House of Representatives
9 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD
PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL
ORDER OF BUSINESS
QUESTION
- FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS
QUESTION
- SURCHARGED ENGLISH LETTERS
QUESTION
- VICTORIAN TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS
QUESTION
- NEWSPAPER POSTAL REVENUE
PARLIAMENTARY CLERICAL STAFF: DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS
DEFENCE BILL
QUESTION
- SUPPLY
AUDIT BILL
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at “2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2157

DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD

QUESTION

FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether it is correct that the Postal department has in its employ in Victoria girls said to be learning the business of telephone operators working for three months without any payment ?
Whether such a practice is adopted in any other State ?
Whether the Government (if there are girls in their employ without payment in any of the Commonwealth departments) will provide for the payment of, at least, the minimum wage which private employers are compelled to pay apprentices under the Victorian Factory Act ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– (1) It is correct. (2)I am not aware that such practice has been adopted in any other State. (3) The Govern- ment will provide for the payment of girls whose services arc required at such amount as may be determined by the Minister or the Public Service Board.

page 2158

QUESTION

SURCHARGED ENGLISH LETTERS

Whether his attention has been directed to the large number of letters received in Australia, surcharged threepence, owing to the senders being under the impression that penny postage prevails between England and Australia, as is the case between England andNew Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and India ; and whether he thinks it desirable to lake any action in order that the British public may be better informed in this respect?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– Attention has not been directed to any large number of letters received in Australia and surcharged threepence. lt is not thought desirable to take any tuition in order that the British public may be better informed as to the postage rates that obtain in the United Kingdom, as that is a duty of the Imperial Post-office, and there is reason to believe that it has been properly discharged.

page 2158

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the fact that the honorable the Premier for the State of Victoria, at the instance of the Public Service Board of that State, nas consented to the payment at the rate of £90 per annum, from 27th December, 1900, to those officers previously telegraph messengers for ten years priorto 3 1st December, 1900, who, if they had remained in the department of the PostmasterGeneral would have been graded as postal assistants and been paid at that rate ; will he issue instructions that telegraph messengers who have been transferred to the Departments of Trade and Customs and Defence, who, if they had been transferred to State departments would have been entitled to the concession referred to, shall receive payment from 27thDecember, 1900, at . £90 per annum.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– Information in regard to this question is being obtained, and will be ready shortly.

page 2158

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER POSTAL REVENUE

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice-

Whether he will cause to be laid before this House a return showing -

As regards Victoria -

The revenue received per annum from the Victorian Railways for the carriage of bona fide newspapers.

The revenue of the Victorian Postal department from postage on newspapers transmitted from the publishers to agents direct and to subscribers in post towns where there is no delivery by letter carrier ; and also on newspapers re-posted by news agents for subscribers in post towns where there is no delivery by letter carrier.

As regards New South Wales -

The estimated postal revenue to be earned if a charge were made on all newspapers excepting bona fide newspapers, carried from the publisher to the news agent direct, and excepting also those carried from the publisher or news agent addressed to subscribers in post towns in which there is no letter-carrier delivery.

The saving likely to be effected by the exclusion of hundreds of tons of tradesmen’s circulars and other publications which nre now classed as newspapers nnd carried free.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– This information is being obtained, and will be laid on the table as soon as practicable.

page 2158

PARLIAMENTARY CLERICAL STAFF: DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to inform the House that, in consequence of the retirement of Mr. G. H. Jenkins, it hass been necessary to re-arrange the staff employed at the table of this House, and the following appointments are being mode, upon my nomination : Mr. C. G. Duffy, to be Clerk of the House, and Mr. W. A. Gale to be Clerk Assistant. It is not proposed to fill the position of second Clerk Assistant until an effort has been made to see if the work cannot be efficiently performed by two clerks at the table. I have arranged for files of all the Bills laid upon the table to be supplied to honorable members. They will find that the Bills already circulated have been filed for them in alphabetical order, and from time to time, as amendments are circulated and other Bills printed, they will be added to the files.

page 2159

DEFENCE BILL

Secondreading.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I wish I were in better form this afternoon to address myself to this very important question. As this is only the second time that I have spoken in this House, I still feel a certain amount of diffidence, especially since my last speech seemed to cause so much alarm to some honorable members opposite, and especially to my old friend, the right honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon. I should like to assure my right honorable friend, and also honorable members of this House, that in my opinion at any rate, I am not a dangerous person. At the present time I have no designs whatever upon the Constitution. My only desire is to perpetuate that Constitution in the hearts of the people of Australia, and to make it a reality and a blessing ; and, in anything I may have said on the first occasion on which I addressed the House, I did not lose sight of that object. I may say, however, that I do feel somewhat nervous on having intrusted to me a subject on which my experience has not been very great in the past. My inclinations throughout a long political career have always been in the direction of the paths of peace, and have been very remote from the roar of cannon and the clash of arms. Therefore I want to say at the outset that I hope no one in this House will regard me, either now or for some time to come, as an encyclopedia of everything naval and military. I may say, too, that when I took charge of the Department of Defence, I was under the impressionthat I had not a very arduous duty before me, and that the department would not give me a great deal of work or trouble. Having been very much occupied with public affairs for many years past, I thought. I should find myself in a haven of rest in taking charge of what I thought an easy department - the management of the defences of Australia. But I regret to say I find that I have undertaken to control one of the most difficult and one of the most expensive departments of the Commonwealth.What is more, I feel myself in the unfortunate position of controlling a department which takes everything in the way of money and gives nothing back, and, therefore, not a department to receive that support: and assistance from the general public on ordinary occasions which are received by what are called paying departments, such, for instance, as that presided over by the Minister for Trade and Customs, which gives a great deal to the Commonwealth funds and asks very little in return. During the short time I have have had control of the Defence department, I have found that, unless the Government and Parliament were to keep a pretty tight rein on the expenditure, there would be no difficulty in spending the whole of the funds placed at the disposal of the Treasurer under our Constitution. We could easily spend the whole of the funds, and like some other people, having got the money, still ask for more. There seems to be an idea prevalent - I do not think the idea is especially prevalent in the Defence department, but there seems to be an idea in the minds of people generally throughout Australia - that having obtained federation, this Commonwealth has all at once become possessed of vast stores of wealth. In the minds of those people there seems to be nothing we cannot do. Things which have been altogether impossible for the State Governments, from want of funds, seem all at once quite easy and practicable for the Federal Government. I have not the slightest doubt we will soon wake up to the fact that the Commonwealth has no money except what it gets out of the pockets of the people, and that the people who provided the funds in the past will have to provide them in the future. I do not want to make a Budget speech, or in any way to anticipate my right honorable friend the Treasurer in regard to the finances. But I wish now to instil into the minds of the people that, in regard to defence - so far as I am able to judge, under existing circumstances, with the section which some appear to think a great blot, but which I think a very good one, the “ Braddon blot,” staring us in the face - we cannot spend much more in the immediate future than we have been accustomed to spend in the recent past. If we are to obtain better results - and I feel sure we can- those results must be obtained by a re-arrangement, and a better and more economical administration. Perhaps it will surprise even some honorable members in this House to learn that the defence forces of Australia cost in the aggregate, for the year ending 30th June last, nearly £800,000.

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Does that amount include .war expenses 1

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It includes all those expenses paid by the respective Treasurers in the States. I do not know how the expenses were paid in all the States, but, of course, the amount does not include any portion paid by the Imperial Government, which would not be made a charge against the State finances.

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does it include part of the sum paid in connexion with the Transvaal war ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

– Will the right honorable gentleman do so 1

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Yes. It will be observed that the Bill provides that -

No person shall be appointed an officer of the active forces until he has obtained a certificate of competency and fitness in the manner prescribed.

This is one of the most important points of the Bill. AYe are not going to have persons appointed to offices who are not competent to fill them. An exception is permitted under a later clause, where it is provided that if an officer has distinguished himself on the field of battle the examination need not be insisted upon.

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the right honorable ‘ gentleman going to abolish the gold lace, the expense of which has debarred many men from becoming officers ?

Mr Reid:

– That will never be done.

Mr WATSON:

– The expense sometimes runs into £100 for a uniform.

Mr McCay:

– Oh, no. In Victoria an officer can get his kit for £15.

Mr Watson:

– It is not so in New South Wales

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– My experience is that the poorer a man is the more gold lace lie likes.

An Honorable Member. - -If some one else pays for it.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I should like to direct attention to clause 15. I regard it as an important provision, and it is new to Australia, although it fol-lows the rule that has prevailed in the Imperial service. The clause provides that -

No combatant officer of the Defence Force above the substantive rank of major in the Military Forces, or above the rank of commander in the Naval Forces, and no adjutant shall hold the same appointment or command for a longer period than five consecutive years from the date of his appointment, whether such date occurred before or after the commencement of this Act :” Provided that in special cases the GovernorGeneral may extend the term of the appointment or command for any period not exceeding two years. . In case of persons who have been more than five years in a command before this

Bill comes into force, the term may be extended two years with the approval of the Government. I think that is a very important and necessary clause. There is no doubt about it that, in regard to the army - as also in many other other instances, including even Ministries - changes do not do very much harm. The new broom generally tries to sweep as clean as it can. It is far better that there should be changes periodically. Five years appears to me to be a long enough term, with two years more if the Governor-General thinks it necessary to extend the time. That is to say, the extension of time has to be recommended in the ordinary course by the officer commanding. The period is long enough for one person to remain in one position. He is not prevented from getting another position in the Commonwealth. But the Bill lays it down that five years ordinarily, and in special cases two years more, is the longest time that any one man shall remain in a permanent office in command of the forces. It has been pointed out to me by those who seem to know, that it is all very well to have this rule in regard to the permanent forces ; in fact, the persons to whom I allude approve of it so long as it affects other people, but they do not want it to affect them. The permanent military forces, I have been told, do not like the provision, and the volunteer officers like it less. My. idea is that in all these instances the forces will not lose in the end. There may be some exceptional cases, and, indeed, I may say, that some have been pointed out to me in which the whole life of. the corps depends on one man. In fact the case of my honorable friend, the member for Melbourne, has been brought under my notice. I have answered in his case that after the honorable member has had seven years of it he will be very glad that there is such a clause as this in. existence. Clause 16 is another very important one. It provides that in time of peace no officer, excepting the two general commanding officers, shall have higher rank than that of colonel in the military forces and captain in the naval forces, but that any officer who at present holds a higher rank may retain it. I think that in the interests of the officers themselves this will be found a good clause. It will enable changes to be made more easily. I believe that if this provision were not made, a great many would not avail themselves of promotion, because we cannot appoint a major-general or a brigadiergeneral to a command which properly belongs to the rank of colonel, and such an officer would either have to forego his promotion or else forego the place available for him. In my opinion, the tendency to have too many high sounding titles in the army should not be encouraged. The rank of colonel for all except the chief officer in the military forces, and the rank of captain in the naval forces, is quite high enough. At any rate, these are proposals which I think will work very well. In Canada, or some other place - I am not quite certain where - the rank is even lower, so that this is not an original provision. Clause 17 is one of the most d rastic in the whole Bill. It deals with the determination of seniority. As we are to have an Australian army, we must have an Australian army list, and the great difficulty will be to allot to each person already in the service his proper position. In some States, rank has been much more generously bestowed than in others. In some places, very restrictive provisions have been in operation, the rank of major being considered very high ; while in other States the rank is higher. In South Australia, for instance, they have a brigadier-general.

Mr Isaacs:

– Would this clause allow a captain to be placed above a colonel ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It will enable that to be done. We have taken the forces of all the States, and clubbed them together, and bearing in mind the fact that one State has been generous in bestowing titles, and has given an officer who has only been a few years in the service a colonelcy, whereas in another State an officer, after 20 years’ service, has been made only a major, this clause is essential. It would be very unfair when we bring all these forces together as one army, that the officer, who, after 20 years’ service, holds the rank of major, and who in every respect perhaps, is equal, if not superior, to the colonel, who has only had five years’ service, but who, through the generosity, or the rule prevailing in his State, has obtained quicker promotion, should not be able to secure the recognition of his rights. We should never have satisfaction under such a state of affairs.

Mr Higgins:

– The Governor-General may determine these matters.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

The words - without the Commonwealth for the defence thereof are intended to provide for an emergency in which it may be necessary, in order to defend the Commonwealth, to send forces to some place outside it, such as Fiji. The men who will be liable to be called upon to serve without the Commonwealth will be the small body of permanent men who are employed to man the forts and tolook after our armanentsgenerally.

Nothing in this Act shall be taken as an appropriation of any public money, and no member of the Defence Force shall be entitled to receive any payment under this Act out of the public moneys unless and until provision for such payment is made by the Parliament.

That clause protects the Government and protects the country from all sorts of claims that might be raised by ingenious persons who might endeavour to make out that this Bill appropriated money, or that the army regulations, the articles of war, or something else entitled them to consideration. Clause 117 provides -

The Governor-General may make Regulations whereby married members of the Permanent Forces shall be compelled to insure their lives for the benefit of their wives or families, and such Regulation may authorize the prescribed rate of premium being a first charge against the pay of such members.

That, I think, is a very useful clause. It is applicable only to married men, but I do not see why the provision should not go further. That, however, is a matter which may be considered in committee. By clause 118 it is provided that the Governor-General may make regulations for establishing a fund -

For the payment of annuities or gratuities to members of the Defence. Force permanently injured in the performance of their duty.

There is at present no sufficient provision in this respect. Under the same clause the Governor-General may make regulations for establishing a fund -

For the payment of annuities or gratuities to members of the Permanent Forces who are retired on account of age or infirmity.

This clause calls to mind the case I referred to just now. When men are no longer able to work as well as they used to, and when their services should be dispensed with, there is at present no provision whatever for them, and in the past these men have been retained, with an inefficient service as the result. Sub-clause (2) of clause 118 provides -

The regulations may prescribe the amounts to be paid to the fund by each rank.

Sub-clause (3) is an ingenious provision, gently inferring that Parliament may assist the fund. It reads -

Any sums appropriatedby Parliament for the purpose shall, subject to the regulations, be available for the purposes of this section.

Mr Poynton:

– Can the right honorable gentleman give us any idea of the cost of defence under this Bill ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I think I have said enough to show the general scope of this Bill, and if I have not dealt as fully with some points as some honorable members might desire, I can only plead that I do not yet consider myself a military expert. I can only say that I have felt some difficulty in doing justice to such a very important subject.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I would suggest that the debate be adjourned. I do not ask for a long adjournment ; but the Bill came to us only this morning, and it would be of great advantage to members in considering the Bill, if they had the benefit of seeing the reports of the commandants and their draft Bill. Those will help us very considerably. I would suggest that the debate be adjourned for a fortnight, and I move - That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to ; debate adjourned.

page 2173

QUESTION

SUPPLY

On the part of my honorable friend to. bring all the men he can from Queensland, we must not be blind to the rights of men who have been labouring in the public service for 30 or 40 years in other parts of Australia. We really must act as guardians of the interests of hundreds of men whom- we never see, can never hope to see, and perhaps will never know. In Queensland, as I have just pointed out, there are no less than ten or eleven officers who are senior to Mr. Oxenham. I ask, if this officer must come from Queensland, why did not one of these ten or eleven men get one of the offices 1

Mr PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– Perhaps Mr. Oxenham is the most able man.

Mr REID:

– Perhaps he is. That, however is rather a reflection on the others, and I do not think we are called on to reflect on ten gentlemen in that way. I defer to anything that is said about Queensland by Queenslanders, because they must know more on the point than we do, but we know something about officers in the other States, and it is certainly a libel on those officers to say that there are not men senior in service and rank in Australia who are quite as able as Mr. Oxenham to take this position. I do not want to labour this matter at all. I discharge my duty when I simply place the matter before the” committee. I do not think, however, that the office’ has yet been filled. I noticed a statement in one of the newspapers that the appointment of Mr. Oxenham was to be made tit- the next meeting of the Federal Executive, -so that it is quite possible that the appointment has not yet been made. I do ask the members of the Cabinet, with all due respect to Mr. Drake - who no doubt has belief in the perfect competency of this gentleman - I do appeal to them, if there is yet time, to consider the claims of other officers in the other post-offices of Australia. 1 strongly appeal to the Treasurer on this point. Can it be a good thing in the administration of an immense department such as the post-office will be in Australia, that both the -head and the assistant head should come from one spot in Australia, the city of Brisbane ? When the enormous bulk of the postal and telegraphic business is done in Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia «an it be a sensible business arrangement that if you go to the head officer in the Postal department, or if he is out and you g6 to- the second head, you will still be talking, to Brisbane, and are not talking to a man who has had any wide experience of postal business in Australia, such as is acquired in great capital, cities like Melbourne or Sydney ? I think this a lamentable mistake on the part of the Government, and I hope, if the appointment is not yet made, the Government will see the vital importance of having in either the head or the second officer a gentleman more familiar with the working of the postal business of Sydney or Melbourne than Queensland officers can possibly be. I do not wish to bring into this matter any sort of party attack because we are in Committee of Supply at a time when ‘ we want to get on with business. Still I think it my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the committee. We are very much in the dark, as I have said, in these Estimates on account of the form in which they are at the present time. It would have been well if we had had a list of the officers already appointed. As Ministers know, in the ordinary conduct of business in the States we know the names of all the officers, and we have a schedule placed before us giving the name, length of service, and so on of each officer. In this particular case we have nothing whatever to guide us. The Public Service Commissioner - and I suppose that appointment has not yet been made-

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– No.

Mr REID:

– I saw the announcement that a very worthy gentleman, Mr. Topp, and I am sure his efficiency for such a position no one would question^ was (to be appointed, but I see that his name is1 since mentioned in connexion with another appointment, which I understand he has accepted.

Mr Barton:

– The right honorable gentleman may bike it that in the case of these Bills involving important appointments we have purposely refrained from discussing the question until the Bills are passed or on the verge of passing.

Mr REID:

– So far as the Public Service Commissioner is concerned, Ministers know thoroughly what his duties will be, irrespective of whether the Bill is passed or not. Ministers knew the scope of his duties almost before the Bill was brought in. It is of very, great importance, of course, that that gentleman should be appointed, because the Prime Minister will admit that he knows now what the scope of his duties will be, and the sooner Ministers are relieved from what they themselves must consider an abnormal state of things, the better. The policy of the Public Service Bill is to relieve Ministers from the position they are in at present, and I admit it is rather an invidious one. The Public Service Bill will relieve Ministers from it, and, I think, will greatly add to their comfort. I know it would be so in my case. I am sorry Ministers have not themselves adopted the course of appointing temporarily officers in the public service where they are required, because in that case those officers would not be prejudiced in their former positions if the final arrangement involved further changes. No harm would have been done to the gentlemen themselves or to any other person, and in the event of the confirmation of their appointment there would have been a stream of healthy promotion right through the service. That is the reason why I attach so much importance- to, and regret so deeply appointments that have cut off that stream of promotion. However, I have said all I wish to say in reference to that question.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

I have practically disregarded the Convention estimate of the cost of transferred departments because the expenditure of the States upon those departments has been increasing ever since the estimate was made. I have taken the Appropriation Acts of each of the six States for each of the three years immediately preceding the inauguration of the Commonwealth, and I have ascertained from them, so far as I could, what the State expenditure upon the transferred departments during that time has been. In the short time at my disposal I could not pick out in the New South Wales Acts the items particularly referring to the Customs department, and consequently I have not been able to trace the alterations which have occurred in the an- .nual cost of the department to that State. In the schedule to the Bill the New South Wales charge- for Customs expenditure is put down as £16,200 for three months, which comes to £65,000 a- year. In * Victoria, three years ago, the Customs expenditure was £100,000 a year ; two years ago it was £105,000, and last year it was also £105,000, while for the present year - the first year of the Commonwealth - it is put down as only £70,000.

Sir Geo lie e Turner:

– But there are a number of services which were paid for by the State under that head, which have not been transferred to the Commonwealth.

Mr McCAY:

– Yes ; so that the saving is only nominal. I could not get hold of the items referring to Queensland, but in South Australia the Customs expenditure remains at about £24,000 for each of the four years, in Western Australia at about £31,000, and in Tasmania it has been £8,000, £9,000, £10,000, and for the present year £9,000 again, so that the change has been very little. -The total expenditure of the six States for the three years preceding federation was £297,000, £297,000, and £298,000 in the respective years, and for the first year of the Commonwealth it is to be £262,000. But, as a great many services which were paid for by the States under the head of Customs expenditure have not been taken over by the Commonwealth, there is really a considerable increase in the estimates for this year.

Sir George Turner:

– Our Estimates are based on the State expenditure of last year.

Mr McCAY:

Sir- GEORGE. TURNER. - Then,, the other challenge is in regard to- Mr. Oxenham. I. would point out in connexion, with this matter that because Mb. Oxenham happens to have the position of assistant secretary to- the department, it does not follow that it gives him any right whatever. to. any of the vacancies, when they take place, inthe positions of- deputy postmasters-general in the States. This officer was selected because in the. first instance when Mr. Drake took the position of Postmaster-General he. asked the permanent head of the Postal department in his own State - -Mr, Scott - if he could give him some officer who could go round with him for the time being and attend to the various matters that were found to require attention while he was travelling from State to State. Mr. Oxenham was selected, and was with Mr. Drake for several months, and during, that time he acquired a large knowledge and experience in all matters that came before the Minister in- the working of the department, and the Minister, exercising the. discretion which I think he fairly has, thinks that the position of assistant secretary ought, to be filled by Mr. Oxenham. In regard to. the post-office, the appointments have been given to gentlemen, who have been known to the committee .which has been sitting for several months past in working out all the details. They have an intimate knowledge of what has been going on, and in regard, to these appointments and to the other appointments that are to be made, great’ discretion must be given, to- the Minister, for the. time being. These- appointments shouldnot be challenged unless it can be- shown* that some grievous wrong, has been- done; I do not know that any wrong hasbeen done in any of: the States,, or that any wrong will be done by any of the appointments for which, it is proposed to make provision in this Bill. However, these are the matters that have been referred to. There is no. reflection oni Mr. Outtrim because- Mr. Scott has been, selected. It is not. for a moment thought, that he would- not have been competent to fill the position; but there- might have been, some little jealousy if a Victorian had been. put at the head of this department. We might have heard just as many challenges if some, one else had been, put there.

Mr Reid:

– Was it done for that reason?.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I do.not think it was, but. my right honorable friend with, all his virtue would probably have shown, just as much indignation if a Victorian, had been placed in- the position instead of a* Queenslander - and no matter what appointment is made there are bound to ba some objections raised. All I can say is that the best has been done with regard to these appointments, and. also in regard tothe other appointments, and I know of no reason, why they should be challenged.. I would ask the committee- not to enter into adiscussion in regard to the expenses of the. Commonwealth for the current year that may injure us,- not only in the eyes of the public here; but in the eyes of the public of: other countries. I would ask. the committee to wait for the details which will be placed before them, at. the proper time,, and Lassure them that. I will put them in possession- of the fullest information- as soon as I can.,

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

-d. - The Treasurer knows that, we must have some. particulars in. connexion’ with his financial, statement. Before- w.e can properly deal with the expenditure of the Commonwealth we must know what the proposals of- the Government are..

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WATSON:

– It seems to rae that unless some of the higher paid offices in the States customs-houses are abolished, there is no justification for the appointment of these new officers, who, indeed, seem to be merely doing the work of the Minister. What is the position of the Comptroller-General, unless, at least, he is to manage the affairs of one State himself, and is thus taking the place of another highly paid officer in that State? If that is to be done I can understand the creation of the position. Otherwise it looks as though the Minister were simply appointing a high officer to do the work of the Minister. I do not know whether that is so. I do not know whether I am correct in supposing that Dr. Wollaston will remain in charge of the Victorian Customs department as well as being Comptroller-General.

Mr Kingston:

– No.

Mr WATSON:

– That means that in Victoria we shall have a gentleman taking the place of Dr. Wollaston at ahigh salary.

– I am not here to answer questions. I am here to say that honorable members have no right to submit propositions like that, and those propositions have no right to be carried, without our knowing exactly what they are going to cost the country. While I am not averse to that proposal, we have a right to know what such proposals are going to cost. A further proposal was submitted that women should be placed in a similar position, and I told the House then that I believed it would cost £30,000 or £40,000 to carry that out. From inquiries. I have made since, I believe it will cost that much. We cannot expect economy if these motions are going to be pressed upon the Government, because while we want, no doubt, to keep down the high salaries, the savings are really to be made by keeping the ordinary salaries at a fair rate. While I wish to do justice to men and women in the service, and to see that they get a fair return for their work, .we have no right to propose the making of sweeping changes without considering what they are going to cost.

Mr MAHON:

– Does the honorable member believe in pinching the poorer paid servants ?

Mr McCOLL:

Mi-. CONROY.- I quite admit that the Treasurer cannot give all the items now, but why did he not give the names ? Is it because the appointments will not bear investigation 1 Is it because Ministers do not want the public -to know anything about them? Of course, - if it is, I can well understand their silence. I think we are entitled to know a very great deal more about them than we do.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · IND; ALP from June 1901

– Is the office boy put down ?

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; LP from 1913

-ROY. - I believe he was not able to record a vote in one of t-he Minister’s electorates, and that therefore he has been omitted.

Mr MAUGER:

– I wonder what relation he is.

-.- A Bill could have been framed, but the Postmaster-General would have required some one- with expert knowledge at hand to give him information and to make- inquiries-.

Mr REID:

– No one would have objected to that.

Mr WILKINSON:

– Had he not taken over the department as lie has done, he. would not have had access to the documents, statistics, and- other information which he has had under his command. He could only have come, into- the office bycourtesy of the States in control,, though no doubt that courtesy would have been, extended to him. At the same time,, he has had freer access to all the details which were necessary to enable him to prepare the measure he has introduced than he-otherwise: would- have had. The same thing’ applies to- other offices- of the State.. However much we may be in love with economy - and I want as much as anybody to see economy practised - we should not be captious in our criticism. I believe that when the money conies to be expended under the careful managementof the Treasurer, a considerable portion of the vote we are now passing will be found to lapse.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I desire to inform the honorable member for South Sydney that the Estimates are not now before the committee, but only the resolution. If the honorable member desires to reduce the amount by any given sum, he can do so on the schedule to the Bill.

Mr Watson:

– We shall be able to reduce any item then ?

The CHAIRMAN:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Sir George Turner) proposed -

That the standing orders be suspended in order to enable all steps to be taken to obtain Supply and to pass a Supply Bill through all its stages without delay.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). -We must not get into the habit of looking at the suspension of the standing orders as a mere matter of form. We cannot throw aside without some explanation the constitutional safeguard which surrounds the application of public money.

Sir GEORG E TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I thought I had given an explanation when I spoke previously in introducing the resolution, and pointed out the extreme urgency. I cannot pay a shilling to anybody, and people are waiting for payment all over the States. I have to send to Western Australia.

Mr REID:

– I wish to have it on record that the Treasurer is moving a suspension of the standing orders under the circumstances he mentions, because this would be a highly improper motion unless there were these circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution of Ways and Means, covering resolution of Supply, agreed to.

Bill presented and read the first and second times.

In Committee :

Clause 1 - Issue and application of £1,010,732.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– In order to give the honorable member for Bland an opportunity to move the amendment he desires to submit, it would be wise, perhaps, to postpone the consideration of the clauses until after we have dealt with the schedule. If we passed the clauses, it would not prejudice the honorable member’s position, but he would, perhaps, like to deal with the schedule before we deal with the clauses.

Clauses postponed.

Schedule :

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I desire to get the opinion of the committee in regard to the appointment of a secretary to the Defence department, at a salary of £900 per annum. I have no sort of feeling about the gentleman who, I understand, has been appointed, because I do not know him ; and I submit an amendment merely as a protest against what seems to me unnecessary extra military expenditure. The point I take is that for the work required in the administration of the Defence department, more especially from the centre, all that is necessary is a clerical staff of very modest dimensions indeed. It does not seem to me that there is anything like the necessity for a secretary to this department that exists for an under-secretary to any other department. The military administration will be worked for the most part through the commandants, and the clerical work, in my opinion, can be efficiently done by the chief clerk, whose salary is set down here at £540 per annum. I would draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the Minister, there are no less than twelve officials provided for in this Defence department. There is the secretary at £900 per annum ; the chief accountant at £600, the chief clerk at £540 ; five clerks, one at £310, one at £235, one at £200, one at £160, and one at £80. The last-named, I presume, would be a junior. Then there is a senior messenger at £132 per annum, a messenger at £96, a junior messenger at £42, and a caretaker at £110. This, it seems to me, is setting up a large department to attend to the correspondence that comes from the various heads of departments in the States, and to act as a go-between the Minister and the commandants. In New South Wales at the present time there is a military secretary who is paid either £750 or £800 per annum.

Sir George Turner:

– £800

Mr WATSON:

– That is too much.I thought so when I was in the New South Wales Parliament. The proper thing to do, it seems to me, is to allow Captain Collins, who, I understand, has been, or is to be, appointed to this position of secretary to the Minister for Defence, to continue in his present post at his present salary untilhe retires in the natural course of events.

Mr Thomson:

– What is his salary? Mr.WATSON. - At present he receives £900 per annum. My object is not to dis- possess him of his salary, but to prevent his transfer to this post - and the appointment to his former office of another man - at a considerablyhigher salary than there is any justification for paying. My contention is that there is no necessity for the first two officers mentioned in this schedule., namely the secretary and the chief accountant. They are quite unnecessary for the carrying out of the work of that department. There is a danger it seems to me of spending too much in departments of this character. I suppose, sir, that I had better move to reduce the total vote by the amount set clown to the secretary, namely £900 ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member can move the omission of the item, if he wishes.

Mr WATSON:

Minister to manage a. department of thiskind, without assistance. With all these generals and colonels how is the- Minister going- to do it? He must have some one t* assist him.

Mr Watson:

– But the Minister has a chief clerk. at £540 a year.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– But he has not been appointed, and he may not be appointed at all. We shall see how we get on, and he will not be appointed until I am sure that he is- required-

Mr Reid:

– Does the Minister mean that he- put the item for this- chief clerk on the> Estimates, without knowing whether he was wanted or not ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am told that he is wanted; Captain Collins says he is very much wanted. At any rate he lias- not been, appointed, and we- need not be in a very great hurry about filling that position’. I consider that there can be no> reasonable objection taken to the arrangement that has been made, and I hope the honorablemember, for Bland will- withdraw his objection.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I had intended to move an amendment on this Defence vote, and L regret that thehonorable member for Bland has allowed his-amendment to take- the form it has. No doubt the- Minister is correct in saying that he must have- a secretary, and; if we- strike the item out altogether, that necessary office will be done away with. I think it would be better if we proposed: a reduction! of £500- in the total of . the administrative- items, leaving it to the. Minister to allot the reduction in whatever way he thinks fit. Whilst the Minister tries to impress this- committee with the fact that there is no great growth of expense* in connexion with the Defence’ department, I contend that all the advocates of federation’ impressed! it upon the people that the Defence ‘ department was one of those in which; great savings were to be effected.

Sir John Forrest:

– We have not had a chance- yet.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No doubt weshould; under the Commonwealth have a very muck more efficient service at a lower total cost than we have been incurring in. the- several States,, under- separate Defencesystems. Although the Treasurer- has told us that we shall have plenty of- tune to discuss- these questions when he- has made his financial statement, and honorable- members are in full possession of the details, I say that if the committee intends to make any stand in the direction of economizing in the Defence department, now is the time. We are placed in a very serious position, because, although it is stated that there is to be a saving here so far as Victoria is concerned, as the leader of the Opposition has said, we are all at sea in the matter. If the Commonwealth has taken over the defences of Australia - as in fact it has done - all these divisions, so far as the States are concerned, should be done away with, and the Commonwealth itself should consider what officers are required for the central administration, aswell as what officers may be necessary forlocal administration in the various States. We cannot impress it too strongly on honorable members opposite that these expenses in connexion with the Defence department must be cut down, and there should be no party voting at all in this matter. I hope that the honorable member for Bland will withdraw his amendment and allow mine to be substituted.

Mr Watson:

– I think the chief clerk would be sufficient.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I think that we might leave it to the Minister to allocate the various items after reducing the total by £500. The committee will do a good thing if it only shows its determinationto have these items under the head of defence cut down. We should get a much more adequate system of defence for a lower total outlay than has been incurred in the past. I think the Minister for Defence might have given us a little more information when he was moving the second reading of the Defence Bill to-day. We got nothing more from him than the bare reading of the clauses of the Bill, and I did hope that on so important a subject he would at least have risen to something like the region of statesmanship and have told us what ideas were actuating the Commonwealth in formulating our defence system.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– He gave us the fullest possible information.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– We had no information as to the system of defence to be adopted, and I think the committee ought to be enlightened on this matter, so that we may know what we are doing in connexion with the new offices that are being created. I hope the honorable member for Bland will allow me to substitute my amendment for his.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). I think theright honorable gentleman who has charge of the department we are now dealing with might give us some information that would obviate a good deal of this trouble. We all understand that when we have one central administration for defence, the defences of Australia as a whole should be more cheaply provided for I take it that we are simply forming a central department for the administration of the whole of Australia, but that it does not follow that because we are allocating these people to certain offices in the central administration, there will not be a considerable cutting down in the various States.

Sir John Forrest:

– Certainly there will.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– That is the pointI wanted to get at. If the right honorable gentlemen will only take the committee a little more into his confidence and show that he will, on the whole, make a saving in the civil administration of this department, and that for every office created here, there will be probably two or three offices abolished in the different States, we shall be more content.

Mr Higgins:

– Hewants to have one secretary intead of six.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– That will be all right. I think a great deal of this, discussion has arisen out of a misunderstanding of the actual position. I take it that before the Minister tackles the different States with a view to economy, and the reconstruction of the administration, hehas first to construct his own central administration and I look forward to enormous economies in the different States when this new central administration is once established. If the Minister would give us . that assurance, there would not be so much trouble, but honorable members natu rally look with alarm at officer after officer with, high salaries being provided for in this department,if a similar class of officers is to remain in the different States. The committee do not want to cramp the Government in any way in the administration of this great department, and if the Minister gives us the assurance that by the time the Budget speech is delivered large economies will have been introduced into the whole service, I think it will be satisfactory to the committee.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– One of the principal items that was referred to during the Commonwealth campaign - in Queensland, particularly - was our Defence expenditure. I came down from the north nearly 2,000 miles to hear the Prime Minister deliver an address in Brisbane, and that was one of the items which he particularly referred to. He told us that the Defence system of the Commonwealth would be a considerable improvement upon the present system, both as regards efficiency and the general administration. Now what do we find ? That we are to have a Secretary at £900 a year, or £200 ra year more than our commandant in Queensland is paid. Then, again, if we take the whole of the salaries of the officers who are to administer the Commonwealth defences, they amount to very “nearly as much as -we are paying in Queensland for the whole of our little standing army.

Sir John Forrest:

– Oh, ho. Queensland spends over £100,000 a year.

Mr PAGE:

Mr Watson:

– There is no proposal to alter that.

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr CROUCH:

Mr. WINTER COOKE (Wannon).The honorable and learned member for Corio referred to a conversation of a very few wordswhich he had with me.

Mr Crouch:

– I referred to the fact of the honorable member being Minister for Defence.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– The honorable and learned member said that the honorable member forWannon could bear him out.

Mr WINTER COOKE:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– The honorable and learned member first of all did me the honour of saying I was Minister for Defence. I had not that honour, but during the absence of the Minister for Defence I acted for several months.I understood the honorable and learned member to say that I had led him to think - I think he said, I would bear him out, in the statement that Captain Collins had on many occasions interfered unduly with the military commandants. If I recollect the conversation rightly, all I said was that in certain little details, very small sums of money indeed, the. secretary for Defence would give his opinion to the Minister. He never acted as if he was the Minister, and I am not aware that on any occasion the present secretary for Defence guided the policy of any Minister. However, I know it to be a fact that he acted as financial adviser to successive Ministers for Defence, and I am quite sure he saved the State of Victoria thousands of pounds.

Sir George Turner:

– I know it.

Mr WINTER COOKE:

Mr WILLIS:

– In those cases no retrenchment will be necessary, but we have it that there will be retrenchment in the two large States, where the greater portion of the population resides. It will be noticed that the amount of increased expenditure involved in the proposal of the Minister is very small indeed compared with the amount of saving that will be effected. A saving of £1,800 will be effected while we shall have to spend something like £900. In New South Wales we shall not have to pay this £900, and the proportionate contributions of the States to that amount would be New South Wales one-third, Victoria two-sevenths, Queensland one-sixth, South Australia one-ninth, Western Australia one-twelfth, and Tasmania onetwentyfourth.

Sir John Forrest:

– There are lots of other savings.

Mr WILLIS:

Mi-. Higgins. - But this amount will be spent 1

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– This £900 must be spent under any circumstances. It really makes no difference whatever. I have suggested a way of getting over the difficult)’. Of course it does not deal with the question which has been raised by the honorable member for Bland, but on reconsideration I am sure he will come to the conclusion that the Minister for Defence must have a secretary. Let me give him my assurance that I believe the retrenchments made in the Defence department in Victoria could not have been made if we had not had the services of an officer who looked at military expenditure from an entirely different stand-point to that of a military officer. We were spending £160,000 in Victoria, and we reduced that amount to £120,000. This year 1 am aware that the expenditure has risen to £220,000, although that is accounted for to a large extent by the number of rifle clubs which have sprung into existence. There is a great outcry that we must have full and efficient defence, but the moment we come to spend money there is trouble about the various details. I have never been carried away with the idea that we must spend an enormous amount upon defence. A large sum of money in my opinion is absolutely wasted, but unfortunately we. have the men permanently in the positions, and it is not so easy to cut them down. The honorable member for Northern Melbourne was right when he suggested that the reduction must be spread over a few years. In New South Wales we have a military secretary and a large ‘ staff, and we cannot walk in at once and say, “ Out you all go.” The only way is, when vacancies occur, to transfer some of these officers to other positions, and by that means to gradually make a saving. In Victoria we reduced our military service by nearly one-third. We held out inducements for men to retire, found positions for them in South Africa and Western Australia, and by that means gradually reduced our expenditure. I have had before’ me a copy of the departmental Estimates, which I have sent back to the departments with the instruction that they must be largely reduced. Whey they come back to me they will probably suffer another very large reduction. In the meantime, I hope that the honorable member for Bland will not press his amendment to a division. I trust that he will allow this item, to pass, and then when we have the whole Estimates before us, we can deal with the question of what retrenchments should be made throughout “ the service.

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- I think that the statement made by the Treasurer clears away a great deal of the difficult)’ that attends this subject. I am quite prepared to fall in with his suggestion. But the discussion has been a very useful one in throwing light upon one of the greatest difficulties ahead, in view of the scheme propounded by the Minister for Defence to-day. It is evident that the Minister himself really intends to be the commander in chief of all these forces. At the same time he scorns the modern . notion of intercepting buffers between responsible Ministers and great public departments.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The description which he gave us either referred to Lord Roberts or to himself.

Mr REID:

– I knew it referred to himself, because I know the modesty of my right honorable friend. But although the right honorable gentleman scorns the idea of having any buffer between the responsible Minister and a large public department, it seems that the unfortunate Captain Collins is to be the buffer between himself and the other commanders in chief. That is evidently the position which poor Captain Collins is to occupy. I do not know what will become of him between the different commanders in chief, the Secretary for War and the illustrious general who will come out to be instructed in the art of war, by my right honorable friend, with the help of Captain Collins. I really view the future with some apprehension. But

I there is an inseparable danger of friction from the two species of control, the civil and the military control, over military matters. At the same time I cordially agree with what has been said as to our future unhappy experience in Australia, if the forces and the military administration are handed over to military officers. There is no doubt that in such circumstances the expenditure will grow out of all reasonable proportion to the needs of the different States and the finances of the Commonwealth. Consequently I reconcile myself even to the prospect of my right honorable friend running the military and naval forces of the Commonwealth. I am satisfied by this debate that Captain Collins is a really good, efficient, and faithful officer. I do not think that anything could be more significant in favour of the man than the testimony of my right honorable friend the Treasurer. We” all know that Sir George Turner, during the dark days of the State of Victoria, exhibited what, to my mind, was a splendid degree of firmness and patriotism in discharging a most difficult duty ; and he discharged it, I think, with consummate skill. When I .hear my right honorable friend give the testimony he has done in favour of Captain Collins, I feel thoroughly satisfied that Captain Collins is the right man for the position, and I withdraw any possible opposition that may have been engendered by the discussion that has taken place to-night. At the same time, it is of supreme interest to us that we should have regard, not so much to the exceptional circumstances of the individual who happens to be mentioned for the moment, as to the establishment of a rigid and stable system of economy. Now, that is the financial necessity, of the Commonwealth, and some very unpleasant work will have to be done before we get to the bed-rock. I sympathize with Ministers who have to begin on the methods of State finance before they get to that bed-rock ; but I think this House, however lenient it may be in matters of less importance, and whatever parties it may consist of, will be found by the Ministry to be thoroughly in earnest in its determination to cut down the expenditure of the Commonwealth. We have an opportunity of laying down a system on sound principles that may last for generations, or, on the other hand, of imitating the bad examples that have been only too familiar in Australian finance, and I thoroughly commend those honorable members who have given this discussion a turn in the direction to which I have referred. I. think there will be a great deal of inconvenience attached to the adoption of some_ of the suggestions that have been made this evening. I am afraid that the Treasurer cannot possibly put what he suggests in his first Estimates, because it will be a matter involving delay, and I am sure that everyone wants to See the financial statement delivered at the earliest possible time. We all know the intense uneasiness, and the losses which are being experienced by the commercial and industrial interests of the States by the delay that is occurring. I do not say it is unreasonable delay, but it is of very serious consequence to the people of Australia, and every day’s delay is multiplying the losses of our first year of federal finance. Now take one item - the item of kerosene - which may possibly figure in the new tariff of this Government as a dutiable article. There is an enormous quantity of kerosene afloat which would represent duty to the amount of £100,000, and the profits will go into the pockets of some great syndicate - some Standard Oil Trust, of America - if there is much delay in these matters. That is only one line, and as two great companies engaged in that business are bringing enormous quantities of kerosene here, the longer the financial statement- is delayed the more serious the loss will be in our financial year. We must look forward to a period of anxiety and possible strain, no matter what scheme or what Tariff is submitted, and, therefore,- 1 am glad that this debate has prepared the Ministry for the disposition of the committee, which I think the Ministry will see is very earnestly in favour of the most primitive scale of expenditure. With reference to the salary of this office which we have .been discussing, I am glad that the Treasurer has suggested £750. I think that is an ample salary for the position taken as a position, and as far as I am concerned I am perfectly prepared to see Captain Collins in the office at that salary. Of course, if we are under any contract to him, he must get the amount for which we are bound, but I hope the Minister will not postpone economy on the plea of the position in which the State has left any particular service. We cannot forget that the military and naval forces of the States are now the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth, that they are our care and our responsibility, and that we must not continue any extravagant arrangements that may exist in any State, simply because they exist in that State. The Government must grapple with this matter in a different spirit. quite agree that we are not going to drive any of these people out into the streets at a moment’s notice, but if a man is not wanted the truest economy will be to get rid of him - not without some fair consideration. The most wasteful thing we can do is to continue any man in the service of the State when he is not required. It is a demoralizing thing to do, and it would be ail injurious way of beginning our system of defence ; and it is infinitely better to face the difficulty and give any man a substantial amount and let him go, rather than keep him at work that is not required. If there are any military secretaries who are not required in the States, they must be dispensed with, because the Government cannot keep on a regular retinue of military secretaries when they only require the one secretary. The Minister must have one secretary, but what is the use of having only one secretary if we have to pay for six, or even four or three. I am very sanguine that, although some considerable time has been taken up in this matter, it will prove to be not altogether wasted.

Mr. WATSON (Bland). - I quite sympathize with those honorable members who say that we ought to have civil control over the military department, and I did not wish, in moving the amendment, to deprive the Minister of expert advice. However, the position when I moved the- amendment was that the Minister had given no indication of his intention to do without expert advice on the civil side in each of the States. Since the amendment was moved, he has given the assurance that he intends economizing on the fines put forward by the honorable member for Wentworth, and, for one, I am satisfied with that. The great objection I had was that there was no indication given, either by word of mouth or in the Estimates put forward, that there was going to be any alteration in the system that at present obtains, but I am quite satisfied with the statements now made, especially with that of the right honorable the Treasurer, that when the Estimates come on we shall have an opportunity of going into matters in more detail. I trust that when the Estimates in chief do come before us we shall find that the office of military secretary in New South Wales has disappeared, and that a number of smaller offices on the civil side have also been done away with. I notice that the Queensland Estimates for this year show that the whole, of their defence administrative work has been carried out by about five or six men, “the head of them getting a salary of £300 a year, for which he acts as chief clerk, accountant and paymaster for a department in which they have an expenditure of somewhere about £100,000 a year. It is shown that they have been able to carry on the civil administration in an economical way. Of course, I am obliged to the honorable member for Robertson for giving me advice out of the vast store of his political experience, and I trust that with all his doubts as to my genuine desire for economy, when the Estimates come on, he will not look with such large equanimity on the military vote. There are ‘a number of honorable members who, whilst being strongly desirous of securing increased efficiency in the Defence forces, will not be favorable to any increased expenditure.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- I think that when the Minister for Defence came down with a salary designed to suit, not the position but the officer appointed to a position, he should have been prepared to tell the committee the salary which he thought it desirable to attach to the office. As the Minister did not do so, it was my intention to give him . an opportunity of fixing the amount by moving that the sum of £750 be inserted as the salary for the office. It might even yet be advisable to indicate that to the Minister by motion, but I understand from the Treasurer that he has “undertaken, when, the Budget comes on, to give the salaries for the offices, not only in this case, but in all other cases where the salary of the occupant differs from that attached to the office. Under the circumstances I am quite prepared not to move an amendment; but I think we ought to see, in fixing these salaries in the first place, that honorable members understand what is to be the salary for the office altogether independent of other circumstances.

Mr Watson:

– I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. .

The CHAIRMAN:

-Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment be withdrawn 1

Mr CROUCH:

– I object.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– I should like to obtain a little information from the

Postponed clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2215

AUDIT BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 4th July, vide page 2115) :

Clause 36 (Continued authority of Treasurer to pay moneys for public service, pending passing of Appropriation Act).

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– This is a very useful clause, and one, indeed, that will be absolutely indispensable. When the matter was last before the committee, however, the honorable member for Indi raised a very important constitutional question, which had not occurred to me in drafting the Bill, as to whether this particular clause could in any way be construed as an infringement of the sections of the Constitution Act relating to Appropriation Bills and Money Bills generally. The Attorney-General has been good enough to give consideration to the point, and he has come to the conclusion that it is doubtful. That being so, it is not wise for us to place any clause in this Bill which might give rise unnecessarily to constitutional disputes between the two Houses. The object we have in view can be gained just as well by putting this and the following clause into a separate Bill, and dealing with it before the necessity arises for the Bill to be made law. Under these circumstances, I think it would be wiser to omit both clauses, and later on in the session, I will bring in a short Bill dealing with the subject.I ask the committee to negative this and the following clause.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– I hope the Treasurer, in bringing in his new Bill, will also consider the language of paragraph (c), which might perhaps be held to be wide enough to include payments not of the description mentioned. The paragraph provides -

That the payments hereby authorized shall be at such rates and shall not in the whole exceed such an amount as would be equivalent to the authorized expenditure.

Sir George Turner:

– I will provide for that.

Clause negatived.

Clause 37 negatived.

Clause 38 -

If the exigencies of the public service render it necessary to alter the proportions assigned to the particular items comprised under any one subdivision in the annual supplies the Governor-General may by order direct that there shall be applied in aid of any item that may be deficient a further limited sum out of any surplus arising on any other item under the same subdivision unless such subdivision shall be expressly stated to be “inalterable.”
Every order by which such altered application may be made shall be delivered to the AuditorGeneral, and a copy thereof shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within seven days after the making thereof if the Parliament bethen in session and actually sitting or if the Parliament be not then in session or actually sitting within seven days after the commencement of the next session or sitting.
Nothing hereinbefore contained shall authorize the Governor-General to direct that any such sum as aforesaid shall be applied in augmentation of or as an addition to any salary or wages the amount whereof respectively shall have been fixed by law.

Mr REID:

– There are cases in. which there is no possible objection to such circulation. This document is one which should pre-eminently come before the public as quickly as possible. Parliament has no control over it in the way of making alterations. When we come to the clause later on I will suggest an amendment.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I wish to ask whether clause 38 follows exactly the provisions in the Acts referred to in the marginal note. I find that it gives a very great power to the GovernorGeneral in Council. He may transfer in the annual supplies an excess which is not required in one item to another item.

Sir George Turner:

– But only to an item in the same subdivision. In some of the Acts the provision goes further, and allows an excess which is not required for one item to be transferred to any item in the same division. In this case the transfer is only to be made from one item to another in the same subdivision.

– I do not think it would be wise to omit those words. Where sums are voted for salaries or wages, Parliament will pass such votes on the understanding that those amounts, and those only, shall be paid, and that no increased amounts shall be given without its authority. These transfers are generally in relation to small items, where, for example, we have “stores” in one item, and, perhaps, “travelling expenses” in another. If we have a saving in one, instead of having to swell our Supplementary Estimates, with all these odds and ends, we simply transfer that excess to another item in the same subdivision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 -

The Auditor-General shall within fourteen days after making and signing the said report if the Parliament be then in session and actually sitting, or if the Parliament be not then in session or actually sitting, within fourteen days after the next session or sitting, transmit to both Houses of the Parliament the said statement accompanied by such report and by the said copies hereinbefore directed to be appended thereto.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– I observe that this is the clause which provides that the report shall be transmitted by the Auditor-General to Parliament. If Parliament were not sitting at the time at which it was ready for transmission, the resultwould be that the AuditorGeneral would delay the transmission of the report until the House met. That might have the effect of keeping the public and honorable members in the dark for months as to the nature of the report. I want to see a proviso, or words added to this effect -

Provided that if the Parliament be not in session when such statement and report are ready for transmission they shall be printed and issued as a public document.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– It will be a sort of guide to follow.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57-

All interest (other than interest on loans taken over by the Commonwealth from the States or any renewal or conversion thereof) payable on account of the public debt of the Commonwealth on the first clay of any quarter of the financial year shall be charged and included as a payment in the preceding quarter of such year.

Clauses 60 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 (Penalties for misappropriations).

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– I would suggest to the Minister the desirability of altering the phraseology of this clause. It provides penalties for misappropriations of money or stores which have come into the possession of a public servant -

By reason or virtue of “his office, service, or employment.

Those words are not in the English Criminal Consolidation of 1861, or in the Victorian Crimes Act, the words there being “by virtue of his Office.” I do not think that the words “ by reason or virtue of his office “ enlarge the meaning of the phrase. Then with regard to the words “ office service or employment,” I think it is possible that if there were a misappropriation the Crown would have to prove, in addition to the fact of misappropriation, the fact that the money had come into the possession of the accused because he was the person authorized to receive it, and it was part of his employment to receive it. The provision in the English Act of 1861, which relates to persons in private employ, speaks of the misappropriation of money - delivered to or received or taken into possession by him for or in the name of or on account of his master, and it has been held both in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved and in the Victorian Supreme Court that those words get over the difficulty ‘of the Crown having to prove the authority of accused persons to receive money which they have appropriated. I am afraid, that under the clause as it stands, if a person were placed in a position where he came into contact with the public, and one of the public paid money to him, believing that he was the proper person to receive it, although he had not been authorized to receive it, and he took it, the Crown would not be able to prove that it had come into his possession by reason or virtue of his office, service, or employment.

Mr Reid:

– It would come to him by reason of his employment. If he were not so employed he would not receive it.

Mr McCAY:

– I have grave doubts about it, and the question is sufficiently open to argument to be stated for the opinion of the Pull Court of Victoria. I draw the attention of the Treasurer to the matter, because we do not want technicalties of this kind to prevail against wrong-doing.

Sir George Turner:

– I shall direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the point.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clause 67 (Document in lieu of statutory declaration).

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– Might I suggest that there is a new principle involved in this clause. It makes a person who signs an ordinary document liable for perjury in the event of its statements being false.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– There is the same provision in the Victorian Income Tax Act. In some of the outlying parts of the Commonwealth there are no justices of the peace, and it is intended that in those places a man’s signature, under the circumstances provided for in the clause, shall be taken as a subscription to a statutory declaration, and that false statements contained in the document shall make the person subscribing liable to prosecution for perjury.

Mr CROUCH:

– Then I would suggest that notice of the fact should be printed upon the document, so that the person who signs it may know that any false statement will render him liable to prosecution for perjury.

Sir George Turner:

– I shall makeanote of the honorable and learned member’s suggestion.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 68 to 71 agreed to..

Postponed clause 2 (Definitions).

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I wish to draw the attention of the Treasurer to paragraph (e) - “Prescribed” shall mean prescribed by this Act or the regulations.

I think the words have been defined in the Acts Interpretation Bill.

Mr.Deakin. - No. We have several definitions marked, but we are not yet proposing to omit them.

Clause agreed to.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

– I move-

That the following new clause be inserted after clause 33: - “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Treasurer or his deputy may, for the purpose of adjusting the. accounts of the various States, transfer by cheque or draft money forming portion of the Commonwealth Public Account from any bank to. any other bank within the Commonwealth.”

Under the Constitution, money cannotbe drawn from the Treasury except for appropriations made by law, and in this Bill we provide that no cheque or draft shall be drawn except for certain specified purposes. It will often happen, however, as it has happened in regard to the electoral expenditure, that instead of remitting money to the various States we shall ask them to pay the expenses authorized and to send us in the bill.When we know the total amounts expended, we adjust the payments between thevarious States, and collect small sums from some of the States, andpay small amounts to other States. The object of the clause is to enable the Treasurer, to do this, and it will save the remitting of large amounts from the seat of Government to the various States.

Clause agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 2221

ADJOURNMENT

Title of the King.

Motion (by Mr. Barton) proposed -

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement in the newspapers to-day in reference to the title of His Majesty the King, and to ask whether the Imperial authorities have requested or have invited suggestions from the Commonwealth Government as to that title. If such a request has been made, and the Government have made any suggestion, will the Prime Minister inform us what the suggestion is?

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I saw, in the Age newspaper yesterday, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that he was in communication with the Government of the Commonwealth in regard to this matter. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us the nature of this communication.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– -Some months ago, I think in January, a communication 4vas received on the subject. I shall be only too glad to satisfy the justifiable inquiries of honorable members if I find these dea-. patches are not marked private. I will see to that to-morrow. If the despatches are not marked confidential, I shall be able to inform honorable members of what has passed. If otherwise, I may ask leave to say -what has passed.

House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010709_reps_1_2/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 9 July 1901

DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD

Mr POYNTON:South Australia

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL

Mr PAGE:Maranoa

Mr BARTON:‘Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

QUESTION

FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS

Mr MAUGER:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

SURCHARGED ENGLISH LETTERS

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER POSTAL REVENUE

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

PARLIAMENTARY CLERICAL STAFF: DISTRIBUTION OF BILLS

Mr SPEAKER:

DEFENCE BILL

Sir JOHN FORREST:Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

Mr HIGGINS:NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr CONROY:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr REID:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Thomas:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Thomas:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr CONROY:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr REID:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr McCay:

Mr REID:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr HIGGINS:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr McCay:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr McCay:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Reid:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr WATSON:BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Reid:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCay:

Mr Watson:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Isaacs:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Higgins:

House of Representatives
9 July 1901

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr BARTON:
‘Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PIESSE:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Sir JOHN” FORREST:
Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist