grant. I cannot support his amendment to create a blank. There is no question that we have constitutional power to reduce an amount, but not to increase it. What will happen if we reduce the amount, and it stops at that? The Bill will not come back to the Senate if the other House accepts the amendment, and the last case will be worse than the first. Let us deal with the matter in a reasonable way. There is no honorable senator who will say that we all have not the same desire in this direction. Why should a division be taken to create the opinion that there is a difference on this question amongst the members of the Labour party? If the amendment be made, the minimum rate will be left as it was before. The plain, straightforward course is to deal with the whole of these men in the way in which they should be dealt with, and not in a haphazard way, which will leave them in a worse position. I appeal to Senator Grant not to put myself and others in the position of seeming to be unwilling to do as much for one section of the Public Service as they wish to do. If, however, that is his desire, he can do it. It is a very easy and cheap way of scoring off one’s mate3, but it is a way to which I am not accustomed.

Senator Grant:

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable gentleman pleaded that if we struck out the words we would be reducing the amount, and he knows that we could not do that, because the Order in Council would remain. As regards the statement’ that if we pass the amendment we shall kill the Bill, I would remind the Committee that the fate of the measure will be determined in another place, and if it is to be laid aside the officers of the Public Service will be in no worse position than they are in this morning. We are trying to better their position, and this is the only means by which we can do it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Preference in appointments to members of Expeditionary Forces).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– This clause provides for preference being given in Government appointments to those persons who, having passed the necessary examination, have served in the Expeditionary Forces. It is in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister.

Clause agreed to.

– No; all that the Court does is to convict him of the offence.

Senator SENIOR:

– But in doing so it brings him under the operation of subsection 1 of section 66. If that is not the case, I am certainly in favour of a clause to amend section 66.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 -

Section 72 of the principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section 5 thereof all words from and including the words’ but in that case,” and inserting in their stead the words “ but in that case every such officer shall be granted an amount equal to a day’s salary if a full day’s attendance has been required, and a proportionate amount if less than a full day’s attendance has been required, but no payment or other compensation shall be granted for attendance during any holiday or half-holiday observed in pursuance of sub-section 3 of this section unless -
by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - “ (6) Any officer whoso services and attendance have, prior to the commencement of this sub-section, been required on any day observed as a holiday or half-holiday in pursuance of this section, and who has not been granted leave of absence in lieu thereof, shall, in respect of his attendance on such days as were observed as public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) throughout the State in which he was employed, be entitled to payment at the rate specified in the last preceding sub-section, the rate of salary of the officer for the purposes of that section being taken to be the rate of salary received by him at the time of his attendance; and upon such payment being made the officer shall cease to be entitled to any compensation in respect of his attendance on holidays or half-holidays observed in pursuance of this section prior to the commencement of this sub-section.”

Section proposed to be amended - The minister …. may require the attendance and services of any officer …. during any such holiday but in that case every such officer shall be granted in lieu thereof a holiday upon such other occasion as shall not interfere with public business.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– This clause has been found necessary in connexion with holidays provided for under section 72 of the existing Act. It lays down conditions with regard to payments for holidays. Any holiday in respect of which payment may be claimed must be a holiday throughout the State, and it must be given by direction of the Minister. The provision is made retrospective as regards officers who have not taken leave in lieu of holidays on which they have been required to work. This is in accordance with the representations of tha association representing the officials.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

That after the word “required,” line 7, the words “ with a minimum of three and a half hours “ be inserted.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– At a time like the present, when economy must be observed, I appeal to the Committee to say whether it is a fair thing that we should still further increase the privileges of public servants. We all know perfectly well what this clause really means. There are towns throughout the country where the mail coach arrives at a particular hour on a local holiday, and when it is necessary that the postal officer should be present for a brief period to receive the mail. He has probably been attending a racecourse, and is obliged to return to the post office. Every honorable senator knows that that is what usually happens on local holidays. Why, then, should we try to humbug ourselves with the belief that any hardship will be imposed upon these men? Although it may be “a holiday, somebody must be present to take the mail bag. Under the principal Act the officer would not be paid for his attendance on that day. But under this Bill he will be paid for t>~ time in which he is officially occupied. Because he is obliged to break away from a Sunday school picnic or a racecourse for an hour or so, Senator Mullan desires that he should be paid for three and a half hours!

Senator Mullan:

– Is it fair that he should be paid for only one hour?

Senator PEARCE:

– Surely it is notcontended that our public servants are unfairly treated. The rush to get into the Commonwealth Public Service is the best answer to any such suggestion. It is idle to go on extending the privileges of Commonwealth employees, especially at a time like the present. This country is faced with a position which will strain its financial resources to the utmost, and in these circumstances I ask Senator Mullan not to press his amendment.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– The Minister .appears to think that this amendment will apply only to a few country post offices. I wish to point out to him that it will apply to the whole Commonwealth service. In the case of our big telegraph offices it will mean that an operator may be ordered in at any hour upon a holiday, and after sacrificing his day, he may be employed and paid for only an hour of it.

Senator Pearce:

– If a man is ordered in for a day he will get a day’s pay.

Senator MULLAN:

– The Bill merely provides that if a man works a full day he shall receive a full day’s pay, whereas, if he works only portion of a day, he will receive payment for a proportionate period. I am sorry that I cannot comply with the Minister’s request to withdraw the amendment.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I desire to put before honorable senators a typical case in connexion with this clause. Let us suppose that the English mail is expected, and that lettersorters are called in to sort that mail on a Sunday night. They frequently reside 3 or 4 miles from the post-office. They may be called in at midnight, and their time may be occupied for only three hours. For that period they will be paid only 3s. They may have to walk 6 miles to and from their homes, and out of that amount they may have to payfor their supper. The provision will not apply exclusively to country post-offices.

Senator Pearce:

– I can assure the honorable senator that it has been introduced mainly for the purpose of dealing with country post-offices. I can site specific cases if necessary.

Senator SENIOR:

– But as the provision is a general and not a specific one, it will apply also to central post-offices.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Here are the cases which have been put forward by the Postal Department in connexion with this matter. The original section of the Act provides that a day or part of a day proclaimed by the State as a public holiday or bank holiday, or half-holiday, in any part of the State shall be observed in the Commonwealth offices, and that when a Department or any part is kept open in the public interest on a holiday the officers who attend are to be granted a holiday on some other occasion in lieu thereof. This obligation is found to be harassing by the Postmaster-General’s Department, especially in connexion with local holidays, which, in some places, are numerous. In the case of a postmaster who claimed twenty days in lieu of holidays worked during 1913 - holidays in addition to his annual leave - it was found that seven had been proclaimed for local - races, and others for local purposes. Other like cases are instanced. In these cases the officer has probably been called in for an hour to take delivery of the mail bag. Why, then, should he be paid for three and a half hours?

Amendment negatived.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I should like the Minister to give us an explanation of the full intention of paragraph c of this clause.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– It means that on the occasion of local holidays to which I have referred, if an officer is called in for an hour he will receive payment proportionate to the salary that he is paid, and will not be entitled to also claim time off. o

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– This paragraph, I take it, deals with holidays on which an Officer has worked prior to the period when it will become operative. Under its provisions it is proposed to pay all the arrears which are due. It provides -

Any officer whose services and attendance have, prior to the commencement of this subsection, been required on any day observed as a holiday or half-holiday, in pursuance of this section, and who has not been granted leave of absence in lieu thereof, shall, in respect of his attendance on such days as were observed as public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) throughout the State in which he was employed, be entitled to payment at the rate specified in the last preceding sub-section.

Senator Pearce:

– In the meantime he may have received an increase of salary and will consequently be entitled to payment at a proportionately increased rate.

Senator MULLAN:

– My point has reference to the words “public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) through-‘ out the State.” In Queensland the practice has been to observe what are called local holidays. A show may be held in a particular town on one day and in another town on a different day. Thus officers receive holidays at different times. The officers get holidays at different times, and they are not State, but local holidays proclaimed under the Act. If the clause is passed in its present form, no officer would get paid for the days in lieu due to him unless they were for holidays that were holidays throughout the State. Very few of these holidays are holidays throughout the State. They are generally local holidays. The practice in Queensland has been for the Department to grant a day in lieu of a day worked, if it was a holiday, whether it was a district holiday or a holiday throughout the State. These days have been accumulating, and have been credited to the officers, and, therefore, the clause in its present- form would mean repudiation. The officers are entitled to either payment or days in lieu. I move -

That after the word “ State,” paragraph c, the words “ or part of the State “ be inserted.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I cannot accept the amendment. Here is the case of a man who, in. addition to three, weeks’ leave, had, because he is living by some lucky chance in a district where they seem to have gone racing mad, twenty local holidays. He would be entitled, under the amendment, to twenty days in addition to his annual leave, whereas a man in another place, without any local holidays’, gets only his three weeks’ leave. That is not fair or equitable.

Senator Lynch:

– Did he do any work on those twenty days 1

Senator PEARCE:

– Apparently not, because he claims them as holidays, and claims days off in lieu. He is assumed to have turned up for work, and yet the probability is that the post-office was closed on those days. I do not know what the amount of- arrears is, but if that case is a sample the bill will be a pretty big one. We propose to put the officers on a better footing by providing that the holidays to which they shall be entitled shall be the holidays proclaimed throughout the State.

Senator Senior:

– How would you do with the Saturday half-holiday, which in

South Australia is proclaimed in the metropolitan area, and not ‘outside ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Saturday half-holiday is now generally proclaimed, but I do not think that it is what is defined as a public holiday. We propose to put an end to what has been going on, and should not be asked to go back and recognise all these local holidays.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– It would be grossly unfair for the Minister not to accept the amendment, because the clause, as it stands, will practically amount to repudiation. The Government, by their own Acts and regulations, have provided that a man was entitled to a day in lieu of a holiday on which he worked. That day was put down to his credit. The Government now propose to pay them for those days, but why draw a distinction between a local holiday and a public holiday, seeing that both kinds have been credited to officers as days in lieu due to them ? It is more economical for the Minister to pay for those days than to give them days in lieu off. If seven days in lieu are due to a man it is probably necessary to send a relieving officer to let him off. That must cost the Department something, but under this arrangement he will get only his ordinary pay, so that the Department, instead of losing, will save in the main and in the long run. The Department entered into a contract with the public servants to give them days in lieu of holidays worked, but now propose an arbitrary arrangement, wiping out with one stroke of the pen the rights of the men to those accumulated davs. In Queensland, through no fault of the men, the days in lieu have amounted to a very considerable number, and, owing to the exigencies of the service and of the Treasury, the officers have not been able to get their leave. It has accumulated to their credit. It is most unfair for the Minister to undertake to pay for only part of this time.

Senator Millen:

– Would the Public Service rather have the law as it is or the proposal in the Bill?

Senator MULLAN:

– The proposal in the Bill is much better than the present practice ; but if the accumulated days are not paid for an injustice will be done. The service want no more of the humbugging of days in lieu, and I am asking that thev shall be paid for the accumulated leave. To show how acute the position was in Queensland, a deputation from the Post and Telegraph Department waited on the Postmaster-General when he was in Brisbane recently, and told him that up to May, 1914, the days in lieu had accumulated to 17,000 odd. There was a totally inadequate relieving staff, and I am told that the position has become even more acute since. More than half these days will be for local holidays, and the Bill, as it stands, will rob the men of half of their rights. While the clause is a distinct improvement, it will be far from just unless the claims of the men who have accumulated days in lieu are recognised.

Clause 13 -

Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act or the regulations thereunder, any person who, having successfully passed any prescribed examination to which this section applies, was., on the 4th day of August, 1014, eligible for appointment to the Public Service, shall continue. to be so eligible until nine months after the termination of the present state of war.
This section applies to any examination for admission to the Public Service for which the maximum agc fixed for candidates at the date of examination exceeds sixteen years.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

.- The object of this clause is to extend the term of eligibility for appointment of any person who has passed a prescribed examination. During the months preceding the war some persons passed such examinations, but no opportunity arrived for their appointment. When the war broke out they enlisted and went to the front. We want to preserve’ their right to receive an appointment when they come back. In the other House the words “is at the commencement of this Act” were struck out, and the words, “ was on the 4th August, 1914,” were inserted. That amendment was hurriedly made, and really destroys the intention or the clause. I move -

That the words, “ was on the 4th day of August, 1014,” bo left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ is at the commencement of this Act.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6520

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

No principle is involved in the measure,, which merely transfers the control of wireless telegraphy from the Department of the Postmaster-General to the Minister for the time being administering the Act. The second clause of the Bill puts thecase quite as clearly as I could. It states -

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 are amended by omitting the words “ the Postmaster-General,” and inserting in their stead the words “the Minister for the time being administering the Act.”

All wireless telegraphy business will be conducted, during the period of the war, in the office of the Minister for the Navy instead of, as at present, in the office of the Postmaster-General.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I did hope that we would receive some further information concerning the object of the Bill from the Minister than was given. I can understand that there are very many grave reasons why, particularly at a time like the present, the Navy Department should have control of wireless telegraphy ; but we can easily imagine a different set of circumstances being created in the near future, when, as I hope, we will have wireless telegraph stations in various inland towns of the Commonwealth, set up in conjunction with the ordinary postal services1. This will mean dual control, because the Postal Department will control the postal branch, and the Navy Department will be responsible for the wireless branch. In time, this will probably lead to friction. Of course, we have not reached that stage yet, and, therefore, the difficulty is only in the dim and distant future. Nevertheless it will probably arise, and no doubt the Minister had in mind the fact that this is only a temporary expedient.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– There is a double difficulty in this matter. A great deal of friction no doubt would exist with the Navy Office controlling its naval stations ind the postal authorities controlling the inland stations. The records of the Department show that serious complaints of interference have been made from time to time by the Navy people against the Postal Department, and vice versa. In order’ to get away from that difficulty.it is proposed to place wireless telegraphy under the control of the Navy Department in war time. So far as public services are concerned that is probably the best thing to do in such circumstances. But war is not’ a normal condition of affairs, and when we return to peaceful conditions again we will probably find that there will be a considerable volume of commercial business passing through the wireless stations to the shipping, and I am not prepared to believe that the business of the public will be more satisfactorily attended to by officials of the Navy Department than by postal officials. Whatever may be said of postal officials, I think they consider that they exist for the benefit of the public. I have never found officials of a Navy Department to take that view. With them the public interests are subordinated to the interests of their Department, as they ought to be when the Department is engaged upon a warlike enterprise. When they aTe called upon to deal with commercial business I anticipate a considerable amount of trouble. However, we are “ between the devil and the deep sea.” We have to continue the present conflict between the two Departments or run the risk of the danger to which I have referred. I offer no objection to the Bill, because I assume that it does meet the difficulties that exist to-day, and later on, when peace is declared, and the other difficulty which I anticipate presents itself, we shall, as practical men, have to devise a remedy to meet it. I view with some apprehension the possibility of the Navy Department being called upon to handle commercial business on commercial lines.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I do not wish to enter upon speculations as to what may happen under this Bill when normal times of peace come round again. I agree with the view expressed that the use of wireless as a means of communication throughout this continent will be largely exten- ded. I venture to enter the realms of prophecy and say that we may anticipate a very material development of this means of communication in the course of the next few years. I do not expect that any trouble will arise from the change proposed by this Bill. The Navy Department, as one of the Departments responsible for the conduct of the war, should have control of wireless communication while the war lasts.

Senator Millen:

– It passes automatically under the control of the Navy Department in time of war.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 are amended by omitting the words “ the Postmaster-General,” and inserting in their stead the words “ the Minister for the time being administering the Act.”

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The explanation of the Bill given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council has made this Bill fairly clear but I have risen to express a hope that in future when a Bill similarly framed and proposing the amendment of an existing Act is introduced honorable senators will have placed before them at the same time the sections of the Act proposed to be amended, in order that they may be enabled to see clearly the effect of the amendments upon the original text.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 3.5 to 3.45 a.m. (Thursday).

page 6522

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I need hardly remind honorable senators of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.

Senator Millen:

– I would like to interpose at this stage and ask if it is not possible for members to obtain copies of’ the Bill. Now that it has been introduced honorable senators should receive copies before being asked to proceed with its discussion. They cannot discuss a Bill that is not before the House.

An Honorable Senator. - Copies are being distributed now.

Senator Millen:

– The copies that are being distributed are not copies of the Bill before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like to point out to Senator Millen that the Senate has just deliberately suspended the Standing Orders so as to allow this Bill to pass through all its. remaining stages without delay. Therefore I” have no authority in this matter. At the same time, if I were asked for my opinion I should say that before honorable senators proceeded with the discussion they should be supplied with copies of the Bill, ‘and I would suggest to the Leader of the Senate that he should request me to further postpone this sitting until copies are “available.

Senator Pearce:

– May I point out that on the second-reading debate senators will be asked to discuss only the general principles of the measure. The copies of the Bill, with the amendments, that have been circulated, contain the general principles of the measure, and the Government has no intention of asking the Senate to commence its discussion in Committee until a complete print of the Bill, as amended in the House of Representatives, is avail able. I think the copies circulated contain sufficient information for the secondreading debate, and under the circumstances I ask the Senate to allow it to continue.

Senator Millen:

– This is making a farce of the whole proceedings.

Senator Keating:

– The Bill might just as well be circulated in a foreign language as in the state we have got it.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Prior to the interruption I was about to deal with the general principles of the Bill, which are as well known to honorable senators as is the general condition of finance in Australia that has rendered a measure of this sort necessary. I think it is generally recognised that the responsibilities cast upon the Government and people of Australia are not of their own seeking, and undoubtedly they call for more revenue. I need hardly review the causes that have led up to our requiring more money. The war, although not altogether responsible, is to a very large extent responsible for this state of affairs, but the natural development that has taken place in all parts of the Commonwealth has also rendered more revenue necessary. Governments, prior to the present Government; have lived outside their revenue - a clear indication that taxation within the Commonwealth was not sufficient to defray the cost of the ordinary services of the country, and to permit of a reasonable expenditure upon our public works without resorting to borrowing. With the additional burden that has been thrown upon us as the result of the war, and with the necessity which confronts us of meeting the interest charges upon, money that we are compelled to borrow, further taxation is inevitable. After giving the matter the fullest consideration, the Government have determined to adopt this particular form of taxation. We do not regard the Bill as one for the imposition of special war taxation, because, undoubtedly, other expenditure will have to be met out of the revenue which will be collected under it. But when we are considering methods of taxation, certain factors have to be borne in mind. In the first place, we require to ask ourselves “ Is this form of taxation necessary?”; secondly, -“ Is the measure which authorizes it just or iniquitous? “; and lastly, “ Is it a measure which is calculated to injure any of our industries, or to prevent their development?”

– I apologize if I have unwittingly transgressed the Standing Orders, but honorable senators cannot shut their eyes to the consequences of the course taken to-night. As I have” already said, I consider that we are reducing our proceedings to a farce; and, having made a protest, I decline to participate in these proceedings any further.

Debate (on motion of Senator Barnes) adjourned.

page 6527

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 10.30 a.m. to-day.

page 6527

ADJOURNMENT

Income Tax Assessment Bill - Conduct of Business

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I understood that it was the desire of the Parliament generally that an attempt should be made to adjourn the present sittings this evening, and, with that end in view, it was necessary that certain measures should be passed. Unfortunately, there is always a rush of business when an attempt is made to close the session, or, as in this case, to have a long adjournment, and messages do not come in their usual orderly manner, but pass rather hurriedly from one House to the other. That has happened to-night, and, owing to circumstances that are well known to honorable senators, it could not be avoided, if an attempt was to be made to bring the sittings temporarily to a close to-night. During yesterday the Government tried to get members of the Opposition to agree to clos9 the business to-day, and I understood that the Opposition had agreed to facilitate the passage of this Bill through both Houses. However, Senator Millen has now taken strong exception to any attempt being made to push this Bill through.

Senator Millen:

– No - to proceed without the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator takes that attitude on the ground that he has not been able to get a clean print of the measure. I wish to point out, however, that the honorable senator had my assurance that, before the Bill was taken into Committee, it would be in the possession of the Chamber.- Everybody knows the main principles of the Bill, and yet the honorable senator has taken exception to the proceedings of the

Government, and the adjournment of the debate has been carried. I have no right to complain, because the Senate is the master of its own procedure; but the course taken by Ministers was only designed to secure the contemplated adjournment. Ministers have done their best to meet the convenience of honorable senators; but we are not the masters of the situation, seeing that there is another House over which we have no control.

Senator Bakhap:

– The other House would not dream of putting this Bill through in one sitting !

Senator PEARCE:

– The Senate was not asked to do so, and, therefore, the interjection of the honorable senator is an exaggeration. An assurance was given by me that honorable senators would not be asked to take the Bill beyond the second reading. Honorable senators who are not inexperienced in these matters, but who know the difficulties that have to be met, might, under the circumstances, have shown some little consideration to Ministers. I refer particularly to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, which I take to mean that he does not intend in any way to assist the Government to carry out any arrangement to bring about an” adjournment to-day.

Senator Millen:

– I did not use the word “ arrangement” at all.

Senator PEARCE:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.54 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 September 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150901_senate_6_78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 1 September 1915

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Senator READY:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

K A LGO ORLIE -PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

PANAMA EXPOSITION

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator GARDINER:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Needham:

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2), 1915-16

Senator BAKHAP:Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator de Largie:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator de Largie:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Barnes:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Mullan:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Ready:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Ready:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Senior:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Pearce:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator McDOUGALL:N”ew South Wales

Senator Findley:

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator Senior:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Senior:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Senior:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator Keating:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senate
1 September 1915

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McDOUGALL:
N”ew South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria