8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 2899
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) announced the receipt of communications from Senators Henderson and Newland tendering their resignations as members of the Public “Works Committee.
page 2899
Commissions to Instructional Staff, Citizen Forces - Increased Pay to Permanent Forces
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answer is- 1 and 2. Members of the instructionalstaff who attained commissioned rank while serving in the Australian Imperial Force are being granted commissions on the unattached list of the Citizen Forces or in the Permanent Forces as the case may be. This privilege is notbeing accorded to members of the instructional stall who did not proceed on active service.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answer is- 1 and 2. As the reports of military commandants are furnished for the information of the Minister, and to enable him to arrive at a decision, it is not considered advisable to make such reports public. The honorable senator can be assured that all reports and recommendations of commandantswill be given full consideration in connexion with the preparation of the Estimates.
page 2900
asked the Ministerrepresenting theMinister for Trade andCustoms, upon notice-
– The answers are-
Since the 1st March, 1917, there has been a censorship of all imported picture films and all imported advertisingmatter(i.e., posters, slides, photographs, publicity sheets;&c.) relative to the films. The Commonwealth has no power to censor locally-produced films’, ‘which number about fifteen only per- annum, or local advertising matter such asshow bills, or newspaper advertisements. 2. (a) Professor A. T. Strong, M.A., Litt.D., Chief Censor; Mr. Joseph Brown and Mr., F. H. Pay,. B.E., Sydney Censors.
page 2900
Issue of Butchers’ Licences
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
Has an Ordinance yet been gazetted enabling the Minister to issue butchers licences in the Federal Territory?
– An Ordinance has been prepared andwillbe submitted for Executive approval shortly after which it will be immediately gazetted.
page 2900
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a Billfor an Act to amend the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1918.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Motion (by SenatorPearce) proposed -
That standing order 192 be suspended so as to enable the second reading of the Bill to be moved forthwith.
Senator GARDINER (New South againstthis method of procedure. The Senate has not met for someweeks, and now theMinis tgr forDefense. (Senator Pearce), after being allowed ‘without objection tocarry thefirst reading of, this Bill, proposes the suspension of a standing order to enable him to move . the second reading. No honorablesenatoris at present in a position to gauge the importanceof this measure, and I think it should be in the hands of honorable senators sufficiently long to enable them to know what its provisions are;so that they may follow thespeechof the Minister inmoving the second leading. I enter my protest against the suspension of the standing order. It may be the idea of somehonorable senators that to get business done quickly is to get it done well, but that isnot myidea.
.-I shouldlike to allayany alarm which mightbe created by the remarks of SenatorGardiner. The motion for the suspension of the standing order has been moved toenable the very thing tobe done which the honorable senator thinks ought to be done. It is proposed to so far suspend the Standing Orders as ‘ to enable the Minister for Defence to make his second-reading speech, and thus explain the provisions of the Bill. After he has done so, I have no doubt that he will agree to any reasonable adjournment of the debate that honorablesenators may desire to enable themtostudy the provisions of the Bill, and, ifthey thinkfit, the speech whichthe Minister willmakein moving the second reading.
ThePRESIDENT (Senator theHon.
T.Givens).-There mustbe a division. The suspension ofastanding order mustbecarriedby anabsolute majority of the wholeSenate; and, in orderto ascertain that anabsolutemajorityisin favour of the motion, I directthebells to be rung, and a division taken
The bells having been rung
– There being only one honorable senator voting in the nega tive, it is unnecessary to have a count taken of the division; and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate voting for the “Ayes,” I declare the motion carried.
page 2901
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the settlement of matters arising out of employment in the Public Service.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That standing order 192 be suspended so as to enable the second reading of the Bill to be moved forthwith.
– Again I rise to voice my protest against this method of doing business.The Minister, without assigning any reason, has moved for the suspension of a standing order, secure no doubt in the knowledge that whatever course is taken, he will have behind him the majority of his servile following.
– Order !
– If you regard that remark . as out of order, Mr. President) I shall withdraw it and apologize. But may I say a “ pliant “ following?
– Why not say a “ common-sense “ following ?
– Very well. I shall adopt the Minister’s suggestion. The Minister apparently, thinks that.no matter what course he takes, he may do so without explanation, because he feels secure in his “ common-sense” following. Our Standing Orders were drafted by a Committee of the Senate for the purpose of conducting the business of this Chamber in a regular manner, but the Minister for Defence, with the “ common-sense “ following, again adopting Senator E. D. Millen’s suggestion, simply moves for the suspension’ of a standing order without offering any explanation. I protest against this course. If we cannot get through our business without suspending Standing Orders it would be much better if we altered them. Or why have Standing Orders at all, if, without reason, they may be suspended at the will of a Minister? It is of no use for honorable senators to say that we all know what is in the Bill. We do not. The Bill, for all I know to the contrary, may have a very important bearing upon the Public Service, and it should take the ordinary course of being placed on honorable senators’ files, after thefirst reading, so that we may become acquainted with it, and, perhaps, suggest improvements or point out defects; and, moreover, those in the Public Service and most concerned in it would then have an opportunity of ascertaining what its provisions mean. If we suspend standing order 192 andallowthe Minister to deliver his second-reading speech he might then graciously agree not to proceed with the Bill until, perhaps, to-morrow morning, when it might go right through. -The Standing Orders governing our procedure reflect the wisdom of centuries of parliamentary practice. They describe the method by which any Bill should be taken. This hurry is particularly obnoxious, because if persisted in, no honorable senator will have an opportunity of studying a measure before it is passed. Our Standing Orders provide for the various stages of a Bill. There are the first reading, second reading, and the Committee, report, and third reading stages, which experience has shown are essential where bodies of men are called upon to deal with measures affecting the public welfare. This Bill might, of course, be a very unimportant one. On the other hand, it might be all-important, and these safeguards concerning the different stages of the measure should not be set aside at the will of a Minister, backed by a “ common-sense “ majority, prepared to vote Yes or No at the dictation of their leaders. If this measure is urgent, why have we been absent during the last three weeks. As a matter of fact, it will not surprise me if, in the course of a week or two, we are again released from work, and so I protest against this attempt to hurry Bills through without adequate discussion, because, possibly, of a desire to get away. Personally; I have no wish to remain here, particularly while the Parliamentis sitting in Melbourne, which, from a health point of view, is a most objectionable place.
– We shall not object if you stay away.
– If the Government are going to conduct business in this manner perhaps the beat thing I can do is to apply for extended leave of absence on urgent private business.
– You can have it at once if you like.
– If I thought the majority of the senators would carry a motion to that effect, I might be inclined to accept the suggestion.
– Very well. Test the opinion of the Senate on it.
– This Parliament is fresh from the people, and possibly the Ministers in charge of business in the Senate feel that the people approve of this method of conducting public business here. If that be so, why should I hamper Ministers by attempting to delay the Senate, even for a few minutes, to object to the suspension of a standing order ? I can quite realize, of course, bow much it would add to the harmony of the thirty-five representatives in this Chamber if I allowed business to proceed without delay, and if the business is to be conducted in this way I may, perhaps, take other steps ,to relieve honorable senators of my obnoxious presence.
– Before a vote is taken, I desire to ascertain whether the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who is in charge of the Public Service Bills, intends laying on the table of the Senate the report of Mr. McLachlan on the Public Service, as it has an important bearing on these two measures ? I am not opposing the suspension of the standing order to enable the second readings to be proceeded with, but Mr. McLachlan’s report should be before us.
– I shall deal first with the point raised by Senator Thomas. I am under the. impression that a question was submitted to me a few weeks ago as to whether Mr. McLachlan’s report would be made available to honorable senators. At that time I said that it would be presented when the Senate was called upon to deal with legislation affecting the Public Service
– This is it.
– Yes. There has been an omission - possibly my own - because the report is not here to-day; but I shall see that it is submitted to honorable senators before they are asked to discuss the Bill beyond the second-reading stage.
– That is hardly fair.
– I do not know why the honorable senator should say that it is hardly fair, when I have already stated that there has been an omission - possibly my own - in not having brought the report down as promised. I am prepared to submit it to honorable senators at the earliest possible moment, and if it is thought there is anything unfair in that I beg to differ. The report will be made available to the Senate as early as possible - perhaps before we rise.
– That is another question.
– I shall have it brought forward without delay.
– One would judge from the statement of the Minister for Repatriation that the discussion on these measures may be adjourned for a fortnight, and the report might not be’ made available until that period has expired.
– D. MILLEN.- I shall submit the report as soon as I physically can. It may be to-day or to-morrow.
I rose, not so much with the intention of dealing with Senator Gardiner’s remarks, but to apologize to the Senate for taking up further time in discussing the motion. I would not be concerned with anything Senator Gardiner has stated if he was speaking only to the Senate; but he is speaking as part of a studied propaganda which will enable him to go outside, and say that the Government is revelling in the strength of its position, discarding the Standing Orders, and carrying on business in a scandalous fashion.
– I mean that to go outside.
– Of course the honorable senator does. It is merely outside propaganda. It is not very long ago that Senator Gardiner himself informed us that the Senate was greater than its Standing Orders when he wished them to be suspended for his convenience. The Senate is greater than the Standing Orders; but let us see if we are doing anything detrimental to the interests of the people. If the Senate declined to allow the Minister for Defence to explain the Bills it would mean that we would have to adjourn after a short sitting until to-morrow, when the second readings would be moved. Such a procedure would not inconvenience the Minister in charge of the measures as much as it would the Senate generally, and by adopting the procedure suggested we are expediting business. Senator Gardiner suggested that reasons should be submitted for the action we are taking; but I stated in the Senate yesterday that it was the intention of the Government to act in this manner to enable the second-reading speeches to be delivered on two measures, and then to ask for a reasonable adjournment so that honorable senators would be in a position to study the Minister’s explanations. That is a business-like way of proceeding. Does Senator Gardiner suggest that we should be continally in session and adhere closely to the conditions which the Standing Orders prescribe? Is he prepared to be present on every occasion if it means a meeting of only ten minutes? If that is the honorable senator’s suggestion, I am prepared to accept his sincerity on its face value.
– If the Minister for Repatriation will peruse the record of attendance he will see that I am rarely absent.
– I am fully conscious that the honorable senator has been here more often than I appreciate. He stated that the first reading was moved without a word’ of explanation, and I am surprised that such an old parliamentarian should expect a discussion on the first reading, which, under our Standing Orders, is merely a formal motion. The proper opportunity of explaining the provisions of a Bill is on the second-reading stage, and the Minister in charge of these measures is only asking the Senate, to allow the Bills to reach that stage today rather than to-morrow. That is a business-like course to adopt, and one which will commend itself to honorable senators.
– As one who has on several occasions voted against the suspension of the Standing Orders, I desire to deal with one or two phases of the question raised by Senator Gardiner. There are times when the suspension of- the Standing Orders is purely a matter of common sense - anti-red tape - and this in an occasion when I believe it will be entirely for the benefit of honorable senators if the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) is permitted to deliver his second-reading speech. There are, however, occasions -when the suspension of the Standing Orders is not in the interests of the Senate, such an occasion, for instance, as when there is a rush of business towards the end of a session and when the consideration of Bills has been delayed owing to protracted debate in another place. Under such circumstances, we have been called upon to discuss measures of great importance without having had an opportunity of fully understanding what is involved. Under such circumstances - speaking generally - I am likely to oppose the suspension of the Standing Orders; especially when moved at the end of a long and protracted sitting when honorable senators are wearied. I trust that the Government will remember that there will be some opposition to the suspension of the Standing Orders under such conditions. I believe that honorable senators generally will sympathize with the Government when confronted with unforeseen difficulties which are not of their own creation. We are entitled to review and discuss legislation passed in another place in a proper manner, and, in a sense of fairness, the Government should allow this Chamber reasonable time to consider what we have before us. I believe the motion we are now discussing has been moved for the convenience of honorable senators, and, not being a servile but a common-sense supporter of the Government, I support it.
– In this instance also a division must be taken..
The bells having been rung,
– As there is only one honorable senator on the “ No” side, whilst there is more than a statutory majority on the “Aye” side, I declare the motion carried.
page 2903
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Quarantine Act 1908-1915.
Bill presented, and read. a first time.
page 2904
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-
ThatleavebegiventointroduceaBillfor anAct to amend section 20 of the Papua Act 1905.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
page 2904
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Census and Statistics Act 1905.
Bill presented, and read a first time. customsbill.
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901-1916.
page 2904
Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -
That Senators Duncan, Elliott, Gardiner, and Lynch be appointed to fill the vacancies now existing on the Standing Orders Committee. librarycommittee.
Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to-
That Senators Benny, de Largie, and Gardiner,.be appointed to fill the vacancies now existing on theLibrary Committee. housecommittee
Motion(by SenatorE. D. Millen) agreed to -
That Senators Thomas, J.F. Guthrie,and Wilsonbe. appointed to. fill the vacancies now existing on the House Committee.
page 2904
Motion.(by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -
That Senators Adamson, J. D. Millen, New land, and Coxbe appointed to fill the vacancies now existing on the. Printing Committee. papers.
The following papers were presented: -
Northern Territory Administration. - Copy ofletterfromcounsel, for Mr: H. B. Carey.Dr. J. A.Gilruth, and Mr. Justice Bevan,regarding the Report of Mr. Justice Ewing, Royal Commissioner.
Northern Territory. - Ordinance No. 4. of 1920. - Dog (in substitution of the Paper laid on the table on the 1st July, 1920).
Papua. - Ordinance No. 2 of 1920 German property.
page 2904
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
It amends the CommonwealthPublic Service’ Act of 1902-1918. . The two Bills that I am moving to-day are, in a sense, complementaryoneof the other. .
– Is it in order for the Bill to be discussed before printed copies of it - have been’ circulated amongst honorable senators ? I havebeen’ given a confidential copy, thanks to the courtesy of the Minister and the. Government Whip, and, therefore am not complaining for myself; but I want the Standing Orders to be observed.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.
Before the second readingof a Bill can be moved on the day of its introduction, it is necessary to suspend the Standing Orders ( Hansard, page , 1370, of 1909 ) ; and such suspension entitles thesenator in’ charge of the Bill to proceed without bringing forward a printedcopy of the Bill(Hansard, page 1371, of 1909).
– I am glad to know that in a few moments the little error complainedof, will. Have been rectified,. Copies of the Bill should have been here, and I had a definite promise that theywould be here at 3 o’clock. I am sorrythattheywere, not available at that time, for I specially asked that . they should, be here, so that honorable senators should have copies when I was moving the second reading. Therehasbeen no general amendment of the Public Service laws of the Common wealth for” many “ years, although there have been some temporary amendmentsto get over temporary difficulties. Itis obvious’ that, with” the lapse of years, and the change, that has been taking place in publicaffairs, our Public Service laws need overhauling, and the Government propose during thissession to bring forward various Bills whichwill effect acomplete revision ‘of the whole of the. legislation dealing with the Public Service. These twoBills - the one of which. Iam moving the second reading now, and the other, which is to follow - are, only part of the plan of. the Government to deal with the Public Service. They will be followed by a Bill dealing generally with the conditionsof the Service, and. also by a supplementary Bill dealing with the question of superannuation.
– Will they be consolidated afterwards?
– Yes, all our Acts are subsequently printed as consolidated Acts. The Bill Iamnow presenting is perhaps one of the most important of the four, because it constitutes a striking; and important change in the management and control of the Public Service. Under the Public Service Act of 1902-1918, the Service was placed under the control of a Commissioner, who had six inspectors, one in each State.. This Bill proposes to replace the Commissioner with a Board of Management; but it proposes, also, to give to that Board much more extended powers than have been possessed by. the Commissers. The very term applied to the Board indicates . that it will have something more to do than merely to deal with the questions of appointments, promotions, transfers, and classification. It, willbefoundon a survey of this Bill that it creates, as the term implies, a real Board of Management of the Public ServicedTheBoard will consist of a chairman and two, members. One of the members will be appointed for five years, one for four years, and one for three years, and the subsequent’ appointments will be foraterm term. not. exceeding.five years. ; The object’ of that variation ; in the terms of. the. appointments is to secure continuity of policy in the management: of the Public ; Servicebyinsuring that all three of the members of the Boardshallnot retire at any one time. The members of the Boardwill, . ofcourse,be eligible for reappointment; but. if they all retired at the one time and three new appointmentswere made,there mighteasily be a breakinthe continuity, of the policy.
The appointments will be made by the Governor-General. The members of the Board can, be removed from office only by a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In case of misbehaviour or incapacity, theycanbe suspended by the Governor-General; but that suspension must be reported to Parliament within a set period, and will not become effective unless Parliament, by a joint resolution, indorses it.
In orderto show the extended powers that are given to theBoard, I shall quote and direct attention to clause 11. It must be’ remembered, first of all, that theBill incorporates in the Board all the powers that are given to the. Commissioner by the existing Act, and then proceeds to give to it these additional powers, and duties -
improved organization and procedure ;
In relation to all the matters preceding, except paragraph b, it is provided that the Board shall, in the first place, make its recommendation, report, or suggestion to the permanent head of the Department ; that if the permanent head does not approve of, or adopt, the recommendation, report, or suggestion, he shall inform the Board, and the Board may thereupon make the recommendation to the Minister administering the Department. If the Minister does not see fit to approve of it, the Board may report to Parliament. A study of the duties set out in the clause which I have quoted will show that the powers of the Board are immensely beyond those conceded to the Commissioner.
This system of management for the Public Service was recommended by the Economies Commission after a very thorough and exhaustive examination of the Commonwealth Departments. I propose to quote some of the findings’ of that Commission, as set out on page 85 of their report on the business management of Federal Government Departments. They say -
Further on I find the following: -
Then they say -
It will be admitted from these criticisms of the Economies Commission that the members did not approach the Public Departments in anyhostile fashion. They have recognised the good and efficient service that was in many cases being given. If was rather with the system than with those who were carrying it out that they found fault.
When honorable senators come to consider the matter they will see that it is rather an anomaly that Parliament should’ set u,p an Auditor-General to see whether vouchers are presented representing actual money paid and accounted for whilst it has no means of assuring itself that for the money expended good value was received. The proposed Board of Management will be in a position, under this Bill, to see, not only that money expended is properly accounted for, but that for the money spent good value is being received. Under this proposal the audit will take place, not after tlie money has been spent, but before it is spent, or while it is being expended. The clause of the Bill from which I have quoted shows that the Board of Management may be asked to report upon contracts and methods of supply, or that a particular contract for supplies may be referred to them for report. I say. as a Minister of some experience, that it will be of immense advantage to a Minister, especially in dealing with large contracts for buildings, to have, in addition to the departmental o’fficers, no matter how efficient and well qualified they may be, another body of capable and qualified men to give a second judgment upon any particular proposal. No Minister of the Crown, however industrious he may be, can find time to personally make a detailed examination of all contracts for supplies. It is necessary that he . should have a thoroughly independent judgment upon such contracts apart from: the recommendations submitted to him by his departmental officers.
– Very often the Minister may have no technical knowledge to enable him to deal with such a matter.
– That is so. He may have to rely upon the technical advice of others, and it would be of immense advantage to a Minister to be in a position to obtain the opinion of the proposed Board of Management upon such matters.
Senator Rowell has raised the objection that this may lead to centralization. I cannot see that the appointment of a Board’ of Management will lead to centralization any more than the appointment of an Auditor-General does. We must centralize the responsibility, but it is obvious that, as the public audit is carried out in the various States now by officers working under the AuditorGeneral, so inspection and a considerable amount of the work of the Board of Management will have to be carried out in the various States by officers responsible to the Board. But there is nothing to prevent members of the Board visiting the different States, especially in connexion with any matters specially referred to them for report. I can speak as a Minister who has had some experience of a Board of this charac- “ ter, because during the war a Business Board in connexion with the Defence Administration was set up, which proved to be of great value to the Department. Although the head-quarters of that Board were in Melbourne, the members of it continually visited various States and personally inspected hospitals and other institutions carried on by the Defence Department. The members of the proposed Board of Management of the Public Service will be able to do the same.
– It would be interesting to know in this connexion how much the Business Board of the Defence Department cost the country.
– That Business Board cost the country very little, because the members of it mostly gave their services in an honorary capacity.
– The main thing is to find out how much that Board saved the country.
– I agree with the honorable senator. I can quote a case in point of a contract involving the expenditure of a very large sum of money, which I referred to that Business Board for report. The chairman of the Board told me that he took up weeks of his time in investigating the details of that contract. It was impossible for me to give as many minutes as he gave days to the investigation of that contract. No Min- ister of the Crown can attend to Parliament, to the Cabinet, and to the details of departmental work, and, in addition, give the time which the Defence Department Business Board was able to give to the consideration of the contract to which I have referred. Even if the Minister had the same qualifications as members of the Board, he has not the time to give to this particular business. From this stand-point, I say that it is a good thing for the Public Service that there should be a Board, invested with power to examine all propositions involving expenditure, that will be free from any responsibility for policy, and from the responsibilities which a departmental officer may naturally feel to back up advice which he has previously given to his Minister. It is perfectly natural that an officer, having recommended : certain . action to his Minister, should. f eel ;it. incumbent upon him to: justify- his recommendation. This Board of Management,’ ‘.dealing with . departmental proposals, and criticising them with an unprejudiced mind, must lead to economy in the- Service.
It is obvious that if the Board of Management is to be -‘of : the value we hope it will be, it must be ‘invested with considerable powers’ in the direction I have indicated, and also over the Departments themselves. “We know -that there is such a thing as passive resistance, and unless a Board of this kind -is> armed with proper authority to enter a’ Department, call for persons and papers,, take evidence and do what its. members may-. consider necessary to pursue ‘ their inquiry, they may find themselves up against “the » wall of passive resistance, represented’ sometimes by the expression “red tape,” and may be unable to do any useful work. Extensive powers are, therefore, to be given! to’ the Board of Management to enable them to thoroughly carry out the duties imposed upon them. i The appointment of a Board of Man agement opens up a new avenue, inasmuch as it will give to Parliament a power which it has not hitherto had, to obtain a direct report upon the work of Public ^Departments that will not- come through any ‘ official or Ministerial channel. A good. deal is said in these days of the restoration of parliamentary control of finance. That is’ a very high-sounding phrase,- but there is a good deal. of humbug often talked -by those who use it. How can Parliament really assert an effective control over finance unless it knows from independent sources all that is going on ? There is no blinking the fact that at present Parliament has to depend on the honesty of Ministers for the completeness with which they put a case before it to enable it to estimate the advantages and disadvantages of any particular- proposal. Human nature being what it is, one can readily understand that at times the best side is put foremost and the worst side kept out of sight. In this Bill it is proposed to give the Board of Management the power to make not only an annual report to Parliament, but also to report upon any particular matter coming within the scope of the business of a permanent head, or Minister in charge of a department. If the Board is unable to indorse what- has been done in any particular matter, they will be able to make a report to that effect, and it will then be for Parliament to say. .whether it will stand by the Minister and approve his action, or will carry out the policy recommended by’ the Board of Management.
– Will there’ .be any need for the Public Accounts Committee if this proposal is carried 1
-Why . should Senator Thomas put that question tq me? I do not know whether he is a member of that Committee, or is familiar with its work. Personally, I do not know what are the responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee can only investigate matters referred to it. . - Senator Thomas.- No,’ the Public Accounts Committee may. inquire into any matter which it -thinks should be investigated.
– Giving that in, the members of the Public Accounts Committee can give only a limited time to theirinvestigations, as their main duties are performed in Parliament. The work of this Board of Management . should be of great advantage to Parliament. . !
– In view of that,. I ask whether there is any . reason to continue the Public! Accounts Committee? f
– Possibly Senator Thomas will devote himself to the consideration of the necessity for a Public Accounts Committee in’ the circumstances, and if he thinks that it is unnecessary he may - move to that effect in the Senate.
– The Board will have power to make a report?
– Yes. It will bo obligatory on the Board to make an annual report, but. other reports will be issued at their option. Of course, if members of the ..Board feel strongly on any matter, that is to’ say, if they feel they are being blocked by a Minister or the permanent head of the Department, they would be foolish if they did not take Parliament into their confidence.
– To whom would they report?
– To Parliament, just as the Auditor-General does.
MayInowsayaword about the powers of the: Public Service Commissioner, which under thisBill will pass over to theBoard . When first appointed the Public ServiceCommissioner had a great deal more power, and more duties thanhehasto-day. He had authority to fix salaries in the various grades, power of classification, power,to determine conditions, rates of increments, and so on; but under the Public Service Arbitration Act he has practically none of these responsibilities; they have passed over to a Public Service . Arbitration Judge. Under this Bill the. proposed Board will bo charged with the duty of fixing rates of salary, increments, conditions of employment, classification, promotion, and kindred matters, but there will be the right of appeal from theBoard to a Public Service-Arbitrator, whose appointment is provided for in the. Bill next to:be submitted to the Senate. At present the decisions of the Public Service Commissioner arerevisable by a number of industrial and other authorities, some of whom have little or ‘no knowledge of Public Service conditions whatsoever, and whenI am submitting the other Bill to whichI have referred, I shall endeavour to showwhy - seeing that the Public Servicestands by itself, and does not link up with industrial avocations generally -we should have available to us the services of men immersed in the study of the Public Service as a whole and therefore more qualified to register satisfactory.decisions. Members of this Board will be so immersed in the study of PublicService condition’s. They will have executive power as regards the fixing of salaries, , promotions, transfers, and other matters. They so, to speak, will bethe eyes of Parliament as to the a ctions of Ministers. and the expenditure of public money, and. if an appeal from their decisions can be made to another, authority, also familiar, and by reason of his position kept familiar with the Public Service, we shall, I think, have a much more- workable scheme than the present haphazard and disjointed system.
– Did I understand you to say that it is proposed to take from civil servants the right to appeal to the Arbitration Court?
– Mr. President will not allow me to answer that question just now, but I shall dp. so when I am moving the second reading of the other Bill to which I have referred.
– But you are dealing with it now.
– No. I was only referring incidentally to it as indicating therelationship between this Board and the personstobe dealt with under the other , measure.
– Will the PublicService have power to appoint members of the Board?
-No. The Board will, . in essence, be the employers of the
Public Service, and we have not yet reached that stage when we give employees the right toelecttheir employers. This will be a Board of management; not a Board to hear grievances: Another authority, to whom I shall refer in the other Bill, will deal with grievances. The Board will represent the taxpayers and see that they get good value for the expenditure of public money. I feel confident that, although this may be . a revolutionary proposal in Public Service matters, it will operate to the advantage of the Service generally, and. be of immense benefittothe taxpayers. It opens’ up a new principle, and, therefore, I shall not expect honorable senators to proceed at. once with the debate. I am willing that it beadjourned, ifhonorable senators prefer, until Wednesday next.
– Why not Wednesday week ? We ought to have Mr. McLachlan’s report before us when dealing with this measure.
– I feel confident that Senator Millen will lay Mr. McLachlan’s report on the table’ of. the Senate, to-day. At all events, we can adjourn the debate till Wednesday next; and if there are any good reasons why it should not be proceeded with then I shall be preparedto consider them. I hopethat the Bill will commend itself to honorable senators, and that they will give the Government the benefit of any suggestions they have to make inorder to perfect it. The one desire of the Government is to insure an efficient Public Service and that the taxpayers get full value for money spent through Government channels.
Debate (on motion by Senator de Largie) adjourned.
page 2910
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
The Public Service Arbitration Act 1911 provides for the application of the principle of arbitration on the lines laid down in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and also that various branches of the Public Service may form and register as organizations, and obtain awards in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court in the same manner as outside industrial organizations. This Bill does not alter that principle in so far as the methods of obtaining registration and approaching the prescribed tribunal are concerned, but it provides for the appointment of a special Arbitrator - the appointment to be for a period of seven years - to carry out the administration of that Act. It is proposed to give him a salary of £2,000 per annum, although this is not specifically set out inthe Bill. If it were, the measure could not be initiated in the Senate. The Arbitrator may be suspended by the GovernorGeneral for 40 days for misbehaviour or incapacity, but he will be removable from office only on a joint address from both Houses. There are the usual conditions in regard to engaging in outside employment as in the case of Judges. Under this Bill an organization will have authority to file plaints-
– Must the Arbitrator necessarily be a Judge?
– No, there will be no limitation in the selection. As I have said, an organization, if dissatisfied with the salaries fixed, or other matter determined by the Board of management, will have authority to file a plaint before the Arbitrator, who will then submit it to the Board of management or to the Minister concerned, and if no appearance be made, the Arbitrator will have power to concede the claim of the claimant organization. If, However, the Board of management lodges an objection to the plaint, the Arbitrator will be empowered to call a conference of the members of the organization concerned, and the Board of management or the Minister’s representative, or both, as the case may be, will , hear evidence and have power to make an award. This, substantially, is the procedure followed under the Public Service Arbitration Act.
– Then the Board will have no more power than the Public Service Commissioner.
– I should like Senator Thomas to tell me under what portion of the Act the Public Service Commissioner has power to go into any Department.
– I mean in relation to fixing wages, increments, and so on.
– He may fix wages nominally, but the power is really taken away from him.
– And so it is taken from the Board.
– I am endeavouring to point out that the Board will have extended powers. It will have a nominal power to fix wages and conditions, but any organization may lodge a plaint before the Arbitrator. No solicitor or counsel will haveauthority to appear in these cases, which will be decided upon the broad general facts without strict regard for legal etiquette or form, and such determination must be laid on the table of the House, as provided for in the Public Service Arbitration Act.
It may be asked : What are the reasons for the Bill ? In the first place, the Government think that as the conditions and nature of employment in the Public Service are different from private employment, it is essential to provide a special tribunal for all matters in dispute. At present an Arbitration Judge might to-day be dealing with a plaint by shearers; to-morrow with a plaint lodged by linesmen, or clerks, or some branch of the clerical division; and the following day with a case affecting miners. It is obvious that, under these circumstances, he could not be expected to have that thorough grasp of Public Service conditions generally as might be expected of an Arbitrator whose sole duty would be to deal with Public Service cases.
– That is an argument against the Arbitration Court generally.
– It may be, but what I have said is happening every day, and I am not, in any sense, reflecting upon the existing Arbitration Court when I say that every judgment given in Public Service cases leads to confusion. Such a condition of affairs must result so long as -we have a Court dealing’ with numerous’ cases and conflicting interests. If we have an Arbitrator dealing with the Public Service as a whole, and nothing but the Public Service, be will become saturated with its conditions, and will have a better knowledge of its work than an arbitration Judge who has to deal with cases covering all sections of our industrial life. This Bill should, therefore, provide the means of obtaining something approaching a connected’ policy in the determination of the pay and conditions of our Public Service. At present we have two separate Judges dealing with similar classes of employment in the Public Service, and awarding varying rates of pay and conditions. No sooner is one award made -than another branch of the Service becomes dissatisfied, and lodges a complaint because of the differing pay and conditions. It really resolves itself into a game of seesaw, and the measure has been drafted in the hope of making the conditions more harmonious and to prevent conflicting judgments.
It will also be the means of facilitating the hearing of cases in our ordinary Arbitration Courts. Honorable senators have recently been bombarded’ with circulars requesting them to use their influence with the Government in facilitating the passage of business through the Arbitration Courts. If honorable senators will peruse the list of plaints awaiting hearing, they will find that more than one-third relate to the Public Service. If this Court ie established it will relieve the congestion in the ordinary Arbitration Courts, eb the Public Service cases awaiting hearing will be dealt with by another authority. Under present conditions considerable delay and irritation is experienced, and unless a change is made there is a danger of direct action being encouraged.
– Why not appoint another Judge!
– Another Judge would not solve the difficulty, because conflicting judgments would still he recorded. It is considered preferable to have the work dealt with by one men who will make it his speciality.
That practically sets out the. principles of the Bill, and I trust that the Senate will give it a speedy passage, so that we shall have a Board of management clothed with power to fix the rates of wages and conditions, and a Court of appeal which both parties can approach. If that is dene I feel that we shall have gone a long way to secure an efficient and contented Service.
Debate (on motion by Senator de Largie) adjourned.
page 2911
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday next.
page 2911
Conduct of Business - Historicai Records : Case op Rev. Samuel Leigh - Deportations.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I intend’, if I possibly can, to launch a debate on the principle of “ go-slow.” Honorable senators have come to Melbourne from all quarters of Australia. We met at 3 o’clock, and we are adjourning at approximately 4.30 p.m. I do not know if the policy we are adopting is one of “go-slow” or of going too quickly, but it is evident that we are “ going.”
I desire to bring before the Senate a confirmation of what I quoted yesterday from the historical records of New South Wales. I was quoting from memory, but I find my memory served me well,’ when I referred to the manner in which a certain Methodist minister was treated a hundred years ago. As there seemed to be some doubt as to the correctness of my statement, I have taken the following extracts from a letter from Governor Macquarie to Earl Bathurst. It reads : - ‘
Whilst on this subject, I beg leave to report to your lordship that in the month of August last a person named Samuel Leigh arrived here on board the ship Hebe, merchantman, without any letter or pass from your Lordship’s office. This person is a Methodist preacher, and was sent out at the expense of that .society to preach the gospel in this colony. This man has conducted himself very quietly and inoffensively since his arrival, and I have no fault to find with him, as he is no expense to the Grown. But though Mr. Leigh’s eonduct has been hitherto very correct here, still I should strongly recommend that no person of this description should in future be permitted to come out to this colony. We require regular and pious clergymen of the Church of England, and not sectaries, for ft new and rising colony like this.
This; is Earl Bathurst’s reply, dealing with that portion of the letter relating to Samuel Leigh-
With respect to Samuel Leigh, a Methodist preacher, I have no difficulty in authorizing you to permit, his residence in. the colony, bo long as he shall continue to conduct himself with propriety and decorum in the exercise of Mb ministry; ‘but as I Sin, in common with yourself, aware of the ill-consequence which might result from theadmission of less quiet and inoffensive sectaries into society like that of New South Wales, . I shall not fail to exercise great caution in sanctioning their embarkation for the colony.
The letters I have read are exact copies from our historical records, and they bear out what I stated yesterday. How ridiculous they are in the light of history. If we continue the present policy of saying who shall and who shall not remain in Australia, we will look quite as ridiculous.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4.30p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 July 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200722_senate_8_92/>.