Senate
6 December 1921

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- WHEAT POOLS
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES COMMISSION
PERMANENT AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- SMALL ARMS FACTORY
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
PATENTS BILL
APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22
- Second Reading
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
PAPERS

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 13722

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on War Service Homes.

Senator Buzacott, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee,presented the Fourth Progress Report of the Committee on operations of the War Service Homes Commission in Queensland.

page 13722

QUESTION

WHEAT POOLS

Winding Up

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister in charge of the administration of the Wheat Pools whether he does not think that the seventh yearly pay-day of the wheat farmer has arrived? Will he say whether the 1915-16 Wheat Pool and succeeding Pools will be cleaned up now, or some time before the Armageddon!

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– The 1915-16 Pool was cleaned up several weeks ago, so far as the Australian Wheat Board’s connexion with the Pool is concerned. We made our allotments to the States, and they have to clean up local supplies. I understand that in Western Australia the local authorities have cleaned up the Pool, and have sent on the information to the Australianwheat-growers.

Senator Lynch:

– That has not been made public.

Senator RUSSELL:

– If so, the local authorities must accept the responsibility. We made public the winding up of the 1915-16 Wheat Pool five week’s ago.

page 13722

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES COMMISSION

Unoccupied Houses

Senator ADAMSON:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Repatriation,upon notice -

Is he aware whether there are a number of houses in various ports of Queensland built by the War Service Homes Department that are standing empty)
If so, what is the reason for these houses not being taken up by returned soldiers?
Have exhaustive inquiries been made with a view to obtaining purchasers for same from the ranks of the returned soldiers?
If soldier purchasers are not obtainable, will the Minister consider selling them privately, in order that some return may be made for the money at present standing idle?

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

– The answers are -

Yes; these, for the most part, have been abandoned by the applicants for whom the dwellings were acquired, whilst a few homes built by the Commission have not yet been allotted.
Owing, apparently, to the trade depression in Queensland, and consequent unemployment, there is a marked aversion amongst a number of returned soldiers to contract a liability of this nature.
Yes; action along this line is still proceeding.
The whole question has been specifically submitted to the recently constituted Adjustment Board for early determination.

page 13723

PERMANENT AIR FORCE

Applications from Queensland.

SenatorFOLL asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Five hundred and twenty-sis applied, of whom 435 (including 200 labourers without any Air Force qualifications) reported for interview. One hundred and five out of about 200 medically examined by Queensland Army Medical Corps officers were passed medically fit.
Thirty-three out of fifty-one offered appointments accepted, and were appointed.
In the case of officers - the Minister, on the recommendation of the Air Board. In the case of airmen - the Air Board.
The men considered likely to be of most value to the Air Force were selected first, taking into consideration all their experience and qualifications.
No.
Yes. This is already being done to the full extent permitted by the funds at the disposal of the Air Force.

page 13723

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Cost of Rifles

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What is the cost of rifles at present supplied to the Defence Department by the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow?
How does such cost compare with that payable for imported rifles of a corresponding quality?
Can the Minister Bay what is the cost of similar rifles to the Government of the United States of America?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

The cost of rifles supplied by the Small Arms Factory depends in a large measure on the number produced each year. In recent years, the cost to the Department has been: -

The cost includes the bayonet, scabbard, and all appurtenances. For the present year, the production of the’ Factory has been reduced to 15,000, and, after making allowances for reduction of working hours and increased wages under awards, the cost per rifle is estimated to be £16 4s.

Accurate figures are not procurable, as no rifles have been purchased during recent years. Taking the latest War Office price lists as a guide, it is thought that new rifles obtained from War Office stocks would cost about £8; but no doubt secondhand serviceable weapons could be obtained at a much lower figure. It has not been possible to secure accurate information as to the cost of rifles at present being produced at the Government Factory at Enfield for comparison with Lithgow costs.
No. The rifle adopted by the United States Government is of a different pattern to the British rifle.

page 13723

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Land for Soldier Settlement

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

Has he seen a statement appearing in the Queensland press to the effect that returned soldier settlers in Queensland are talking of abandoning their farms, and in some cases have abandoned them, on account of being unable to make a living owing to the land selected by the State Government being unsuitable for soldier settlement?
Is he aware whether the Minister for Lands, Mr. H. Coyne, has gazetted a notice to the effect that no further applications from returned soldiers for land settlement will be received?
Is this in accordance with any agreement entered into with the Commonwealth Government?
Can the Commonwealth Government exercise any greater control than they have at the present time with regard to money they advance for land settlement, so as to insure that only land likely to become a payable proposition will be given to returned soldiers in the future?

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

– The answers are -

Yes. The Government has already communicated with the State on this matter.
No. But in view of the honorable member’s statement, inquiries will be mode.
Under existing agreements, the Commonwealth is finding money for (a) resumptions, (.6) works incidental to land settlement, and (e) advances for the soldier for working capital. At the recent Conference of Premiers, it was decided that in regard to future settlement the Commonwealth should be responsible only for (c), reverting to the original arrangement under which the States found the land and the Commonwealth the working capital required by the soldier.
1. The Queensland .Government will be communicated with on this matter.

page 13724

PATENTS BILL

Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Patent Acts 1903-1900, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator Russell) read a first time.

page 13724

APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

In submitting this motion, I wish to intimate to honorable senators t,hat I do not propose to attempt to rush this Bill through. The purpose of the motion is to enable us, if at any time it should be desirable, to pass from one stage of the Bill to another on the same day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator E. D. Millen) read a first time.

page 13724

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 2nd December, vide page 13549) :

Clause 48-

Whenever a. vacancy occurs in any office other than in the First Division, and it is expedient to fill that vacancy by the transfer or promotion of an officer, the Permanent Head may, subject to the provisions of this Act, transfer or promote an officer of his Department to fill such vacancy, consideration being given first to the relative efficiency, and in the event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers, then to the relative seniority of the officers of that Department.

Upon which Senator Payne had moved, by way of amendment -

That the words “ Permanent Head “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “Board”.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I am quite prepared to have a test vote taken on the question of deleting the words “ permanent head,” with a view to substituting the word “ Board.” I have already urged the desirability of making the Bill as effective as possible in the interests, not .only ofl the Public Service, but of the Commonwealth. I have endeavoured to point out that, as we contemplate under this Bill the appointment of a Board in lieu of a Commissioner, our object is to increase the efficiency of the Department and the Public Service generally. The Board’s powers will be very extensive; in fact, it is to be held responsible for bringing about reforms, wherever found necessary for the effective working of the Service, and with a view to economy. The question of promotions and transfers is of vital interest to officers. From a perusal of ohe existing law, I find that the head of a Department, or the chief officer, is not given the power which it is proposed to give him under the Bill. The present Act provides that whenever a vacancy occurs, and it is expedient to fill it by the promotion of an officer, the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, fill such vacancy; but it is now proposed to appoint a Board to carry out the functions hitherto performed by the Commissioner, and it seems a retrograde step to give the permanent head or chief officer power to fill vacancies from his own Department. My object is to give a wider choice, so that an officer from another Department may be appointed if he is more suitable for a particular position.

Senator Russell:

– That is what the Bill provides.

Senator PAYNE:

– No. This clause provides that the permanent head may promote an officer of his own Department, while no opportunity may be given to officers of other Departments who may be able to fill the position more satisfactorily.

Senator Russell:

– Any aggrieved officer has the right to appeal.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is so. But an officer who has received an appointment, even if the appointment is only provisional, has an advantage over other officers in the Service. I have not heard the Minister (Senator Russell) give any reason why it is proposed to alter the existing practice. Some reference has been made to the difficulty of filling vacancies in towns far removed from the central government, but that difficulty could be got over. I would not press this matter as I am pressing it if I did not feel convinced that throughout the Service- there is a strong feeling against the proposed alteration. It has been pointed out to me that it is not fair to handicap officers who may have special qualifications for filling a vacancy.

Senator Russell:

– Officers had no right to appeal under the old Act. The Commissioner’s decision is final.

Senator PAYNE:

– The Minister gave the Committee clearly to understand that the High Council of the Public Service Association was satisfied with this clause. I received information from an officer of the Association, soon after that assurance was given, to the effect that the Minister’s statement -was not correct.’ I have taken the trouble to make further inquiries, and I am assured that members of the Service are opposed to the alteration./ They claim that more efficiency will be obtained if the Board, instead of the permanent head of a Department, has the power to make appointments. I want to see the Public Service as efficient, as economical, and as useful as possible, and also to see deserving public servants as contented as possible. There will always be malcontents in every business, but on the whole I think we have a loyal staff,, and I desire to insure that every inducement is given to those who enter the Public Service to qualify for higher positions with a knowledge that they will receive the promotion to which they are entitled. The clause really proposes io clip the wings of the Board by providing that it shall not have the same powers as the Commissioner has had hitherto. A letter which I received this morning states -

No reason has been advanced by the Government for the drastic alteration in the present system of Public Service control. Clause 48 represents probably a most fundamental alteration to the old Act, and one would imagine that strong reasons would be advanced for its inclusion in the Bill before the Senate, and these reasons have not been given.

I am not going to press the matter any farther at this stage. I have said what I have to say upon it. I think the Com.mittee will be acting unwisely if it passes the clause as it is printed.

Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- Vice-

President of the Executive Council) [11.26]. - I do not think that Senator Payne has been quite fair to me in saying that I stated no reasons for the proposed change. I dealt with the matter on two occasions, and quoted Mr. McLachlan, ex-Public Service Commissioner, a.t some length. At the risk of being accused of repetition, I will read Mr. McLachlan’s opinion again. He said -

The Public Service extends over six States, with a Public Service Inspector and Chief Officers in each State; consequently, in order that a uniform practice might be followed in the filling of vacancies by promotion, it was necessary to deal with the matter by regulation. Briefly stated, the regulations provide for the following procedure: - Vacancies are divided into two classes - (1) those for which it is desirable to invite applications by notification in the Gazette, and (2) those which may be filled without advertising. In the case of’ an advertised vacancy, two weeks’ notice is usually given, and upon receipt of applications the Public Service Inspector confers with the Chief Officer. After conference, the Inspector and Chief Officer submit separate reports to the Commissioner, the Chief Officer forwarding his report through the permanent head. Upon these reports the Commissioner makes his recommendation to the Governor-General, such recommendation being transmitted through the Minister of the Department concerned. The Governor-General’s approval is conveyed through the customary channels back to the Department, when the promotion is gazetted. In regard to non-advertised vacancies, the procedure is similar, excepting that consideration is not limited to the claims of applicants as in the other cases. The time and labour involved in this complicated and circuitous procedure is evident, and, although efforts have been made to shorten the process by delegation of authority in certain classes of cases to Inspectors and Chief Officers, nothing less than an amendment of the law will suffice to place the matter on a proper footing.

The provisions of the law requiring a report from the permanent head or Chief Officer, recommendation by the Commissioner, and approval by the Governor-General, were designed, no doubt, as safeguards against unfair discrimination in the selection of officers for promotion, but in the application of these provisions excessive delays have occurred in filling vacant positions, and consequent expense and inconvenience to Departments because of the necessity of making temporary arrangements pending the permanent promotion of officers. It is not unusual for months to elapse between the notification of a vacancy and the filling of the position, and in cases where the vacant office is in the higher grades of the Service, the consequential changes following upon the initial promotion can only be made long after the occurrence of the original vacancy, with hampering effects upon Departments which call for rectification. The time and attention of Public “Service Inspectors, especially in the larger States, are absorbed in dealing with promotions and transfers of officers to such an extent as to militate seriously against their usefulness in other directions, particularly in regard ‘to the general organization of Departments and the disposition of offices and officers to insure efficient and economical management. If Inspectors were relieved of the responsibility of advising on staff changes involving promotions and transfers, more beneficial results would accrue from the exercise of their inspectorial functions, which are highly important and far-reaching in relation to successful administration of the Public Service Act.

That is a condemnation of the old system, under which the inspector and the head of the Department conferred. In that case there was no appeal. Senator Payne was rather unfortunate in his suggestion that an officer of another Department, having superior qualifications would, under this clause, have no opportunity of appointment to a vacancy. There will be a full period of six months within which any aggrieved officer may prosecute his appeal. If successful the officer appointed provisionally will be displaced.

Senator Payne:

– Does it not appear to the Minister that the method proposed is, rather circuitous?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– No. Under the present system there is a conference between an inspector and the head of a Department, a recommendation is made to the Commissioner, the Commissioner transmits it to the Minister and the Minister to the Governor-General. If that is not a circuitous method I should like to know what is. The Economies Commission pointed out that heads of the Departments concerned ought to be consulted in the filling of vacancies, because they should be in a position to make a sound recommendation. It is quite true, as Senator Payne has said, that a brilliant officer in some other Department may be overlooked, but this clause provides a remedy against any bias which may be shown by the head of a Department in favour of officers under his immediate observation. I am not bound to the exact wording of the clause, but, unless I am persuaded that it can be altered with advantage I shall not accept any amendment.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:

– But there is £ great deal to be . said in favour of my argument that the permanent head is no likely to look outside of his own Depart ment when vacancies are to be filled oi promotions made. Outside officers who may have more ability will be shut out for the time being, at all events.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 7

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 51 further consequentially amended, and agreed to.

Clause 53 (as amended) -

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I move-

That in sub-clause (5), paragraph (a), after the word “Commissioners,” the following words be inserted : - “ but shall not, while sitting as Chairman of an Appeal Board, . be subject to direction by any person or authority under this Act.”

That amendment represents practically the . agreement arrived at in this Committee. It provides that whilst a person is serving on the Appeal Board he shall not be under the control of this Act. It is necessary to see that the officer does not suffer by having the time thus occupied recorded against him. If he is a public servant, and is appointed for ten weeks out of fifty-two in the year to do this work, that period will be acknowledged as part of his departmental service.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

– I move -

That in sub-clause (6) the word “ President” (first occurring) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Joint House Committee”.

I desire the vote on this amendment to be regarded as a test vote, and if the amendment is agreed to certain consequential amendments will follow. The Committee dealt the other day with the question of giving the right of appeal to officers of Parliament against decisions of the President or the Speaker of another place. In looking through the reports of the debate, I noticed that it was stressed by more than one honorable senator whose attitude in regard to officers of the Senate is hard to determine to-day, that an appeal by an officer should not be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. The Minister in charge of the Bill (Senator Russell) himself objected a few moments ago, in speaking to an amendment moved by Senator Payne, which sought to substitute “the Board “ for “the permanent head,” that the proposal would amount to appealing from the Board to the Board. He reminded honorable senators that in his opinion it was an inherent right ofany British subject to be allowed to appeal, even to His Majesty the King. The proposal put forward, in the Bill is that the appeal shall be made to the President or the Speaker. When this matter was mentioned on another clause the otherday, some honorable senators said it would be impos- sible under the Bill to appeal to the House Committee, and that, if it waa desired to do so, it would be necessary to pass regulations or a schedule to define exactly how the House Committee was to be appointed. It was also said that the House Committee of the Senate had never sat as a separate House Committee, but only as part of the Joint ‘House Committee. I am not concerned with what the House Committee has done or how it is constituted, but I find that our Standing Orders provide ‘that a House Committee consisting of the President and six honorable senators shall be appointed. There is a similar provision for the appointment of a House Committee by another place. I take it that, when. I move for the insertion of the words “ House Committee,” those words refer to the House Committee as provided for under the Standing Orders of the Senate.

Senator Givens:

– I have drafted an amendment which., I think, will meet the honorable senator’s views.

Senator FOSTER:
TASMANIA · NAT

– I will say what I have to say on the matter; and if Senator Givens moves an amendment, I will withdraw mine, if I think his is satisfactory. We have a House Committee constituted under our own Standing Orders, and we have, recently, heard something regarding the difficulty that we find ourselves in becausewe have no joint standing orders for certain purposes. I have not been able to find any standing order of either the Senate or the other place that makes any provision for the appointment of joint Committees. That is, probably, a position created by precedent, but we would be perfectly right in adhering to our own Standing Orders, and in regarding them as being applicable to the words “ House Committee “ in this amendment. Some honorable senators, during the discussion of a previous clause, said it would not be proper for members of the House Committee to be approached by officers of Parliament in regard to complaints. If my amendment is agreed to, the appeals which will come before the House Committee constituted as an Appeal Board will be of the same nature as officers of the Public Service can make to the Appeal Boards provided for them. Trifling complaints would not come before the House Committee, but in cases where an officer was penalized through not being promoted, or by being fined more than £2, he would have the right of appeal. I do not think any further argument is necessary if honorable senators are sincere in what they have said regarding appeals from Caesar to Caesar and the desirability of every man having the right of appeal against what he may regard as an unjust decision.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I do not think anybody will object to the statement made by Senator Poster, that officers and servants who may have had a penalty imposed upon them should have a right of appeal if they feel that they have been unjustly or harshly dealt with; but the remedy proposed by Senator Foster is not the correct one. Fines are not imposed by the President or Speaker, but by the head of the Department. Therefore, an appeal to the President or Speaker would not be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. It is only in the case of dismissals, or similar grave punishment, which would be made by the President or Speaker, that the appeal would be from Caesar to Caesar. I do not want to have an appeal from myself to myself, and I am perfectly certain that Mr. Speaker would not desire that either. The general practice in the Public Service is to have an independent Board. Senator Foster’s amendment proposes that the Board shall be a political Board - that is to say, a Committee composed of members of Parliament - who will be subjected to all kinds of wire pulling, and will perhaps not be in a position to give the unbiased decision that such a tribunal ought to give. I would suggest that the sub-clause should be left out altogether, and that provision should be made foran independent Board of Appeal on which the employees themselves would be represented. That would be in conformity with the general practice of the Public Service, and it is, in my opinion, the most desirable way to meet the difficulty. In this Parliament there are five Departments. My proposal is to create an independent Board composed of two heads of Departments, one to be nominated by the President on Speaker, or by the President and Speaker, as the case may be, and another by the officers of the Department to which the appellant belongs ; and an elected representative of the Div ision to which the appellantbelongs. This Board would appointits own chairman, and would hear and deal with appeals. The head of the Department to which the appellant belongs would not be a member of the Board. It would be an entirely independent and thoroughly representative body, and its creation should remove the anomaly of officers appealing to members of Parliament - a right denied to any other member of the Public Service, and which brings in the political ‘element. The amendment has been prepared by the Parliamentary Draftsman. I am informed it will meet the case, and is in accordance with the other provisions of the Bill. As I have said the head of the Department to which the appellant belongs would have nopart in the hearing of an appeal. To permit him to do so would be most improper, because he ‘would be the officer who charged or punished the appellant. If we remit authority to the House Committee to hear appeals, there will be unconscionable delay. Suppose, that after Parliament entered into recess, a dispute arose, the appellant would probably not be able to get a hearing for six or seven months, because members of the House Committee might be absent from Melbourne. And then there is the Hansard Department, with which the House Committee has nothing whatever to do.

Senator Foster:

– I am prepared at once to withdraw my amendment in favour of that which the honorable senator has just outlined.

Senator GIVENS:

– I agree with the honorable senator that it is desirable to have an Appeal Board. I certainly do not want to be the Appeal Board myself. The amendment which I have outlined is in conformity with the practice of the Public Service outside.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I now move -

That sub-clauses (6), (7), and (8) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new sub-clauses: - “ (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subjection (5) of this section, on Appeal Board constituted to hear an appeal by an officer of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, or of both Houses of the Parliament, shall comprise -

the Permanent Head of a Department nominated by the President or Speaker or the’ President and Speaker, as the case may be;

the Permanent Head of a Department nominated by the officers of the Department of the Parliament to which the appellant belongs; and

the elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs in the State or part of the State in which he performs his duties:

Provided that the Permanent Head nominated under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall not be the Permanent Head of the Department to which the appellant belongs.

The members of the Appeal Board constituted in pursuance of the last preceding subsection shall elect one of their number to be Chairman, and any two-members of the Board may exercise all the powers of the Board for investigation and decision. The decision of the Board shall be final.”

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I must say that we are getting on very satisfactorily. I am glad to see that at last the principle for which I have so long contended is to be adopted, and that we are to get away from the system of one-man control. This is a back-down by Senator Givens on this question. Whilst listening to the Minister (Senator Russell) and Senator Lynch, I was wondering how they were going to square their utterances with the amendment of which Senator Foster had given notice. However, things are now beautifully smooth, and everything in the. garden is lovely. The only objection I have to the proposition is that the House Committee is not to be the Board of Appeal ; but, seeing that there is to be an independent Committee, call it by what name you like, it does not matter a great deal after all. I certainly object to Senator Givens speaking as he does regarding political influence, and suggesting that such influence is something vicious and corrupt. I think political influence is not a bit worse than social influence.

Senator Russell:

– Social influence is much worse.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am glad to hear the Minister say that. I know that social influence does play a part in the Public Service outside. I am pleased to know that there is to be an appeal, not from Caesar to Caesar, but to an independent Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as further amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 (Deduction of pecuniary penalty from salary) verbally amended, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Clause 65 -

The period, of leave of absence for re creation which may be granted to officers of the Parliament, or to officers stationed in isolated districts, or whose duties cannot ordinarily be performed within usual regular hours, shall not necessarily be limited to a maximum of eighteen days, but shall be limited as is prescribed.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the words “to officers of the Parliament or “, be left out.

The reason for the amendment is that the President and Mr. Speaker have power to grant recreation leave under the regulations framed on their recommendations, and it would be inadvisable to provide for any additional leave. If leave were to be prescribed for officers of Parliament it might lead to great injustice, because after long and strenuous sessions officers of Parliament should naturally be entitled to more leave than would be given under the regulations. The amendment is merely to provide that the work of Parliament shall be carried on, as it has been in the past, and so that a system of “ give and take “ may be adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause also verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 71 (Public holidays).

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following proviso be added at the end of sub-clause 5 : - “ Provided further that an officer of the Parliament shall not be entitled under this sub-section to payment in respect of work performed on such holiday.”

The Commonwealth Parliament, of course, sits in only one State, and is comprised of representatives from all States, who are sometimes here for long periods at great inconvenience to themselves, and do not always feel disposed to respect State public holidays. The amendment I have moved debars the officers of Parliament from receiving payment for work performed on holidays when Parliament is sitting, because the time is made up to them by extended leave during the recess.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause also verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 77 (Temporary employment).

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following proviso be added at the end of sub-clause 5: - “Provided that this subsection shall not apply to persons temporarily employed in the Department of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, or in the Joint House Department.”

This is purely a consequential amendment, and brings the clause into line with the other provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 96 verbally amended and agreed to.

Second Schedule - (Departments).

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the words “ Department of the Joint House Committee” be left out with a view to insert the words “ Joint House Department.”

This is a slight amendment, which is necessary to bring the schedule into line with the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Second schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule consequentially amended and agreed to.

Postponed clause 7 -

Unless otherwise expressly provided, this Act shall not apply to-

A Chairman of an Appeal Board;

The Director of Commerce and Industry;

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I move-

That the words “A Chairman of an Appeal

Board “ be left out.

This amendment arises out of the debate this morning relating to. the Chairman of an Appeal Board being subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act, except at such times as he is dealing with’ cases as Chairman of the Board. This is to be considered in conjunction with the amendment I moved te the effect that he should not be under control when sitting at a Court of. inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– For the information of the Committee, I may explain that Senator Payne moved for the insertion of the words “ a Chairman of an Appeal Board,” and the Minister’s amendment, if carried, will have the effect of rescinding that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -

That the words “ The Director of Commerce and Industry “ be left. out.

Clause, as further amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with further amendments; reports adopted.

page 13736

APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

Second Reading

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Following a practice which has grown in this Chamber, and which is of convenience to honorable senators, I made an explanatory statement when the Budget-papers were presented covering the main features of the Budget itself. It will not be necessary to repeat what I then said, but it is incumbent upon me to make some reference to alterations which have been effected in the Budget in another place. First I would remind honorable senators of a few of the outstanding features of the Budget. The general statement made at the time of tabling the Budget and Estimates, on the 11th October, showed, briefly, the Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year 1921-22, and the financial position of the Commonwealth as at 30th June, 1921. Portion of the Estimates, namely, those relating to works and buildings, have already been considered by the Senate in the shape of the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill 1921-22, and the Loan Appropriation Bill 1921. The alterations made in the Estimates covered by those Bills have already been explained. This Bill is to grant £15,030,765 for the ordinary services of the country. The only alteration made in these Estimates since they were tabled consists of a reduction of £70,000 in the Universal Training vote under the Department of Defence (Military). Including the reduction made in the Works Estimates, the total reductions thus amount to £500,000, and the total estimates of expenditure from revenue consequently show an estimated decrease of £519,629 as compared with the expenditure foT 1920-21. The appropriation proposed to be made by the Bill amounts to £27,391,035, which includes £12,360,270 granted by four previous Supply Bills. The amount proposed to be granted by the Bill includes, in addition to the totals specified in the Estimates, sums under the usual items of Refunds of Revenue amounting to £750,000, and Treasurer’s Advance covering £1,500,000. Under the various headings of the Departments, as they come before honorable senators, in Committee, such detailed information as may be sought will be, wherever possible, supplied. I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 postponed.

First schedule postponed.

Second Schedule.

The Parliament.

Proposed vote, £58,096.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. -There is a matter involved in the proposed vote for the Senate which requires elucidation. Honorable senators will notice that for the first time in many years there is a discrepancy shown between the salaries payable to the Clerk of the Senate and to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The salary of the Clerk of the Senate is set down at £1,000, the same amount as was voted last year, and for a number of years past. The salary set down for the Clerk of the House of Representatives this year is £1,250, whereas the salary paid that officer last year and for a number of years previously was also £1,000. I may explain that a salary of £1,000 a year as attaching to these positions has been voted since 1913. At that time the present Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I, in a letter dated 27th August, 1913, made the following communication to the Prime Minister : - 27th August, 1913.

The Honorable

The Prime Minister.

Sir,

We beg to forward herewith an application from the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives requesting that their salaries may be raised to £ 1,000 a year.

We have considered this application, and are of opinion that their long services entitle these officers to this advancement in their status, and that it is not fitting that the Clerks of the National Parliament should be rated at a lower salary than the Clerks of the Houses in the two larger States of the Commonwealth.

We, therefore, request that the suggested increases be made in the Estimates for the consideration of Parliament.

We have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servants,

Elliot Johnson, Speaker.

Honorable senators will notice that that was a joint representation made by Mr. Speaker and myself. I have at all times considered it desirable and necessary for the maintenance of good feeling, and to secure efficient service, that there should be uniformity in the salaries paid to officers of the Parliament performing similar work. I have made every effort to attain that desirable object. Before the Estimates were sent in. this year, I suggested to Mr. Speaker, and he concurred with my suggestion, that we should have a conference of the heads of all the Departments of the Parliament, to examine the Estimates of those Departments, with a view of seeing that officers rendering the same service and performing similar duties should receive about the same salary. The purpose was to secure harmony and co-ordination. The conference was held, and Estimates, approved by Mr. Speaker and myself, were sent in which contained so far as we could discover no anomaly. Some months ago I learned that Mr. Speaker had made a recommendation that Mr. Gale should be appointed Clerk of the Parliaments, with an increase of’ £250 a year. When the matter was referred to me for my comment, I sent the following letter to tho Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) : -

My dear Prime Minister,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 2nd inst., No. 20/385/5 (signed by the Hon. E. J. Russell, on your behalf), covering a Me of papers containing a communication from Mr. Speaker ‘ with reference to the restoration of the position of “ Clerk of the Parliaments” and the elevation of Mr. W. A. Gale, Clerk of the House of Representatives, to that position with increased remuneration.

I was very much astonished to learn that Mr. 1 Speaker had taken upon himself to make such a recommendation, which concerns equally both Houses of the Parliament, without my knowledge or sanction.

I distinctly and emphatically object to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker being adopted by the Government. If any reason at all exists for the appointment of a “Clerk of the Parliaments,” then the officer appointed to that position should be the Clerk of the Senate, because all parliamentary functions or proceedings at which a Clerk of Parliaments would be necessary .take place in the Senate Chamber, and it would be unthinkable that in that Chamber a Clerk of the Lower House should take precedence over the Clerk of the’ Senate, and would create- a position to which I feel certain the Senate would never agree.

This matter was threshed out in 1908 on the retirement of Mr. E. G. Blackmore, who occupied the position of Clerk of the Parlia ments, as well as Clerk of the Senate, from the establishment of Federation until that date; and, in .the course of the discussion which took place between the then President of the Senate, Sir Albert Gould, and the Government, the position was fully set out, and, as shown by Sir Albert Gould (by the quotations in accompanying notes), all the precedents were in favour of the Clerk of the Upper House occupying the position of Clerk of the Parliaments. It was ultimately agreed, at the instance of the Government, that a Clerk of the Parliaments should not be appointed; but it was also agreed, and definitely stated in writing by the representative of the Government (the then VicePresident of the Executive Council), vide letter of 7th September, 1908, “As regards the title ‘ Clerk of the Parliaments,’ if such a titular position is further continued, I personally think the office should be held by the Clerk of the Senate.”

The position is fully set out in the accom-ponying notes, which I have the honour to submit for your consideration.

The file of papers is returned herewith.

Faithfully yours,

Thos. Givens,

President of the Senate.

Acting on that communication, the Government did’ not accede to the recommendation. I had no further information with regard to anything it was proposed to do until the Estimates were tabled. When they were tabled, I saw that not having succeeded in obtaining the position of Clerk of the Parliaments for Mr. Gale, Mr. Speaker had set down in the Estimates the increased salary proposed to be given him as Clerk of the Parliaments. That creates a very grave anomaly. It has always been recognised that the Clerks of both Houses should be equally remunerated, because there is equal responsibility on each. In addition, the officers of the Senate have work to do which officers of the other Houses are not called upon to perform. The officers of the Senate have the very important responsibility of looking after the Refreshment Room, and its accounts, which entails a great deal of labour and responsibility. I have no wish to enter into any controversy on this matter at all. I have merely related the facta, and it is for the Senate to take Such, action as it may think fit to rectify what I consider an anomaly.

Senator Foll:

– What can we do now?

Senator GIVENS:

– There are two courses open to honorable senators. They may request another place to increase the salary to be paid to the Clerk of the Senate sufficiently to make it equal to that voted for the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The other alternative is to do something which would be very invidious, and might create feeling, and that is to request the House of Representatives to reduce the salary which that House has already voted to its Clerk. It is for honorable senators to decide what shall be done. The matter to which I have referred is an example of difficulties which are continually cropping up, and which have made me always anxious to find some method to bring about uniformity of practice and co-ordination of the work of the officers of the Parliament, because there has been continual evidence of a desire on the part of one officer to get ahead of another, or to secure precedence over another instead of working together harmoniously, as they probably would do if uniform emoluments were attached to similar positions.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- We are indebted to Senator Givens for having put this matter before us, but I should like a little more information to enable me to give what I would consider a fair vote on the question, should a division be found necessary. I desire to know the relative positions of the two officers who have been referred to, so far as seniority is concerned. For instance, I should like to be informed whether, if Mr. Gale has occupied his position as Clerk of the House of Representatives for a longer period than that during which Mr. Monahan has been Clerk of the Senate, that affects their relative positions so far as seniority is concerned.

Senator de Largie:

– The salary undoubtedly fixes the seniority.

Senator FOLL:

– I want to ascertain whether length of service counts for anything in the matter; whether it is a re cognised principle that the status of the two officers is the same, or whether the Clerk of the Senate is in practice regarded as senior to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. I should like further to know whether the discrepancy now indicated between the salaries paid to the two officers will be removed as the years go on by annual increases in the salary of the Clerk of the Senate.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– There is no appreciable difference between the length of service in their present positions of the two officers, and there would have been none at all were it not for action taken by myself. Dur ing a recent debate, much was said about the existence of water-tight compartments in the service of the Parliament, which prevented the transfer or promotion of an officer from one Department to another. I happen to be the only Presiding Officer of the Parliament who ever took an officer from one Department, and promoted him to another. I have regretted doing so ever since I did it, because advantage was taken of my action which I think was unfair and improper, and I will tell honorable senators why. When Mr. Boydell retired as Clerk of the Senate, an application was received from Mr. Duffy, who was then Clerk of the House of Representatives, for the position vacated by Mr. Boydell. After giving the matter full consideration, I granted Mr. Duffy the position. I was influenced largely in doing so by the fact that officers of the Senate had an opportunity of promotion which was not open to officers in another place at the time. I never had any fault whatever to find with Mr. Duffy, and had no complaint to make so far as he was concerned, but in promoting officers of the Senate instead of giving them the maximum salaries of the offices to which they were appointed, at the time of their appointment, I started them at considerably lower salaries, subject to conditions under which they could only attain the maximum by annual increases extending over three years. For instance, Mr. Monahan was then promoted to the position of Clerk Assistant to the Senate, and instead of being paid the full salary of the office - £775 - I appointedhimat £700 with a promise of three rises of £25 per year. But the moment Mr. Duffy was transferred to the Senate other officers in another place secured promotion, and they were immediately paid the maximum salaries of the offices to which they were so promoted. This had the effect of making them senior to men who had. occupied similar positions in the Senate for a longer period. It created an injustice to our officers, and it is another of the reasons why I say that some attempt should be made to find a method of co-ordinating the services of Parliament to prevent this continual endeavour of officers to get ahead of each other. Were it not for the action I took, Mr. Monahan would have been undoubtedly senior by a very long time to officers In another place. A grossly unfair and in- vidious distinction has been made, and honorable senators should make some attempt to find a remedy.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.- I am very pleased to have the information supplied by Senator Givens, though I am sorry that the occasion for it should have arisen. I am very strongly of opinion that there should be no differentiation between the status of the officers, of the two Houses of this Parliament. There is an impression abroad, which I am sure is not entertained by many, that the Senate is not of the same importance in the government of the country as another branch of the Legislature. I want to assure honorable senators that I personally look upon the Senate as equally important with another i place. The question of seniority as between the officers of the two Houses should not enter into the matter. “We should be detached and self-contained. Seniority should influence our decisions when it is a question of seniority between officers of the Senate. So far as the salary proposed for the Clerk of the Senate is concerned, I think that it is a very fair one, and this is no time for the Government or this Committee to propose the payment of extravagant salaries. In the circumstances, objectionable though it will be, I shall be prepared to move a request to the House of Representatives to reduce the .salary of the Clerk of that House by £250. This will not be a pleasing duty, but it is one which I think should be> performed. I do not feel disposed to vote for an increase of £250 in the salary of the Clerk of the Senate, and believing as I do that these two officers should be on an absolute level so far as salary is concerned, I have no option but to adopt the course I have .mentioned.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think, with the previous speaker, that the Committee is indebted to “Senator Givens for (having informed us as to what the procedure, since he has been President of the Senate, has been. This may be looked upon as a minor matter, but it must have been impressed upon honorable .senators that there is need for some definite line of procedure, and some co-ordination between the two Houses. There are two systems, apparently, open to us. One is to treat the Senate and

House of Representatives as controlling separate and independent Departments, each Chamber ordering the fortunes of its officials, and the other is to regard the officers of the two Houses as members of a joint Service, in which the service rendered by one set of officers would be remunerated on the same basis as that rendered by the other. It seems to me that what Senator Givens has described indicates that we have in operation neither one system nor the other, and that some injustice is likely to be done to individual officers as well as the country itself. I cannot help thinking that the arrangement which existed before: the present) incident, proved to be reasonably workable, those responsible for the officers in the two Houses conferring with one another. At any rate, there was a working agreement, and, so far as I am aware, there has never been any unfairness to an officer, or any neglect of the interests of the country. If the salaries of officers may be increased, and their seniority raised, on the recommendation of the Speaker alone, one can imagine that the only way to secure justice for the officers of the Senate would be for the President to take similar action. It seems that the President would either have to condone what has been done, or raise the salary of the Clerk of the Senate to an amount which is excessive. The present procedure is impossible.

Senator Foster:

– Has not the head of a Department in the Public Service got a fixed maximum to which he can attain ?

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

– This is an effort to raise one maximum without any regard to the corresponding position in the other House.

Senator Foster:

– Does not the head of a Department in the Public Service usually reach a maximum which is fixed?

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

– I _think the honorable senator refers to the invariable practice that, when an officer is appointed to a new position, he commences at the lowest rung in that grade. Senator Givens has pointed out that he endeavoured to follow that course, when there was a re-allotment of these parliamentary positions. He invariably placed the incoming officer on the lower grade, so that in two or three years the officer might, by successive steps, reach the maximum. That course, however, has not been followed in another place. Whatever course is adopted, it ought to be adopted in both Houses. It ought not to be possible in either House, owing, it may be, to different views being held, to give benefits to one set of officers which are withheld from officers in the other Chamber. I do not think we should be justified at this juncture in increasing the salary of the officers of this Chamber, but, at the same time, I see very great difficulty in objecting to the proposed increase in the salary of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. There is a very strong tradition that each House should largely control its own affairs. What is needed is not rivalry between the two Houses, but some plan of co-ordination. If we proceed to bring the salary of our Clerk up to that of the Clerk in another place we run the risk, apart from the question of whether we ought, for financial reasons, to grant the increase, of putting one House in competition with the other. Suppose, later on, some Speaker thought an officer in the other House was worthy of a higher salary than the corresponding officer in the Senate, he might increase that officer’s salary. If the Senate proceeded on the same lines, it would be a dangerous course, and one entirely lacking in dignity. I see no immediate way out of the difficulty. Either of the two courses is objectionable, and I regret to say that I cannot offer a suggestion.

Senator Crawford:

– Cannot we convey our opinion to the other House by way of resolution ?

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

– Resolutions cut very little ice in these matters. If we sent a resolution on, side by side with the fact that we had passed the item, the other House would accept the passage of the item with gratification, and regard the resolution merely with a smile. There is only one way to make the resolution effective, and that is by disturbing the salary. If I could offer the Committee a workable solution I would do ,so, but I cannot. It is a matter that should never have arisen. It should have been settled by a conference. Some effort should have been made to work together.

Senator Givens:

– There was a preliminary conference, an agreement was arrived at, and an attempt was made to work together.

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

– It seems a . thousand regrets that the matter was left there, without a further conference being held. Had another conference taken place, and had there been failure then to arrive at an agreement, it would have been a different matter. We are placed in the humiliating position of either shutting our eyes to what has been done, or, in the alternative, of taking a stand on the matter which must bring about some delay in the passage of the Estimates, which is not desirable at this juncture.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I was hopeful that the Leader of the Senate (Senator E. D. Millen) would be able to offer some suggestion, but, as he has not done so, I intend to submit a motion. The other Chamber claims to be master of the purse in the taxpayers’ interests, and, therefore, the responsibility for raising the salary is on that House. In order that the Clerk of the Senate may not have a status below that of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, I move -

That the House of ‘Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Clerk of the Senate, £1.000,” by making the amount read “£1,250.” ‘

I would never consent to the Clerk of the Senate being placed on a lower plane than the Clerk of the other House. I have done everything possible in the past to bring about that co-ordination which should exist. An agreement was arrived at, and I knew of nothing to disturb it until I received an intimation some few months ago, that it was proposed to elevate Mr. Gale to a superior position, and give him an increase in salary. I did not even hear it whispered that there was any proposal to raise his salary by £250 until I saw the Estimates. I agree with the Minister that it is a most undesirable course to take, but I am forced to adopt it.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– This is too important a matter to be allowed to pass without some comment. I am quite satisfied that if the Committee agree to the motion we shall be as far away from an agreement as we are at present. The more I consider the position of parliamentary officers the more I see room for regret that the original method of dealing with them has been departed from. When the Joint House Committee considered these matters, a great deal of friction and misunderstanding was avoided. The trouble could easily have been overcome if the Joint

House Committee, or if the two Presiding Officers, had been working harmoniously together.

Senator Foll:

– Did the Joint House Committee ever fix salaries?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Yes; I can give specific instances, if necessary, of the Joint Committee having fixed salaries; the Library Committee did so only a few months ago. Under the original arrangement there was co-ordination and harmony. Members in the other Chamber think that the Clerk of the House of Representatives should be paid a higher salary, because there are more sitting days in that Chamber, and because he is senior ti the Clerk in the Senate. It would have been an easy matter to have got over this difficulty if the precedent established in the first Parliament, and followed in several subsequent Parliaments, (had been continued. The Clerk of the Parliaments was the Clerk of the Senate. The first Clerk of the Senate was Mr. Blackmore, and of another place Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins retired, and Mr. Duffy, who was Assistant Clerk in the Senate, became Clerk in the House of Representatives. It was considered that Mr. Blackmore held the senior position, and that condition of affairs prevailed for a long time. If that principle had been continued, and the Clerk of the Senate had always been the senior Clerk of Parliament, the present difficulty would not have arisen. There would have been no friction, and the two Houses could have worked harmoniously if Mr. Gale had been transferred to the Senate, and made Clerk of t’he Parliaments. In that way alone can I see a way out of the present position. I agree with Senator E. D. Millen that if we increase the salary of the Clerk of the Senate by £250 a year, there’ will still be no finality. Senator Givens’ requested amendment will not bring us any nearer to’ a settlement of the matter. I would prefer, rather, to take the stronger and more drastic action suggested by Senator Earle.

Senator Foster:

– It would be all right for the officials of the Senate if our dignity was worth another £250 to them.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have no objection to the extra £250 being granted provided it is given all round, but to hand it to one official only would be wrong. There is, in the Senate, another official who has been sitting at the Hansard table for many years, who ought to be in a higher position nhan that which he occupies to-day. If we increase the pay of the Clerk and ignore the other officials, we shall be extending the injustice. Something must be done. It may be unpleasant to have a collision with the other place, but I see no other way out of the difficulty but to reduce the salary of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to the level of that of the Clerk of the Senate. I admit that Mr. Monahan’s .experience is short by comparison with that of Mr. Gale, but he, no doubt, considers that he ought to be regarded as of the same seniority, and entitled to the same salary.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have, I suppose, like other honorable senators, been trying to do a little thinking whilst this, debate has been proceeding to see if I could not, in some way or other, remedy the omission to which I pleaded guilty just now when I said that I was unable to offer a suggestion. I do not know that I am any nearer being able to offer a workable suggestion now than I was before, but I am going to take the responsibility of offering one. The request that has been moved does not seem to me to carry us anywhere. The intention of the honorable senator who moved it was that the salary of the Clerk of this Chamber should be increased, and the salary attaching to the similar position in the other House should not be touched. If the other House rejects that proposed increase, we cannot then go back to the question of the salary of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to which we will have committed ourselves. On the other hand, if we pass the salary of the Clerk of this Chamber as it stands on the Estimates, at £1,000 a year, and reduce the salary attaching to the corresponding position in the other place, and it comes back again to us, we cannot then revert to the question of the salary of the Clerk of this Chamber, and say we will raise it. In that event, the only thing open for discussion would be the salary attaching to the Clerkship of the other House. If we are anxious to arrive at some mutual understanding as to how this position should be dealt with, we ought to seek to keep both these items open and available; for discussion. ‘That means we must propose some amendment of each of them. Only in that way can we insure an interchange of messages between the two Houses on both items. I suggest that some increase should be proposed in the salary of the Clerk of the Senate, say, to £1,125, and that a request should be made for a reduction in the salary of the corresponding position in the other House to £1,125. That would leave both positions open, for discussion between the two Houses. If we assent to one of . those two salaries we cannot go back to it in any discussion that may ensue. I make the suggestion so that if it is thought desirable we can seek an interchange of views with the other House with a view to devising a better system than the present one. I hope it will be understood that the Committee discusses these items in the spirit that the salaries have no relation at all to the officials in the two positions. I hardly feel that I should be justified in agreeing to any alteration of the Estimates as submitted by the Government, and I express the hope that my suggestion, or some improvement of it, will be adopted.

Senator Givens:

– If Senator Earle is willing to accept that suggestion, I am prepared to withdraw my request.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania.

.- ;I do not know whether the Committee is willing to accept that suggestion; but I am not. The proposed requested amendment is either right or it is wrong. The other place is either justified in making an increase of £’250 in the salary of their Clerk, or they are not justified. It does not appear to me to be a case in which we should indulge in technicalities with a view, if the other Chamber does not do what we believe to be right, to checkmate their claim to superiority by increasing the salary of our own Clerk and doing another wrong to the taxpayers. I would very much like to see the salaries of everybody increased in the - proportion of £250 a year. It would be quite a pleasant task for me to move it; but the taxpayer also has a say in the matter. We are handling, not our own money, but that of the people. Therefore, we have to see that we do not grant higher salaries than are commensurate with the services rendered’ to the people. I hold that the Clerk of either branch of this Legislature is adequately paid at ,£1,000 a year. I do not feel that either branch of the

Legislature is justified in increasing the salary . by 25 per cent., and I doi not think this Committee will be justified in agreeing, to the proposal or in making provision to increase the salary «f the Clerk of the Senate should the House of Representatives refuse to do what is right.

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

– I have not suggested that. I have merely suggested that we should keep the two items open for discussion.

Senator EARLE:

– Quite so; but what is the object? The suggestion is that we shall request the House of Representatives to increase the item of £1,000 for the Clerk of the Senate by £125, and that when we come to the vote for the Clerk of the House of Representatives we shall request that they reduce the item of £1,250 to £1,125. The House of Representatives will immediately see the idea. They are intent upon the increase being granted to their own officer, and they will refuse the Senate’s request point blank. What can we dc then 1 Will we then move that the salary of the Clerk of the Senate be increased from £1,125 to £1,250? The members of another place will very quickly realize what the object of that move is. That kind of tactics, although legal, is not desirable. We ought to take a strong stand. If it is right ‘that the Clerk of the House of Representatives should have £250 increase in his salary, let us pass it. If it is wrong, let us make a request that the amount be reduced. Unpleasant as the task is, I shall move later that the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the amount by £250.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– No doubt we have got into somewhat of a tangle; but it is none of the Senate’s making. It is well to recognise that. The suggestion made by the Minister in charge of the Bill (Senator E. D. Millen) is a very ingenious one, but I am afraid that it, also, has its defects. It ‘ proposes to increase the salary of the Clerk of this Chamber, and to commit ourselves to a course of action which we will have to stand by later on. If the Committee increases the salary it will pet away from what I assume is the considered policy of the Senate. It will commit itself to the opinion, for the sake of putting itself right in a situation that may arise afterwards, that the Clerk of the Senate is at present underpaid. On the other hand, if it proposes’ to alter tie remuneration of the official of another place, it will also commit itself to a very definite stand. Senator Earle proposes to say, quite frankly and respectfully, that the proposed increase in the salary of the Clerk of the other place is not appropriate, and is not in keeping with the condition of things that ought to exist between the two Chambers. Senator Earle’s proposal may appear to be somewhat of a bludgeon, containing a stand and deliver threat. But it is not so. I do not know that it is subject to that interpretation, for the simple reason that when the Estimates emerged from the other House, and the lower amount was recognised as suitable for the official of this Chamber, the suggestion was that this Chamber was inferior to the other in so ° far as the figures could suggest. We do not say that either House is inferior to the other, as typified by the remuneration of its officials. We desire to say that we consider ourselves, by the Constitution, as a co-equal and co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. I do not think we are entirely guiltless in this matter, because I have a recollection that officers of this Chamber were at one time remunerated at a higher figure than the officers of another place. I remember a figure of £900 being set down on one occasion for the Clerk of another place, and £1,000 for the Clerk of the Senate. Now the tables have been turned. Senator Earle’s proposition should ‘ be adopted as a clear indication to another place that, while we do not consider this Chamber superior, we do not regard it as inferior. We have been told by the President that the duties devolving on the Clerk in another place are onerous, but he has assistance. Although numerically the House of Representatives is the larger Chamber, and perhaps the duties of the principal officer there are greater, he is provided with assistants, so the position is about balanced. He is not called upon to perform any more work than is the Clerk of this Chamber. As this Chamber is to be judged as much by the remuneration of its members and officers as by anything else, I do not think we are justified in allowing the two items to pass in this lop-sided fashion; therefore, I will support Senator Earle in a respectful request to another place to reduce the salary of the Clerk there to the level of the salary paid to the Clerk in this Chamber.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- While the Minister’s suggestion has much to recommend it, I intend to support Senator Earle. In my judgment, £1,000 a year is a very fair salary to pay to the Clerk of this Chamber or another place. Judging from the remarks of honorable senators, there is a belief that the House of Representatives is more or less antagonistic towards the Senate. I do not subscribe to that view at all. We know quite well that many item9 in Supply Bills are not individually scrutinized, and it is passible that this item was not brought under the personal notice of members in another place. I take it that the Government are to some extent to blame for this additional vote of £250 for the Clerk of the House of ‘Representatives.

Senator de Largie:

– This is not a Government Department. Parliament settles this matter.

Senator FOLL:

– As a result of the demand for economy elsewhere leading to a reduction in the Estimates, many returned soldiers have been thrown out of employment, but not one voice was raised against this increase of £250 for the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who already receives a very substantial salary.

Senator de Largie:

– Where was. the Country party then?

Senator FOLL:

– Yes. Where were these advocates of economy in another place when this item ‘came under consideration ? They were prepared to sacrifice returned soldiers, but evidently did not protest against this increase. I am confident that members of another place are not antagonistic towards the Senate. Last evening I. listened to quite a number of stirring speeches in that chamber commending the action of the Senate towards the Tariff. Is it not possible for the Joint House Committee to make some recommendation in regard to this matter, or is it not possible for two or three members of the Senate and another place to discuss these points of difference, and recommend a solution? I regret that I am unable to support the Minister’s suggestion, because we may find . a future Speaker putting £500 on to the salary of the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the expectation that there will be some such compromise as the Minister now suggests. Our best course is to request another place to reduce the salary of their Clerk to the former amount.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– It is regrettable that this discrimination appears in the Bill. I should like to know whether the President had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Speaker, as I take it that the Speaker framed his Estimates, and that the President was responsible for the Estimates for this Chamber. My memory carries me back to the original Estimates, in which Mr. Blackmore, the first Clerk in this Chamber, was designated “ Clerk of the Parliaments,” and held a senior position. Later, Mr. Boydell became Clerk of the Senate, and he was succeeded by Mr. Duffy.

Senator Givens:

– But there has been no Clerk of the Parliaments since 1908.

Senator KEATING:

– I am aware of that. Mr. Blackmore was a man of outstanding ability, and wherever British parliamentary institutions exist, he was a recognised authority in his particular work.His contributions to parliamentary law and lore were both valued, and not infrequent, and it was thought desirable that he should occupy some such position, and be regarded as the senior officer in the Federal Parliament. If we tacitly acquiesce in this discrimination now, we do not know where it is going to lead us. If the Speaker of another place considers, as evidently he does, that the work done by the Clerk of the House of Representatives is greater, and of more importance, than the work done by the Clerk of the Senate, some future Speaker may think there should be a, much greater margin, as represented by the salary, between the importance and volume of the work in the respective Houses. I do not feel disposed to take any course that involves such a possibility, and, seeing that the President, in framing his Estimates, did not think it necessary to increase the salary of the Clerk in this Chamber over the amount paid last year, we should be a little hesitant about talcing the course suggested by the Minister.

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

– I hope you quite understand that my suggestion was made merely to keep the item open with a view to arriving at some co-ordinated plan.

Senator KEATING:

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

, - The officers who act as Clerk Assistants in each House have the same salary. The Serjeant-at-Arms in another place and the Usher of the Black Rod in this Chamber receive a similar amount, but when it comes to the senior officer it would appear from the schedule that the Clerk in another place is rated at more than the Clerk in this Chamber.

Senator Keating:

– If the Clerk in another place is granted an increase, the others will apply for extra remuneration.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator FOLL:

– Even though the privilege may not have applied in all the States, my point still holds good, namely, that there should be consistency. Within these precincts members of Parliament^ may have their correspondence stamped by the messengers authorized for that purpose. Those who do not reside in Melbourne, however, are unfairly discriminated against in that they are bound to stamp their correspondence out of the allowance granted for postage and* telegrams, namely, £25 each. Federal legislators resident in Victoria may send all their letters by means of the facilities provided in this building. I suggest in fairness that no letters should be so despatched, but that the allowance of £25 should he regarded as sufficient for the stamping of all correspondence. In this way a certain amount of money could be saved, and all members, no matter from what State, would all be placed upon the same footing. Here is an opportunity to bring about consistency,and, at the same time, practise a little economy at home.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– The privilege accorded in Sydney and Brisbane in respect of the stamps of Federal members’ correspondence was withdrawn after full consideration by the Joint House Committee. The view was taken that the specific allowance for stamps was sufficient for the purpose; and, since there have been certain irregularities in connexion with the use of those stamps’, it was deemed desirable, as well as necessary in the best interests of the country, and of the reputation of the Federal Legislature, that the practice should be stopped. Further, there was no good reason why legislators representative of the two States mentioned should be given advantage over those coming from any of the other four States. I assure honorable senators that the whole subject was very carefully considered, ‘and that the members of the Joint House Committee were practically unanimous in coming to the decision.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I notice that the sum paid to “special messenger in charge of stores and stamping correspondence,” is £250, and that the amount paid to the President’s messenger is the same. In my view, the special messenger should receive considerably more per annum than the other. His duties entail certain responsibilities, and he has been of material assistance, particularly to new senators. This messenger has done all that has been possible in that direction, and he has to undergo strenuous and responsible periods of duty. The anomaly of the payment to each of these two messengers being the same should not be permitted to continue. I move, therefore -

That the House of Representatives be requested to increase the item, “ The Senate - Special Messenger, in charge of stores and stamping correspondence, £250,” to £275.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I hope the request will not be pressed. The Estimates were decided upon after full and careful considera tion by the heads of the Departments concerned, and following upon consultation with a view to securing coordination and harmony between the various Departments in the Parliament. Any increase made in respect of the salary of one official will bear upon the payments made to others and must entail consequent adjustments if co-ordination is to be maintained. I undertake, when the Estimates for the next financial year are being framed, to very carefully consider the representations which have been made by Senator John D. Millen in respect of the special messenger to whom he has referred.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– As for any arrangements made to insure harmony and co-ordination, the President has afforded an example of the agreement being broken away from.

Senator GIVENS:

– I have not broken away from it.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

.- Under the subdivision dealing with “ The Senate- Contingencies,” there is an item, ‘ ‘ Writing paper and envelopes, including cost of printing and embossing thereon.” The envelopes provided for the use of honorable senators are the poorest sample of stationery which it has ever been my misfortune to be required to use. I doubt if one in ten of them will contain any letter placed therein, without bursting. The paper which is made available to honorable senators is not nearly as good to write upon as that formerly provided, although I understand that it actually costs more. As for the envelopes, their poor quality entails considerable waste. Altogether, they are very badly made, and reflect no credit upon those by whom they are supplied. I do not know where or by whom they are manufactured.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland [4.30]. - All stationery is supplied by the Government Printing. Office. Honorable senators will realize that the quality of’ all paper depreciated very much during the war, and, as a matter of fact, it has been almost impossible to get the supplies of paper required. I have found no difficulty in enclosing letters in envelopes supplied for the use of the Senate.

Senator Payne:

– The trouble is that they are gummed inside.

Senator Keating:

– Some are fastened before they are sealed.

Senator GIVENS:

– I shall have representations on the matter made to the Government Printer, and see that more satisfactory envelopes are supplied for the use of honorable senators.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– I should like some information with respect to the item - “ Senate - Cost of Living Bonus - .£454.” The amount voted for this . item last year was only £216, and I should like to know how the increase in the vote is accounted for.

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

– Last years vote was for a part of the year only. This year’s vote is for the full twelve months.

Senator FOLL:

– I understand that the cost of living is declining, and I should like to know what is the practice adopted in connexion with the .vote. la the vote decreased in accordance with a decrease in the cost of living ?

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– We adopted for the service of . Parliament the system and regulations adopted by the Government for the Public Service generally. The increase in the amount of the vote to meet the cost of living in this year’s Estimates is accounted for by the fact that last year’s vote was for a part of the year only.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- As officers of the various Departments, in common with other workers in Australia, had to bear the increased cost of living before consideration was given to them in that regard, it would not be fair to decrease the amount of .the bonus in respect of the increased cost of living for this year. But I suggest mat the Government should give the matter close attention before next year’s Estimates are submitted. As the item was included in the Estimates to meet a special contingency it should disappear or diminish in accordance with the reduction in the cost of living.

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

– I find’ that last year, under the head of “The Senate- Salaries,” £6,871 was voted, and it is shown that the total expenditure was £7,116. But there are no entries in the Estimates to show how the amount of the vote was increased. Particulars giving this information are to be found in the expenditure column opposite votes for contingencies.

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

– It has been explained that the vote for cost of living bonus last year was for the part of the year only.

Senator FOSTER:

– That is not the matter to which I am directing attention, though I may point out that whilst last year, for the Senate, £216 was voted for the cost of living bonus, it is impossible from the Estimates to discover what the expenditure from that vote was. It might, so far as explanation is supplied by the Estimates, have been nearer £454, the amount asked for this year.

Motion (by Senator Earle) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item “ Clerk of the House of Representatives- £1,250 “ by £250.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Senator Foster has drawn attention to the difference between the amounts voted and the amounts expended for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The difference is made up by the circumstance that in the case of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works there is provision made for a clerk and messenger. In the case of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, there is provision only for an office assistant at £200, as against the clerk of the Public Works Committee at £245 and the messenger at £182. In respect to the staffs of’ both these Committees there is provision for cost of living bonus and basic wage allowances, in connexion with which there is not very much difference between the two Committees. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has always been housed in Parliament House, but the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has not, up to the present, although arrangements are now being made to house that Committee here. This arrangement is only possible in consequence of extensions that have been made to the building on the House of Representatives side, whereby additional Ministers’ rooms and conveniences for members have been provided. Personally, from my experience, I have no reason to doubt that the housing of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in this building will lead to economy in the administration costs of the Committee. Senator Givens has indicated that as a result of arrangements which are now being considered there will be economy in the administration costs of the Committee in future. That is an indication of the advantage that can be gained by concentrating Departments, instead of having them scattered, as they are at present, all over Melbourne. It was necessary for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to have a messenger, because it was at first housed at the other end of the city in the Wool Exchange buildings in King-street. After that it was moved to Broken Hill Chambers, Queen-street. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts does not appear to have had a special messenger. The secretary to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has occupied that position since the Committee came into existence. He is an officer of outstanding ability. He was taken from one of the Departments, in which he had been employed since the establishment of the Commonwealth. He is a man of attainments, experience, and accomplishments, and when he was taken from the position that he held in one of the larger central Departments of the Commonwealth due regard was paid to his then claims and prospects for promotion and advancement. He has held the position of secretary to the Committee for five or six years. He is steeped in experience of the work of the Committee, and is a very valuable guide, counsellor, and friend to every member of the Committee, and especially to incoming members. On the other hand, the officer who is occupying the position of secretary to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was, immediately preceding his occupancy of that office, clerk to the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Works under the officer whom I have just designated. He has not had the experience or the length of service with the Commonwealth that the secretary to the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Works has had. It is because of the difference in their age, experience, and length of service that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, while able to get an active, efficient and intelligent secretary, has net found it necessary to pay the same salary as is paid to the secretary of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Works. ‘ I rose, more than anything else, to point out the economy that is effected in administration by having different Departments and activities concentrated as far as possible in the same building, instead of being scattered and divided, as they are at present, in Melbourne. Honorable members know that even single Departments in Melbourne are in many instances to be found not housed under one roof, or even under adjoining roofs, but scattered throughout the length and breadth of the city and suburbs. The difference in the cost of the administration of these two Committees is a striking illustration of the disadvantage of the existing conditions.

I desire to ask Senator Givens a question with regard to the reserve or allotment that is to be found on the northern or north-western side of the block of the land on which Parliament House stands. There is an alley-way, or right-of-way running from Spring-street to Albert-street. On the north-westerly side of it is an enclosure or reserve which, I understand, belongs properly to Parliament House, which is a State property. It has been announced more than once that the State authorities have been desirous- of throwing the allotment in with the rest of the parliamentary grounds, provided that certain conditions are complied with which will insure to the public access ‘to the grounds. At present the public has not access to the grounds, because they are enclosed. The allotment is unsightly and not useful. I would like to know from Senator Givens if a proposition such as- I have mentioned has come from the State Government, and, if so, what it is proposed to do with regard to it. The public would like to know what is the exact position. Is it intended to do anything? If not, what is the reason for inaction?

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I think that for about eight or nine years Parliament has voted the money for this purpose, and the Commonwealth has been ready ‘at al! times to undertake the whole of the capital cost of converting the land referred to into an open garden, similar to the corner plot at the other end of Spring-street. At present it is not used at all. The original proposition put before the then State Government was that we should bear the whole of the capital expenditure in the removal of the fence along the rightofway, and convert the property into one garden. The scheme had the approval of the then State Premier (Sir Alexander Peacock), the architect to the State Public Works Department and the Melbourne City Council, but the Joint House Committee of the Victorian Parliament would not agree to it. The money has been voted on several occasions, and has always been available. If the proposal were carried out it would make a perfect balance. This House would then stand in fine grounds, and there would be room for the erection of statuary. At present the area referred to is useless, and cannot be regarded as ornamental. The conditions under which we occupy Parliament House and the grounds . from the State Parliament render us helpless in the matter without the consent of the State authorities. It is not our responsibility that nothing has been done up to the present. We were prepared to spend about £1,500 in the beautification of the grounds, but I did not feel like going cap-in-hand to the members of the State House Committee to get their approval.

Proposed vote agreed to, with requests.

Prime Minister’s Department.

Proposed vote, £416,798.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The expenditure in this Department last year very greatly exceeded the amount voted. I am quite aware that, owing to its very nature, the Prime Minister’s Department might be expected to expand, but during the lastfour years it has outdistanced all the other Departments from the point of view of expenditure. If we add the amount not spent upon immigration, £75,000, to the excess expenditure, we have a total of well over £100,000 in excess of the vote agreed to by Parliament last year. I recognise that it is almost impossible to keep the expenditure of this Department within the vote, but the excess is so large that I think we are entitled to some explanation. On’ the administra tive side alone last year there was a clear increase of over £100,000. Expenditure in the High Commissioner’s Office alone exceeded the vote by over £20,000, and in view of the report made by Colonel Ramaciotti it would appear that Australia House requires overhauling. I have no fault to find with the increased vote for the Audit Department, because I regard that Department as the watch dog of the Commonwealth Public Service, and it is essential that it should be kept up to concert pitch, so to speak, in regard to its staff. I regret that the amount set aside for immigration was not spent. Last year we voted £100,000, but spent only £12,000. When this matter was last before the Committee, I drew attention to what was done in Western Australia seventeen years ago, and by a Labour Government too. A close watch needs to be kept on all public expenditure. According to the Budget papers, there has been an increase in administration expenditure from £10,000,000 in 1917-18 to £15,000,000 this year, an increase of 50 per cent, in four years. Our public expenditure may be divided under three headings - the Departmental Vote, the Special Appropriations, and expenditure on War Services. We cannot touch the Special

Appropriations without altering the Act. Under this heading the expenditure in four years has increased from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000, an increase of 16 per cent. This does not call for special comment, but expenditure on War Services has increased from £11,000,000 to £31,000,000. I had apprehended that there would be a decline of expenditure under this heading.. Turning to the ordinary departmental expenditure, there has been an increase, as I have shown, of 50 per cent, in four years. If we maintain this rate, we shall strike trouble very quickly. The Budget-papers point to the danger. Sir Joseph Cook, dealing with the seasonal prospects, said that the prices of wool and wheat were very good.

The CHAIRMAN” (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

– While I have no desire to prevent the honorable senator from referring to matters that are mentioned in the Budgetpapers, in order to illustrate his arguments, I am bound to point out to Mm that his remarks would have been more appropriate at the second-reading stage of this Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– We” have on one hand a steady progressional increase of departmental expenditure, and on the other, as far as the economic and industrial outlook is concerned, a steady progressional decline.

– Provision was made for that, but the expenditure exceeded the estimate by £881. Apart from the League of Nations and the expenditure in connexion with the visit of the Prince of Wales, there have been no large increases in these particular items. If honorable senators will peruse the items they will see that there is none which invites criticism or any which can really be cavilled at. I do not think that it could be suggested for a moment that we should have demurred in connexion with our contribution to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, because it would have amounted to repudiation. We would not do that. As I have said, the expenditure, apart from the two rather large items which I have mentioned, is not unusual, and is represented by a number of smaller items for which either no .provision has been made or the provision has not been sufficient.

Senator Lynch:

– Why did you not spend more money on immigration?

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

– Because, unfortunately, whilst provision had been made for bringing more people out, the shipping difficulty was so great that it prevented them coming here. In addition, the agreement with the States provided that we should not bring out more men, women, and children than they were in a position to receive and place in employment. The Government did not wish these people to be dumped on the wharfs without any arrangements having been made for finding them employment or settling them in the country. Whether that will be a satisfactory (permanent policy I take the liberty of questioning. The policy adopted in the past in consequence of that limitation of the States will prevent the Commonwealth bringing more people to Australia than it would otherwise be able to do.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– There are one or two items of expenditure on which I should like the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) to give some information. I can quite appreciate what he has said in reference to the wage3 which are fixed by arbitration, which is recognised by the law of the Commonwealth. In connexion with the amount provided for the High Commissioner’s office, I noticed a paragraph in the press the other day to the effect that 400 of the employees had been entertained. I was amazed at the number given, and I shall be glad if the Minis,ter will give some information as to the actual number of persons employed there.

There is another item on page 18, “ Maintenance of motor cars, including wages and expenses of chauffeurs, £5,777.” The estimated expenditure this year is £3,500. Are these motor cars used in connexion with the Prime Minister’s Department?

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

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Senator Lynch stressed the question of immigration, and on that subject I desire to say a few words. I would have liked to have seen a material reduction in the Defence vote, and every penny of the money saved employed to assist immigration. It has often been said that unless we can fill our empty spaces we cannot hope to hold this continent. The logic of the situation is that if we do not make use of Australia some one else will. Even if we continue with our military expenditure as at present, our Military Forces would not be of much moment, when all is said and done, if some of the Powers that are spoken of in hushed whispers were to come down upon us But if we filled our waste spaces, and established in Australia a great Democracy in the place of the small Democracy we have at present, we should , be in a position to resist any military invasion in a way that we could not expect to be able to do at present. I repeat that I should like to see a material reduction in the vote for the Defence Department, and every penny of the money saved in that way expended on the immigration of the proper class of people to fill the enormous waste spaces of Australia, which might well be filled by people capable of engaging in agriculture, who would make good and useful citizens of the Commonwealth.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator asked a question about the vote for motor cars. An arrangement has been made to garage the cars required for all the Public Departments in one garage, which is under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. Instead of the expenses being debited to the respectiveDepartments, the whole of the administration work connected with the cars is centred in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I am quite satisfied on that point.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Last year we voted £800 for “ Salary and travelling allowances of officers acting as Secretaries to Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate and House of Representatives and Leader of the Country party.” This year £1,300 is asked for. Surely it cannot be put forward that the duties of the Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate have increased to such an extent that an additional amount is required to cover his travelling allowance.

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

– There has been an additional leader to provide for.

Senator PAYNE:

– Was not the Leader of the Country party provided for last year?

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

– No.

Senator PAYNE:

– I see that the expenditure last year was £1,028, or £228 more than was authorized. I take it that the increased expenditure covered the salary and allowance of the Leader of the Country party for a portion of the year.

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

– That is so.

Senator PAYNE:

– There is a vote of £2,500 set down for the Geneva Conference, 1920. Honorable senators will find that £5,802 was expended in 1920-21 for “ Commonwealth representation at Geneva Conference.” In the circumstances I should like to have some explanation of the additional vote asked for. There is a small vote of £250 down for “ Prize for military band contest at Ballarat.” Two hundred and fifty pounds was voted for this purpose last year, and only £50 was spent. It would be interesting to know, in the circumstances, whether the vote of £250 proposed this year is likely to be absorbed. I find a vote of £6,000 down for the Taxation Royal Commission. Last year there was an expenditure from . the Treasurer’s Advance on this Commission of £7,429. I understood that the Commission had finished its labours some months ago. It would be interesting to know whether the vote set down in this year’s Estimates will cover the balance of expenditure incurred by the Commission. If the Commission has finished its labours the Government should be in a position to say what amount has actually been expended. I notice a new item, “ Expenses of Berthing Officer and Assistants, Newcastle, £1,200,” about which I should like some information. Last year £800 was spent from the Treasurer’s Advance under this heading, although no money was voted for the purpose last year. Last year £3,051 was expended on the Scientific Expedition to New Guinea from the Treasurer’s Advance. There is no vote set down this year for the Expedition, and I desire to know whether it is proposed to continue to finance the Expedition out of the Treasurer’s Advance, and whether the Minister is in a position to say what the probable cost of the Expedition will be. I find that the number of officers in the High Commissioner’s Office provided for this year is ninety-two, as compared with twentythree last year. Does the increase indicate that quite a large number of those who have been temporarily employed in the office have now been put on the permanent list? Last year the expenditure for temporary assistance amounted to £10,000.

SenatorE. D. Millen. - The honorable senator will find that many of the officers were transferred under the High Commissioner’s Act.

Senator PAYNE:

– There appears to be a very large increase in the number of the staff. I take it that it is the intention and policy of the Government to have a large permanent staff at the High Commissioner’s Office instead of, as hitherto, a small permanent staff and a large number of temporary employees.

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

– Yes, I have a memorandum on the subject which will explain the position.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not know whether the policy is a wise one. I have my own view on the subject of the inflation of the Public Service list. I think that in the interests of the Commonwealth we should refrain from inflating it.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Senator Payne’ has asked for information upon a number of items. The second amount required to meet expenses of the Geneva Conference is due to the belated arrival of some accounts which have reached us from the Imperial Government. When the Convention was about to be held they undertook to make arrangements for delegates from all the British Dominions. Their offer was accepted, and the expenses covered by the accounts which they rendered afterwards for the accommodation provided were shared amongst the various delegates. Some accounts have been received only in time to be included in this year’s Estimates, though the services were rendered a long . while ago. With regard to the vote for a prize for the Ballarat band contest, a similar amount was originally voted for the Ballarat festival, which those controlling the festival were not able to use. A sum of £50 was then given for a minor competition in connexion, I think, with the cadets. It is proposed now, subject to parliamentary concurrence, to give this year the £250 promised for a previous occasion, which those controlling the festival could not avail themselves of. With regard to the Taxation Commission, that body has finished its travelling and the taking of evidence. It has yet to complete some supplementary reports on matters referred to it. It is not anticipated that it will continue in existence very much longer, and the vote now asked for is believed to be sufficient to cover the expenditure in connexion with the Commission which has yet to be met. The berthing officer at Newcastle was appointed in connexion with the control of the export of coal. Senator Payne will probably recollect that owing to the higher price that could be obtained abroad for coal, there was a tendency at one time to export coal to such an extent that it was thought probable that Australian industries might be left without sufficient supplies. In order to prevent that, the Government made the necessary proclamation, appointed a berthing officer’ at Newcastle, whose duty it was to determine which ship should go in first for loading, the idea being to see that no coal went out of Australia which was needed for carrying on Australian industries. Certain alterations in the nature of the coal control have followed, which experience has justified.

Senator Payne:

– Is the appointment to be continued’?

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

– It is not a permanent appointment. The proclamation under which this officer is acting terminates at the end of this year. The New Guinea Expedition has terminated so far as New Guinea is concerned, and most of the members of it are back in Australia. The gentleman who was in charge will shortly be presenting his final report.

Senator Payne:

– Have there been any reports from the Expedition?

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

– Perhaps I should, not have used the word “reports,” but from time to time telegrams and letters have been received from the leader of the Expedition stating how they were getting on. There has been nothing in the nature of a scientific report upon what the members of the Expedition have observed. They have finished their explorations, and the leader will probably present a report on the result of their explorations. With respect to the officers of the HighCommissioner’s office, Senator Payne has expressed sentiments with which I agree as to the danger of unduly inflating the permanent staff. I mentioned when the honorable member was speaking that I had a memorandum which would explain the position, and it is in the following terms -

The staff previously shown under “ Temporary Assistance “ are this year shown under the heading “ Salaries,” and the sub-heading “High Commissioner’s Act.” There is no change in the conditions of their employment - they were employed under the High Commissioner Act when shown under “Temporary Assistance,” but it is considered that the classification adopted this year is the more correct one, as, although they are in a different category from permanent officers, they are employed under different conditions from the ordinary temporary officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Their employment may, however, be terminated at any time by the High Commissioner.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- What proportion of the amount set down for the Royal Commission on the unification of railway gauges has been spent! The Government are not justified in spending £10,000 on this investigation at the present juncture.

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

– The work is done.

Senator FOLL:

– That is unfortunate, because it would be useless to request a reduction. I understood that the labours of the Royal Commission were not yet completed. The question of the unification of railway gauges crops up whenever Premiers or other Ministers from the various States meet in conference. Some time ago it was announced by the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom) that a scheme had been accepted which would cost something like £61,000,000, the expenditure to be spread over a period of years. Australia will be unable to standardize its railway gauges for many years, and if the Government are likely to have such a huge sum to spend on a project of this kind, I would remind them that there are a hundred and one other matters upon which the money could just as well be spent. Defence experts differ as to what would be the value of a unification of gauges. Had Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania not built narrowgauge railways, they would never have had the development that has taken place in those States, because it would have been impossible to construct a similar mileage of broad-gauge railways. Why not spend some of this money in encouraging immigration, or on some other work which would bring a quick return? While it is, perhaps, deplorable, from many points of view, that there are so many breaks of gauge in Australia, . we are faced with the fact tnat we cannot afford to incur such an immense expenditure as unification would involve. Let the Government throw open such country as the Burnett lands in Queensland, every inch of which is suitable for settlement. Every part of Australia is in need of greater population, and money should be spent on immigration instead of on investigations and discussions which lead us nowhere.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- Referring to the grant of £2,000 for the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau, the Government would be well advised to follow the lead given by the Imperial Government, and appoint a Director of Minerals. Dr. Hatch, who has been chosen by the British Government, is well known, and highly qualified for the task allotted to him. I need hardly stress the value of mineral production to the Commonwealth.

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

– Do you mean we should appoint an officer to remain in Australia ?

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes. I do not think that it is possible to say how valuable the work of the Bureau of Mines has been in the United States of America in opening up country, bringing capital in, and increasing mineral production. If we appointed a competent Director, the initial cost would not be great, apart from the officer’s salary; but such an official could collate information which wouldbe of the greatest value both within and outside Australia.

Senator Foll:

– Does not that savour of duplication?

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– No. The appointment of an officer who could put complete information respecting Australia’s mineral possibilities before outside investors would result in a. considerable influx of capital that is very much needed.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I understand that the honorable senator is not putting his suggestion for- ward as an alternative proposal to the grant to the Imperial Bureau.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

-. - No.

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

– This vote is for Australia’s contribution to a movement which is doing for the Empire exactly what the honorable member suggests should be done for the Commonwealth. I think there is a great deal in his proposal. I often think that we have resources.in Australia which lie untapped because we fail to make them better known. If the honorable senator’s suggestion could be carried out, especially in co-ordination with the efforts of the .States, much good would result. I shall have his remarks brought under the notice of my colleagues. I entirely differ from Senator Foll in his criticism of the value of the work of the Unification of Railway Gauges Commission. This is no new idea, and it is utterly wrong to say that it is leading nowhere. Such criticism could be levelled at every movement, upon its inception. It might be offered with respect to the long journey which Senator Foll and other honorable senators) have recently completed.

Senator Foll:

– It. would not have mattered if our trip had taken place five years hence.

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

– There are many people who would have put it further ahead than that. Hitherto there has always been a disagreement as to the railway gauge to be adopted for the Commonwealth; but an agreement has now been arrived at. The States concerned and the Commonwealth are unable to agree as to what the gauge should be, but they agreed that they would appoint this Commission, consisting of one Englishman, one American, and one Australian, and would accept the result of the Commission’s findings. That is progress. It is not so rapid as I would like, nor as the .honorable gentleman would like in matters of which Ihe .approves, but it is not right to say that it has not led us anywhere. I draw his attention to the fact that he has spoken of £50,000,000 as the cost of conversion. One thing the Commission has done is to show how the work can be carried out for much less than that sum.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– They have rendered service similar to that of the Public Works Committee.

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

– Yes; they have worked with the same desire to save the taxpayers expense, and have reached the same goal as that aimed at by Senator Foll and his colleagues. If Australia cannot afford to pay the cost of unifying railway gauges, it also cannot afford to delay doing it any longer. Every day we are adding to our railways, and, therefore, to the cost which we will ultimately have to face when we do unify them. My own State is building more lines on the 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge, and I think Queensland, subject to financial limitations, is doing the same. Where it would cost £18,000,000 or £15,000,000 to-day, it would cost infinitely more in a few years’ time. The longer we delay the more costly will the job become. I thought it was the accepted belief that the work had to be done, and that the sooner we did ifr the cheaper it would be. As to the Commission, it has completed its work, and has been disbanded. There are certain officers working at details which the Commission left unfinished. The vote of £10,000 is to pay for the expenditure already incurred, but it is not anticipated that the whole of that amount will be required. The extent of the saving that can be effected will depend upon how long the calculations now being made will take to complete.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of the Treasury.

Proposed vote, £1,207,280.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- - I want to bring under the notice of the Committee a great inconvenience to which residents in the Northern Territory are subjected. I am not springing this on the Minister, for I have already made the same complaint direct to the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Poynton) and to the Treasury Department. There seems to be practically no difference in the way in which taxation forms are handled when they are sent to a person living in Collins-street and when they are sent to a settler in the Northern Territory, 500 miles beyond the rail-head. At one place in the Northern Territory a gentleman recently received his assessment form for income tax on the 14th or 15th of the month, and on the form it was stated that unless he paid the amount due by the 20th of the same month he would be fined 10 per cent.

– Nevertheless, it is a fact that a huge sum in war-time profits taxation remains uncollected to-day, and naturally I am anxious to know whether the Department, with its increased vote of £100,000 this year, is likely to be a little more alert. I hope that if it is not able to collect these arrears this year it will, at all events, see that the people who are indebted to the Treasury give some quid pro quo for the advantages they enjoy.

Another matter to which I wish to direct attention is the expenditure of cash balances at the disposal of the Government, and again I am indebted to the Auditor-General for showing that £5,000,000 has been let out at 2 per cent., and another sum of £2,000,000 at 3 per cent. In his Budget speech, Sir Joseph Cook stated that short-dated loans in London command a much higher rate of interest than that. I think the lowest is 3-J per cent.; so I am anxious to know why the Treasurer cannot secure a better rate of interest. T shall welcome some information from the Minister.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I do not know that I can supply the honorable senator with information which,1 apparently, is not already in his possession, because the manner in which he discusses these details indicates that he has himself thought out the reasons for the various matters to which he directs attention. I shall, however, endeavour to put. the case, as it appears to me to be in accordance with the facts. First, then, with regard to the uncollected taxes. The explanation is simple. These taxes are uncollected because time was given by the Department for their payment. In many cases profits which business people showed upon their transactions were not in liquid cash at all. They were represented by stock or goods in hand, and very often by debts due to them. It is quite obvious, therefore, that if the Department had demanded payment at the due date, many business people would have been forced into the Insolvency Court. Take the case of the pastoralist. Very often his profits would not be represented by cash balances in the bank at all, but by increased stock upon his run, or, it may be, by wool in the warehouses upon which he had not realized. In such cases the Treasurer authorized an extension of time for tile payment of taxation due. The Commonwealth Government could have no possible profit in the ruin of any man. By acting the part of the generous creditor, it met the public sentiment on this question quite fairly.

Senator Lynch:

– But the amount outstanding represents 30 per cent, of the tax collectable.

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

– No. That amount does not represent arrears for one year only. I have always thought it most unfair, that whilst he was granting time to income taxpayers to meet their obligations, the Treasurer should have been abused because he was unable to balance his incomings and outgoings. The Treasurer could have presented a very different balance-sheet this year if he had demanded his “pound of flesh” immediately it was due instead of extending consideration to a section of the taxpayers. Had he been the manager of a private business concern, he would have taken these amounts in on the credit side of ‘his ledger as assets. If the Treasurer had done that his financial statement this year would have shown a substantial credit, instead of which the amounts do not appear on the balancesheet at all. Nevertheless, the Government have been roundly abused, because while £7,000,000 arrears of taxation is owing to the Treasurer, he drew to the extent of £2,000,000 on the accumulated surplus of the previous years. I mention this fact, not as having very much bearing upon the question raised by Senator Lynch, but as a reply to the criticism that has been levelled against these Estimates from many quarters outside.

Let me now deal with another matter, the quotation made by Senator Lynch from the Auditor-General’s report. I must compliment the honorable senator upon the comprehensive and exhaustive examination which, apparently, he gives to all public documents. I doubt if any other honorable senator has such an intimate knowledge of the multifarious documents that are presented to this Parliament, documents which, I suppose, nine out of ten of us never look at. With regard to the point raised by the honorable senator, the Auditor-General has pointed out that the warrants’ issued by the Treasury in respect of the Treasurer’? Advance vote exceeded ‘ the amount appropriated by Parliament last year. That is true, r lt in no case was more money spent than had been appropriated.

Senator Lynch:

– It was ready to its hand all the same.

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

– Well, I shall keep my own opinion upon that point. I understand from the Treasury officials tha’t warrant authority may be issued for certain amounts. Let me take the actual figures in order to make my meaning clearer. Let us suppose that the authority for the Treasurer’s Advance is fixed at £1,500,000, and the warrant is issued “in the first instance for £1,000,000, of which only £750,000 may be spent, leaving a balance of £250,000. If they issued another warrant for £500,000 the Treasurer’s supply would be exhausted, but knowing that only £750,000 of the first warrant authority has been expended, they issue from time to time warrants for expenditure in respect of which authority had not been exhausted. It is a question which method is the better. Some people prefer one, and some another. There has been an under-expenditure, if I may so term it, under the first warrant, and therefore they issue a further expenditure in respect of the same warrant at the latter period of the year. The Auditor-General prefers a different method of bookkeeping, but the Treasury officials have given the AuditorGeneral an assurance that they approve of their method of handling these matters. I am not expressing any opinion as to which is the better system. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or suggestive of looseness in the keeping of the account.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I desire to direct the attention of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) to the continued increase in the cost of the Taxation Department, the estimated expenditure this year being £546,372 as compared with an expenditure last year of £511,672, the increase being £35,000. Honorable senators will see, by referring to the item, that the vote last year, £440,000, was insufficient by about £70,000. Surely the time has arrived when the Departments should realize that there has been a decrease in the cost of all commodities as compared with the prices which prevailed a few years ago, and we- should therefore be justified in anticipating decreased expenditure in the Department. We have had it dinned into our ears year after year, when we have protested against extra expenditure, that we have failed to recognise that the Departments have had to bear the additional cost of materials, just as individuals have had to pay increased prices for necessary commodities. Apparently everything is on a down grade, and I do not think we are justified in providing a larger sum for the Taxation Department than was voted last year. In 1920-21 the total number of employees was 1,656, but according to the figures before us, we are to provide this year for 2,027, an increase of 371, which is equal to 18 per cent., although it is estimated that we shall receive only 3½ per cent, more in taxation than last year.

Senator Crawford:

– Probably there are more taxpayers paying less on the average in taxation.

Senator PAYNE:

– When a Department is in full operation and has overcome all initial difficulties and expenses, we should be able to expect some reasonable diminution in the cost.

Senator Crawford:

– With the expenditure of an additional £100,000 the Department would be able to secure £1,000,000 more in revenue.

Senator PAYNE:

Senator FOLL:

– I do not think that it should be paid indiscriminately, and I express the opinion that the money now expended in paying the allowance to parents who are in no need of it would be much better spent in subsidizing hospitals in out-back places or in subsidizing £1 for £1 funds raised by State or local authorities for the establishment of bush clinics, and for providing, medical attention and comforts for people in the bush.

Senator FOSTER (Tasmania) [8.40^. - There are two items to which I wish to direct attention. I should like to know who is responsible for parliamentary printing. I direct attention to the amount of printing that is done in connexion with the parliamentary debates and reports and papers of all sorts that are laid on the table. I do not know whether’ the number of copies printed of each paper is decided by the Printing Committee or by Government officials, but I do consider that a tremendous amount of money is wasted every year in printing. Some little time ago, between three and four tons of papers were carted from this building in loads. Some six months ag,- honorable senators were circularized by the Government Printer, o* some one in charge of the Department, asking whether they wanted certain papers or reports sent to them regularly, as there was a legitimate endeavour to cut down the number of copies printed of certain papers. Some attention might be given to this Department to see whether all the printing that is now done is necessary.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and which has been dealt with on a number of occasions by Senator Earle. The honorable senator tells me that he is getting tired of trying to induce the Government to do something in connexion with this matter. I refer to the maintenance of persons admitted to

State charitable institutions and hospitals under the provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. When the pension was lower than it is to-day, an amount was paid to the State Governments for the maintenance of old-age and invalid pensioners in State Government institutions. Senator Earle has repeatedly raised the question that with the increased cost of living, and of everything that old-age pensioners have to buy, we should be able to do something more than allow them the same amount of 2s. per week as pocketmoney that was allowed them ten years ago. These poor old chaps have to buy a little tobacco and other things, the cost of which is 100 per cent, more than it was some time ago, and on this account they should be given consideration. We may very well ask the Government to direct their attention to this matter, and see whether the State institutions could not make available to old-age and invalid pensioners in their care a little more than 2s. per week out of the amount allowed them by the Commonwealth Treasurer, or, failing that, whether some other arrangement may not be made to give these poor old people a little extra pocketmoney.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- As a member of the Printing Committee, I can assure SenatorFoster that the Committee has cut down printing as much as it possibly could. It has to be remembered that papers are very often sent to the Committee which have been ordered to be printed by the Senate. Many papers which are ordered to be printed have to be set up in type in any case, and, therefore the cost of a few extra copies is not very great. The Printing Committee, however, keeps a watchful eye over this matter, and the quantity of printing is kept down as low as possible.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Attention was drawn by Senator Payne to the increase in the proposed appropriation for the Taxation Department. The total increase for the year is £35,000, but against that there are some items which more than balance that amount. First of all, there is the amount due for the payment of the salaries of the Western Australian taxation officer’s, but, owing to the decision to amalgamate the two services there, the necessary money has to be appropriated under this Bill. The automatic increments to officers amount to £11,800, and the nonautomatic increases to £2,000, making a total of £13,800. There is also the difference between the full year’s expenditure for the basic wage allowances, including child endowment, which is £6,000, of. £41,000 for the three items mentioned, making about £6,000 more than the increase of £35,000. In the Taxation Department the number of assessments have increased by 25 per cent; and that necessarily involves additional work. I do not think anybody has discovered a means of collecting taxes without employing tax collectors, and an increased number of these officers have been engaged. Allowing for all the circumstances, I do mot think the increased expenditure can be cavilled at. Probably the general opinion is that some improvement in the distribution of the maternity bonus is possible, but there is very little agreement as to how that improvement is to be achieved. Many people think that the provision of actual attendance and facilities at the time of child-birth would be better than a cash payment, but it is not easy to devise an alternative system. The matter seems to me to be of sufficient importance to justify me in placing before my colleagues the views expressed here, which, I gather, have some measure of support among honorable senators. A question was askedregarding the vote of £75,000 for the maintenance of persons admitted to charitable institutions and hospitals, in accordance with the provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Acts.

Senator Payne:

– Is the whole of that paid to the State Governments?

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

– Not to the State Governments alone, but to any hospital or institution which might be receiving these patients.

Senator Payne:

– Whether private or State owned?

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

– There are institutions which are private in the sense that they are not controlled by the State. I am told that every State institution or institution subsidized by the State is entitled to receive the payment. There is an appropriation in existence with authority to pay these sums into Trust accounts, but this particular matter is not so covered, and it is necessary each year to seek separate appropriation by Parliament. Senator Foster ba3 referred to the printing of parliamentary papers. That is a very old subject of discussion. There have been very many, as Senator Reid has said, and, I believe, largely successful, efforts to keep the printing bill down ; but there are difficulties in the way. It is never possible to estimate exactly how many papers of a particular kind will be required. On some occasions every honorable senator will want a certain paper. I have frequently looked at the title of a paper, and immediately consigned it to the waste paper basket, but very frequently I come across a paper containing information that is valuable to me. After all, is the item a big one for Parliament. Comparatively speaking, the figures are moderate when we consider the vast amount of official and other matter that has to be printed, if only to be placed on record. Apart from the careful supervision of the Printing Committee, I know of no way of more successfully policing this vote.

Senator LYNCH:
“Western Australia

– I should like to know why it is that the Defence Department, with such a large fund at its disposal, does not try to obtain a higher rate of interest than I have already cited. I notice that the Auditor-General’s report states -

Interest on fixed, deposit with Commonwealth Bank amounted to £165,000 in 1920-21, as compared with £187,000 in 1919-20. This represents the interest on fixed deposit of amounts totalling £7,000,000. During 1920-21, the rate of interest received on £5,000,000 was 2 per cent., and on £2,000,000 the rates of 3J per cent, for six months and 3 per cent, for six months. The deposit of £5,000,000 was renewed for a period of six months at 2 per cent, from the 5th June, 1921, and deposits totalling £2,000,000 were renewed for a period of three months at 3 per cent, from 1st September, 1921.

There is a constant supply of money known as surplus balances, and they are renewed from year to year. The best interest shown in the report is from 2 to 3 per cent. The ex-Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) stated in his Budget speech that the latest information from England was that money was becoming cheaper, and that short-dated loans could be obtained as low as 3f per cent., while three months bills were only 4 per cent. In the absence of in formation to the contrary, I can only say that the Federal Treasury seems to be .a benevolent institution.

Senator Crawford:

– The Common* wealth Treasury cannot go in for the pawnbroking business. That is not what the banks will pay for deposits.

Senator LYNCH:

– If more than 2 or 3 per cent, cannot be obtained, I have nothing to say; but it is the duty of the Government to get more if possible. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen) was the central figure in a financial arrangement with Great Britain for the loan to the Commonwealth of £89,000,000, for which Australia had to pay 6 per cent, interest. I would like to know in what time the total loan will be liquidated. Is it not possible to invest some of the floating and accruing balances in the Old Country, thereby relieving the Treasury of the very high, rates of exchange that must necessarily be charged? If the Minister is in need of a precedent, I may refer him to New Zealand, where the Treasurer acknowledges, with appreciable gratitude, that he has a large sum invested in London, whereby his financial arrangements are much more easily adjusted through having the money invested there instead of in New Zealand.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It was mentioned by Senator Lynch that I had omitted to answer a question put by him. I regret having overlooked the point when I spoke previously’. < With regard to the rate of interest that the Government is receiving on its deposits, I would remind Senator Lynch, as Senator Crawford has already done by interjection, that even a banker must live, and that the rate which he charges when he lends money is not the rate which he pays when he borrows it. There is a difference in the two rates, and that difference has to be taken into account. There is a further fact which applies particularly to the Government investments. The Government, when it made these deposits with the banks, had a right to withdraw them at any moment. They were practically deposits at call, and no one expects that deposits at call will earn the same rate of interest as fixed deposits.

Senator Lynch:

– These deposits were for three months.

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

– Yes: but the Commonwealth had an arrangement that, if the necessity arose, it could break the stipulation, and call the money in. The Treasury officials are as keenly alive to the value of their money as 13 any one else, and they made at the time the best arrangement that seemed possible to them. It is true that they did not need to break these deposits, as money came in from other quarters, but they fully expected they would have to do so when they made the arrangements. It is always easier to size up a problem when you. look at it after the event. It is not quite so easy, beforehand, to determine what is the best course to pursue. I think the Committee will credit the officials with seeking to obtain the ‘best possible price for the money. They made, in the circumstances, a very fair arrangement. The right to break the deposit, and call the money in, would have been of great value to the country if the necessity had arisen.

Senator Lynch also asks for information regarding tha period of the loan arranged when I was in London. He mentioned a payment of 6 per cent. I remind him that that figure includes sinking fund. The great bulk of the loan will be repaid in thirty-five years as a result of the sinking fund contained in the 6 per cent, payment. Small amounts will be wiped out earlier. Senator Lynch suggested the advisability of investing some of the balances that we have in Australia in London in order to steady the exchange rates. The trouble. is that these balances are in Australia; the Commonwealth has no loose balances in London.

Senator Lynch:

– The Commonwealth is paying interest to the British Government.

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

– The exchange difficulty comes in when you try to get to London money which, is available here.

Senator Lynch:

– It is only a book entry if the British Government gives you credit for interest.

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

– It is not a book entry. The British Government says, “ You ewe us £1,000,000.” We may have £1,000,000 in Australia, but it is not a book entry to get it to London. It is an actual transfer of the money from Australia to London. It is to avoid the heavy expense ‘of exchange that ar rangements have been made from time to time to raise money in London for the purpose of paying the British Government. In any case, it is’ clear that, we cannot invest money in London that is in Australia. The Exchange market being as it is, we would lose more by the exchange than we would gain by the transaction. I am quite certain, if I know anything of the Treasury officials, that if they could see a chance of doing what Senator Lynch suggests, it would have been done long ago. When I was in London, it was necessary, because of the exchange difficulty, to ask the Imperial Government to allow the payment of interest then due or two bills to stand over for six months and twelve months. The money was here in Australia, as it had been put by regularly year after year. By the end of the period mentioned, it was hoped that the exchange would have become stabilized. That baa not happened, unfortunately. That hope was like many hopes which cheer the heart for the time being, but under the crucial test, which comes from the lapse of time, take wings and fly away. The hope did not prove well-founded ; but owing to the great consideration of the British Government we were relieved from what otherwise would have been a very difficult and pressing obligation if we had been required to raise the money at that juncture.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I would like to obtain some information from the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) as to what is being done by the Treasury Department in buying in war bonds on the open market. I think the statement has been made in another place that a certain amount of stock has been bought in by the Government on the open market at the ruling market rates. It is a very good investment for the Government, and the practice should be continued! As far as I have been able to ascertain, the only two markets on which these operations are carried out are Melbourne and Sydney. If this practice is continued the war loan will be quoted at a higher rate in Sydney and Melbourne than in the other States, which will give the investors in those cities an unfair advantage over those in other parts of Australia. As far as I am aware, no operations have been carried out in Brisbane, Adelaide, or the other markets. If the Government is going to continue the practice, and I suppose it is, I hope it will not confine its purchasing to certain markets, thus giving the bond-holders on those particular exchanges an advantage over others. The repurchasing of Government bonds should be carried out on all exchanges where brokers operate in them.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The value of the bonds repurchased by the Government is approximately £3,000,000. It is not quite correct to say that the only markets operated upon are in Sydney and Melbourne. The principal city in Senator Foil’s State has also experienced the operations ‘of the Government, but I do not think it is necessary or desirable to pursue that topic, seeing that the very purpose of the Government’s purchasing is to steady the market. The operations will fail to achieve their object if the Government issues a proclamation declaring when and where it will purchase.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £108,000, agreed to.

Home and Territories Department.

Proposed vote, £771,788.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:

– Not at all. The Territory wants to be cleared of those individuals who never work, who have been responsible for the meat works closing down, making ships leave the port with cargoes unloaded, and the name of the Territory being regarded as a place for every man of industry and talent to avoid. v We find that in three years the total revenue, everything included, for 1919-20 was £86,000, and the total expenditure £343,000, or equal to a payment of £4 for every £1 received from the Territory. In 1920-21 the revenue declined to £73,000, and the mo[ney expended was £353,000, clearly showing that for every £1 received from the Territory these people who are asking for representation here have received £5 in return. I am “glad that the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Poynton) spoke, as he is entitled to speak, in a decided way. It is useless asking these men to pull their weight, or to shoulder their share of the burden, although people in corresponding locations and further south are working longer hours and very much harder, and have to deny themselves in order that the taxes upon others may be lessened. Here is another interesting point. We are paying interest on their debt to the extent of £90,000, which, if added to the deficit,* approximates £400,000 in this blessed region known as the Northern Territory. This is a serious matter, which gives clear proof that something must be done. It is time the Government dropped its policy of “coddling,” and discontinued its practice of paying fares to and from the Territory, when it is a place that should be peopled. This and previous Governments - particularly the Labour Government of which I was a supporter - must shoulder their share of the responsibility. I supported the Labour policy, and all those who did were undoubtedly and unquestionably in a great measure to blame for the state of affairs which has prevailed. This Government should not have followed in their footsteps, but I am supporting them in the belief that they will not pander to these people as has been the policy in the past-.

The Government should anticipate the future by constructing a railway from Queensland to some suitable port in Western Australia. I do not mention that for the sake of helping Western Australia in the least; but I believe it would be ‘an easy means of getting stock from the Territory to the east or to the west when the Territory is hard pressed for feed, and an easy outlet to the sea. It would provide easy means of access te the sea, because there are ports in the north-west of Queensland and in the north of the western State quite equal to any to be found on the Australian coast. It would be a means of developing that great country. The American people construct their railways, and expect the people to follow them, and that is the policy which Canada is adopting to-day. The Government could go on the market to-morrow, and, as I have previously suggested, raise a loan” in New York to enable the construction of such a railway to be undertaken.

Let us take another matter. I have been informed by those who are prospecting for oil in the north of Western Australia that the policy of the Federal Government is most illiberal in this direction. Men who (have been prospecting in the north of the western State have reached the boundary of the Territory, and on inquiring as to the conditions which prevail, have found that the Commonwealth Government provide little encouragement for those in search of oil as compared with the con- ditions which exist in Western Australia. I have been informed by Mr. Freeney that the prospects in Western Australia are exceedingly bright, but those who desire to exploit oil-bearing country in the Northern Territory, where the prospects should be equally encouraging, are hampered because the Commonwealth Government have placed unnecessary obstacles in their way.

Senator Payne:

– -What are the obstacles ?

Senator LYNCH:

– They found that the conditions were not so favorable as in Western Australia. I was surprised when I was notified concerning the actual position. I have also received communications recently concerning oil prospecting in New Guinea and elsewhere, which prove conclusively that the Government should overhaul their policy, and give prospectors an opportunity to work in that Territory.

– Apart from drill with arms, they get a certain amount of training in elementary military formations - they learn to march in fours and to deploy - very essential military training. Under the new syllabus it is intended to concentrate training largely upon the physical development of the boys. We found that hundreds of young men at the beginning of the last war had to undergo physical training before they could pass the medical officers. Already there has been a considerable improvement in the physique of our youth. Quite apart from its value in providing an army, the better physical development of the rising generation will be of enormous value to the nation.

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

– And of value to the individual himself.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– That is involved, of course. Our military system is capable of radical improvement. I think it was quite unnecessary, for another five years from the time we started, to have a divisional and higher commanders; that all the necessary training could be carried out by battalion commanders. That is the way we started under the Kitchener scheme at the beginning, and we should, in my opinion, have started in the same way again, gradually building up the whole of the existing organization which had gone to pieces during the war. We are, however, to this extent better off - we have at call a great number of young officers with actual experience in the field, and we look to them to lay the foundations upon which the higher organization may ultimately be built. We are starting at the wrong end by constituting a great number of highly-paid staff people. However, that is a matter upon which I am prepared to admit that there is room for difference of opinion. There is another point. The Government would be well advised to go carefully through the Central Administration staffs, and see if some re-arrangement could not be made. I hear on every hand, particularly since I have ceased to hold an actual command myself, that the whole of the administration is top heavy, and, I believe that very considerable savings could be made in that direction with gain all round. It might be considered whether, in the present state of affairs, and in view of the Disarmament Conference, we could not combine the office of the Chief of the General Staff and InspectorGeneral, as well as several other offices. In Great Britain these offices are necessarily separate and distinct, because there they are dealing with regular soldiers who are under arms throughout the whole of each year. It should not be necessary to maintain the same organization here, because ours is a Militia Force only required for training/ for short periods of each year. One of the newspapers the other day contained the suggestion that our organization was without a soul, and presumably, therefore, would perish. From my own experience I may state that in my dealings with the staff in an endeavour to get some fundamental justice for members of the Australian Imperial Force, I have at times found them practically soulless and bowelless. I give as one instance the case of a young fellow whose treatment was brought under my notice by Senator Thomas a week or two back. He had enlisted from New South Wales with his father and two brothers and three brothers-in-law, so the family were pretty well represented. On Gallipoli his father and brother were badly wounded and invalided with a pension. Hs himself also was badly wounded and was sent into hospital, and subsequently a blood vessel burst in his head as a result of his experience. Later he was sent to France, where he was again wounded. The hospital sheets show that he suffered from shrapnel wounds in the face, and that the sight of both eyes was affected. He was also gassed. After coming out of the hospital, he absented himself without leave for a short period, and then finally absented himself for some time and was dealt with as a deserter. At the court-martial he was not represented by counsel, and no medical evidence was called. He admitted that he was absent without leave from his unit, and gave as the reason that he had heard that his brother and father had been permanently disabled and invalided with a pension of 7s. 6d. per week. This disgusted him and he left. This man was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude, and was returned to Australia. His friends, finding that he was a physical wreck, commenced to move in his favour. I have seen the medical re- ports. With one accord they agree that he had never recovered his mental balance or physical condition from the time of his first shell wounds on Gallipoli.. They admit also that when subjected to heavy shell-fire he would quite reasonably lose his mental balance. One would have thought, in the face of such evidence, that the whole of the proceedings would have been quashed. Certainly, the authorities did not deny that the man had suffered from shell-fire, but they submitted that this evidence merely went in mitigation of his punishment; and having come to that conclusion they remitted the remainder of his sentence. He had already served eight months in prison. His people were not content to let it rest at that, and from time to time they renewed the application that the stain on this young man’s character should be wiped out. It is clearly admitted by the medical evidence that he suffered very considerable derangement by shell-shock, and consequently ought to have been pardoned, and the whole of the proceedings quashed. I may mention another case of a similar nature, the result of which was very different. It concerns one of Colonel Bolton’s own men, who had been badly wounded at Gallipoli. He came back to me in France, and distinguished himself at Bullecourt, where he was again badly wounded. He attracted the attention of his commanding officer, and on his return to his unit a few months later he was recommended to me, and obtained his commission. When we went into action at Polygon Wood a few weeks later, this officer disappeared, but some days later was found in the rear with the base details, where he had reported himself to the officer in charge. He was court martialled, cashiered, and sentenced to imprisonment, but being represented by counsel, medical evidence was called to show that, having been severely wounded at Bullecourt, when subjected to heavy Shell fire in Polygon Wood subsequently, he suffered mental derangement. That evidence was submitted to the War Office and to the medical authorities there, with the result that the War Office quashed the charge on the medical certificate. In the meantime the soldier was. on his way to

Australia, and when the position was made known to me I reported the matter to General Bird wood, and a wireless message was immediately transmitted to the man on the ship, so that it would reach him before his arrival in Australia, restoring him to his proper rank. I see no distinction between these two cases. In the one, owing to force of circumstances, the man had the assistance of counsel, and was able to call medical evidence, which relieved him of a court-martial, and he returned with an honorable discharge, whereas the other, who was not in the same fortunate position, did not. It seems cruel that the members of a family who have done their duty so well should be compelled to bear this stigma, and I appeal to the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) to take the case into very serious consideration, despite the idea which prevails at the Barracks to-day, that medical evidence merely serves in mitigation of punishment, but is not a total excuse. Naturally one can imagine the feeling held by the family, and everything should be done to assist this unfortunate man, who is still a nervous wreck, in part, at any rate, caused by the disgrace of having been sen tended to serve ten years for desertion in face of the enemy.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Progress reported.

page 13781

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till 11 a.m. to-morrow.

page 13781

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act. - Regulations AmendedStatutory Rules 1921, Nos. 220, 221.

Papua. - Ordinances of 1921 -

No. 11 - Health (venereal diseases).

No. 12 - Customs Tariff.

No. 13 - Port Dues Revision.

No. 14- Creditors’ Remedies.

Public Service Act. - Appointments - Depart ment of the Treasury - E. A. Black, H. S. Trotman, W. J.E. Tate, A. E. Blakers.

War Service Homes Act. - Land acquired at Double Bay; New South Wales.

Senate adjournedat 10.51 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19211206_senate_8_98/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 December 1921

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

QUESTION

WHEAT POOLS

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES COMMISSION

Senator ADAMSON:QUEENSLAND

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

PERMANENT AIR FORCE

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Senator LYNCH:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

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

PATENTS BILL

APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

Senator E D MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Russell:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Russell:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Russell:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Payne:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Lynch:

Senator KEATING:

Senator FOSTER:TASMANIA · NAT

Senator KEATING:

Senator Russell:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Lynch:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Foster:

Senator KEATING:

Senator de Largie:

Senator KEATING:

Senator de Largie:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Russell:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Lynch:

Senator KEATING:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:TASMANIA

Senator FOSTER:Tasmania

Senator Russell:

Senator FOSTER:

Senator Keating:

Senator Russell:

Senator FOSTER:

Senator Keating:

Senator FOSTER:

Senator CRAWFORD:QUEENSLAND

Senator Russell:

Senator Crawford:

Senator FOSTER:

Senator Keating:

Senator FOSTER:

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator Keating:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Keating:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Russell:

Senator Keating:

Senator Payne:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Russell:

Senate
6 December 1921

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator ADAMSON:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator FOSTER:
TASMANIA · NAT

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

Senator FOSTER:
TASMANIA · NAT

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

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

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

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

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

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania.

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

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

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