Senate
12 March 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

NAVIGATION BILL
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHISTS: SUNDAY WORK
QUESTION
- STEAM-SHIP AFRIC
QUESTION
- CADET STAFF OFFICERS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- REMOUNTS FOR INDIA
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- MR. E. A. BLAKNEY
QUESTION
- CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT
QUESTION
- TENDERS: BRITISH PREFERENCE
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH POLE DRESSERS
QUESTION
- MAKINE SURVEY OF NORTH-WEST COAST
PAPUA ADMINISTRATION
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
SUPPLY BILL (No. 5)
QUARANTINE BILL

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

page 8865

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether his attention has been called to a paragraph which appeared, in the Age of yesterday stating that a despatch had been received from the Imperial authorities regarding the proposed navigation laws of the Commonwealth. I also wish to know why the public were placed in possession of the contents of that document before they had been communicated to Parliament?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

– My honorable friend was good enough to direct my attention this morning to a paragraph in the Age newspaper relating to the subject to which he has alluded. At the present moment I cannot say under what circumstances that paragraph was published, or whether the memorandum in question has actually been received by the Prime Minister. If Senator Guthrie chooses to give notice of his question I shall be happy to make full inquiries into the matter.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Arising out of the answer given to my question, I would point out that the paragraph distinctly states that the Prime Minister, in reply to an inquiry, admitted that he had received the memorandum referred to. I therefore desire to know whether the Governmerit are of opinion that the mere act. of laying upon the table of Parliament the report of the proceedings of the Navigation Conference, held last year between representatives of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, commits us to the resolutions arrived at by that body ?

Senator BEST:

– Of course any answer to that question would merely represent an expression of opinion on my part or upon that of (he Government. But, as a matter of fact, in introducing the Navigation Bill to the Senate. I did not hesitate to fully state my views upon the matter.

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is prepared to lay upon the table of the Senate the letter received from the Imperial Board of Trade in regard to the Navigation Bill ? I wish also to know whether it can reasonably be said that the tone of that document is extremely arrogant, and whether it is the policy of Ministers to make the contents of important public documents known to the press before they are communicated to Parliament?

Senator BEST:

– It is not the policy of Ministers to make known to the press the contents of documents before they are communicated to Parliament, and I cannot recall any instance in which that has been done. Speaking personally, it is a procedure against which I have always protested, and upon which I have always put my foot down. I will take the earliest opportunity of inquiring into the matter, with a view to . learning the circumstances to which allusion has been made. At the same time, honorable senators must understand that there are sources from which information can be obtained other than Ministers, and resort is frequently had to these by enterprising journalists.

page 8864

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHISTS: SUNDAY WORK

Senator PEARCE:

– I know that we have very little control over him, but I should like to know whether the Minister will bring under his notice the fact that the regulation has not been put in force in the States named, and that officers are still required to take time off instead of being paid time and a half for Sunday work.

Senator KEATING:

– Certainly. As a matter of fact, when any representations of the character I have just named are made they are brought under the notice of the Public Service Commissioner, and he is asked at once to report upon them.

page 8865

QUESTION

STEAM-SHIP AFRIC

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I desire to direct the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to a report which appears in this morning’s newspapers in reference to damage done to the s.s. Afric. The report states that affidavits made by the marine surveyors in. England, who saw the vessel in dock there, state that there was a hole in her outer plates through which a man could put his head. I desire to ask whether the Vice-President of the Executive Council will lay copies of these affidavits upon the table of the Senate?

Senator de Largie:

– To which vessel is the honorable senator referring ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– To the steam-ship Afric, which is alleged to have struck a submerged rock within the confines of Port Phillip, and which was allowed to continue her voyage to England, notwithstanding that there was a hole in her outer plates through which a man could place his head.

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– In answer to my honorable friend’s question, I would point out that the documents to which he refers are not within our control. I will draw the attention of my honorable colleague to the matter, and, if they are available, we shall endeavour to get them. So far as I can gather, however, they are not documents over which we have any control.

Senator Guthrie:

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council procure copies of the affidavits, which were sworn in England, and presented to the Marine Court sitting in Melbourne.

Senator BEST:

– I have already explained that we may not have the power to procure them. We can ask for them, but the Marine Court authorities are not obliged to let us have them.

page 8866

QUESTION

CADET STAFF OFFICERS

Later.

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– I beg to lay on the table -

Statement of particulars of service, &c., of Staff officers of cadets in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, &c.

This course has been taken to obviate the necessity of reading in the Senate the lengthy reply to Senator Neild’s request.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I am anxious that the return should be in the hands of honorable senators before we are called upon to deal with the Supply Bill.I have communicated with the Chairman of the Printing Committee, who will second the motion that I now move -

That the paper be printed.

To defer the matter until the meeting of the Printing Committee would mean that it would be impossible to have the document printed in time to be of service to us.

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 8866

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Post and Telegraph Act1901 -

General Postal, Money Orders, Telegraphic, and Telephone Regulations amended and repealed - . Statutory Rules 1908, No. 10.

Amendment of General Postal Regulations. - Statutory Rules1908, No. 22.

Postal Department - Further Papers relating to the promotion of Mr. E. A.. Blakney, dated 6th December, 1907, to 3rd January, 1908.

Contract Immigrants Act 1905. - Return showing

Contract Immigrants admitted into the Commonwealth during the year 1907, the nationality and occupation of such Immigrants.

Employers engaging such Immigrants and Immigrants engaged by each employer.

Places at which the Immigrants have agreed to work.

Contracts disapproved during the year 1907.

Immigrants refused admission during the year 1907, and the reasons for such refusal.

Immigration Restriction Acts 1901-1905. - Return showing -

Persons refused admission tothe Commonwealth during the year 1907.

Persons who passed the dictation test during the year 1907.

Persons admitted without being asked to pass the dictation test during the year 1907.

Departure of coloured persons from the Commonwealth during 1907.

British New Guinea - Annual Report for the year ending 30th June, 1907.

Public Service Act 1902. - Amendment of Regulation 104. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 30.

The Acting Clerk of the Parliaments laid upon the table the following paper : -

Return to Order of the Senate of 23rd January, 1908-

Postal Department : Number of Telegraphists in each State in the years 1902 and 1907.

page 8867

QUESTION

REMOUNTS FOR INDIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the VicePresidentof the Executive Council state whether any further communication has passed between the Commonwealth Government and the authorities in India, relative to their proposal in regard to the purchase of remounts. If not, will he endeavour to supply the information?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I hardly know up to what stage my honorable friend is acquainted with what has taken place. As soon as the scheme was revealed by the Argus newspaper, horse-breeders communicated with us, and every encouragement was offered to the people affected by it to express their views on the subject. The Government then cabled to the Indian Council, asking them not to proceed with the scheme until our representations were made. That request was agreed to. I am not aware that therehas been any further development, but I shall make inquiries, and if the honorable senator will repeat his question to-morrow shall deal further with it.

page 8867

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to make a personal explanation. Last night’s issue of the Herald, in a report of the proceedings of the Committee on the Customs Tariff Bill, attributes to me certain words which I did not use, and which I think are an unwarrantable interference with the domestic concerns of the Minister of Home Affairs.

page 8867

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES ADMINISTRATION

Senator MILLEN:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

The French Judge having been appointed to the dual administration in the New Hebrides, is the Government in possession of any information as to a corresponding appointment by the British Government? If not, will the Government bring under the notice of the Imperial authorities the desirability of making such appointment at an early date?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

The Government are not aware of any such appointment having yet been made by Great Britain. The matter has been brought under the notice of the Imperial authorities.

page 8867

QUESTION

MR. E. A. BLAKNEY

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Do the tabled papers relative to the classification and promotion of Mr. E. A. Blakney in the Postal Department, Tasmania, include copies of all documents bearing on the subject?
Were any telegrams concerning the classification and promotion of Mr. Blakney transmitted, and if so will the Minister request the Public Service Commissioner to furnish copies of the same to the Senate?
Will the Minister obtain and lay upon the table of the Senate a copy of the text of the paper dated 12th December, 1907, from which the following passage was extracted : - “ It would be unfair to allow some other officer to come in and take the salary which one of these two officers has been working for. As Blakney is the senior, he should get the increase” ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The following replies have been forwarded to me by the Public Service Commissioner - 1 and 2. Copies of all documentsleading up to and the determination arrived at in regard to the re-classification and promotion of Mr. Blakney are included in those laid upon the table, with the exception of a telegram in December last in reply to a circular one sent to all inspectors regarding increases to officers of all Departments. This telegram was overlooked owing to its not being with the file dealing with Mr. Blakney’s case, but was attached to the general file dealing with the whole of the class promotions ‘ for the year 1907-8. Subsequently to the decision being given, a telegram was received from the Deputy Public Service Inspector, but not being extant at the time the promotion was effected it was not included. In it the Deputy Inspector’ asked if the matter could be stayed, as, in his opinion, Mr. Blakney was not the senior or most competent officer. This opinion the Commissioner had previously before him, but with which he did not agree. Copies will be laid upon the table.

There are no papers dated 12th December, 1907. A schedule was prepared in the Commissioner’s office of all officers to be considered for class promotions during 1907-8, and the passage quoted is a marginal note on this schedule. A copy of the portion relating to Messrs. Blakney and Creswell will be laid upon the table.

I have also copies of the papers referred to in the question, and shall lay them on the table.

page 8868

QUESTION

CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT

Senator MULCAHY:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In connexion with the preliminary agreement between the Commonwealth and Messrs. James Laing and Sons, by whom was the bond which provided “ sureties to the PostmasterGeneral in the penal sum of£25,000 for the due commencement and faithful performance of the contract “ drafted and prepared ?
Was such bond submitted to, and approved by, counsel, and if so, who were the counsel?
Who were the two “approved sureties “who with the contractor entered into the joint and several bond ?
Did the Commonwealth law officers approve of the bond as carrying out the conditions of the preliminary agreement with regard to the adequate protection of the Commonwealth?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

As this matter is the subject of a pending action, it is not desirable to answer any questions about it at present. Full information will be available when the action is at an end.

page 8868

QUESTION

TENDERS: BRITISH PREFERENCE

Senator MULCAHY:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Is the following statement, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27th February, correct : -

” BRITISH PREFERENCE IN PRACTICE.

” German Tenders Passed Over. “ Melbourne, Wednesday. “The Postal Department, in accordance with the policy of giving preference to British manufacturers, accepted the tender to-day of an Englishfirm for the delivery of telephone wire in Western Australia. A German tender was slightly lower than the price asked by the British firm.”?

Is the following statement, made by a correspondent of the same journal on the28th February, true in substance : - “With reference to the paragraph under the heading,’ British Preference in Practice,’ which appeared in your issue to-day, February 27th, I desire to say that the failure of a German firm in having their tender accepted is not due to the operations of the preferential Tariff, but the systematic boycott ofGermantenders which obtains in the Federal Government. The 5 per cent. preferential Tariff, not having had the desired effect, the Government now adds another percentage, and so effectively prevents German goods passing into the Government stores “ ?
Is it intended to give absolute preference to British goods, regardless of other considerations?
If it is, will the Government announce in its advertisements invitingtenders for supplies that such is its intention?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The replies furnished by the Postmaster-General to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow -

Yes.
No. There is no systematic boycott of German firms, and there has been no change in the practice of the Department.
No. No alteration is in contemplation.
See answer to No. 3.

page 8868

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH POLE DRESSERS

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

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Did the Postmaster-General promise on 27th October, 1906, that pole dressing should be done by skilled men only?
Are the two men employed in that capacity at £120 per annum skilled men? If so, does the Department consider£120 per annum fair remuneration for skilled labour?
Is it the intention of the Department to make any further appointments at£120 per annum ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The PostmasterGeneral has sent me the following reply to the first of the honorable senator’s questions -

Sucha promise, so far as the work in Melbourne is concerned, might be inferred from the letter written by direction of the PostmasterGeneral on the 27th October, 1906, and this promise has been carried out so far as the matter is under the Minister’s control.

The following answers have been furnished to questions 2 and 3 by the Public Service Commissioner, within whose province they fall-

The two men referred to were transferred from the position of linemen, and possess all the skill required for the work of pole dressing. Any person used to handling tools can, in a few weeks, acquire the skill necessary, and the rate paid is considered fair remuneration for the work. The appointees start at£120 per annum, and advance by annual increments of £6 to £132 per annum.
Yes; in accordance with the Regulation fixing the rates.

page 8868

QUESTION

MAKINE SURVEY OF NORTH-WEST COAST

Senator DE LARGIE:

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

Has the Government any information to impart to the Senate on the question of the Marine Survey of the north-west coast?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

The last action was a representation from the Government to the Admiralty showing the urgent necessity for the early commencement of the work

page 8869

PAPUA ADMINISTRATION

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That a return be prepared and laid upon the Table of the Senate showing the names of all officials employed in the government and administration of Papua, together with their positions and duties, and the salaries and allowances received by them.

page 8869

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from10th March, vide page 881 1):

Schedule.

Postponed Division VI. - Metals and Machinery.*

Item 177. . . . And on and after 20th November, 1907, Electrical Machines, Appliances, and parts thereof : -

*Motive Power, Engine Combinations, and Power Connexions are dutiable under their respective headings, when not integral parts of exempted machines, machinery, or machine tools.

Request ( by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 177, paragraphc, by making the words “Switch Boards” one word.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 177, paragraph c (imports under General Tariff), free.

Regulating, starting, and controlling apparatus are merely complements of the machines as they are landed, and it is a mistake to suppose that they could be made here with advantage. Possibly that raw material could be brought here, but it is a foolish policy to impose a duty of 20 per cent. when the completed machines are admitted free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I can only protest against this request. I admit that it would be simply absurd, having made the other articles; free, to make these articles liable to duty; it is quite an anomaly. I must, therefore, content myself with a protest, and by voting against the proposal.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I should like to know from the Vice-President of the. Executive Council whether the word “ regulating “ covers lock and block signalling apparatus.

Senator Best:

– No.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [11.33]. - I know that it is not easy for the Vice-President of the Executive Council to look at the situation as we look at it, but I commend him for. the course he is taking. It will be an anomaly if this apparatus is subject to a duty of 20 per cent. while we have decidedto admit free all that is included under paragraphs a and b. I desire to confirm what Senator Lynch has said, though I just take the one example presented in ampère and volt meters which are regarded as. included in paragraph c as regulating and controlling apparatus. I am bound to say that there is no comparison whatever between meters of that kind as imported, and those which are attempted to be made in the Commonwealth. These meters are turned out in thousands by means of the latest machinery in the Old World, and the demand is not sufficient to justify the establishment of the industry here.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I doesnot matter what we do, there must be an anomaly in this connexion. In a preceding item we fixed the duty on machinery up to ten-horse power, at 20 per cent., and if these machines, and others of larger power, are to be free, we are presented with an anomaly. I can sympathize with Senator Symon, and other honorable senators opposite, who are always prepared to march in harmony with anybody going in the same direction as themselves. They would even march with Beelzebub if that gentleman proposed to reduce duties. This is not done with any view to secure uniformity in the Tariff, but merely with the object of reducing duties. It grieves me when I see a good protectionist going in the same direction as the free-traders, who have declared that they will even make use of the preference proposals to reduce- duties. I am sure Senator Lynch must realize that he is supported from the opposite side, not because of any sympathy with his motives, but be- ‘ cause of the desire to have items free, or dutiable at as low a rate as possible.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.-Imove -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 177, paragraphd (imports under General Tariff), free.

– These items affect more than Western Australia.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes; this is not purely a Western Australian item. 1 shall be sorry, however, if Senator Lynch does not take the same course in regard to items affecting the Eastern States chiefly. I cannot be expected to accept Senator Neild’s definition of a lightning arrester as an article of luxury. Such a thing is a convenience in any part of the Commonwealth, and I do not think that Western Australia is more subject than the other States to electrical disturbances. We should be taking up an inconsistent attitude if, after making free certain electrical apparatus, we refused to make free such things as fuses and switches. I agree with Senator Neild that it is undesirable to punish the little man after letting off the big man ; but I do not know why we should punish either, and I do not hold that, because the majority has punished the little man, I should assist to punish the big man. If I cannot secure all I want,I gladly accept the assistance of Senator Lynch and others to get at least something.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Not he ; because gas fittings are not used in mines. I shall vote to leave the remainder of item 177 as it stands.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 177, paragraph d, “Electric Apparatus and Fittings” (imports under General Tariff), free (Senator Lynch ‘s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Clemons) agreed to-

That theHouse of Representatives be requested to makeitem 177, paragraph d (imports from the United Kingdom), free.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 177, paragraph E (imports under General Tariff),free.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– With regard to Senator Neild’s remarks as to Western Australiansenators voting for the duty on candlesused by the poor prospector, and for free electricity’ for the big mine-owner, it is the big mine-owner, and not the working miner, who has to buy those candles.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia> [12.23]. - I direct Senator Neild’s attention to the fact that electric cooking appliances are not peculiarly the possessionof the rich, or of mining companies. They have lately been introduced into a very humble type of home. If Senator Neild were not so much occupied in contemplating his own accomplishments, he would know that electricity is used now on a very large scale in remote parts of the

Commonwealth. At Thargomindah, or Cunnamulla, there is an electric power plant driven by water from an artesian bore. In Boulder City electricity is being introduced to the home of many men working on the mines. I have seen electric cooking appliances there, and flat-irons heated by electricity-

Senator Millen:

– Is not the inhabitant of a less advanced city, where gas only is used, entitled to equal consideration?

Senator LYNCH:

– That involves another question. If we put gas on the same level as electricity, we are encouraging the use of an illuminant that is passing out of popularity. Gas is being superseded every day by electricity. We should not advocate an adhesion to primitive methods, as against. the adoption of more advanced ones. Senator Neild was prepared, half-an-hour ago, to vote to free the switchboard of a wealthy company, but is willing now to impose a duty of 15 per cent. on the electric flat-irons or cooking appliances of humble homes. It is “up to” him to establish his own consistency before setting out on the fruitless errand of finding inconsistency in the votes of others. The question of whether these appliances are made in Australia must be one of the first considerations to a protectionist. The only available authority we have to consult on that point is thereport of the Tariff Commission. In that it is shown that Mr. Barton, an electrical engineer, ‘ stated that electric cooking appliances are not made in Australia, that it would take a duty of 25 per cent. to encourage their manufacture, and that even then he was doubtful if they could be made at a profit. As an electrical engineer, he would naturally be biased, consciously or. unconsciously, in favour of his own profession, yet those were his views.

Senator Findley:

– If 25 per cent. isnot enough, will the honorable senator vote for 30 per cent. ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I am not satisfied that even then the industry would be started. The duties proposed by the Government are 15 per cent. (general Tariff), and . 1:0 per cent. (United Kingdom), while Senator Findley proposes 20 per cent. (general Tariff), but Mr. Barton regards 25 per cent. as insufficient to establish this problematical industry. In view of those facts, and seeing that Senator Neild’s allegation that these appliances are the exclusive property of the rich is without foundation, there is nothing for us to do, both from a protectionist stand-point, and in order to free the necessities of poorer people, but to make the item free.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I regret that Senator Neild has voiced the peculiar doctrine that because the Committee did not relieve gas and its apparata from duties, they are, therefore, bound to tax an illuminant, which is universally recognised to be superior in its lighting power and general convenience. Electricity is gradually replacing gas to a very large extent. It is a great convenience to the public in many other ways. An instance of that is the illumination of railway carriages, which are occupied more by the poof than by the rich. In our public halls and institutions electric light is now almost universally used, and it will not be said that the poorer classes of the people do not get the benefit of that. Senator Clemons has proved, by a practical example, that this cannot be considered a protective duty, and I agree with the honorable senator that it will be many years before any one will be warranted in investing capital in the plant required for the manufacture of these articles. I fail to understand how protectionists, who have so loudly denounced revenue duties, can be prepared to vote for this one.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– Senator Gray overlooks the fact that no protective duty can be imposed, in any new country which will not, for some time, produce revenue. I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee the fact that any one who is accustomed to visit the homes of the people must, during “the last two or three years, have heard on every side, when thequestion was asked of parents what they were going to do with their sons, that they proposed to make them electrical engineers, in the belief that when their apprenticeship was served it would be found to be the greatest engineering business in the Commonwealth. Our public educational institutions in all of the States are full of pupils at the present time who are learning electrical engineering. What are we going to do with them when they have completed their studies? We must either, by the encouragement of these manufactures in Australia, give them a chance of earning a living here, or allow them to drift away from Australia to other countries in which they can obtain employment at the business they have learned. Theonyl other alternative is that we should have, in Australia, numbers of mechanics . without a trade, and of professional men without opportunities for employment in their profession. I wish to deal now with something that was said by Senator Lynch.. When the Tariff Commission visited Brisbane, they took the evidence of Mr. Barton, but the information was easily obtainable that this gentleman had almost an absolute monopoly in Brisbane for the supply of electric power, and not of electrical machinery. In the short-sighted way in which such people often view matters, he came to the conclusion that the more cheaply these appliances could be imported thebetter it would be for his monopoly. Instead of being prepared to encourage their manufacture in Australia, he took the selfish, narrow view that they should be imported as cheaply as possible so that he might increase his profits in the supply of electrical power… I hope the Committee will be prepared to take such action as will have the effect of. establishing these industries in Australia, so that the youth who in every State are now studying electrical engineering may be afforded opportunities for employment.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Ifind from the evidence given before the Tariff Commission that this duty would have an appreciable protective incidence. . If it is not sufficiently high to secure effective protection, I hope that those who believe in the principle will make an effort to increase it, and I shall be prepared to support them. Senator Lynch has come to the conclusion that Mr. Barton regarded this as a revenue duty, but that is not the conclusion to which I have come from reading his evidence. I find that he was a manufacturer of electric apparatus some time ago in Brisbane, and was obliged to discontinue his operations because the Nelson Government in Queensland took away the protection given in respect of the articles he manufactured.’

Senator Turley:

– Because the Commonwealth Government reduced the duty previously obtaining in Queensland of 25 per cent. to 121/2 per cent.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– SenatorTurley is under a misapprehension. He will find this evidence at question 90307-

That was, of course, prior to the Federal Tariff ?-Yes. The Mcllwraith Tariff gave us a duty of 25 per cent., but the Nelson Government removed all duties on electrical apparatus. We then stopped manufacturing it. The plac ing of the duty of121/2percent.onthesegoods under the Federal Tariff was not a sufficient inducement to our re-entering the business.

Would you tell us what duty would induce any one to manufacture these articles in connexion with electrical machinery ? - I think a 25 per cent. duty would have that effect.

Do you think that would be sufficient to induce the manufacture of cooking and heating stoves ? - No ; because they are used to such an insignificant extent that I doubt whether there would be a sufficient demand to justify their manufacture.

It should be borne in mind that that evidence was given two years ago, and electric appliances are now very much more widely used. If there is to be any duty imposed on this item it should be a protective duty. I am not prepared to support a revenue duty, but at present I feel inclined to support a protective duty on the item.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [12.45]. - little while ago Senator de Largie made a kind of attack on me, comparing myaction on the candle duties with my action on the duties under consideration.

Senator de Largie:

– Not an attack; it was a. defence of my own attitude.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– At any rate the honorable senator passed some strictures on my action in connexion with the matters to which I have referred. I shall not attempt to break any rule of Parliament by quoting from newspapers, but I may mention that I hold in my hand a copy of the KalgoorlieMiner of the 18th February, which, in a leading article, headed “ Monopolist versus the People,” strongly supports mv attitude upon the candle duties, just as I am sure it will support me for what I am doing on the present occasion. It will, “I am satisfied, just as strongly condemn those who vote against menow, as it condemned those who voted against me in reference to candles. The term “monopolist” typifies the welltodo man, as against the man who is not so well off in this world’s goods. I say that the proposal before us is one that will benefit the monopolist, or the “ fat man,” as some people would call him. Now, I never was a friend to the man who does not want a friend. I have always in my public life sought to be a friend to the man who wants one. The man with the big banking account, and with a solicitor whom he can consult, does not need my assistance. It is the poor devil who is struggling to keep a roof over his head who wants a helping hand. That is the man whom I have always been anxious to assist, and I maintain that I am still pursuing the same course on the present occasion. The man who uses a kerosene heater, a camp oven, a billy-can, or a kerosene lamp, is to be taxed under this Tariff; the rich man is to escape lightly. It is equally the same with the users of gas. The resident of a small country town is to be hit under this Tariff in every direction. Every kind of duty touches him. Every kind of appliance con- nected with his lighting and his heating is to be taxed. At the same time the better classes - “better” notmorally or intellectually, but in the possession of this world’s goods - are to get off lightly in respect of their electrical fittings. Just as I. maintained that candles ought to be easily available to the great body of the people, and just as I pointed out that the duty imposed on candles was in the interests of a single monopolist, and against the interests of tens of thousands ‘ of people throughout Australia, so I maintain that the proposed removal of the duty under consideration would be in the interests of the very few, and not of the great body of the people. I will maintain as far as I possibly can, the principle that I have invariably maintained ever since I entered public life more than a quarter of a century ago - “ the greatest good for the greatest number.” That is, and always will be, the attitude that I take up. I may make mistakes. I do not possess a patent of infallibility. But still, that is the principle that I keep before me. I have never been, and never will be, a class legislator.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 177, paragraph e, “ Electric Heating and Cooking Appliances “ (imports under General Tariff), free (Senator Clemons request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 17

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator BEST:

– I hope that my honorable friend will not become excited. After there has been considerable debate upon an item it is easy for a Minister to discover the feeling of the Committee, and he may find, as I have found in a few instances, that the numbers in favour or against a particular proposal are overwhelmingly against him. Sometimes, for reasons known to myself, I have called for a division in order to secure a record. Where there have been typical divisions, such as we have had upon this item, and I have found the numbers against me, I have contented myself with saying “ No,” and’ then the Hansard record of the matter has been that the request has been agreed to. . No doubt that is the record in this case. I am very sorry that I am unable to make the actual quotation, but according to the prohibited volume of Hansard, I think I am right in saying that on the 29th November my honorable colleague,the Treasurer, was invited to take electric cooking stoves out of the particular item in which it was originally submitted. That was item 144, where it appeared in this form -

Lamps’, Gas, and Electrical Stoves for heating and cooking, ad val. 30 per cent. and 20 per cent.

– I point out that item 177 has been entirely recast. The paragraph with which we are now dealing was agreed to in the other House, and the duties of 15 and 10 per cent, were, I understood, passed by arrangement.. I looked carefully through the forbidden book - Hansard- and that is my impression.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I wish to add a few words as to why’ the Government should make a concession to us on this subject. The articles affected by the duty are exceedingly valuable to every household in Australia. For cooking purposes they constitute one of the greatest blessings from a health point .of view that we can conceive of, especially as tending to lighten the labour of our women folks. From what I can gather there is no possibility of these goods being locally manufactured for some time to come, so as to supply the whole market. Under the circumstances, the arguments that have been adduced from this side of the Chamber should commend themselves to the good sense of the Committee.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 177, paragraph e, “Electric Heating and Cooking Appliances” (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 20 per cent. (Senator Findley’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 17

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in’ the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I ask Senator Best to tell the Committee what duty is being collected on the articles contained in paragraph f, “ Electric fittings not containing metal “ ?

Senator Millen:

– They are not dutiable, but free.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is not so stated. It is a strange and mystic item, because no rates of duty are attached thereto. Perhaps the Minister will allow the item to be postponed in order that some one may be afforded an opportunity to ascertain the rate of duty.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The item seems tome to be quite intelligible. It reads -

Electric fittings not containing-metal to be dutiable according to material.

If any electric fittings consist of glassware, they are dutiable as glassware. Or if they happen to contain wire, they are dutiable accordingly. I am informed that the item refers chiefly to porcelains and insulators.

Senator Clemons:

– Suppose that an electric fitting should contain half-a-dozen different materials, is this poor unfortunate item to be afflicted with half-a-dozen different duties?

Senator BEST:

– It is provided in the introduction to this schedule that -

Any article, not otherwise dutiable, composed of a combination of other articles, some of which are dutiable when imported separately, and of others free of duty when imported separately, shall be dealt with as follows : -

When the value of the dutiable portion exceeds the value of the free portion, duty shall be charged upon the whole article at the same rate as would be chargeable on that portion of the dutiable portion which, if imported separately, would be liable to the highest rate of duty.

When the value of the free portion exceeds the value of the dutiable portion of such article, the whole article shall be admitted free of duty.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– It is very evident that this small item is likely to create a lot of difficulty at the Customs Department, and to be the means of harassing any person who imports electric fittings. I feel sure that no injury will be done to any protected industry if they are made free, and there is no particular reason why we should get revenue from this source. With a view to proposing subsequently that the articles be made free, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 177, paragraph f, by leaving out the words “ to be dutiable according to material.”

I am perfectly certain that the electric fittings which do not contain metal are extremely insignificant. They willprobably be composed of cotton, or porcelain,- or rubber. I ask honorable senators to picture the trouble to which the Customs officers will be put in determining the duty to be collected on any importations. In the first place, they will have to decide whether themajor portion of the materials used in the composition of electric fittings is cotton, or porcelain, or rubber. It will be extremely difficult for them. to determine that point with any degree of accuracy, and I can conceive that at times they will have to employ the services of an analyst.

Senator McColl:

– The importer can always say what are the principal ingredients.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes ; but really, the item is ,too infinitesimal to be retained. lt is most important that we should not unnecessarily create opportunities for embarassment and annoyance to both the Department and the general public.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Best:

– It would. I could understand it if the honorable senator proposed to impose a fair average duty.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am willing to accept whatever duty the Committee fixes, but let us save the Customs authorities and the people from uncertainty. We should, where we can, prevent ‘these disputes.If Senator Best has the numbers and wants 20 per cent., he can make it 20 per cent.’ I should think that figure would cover ‘all that he desires. A distinct duty is imposed on electroliers, chandeliers, pendants, ana brackets. Electroliers and chandeliers are frequently made entirely without metal. That shows that a good deal of the Minister’s argument about the uncertainty of the duty has no weight. It is ridiculous to confuse everybody and compel the Customs authorities to go to litigation as to what is the major part of the material, and therefore I have moved my request with the sole desire of promoting simplicity. It will be open to the Minister to carry a duty of 20 per cent. afterwards, if he can.

Question put. ‘ The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 18

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– In order to bring paragraph g into harmony with what we have already done,. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 177, paragraph g, by inserting after the word “Turbines” the words “ or High Speed Reciprocating Engines to be used in mines.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I ask Senator de Largie to agree to amend the item in another form. What I suggest is that we should leave out all the words after the word “ coupling.” The honorable senator probably knows the history of this item, and feels about it just as I do. I suggest that . the item should read, “ Generators for direct coupling, free,” without regard to what they may be coupled to. It is not right that the item should include generators coupled only 10 turbines, but if would not make it much better to include only one other class of engine. I ask Senator de Largie to reciprocate the compliment I paid him just now, and withdraw his request to enable me to move a prior request.

Senator de Largie:

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am inclined to believe it would, and I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 177 by leaving out paragraph g.

Request agreed to.

Item 178…………..

And on and after 29th November, 1907 -

Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz. : -

Electroliers; Gasaliers; Chandeliers;

Pendants; Brackets; Zinc Tubing, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.

Gas meters, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
N.E.T., ad val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ; . (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 178, paragraph a (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is Senator Findley’s version, not mine. My version is that Senator Best knew as much about the item as Senator Findley did. Even if he did not, he had opportunities of obtaining information from official sources. I think the Minister knew quite enough to be able to make up his mind whether the duty ought to be left as it was or increased. My point is that, if he thinks a duty ought to be increased, he should move to that effect, and not simply say that if any one else will submit a proposition he will support it.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– I intimated, towards the beginning of our debates on the Tariff, that I proposed to vote for the highest possible protection for primary or well-established industries. On this particular duty I find myself in conflict with the free-trade section, the printed billites, and the protectionists. I am going to suggest that a request should be made to the House of Representatives to make this item really protective. In order that I may move for a higher duty, I have, in the first instance, to ask Senator Findley to withdraw his request.

– Are Are. making a charitable institution of the Tariff? Is the honorable senator sure that 30 per cent, will be sufficient to provide work for them? The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission state in their -report -

In considering the advisability of framing a scheme of uniform duties on certain gas and electrical materials, appliances, and fittings, we arrived at the conclusion that a .compromise might be made by recommending 15 per’ cent.,, a rate between ia£ per cent., the present duty on electrical, and 20 per cent., the present duty on gas appliances, materials and fittings. In doing so we omitted to give sufficient weight to the. evidence of Mr. V. S. Busby, engineer and brassfounder, representing the “” Master Brassfounders, Finishers, and Art Metal Workers’ Association of Victoria, and of Mr. A. Turner Danks, of Melbourne, engineer and brassfounder.

– That is not conclu- sive evidence “as to the industry as a wholeA great deal depends upon the individual employer and the individual man. Ohe case does not prove conclusively the general difference between the trade here and in England. I am prepared to admit that there is a difference, but Senator Croft cannot say whether it is 20 or 30 per cent. If he thinks it is 40 per cent., he ought to have moved for 40 per cent. Even if there is a difference of 30 per cent, in Wages, a duty of 30 per cent, is imposed, not only upon the labour cost, but also upon the material, and, if the material pays no duty, will give the employer a protection which represents in some cases, more than the whole sum he pays in wages. I do not think that protectionists wish to impose a duty which will give employers an absolute monopoly. While they wish to deal liberally Avith manufacturers, their idea is not to make manufacturers’ fortunes solely. To impose ‘duties so high as * to shut out imports puts the manufacturer in a position to. charge the highest possible price up to the point at which imported goods can- be introduced, without being under the slightest obligation to pay a single extra penny to his workmen. If an employer can carry on under a 20 per cent, duty, and pays a wage of 50s., he will not, if given an extra 10 per cent, protection, pay. his workmen an additional penny. If so per cent, enables the industry to carry on, as the Tariff Commission says, then, as the whole benefit of any extra protection which the Committee gives will go to the manufacturer, what justification have we for giving more than is absolutely necessary? Hardly an effort has been made by honorable senators opposite to show where the twice-considered decision of the Tariff Commission is wrong. Senator Croft’s onlyargument was that he thought an increase was necessary. Surely he should satisfy himself by looking, as the Tariff Commission did, a little more closely into the question. . I will show now upon what additional evidence the protectionist section of the Commission felt justified in reviewing their original decision. Thev make this report in connexion with- the evidence- given by Mr. Busby and Mr. Danks -

In Mr. Busby’s evidence it is stated that given a substantial increase in the Tariff the manufacturer would be enabled to take up many additional lines of brassware which are at present imported into the Commonwealth, such as chandeliers (without globes), gas fittings, electric light and power fittings, &c. An increased protection would allow them to make a fair profit, and at the same time to employ, a greater number of workmen than they do at present. A 40 per cent, duty was suggested.

Senator Turley:

– Hear, hear !

Senator MILLEN:

– I am glad that Senator Turley approves of that. We have seen Senator Findley approaching this question very tamely, and suggesting a duty of -25 per cent. Then Senator Croft, gaining a little courage, proposes that the duty shall be 30 per cent., and now, from the way in which Senator Turley applauded what I have read, I have not the slightest doubt that I am entitled to ask Senator Croft to withdraw his amendment to enable Senator Turley to put forward a request more in accordance with the .true doctrine of protection. I have shown that the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission point out that one of the witnesses, Mr. Busby, suggested a duty of 40 per cent. The next witness, whose evidence induced that section of -the Commission to revise their first recommendation, was Mr. Danks, and I quote this from the report -

Mr. Danks pointed out that under the existing Tariff electric brackets and electroliers are liable to a duty of only ia£ per cent. He claimed that these goods should be classifier! as manufactures of metals n-e.i., and be liable to a duty, of 20 per cent. They were made of exactly similar material as, and’ the process of manufacture was identical with, gas brackets and gasoliers, on which such duty is charged. It seemed absurd that the same kind of goods should be charged at different rates of duties simply because they bore different names. In like manner Mr. Danks showed that electric radiators are admitted at 12% per cent., whilst hot-water radiators are charged 20 per cent, as manufactures of metals. Zinc tubing for electric bells is admitted at 12^ per cent., while zinc tubing for other purposes cannot be imported without paying a duty of 20 per cent.

Mr. Danks finds that it pays him better to manufacture than to import. Under this 20 per cent, duty they are manufacturing nearly three-fourths of the articles used in’ this line, and will eventually manufacture all. I do not say that they -are philanthropists, and manufacture in Australia for the sake of manufacturing.

Senator McGregor:

– Where did the honorable senator get that evidence ?

Senator SAYERS:

– The information was given to me, and I believe it to be true. We do not know where we are on this item. One honorable senator who is a prohibitionist moved for 25 per cent., but withdrew it. Then Senator Croft moved for 30 per cent. The Government seem to have deserted the chamber, and left the Tariff in the hands of private members on their side. We have made a great mistake in many of the items we have passed, and have thrown the benefits of increased duties into the hands of a few employers. We are promised a new protection scheme, which should .certainly apply to this item. If men start a business, it is of course their right to make the most of it, but a lot of them come to this building to induce honorable senators to increase duties, and the Government have not backbone enough to resist. They know that they could not carry anything in this chamber without the support of those members to whom, apparently, they have handed over the shaping of .the Tariff. I always regarded it as the duty of Ministers to stick as closely as possible to the Tariff as passed in another place, to the satisfaction, I presume, of the Cabinet. But the Government in this case leave it to any honorable senators who are approached by manufacturers with a request for more protection, to raise duties as high as they choose. Some manufacturers are like the daughter of the horse-leech. One man who saw Senator Findley wanted 25 per cent. Another who saw Senator Croft wanted 30 per cent. Now I understand that Senator Mulcahy has been interviewed with a request for 35 per cent. It is- time that sort of thing was put a stop to. This increasing of duties by private members will simply further delay the passing of the Tariff. Under the old Tariff, zinc tubing was free. ‘ Not even the Minister has explained why it is now made dutiable at 20 per cent. Unless honorable senators hunt up information for themselves, they are in the dark as to what is being done. The Government have thrown this Tariff on the table,’ saying, “We will resist all reductions moved by members of the Opposition, but members on. our own side, so long as thev increase the rates, can mutilate it as much as they like.” I wish to know why zinc tubing was removed from the free list and included in this item. I shall press for that information if I have to repeat my request for it over and over again. Honorable senators on the other side have only to whisper in the Minister’s ear to obtain all the information they require, but it would appear that honorable senators on this side are to be given no information, although they have often assisted the Government to get out of a difficulty. I have had handed to me a report by the Victorian Chief Inspector of Factories for 1906, and from this report I find that the average wage paid to brass-workers employed at the minimum wage or over is 51s. 4d. per week. Still, I am open to conviction on the matter, and if it can be shown that a duty of 30 ,per cent, on this item is necessary to cover the difference between the wages paid in the Qld Country and in Australia, I shall be prepared to support the request.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- It is a very trying position for an honorable senator to bie placed in, when, seemingly, the order of the day is to spin out speeches to prevent a division. 1 congratulate the mover of the request before the Committee on having come back to the fold. I hope that he has brought Senator Lynch back with him. I am very glad to notice the change which has come over some honorable senators, and the extraordinary effort that is now being made by certain representatives of Western Australia to show that they recognise that yesterday they were in bad political company. While I am prepared to support a duty of 25 per cent, on this item, I consider that to propose a request for a duty of 30 ner cent, is going to extremes. Considering the temper of the Committee, I think we should be satisfied not with what we would like, but with what we can. get. I am not a thick-and-thin supporter of the Government, and if a representative of the Government told me that I should not move a certain request I should say, “ I am here as a ‘.representative of South Australia, under certain obligations, and holding certain principles, and I intend to have my say as I think proper.” Senator Millen has complained that the representatives of the Government in the Senate have not had the courage to move this request them- selves, and that requests for increases of duties have been moved without any reasons being given. We know that honorable senators belonging to the free-trade Tory party have frequently, immediately after the result of a division has been announced, moved reductions of duties without offering a single reason in support of their proposals. I might mention that some honorable senators, when before the electors, were protectionists, in order to secure their return, and God knows what they are to-day. . I like to see fair play, and, while I am a protectionist, I am not going to fight against the wind. I suggest to the Government that in future they should be careful to adhere to the duties they have submitted, and not run the risk of an all-night sitting by fighting for a trifling addition of 5 per cent. to a duty.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Hear, hear ; they should stick to their guns.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If Senator Mulcahy would only be true to his election pledges, and to statements he has frequently made in this chamber, the protectionist policy of the Government would be more likely to be given effect to. He is the honorable senator to whom I refer. If honorable senators would stick to their professed principles, which they enunciated before the electors, and be less true to the caucus over which Senator Millen presides, and of which Senator Dobson is the Whip, the policy of the country would be very much better carried forward, and much time and expense would be saved. I will support a duty of 25 per cent., but I will go no higher. I ask Senator Croft to withdraw his request. If he does not, I shall vote against him.

Senator Croft:

– “ Free-tection.”

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator need not say that about me after the vote which he gave yesterday. I welcome him back to the fold, but he must have felt as I have done sometimes - when I have voted with the Conservatives, and received their congratulations and handshakes - very uncomfortable in such company. I am glad that the honorable senator has now seen the evil of his ways.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– The history of this item is particularly interesting. The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission considered the matter very carefully. After their first consideration of it, they recommended duties of 12 and 15 per cent. But, subsequently, they were moved to reconsider the question. They heard fresh evidence, and their amended conclusion is to be found on page 60 of their own report. Paragraph 5 says -

We beg leave to amend our recommendation relating to’ these goods contained in progress report No. 10, and to substitute the following, viz. : -

Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz. : -

Electroliers, Gasaliers, Pendants, Brackets, Switches, Controlling Devices, Radiators, and Zinc Tubing, 20 per cent.

They make the further recommendation that electrical appliances should pay a duty of 1 21/2 per cent. That piece of evidence regarding the first stage in the history of the item is rather a tough morsel for Senator Croft to swallow. The recommendation of the free- trade section of the Commission is to be found on page 23 of their report. They say-

Most of the witnesses, who spoke with a knowledge of applied electricity, suggested 25 per cent. as a maximum duty, but a brass founder, on behalf of a section of his industry, asked that a duty of “at least 40 per cent.” be put on electric motors of all descriptions. On all fours with this is the request of a Brisbane witness for a 50 per cent. duty on electric lamps, the immediate effect . of whichhe admitted would be to force up the price of these articles 60 per cent.

Evidently, even the duty which Senator Croft proposes would not satisfy some of the persons engaged in the trade. They candidly admitted that they wanted a higher duty, the effect of which would be to force up the price 60 per cent. The next stage in the history of the matter was reached when the Minister proposed to the House of Representatives duties of 25 and 20 per cent. Those rates were higher by 5 per cent. than those recommended by the protectionist section of the Commission. But the Treasurer was not satisfied, and the House of Representatives were not satisfied with the Treasurer’s proposal. What went on in connexion with this item in that House is a repetition of what went on there in connexion with another item which has engaged our attentionrecently, and the debate does not occupy more than a page of the official record of its proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in referring to a debate on the item in another place.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– From the very beginning, the duty on this item has been getting higher and higher, and, in my opinion, the present rate will not satisfy the appetites of. honorable senators who call themselves protectionists. I admit that any private senator has the right to ask for an increase in . the duty on an item, but usually the supporters of the Government do not adopt that course.

Progress reported.

page 8900

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5)

Post and Telegraph Department - Administration.: Need of Public Inquiry Undermanning: Assistant Telegraphists : Curtailment of Postal Facilities.: Letter and Telegram Delivery : Contract Post Offices : Letter Boxes : Postage on Newspapers : Sale of Newspapers on Mail Days : Queensland Post and Telegraph Association, Ventilation of Grievances : Boards of Inquiry: Telephone. Toll System - Public Departments : BalanceSheets - Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act : Regulation of Prices - .Remounts for India - Defence Department : Rates of Pay : Cadet Staff Officers - Defence Scheme - State Representation Abroad - Papua Administration : Annual Report : Land Ordinance- - Public Service Superannuation - Cancelled Mail Contract - Tenders : British Preference.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill from passing through all its stages without delay.

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed: -

That this Bill be now read, a first time.

Senator STEWART:

– Certainly. On the 1 6th December, 1907, a letter waswritten to me by this association in the following terms -

Dear Sir,

As you are doubtless aware, particularly from the number of questions that have lately been asked in Parliament, a great amount of discontent prevails, and has done for a considerable period, in the Post and Telegraph Service of the Commonwealth.

A reference to the files of the Transmitter, the Federated P. and T. Association’s monthly journal, will show that the discontent has been growing for years from various causes (a few of which I indicate here) until there is becoming a grave danger of dislocation of the service.

This association was one of the first to point out to the authorities the imminence of the troubles that remaining unremedied have led to the universal dissatisfaction that now exists. But from whatever reason, little heed was paid to the warnings, with the present result.

At a conference of delegates of the State associations held in Melbourne in August, 1906, it was decided to take a plebiscite of members’ of associations on the question of asking for a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the grievances or officer’s of this service, and the result was - Yes, 843; No, 284.

So rapidly have events moved since then, and. so greatly have grievances multiplied, that were the referendum again resorted to the result would undoubtedly now be even more emphatically in favour.

Acting in accordance with the result of the referendum referred to, the Central Executive of the Federated P. and T. Associations will seek to obtain a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the causes of the discontent.

With the object of helping to secure such an inquiry, my council has directed me to appeal, for your support and assistance.

A similar request will be made to senators and representatives of. other States by the various associations.

Among the subjects into which inquiry is urgently needed in this State are -

The classification of the Commonwealth Public Service.

The constitution of Boards of Inquiry and Appeal.

The insufficient supply of men and material-

Days in lieu of holidays.

Excess hours (overtime).

Furlough and recreation leave(difficulty of obtaining).

Unfair division of. increments.

Misconstruction of regulations.

Excessive delay to business, arid a number of other matters.

Trusting that this association may rely upon your assistance and support.

Senator Millen:

– Was there any reference to the complaints that have been made outside the Department?

Senator STEWART:

– Yes ; the letter refers to the insufficient supply of men and material, and to the excessive delay in the transaction of business.

Senator Chataway:

– It also speaks of the dislocation of business.

Senator STEWART:

– Yes. On the 7th of February of the present year I received another communication from the secretary of this association, in which he says -

Dear Sir,

I regret to have to inform you that the action taken by my council, as per my letter of 17th December, has been questioned by the Public Service Commissioner, who regards our action as a contravention of section 46 of the Public. Service Act.

I just wish to say that such contravention was quite unintentional upon our part. Our action was performed frankly and openly, and our intention to do so has been publicly stated in the Transmitter for the last eighteen months.

Nevertheless, in deference to the opinion of the Public Service Commissioner and the Hon. the Postmaster-General (who concurs with that gentleman), I beg to ask you to kindly regard my letter as withdrawn and non-existent.

The point to which I wish more particularly to direct the attention of the Senate is this. Here is an association of Government employes, formed for their own protection and for the more effective conduct of the Public Service, and when they attempt to suggest to Parliament that the business of the Department is not being conducted as it ought to be, and that they have grievances which they have tried to get remedied and have failed, the Public Service Commissioner immediately objects to that communication being sent. He gets them to withdraw it, and by so doing; attempts to erect - for that is just what it means - round the Public Service a wall of silence, inside which no outside man can hope to penetrate. If public servants are not permitted either to suggest how thebusiness of the people might be better conducted, orto submit their grievances to theParliament of the country, to what position shall we bring ourselves ? The PublicService will be a close preserve, surrounded by a wall of silence. It will be impossible for any outside man to discover what is going on, and the result will inevitably be confusion, corruption, maladministration, and a complete discredit of that .service. I do not think it is healthy that such a : state of things should be allowed to exist. Why should not public servants be permitted to bring their grievances, if they have any, before the Parliament of the country - before their board of directors, so to speak, for that is what Parliament, in effect, is? Although we handed the control of this Department over to the Public Service Commissioner, the PostmasterGeneral, and the heads of Departments, we did so with this reservation, that we. retained the right to overlook their management. Just as, according to the old tradition, the humblest subject in the realm can appeal to the King, so it appears to me that the humblest employe in the Pub1 lie Service has a right to be heard by Parliament. But the Commissioner, apeing the capitalist, and carrying out. the generally accepted capitalistic view that associations of workers ought not to exist, or, if they do exist, that they should be as quiet as is possible, has simply set his foot upon this association. He has told them that they must make no representations to Parliament. My information is that these men have exhausted every other method of getting redress. They have pointed out, time after time, to the heads of The Departments that they are shorthanded. They have also shown that because of this undermanning, not only they, but also the public, are suffering ; and they have done all this without any effect. What can they do ? Ought they not to come, before the representatives of the people, . who are their employers, and state their grievances? Some persons have suggested that if public servants were permitted to come to Parliament with their grievances, itwould be impossible to maintain discipline. I do not believe anything of the kind. Even at the. risk of destroying or weakening what is known as discipline, I would much rather see Parliament interfere than have’ the present state df dissatisfaction continued with no prospect of remedy. We have to consider what is best for the country and best for the Public Service. Is it better to have an effective service, even if a little agitation, or, for that matter, a great deal of agitation, is tolerated, than to have an inefficient, ineffective, corrupt service, outside of which not a whimper of. discontent is heard? If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, the Public Service will be like a Russian prison.

There will be weeping, wailing, and gnash. ing of teeth within the walls of the dungeon, but nothing will be -heard outside. Once a man has passed the portal of the Public Service, he will have placed himself completely at the mercy of the heads of Departments. I was going to add “ and of the Postmaster-General,” but, if I had done so, I would have made a mistake, because he is as completely in the hands of. the heads of Departments as the Commissioner wishes to place the employes. I think that the latter made a serious mistake in objecting to this association writing to members of Parliament. If there is dissatisfaction in the Public Service, we ought to know about it. If our employes are discontented with their lot, if they think that they are not being fairly treated, where ought they to go except to the representatives of their employers ? I hope that the Senate will not countenance in any shape or form this attempt on the part of the Commissioner to stifle legitimate complaint by postal employes with regard to their grievances. There is also another matter in. connexion with the Postal Department about which I have been written to, and that is with regard .to Boards of Inquiry. When Parliament was framing the Public Service Act, it realized that it was necessary to provide for Boards before which differences which arose between officials could be heard ; otherwise we came to the conclusion that a great deal of tyranny might be exercised by the heads of Departments, and the employes treated unfairly. It appears that the Commissioner has made a fresh departure in connexion with those Boards. The Act says that each case shall be tried before a Board composed of three members, one member representing the Government, another member representing the Department, and another member representing the particular division to which the officer whose case is being tried belongs, and two members constituting a quorum. In Queensland, instead of the members of a Board travelling to wherever an inquiry was to be held, and hearing the evidence, questioning the witnesses, and coming to their conclusions with every advantage which such a method offers, the Commissioner has, on the score of expense, delegated the duty of taking evidence to- Iocs: Police Magistrates. I will give one instance : There was a case with regard to the nondelivery of a registered letter at Bowen. I think that two officers were suspended in connexion with that matter. An inquiry was ordered to be held, and, instead of the members of the Board being sent to Bowen to hold the inquiry, the Police Magistrate in that place was deputed by the Government to examine the witnesses. The evidence was sent on. to the Board in Brisbane, and it is expected to give its decision after reading it.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– There were three officers concerned, and it was a most important case.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Is that legal?

Senator STEWART:

– That is just what I want to know. It has been done by the passing of a new regulation. The GovernorGeneral in Council is empowered by the Public Service Act to pass such regulations, . not in conflict, with its provisions, as may seem necessary to carry .it out effectively, and a special regulation - 267A I think the number is - has been passed, giving the Com.missioner power to delegate the taking of evidence to Police Magistrates. As to its legality, of course I am not in a position to give an opinion, but I know that the representative of the clerical division complains very bitterly of the regulation. He says that before he can give an intelligent decision in any ease, he must see the witnesses, and be able to put questions . to them. He says that it is impossible for him to give a decision which he would consider fair and just on the merits of a case after merely reading the evidence which had been taken by some other man, however reliable he might be. I am not going to offer any opinion on that point. I know that it is quite a common thing for courts of law to delegate the taking of evidence to other persons. Not only the representative I have referred to, but a large number of public servants, object to this new departure. They say that it is very unlikely that justice will be done unless the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Act is carried out; that is, unless the Boards which have been appointed under the Act carry out the inquiries. Before resuming my seat, I desire to say to the honorable senator who represents the Postmaster-General, that I hope that, on this occasion at any rate, what has been said here will not go in at one ear and out at the other, but that there will be some- result. If not, I am certain that, from all parts of the Senate, and, I believe, from all corners of the House of Representatives, there will come a unanimous appeal to the Government - and one which it will not be able to resist - -for the appointment of either a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to inquire into these matters.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

: - There is only one matter to which I propose to ask the attention of the Senate, and which I think is a very fitting sequel to the remarks of Senators Millen and Stewart. It is based upon, a very interesting return, which I hope the Printing Committee will embalm in the records of the Senate, and every honorable senator will study, because, in my opinion, it gives the reason for a considerable number of the complaints of the general public as to the stagnation of business in the Postal Department. Of no branch of the Department have greater complaints been made than of the telegraphic branch. I shall not say who is responsible for the state of affairs which has been created, but it must be one of three persons - the PostmasterGeneral, the Public Service Commissioner, or the Treasurer. It is for the Government to inform the Senate who is responsible for the practical dislocation of business in the Postal Department, particularly the telegraphic branch. When the Department was taken over by the Commonwealth from the States, the Constitution safeguarded to the officers the status which they had under the States. The classification of the Public Service Commissioner recognised that. The Commissionerspecified in his classification certain officers who were to be what may be called permanent officers, to whom certain privileges in regard to salary, holidays, and other questions are conserved. Parliament in its wisdom provided that to every man who has been three years in the service and is over the age of 21 a minimum wage of £110 per annum shall be paid. The telegraph service is graded. There are certain men who get nearly the maximum salary”, and from them the officers are graded down to the minimum. One of the claims of the Public Service Commissioner is that he desires to do away with the old order of promotion, by seniority, and give promotion by merit. The return I have will disclose the fact that in the actual working of the Public Service Act promotion so far as the telegraph branch is concerned is at an end. There is no inducement for a telegraphist to qualify himself or to aspire, because even if vacancies occur the way is blocked and he will not get promotion. I called for a return a few months ago showing: - 1. The number of . telegraphists employed by the

Postal Department iri each State for the years 1902 and 1907 respectively; and 2. The number of assistants acting as telegraphists for each State in 1902 and 1907 respectively. Owing to the decrease in the cost of telegrams of 50 per cent, in some cases and of even more in others, there has been an enormous increase in the number despatched. I am within the mark in saying that four times as many telegrams were sent in 1907 as in 1902. Sn increase in business means more employes. That is only common sense. Therefore, when we look at the returns of the Postal Department, we should expect to find more telegraphists employed in 1907 than in 1902. I shall give honorable senators the figures, which are little short of startling. I will take first the employes classified as on the permanent list. I will give the several States separately, and afterwards the totals :-

There is an explanatory note in regard to Victoria that 87 of the 285 employed in 1902 were females. I do not know that they were any less telegraphists because they happened to be females, but it seemed good to the wisdom of the Department to draw our attention to that fact. The South Australian figures show the greatest discrepancy of all, and it is a marvel that we have not heard more complaints from that State. My own State is the next most unfortunate, yet during the six years large numbers of new telegraph offices have been established, a line of 100 miles in length to the Black Range has been opened, the business has increased enormously, and the population has gone up by at least 60,000. After hearing those figures, honorable senators will wonder, not that there have been complaints, but that the whole business has not come to a standstill. I come now to the explanation of how the Department have been able to carry on at all. Their method is a very ingenious way of defeating the provisions of the Public Service Act, in passing which Parliament meant that the officers in the service should get the benefit of its provisions relating to salary, promotion, gradation, and appointments. The authority respon sible - one or other of the three gentlemen I have named - has discovered an ingenious method of evading those provisions by appointing assistant telegraphists. They are telegraphists, send telegrams, have to pass an examination, and in every sense of the word are the same as the other men. But they are classed as assistants, and so are not necessarily placed on the permanent list, and therefore, I presume, cannot claim the benefits of the Public Service Act. The permanent staff of qualified and experienced men is being practically allowed to die out, and in order to carry on the work, men who have only just qualified, and who have no experience, are being put on to take their places as they die or resign. These figures tell the tale -

In the case of Victoria, the records have gone up in smoke. The fire which occurred in the Post Office apparently destroyed the record of the number of employes, and this return makes the singular and somewhat startling statement, that the Postal Department in Victoria, given . a month, are not able to tell how many temporary hands they have in their employ. I gave notice of this return some weeks ago, yet the blank in the Victorian figures is explained by the statement that the records were burnt in the recent fire. That fire occurred some time ago, ‘ and yet the brains of the Postal Department or of the Public Service Commissioner’s office, have not been equal to the task’ of ascertaining how many assistant telegraphists are employed iri Victoria.

Senator Chataway:

– In the case ‘of Queensland, the business has increased by 33 per cent. I have just looked that up.

Senator PEARCE:

– The people responsible are not satisfied with calling men assistant’ telegraphists in order that they may not have to give them the salary of fully qualified officers, and- a chance of having the benefit of the Public Service Act. They have invented another grade, called “ assistant telegraphists partly employed.” I take it that those are glut hands who are at the beck, and call of the Department, and are sent for in times of pressure of work. If that is so, they can never be properly qualified, because they cannot get the. experience. Such a system is the very one not only to lead to disorganizationand dissatisfaction, but to get the very worst results from the men. It is in this class that the great increase has taken place. In this most unsatisfactory branch of all, the greatest generosity has been displayed in appointments, as will be seen by the following figures -

– If that is the method by which these men are being continued in employment without appointment to the permanent staff, then advantage is toeing taken of a subterfuge to evade an Act of Parliament. This course is being indulged in by Ministers of the Crown or by the Public Service Commissioner. If by Ministers of the Crown, it is time that Parliament told them that they must administer the laws, and not evade them.,’ and if by the Public Service Commissioner it is time he was told that, although appointed for seven years, he is the servant’ of Parliament, and must carry out the spirit of the- Public Service Act, and not evade its provisions. I- am concerned in this matter for this reason amongst others : AVe know that in every State of the Commonwealth there is a certain feeling against Federation and the Federal Parliament’. There is nothing that gives more irritation in the State of Western Australia at the present time than the delays and dislocation of business in the Post and Telegraph Department. When all other arguments against the Federation fail, the work of the Post and Telegraph Department is pointed to, and we have no reply. We are told1 that telegrams are not depatched for hours after thev are handed in, and we have no reply. When we are told that these complaints did not arise when the States Governments were running the Department we have no reply, because the figures show that when the States were running the Department it was fairly well manned, and- we know that now it’ is starved, that men are worked overtime, and discouraged from putting forth their best efforts, with a result that is deplorable and a disgrace to the Federal management. I believe we can confidently appeal in this matter to the Minister of Home Affairs, who re presents the Postmaster-General in the Senate, because I am sure the honorable senator desires that the Senate should hold an effective place not only in the legislation of the Commonwealth, but in the administration of the different public Departments. I would say to the honorable senator that this criticism of the Post and Telegraph Department demands a reply. The So- ‘vernment of which he is a member are responsible for the existing unsatisfactory condition of things or they are not, and if they are not there should be a full statement on the subject to Parliament. If the Government are not responsible in this matter, the Public Service Commissioner is, either because he refuses to give the Government the necessary appointments to carry on the Department effectively, or because we have passed an Act which has given him so much power that he can defy the Ministry and Parliament. The Minister of Home Affairs owes it as a duty to himself as well as to the Senate to make some explanation. The return which was laid on the table of the House to-day is of such a character as to demand full explanation from the Ministry, that we may be informed how it is that in a Department whose business has been continually increasing, the number of employes shows a serious decrease, and the employment of temporary hands has’ been adopted to such an extent. .

– The Federal Parliament.

Senator SAYERS:

– It is often said that the law “ is an ass,” and this is certainly a case in point. I hope that when we get a reply next week from the Government to the question asked to-day we shall find that they have made up their minds to appoint a Commission to inquire into the Public Service.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I think that the Post and Telegraph Department has been treated very much as criminals were treated of old. It has been hanged, drawn, and quartered in scientific style, and I do not propose to pursue it further. I wish to say, however, that there are complaints concerning it, not only from officials of the Department, as shown by the correspondence read by Senator Stewart, and from sections of the public doing business with it, as shown by other honorable senators, but also from the public who wish to do business with it. We have repeatedlynoticed inspired paragraphs in the newspapers pointing out how the Department is grappling with some new and wonderful way of assisting the public, but I suppose that every member of the Senate is pestered with letters from people in various parts of the Commonwealth complaining that telephone services asked for are not established, although the proper applications for them have been made, and the necessary inquiries have resulted satisfactorily. Sometimes the reason given is that no money can be found for the purpose. In other cases, an inspector is required to makea fresh inspection; and it is clear that amongst people wishing to do business with the Department there is the same dissatisfaction that is found amongst the employes and the public already doing business with it. I rose chiefly to call attention to quite another matter. Not long ago, a circular was issued by the Minister of Trade and Customs to Chambers of Commerce and kindred associations, setting forth certain questions which the Minister asked these bodies to answer and to comment upon. I propose to read two of the questions, which will cover the point I wish to make. They have reference to the employment of commercial agents in the East and in other parts of the world. The Minister asked -

Whether the present system of State representation has met with success and has justified the expenditure thereon?

I say that the Minister of Trade and Customs, who, rightly or wrongly, is credited with being a unificationist, and is supposed to desire to curtail, as far as he can the operations of the various States Governments, has no business to write to Chambers of Commerce, private association of private individuals asking them to express opinions criticizing the action of the Government of the States in which they live. That should not be the business of any Federal Minister, who, if he had a proper sense of the dignity of his position and of his obligation to protect the dignity of the Federal Government, would not go past the States Governments to obtain information on matters of this kind. The Minister of Trade and Customs also asked this question-

Whether it would be found more satisfactory and economical to avoid the duplication of work and possible competition under the present system by having a representative for all Australia in the more important centres, such as the East and South Africa, where hitherto more than one State has maintained a special representative ?

Here, again, the Federal Minister is inviting private associations and individuals to express the opinion that the Government of the State in which they reside does not know how to manage its own affairs. It is not’ for the Federal Government to deal with what is essentially the business of the States Governments.’ I’ am not prepared tosay that I should oppose the Federal Government taking some steps for the appointment of commercial agents abroad, but I do enter a serious and emphatic protest against a Federal Minister who is tarred with the brush of unification going deliberately past the States Governments to invite private persons to say how those Governments are carrying on their business. If the honorable gentleman had consulted them upon the Federal Government’s management of its affairs, he would probably have received some novel information of interest and value. He is here invitingprivate persons to criticize the acts of States Governments, and when he has received their criticisms, he will probably trot them out and tell the States Governments that he knows what the people oftheir own States think about them, saying ‘ ‘ I have been behind your backs and got information about your Government.” Is that the kind of conduct that is going to bring about harmony between the States and the Commonwealth, for which Ministers are always professing to be so anxious ? There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. It is one upon which I think the Government should take some administrative action if it is possible to do so. There has been recently tabled the annual report of the Administrator of Papua. In that document, under the heading of “ Notes on Reports by Officers,” page 13, occurs the following passage -

During the year a number of. kanakas, who were being deported to the Solomons, passed through Samarai, and some anxiety was* felt as to how they would conduct themselves; however, “through the care exercised by the Resident Magistrate in not allowing them to get liquor, and the punctilious observance by the hotelkeeper of the law in that respect, they all passed through without disturbance. The Resident Magistrate says of them in one of his monthly reports : - “As it was found impossible to keep returning kanakas on board, they were allowed . to come ashore in batches of from 20 to 30. They spent some ^100 ‘in the stores here, and behaved themselves well, but many of them made determined attempts to purchase liquor, offering ;£i a bottle for it. This only goes to show what they have been in the habit of doing in Queensland. I myself heard one kanaka” remark to some of his friends, ‘What sort of a - country is this, where a man with money can’t get a drink.’ What I fear mostly with regard to the kanakas passing through here is that they might induce some fireman or sailor, or other resident of the place, to purchase liquor and hand it over to them.”

Now I say that no official document should have been tabled in Parliament and be put on the records, which contains a reflection - such as that upon the State of Queensland –a grave reflection upon the police administration,” and upon all the officials connected with the prevention of grog-selling amongst the kanakas. It is immaterial from my point of view whether the kanakas tried to get grog in Papua or not; such a statement as this was not a proper one for the Administrator to put into his report. I do not know who is the Resident Magistrate, from whose notes the Administrator quotes, but certainly the quotation was a most improper one to make in this report, and it contains a most’ serious reflection upon the State of Queensland, and upon those who honestly and zealously administered the law there, until drunkenness among the Pacific Islanders had become certainly no worse than it was amongst the people of other races. I do not know whether it is possible to take steps with regard to the elimination of this, passage from the report. I presume that it is not. But I draw the Minister’s attention to it. The matter is not so slight as it looks. Suppose that a man from some other State were to come to Melbourne, and commit a murder, and suppose that an official were to write in his report : “ That is the sort of thing that they can do in New South Wales,’’ or wherever die man came from. Evidently that would be an improper statement to make. The Resident Magistrate, might perhaps very well include a statement of that kind in his monthly report to the Administrator, but the Administrator himself was grossly in error in extracting it, so as to make the statement a feature of a document which has been lately laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament.

Senator ST. LEDGER (Queensland* [10.20]. - With regard to what has been said: by way of criticism of the administration of the Post and Telegraph Department, I desire to say that I am in accord with muchthat has fallen from the leader of the Opposition. He has seized upon grievances that have’ occurred, and has very properly directed the attention of the Government tothem. He has indicated the only way inwhich the difficulties can be solved. Wemust have a special inquiry in some form.. The public would welcome an inquiry; especially if the suggestion were carried outthat some experienced business men should” be appointed members of the Commission, to assist the Government and Parliament infinding out remedies for the almost absolutechaos that at present prevails. I have madepersonal inquiries into some grievances, which have been brought under my notice, and have sought to ascertain how they originated, and what is the departmental’ remedy for them. But I found that onceyou get into the’ maze of the Post Office and’ the Public Service Commissioner’s Office, your difficulties are inextricable. You try to get light, but are plunged into deeper - darkness with every step. I hope that some practical action will be taken immediately- to reorganize this most important Department. I also take the opportunity of mentioning that amongst the proposals made for the improvement of the efficiency of the service there is one which certainly ought not to be neglected. I allude to the necessity for the. .foundation of a practical superannuation scheme for the whole service. The sooner something in that direction is done, the better it will be. I asked a question with regard to the matter recently, but the answer which I got was to some extent misleading. One might infer, from what the Minister said, that the Public Service was quite satisfied. But such is not the case.’ The members of the service desire - and it is in the highest interests of the service - that Parliament should establish a superannuation scheme, the benefits of which would undoubtedly be great. Such a scheme would allow an officer to retire from the service when he reached a certain age, and the Government would be able to order retirement without feeling that they were doing an unsympathetic thing. It would lead to removals from the top branches of the service, and would widen the avenues for promotion from the bottom. I hope that the matter will not be lost sight of, but that it will be carefully inquired into by the .Committee or Commission which must be appointed to deal with the whole matter at no very distant date. I also wish to draw attention to the Administration of Papua. The question is so important that I think my remarks should be addressed to a quorum. . [Quorum formed.’] To a question that I asked last week as to why it was that an ordinance of the Legislative Council of Papua dated 24th September, 1906, was disallowed, and whether the Government would lay the papers on the table, the answer that I got was that the papers would be tabbed immediately. The whole future administration of Papua depends upon the successful administration of the land of the Possession. The Legislative Council of Papua have evidently given considerable attention to the solution of that question.’ No doubt they did so in consequence of the deliberations and report of the Royal Commission recently appointed to inquire into the Administration. But, notwithstanding the fact that the Legislative Council drew up a carefully-considered ordinance, it was disallowed by the Government. The reason assigned in the papers laid upon the table was that missionaries engaged in Papua had made certain representations to the Govern ment which caused Ministers to stay the operation of the ordinance. I am not going to enter into the rights or wrongs as between the Legislative Council and its land ordinance on the one hand, and the position taken up by the missionaries on the other. I regard the work of the missionaries as amongst the most important civilizing agencies in Papua and the Pacific Islands. Their view may be the correct one. Whatever view they express is one that Parliament and the Government must seriously consider. But, on the other hand, when Papua was taken oyer, the intention was that the land should be developed, though not necessarily by the white people to the exclusion of possession by the natives. The intention was to provide employment, and it was hoped that by the recognition of the rights of the natives to the use of their lands, Ave might advance the development of the Territory. While the Tariff is engaging our consideration, one cannot find the time in which to draw pointed attention to the importance of this matter. The Government must declare what its land policy is. It cannot allow an ordinance dealing Avith such an important subject as the opening-up of the lands to be .a bone of contention between the Legislative Council and the missionaries, thereby arresting the development of the resources of Papua. I can quite understand why the Prime Minister should be extremely careful, and should weigh his actions in this matter. The development of Papua is of considerable importance to the Commonwealth, and if it is successfully developed, Queensland will benefit directly and, ‘ perhaps, more immediately than any other State. This land ordinance has been allowed to remain too long suspended in mid-air, like Mahomet’s coffin, without an explanation of the position to Parliament, and without. any declaration of action or policy on the part of the Government. Tonight Ave are asked to vote some money for the maintenance of our Defence Forces. What Avas said in regard to the feeling of unrest, and almost chaos, in the Department of the Postmaster-General, applies A’ery much more to the Defence Department. There is universal dissatisfaction Avith the present condition of -things. There is a feeling that the Government either does not know, or will not declare, where it is in matters of defence. A solution of all this difficulty is proposed in the form of universal conscript service. The question of accepting a system of conscript service ought to be submitted to, and ratified by, the people before it is considered by Parliament. For defence purposes a policy of that kind is unprecedented in the history of the British Empire. The reasons for its adoption ought to be stated fully to the people. Such an important departure in the defence of the Commonwealth should not be made until the fullest inquiry has been held and expert knowledge obtained. We should consult the people before we take it upon ourselves to make such a drastic departure. I desire to ‘know what authority the Prime Minister has for seeking to introduce a system of conscript service. It was not referred to the people at the last general election, as it ought to have been if he had intended to introduce a measure to sanction its introduction. It will be almost an outrage upon popular rights if a measure embodying the principle outlined by the Prime Minister is- presented to either House of this Parliament until the. people have been furnished with full information on the subject and afforded an opportunity to record their votes. I propose to quote some remarks which the Prime Minister made on the question of defence at the Colonial Conference, and to ask Senator Keating to explain, if he can, what appears to me to be a complete somersault by his leader on the question of defence policy. I may be wrong in interpreting Mr. Deakin’s words. It may be said, that the extract does not express what was in his mind at the time, but it is remarkably explicit. If there is a clear and distinct meaning in words, then the speech -which he then made appears to me to be quite irreconcilable with the position which he has now taken up. The speech is reported on page 104 of the Official Proceedings of the Colonial Conference. After Mr. Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, had outlined the general direction of the military defence of the Empire, Mr. Deakin reviewed his speech in the light of its possible application to the defence of the Commonwealth. He said -

We see- our way to what those who advise us on these matters tell us is a sufficient military training for the men, with little alteration in our . present system, mainly because none of our men are pressed men, alf are volunteers, who join because they have an enthusiasm for the work. The consequence is that many of our commanders, men of experience, tell us that they find with our men a rapidity of progress, a readiness to submit to discipline, and a promptness in acquiring technical knowledge which they are not accustomed to find elsewhere.- That is because every man takes a pride in his task and throws himself into it, because it is his chosen pursuit, in addition to his ordinary labours.

– I can refer to the matter in another way. Leaving the question of Tariff preference on one side, it has been the practice of the Government to invite tenders for the supply of large amounts of material for the Telegraph and Telephone Department. Those tenders have been publicly invited regardless of nationality or of any other consideration than the supply of the best article at the least price to the Commonwealth. People have tendered for large quantities of material, have been obliged to put up substantial deposits in cash, go to considerable expense and trouble in the preparation of their samples, put their tenders in in all good faith, have waited for a considerable time, their moneybeing in the meanwhile in the hands of the Government, and then, some of them have every reason to believe that they have been grossly and unfairly treated. Whether they are Germans or any other nationality. the Commonwealth has no right to behave towards them in that way. The following correspondence will give an outline of a case which presents features of very great injustice -

Sydney, 5th December,1907.

Re Commonwealth Tenders,

Sir,

We beg to draw your attention to the notification’ in the Commonwealth Gazette, No. 59, 16th November, 1907, page 1386, accepting the tenders of Messrs. W. T. Henley Telegraph Works Co. Ltd. and R. B. Hungerford, for certain specified telephone and telegraph cables.

Your Department invited tenders returnable 011 the 1 st October of the current year for the following cables. ….

Our total price for the cables enumerated above, amounted to the sum of £4,374 15s. The tender of the W. T. Henley TelegraphWorks Co. Ltd. for the same material amounted to £4,64611s. 3d., or £271 16s.3d. higher than our offer. Under the operation of the new Customs Tariff we had To add 5 per cent: to our estimate to comply with the British preference clause. You will note that in spite of the 5 per cent. preference given to our competitors, our estimate is still about 51/2 per cent. lower than the one accepted. In other words, your Department would have saved over10 per cent. in accepting our offer. We may say that there is absolutely no doubt about the quality of the cables we have submitted in our offer. Our principals, the Allgemeine Co., are by far the largest manufacturers of all classes of cable. This company employs 36,000 work-people, and has a capital of £35,000,000 (thirty-five million pounds sterling) invested. That our cables are superior to any in the market we are prepared to prove if called upon to do so. Of course we are quite aware that your Department does not bind itself to accept the lowest tender, but, as a matter of justice, we shall be extremely obliged to you if you will indicate that our tenders are to be debarred from receiving consideration. Tenderers have to incur a considerable amount of expense in preparing estimates; and in fairness to ourselves we appeal to you for an expression of opinion on your part, as to whether we are justified in submitting our estimates in future. In conclusion, we beg to draw your attention to the excellent trade relations existing between this country and Germany. The trade is from five to six million pounds sterling in favour of Australia, and this balance must play a considerable part in the economic conditions of the Commonwealth. We would further point out that we are large exporters of Australian merchandise to the Continent of Europe. Hoping you will give this letter your best consideration. - We beg to remain, sir, yours obediently,

Staerker and Fischer.

The Hon.. Samuel Mauger, M.H.R.,

Postmaster-General,

Commonwealth of Australia.

The departmental reply is of the most curt character-

With reference to your communication of the 5th instant, drawing attention to the notification in the Commonwealth Gazette of the 16th ultimo, accepting the tenders of Messrs. W. T. Henley Telegraph Works Company Limited, and R. B. Hungerford for the supply and delivery to this Department in Victoria of certain telegraph and telephone cables, and intimating that the amount of your tender for the supply of such cables was £271 16s. 3d. lower than the total of the accepted tenders, I have the honour, by direction, to refer you to the conditions of tender, which specify that the Postmaster-General does not bind himself to accept the lowest or any tender.

I am to add that as each case is dealt with on its merits, no definite ruling for the acceptance of tenders can be laid down.

All I wish to say is that, if in imitation of a very unworthy practice in vogue some years ago of advertising “ No Irish need apply,” it is our intention that no Germans need apply, we should say so straight out, and state in our advertisement that English manufacturers are preferred, even although they are already given a preference in the Tariff. I hope that the publication of a matter of this kind will be one step towards its remedy. In connexion with other matters, the Post and Telegraph Department has come in for a great deal of abuse, the majority of which is, I think, deserved. No Department of the Commonwealth service has been so mismanaged from the start. ‘ I am sorry to say that 1 am forced to believe that the head of the Department is hardly capable of managing methodically a service of such magnitude. It seems to me also that in the allocation of Ministers, we have not always been fortunate enough to secure the selection of the most capable man to administer such a very large and important commercial Department.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time:

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I request a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 postponed.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [iii5].- I wish just to intimate that I propose in due course to move three requests for the reduction of three votes in three different Departments as a protest against the state of affairs existing in those Departments.

Progress reported.

page 8925

QUARANTINE BILL

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill.

Senate adjourned at 11.7 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 March 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080312_senate_3_44/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate12 March 1908

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator BEST:

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHISTS: SUNDAY WORK

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator Findley:

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator KEATING:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

STEAM-SHIP AFRIC

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator Guthrie:

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

CADET STAFF OFFICERS

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator HENDERSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

PAPERS

QUESTION

REMOUNTS FOR INDIA

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES ADMINISTRATION

Senator MILLEN:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

MR. E. A. BLAKNEY

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

TENDERS: BRITISH PREFERENCE

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH POLE DRESSERS

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

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

MAKINE SURVEY OF NORTH-WEST COAST

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

PAPUA ADMINISTRATION

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator BEST:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Best:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senate
12 March 1908

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia