Senate
10 October 1922
8th Parliament · 2nd Session
- PAPERS
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- CUSTOMS BILL
- CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION) BILL
- QUESTION
- BASE METALS
- SUPERANNUATION BILL
- PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
- BUDGET, 1922-23
- BANKRUPTCY BILL
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3390
PAPERS
The following papers were presented
Audit Act -
Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1922, No. 146.
Transfers of amounts approved by the GovernorGeneral in Council - Financial year 1921-22- Dated 4th October, 1922.
Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1922, No. 144.
Naval Defence Act-Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1922,Nos. 145, 148.
Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 14 of 1922 - Jurors and Witnesses Payment.
War-time Profits Tax Assessment ActRegulations amended - Statutory Rules 1922, No. 147.
page 3390
QUESTION
NORTH-SOUTH RAILWAY
Senator WILSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– Seeing that it was partof the policy of the Government at the last election to (proceed with the North-South Railway, and that we now have a report from the Public Works Committee on the subject before us, is it the intention of the Government to proceed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The honorable senator is aware that the report to which he refers was tabled only on Friday last. It has notbeen possible for the Government to consider it in the short time intervening.
Senator WILSON:
– Then, I ask will the Senate be given an opportunity to discuss the matter during the present session, or is it to be shelved for another year?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
-As to the opportunities which the Senate will have for the discussion of publicbusiness other than that on the business-paper, they must largely depend on the progress made with the business now on the paper.
page 3391
QUESTION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Tariff Reciprocity - Appointment of High Commissioner at Washington.
Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate will the Government consider the advisability of improving trade relations with the United States of America, either by way of bringing into operation the intermediate column of our Customs Tariff, or by modifying duties imposed on American manufactures imported into this country, and seeking, at the same time, to modify American duties on products of this country exportedto the United States of America ?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I think the best answer I can give the honorable senator is that the suggestion contained in his question will be brought under the notice of my honorable colleague the Minister for Trade and Customs.
SenatorBAKHAP. - I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to depart from the intention expressed in the reply to a question of mine some time ago to give effect to the policy of appointing a High Commissioner to represent Australia in the United States of America at. the capital city of Washington?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The adherence of the Government to that policy was set out in the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, wherein it was stated thai the Government would seek parliamentary approval for a statutory appointment to that end.
page 3391
CUSTOMS BILL
Assent reported.
page 3391
CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION) BILL
Assent reported.
page 3391
QUESTION
REPATRIATION
Unoccupied War Service Homes
Senator DUNCAN:
for Senator Foll
asked the Minister for Repatriation,upon notice -
- Have the War Service Homes Disposals Board in Queensland taken any action to dispose of those houses now standing empty and not taken over or likely to be taken over by returned soldiers ?
- If not, what is the policy of the Government regarding these houses?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The answer is: - 1 and 2. The disposal of these houses rests with the Commissioner, who is giving close attention to the matter. It is hoped that when the prices to be charged for the unoccupied houses in Queensland havebeen definitely determined, most of these houses will be purchasedby soldiers.
page 3391
BASE METALS
Restrictions on Exports.
SenatorDE LARGIE asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Is the Government aware whether the Mining Association of Western Australia has again publicly protested against the restrictions placed on the export of base metals?
Is the Government aware whether these alleged restrictions are declared to be both a. burden and an expense to the industry?
Is it the intention of the Government to permit a free market, and return to pre-war conditions for the export of base metals?
If not, why not?
Senator EARLE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · TASMANIA · NAT
– The Minister for Trade and Customs supplies the following answers : -
- Ihave seen a brief report in the press of such a. protest, and I have also seen the replyby the secretary of the Australian Metal Exchange. There are at the present time no restrictions on the export, but only certain conditions as to registration to be complied with.
- See answer to No. 1. 3 and 4. The Government has already permitted a free market for ores. When world conditions are more settled, it may be practicable to dispense with the formalities at present necessary to be complied with before shipment.
page 3392
SUPERANNUATION BILL
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the report.be adopted.
Amendment (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -
That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 80.
In Committee (Recommittal) :
Clause 80 (as amended) -
Pensions and other benefits under this Act shall not be in any way assigned, or charged, or passed by operation of law other than by proceedings in the nature of garnishee proceedings to any person other than the pensioner or beneficiary, and any moneys payable out of the fund on the death of an employee or beneficiary shall not be assets for the payment of his debts or liabilities.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia-
Minister for Home and Territories) [3.12]. - Honorable senators will remember that when we were dealing with this clause in Committee an amendment was suggested, I think by Senator Garling, and was accepted. I notified the Committee that I would have the phrasing of the amendment considered to see whether it would meet the desire of honorable senators generally. I have had that done,’ and, as a result, I think that a better way can be suggested than that proposed by the honorable senator to attain the object desired. We amended the clause by inserting after the word “ law” the words “other than by proceedings in the nature of garnishee proceedings.” I now move -
That the words “ other than by proceedings in the nature of garnishee proceedings “ be left out.
It is my intention to substitute for these words the following proviso: -
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the making of an order in the nature of a garnishee order against any instalment of pension payable to a person who has been an employee.
If these amendments are made they will provide the protection which the Committee obviously desired should be afforded. It has to be borne in mind that there will be a class of pensioners who would not have been employees, and I am sure it was not the desire of the Committee that garnishee orders should not be available against such persons, who would include, for instance, the widow and children of a deceased employee. I take it that the Committee do not desire that the power to issue garnishee orders should operate against them.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– I have no objection to the striking out of the words we inserted in this clause. It may not be considered by some persons right to permit the garnishee orders to be made out against widows and children of deceased employees. Though I do not altogether see why that should not be done, I shall not press that point. My only objection to the Minister’s recommendation is that a garnishee order is not the only process by which these pension moneys can be attached. I would have preferred, in place of the reference to at garnishee order, some such phrase as “ processes for debt or damage issued out of any Court of competent jurisdiction “ as covering better the possibilities which may arise. Garnishee is one only of the courses that are adopted after a person has issued process out of some Court of competent jurisdiction. Most people object to it because it involves a lot of trouble in ascertaining the . exact sum of money owing, and, if you obtain an order for more than the debt that may be owing at that particular time, you are defeated in that particular garnishee, and another order has to be taken out and another fee has to be paid. You may haveto pay a number of these fees before recovering the money. If we employed the words “processes issued out of a Court of competent jurisdiction “ we should get over the whole difficulty.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
There is a good deal in what Senator Garling has said. If the amendment proposed by the Minister (Senator Pearce) becomes law, it will give the creditors of pensioners a great deal of trouble. If the Minister would accept the suggestion of Senator Garling, it would enable the creditor to obtain a judgment of the Court for the payment of so much per week, and that would be very much better than garnishee proceedings, which very often lead to unpleasantness. The ordinary process of the Court would be much more satisfactory to all parties.
Senator BENNY:
South Australia
.-I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion of Senator Garling. What the Committee should do is to protect the wages of employees to the utmost possible extent. The words suggested by the honorable senator provide for much more than garnishee proceedings.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I cannot adopt the suggestion. The words previously inserted were in a form that Senator Garling accepted.
Senator Garling:
– No.
Senator PEARCE:
– I did accept the form of words that Senator Garling approved of, and now he takes exception to the words “garnishee proceedings.” I am prepared to have the point looked into, but I cannot accept the honorable senator’s suggestion offhand, or I may find myself in the same difficulty as that from which I am now trying to escape.
Senator Garling:
– The Minister did not get such an amendment from me.
Senator PEARCE:
– The Bill has to go to another place, and the clause can be improved there, if necessary.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– I object to the Minister saying that I made such a suggestion to him. That is not true.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA
– It is unparliamentary to employ the word “untrue.”
Senator GARLING:
– I shall withdraw that word. The facts are that the Minister, and not I, suggested those words provisionally on Friday. My words were quite different. He suggested that he would have the matter further considered before the Bill was again called on. He said that I could think it over. I have just arrived from Sydney, and I have only now written out the words that I have placed on his table. I resent the statement that I suggested the words that the Minister has adopted.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The Committee stressed the point that there should be means of recovery of debt. I suggested to Senator Garling certain words in order to meet his view, and he accepted them.
Senator Garling:
– I did nothing of the sort.
Senator PEARCE:
– The words were put in by the Committee, and I promised to have them reviewed by the Crown Law officers. I cannot on the spur of the moment accept another form of amendment, but I shall have the clause examined before the Bill goes to another place.
Senator KEATING:
Tasmania
. The clause as it came here freed pensions and other benefits under the Act from liability to being passed by operation of law to any other person than the pensioner or beneficiary or any creditor, and I think that at the suggestion of Senator Garling further words were added when the Bill was in Committee.
Senator Garling:
– Not those words. I raised the question of other words. I suggested the words, “processes for debt or damages issued out of any Court of competent jurisdiction.”
Senator KEATING:
– I am afraid that if the debate continued very far, I should be against the addition, and would adhere to the clause as it was.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That the following words be added : - “ Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the making of an order in the nature of a garnishee order against any instalment of a pension payable to a person who has been an employee.”
Clause, as further amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with further amendments.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; reports adopted.
page 3393
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :
Clause 1 (Short Title).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ 1921,” insert “ 1922.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendmentbe agreed to.
The Bill was first introduced in the Senate in 1921, but it is obviously necessary that the date in the title should be “ 1922.”
Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 (Parts).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “Division 12. - Life assurance.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This is the first of a series of amendments removing the life assurance provisions from the Bill. They are not now necessary, as we have attained the object by means of the Superannuation Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 (Existing officers, regulations, &c.).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - At the end of clause insert the following subclauses: - “(5) Any reference in any Act except this Act to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902, or to that Act as amended’ by any subsequent Act, shall be read as a reference to this Act. “(6) Upon the commencement of this Act the following offices, and the persons occupying those offices, not being offices or persons which or who are affected by or under section 14 of the Defence (Civil Employment) Act 1918, shall become and be deemed to be offices and officers of the Commonwealth Service with classifications, subject to the classification effected by the Board under section 20 of this Act, corresponding to their respective classifications at the commencement of this Act -
- Clerical offices occupied by persons employed under paragraph (db) of sub-section (1) of section63 of the Defence Act 1903-1918 who were appointed to those positions by the Governor-General.;
- offices occupied by persons who were, by virtue of section 15 of the Defence (Civil Employment) Act 1918, deemed to be employed in a civil capacity in connexion with the Defence! Force; and
- clerical officesoccupiedby persons, employed under paragraph (c) of subsection. (1) of section 41 of the Naval Defence Act 1910-1918, who were appointed to those positions by the Governor-General”.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
Newsub-clause 5 provides for the interpretation of “reference,” because it is proposed to terminate the Defence (Civil Employment) Act on the commencement of the present measure. In reference to sub-clause 6, it will be remembered that a little while ago I brought forward a Bill to continue the Defence (Civil Employment) Act until a date to be fixed by proclamation. The permanent employees in the Defence Department, including military staff clerks, are covered by this Bill, and when it is proclaimed the Defence. (Civil Employment) Act will cease to operate.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Have any of those who are to be transferred been appointed by other than the Public Service Commissioner ?
Senator PEARCE:
– Yes. Clerical officers who were not appointed by the Acting Public Service Commissioner will come into the Public Service from the Defence Department; but under exactly the same conditions as regards examination. Whilst the Defence (Civil Employment) Act was in operation a Board, on which’ the Public Service Inspector acted, was constituted, and all the regulations, and conditions of examination were complied with as in the case of appointments to the Public Service, because it wascontemplated that the officers concerned would be transferred.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I understand, that the employees who are to enter the Public Service have passed the necessary examination.
Senator PEARCE:
– Yes-.
Motion agreed to.
House ofRepresentatives’ Amendment. - After clause 5 insert the following new clause : - “ 5a. Where a person has been appointed before the commencement of this Act for a term of years to a statutory office under any Act repealed by this Act, he shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed, so long as he continues to be employed in the office (whether during or after the term for which he was appointed) to continue to be an officer of the Commonwealth Service, and the service of that person in that office shall be deemed to- be service in the Commonwealth Service.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The object of this clause is to preserve the rights of certain statutory officers at present outside the Service, who, under this Bill, will become classified officers. Honorable senators will remember that when a previous Public Service Bill was passed provision was made for the appointment of. Public Service Inspectors, and certain officers were selected either fromthe Commonwealth Service or were transferred from a State Service. The appointments were, I believe, for a definite period of seven years, and after the expiry of that term it was contemplated by the Government of the day that the Public Service Act would be amended, so that these persons would not have to be definitely appointed for a further term.
The Government subsequently appointed them as acting inspectors with the result that they ceased, technically, to be members of the Public Service. It was not the intention of the Government, however, to dispense with their services neither was it the desire of Parliament, but that having been done makes it necessary to have this provision in order to bring them into the Service. They still possess the necessary qualifications, and it is a simple act of justice. If it had not been fox unavoidable delay they would have been in the Service long ago.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I quite agree with the amendment; but I would like to ask the Minister (Senator Pearce) what action is contemplated under this measure in regard to inspectors, as the office has now been abolished, and under this amendment they will simply be retained as members of the Service. I raised this question when the Bill was in Committee, and on several other occasions,and I am afraid that I either could not make myself understood or the Minister did not agree withthe views I submitted. I look upon the inspectors as the eyes of the Public Service. We are providing in this measure for the appointment of a Board of three members, who will be unable to efficiently discharge the numerous duties suggested unless they have the assistance of inspectors, particularly as the work has increased to a great extent during recent years. Do the Government intend tq have inspectors as in the past or utilize the services of those who acted in that capacity in some other way? Some were probably chief clerks, and such men will return to their oldpositions.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931
– The Government have no intention of specially appointing inspectors, because the Bill provides for the establishment of a Board, and it is obvious that that body will have officers to do certain work similar to that done by inspectors in order to inform the Board. Such officers will be the eyes and ears of the Service, and they will be utilized to procure necessary information for the effective conduct of the Service. I should assume that the Board will at an early date submit to the Government a list of offioers they propose to appoint for that purpose, and the Government will be bound to provide the
Board with the staff they require to enable them to efficiently carry out their duties. It does not matter if they are called inspectors or not; but it is obvious that in dealing with public servants distributed overa continent they must appoint similar officers, and I would assume that after the experiencethe inspectors have gained it is quite possible that the Board may continueto employ theseparticular men. The Board have power to classify officers, to recommend new offices and the abolition of offices. It will remain for the Board to say whether these men shall be employed in this or some other capacity. TheGovernment will suspend judgment until they receive arecommendation from the -Board as to what they propose to do in that regard.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Nothing can be done by the Government for at least six months. We presume that Parliament will prorogue this week, and, consequently, the Government cannot introduce an amending Bill for at least six months.
Senator Pearce:
– This measure will come into operation by proclamation, and the did system will continue until this becomes law. There will be no gap.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I do not think the Minister(Senator Pearce) has answered myquestion,because he hassaid that there will not be any gap. Iunderstand that this measurewill be proclaimed as soon as the two Houses have agreed to it.
Senator Pearce:
– No. We have to set up the machinery first.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– And until that is done the old Act operates.
Senator Pearce:
– Yes.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Does the.Minister suggest that this measure will not come into operation until Parliament reassembles ?
Senator Pearce:
– No; not until machinery is created. It means appointing a Board, which may take two or three months.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– We have been five years thinking over this, and I do not suppose another year or two will matter much, although under the present system we are wasting £250,000 per annum.
Senator Pearce:
– We have to look around for suitable men.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Decidedly. Nothing can be done until the Board has been appointed, and if the Board require the services of inspectors provision will have to be made in an amending measure.
Senator Pearce:
– It is provided for in this Bill. The Board can recommend the creation and abolition of new offices and the transfer of officers.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– But they will not have the same status. The present inspectors cannot be dismissed by the Minister. The Minister said that the inspectors were appointed for five years, and as the appointments are statutory they can only be altered by Parliament. This measure cannot give the inspectors the status they originally held. It will take six months before that can be done. I am in favour of the amendment, and am prepared to support it. The Minister has given me information which I tried to get, without success, for many weeks. Unless we have a strong inspectorial staff the Board will be able to do very little effective work.
Motion agreed to,
Clause 6 (Definitions).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) “.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
The words proposed to be left out are not now necessary, because the Australian Imperial Force has ceased to exist, and no person can be enlisted in it.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After the word “employed” insert “as a radio-telegraphist. “
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
The definition was intended only to apply to radio-telegraphists, and the amendment makes it clear that those are the persons to whom it shall apply. Obviously, there were a large number of persons other than radio-telegraphists who were employed on transports, but the concession was intended to cover only the radio-telegraphists, who occupied practically the same position as members of the Naval Service.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 (Act not to apply to certain officers).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit sub-clause (2).
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment is consequential on the termination of the Defence (Civil Employment) Act, and it will be necessary, wherever there are similar provisions in the Bill, to strike them out.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 (Officers of the Parliament).
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - After the word “ officers “, thrice occurring, insert “ and offices.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That the amendments be agreed to.
The three amendments in this clause are necessary because the Bill provides for a classification, not merely of officers, but also of offices.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment in clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 12 -
- The Chairman of the Board shall receive a salary of pounds a year, and each of the other members shall receive a salary of pounds a year,and the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund is to the necessary extent hereby appropriated accordingly.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Before the word “ pounds “ first occurring, insert “ Two thousand five hundred.”
Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT
– I propose to move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The House of Representatives made two amendments to this clause for the purpose of providing salaries for members of the Board. The Senate did not deal with the question of salaries, because, if they had done so, the Bill would have become a money Bill. The House of Representatives propose that the Chairman shall receive £2,500 per annum, and the other two members £2,000 each.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I would like the Minister to inform the Committee whether the three members of the Board will have equal powers. Will the Chairman have power to override the other two? If they have equal powers, there should not be £500 difference in their salaries. Rather than a Board, I would prefer to have one
Commissioner with an assistant. In that case, the work would be done better, especially if the members of the Board are to have equal powers.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The powers and position of members of the Board are set out in clause 15 of the Bill, which says -
- The Board may, by writing under ‘the hand of each member of the Board, delegate to any member of the Board or to any officer any of the powers of the Board under this Act (except this power of delegation) so that the delegated powers may be exercised by the delegate with respect to the matters or class of matters specified, or the State, part of the Commonwealth, or Territory defined, in the instrument of delegation.
- Every such delegation shall be revocable in writing at will, and no delegation shall prevent the exercise of any power by the Board.
- If in pursuance of any delegation given to him any delegate of the Board makes any recommendation with regard to any Department, the Permanent Head or a Chief Officer may request that the recommendation be referred to the full Board, and in that event the recommendation of the delegate shall not be deemed to be a recommendation of the Board unless it is indorsed by the full Board.
The idea is that a certain definite ambit of duties shall be delegated to each member of the Board. It may be that the decisions of individual members will be challenged, in. which case the questions will come before the full Board, when, I assume, two members will constitute a majority. In that sense, the powers of* members of the Board will be equal, but the Chairman will fix the meetings of the Board, decide procedure, and have a major voice in setting out the duties. In that sense he will be superior to the others.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I do not think the Minister has quite answered my question. I gather that members of the Board on big questions are to be practically equal in power. There are other Boards on which the chairman can override his colleagues, and I rather favour that idea. The Chief Railway Commissioner of New South Wales can override the opinions of his two assistants. The assistants can have their full say at a Board meeting, but if the Chief Commissioner disagrees with them, his view is predominant. They can protest, and can notify Parliament that they disagree with the Chief Commissioner, but he has his way unless Par liament intervenes and decides otherwise. When we are proposing to pay a Chairman £500 more than either of the other members will receive, we naturally expect him to be a man of superior ability. If he is a man of superior ability, he will be handicapped by two persons who are not his equal. The men on the £2,000 mark may be abler than the Chairman, but they should not be, because the higher salary should command an abler man. There is a possibility that, if the three members of the Board have equal voting power, there will be friction. I have known Boards where the subordinate members have not only had a lot to say, but have overridden the chairman. That occurred some time ago with the Railways Commissioners in New South Wales
Senator Pearce:
– The Chairman has to draw up the report of the Board, and he is the mouth-piece of the Board.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– He may have to express the views of those who are opposed to him. It is not much use arguing the matter at this stage, but it is unfortunate that the Board should be constituted as proposed.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– I intend to move an amendment on the amendment of the House of Representatives. I cannot be a, party to appointing a Board for three years, the members of which will in the aggregate, receive £6,500 a year. As we are considering the question of economy in connexion with many of our Departments, we ought to consider it here. We ought to be very careful in making any appointments the salary of which is in excess of £1,000 a year. We are too prone to give attention to economy that affects the man on the bread-line, but we seem to be prepared to pass very lightly over a clause of this sort, which proposes to give the Chairman of a Board £2,500 a year and each of the other two members £2,000 a year. I believe that one man, with the necessary authority and a reasonable salary, would be able to do the work. A salary of £1,000 in the. Public Service would be desired _ by many thousands of men in this country.
Senator Pearce:
– These men will not be in the Public Service.
Senator WILSON:
– No, but they will be in the public pay, and for my argument that is close enough, and from their point of view, I should say, would be very satisfactory. It is very debatable whether they will be in the Public Service. They will be in the pay of the public purse, and that will get very close to the Public Service. The Chairman of the Board, having a casting vote, would, be able to sway the decisions of the Board, whichever way the other two members voted. It is an unwritten law .that the Chairman of a Board should get a little more salary than other members.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– But the Chief Railways Commissioner of New South Wales can override the decision of other members of the Board. It would be ridiculous if he could not do that.
Senator WILSON:
– And I think it is equally ridiculous to have a Board upon which one man could overrule the decision of the others. However, .1 rose particularly to draw attention to the extravagant sum .to be set apart “for the members of this Board. It seems strange that we should go about the country and -talk -economy, and at the same time pass lightly over appointments of such magnitude as these. I would prefer only one man to control the Public Service, but as I am not likely to .get my way I will test the feeling of the Committee upon the question of the emoluments. I move, therefore -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by leaving out the word “ Two “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ One “.
This will fix the salary .of the Chairman of the Board at £1,500, and “if my amendment is agreed to I shall move to fix the salaries of other members of the Board at £1,000.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I do not think the honorable senator’s proposal .is economy at all. :It is the worst form of extravagance to refuse an adequate salary to men of ability and brains. The honorable senator has often declared that he is an admirer of private enterprise, and I ask him where will he find any private enterprise doing as he suggests should be done in respect of the proposed Board of Commissioners? He will not find many of the private banks paying less than from £3,000 to £5,000 a year to their general managers, and not many insurance societies paying less than from £2,000 to £3,500 to occupants of similar positions.
Senator Wilson:
– Can the Minister say what the Deputy Commissioners of Taxation in the different States are receiving ?
Senator PEARCE:
– I cannot say at the moment.
Senator Wilson:
– They are getting about £650 per year.
Senator PEARCE:
– In all Democracies there is a tendency not to pay for brains, but as a general rule they pay’ bitterly for .their experience in other directions. 1 invite .honorable senators to examine the Bill and see what it is that the Board of ‘Commissioners will be required to do. They will be called” upon to control a Public Service of about 24,000 employees whose salary bill comes to about £5,500,000 per annum. In private busi- nesses the salaries I have mentioned are paid to men controlling much smaller concerns. Honorable senators will realize, surely, from perusal of clause 16, that it is very desirable we should get the very best men possible for these positions, otherwise the whole proceedings will be a waste of money. It would certainly be waste of money, if we could not get the right men, to pay them even £100 a year. It must be remembered also that the first appointments under this Bill will be for five years, four years, and -three years respectively, and -there will be -no guarantee of reappointment. That matter will rest with the Government of the day. Everything will depend upon the manner in which members of the Board carry out their duties. Do honorable senators imagine for a moment that we are likely to get men of ability, if they are outside Che Service, to make application for positions carrying, at the most, £1,500 a year, without any guarantee as to a -renewal of engagement? If it is the view of the Committee - I am sure it is not - that the positions we are creating are worth only £1,500 a year in the case of the Chairman, and £1,000 in the case of the other two members of the Board, it would be far better, even at this stage, .to wreck the Bill altogether. Unless we offer adequate salaries, we. are certainly not likely to get the best men, and. unless we do that we shall be committing the worst form ‘of extravagance. If incompetent men fill these positions, it is quite likely that they will lose this country scores of thousands of pounds.
Senator Reid:
– And will drive good men out of the Service.
Senator PEARCE:
– That, is so-. I- ask Senator Wilson not to press, his amendment.
Senator GARLING:
Now South Wales
– I hope Senator Wilson will not press his amendment as it has been drafted. The suggestion that the* Chairman of- the Board should receive only £1,500 a year does not commend itself to me. Had the honorable senator submitted an amendment that there should- be only one Commissioner with a salary of £3,000 a year I should have been- with him all the time, but, unfortunately, we cannot do that now. However, there is another alternative for Senator Wilson to adopt, namely, to. fix a good salary for the Chairman., and leave the other two positions at a much lower salary, because I feel that afterall they will only be supernumeraries,’ and it would be much easier, subsequently, to amend the Act and get rid of these persons on the Board. This proposal for the appointment of a Board of Commissioners is utterly opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Senator Pearce:
– It. is in accord with the report of the Economies Commission.
Senator GARLING:
– Well, I wonder at that, because the position, in my opinion, can- be- better filled by one well-paid man. I was not in- the Senate when the Bill was under consideration or I would have spoken- then- as, I am speaking now. I remind Senator Thomas that in the Superannuation Bill there ia provision for a similar Board, the Chairman of which will have a deliberative vote, and other powers are given to him, and I fail to see why tha same provision could not be inserted in this Bill.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Just imagine what the position would be with the Chairman an outside man and the other two members of the Board appointed from within the Service.
Senator GARLING:
– Clearly the Chairman is worth more- than £1,500 a year.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– That would depend on who* may be appointed.
Senator GARLING:
– If he “fills the bill “ he will certainly be worth more than £1,500 a year.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
-. - I agree with a great deal of what the Minister (Senator Pearce) has said. It would be foolhardy to, offer a small salary for a position requiring; a man. of marked ability. At the same time £2,500- a year- for the- Chairman of a. Board of three to manage the Public Service of the Commonwealth involving the expenditure of £5,500,000 is what I would: call an outside salary. We have been told, what banks and insurance companies pay- their general managers, but we know that so far as ‘ State railways are concerned some, of the Railways Commissioners are not getting, anything like £2,500 a year.
Senator Pearce:
– South Australia recently appointed a Railways Commissioner at £5,000 a year.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I think the New South Wales Chief Commissioner gets £2,800 a year.
Senator LYNCH:
– The Railways Commissioner in Western Australia gets only £1,500’ a year, and we must remember also that a great deal of ability is re-, quired for the successful management of a large railway system. In addition, to organizing ability for the management of the general staff, a Railways Commissioner must have certain other engineering qualifications. If the South Aus: tralian Government have appointed a Railways Commissioner at £5,000 a year, that only goes to show that that State has gone to the other extreme. An unwelcome feature of this Bill, in my opinion, is that it fixes the maximum salary and then the Government will advertise for the man to fill the position. I think we should have something in the nature of gradations of qualifications. This principle is observed in the Public Service itself, a man on appointment being advised that he starts at a lower level and may advance a certain distance and no further. In this case, however, we are fixing the salary at the highest grade, and calling for applicants: to fill the position.
Senator Benny:
– Wei adopt that principle in the appointment of our Judges. They cannot get more than their original salary.
Senator LYNCH:
– The salary included in the Bill should be regarded as the maximum. If we pay the salaries- proposed immediately on the appointment of the officer we shall run the risk of a misfit, and may find ourselves, left. Very often Governments- have been taken in by appointing misfits) to important positions at fixed salaries. The salary of £2,500 should be regarded, as the maximum salary for the position of Chairman of the Board, and the person appointed to the position might begin at a salary of £2,000, which would be a very excellent salary for a start. It is true, as Senator Benny has said, that the principle of fixing the salary is adopted in the case of Justices of the Supreme Court, but they are in an entirely different category from the persons to be appointed as members of this Board.
Senator Benny:
– They are underpaid.
Senator LYNCH:
– I agree with the honorable senator. I believe that the salaries here proposed are most liberal, if not extravagant, and they should be regarded as maximum salaries to which the persons appointed to the positions might look forward when they haveproved their worth. I shall submit an amendment to give effect to that idea later on, for I cannot do so now.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– There is an amendment before the Committee.
Senator LYNCH:
– Very well; I intimate that I shall submit an amendment later on.
Senator FOLL:
Queensland
.- I cannot support the amendment, for the reasons given by the Minister (Senator Pearce). Economy is effected, not so much by the amount of money spent, as by the way in which it is spent. If the Board of Commissioners can do satisfactorily what they are asked to do under clause 16 of the Bill for the salaries proposed the Commonwealth will get a good return for the money. This Board cif Commissioners will have a colossal task to perform. Senator Lynch has suggested that the salaries paid should be on a sliding scale, but in my view it would be disastrous to appoint men to positions such as these on probation to see what sort of a job they would make of them’. We might appoint a man as Chairman of the Board at £1,500 a year with the prospect of reaching a salary of £2,500, and the Commonwealth might lose a good deal more than the extra £1,000 a year by the time such a man had learned his job. Senator Thomas appears to be sanguine that we can get men to carry out what the Board will have to do under clause 16 of the Bill.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No, it is the Minister who is sanguine on that point. I think that if they can do that they will be cheap at £20,000 a year.
Senator FOLL:
– I agree to some extent with Senator Lynch that the salaries proposed should not be fixed at a definite amount, and if the salary of £2,500 is agreed to as the salary to be paid to the Chairman of the Board, I shall later on move the insertion before the amount of the salary, of the words, “ not exceeding.” If that amendment be accepted, the Government may find it impossible to secure a suitable Chairman of the Board for £2,000 a year and subordinate members for £1,500 each. If this could be done the taxpayers would be saved a certain amount of money, and at any rate the insertion of the words I have suggested would do no harm. We know that the country has suffered greatly in the last few years as the result of the employment of incompetent men in responsible positions.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– What was paid to the War Service Homes Commissioner?
Senator FOLL:
– If we had searched the world for a competent man to fill the position of War Service Homes Commissioner, and had been able to get such a man at £10,000 per year, this country would have been saved many thousands of pounds that have been wasted or spent extravagantly because of the incompetencv of the man who was placed at the head of that branch of the Repatriation Department. I may remind honorable senators that in the War Service Homes Bill no salary was specified. Appointments were made to the War Service Homes Commission without sufficient consideration, and returned soldiers and the taxpayers have been saddled with considerable burdens as the result of the employment of cheap and incompetent men in that office.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– We cannot make men wise by paying money to them.
Senator FOLL:
– That is so; but if we unduly limit the salary offered for a particular position, we cannot expect that men of ability will apply for it.
Senator Keating:
– We limit our choice.
Senator FOLL:
– That is so. If we can get men on this Board to carry out the duties under clause 16, and men who will effect the economies in the Public Service which the Government are hoping for, they will be cheap at £10,000 a year. I believe that there are many men in the service of the Commonwealth to-day in high positions who are very much underpaid. If they carried the same responsibility, and did the same work outside the Service for an insurance firm, a banking institution, or a big commercial house, they would receive very much higher remuneration. There are high officials in the Treasury, the Taxation Office, and in the office of the Solicitor-General, who are men of undoubted ability, and are receiving very much smaller salaries than they could command outside the Service. I have said that unnecessary burdens have been placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country as a result of the appointment to the War Service Homes Commission of incompetent officers and cheap men without the necessary experience and ability to carry out the duties of their offices efficiently. I will not support the amendment, but whilst supporting the proposal of the Government, I shall, as I have said, propose the insertion of the words “not exceeding.”
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– In justice to the honorable senator, I must remind him that a Committee of the Senate does not go back on its footsteps. To enable consideration of such an amendment as he is suggesting, it will be necessary to secure the consent of Senator Wilson and the permission pf the Committee for the withdrawal of his amendment.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– Imust ask Senator Foll not to press the amendment he has suggested. It would introduce an element of uncertainty, as possible applicants for the position would not know what salary would be paid. If we fix a definite salary of £2,500 for the Chairman of the Board, we shall secure a wider choice.
Senator VARDON:
South Australia
– I should like to know whether we are to understand that if Senator Wilson’s amendment is lost we cannot go back on the matter?
The CHAIRMAN:
– I do not say that, but I do say that if Senator Wilson’s amendment is considered this Committee cannot retrace its steps.
Senator VARDON:
– I am sorry that I cannot support Senator Wilson’s amendmen, because I do not think that the salary of £1,500 is sufficient for the Chairman of the Board. When the matter was previously under consideration it was, I think, generally understood that the Board would cost something like £5,500 a year. If it were proposed to give the Chairman £2,000 a year and each of the other members £1,500, I should be prepared to support that.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I agree with the Minister (Senator Pearce) that it is not economy to appoint men to responsible positions at insufficient salaries. If the members of this Board are able to carry out the duties imposed by clause 16, they will be cheap at £10,000 a year. I venture to say that the Government will have very great difficulty in securing an abler man for the position of Chairman of the Board than Mr. McLachlan.
Senator Wilson:
– Did he get . more than £1,500 a year?
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No, but I believe he was underpaid. I think he started with a salary of £1,000 a year, that his salary was increased to £1,250, and that towards the end of his term of office he received £1,500.
Senator Reid:
– The Federal Parliament was rather mean in those days.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– It should be remembered that the Service was not then as large as it is now, and the salary paid to Mr. McLachlan was higher than the salary which he had been receiving as an Under-Secretary in New South Wales.
Senator Lynch:
– He had to do all the work which, under this Bill, is to be divided amongst three members of a Board.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– That is so. I should like to know whether the Government propose to call for applications for these positions. If they do, I say that no man worth £2,500 a year will apply, because no such man will put himself into competition with other people for the office, and the Government will not get the man they want. Mr. Fisher secured an admirable Governor for the Commonwealth Bank in Sir Denison Miller.
Senator Vardon:
– He had a good many tries before he got him.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– He tried some others, but if he had advertised for applicants for the position he could not have secured the man he ‘wanted. The position was offered to one person who said that, had he been a younger man, he would have taken it. Mr. Fisher offered him the appointment at his own figure. I refer to the late Sir Russell French. If Mr. Fisher had advertised the position Sir Denison Miller would not have answered the call for applications. If the Government advertise for applications in the present instance, many men in the Service in receipt of a lower salary than is to be paid for the new position will apply if they think they have the slightest chance of. appointment. There will be a good deal of work of a minor character thrust upon the Board by an .amendment made in another place; but all the work that could be accomplished by the Board would not be more than was formerly done by Mr.. McLachlan. The amount proposed to be paid in salary to the Board is too great, although, if they did all that is involved under clause 16, their services would be worth any -salary that might be paid. I support the payment of £2,000 to the Chairman, instead of £2,500.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I am in favour of giving the Chairman £2,000, and the other members of the -Board £1,500 per annum, making a total of £5,000. A good deal has been said about the necessity to pay high salaries in order to attract super-men; but high salaries do not necessarily attract that type of man. There are plenty of people in the community, such as engineers, barristers, and even some members of the .Judiciary, who receive less than it is proposed to pay to the members of the Board, but whose responsibilities are far greater than those of the Board will be. I understand that some of the Judges of the Arbitration Court are not receiving as high salaries as those now proposed. The Judges are required to have a university training, and they :must reach the top of their profession before they obtain -any of the “ plums.” The salaries I have suggested for the Board ‘would be ample.
Senator BENNY:
South Australia
– I support the suggestion that the Chairman of the Board should receive £2,000, and the other members £1,500. That would be a good compromise, and I think it would pro vide for fair remuneration. The Deputy -Presidents of the Arbitration Court receive only £2,000, and they certainly have most onerous and responsible duties to perform. If we want efficiency we ought to pay our officers well. I would like to see a salary fixed as high as possible, but we have to take all the circumstances into consideration. We have seen how Judges are -not infrequently selected from the ranks of the second-rate barristers. Positions on judicial tribunals have” often been refused by leading .members of the Bar, because it would have meant their sacrificing several thousand pounds per annum. That is the position in South Australia, and I know that it has happened several times in Victoria. I would not like to see responsible Government positions made attractive only to men of inferior calibre, ‘but I nevertheless maintain that the salaries of £2,000 or £1,500 would provide fair -remuneration.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– The Minister (Senator Pearce), in reply to me, spoke as though it was false economy to decide <m the salary before making the appointment. I would remind him that in commercial life it is a general custom to arrive at some decision as to what is a fair amount to pay before naming the salary. The Commissioner of Taxation has a very responsible position to fill, but he is not in receipt of a salary of £2,000 a year. He has to be familiar with every class of business in the Commonwealth, and have all the points in connexion .with them at his finger-ends to enable him to safeguard public interests. His position is just as important as that of a member of this Board will -be. If honorable members had to find the money themselves, when making appointments of this nature they would take a more serious view of the matter. Some time ago I asked for a list of the appointments held in the Commonwealth where the salaries were over £500 a year, and .1 received a most extensive list of salaries running up to about £2,000 per annum. We are constantly creating new .Departments. The Government have appointed Judges to the Arbitration -Court at £2,000 a year on a two years’ appointment.
Senator Pearce:
– A temporary expedient.
Senator WILSON:
– Surely that is as important a position as the chairmanship of this Board. An overhead, charge of £5,000 a year, would be quite sufficient. I move -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by leaving out the words “ five hundred.”
Senator FOLL:
Queensland
.- I have no desire to hamper the selection of candidates, bub I’ do not see that the words “ not exceeding “ a certain sum. would hamper the selection. As Senator Thomas pointed out, the best men for the position will probably have to be sought after by the Government. No doubt hundreds of persons will apply, but the great majority of them will be unsuitable for the work. It will require an extraordinarily, gifted man to fill the position of Chairman satisfactorily. Personally, I would not limit the salary at all, if we could be sure of securing the right man. If the words “ not exceeding “ are inserted before the figures the clause would leave the Government free to select suitable men, and at the same time would prevent an unnecessarily high salary being paid. I trust that these positions are not to be given to disgruntled or dissatisfied politicians, but there is no fear of that While the present Government are in power. I trust the Minister (Senator Pearce) will favorably consider my suggestion.
Senator LYNCH:
.Western Australia
– Prior to Senator Foll suggesting the insertion of the words “ not exceeding” I intended to move an amendment to provide that a salary of” £2,5.00 a year should be the maximum; but the honorable senator’s suggested amendment accomplishes’ the same end. If Senator Wilson’s amendment is not carried shall we- be able to fall back on that suggested by Senator Foll?
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– No; it would be too late.
Senator LYNCH:
– In that case I shall have to support the amendment moved by Senator Wilson. The cost to meet the salaries of the members of the Board will run into approximately £6,000 per annum according to the Minister’s estimate, and if Senator Wilson’s-, amendment is. adopted the amount will- be considerably reduced. The Public. Service Commissioner has had very arduous duties to perform in- controlling, a Service of from 11,000 to 15,000’ employees^ and having, to fix the rates. for. a: vast- number of subordinates.- in the- Service;.
Senator Pearce:
– He was receiving. £1,500 per annum in 1912, and* the money equivalent of. that to-day is £2,500.
Senator LYNCH:
– I was about to point out that even allowing for the increased personnel of the Service the Public Service Commissioner has been able to cope with the work.
Senator Pearce:
– But more responsibility will be thrown upon the Board.
Senator LYNCH:
– He had to fix the rates and .conditions for a very large number of men. Under another measure we propose to exclude all officers receiving, over £310 per annum from the Arbitration Court, which means that the rates and conditions of about 20,000 public servants will be fixed by the Court and not by the Board. The Public Service Commissioner, particularly in the earlier part of his career, had to do that.
Senator Pearce:
– The Board will have to classify the whole of the Service.
Senator LYNCH:
– That does not mean fixing the- rates.
Senator Pearce:
– Yes- it does.
Senator LYNCH:
– Then why have they the- right to approach- the Arbitration Court?’
Senator Pearce:
– A certain, number of officers can appeal- to the Court” if dissatisfied.
Senator LYNCH:
– Twenty thousand will still be able to go to the Court, which will have the final fixing of’ the rates, and it does not appear to me that the three members of the Board, will have much more to do than was- done by Mr: McLachlan. I am supporting- Senator Wilson’s amendment because I thinkthat the members of the Board should be appointed at a lower salary than that proposed, and should be allowed, to receive a higher rate later, if they display sufficient ability to justify it.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– I am supporting the Minister (Senator Pearce) in advocating a salary of £2,500 per annum for the Chairman of the Board, because his task will not be as light as some honorable senators imagine. If they will refer to clause 16 they will find that the Board have to devise means for effecting economies and promoting efficiency in the management and working of Departments. That has been a source of trouble and complaint in the past, and th;e duties imposed in that direction, without, anything else,, are sufficient to tax the ability of the best of men. They will also have to deal with improved organization procedure, closer supervision, ‘the simplification of the work in each Department and the abolition of unnecessary work. A tremendous amount of detailed study will therefore be required before they will be able to arrive at the true position. Their duties will also include the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments, and that in itself is a job that would almost tax the ability of super-men. The limitation of staffs of the various Departments to actual requirements, and the utilization of those staffs to the best advantage, has also to be undertaken, and’ that has never yet been thoroughly attempted in any branch of the Service. That is an absolute duty imposed upon the Board by this measure, and not on the heads of Departments. They also have to examine the business of each Department and ascertain whether any inefficiency or lack of economy exists, as well as other important duties set out in the clause. I am assuming, of course, that the Government will select a man possessing the highest qualifications, and that the other two members of the Board will bo more in the nature of supernumeraries. One man is to be . the genius, and he should be paid the amount the Government propose. Later on I propose to move to reduce the salary of the two subordinate members; if we wish the job to be done well, the Chairman should receive an adequate salary. If we do not make a marked distinction between the Chairman; and the other members of the Board, we shall probably have three mediocre men, and there will be constant trouble and wrangling as to who is the “top dog.” We should provide for the payment of a fairly high salary to the Chairman, and remunerate the other members of the Board at a lower rate.
SenatorFoll. - If Senator Wilson will temporarily withdraw his amendment, it will enable me to move the amendment I have indicated.
Senator Wilson:
– I ask leave to temporarily withdraw my amendment.
Motion, by leave, temporarily withdrawn.
Senator FOLL:
Queensland
.- I move - -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by inserting before the words “ Two thousand “ the words “ not exceeding “.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 3
NOES: 24
Majority . . . . 21
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion . negatived.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– I move -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by leaving out the words “ five hundred “.
I have already explained my reasons for moving this amendment, which, briefly, are that there would be a number of applications from suitable men if the salary were fixed at £2,000 a year. A practical business man is the best one for the job, and although some of the legal luminaries in this Chamber may regard the amount as inadequate, they must remember that the Deputy Presidents of the Arbitration Court, who have very important work to perform, receive only that salary, and the Commissioner of Taxation receives only £1,500 a year. His duties are worrying and exacting, and the facts I have quoted absolutely destroy the arguments of the Minister (Senator Pearce). This man will occupy one of the most important positions in the Service. He will have enormous responsibilities. Personally I think the salary should be £1,500 a year, because that would be quite sufficient forthe position. Very few posts in the Commonwealth Service are paid higher than that. Fancy honorable senators having to meet their constituents and tell them that the Chairman of the Board will be paid a salary in excess of that paid to theRight Honorable Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Aus- tralia! The proposal is absurd. I am not saying that the Prime Minister gets enough, but there are many people who say that members of Parliament get too much. The Minister says that we shall be able to secure applicants at the lower salary, but 1 venture to say that even for parliamentary positions at £1,000 a year there will never be any shortage of applicants. I am quite satisfied that we ought not to have men in the Public Service drawing a higher salary than tha* paid to the Prime Minister.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
.- I recognise, as much as does any honorable senator, the importance of the duties that the members of the Board will be called upon to’ perform. I realize that they will be very arduous duties. We can reasonably anticipate that, after the Commission has been appointed for a very short time, we shall be able to see some definite results from its labours. The amendment moved by Senator Wilson ought to receive very serious consideration and generous support in this Committee. Hitherto the Public Service has been managed and administered by one Commissioner, but we have made an innovation in the hope that it will give satisfactory results financially to Australia. Wc are proposing to appoint a Board of Commissioners, consisting of three men, the Chairman to receive £2,500 per annum, and the other two members £2,000 per annum each. It appears to me that we are going a little too far. One of the most important offices in Australia is filled by the Commissioner of Taxation, and I can refer to him without making any invidious comparisons, because, up to tha present, no Commissioner under the Bill has been appointed. The Commissioner of Taxation controls and manages a large and difficult Department, and has to give his attention to very many important details. His salary is £1,500 per annum. It seems strange that the Government should suggest that the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners should receive £1,000 more per annum than the Commissioner of Taxation. I do not believe in false economy. It is assumed that if we gave £6,500 per annum in salaries to members of the Board the expenditure would show a considerable profit to the Commonwealth; but in making a new departure of this kind,” we should be careful not to provide a salary which, by comparison with other salaries paid in Australia, must appear to every one to be very high. The suggestion that the amount should be reduced by £500 Per annum is reasonable. 1 feel that for the reduced salary we shall still be able to obtain men capable of occupying the position and carrying out their obligations under the Bill to the satisfaction of the community.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.-The honorable senator overlooks an important distinction between the positions proposed in the Bill, and the one he has indicated. The Commissioner of Taxation is appointed for life, and his salary is capable of being increased by Parliament at the instigation of the Government, any year, and probably’ it will be increased. The Taxation Office has only been in existence for four years. The Chairman of the Board of Commissioners will be appointed for five years, the next member for four years, and the third for three years. It is necessary to offer a salary that will attract men from other positions.
Senator Benny:
– The office will go on for all time.
Senator PEARCE:
– The only guarantee of permanency the appointed man will have will be for five years, with the possibility of re-appointment if his services are satisfactory and the Government of the day is prepared to re-appoint him. We have to attract a man capable of carrying out the duties under, clause 16 effectively. Some honorable senators are haggling about £500, but they should remember that every £100 taken off the salaries will lower the standard of the men who will be attracted.
Senator Wilson:
– Why does the Minister, on his own argument, stop at £2,500 ?
Senator PEARCE:
– Personally I would not stop at that amount; I would pay more. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the idea that we can get efficient service by refusing to pay for it, is false. I have seen some remarkable instances of it in the Commonwealth Service already. If a man is inefficient it does not matter what we pay him; even, if it is only £100 a year, we are extravagant. Honorable senators who think they are going to economize by cutting £500 a year off these salaries are setting about the task in the wrong way. It is proposed to hand over these duties, which are far more important than those which the Public Service Commissioner ever had to perform, to inefficient and second-rate men. Senator Wilson spoke of his own experience. If that is the experience he applies to his own farm, and other farmers copy him, I am, not surprised that they have a bad time.
A comparison has been made. with the salary paid to the ex-Public Service Commissioner, Mr. McLachlan. During the last year of his office, before the war, he received £1,500, the money equivalent of which to-day is £2,500. Therefore, if the Chairman of- the Board is to receive a salary equivalent to that which Mr. McLachlan received, he should get at least £2,500. Mr. McLachlan had not one-fifth of the duties to perform that are being placed upon the Board. Many duties are included in the Bill which were not required of the Public Service Commissioner! under the Public - Service Act. If honorable senators will read clause 1.6 of the Bill, and compare the duties there set out with those which the Public Service Commissioner had to perform under the Public Service Act, they will see that there is no comparison. The duties now are. far mere diversified, and far more important, and the Board will have a great deal to do with the expenditure of public money.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– I cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Wilson. It has often struck me as extraordinary that in a democratic community like this people are shocked at salaries that run into four figures. We have seen an illustration of that in the newspaper clamour which was made when the salaries of members of Parliament were increased. We saw the folly of it when Parliament bowed to that clamour in the community and fixed a miserable salary of £1,500 a year for the- War Service Homes Commissioner. We have seen the disastrous consequences- of appointing an inefficient man to carry on those great functions. It was a very expensive way to do it. It would have been cheaper to have paid an efficient man £100,000 a year than an inefficient man. £1,500 a year, and it would certainly have been good economy to pay £5,000 a year for the right man. I believe such a man could- have been got at the price. It is false economy, to put cheap men. into< big positions, and it. would be false economy to cut down the salaries of members of the Board- of Commissioners. To effectively carry out these duties we need first-class men,, and we cannot’ get them for second-class pay. A- comparison has been made by- one honorable senator with1 the- salary drawn by the Prime Minister of Australia, and he asked how we could justify the payment of a higher salary to a civil servant- than to the Prime Minister. My own view is that the salary paid to the Prime Minister- is a scandal to the community; and the way to justify the proposed payments to members of the Board is to increase the pay of the Prime Minister. Why it has not been done long ago I do not know, and it is only because we have men. of very high ideals in the community that we can get them to take on public life in Australia.
Senator Duncan:
– The honorable senator will have the “Granny press” of Collins-street after him !
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– I am not afraid of the “ Granny press “ of Collins-street, or anywhere else; My views are- that where we require effective service we must pay well. That is what I stand for, and always will stand for, and that is why I oppose the amend’ ment.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
.- I want to say a word or two in reply to the arguments put forward, by the Minister (Senator Pearce) with regard to the statement that I made in supporting the amendment moved by Senator Wilson. The Minister suggested that if the amendment were carried we must, of necessity, appoint inefficient and incompetent men to. these positions. I do not know whether the Minister or the Government have in view the gentlemen who will be appointed, but probably they have,, and I want to draw their attention to the fact that, notwithstanding that the Board will have to perform a greater variety of work, than the single Commisioner, it must be patent to every one that the three Commissioners will only be able to do a certain quantity of work in a given time. I admit that clause 16 imposes a great variety of tasks on the Commissioners’, but I take it that the Commissioner under the old Act had his time fully occupied, and that when the new Commissioners are appointed theywill have their time fully occupied also. Having,, however, a greater variety of duties to perform, and manymore problems to solve, it must take them a greater time to accomplish those tasks than it would if thosetasks were simpler. The Minister suggested that the greater variety of duties required of the Commissioner would warrant the payment of the salary suggested by the Government. I cannot see that at all. I do not believe in underpaying any one because that may constitute false economy, but I have yet to be satisfied that it is essential, in order to get competent and efficient men, to offer a salary of £2,500 for the Chairman and £2,000 for the other members of the Board. The Minister also contended that it was necessary to offer a higher salary because the term of appointment will be limited to five years. I take it that if, during those five years, the Commissioners in the discharge of their duties are not up to the mark, they will not be reappointed.
SenatorKeating. - Even if theyare they may not secure re-appointment.
Senator PAYNE:
– I have no doubt that, if the Commissioners are satisfactory, Parliament will renew their appointment.
Senator Keating:
– That will depend upon what Government is in power.
Senator Vardon:
– If the Chairman makes good, he can apply for a higher salary.
Senator PAYNE:
– I do not know what is the position of the Ministrywith regard to the gentlemanwho will get the appointment, or whether they have some one in view, but the salary indicated inthe amendment is equal inevery respect, if not a little higher, than that paid for similar positions of responsibility in other branches of ‘the “Service.
Question - That the words”five hundred “ proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 7
NOES: 16
Majority . . 9
AYES
NOES
Question soresolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That the amendment beagreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Before “ pounds,” second occurring, insert “ Two thousand.”
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
.- I move-
That the amendment of the House df Repre sentatives be amended byleaving out the words “ Two thousand,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof thewords “ Fifteen hundred.”
I do not think it isnecessary toarguethe amendment atgreatlength, becauseevidently the Government have made up their minds that itwill be necessaryto payhigh salaries in order to attract men tothepositions. To me this is asomewhat novel line of reasoning, for I have never yet known of any lack of applicants for suchpositions in the Commonwealth Service.
Senator PEARCE:
Ministerfor Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I appeal to honorable senators not to acceptthe amendment.Each member of the Board will have very onerous duties to discharge, and there will he little, if any, difference in the status.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I intend to support the amendment in the belief that if it is carried it will make it absurd for twomembers of the Board, with salaries substantially lower thanthat paid to the Chairman, to have equal voting power with the Chairman. If the Government wouldalter the Bill soasto give the Chairman certain power over the other two members, I would not mindpaying £2,000 per year to the subordinate members.Butthe Government’s proposal is to give them equal voting power, and I believe that if this amendment is carried the position will be so absurd that the Government will put the Boardon a proper basis. The Chairman,who will receive £2,500, and who is supposed to be the super-man in the matter- of ability and responsibility for the duties outlined in clause 16, would then be able to do something without being hampered by the views of the other members. In such circumstances I would not mind giving the Chairman of the Board an additional £1,000 in order to insure the appointment of a first-class man. I object to the Chairman having only equal voting power with the other members of the Board. My only reason for supporting the amendment is that if the salaries of the other members of the Board were reduced to £1,500, the Government would then probably listen to reason and give the Chairman that status which his position demands.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– My reasons for supporting the amendment are quite different from those of Senator Thomas. I regard the two additional members of the Board as an excrescence, and, believing that, I would go even to the length of reducing their salaries to £500 in the hope that there would be no applicants for the positions. My view is that, if the Service is to be controlled properly, there must be one man in control, with other men to discharge certain, duties of detail. The chief responsibility should devolve upon the man who is at the head, and he would be the Chairman of theBoard. The other members of the Board should not get such high salaries. I think Senator Wilson’s amendment is a step in the right direction.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 13
Majority . . . . 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative. Motion negatived.
Motion (by Senator Peahce) agreed to-
That the amendment be agreed to.
Clause 14 (Office of member - how vacated).
House of Representatives’ Amendment - In sub-clause (2) after “ member “ insert” of the Board.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
. The amendment proposed by the House of Representatives in this clause is merely a drafting amendment. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– I take it that the clause generally is open to discussion, and I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to one feature of it. It provides that any member of the Board becoming a member of an incorporated company or limited liability company will under certain circumstances render himself liable to be found guilty of an indictable offence and subject to a penalty of £500, or imprisonment for three years, or both, if the company does not consist of more than twenty-five members. In the last three or four years in New South Wales, there have been a number of companies formed, not proprietary companies, but ordinary small capital companies, the members of which do not exceed twentyfive. It frequently happens that a few of the members’ will hold the greater number of shares, and some may buy from others holding a few shares a sufficient number of shares to secure a controlling interest in the company. One of the members of the Board may hold a few shares in such a company, and so in all innocence may render himself liable to be found guilty of an indictable offence under this clause. I doubt whether honorable senators realized this in fixing the limit of the membership of a company under this clause at twenty-five. The limit fixed is too high, and should be reduced, or there should be a provision inserted that the clause should apply only when a member of the Board holds a controlling interest in a company. I direct attention to the matter, but it is not my intention to move an amendment.
Senator Pearce:
– It is beyond the competency of the Committee to deal with that matter now.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ amendments in clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 26 (Classification).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After sub-clause (2) add “ Provided that in the case of officers in remote districts, the Board may extend the time within which a notice of appeal may be forwarded under this sub-section.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The first amendment proposed in this clause by the House of Representatives is to insert a proviso that in the case of officers in remote districts the Board may extend the time within which a notice of appeal against the classification proposed may be forwarded. The amendment is self-explanatory. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ nominee “ in sub-clause (3), insert “ (who is an officer).”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– We provided for a representative of the officers on the Appeal Board to be nominated by the Public Service organizations. The House of Representatives has made an amendment in the clause providing that the nominee must be an officer of the Public Service. That is desirable. We do not want outsiders interfering in these matters. I therefore move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - At end of clause insert the following sub-clause : - “ (6) Notwithstanding any determination made under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920, upon the publication in the Gazette of the notification or the approval of the GovernorGeneral of the classification (in this sub-section referred to as ‘ the approved classification’), the classifications and salaries of the offices and of the officers assigned thereto dealt with inthe approved classification shall, subject to this Act, be those respectively allotted to those offices and officers by the classification :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to affect the operation of any determination made by the Arbitrator of a claim relating to the salaries allotted by the approved classification.”.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The House of Representatives has further amended clause 26, by inserting a new sub-clause, to make it clear that the classification at the time of its publication shall override salaries fixed by determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator. The Public Service Board must classify the Public Service as a whole, and when they have done so, the organizations will then, of course, have the right to question the salaries fixed by the classification, and to approach the Public Service Arbitrator in connexion therewith if they so desire. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ amendment in clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 (Salaries of Officers).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “officers” insert “of the First Division, who shall be paid such salaries as are provided in the Appropriation Act, and officers”; after “any” insert “other.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The House of Representatives has made two amendments in this clause, the effect of which is to provide the necessary exemption of First Division officers from the prescribed rates of salary under a classification, because we have provided in clause 26 that the Board shall classify officers “ other than officers of the First Division.” I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment in clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 (Increments pending classification).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit all the words after “ Act “ first occurring, and insert - “ - (a) The salaries paid to officers at the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue to be paid, and the Permanent Head may, from time to time, supplement those salaries by the grant of such increments’ as are determined by the Board; and “ (b) An officer who is promoted to a higher office, or the classification of whose office is raised, shall thereupon be entitled to receive the minimum salary payable in respect of that higher office or classification immediately prior to the commencement of this Act and the Permanent Head may, from time to time, supplement that salary by the grant of such increments as are determined by the Board.”.
Senator . PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Home and Territories) claus© 31 contained a number of subclauses intended to preserve the rights of officers to advancement pending classification. They were not very satisfactory, and after some discussion in another place it was agreed that they should be redrafted, and the House of Representatives has substituted for them two sub- clauses which are more flexible than those to which the Senate agreed. The classification will necessarily take some time, and the House of Representatives’ amendment is intended to preserve the rights of officers to advancement pending classification. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
– I should like it to be made clear that the House of Representatives’ amendment of this clause will not have the effect of making it impossible for the Board to reduce the salary of an incompetent officer.
Senator Pearce:
– It will not affect that power given to the Board in any way.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ amendments in clause 32 agreed to.
House of Representatives’ amendment omitting clause 34 and amendment in clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 (Age for appointment).
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · “Western Australia · NAT
– In this clause the House of Representatives made some drafting amendments and an amendment giving to the Board discretion to appoint persons over fourteen years of age to positions .other than that of messengers. I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– In sub-clause 1 of this clause we have provided that no person shall be appointed to the Fourth Division whose .age prior to appointment is less than sixteen years. In sub-clause 3 power is given to make appointment of persons above the age of fourteen years. The two sub-clauses are contradictory.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 42 (Appointment without examination).
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Home and Territories) F5.43]. - The House of Representatives has made a consequential amendment in this clause, and has omitted the second sub-clause dealing with service in the Territorial or Commonwealth Railway
Service, because that provision is already made in clause 48. I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments in clause 44 agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After clause 44 insert the following new clause: - “44a. Where a.ny officer of the Public, Radway, or other Service of a State, whether or not he was an officer of that Service a.t the date of the establishment of the Commonwealth, was transferred to the Commonwealth Service before the commencement of this Act, he shall preserve all his existing and accruing rights, and shall be entitled to retire from office at the time, and on the pension or retiring allowance, which would be permitted by the law of the State from which he was transferred,, if his service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of his service with the State.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– This is one of the new clauses to which I have referred. It provides for the preservation of existing and accruing rights. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
.- The question that honorable senators raised in connexion with the Superannuation Bill arises here. Officers transferred from a State Service to the Commonwealth Service would not come under the provisions of this particular clause. Will the Minister (Senator Pearce) accept an amendment to insert after the word “law” the words “or by any resolution passed by both Houses of the Parliament.” Is not a resolution of both Houses tantamount to a law? Members of the Tasmanian State Service who have already retired received their retiring allowance, and it was paid partly by the State and partly by the Commonwealth. I do not see why any officer in the Public Service of the Commonwealth should be penalized when officers in the same category have hitherto drawn the full allowance.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I must decline this generous invitation to sign a blank cheque. I do not know what resolutions may have been passed by the State Parliaments, and I cannot ,pledge the Government to accept any or every such resolution. If any officers have rights under the law, those rights can he established,but, if they have no such rights, it is not for us to extend them. We cannot add to the privileges of public servants who may have had certain rights conferred upon them by resolution of theState Parliaments. Senator Payne has stated that some of these officers have had their rights recognised by the Commonwealth. I suppose it is because their rights have been examined, and have been found to be good in law. This clause preserves every lawful right of public servants.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
.- There seems to be a difference of opinion between the Minister (Senator Pearce) and myself as to what constitutes a lawful right. A few days ago the Minister said that there was no lawful right on the part of these servants, and the payment was an act of grace.Seeing that officers who have already retired have received these allowances, which have beenpaid partly by the State andpartly by the Commonwealth Governments, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the remaining members of the Service who were transferred from the Tasmanian Service should be placed in the same category. The new clause lays it down clearly that they have no legal claim unless the allowance has been provided for by a law of a State. It seems that the Minister looks upon a. law of a State and a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament of a State as two different things.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments in clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 -
If an officer of the Royal Australian Naval Radio Service be appointed to the Commonwealth Service, either before or after the commencement of this Act,his service in the Royal Australian Naval Radio Service shall, for the purposes of this Act, bc deemed to be service in the Commonwealth Service.
House ofRepresentatives’ Amendment. - Omit this clause.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Clause 48 embodies in one section certainprovisions of similar effect scattered throughout the Bill. The clause enables prior service with another Ser vice to be reckoned as Commonwealth service. Clause 47, proposed to be omitted, is provided for in new clause 48. The existing clause 48 is proposed to be omitted, as it is not considered that temporary service should count as “ service in the Commonwealth Service.”
Motion agreed to.
Amendment to omit clause 48 and insert new clause agreed to.
Clause 49 -
- Every female officer shall he deemed to have retired from the Commonwealth Service upon her marriage.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
After “marriage” insert”unless the Board certifies that there are special circumstances which make her employment desirable.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister forHome and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
It seems desirable to give the Board a discretion, because there might be special circumstances that would make the employment of a married woman desirable*
Motion agreed to.
Clause 50 (Promotions’).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
Omit clause 50, and insert new clause.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– This is probably one of the most important amendments made in another place. It is proposed to strike out the whole of the very long clause 50, and insert a new clause. The effect of the alteration is to vest the power ofpromotion and transfer in all cases in the Board. Under the present clause 50 the Permanent Head has power to promote within his Department. This alteration has necessitated further revision in the matter of appeals againstprovisional appointments. The effect of the new clause is that the Board will act upon a recommendation of the Permanent Head as to the promotion or transfer of an officer.
Senator Senior:
– Will the Minister (Senator Pearce) postpone the consideration of amendments to clauses 50 and 52 to enable honorable senators an opportunity of comparing the two clauses?
Senator PEARCE:
– I have no objection.
Amendments in clauses 50 and 52 postponed.
Clause 55 (Offences).
House of Representatives’ Amendments. -
Leave out “forthwith reply “ and insert “ reply forthwith “; leave out “ to give “ and insert “ giving “; leave out “ forty-eight hours “ and insert “seven days”; leave out “have admitted “ and insert “ deny.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendments be agreed to.
These amendments are mainly drafting. By inserting the words “ seven days “ in lieu of forty-eight hours an officer will have sufficient time in which to reply to a charge. In some districts it would be impossible to reply within the time originally specified.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
After the word “ against “ insert “ by imposing any other punishment specified in the last preceding sub-section.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This is to insure that the variance of a decision does not permit of the imposition of any other punishment than that specified in the preceding clause.
Motion agreed to.
Verbal amendments agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
After sub-clause (5) insert the following subclause : - “ (5a) In the case of the illness, absence or suspension of an officer who is the elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs, or of there being no elected representative of that Division, or where the Board of Commissioners is of opinion that, by reason of his being personally interested in, or affected by, any matter which is the subject of appeal under this section, it is undesirable that the elected representative should act as a member of an Appeal Board, the Board of Commissioners may appoint another officer of the same Division to act temporarily as a member of an Appeal Board in lieu of an elected representative.”.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This new sub-clause enables a divisional representative to be supplied in cases where there isno such representative, or where he is unable to act where it is proper that he should act. In such cases the
Board may appoint a person to act. It is only in rare cases that such power would be exercised.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clauses 56, 60, 61, and 64 agreed to.
Clause 66 (Officers taking part in strikes against Government).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
Omit “aiding “ and insert “ directly.” After “ Board “ insert “ after investigation and hearing.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
The first amendment is designed to prevent the possibility of action being taken in such cases as the payment of strike levies to assist the dependants of unionists. The two amendments deal with the fomenting of strikes.
Senator Senior:
– The offender must be a prominent man.
Senator PEARCE:
– Theword “ aiding “ has been left out, and it has been made an offence to foment or take part in a strike.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 67 (Incapacity of officers).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ Board “ insert “ orthe Chief Officer “.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment strengthens the clause by allowing proceedings to be instituted on areport from the Chief Officer, who would be the person closely associated with the officer, and would consequently be able to judge concerning his incapacity or inefficiency.
Motion agreed to.
Consequential amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 (Leave of absence for recreation).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ consideration “ insert” as is pre scribed.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The insertion of the words “proposed enables the deduction from recreation leave on account of other leave in the same year to be governed by regulations. There are a number of different cases to be dealt with, and it would be a cumbersome procedure to include them all in the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 69 (Leave of absence to attend proceedings under Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
Omit “ any representative “ and insert “ not more than two representatives.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment will enable two representatives of an organization to attend the Arbitration Court, as is the general practice.
Motion agreed to.
Consequential amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 (Leave without pay).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ not “ insert “ unless otherwise ordered by the Board.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This gives the Board discretion in the matter of counting leave without pay as service.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 73 (Furlough).
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - After the proviso to sub-clause insert the following proviso.: - “ Provided further that in the case of any person becoming an officer of the Commonwealth Service after the commencement of this Act, the service which shall be taken into account for the purposes of this section shall not include any service in a temporary capacity.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This proviso is to insure that temporary services of future officers will not count in the matter of furlough.
Motion agreed to.
Remaining amendments in clause agreed to.
Clause 74 (Extended leave on pay in lieu to officers not entitled to furlough).
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Leave out “ of satisfactory service “and in sert “ whose period of service is less than twenty years.” Leave out “ in accordance with “ and insert “ for a period not exceeding that appropriate to his service as specified in.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
The words proposed to be inserted enable discretion to be exercised in cases where the services of an officer have not been sufficiently satisfactory to merit the full benefit, or where there are sufficient reasons to justify the reduction.
Motion agreed to.
Consequential amendments agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - At the end of the clause insert the following subclause : - “ (5) The official conduct record of an officer shall be taken into consideration in determining whether the whole or any portion of the leave of absence or pay provided in this section may be granted.”.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This provides that the official conduct record of a public servant shall be taken into consideration in determining whether the whole or portion of leave or pay may’ be granted.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 76 (Public holidays).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
After “days” insert “except the twenty-fifth day of April.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment has been inserted so that Anzac Day shall always be observed on the 25th day of April.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 82 (Temporary employment).
Consequential and verbal amendments agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
Omit the words “ the successful competitors may be employed temporarily,” and insert “ The Board may authorize the employment of the successful competitors.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment has been inserted in another place because it was felt that the employment of the persons referred to should rest with the Board.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. -
Omit the words “ on full pay.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
The reason for this amendment is that leave of absence to a temporary officer implies pay.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - After the word “ terms “ insert “and conditions “ ; omit “ No leave of absence for recreation shall be granted unless the services of the employee are required after expiration of the period of leave.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That the amendments be agreed to.
These amendments deal with the same subject. The reason for them is that it is proposed to leave the conditions of such employment to be dealt with by regulation.
Motion agreed to.
Clause83 (Temporary employment of returned soldiers).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit sub-clause (4).
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This alteration is made because the subclause is not necessary.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatices’ Amendment. - That the following proviso be added : - -“ Provided that any returned soldier who has been employed continuously for a period of not less than two yea rs may be permanently appointed without examination if the Chief Officer certifies that the duties of such returned soldier have been performed in a satisfactory manner and that such duties are of a non-clerical character.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That the amendment be agreed to with the following amendment : - That all the words after the words “ Provided that “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - “ in the making of appointments to positions of a non-clerical nature the order of preference to returned soldiers shall be as follows: -
returned soldiers temporarily employed in the Commonwealth Service who have passed the prescribed examination;
returned soldiers employed under the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act 1920, or under the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination;
returned soldiers who have been employed continuously for not less than two years, but have not passed the prescribed examination, and in respect of whom the Chief Officer certifies that their duties have been performed in a satisfactory manner:
Provided that any such appointment shall he to a position the dutiesof which are similar to those which the returned soldier has been performing; and
returned soldiers not employed in the Commonwealth Service or under the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act 1920, or the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination.”
The amendment was inserted in another place distinctly for the nurpose of benefiting the returned soldier, and it purports to assist those who have been temporarily employed for a period of two years. It was put in hurriedly late at night, and did not receive much discussion, and it is certain that those who accepted it did not realize its effect. A short analysis of it will show how impossible it is for us to accept it in its present form. It follows the clause which deals with the appointment of returned soldiers temporarily employed. Honorable senators will notice from the wording of the amendment that it is the duties the employee has performed which are “of a non-clerical character,” and not the duties to which he may be appointed. If a returned soldier had been temporarily employed for two years, sweeping out the post-office, and the officer who was his senior reported that he had done it satisfactorily, he could be appointed to any position in the Public Service, and not merely, as the framer of the amendment thought and intended, to the General Division of the Service. Thereis no limitation in the amendment regarding where the man shall be appointed to. There is another point which I wish the Committee to bear in mind. There has been quite a number of returned soldiers temporarily employedin the Public Service, and some time ago representations were made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) by the Returned Soldiers Association, pointing . out that Parliament had provided for a certain number of permanent positions, and ask- ing that returned soldiers should be permitted to qualify for appointment to them by examination. The Cabinet considered that request, and agreed to grant it. An examination has been held in New South Wales. In that State there are 160 returned soldiers temporarily occupying positions which are, or will be when the Estimates are passed, of a permanent character, and there are a further sixtythree returned soldiers who are temporarily employed in place of officers on furlough or leave of absence. An examination was held on 3rd December, 1921, restricted to returned soldiers, for permanent appointment to positions of postman, &c, and 193 candidates passed. Of that number 132 have been appointed to the permanent Service, leaving the balance of sixty-one still to be appointed. If the clause is adopted as it stands, «very returned soldier - and not merely those whom the mover of the amendment had in mind - who had been temporarily ^employed for two years, provided the Chief Officer said he had satisfactorily performed his duties, would be entitled to be appointed to the Public Service without examination, and the persons who had passed the examination would have to stand aside for him. . That would obviously be unjust, and it is certainly not desirable. The motion which I have submitted provides that those returned soldiers who are employed in the Public Service temporarily, and who have been filling positions satisfactorily, and who, in addition, have passed an examination, shall receive first preference. Following on the examination held in New South Wales, and in accordance with the Cabinet minute, preparations are being made for holding examinations in the other States. The Cabinet minute provides that the permanent positions shall be filled by the appointment of returned soldiers; that competitive examinations, open to all returned soldiers, whether they are in the Department or not, shall be held; and that those who qualify shall receive the appointments. We recognise that there is something to be said for appointing to non-clerical positions, men who for two years have been satisfactorily filling such positions, but we say that there is an order in which preference should be given. We ought to have some regard to the promises made to these men, under which they have been preparing themselves, and have passed the examinations. In the Bill itself, apart from- the amendment, we have given distinct privileges to returned soldiers, over and above those contained in the Public Service Act. We have done away with the limitation as to temporary employment. Under the present Act these men can only be employed for a period of six months, which may be extended by another three months, after which the appointment terminates. Now the appointments can be continued indefinitely. Under the present Act when a temporary servant has finished a term he cannot be re-employed until a certain interval hae elapsed, but that restriction has been abandoned in the Bill. If honorable senators will look at clause 84 they will see a number of sub-clauses which give expression to the principle of preference to returned soldiers in the permanent Service, and now we are proposing to give additional advantages by stipulating the order in which we shall pass into the General Division of the Service those who are now outside, whether they are temporarily employed in the Service or not. First we place returned soldiers who are now temporarily employed in the Public Service, who have passed, or will have passed, when the Bill becomes law, the prescribed examination. Clearly, they ought to coane first. Some of these men have been employed for a year and ten months, and yet, under the amendment from the House of Representatives, the men who have passed or are preparing to pass the prescribed examination may be superseded by those who have gone up and failed. In the second order of preference we place those who are in the Repatriation or War Service Homes Departments, which are, after all, allied branches of the Public Service. In the third place we bring in the men who have not passed an examination, but whose claim is that for two years they have been satisfactorily filling a temporary position in non-clerical employment in some branch of the Service. Fourth, and last in the order of preference, will be those who are neither in t)he Public Service nor in the Repatriation or War Service Homes Departments, in a temporary capacity, but who have passed the prescribed examination. Clearly those are entitled to consideration also. If my motion is carried it will give effect to the principle which was thought to be embodied in the House of Representatives’ amendment. Paragraph c of the motion includes the amendment; but, in front of it, as entitled to first preference, are placed the men already temporarily employed in the Service, who have passed an examination.
Senator Foll:
– Does the Minister propose to give one Department preference over another - the Repatriation Department or the War Service Homes Department, for instance?
Senator PEARCE:
– No. We are putting the War Service Homes and Repatriation Departments together.
Senator Foll:
– Employees of those Departments are placed before temporary employees in the General Post Office.
Senator PEARCE:
– If the employee in the Post Office has passed the examination he will come before the others.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m.
Senator PEARCE:
– I do not know that there is very much more that I can say. I showed this amendment to the general secretary of the Returned Soldiers League, and he expressed himself as quite satisfied, and said that it redeems the promise given by the Government to those soldiers who went up for examination for admission into the Service. I think the Committee may safely accept the amendment.
Senator Elliott:
– I notice it is limited to appointments of a non-clerical nature.
Senator PEARCE:
– The reason for that is obvious. If the persons to be appointed are going to perform duties of a nature different from those in which they have been engaged, it would be necessary for them to pass some examination.
Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:
– This refers to the General Division ?
Senator PEARCE:
– There is no General Division provided forin this Bill, but there is a Fourth Division, which includes what is described in the Public Service Act as the General Division.
Senator Duncan:
– I presume that returned soldiers who pass the clerical examination can be appointed permanently?
Senator PEARCE:
– Yes; that is already provided for in the Bill.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– The amendment carried in the House of Representatives provided that returned soldiers who had been employed continuously in some capacity for a. period of not less than two years might be “permanently” appointed. I draw particular attention to the word “ permanently.”
Senator Pearce:
– “Appointment” under this Bill means “ permanently “ appointed.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– But we are considering an amendment of clause 83, which deals entirely with the temporary employment of returned soldiers.
Senator Pearce:
– Where the Word “ appointment “ is used in the Bill, it means permanently appointed.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– I should like to know where the Minister gets that definition, because it does not appear in the Bill, so far as I am aware.
Senator Pearce:
– If the honorable senator will look at clause 8, he will find referencethere to “ appointments “ of officers of Parliament, and in clause 10, to “ appointments “ to the Board of Commissioners.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
-That does not alter the fact that the amendment, as it came to us from the Houee of Representatives, provided for the permanent appointment, without examination, of certain returned soldiers. Clearly the reference in the amendment is to clause 83. I think the position might be made quite clear by inserting after the word “ of “ the. words, “ any permanent.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The honorable senator speaks as if clause 83 deals only with temporary employment. It is quite true that it does deal with temporary employment, but we are now adding something by providing for the “ appointment “ to the Service of certain returned soldiers. Honorable senators will see that clause 37 deals with “ appointments “ on probation, and clause 40 with the age for “ appointment.” In several clauses of the Bill there is reference to “appointments “ to the Public Service, and as amended this clause will deal with temporary employment and “appointments” to the Service. Were it otherwise, the words we are now seeking to insert would not be required, because we have already provided for temporary employment. Having in the first part of the clause dealt with, persons who are already temporarily employed, we now proceed to say that in the making of “ appointments “ to positions of a non-clerical character, a . certain order of preference shall be observed. In the .Bill, this word “ appointment “ is used in a number of clauses as having the same meaning, and, surely, in this clause it should have the same meaning as in other portions of the Bill. If we insert the suggested amendment, we shall be making a laughing-stock of the measure, and we shall be obliged to go back over quite a number of other clauses to qualify the word “ appointment “ by adding the words “of a permanent nature.”
Senator FOLL:
Queensland
.- The amendment provides in paragraph (b) for the appointment of returned soldiers employed under the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act and the War Service Homes Act, who have passed a prescribed examination, and the clause itself deals with appointments of a nonclerical nature. Practically every man employed by the Repatriation and War Service Homes Departments is employed in a clerical capacity.
Senator Pearce:
– They are provided for in clause 84.
Senator FOLL:
– Under that clause they cannot be appointed permanently, unless they have successfully passed the prescribed examination, whereas we have provided, in certain circumstances, for the entry of returned soldiers into the Public Service without examination.
Senator Pearce:
– Not in respect of any appointments of a clerical nature.
Senator FOLL:
– If a returned soldier has been performing clerical work for a number of years, I fail to see why he should be required to pass an examination.
Senator Pearce:
– The amendment inserted by the House of Representatives never contemplated what the honorable senator suggests.
Senator FOLL:
– It does not matter what the amendment contemplated originally. We are concerned now with what we think ought to be included in the clause.
Senator Pearce:
– But the honorable senator would not approve of clerical appointments being made without examination.
Senator FOLL:
– It all depends on the nature of the examination. It is quite possible that a man may have been doing certain accountancy work satisfactorily and yet be unable to pass an examination of the sixth class standard.
Senator Pearce:
– I think that if the honorable senator reads, cla use 84 he will find that it provides all that he is asking for.
Senator FOLL:
– But there is another matter. I should like to know if the Minister will so amend the ‘clause as to provide that the term of service for the purpose of superannuation benefits and seniority shall date from the time of a man’s first period of temporary employment.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– In order that there may be no possible doubt about the provision, although, personally, I have none at all, I am prepared to so alter the amendment as to bring it into conformity with clause 84, which provides -
In the making of appointments to the Commonwealth Service for positions of a nonclerical nature.
Surely, it cannot be contended that there will then be any doubt as to the meaning of the amendment, because it will follow exactly the language in clause 84.
Senator Lynch:
– But the marginal note and the substance of this clause refers only to temporary employment.
Senator PEARCE:
– But the marginal note will not be used in construing the clause. The amendment I am now suggesting will’ remove any possible doubt there might be in the minds of honorable senators on this point. In reply to Senator Foll, I should like to say that the returned sodiers themselves are not asking for what he suggests shall be included in the amendment. They have never asked that they should have the right of appointment to the Clerical Division without examination. They recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect that. It must be remembered also’ that if we pass any of these men into that branch of the Service, they will not only be eligible for those positions, but will also have a right to promotion and increments, and to pass from grade to grade. It would be distinctly unfair to those returned soldiers who have already qualified, or who are qualifying to pass an examination, to allow other men, performing non-clerical duties, to enter the Clerical Division without being required to pass an examination.
Senator Foll:
– Will the Minister agree to regard the service as continuous ?
Senator PEARCE:
– I cannot do that, because we have already passed provisions which distinctly provide that that shall not be done. We have passed a clause in the Superannuation Bill which provides that temporary service shall not be reckoned for superannuation, and we have passed a provision in this Bill that it shall not be reckoned for furlough. I ask leave to amend the motion by inserting after the word “ appointments,” in the proposed amendment the words “ to the Commonwealth Service.”
Motion, by leave, amended accordingly.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales
– The Minister in contending that the word “ appointment “ necessarily carries with it the meaning of “ permanent appointment,” has stretched the meaning of the word tremendously. In interpreting the Bill, a Court would interpret the meaning of “appointment “ in its ordinary sense unless there were some definite provision limiting its application to a permanent appointment, and the Court would not be influenced by the fact that in a number of other clauses the word was used relatively to a permanent appointment.
Senator Pearce:
– Then my amendment does not meet what the honorable senator desires.
Senator GARLING:
– No. When the honorable senator says that it is nonsense to use the words “ permanent appointment,” he casts a grave reflection on one of his colleagues in another place who agreed to the insertion at the end of clause 83 of an amendment in the following terms: -
Provided that any returned soldier who has been employed continuously for a period of not less than two years may be permanently appointed without examination, and so on.
Senator Pearce:
– The honorable senator is quite wrong. My honorable colleague opposed that amendment.
Senator GARLING:
– It has come to us from another place, and I will, therefore, say that the Minister casts a grave reflection upon another place when he says that it is nonsense to use the words “permanent appointment.” When the honorable senator says that the word “ appointments “ in clause 84 means what he says it means, I remind him that in that clause the reference is to “ appointments to the Commonwealth Service from among persons who have successfully passed the prescribed examination “ ; and these words naturally carry the meaning that the prescribed examination was for a permanent position.I suggest that we might adopt the amendment of the House of Representatives, and follow it up with the words of the amendment now proposed by the Minister. The proviso Would then read -
Provided that any returned soldier who has been employed continuously for a period of not less than two years may be permanently appointed without examination if the Chief Officer certifies that the duties of such returned soldier have been performed in a satisfactory manner, . and that such duties are of a non-clerical character, and in the making of appointments to positions of a non-clerical character the order of preference to returned soldiers shall be as follows : -
That could’ be followed by the rest of the amendment now proposed by the Minister.
Senator Pearce:
– I am not going to put men who have been employed for two years temporarily in the same position as men who have passed the examination.
Senator GARLING:
– I did not expect that the Minister would be reasonable; but the amendment I have now suggested would be infinitely better than that which he has proposed. It would put the matter beyond all doubt.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– I suggest to the honorable senator that his object can be achieved by voting against the preliminary motion “ That all the words after’ that ‘ be left out,” because that motion must first be carried before the Minister’s amendment to insert words in lieu of the words struck out can be submitted to the Committee.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– Whilst realizing that the Minister intends to meet the objection I have raised, I cannot agree that the amendment he proposes would do so.
Senator PEARCE:
– A temporary appointment is not an appointment to the Commonwealth Service. I assure the honorable senator that the draftsman has no doubt at all upon the matter.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– I am equally confident that my interpretation is correct.
Senator Pearce:
– If I did what the honorable senator proposes, consequential alterations of a number of other clauses would be necessary.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
-I cannot see that.
Senator Pearce:
-We must be consistent. We must use the same words where we mean the same thing.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– In the interpretation of Statutes, the language used has its ordinary simple meaning unless it is given another meaning by an interpretation clause. There is no interpretation clause in this Bill defining the meaning of “ appointment.”
Senator Pearce:
– According to the honorable senator’s argument, clause 84 should be construed as not dealing with permanent appointments.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
– BROCKMAN. - Clause 84 makes it perfectly clear that it does deal with permanent appointments, but clause83 is not so clear. It might be interpreted to mean what the Minister says it means or as qualifying the provisions under which returned soldiers are appointed to temporary and not to permanent positions.
Senator Pearce:
– The word “permanent “ does not appear in clause 84.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– I admit that. I think the Minister might readilv meet me in this matter.
Senator Duncan:
– If the Minister will agree to define “ appointment,” it will be unnecessary to alter any of these clauses.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– I direct the attention, of the Minister to clause 108, which provides that -
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act all appointments to the Provisional Service other than to positions of a casual character shall be made by the Board and at such salary as it determines.
Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931
– Will the honorable senator look at the definition of “Officer” in clause 6 ?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
– BROCKMAN. - What the Minister has said has but strengthened my argument, and I hope he will meet the point I have raised. If he will not do so, I must press the matter to a division.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I should like to meet the honorable senator, but what he desires is unnecessary, and it would destroy the symmetry of the Bill, In clause 6 the word “ Officer “ is defined to mean - .
Any person employed in any capacity in the Public Service, whether appointed or transferred thereto before or after the commencement of this Act, but does not include a person temporarily employed.
No definition could be plainer. I am supported by the draftsman in my opinion that if we make the amendment suggested in this clause we must make a similar amendment in every other clause in which a reference is made to “ appointment.”
Senator Duncan:
– That can be avoided by inserting a definition of “ appointment.”
Senator PEARCE:
– That is not necessary. The Commonwealth Service is defined, and an officer of the Service is also defined. I ask Senator Drake-Brockman to give the draftsman, who spent months in the framing of this measure, the benefit of the doubt. I cannot take the responsibility of accepting an amendment in the words he suggests, because I know that it would involve practically the re-drafting of the whole Bill.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
.- I suggest to the Minister that if he proposes his amendment as an addendum to clause 84, instead of clause 83, the difficulty will be overcome.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– Senator Elliott has made a brilliant suggestion if, under the Standing Orders, we can give effect to it. I should like the guidance of the Chair in the matter. I agree that it would be better that my amendment should follow clause 84, but the amendment of the House of Representatives which we are considering is an amendment of clause 83. We cannot accept that amendment as it stands. What we require to do is to negative the House of Representatives’ amendment, and substitute for it the amendment I have propose d as an addendum, not to clause’ 83, but to clause 84. I have to thank Senator Elliott for his suggestion if we can give it effect. I draw attention to the fact that the House of Representatives has amended sub-clause 8 of clause 84, and we could accept their amendment of that clause conditionally upon the addition to the clause of the words of the amendment I have proposed. Our message to the House of Representatives might then read -
Amendment No. 92 agreed to, subject to a further amendment.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– I think it will be in accordance with the proper procedure and with the Standing Orders if the amendment of the House of Representatives is rejected and the amendment desired by the Committee inserted in clause 84. I rule that that procedure is permissible.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That the amendment be disagreed to.
Clause84 (Permanent appointment of returned soldiers).
Verbal and consequential amendments agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ on being recommended for appointment to the Commonwealth Service shall onlyhe required to pass such medical examination as will show that be is fit to perform the duties of an officer “, insert “ may be appointed to the Commonwealth Service, although not free from physical defects due to service in the war, if it is certified by a medical practitioner approved by the Board that the soldier is free from such physical defects as would incapacitate him for the efficient discharge of the duties of the position to which he is to be appointed.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The House of Representatives has made an amendment in sub-clause 8 of this clause, which is designed to enable returned soldiers to be appointed if shown by the medical certificate to be physically fitted for the office. As the clause stood when we sent the Bill to tho other House, the applicant had to be shown to be fitted for any office, but now he is only to be fitted for the office to which he is appointed. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to with the following consequential amendment : - At end of clause add the following new sub-clause : - “ (9) In the making of appointments to positions in the Commonwealth Service of a non-clerical nature the order of preference to returned soldiers shall be as follows: -
returned soldiers temporarily employed in the Commonwealth Service who have passed the prescribed examination;
returned soldiers employed under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920 or under the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination;.
returned soldiers who have been employed continuously for not less than two years, but have not passed the prescribed examination, and in respect of whom the Chief Officer certifies that their duties have been performed in a satisfactory manner:
Provided that any such appointment shall be to a position the duties of which are similar to those which the returned soldier has been performing; and
returned soldiers not employed in the Commonwealth Service or under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920 or the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination.”
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– Seeing that returned soldier applicants are divided into four grades, the last grade being “returned soldiers not employed in the Commonwealth Service or under the Australian Repatriation Act 1920 or the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination”, what would take place in the case of a soldier employed outside who had not passed the examination? Would he receive appointment?
Senator Pearce:
– The general provisions of clause 84 would deal with him.
Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:
– He would have to come in as a temporary officer first.
Amendment (by Senator Drakebrockman) agreed to -
That after the word “ been “, first occurring, in paragraph (c) of proposed new sub-clause (9) the word “temporarily” be inserted.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
– What would be the position of soldiers employed in the Repatriation or War Service Homes Departments who, not knowing of this amendment of the law coming about, had not qualified by examination? Would they now have the opportunity for employment open to them by being permitted to. attend an examination?
Senator Pearce:
– I explained earlier in the evening that the Cabinet some time ago agreed that this course should be followed, and arrangements are being made for examination’s to be held.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments to leave out clauses 85 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 93 (Officer may be continued in Service in lower position).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Leave out the proviso.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The proviso proposed to be omitted enables officers to be retained in a lower position after they have reached the retiring age. In view of the superannuation scheme such a provision is unnecessary. I move -
That the amendmentbe agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment in clause 94 agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After clause 99 insert the following new clause: - “99a. Any officer who has been a member of any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1918, and who, except in pursuance of leave granted under this Act or the Acts repealed by this Act, is absent from duty for twelve months subsequent to his ceasing to be a member of that Force shall be deemed to have forfeited his office upon the expiration of that period of twelve months.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This is to meet cases where public servants, who were members of the Australian Imperial Force, did not return to duty in the Public Service upon the termination of their engagement abroad. There are a few of these cases. Some of the officers went to America or elsewhere, and they, apparently, have no intention to return to their positions in the Service, but they have not intimated any intention one way or the other.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment to omit clause 100 agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert the following new clauses : - “ 101a. Where, under any Act repealed by this Act deductions have been made from the salary of any person unable to assure his life as required by that repealed Act, and have been invested and accumulated by an officer or authority appointed in pursuance of that repealed Act, those deductions shall remain so invested and accumulated for the purposes and subject to the conditions prescribed in the repealed Act :
Provided that any such person may at any time prior to his retirement, by notice in writing to the officer or authority by whom the deductions are invested or accumulated, require the total amount deducted from his salary together with interest accumulated thereon to be repaid to him, and the officer or authority shall repay that amount and interest to that person accordingly. “ 101b. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions relating to life assurance contained in any Act repealed by this Act shall cease to have effect upon a date to bc fixed by Proclamation, whether before or after the commencement of this Act.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- The existing Act provides that deductions may be made from the salaries of officers who are unable to assure their lives, because they are technically known as “ bad lives.” In order that they mightmake similar provision they have paid in certain sums, which have been allowed to accumulate on retirement or death-. Such sums would be paid to them or to their representatives with interest. As we have now passed the Superannuation Bill, in which it is provided that it will not be necessary for public servants to assure their lives, these deductions will no longer be made, and it has been necessary to make some provision for the disposal of the money.
Senator Duncan:
– What will be done with the money if it is not claimed?
Senator PEARCE:
– I presume it will be paid into the Treasury. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clauses 102 and 106 agreed to.
Clause 111 (Appointments of Commonwealth Officers to Provisional Service).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Add the following sub-clause: - “ (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section, an officer to whom this section applies shall be entitled to be dealt with as regards offences in the same manner as is provided by section 56 of this Act.”
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This sub-clause provides a means of dealing with offences of officers on loan from the Commonwealth Service, and protects them from peremptory dismissal far offences.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to first schedule agreed to.
Postponed amendments.
Clause 50 (Promotions).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit clause 50 and insert the following new clause : - “ ( 1 ) 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 Board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, after report from the Permanent Head of the Department in which the vacancy occurs, transfer or promote an officer to fill the vacancy, consideration being given first to the relative efficiency and in the event of aii equality of efficiency of two or more officers, then to the relative seniority of the officers available for transfer or promotion to the vacancy.
- ) In this section ‘ efficiency ‘ means special qualifications and aptitude for the discharge of the duties of the office to be filled, together with merit, diligence and good conduct, and, in the case of an officer who is a returned soldier, includes such efficiency as, in the opinion of the Board, he would have attained but for his absence on active naval or military service.
- Any promotion made in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section shall be provisional and without increased salary pending confirmation, and shall be notified in the prescribed manner and shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Board.
-
An appeal under this section shall be made in such manner and within such time as is prescribed, and may be made by any officer who considers that he is more entitled to promotion to the vacant office than the officer provisionally promoted, on the ground of -
- superior efficiency, or
- equal efficiency and seniority.
- An appeal under this section shall be considered as prescribed by the Board in conference with a representative of the Permanent Head of the Department to which the provisional promotion has been made, and with the appellant, or, if he so desires, with a nominee (who is an officer) of the Public Service organization to which the appellant belongs, or with an agent (who is an officer) of the appellant, and following upon such conference the Board shall determino the appeal.
- Where an appeal is upheld by the Board, it shall promote the appellant officer to the vacant office and cancel the provisional promotion.
- Where an appeal is disallowed in pursuance of this section, or no appeal is lodged within the prescribed time, the provisional promotion shall bc confirmed by the Board!”
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I understand that this clause provides for promotions or appointments in the Department to be made by the Board instead of by the Permanent Head of a Department, and, personally, I am very pleased that such a desirable amendment has been submitted. When the Bill was under consideration at an earlier stage quite a number of honorable senators spent considerable time in endeavouring to convince the Government that such an amendment was necessary, and it is rather interesting to find that the Bill has been returned to us in this form. The Departments will not in future be as water-tight as they have been in the past ; but I think the Minister (Senator Pearce) should give some reasons why there has been such a complete change of front. When the Northern Territory Representation Bill was under consideration I said that the Government cared little how members spoke, but were concerned more with their votes. In another place this proposal was accepted on the voices, and it would be interesting if the Minister would explain why the Government have changed their policy in this regard.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– It could be said that this clause, as it stands, is almost a model of perfection in the matter of instituting a means for regulating promotion in the Public Service, and it is time that merit in the man was recognised. In addition to a candidate for promotion having merit and diligence on his side, he must also have a satisfactory record as to good conduct. I am anxious to know in what particular sphere this qualification must be observed. Has his conduct to be exemplary both inside and outside the Department? We can easily imagine that there are some black sheep in a social or other sense, and I should like to know whether there are social offences which a person might be guilty of and still be allowed to remain in the Service. If a public servant were guilty of bigamy, would his services still be retained ? He might also be guilty of some of the offences aired from day to day in the police Courts, and we should be informed whether good conduct refers merely to that period during which he is employed, or whether it extends to his private life. I would like to see it extended so that his private life would also be covered, because honorable members who find their way into this and another Chamber are placed on a pedestal and viewed from every conceivable angle before they can convince a majority of the electors in their constituency to send them here. Not only in the interests of the Service, but in the interests of the men themselves, they should be worthy in every way of the positions which they occupy.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– The Board will have to interpret what these words mean, and we can only hope that it will comprise men who will take the view which Senator Lynch takes. They are responsible for efficiency and good conduct, and. this is really a direction to the Board as to what they are to do in making promotions.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clause 52 agreed to.
Resolutions reported.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the report be adopted.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– I wish again to refer to the question of the salaries proposed to be paid to- the members of the Board of Commissioners. I do not persuade myself that I shall be able to control a majority of the Senate at this stage, but I wish to draw attention to what I regard as the very extravagant salaries that we have decided to pay to these officers. I find, on looking up the Public Service Report, that there are only thirteen men in the Clerical Division who receive over £700 a year; in the Professional Division only nine receive over £800 a year, and in the Administrative Division only four receive over £1,000 a year. I therefore think that my language in describing these appointments as “ extravagant “ is quite justified. Outside the Public Service, there are men who are giving their time and their energies, and are devoting their capital, to the production of the wealth of this country, and of those, in the whole of the Commonwealth, only 22,000 are paying income tax on incomes of over £1,000 a year. When the Commonwealth took ever the State Service, the total amount paid in salaries was £1,439,938, and in 1920 we had improved our position at the expense of the taxpayer to such an extent that we were paying £4.639,859. I believe it is time we called a halt, and commenced to take stock of the appointments we have created. Personally, I have no time for a Board. I would rather havo an official head ofsome business experience, who would be capable of taking hold of the position. What we want is not a technical expert, but a man of unquestionable organizing ability. If we gave such a man £2,500 a year, and did without the other two members, nobody would complain. We are about to put on the taxpayers of this country an additional burden of £6,500 a year to pay the salaries of members of an administrative Board. In addition, there will be huge expenses for the typists and officers of the Board. It is time we ceased to talk of economies, and started to practise them. I believe in the principles and ideals of tha Bill. I have supported it right through, but I take this opportunity of again protesting against paying these high salaries, or, to use an Australian expression, “ greasing the fat pig.” While we are placing these men in £2,500 and £2,000 a year jobs, we are talking of others who are on the bread line at £3 or £4 a week, to whom we ought to give more attention. It is those who will have to carry the added burden. When men who are on the bread line see these extravagant appointments made, dissatisfaction must be created. The three members of the Board will decide the conditions applicable to men receiving £3 or £4 a week. The Board will not achieve the objects which many honorable senators think it will achieve. The members of the Board will be able to unload their responsibilities from one to the other. The experience of the Senate with regard to Boards has not been satisfactory.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I do not intend to allow the remarks of the honorable senator to go without a. few words in reply, because he is playing to the gallery, especially to the press gallery. A pseudo campaign of economy has been going on for a considerable time, andthe honorable senator’s remarks are addressed to the particular section of the community which uses the term “ economy.” Some time ago, when the campaign was at its height, the Government decided to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Public Service, and it did not, as its critics said it would, appoint men who were under the control of the Government, but it took the advice of its critics and appointed business men. There was then much talk about business men. It was said that what was wanted in the Public Service was some fresh air, and that the Service ought to be overhauled by men who were accustomed to handling big business. Politicians were, of course, barred. They could not be expected to be competent to deal with that class of thing. We got the biggest business men we could find. They were men who had made a success of business, and were such as Senator Wilson would now hold up for our admiration. The first member of the Board was Sir Robert Gibson, a leading member of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufactures. He is a man who stands at the head of the business world of Melbourne, and if the critics had been asked to name a man who would be competent to overhaul the Public Service, they would probably have selected him. Then there was Mr. George H. Turton, Chairman of the Royal Insurance Company, Melbourne, who is the head of one of the biggest insurance companies in this city. The third member was Mr. Haldane, accountant of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, who, another Commission said, was one of the finest public officials whose work they had investigated. These three’ men were called upon to overhaul the Public Service and make recommendations to the Government.
Senator Foll:
– Why did the Government not put Mr. Ashworth on the Board?
Senator PEARCE:
– He was not as prominent then as he is now, or he might have been appointed. It was emphatically not a Commission of politicians, but a Commission in which two out of three members were eminent business men. They were called the Economies Commission, and they went into the question of economy in the Public Service. Their instructions were to show the Governmenthow it could effect economies, and how it could get efficiency. Their recommendation was that a Board should be appointed to control the Service - a proposal which, to-day, is jeered at and sneered at.
Let me come to the question of salaries. On that point there is a very interesting letter published in the Parliamentary Papers for the session 1920-21, vol. 4, p. 1513. It is signed by Sir Robert Gibson and Mr. G. H. Turton, and it says -
Melbourne, 16th August, 1920.
The Right Honorable Prime Minister,
Melbourne.
Dear Sir,
With reference to a letter under date of 28th May, 1919, from the then acting Prime Minister, covering a communication from members of the Administrative Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, embodying a request for increases in the salaries of administrative officers:
In response to the request that Mr. Turton and myself would consider the representations contained therein, and submit our joint views on the matter, we now submit the following: -
The question of salaries that should attach to administrative officers of the Commonwealth Public Service is one of considerable difficulty, owing to the fact that each officer’s duty in itself embraces entirely different functions and responsibilities. For instance, there is no similarity between the duties of, say, the Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Statistician, or, say, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Secretary to the Treasury.
It is suggested by the officers concerned, amongst other things, that there should now be a classification as follows: -
- Permanent heads and statutory heads of bureaux - minimum, £1,100; maximum, £1,500.
- Collectors of Customs and Deputy Postmasters - General - minimum, £700; maximum, £1,000.
It seems clear, therefore, that the only fair basis of remuneration for administrative officers is upon the actual work and responsibility attaching to each separate position.
With the view to meting out fair land proper treatment to all the high-grade officers, we think that, broadly speaking, regard should bc had to three main factors in measuring the value of work and responsibility, viz.: -
- Managerial responsibility.
- Work requiring special qualifications of a professional nature,
- Secretarial responsibility.
There can be no doubt that (a) and (b) call for a higher rate of remuneration. … It may be said, speaking generally, that our view is that the salaries at present provided are not in accord with the duties expected to be performed now, whatever may have been the case at the time of such appointments. … Itseems to us, further, that if the Public Service is to be made attractive to men of capacity, the salaries of those at the head should be sufficient to attract and retain such services. Apart from any other aspect, economy in administration can only be effected through the capacity of those intrusted with this work.
The whole tenor of their reply to the Prime Minister is a criticism of low salaries paid in the Public Service, and advocacy of higher salaries. The Go vernment and Parliament adopted the recommendations of the Economies Commission. They are embodied in this Bill, and now Senator Wilson, this high priest of economy, denounces the Bill as extravagant, although, as I have said, it. bears the imprimatur of gentlemen constituting the Economies Commission. Not content with the report, the Government submitted a draft of the Bill to the Commission, and they approved of it, saying that it gave effect to their recommendations. Two of the biggest business men in this city, and men with all the qualifications for the management of big businesses, have given their advice. Their criticism was that salaries iri the Public Service were not high enough in view of the responsible character of the work involved, and yet Senator Wilson now getsup, and in the name of economy, denounces the Government for having practically adopted the recommendation cf the Economies Commission. No doubt, the honorable senator will get a pat on the back from the Melbourne press, which has been mouthing economy for the last two or three years, but when they get the medicine which is prescribed by the very men who, they declared, should be called in to advise the Government, they refuse to take the dose. No doubt, the honorable senator will get their commendation; but, as I have pointed out, this Bill is an epitome of the advice given by the Economies Commission, and if, is intended to secure economy and efficiency in the Public Service.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Report adopted.
page 3425
BUDGET, 1922-23
Debate resumed from 5th October (vide page 3204), on motion by Senator E. D.
Millen -
That the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1923, and the Budget-paperB, 1922-23, laid on the table of the Senate on the 18th August, 1932, be printed.
Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia
– I do not think that I would have had much to say upon this important subject but for certain reports that have been recently received from the State of Western Australia as to the general position of the Commonwealth in relation to the State of Western Aus tralia, and as one of the representatives from that State I deem it my duty to take advantage of this opportunity to remove what I consider to be a very gross misrepresentation on the subject. I have always made it a practice during the twenty-one years I have been a member of this Senate, to allow the State authorities to deal with their own affairs without any adverse criticism. If I could not say something favorable of my own State, I have been silent, but when there is continual misrepresentation as to the attitude of the Federal Parliament, I think it is my duty to say a few words to remove any misapprehension that may exist in the minds of the people so that truth may prevail.
A few weeks ago Senator Lynch provided the Senate with an opportunity to discuss the important question of the delimiting taxation as between the Federal and State authorities. His motion had a most sympathetic reception in this Chamber. Those who spoke on the subject recognised that Western Australia was not in a very favorable financial position, due principally to the fact that for a considerable time past the gold-mining industry there has been on the down grade. Unfortunately, that is largely accountable for the financial troubles of the western State at the present time. It is a natural consequence of continued gold-mining operations in all countries of the world, because gold is a diminishing quantity.
Senator Bakhap:
– It is a wasting asset.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– The honorable senator is quite Tight. Unfortunately, Western Australia is suffering severely in this respect. But, of course, there are other factors. Apart from the fact that Western Australia has been dependent, very largely, upon the success of goldmining operations, the State Government have an enormous territory to administer. Western Australia in area comprises onethird of the entire continent, and with a population of only a little over 300,000, necessarily the cost of administration is a severe strain upon their resources. There is only one way out, in my opinion, and that is for. Western Australia to reduce her dimensions to a reasonable limit. The comparatively empty spaces of the
State ought to be handed over to the Federal Parliament “and administered at the expense of the entire Commonwealth.
Senator Foll:
– The Federal Government have been bitten once over the Northern Territory.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Bitten or not, it is the duty of the Federal Government to undertake this responsibility. Under Federation, we claim to be Australians - not Western Australians or South Australians, or the citizens of any particular State - and, therefore, >£f, by reason of its area, the cost of administration in any State is beyond the taxing capacity of its people to bear, the load should be transferred to the Commonwealth.
Senator Duncan:
– Western Australia has had a fair cut from the Commonwealth already.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I think I shall be able to show the honorable senator that the Commonwealth has not suffered in any way in respect of my State. If we recognise this outstanding fact as being responsible, in part, at all events, for the present position of Western Aus tralia, it will be admitted that, unless that State is prepared to cut down its area and throw on the shoulders of the Federal Government the responsibility of holding the ‘ greater portion of the western seaboard, her position will be very serious indeed. The word “ secession “ is an ugly one to any person who has regard for the national aspirations of the Commonwealth, and there never was a time when the national spirit was so strongly, in evidence’ as during and since the war. Australia occupies a prominent position ‘as a nation, and, to my mind, it is unthinkable that any portion of the Commonwealth should think of cutting adrift.
Senator Foll:
– Are they seriously talking of secession, or is that sentiment only shared by one or two people!
Senator DE LARGIE:
– It is certainly talked of by certain people, who have convinced quite a number of others, who do not realize that it would mean either insolvency or repudiation to Western Australia. Recently, in conversation with some citizens of my State, I learned that there is a general complaint that, so far as reports of the Federal Parliament are concerned, the people only get ‘ one side. They see practically nothing in the press of what is being done in this Parliament, although, there may be column after column published of the most trivial debates in the State Parliament. Sometimes one would almost require a microscope to find any news concerning doings in the Federal Parliament. In this respect, the people are being carried away by misrepresentations, and, therefore, it is the duty of Federal members to place on record the other side of the question. I intend this evening to quote some statistics which have been compiled for me by the Commonwealth Statistician’s Office and other Federal Departments, and, therefore, anything that I may have to say will have official backing and should carry some weight. One of the principal complaints in Western Australia, and one of the most frequent arguments used against Federal authorrity, is that the people are taxed to a greater extent than are the people in the other States. The very reverse of that is the truth. I propose to quote figures showing the amount of Customs and Excise taxation paid per capita in each of the States. That is the fairest way to enable us to decide whether taxpayers in Western Australia or Victoria, or any of the other States, are carrying the greater load. The following figures were compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician’s Department, and are based on the Customs and Excise revenue received in each State. The records of Inter-State trade are not available. We know that since the bookkeeping clauses of the Constitution ceased to operate no record has been kept of Inter-State trade, and no doubt if we had the figures of that trade slightly different results would be shown. Both State and Federal authorities agreed that it involved unnecessary expense to continue the record of those figures. I find from the figures supplied to me showing the approximate amount of taxation paid by each taxpayer in each of the States towards the Customs and Excise revenue that the amount paid per capita in New South Wales is far and away the highest, being for last year £7 ls. 8d. The per capita amount paid in Victoria is £6 9s. 2d.; Queensland, £3 9s. 6d., a very substantial drop; South Australia, £5 10s. 3d.; Western Australia, £4 15s. 3d.; Tasmania, £2 2s. lid.; Northern Territory, £1 2s. 4d.
These figures give an average, per capita payment to this form of revenue of £5 17s. 7d., so that Western Australia pays per capita to Customs and Excise revenue 22s. 2d. less than the average for the whole of the States.
Senator Lynch:
– Do the honorable senator’s figures make any allowance for duties collected on goods in one State to be shipped to another?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– The figures are not mine. I have just mentioned that they do not take Inter-State trade into account, but even if they did it is clear that Western Australia pays no more than the average per capita payment to this form of revenue.
The figures concerning income tax and land tax can be more exactly ascertained. Quoting from page 961 of Hansard for this year, I find that Senator E. D. Millen, in reply to a question by Senator Thomas, supplied the following answer: -
The undermentioned figures (except those in regard to Customs duties) have now been furnished by the Commissioner of Taxation, who explains that the statistics kept do not show what portions of the income tax, the war-time profits tax, and ‘ the estate duty assessed in the Central Taxation Office are applicable to each State. The figures regarding income tax and those in the answer to question 2 are therefore approximate only. The Customs figures relate only to the duties collected in each State. The goods are not traced into the States in which they are consumed. Therefore it is not possible to say how much duty is paid by the consumers in any State.
From those figures it will be seen that Western Australia does not now occupy the position, which it once did, as a revenue producer. At one time the State contributed very largely in duties, particularly on stimulants and narcotics, because of the relatively large male population in the early days of the goldfields, and the consequent use of those commodities to a great extent. Those days have passed away, and Western Australia ‘is no longer paying the enormous sum in the case of- Customs and Excise duties that at one time was received from that State. Strange to say, whenever those advocating the secession of Western Australia refer to the revenue, they always quote what the State paid before Federation, as if it was still, in the heyday of its prosperity, and still contributing the percentage per capita of revenue which it paid during the boom of tho goldfields days. It will appear to any reason-able person that to hark back to times past for such figures is a very childish way in which to support a case.
Senator Bakhap:
– Does not the honorable senator think that if all incomes from mining were relieved from taxation that would greatly promote the mining industry in Australia?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– It would, just as relieving from taxation incomes from other industries would greatly encourage them. Gold-mining in particular has had to contribute high -duties on the stores and various articles used in carrying om the industry.
Senator Keating:
– It is said that there is more money put into mining than is taken out of it.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– That may be so. We have often heard it said that it cost ever so much more to get ah ounce of gold out of the earth than its value in the markets of the world, but there is no reliable data on the subject, and such estimates are very much guesswork. I asked for some figures showing Western Australia’s position in connexion with the expenditure of the Commonwealth, and I was supplied with the following information : -
If Western Australia effected secession from the Commonwealth, the State’s position, as defined by the Department of the Treasury, would be as follows: -
Western Australia’s indebtedness to the Commonwealth (roughly), £23,320.153.
The above total includes £10,603,316 as Western Australia’s share on a population basis of the Commonwealth’s war and other debts
H £323,37 1,360), and the Kalgoorlie-Port
Augusta railway (if Western Australia were charged with half the cost (£3,632,837) ).
Annual charges which Western Australia would have to meet would be as follows: -
Senator Pearce:
– Do those figures include old-age pensions.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– No, old-age pensions figuresare not included, nor are many others.
Senator Pearce:
– They ought to be.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Here is another return I have received from one of the Commonwealth Departments, which is very informative in regard to Western Australia’s connexion with the Commonwealth : -
Henderson Naval Base. - The expenditure on dredging, excavation, and other works at this Base for wages, material, &c., and exclusive of the amount paid in regard to the acquisition of land, but inclusive of plant purchased locally and abroad- £776,000.
Senator Fairbairn:
– Western Australia had a good cut there.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Yes; but not quite so good a cut as Victoria had over the Flinders Naval Ease. Victoria has had her fair share of Commonwealth expenditure. Dealing with further expenditure in Western Australia, I have the following information with regard to the Perth Post Office : -
The new General Post Office building at Perth is designed to accommodate not enly the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, but also branches of other Commonwealth Departments operating in Western Australia.
The amount already expended on the construction of this building (exclusive of cost of acquisition of site) is £220,000, and there will be further approximate expenditure of £50,000,
There has been considerable expenditure in other directions, such as the acquisition of sites (inclusive of the land required for the Henderson Naval Base and the General Post Office, Perth), £420,000; Fremantle Military Barracks, £36,000; Quarantine Stations, Albany and Fremantle, £25,000 ; Military Hospitals, Fremantle, £16,000: buildings, &c., for Department of Repatriation, £67,000. The expenditure on works, buildings, &c., generally (exclusive of the foregoing), such as post-offices, drill halls, rifle ranges, &c., and general repairs and furniture, amounted to £762,500. The amount contributed by the Commonwealth to Western Australia per capita of the State’s population, was £13 4s.11d., which is above the average of the various States.
Now I wish to give details of postal expenditure in Western Australia, showing how well that State has been treated. It benefited throughout the twenty-years’ period, from 1901-2 to 1920-21, according to Treasury figures, as follows: - The excess of revenue oven expenditure for the whole Commonwealth was £3,076,597, or 11a. 2d. per head of the population. Had Western Australia not been part of the Commonwealth it would have had to bear the loss of £6 8s.10d. per head, and the other States would have enjoyed the excess of £1 0s. 3d. per head of population. Instead of this, Western Australia is on the same footing as the other States participating in the excess of £3,076,597, equal to11s. 2d. per head of the population.
The expenditure classified as New Works in the Treasury accounts for the twenty-year period amounted, for the whole of the Commonwealth, to £12,138,562, or £2 4s. per head of the population, and of that amount £1,494,116 was spent in Western Australia, equal to £4 9s. 2d. per head of the population.
The expenditure in other States was £10,644,446, or £21s. 2d. per head of the population. Therefore, Western Australia has escaped the necessity of making good a loss of £2,159,177, made in that State between 1901-2 and 1920-21, in working the Postmaster-General’s Department (exclusive of New Works expenditure). Western Australia has participated on aproratâ basis in the benefits derived from a profit of £5,235,774, made by the rest of Australia in working the Postal Department from 1901-2 to 1920-21.
Over the period under review £1,494,116 (£4 9s. 2d. per head of the population) was spent on New Works votes in Western Australia, whilst the expenditure for the rest of Australia represents £21s. 2d. per head of the population. Had the same amount per head been spent in New Works in Western Australia as was spent in the rest of Australia, the New Works expenditure in the western State would have been £689.898, instead of £1,494,116. To summarize, Western Australia has escaped paying the loss on working the Postal Department in Western Australia of £2,159.177: it has participated pro ratâ with the other States in the profit made in those States, Western Australia’s share being £189,138;and the amount spent on New Works in Western Australia in excess of that spent in the rest of Australia on a population basis, amounts to £804,218, a total of £3,150,533.
The Chief Accountant of the Postal Department has submitted the following statement of the working results in Western Australia as compared with other States, from 1901-02 to 1920-21 (as per Treasury System of Accounts) : -
Prior to 1912-13 the accounts of this Department were not kept on a commercial basis, and the Treasury figures are the only ones available on which to show the benefit the State of Western Australia has derived, as far as the Postmaster-General’s Department is concerned, through federating with the other States. In order to make this comparison, the total expenditure for the period 1901-02 to 1920-21 has been taken, and deduction made for the expenditure which is classified in the Treasury accounts as new works. Comparing the balance of the expenditure with the revenue of the Department gives the following results: -
- In Western Australia this expenditure was £8,565,803, the revenue £6,406,626 - the revenue being short of the expenditure . by £2,159,177, or £6 8s.10d. per head of population. For the other States, the revenue exceeds the expenditure by £5,235,774, or £1 0s. 3d. per head of population, making the result for the whole Commonwealth an excess of revenue over expenditure of £3,076,597, or 11s. 2d. per head of population.
- Had Western Australia not been part of the Commonwealth, it would have had to bear the loss of £6 8s.10d. per head, and the other States would have enjoyed the excess of £1 0s. 3d. per head of population. Instead of this, now Western Australia is on the same footing as the other States, participating in the excess of £3,076,597, equal to11s. 2d. per head of population.
- The expenditure classified as new works in the Treasury accounts for the same period for the whole Commonwealth was £12,138,562, or £2 4s. per head of population; of this £1,494,116was spent in Western Australia, equal to £4 9s. 2d. per head of population. The expenditure in the other States was £10,044,446, or £2 ls. 2d. per head of population.
-
Summarized, the position is as follows: -
- Western Australia has escaped the necessity of making good a loss of £2,159,177 made in Western Australia between 1901-02 and 1920-21 in working the Postal Department (exclusive of new works’ expenditure) ;
- Western Australia has participated on a pro ratâ basis in the benefits derived from a profit of £5,235,774 made by the rest of Australia in working the Postal Department from 1901-02 to 1920-21.
- Between 1901-02 and 1920-21 an amount of £1,494,116, representing £4 9s. 2d. per head of population, was spent under new works’ votes in Western Australia, whilst in the rest of Australia the amount spent on new works’ votes represents £2 1s. 2d. per head of population. Had the same amount per head been spent on new works in Western Australia as was spent in the rest of Australia, the new works’ expenditure in Western Australia from 1901-02 to 1920-21 would have been £689,893 instead of £1,494,116.
- Therefore, between 1901-02 and 1920- 21 Western Australia has benefited as follows: - Escaped paying loss on working in Western Australia of i2,159,177; participated pro rati with other States in profit made in those States, 1901-02 to 1920-21. Western Australia’s share being £187,138; .amount spent on new works in Western Australia, 1901-02 to 1920-21, in excess of that spent in the rest of Australia on a population -basis, £804,218. Total, £3,150,533.
Senator Pearce:
– There is also the ex- penditure on aerial services.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– No doubt the Minister could add considerably to the figures I have quoted, because there are quite a number of items that I have not referred to at all. Western Australia has nothing to complain of, so far as Federal expenditure is concerned. It has certainly had a fair deal from this Government and this Parliament, and there is no occasion for .people in the western State to talk of secession. The drawbacks from which Western Australia is suffering are in no sense attributable to Commonwealth legislation. This Parlia-ment has no power to restore the enormous output of gold that Western Australia h,as known in the past.
Senator Bakhap:
– There is plenty of gold in the West yet.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I dare say there is ; but it has to be found, and as an old miner, the honorable senator knows what that means; but w.e must not lose sight of the fact that the western State is on the downward grade so far as gold production is concerned. Various works, buildings, and railways that once produced profit and paid for losses elsewhere, are now lying idle, and represent so mush wasted capital, but we in the Federal arena are not to blame for that so much, perhaps, as is the State Parliament. We never hear any complaints, however, against the State Parliament. The figures I have quoted show that the Commonwealth Parliament has treated the western State fairly, and even generously.
A word of wholesome criticism would do no harm to those who advocate secession. Prior to the acocmplishment of Federation there were fears expressed that the powers of the State Parliaments would be so diminished that they would not be of more importance than those of glorified municipal councils, but in, the matter of economy the States ought to see if their own Houses are in order before they find fault with the Federal authorities. About the first thing done in Western Australia on the establishment of Federation was the building of a new Parliament House, much more luxurious and expensive than the Federal authorities have ever attempted. When I enter the Parliament House in the Western State, and note the grand scale on which the building has been constructed and equipped, I feel that I belong to a very simple and modest Parliament indeed. There is certainly an opportunity for the practice of economy in that direction, and it is a matter that rests with the State authorities. It is said that when a. community wants a holiday it at once institutes a. race meeting, and it may also be said that when the Parliament in Western Australia wishes to kill time and spend money, it appoints a Royal Commission. Commissions have been set to work there on a multitude of subjects, and they seem to be getting in one another’s way. There is now a Commission ‘on the question of secession, and the evidence adduced so far is certainly not edifying. Such men as our .past Federal Treasurers, Lord Forrest, Sir William Lyne, and Sir George Turner, have been held up to ridicule. Those men have been depicted as robbers, who inflicted one injustice after another upon the State of Western Australia. We must recognise the absurdity of statements of that nature. At the gathering in Perth we had’ the Gilbertian spectacle of a one-time advocate of secession - of Albany in the south withdrawn from the State of Western Australia - giving evidence of this kind; and presiding over the gathering, was a gentleman who is an advocate of secession of Carnarvon in the north. If the Commonwealth ever had an economical Treasurer it was the late Sir George Turner. As to the late Lord Forrest, no man had a better record of service to his own State. He certainly looked after Western Australia when he was Treasurer. I have quoted sufficient from authoritative sources to show that Western Australia has been treated even generously, and if that State has anything of which to complain, this Parliament cannot be held responsible.
Debate (on motion by Senator Fairbairn) adjourned.
page 3431
BANKRUPTCY BILL
Second Reading
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That this Bill be now read a second time.
It may be a somewhat singular action to move in this direction, but as this measure is of great importance to the commercial community, it is advisable that the Bill should not only be circulated, but that some explanation of its provisions should be given, so that those who are particularly interested will have an opportunity of reviewing it, and will be prepared to make any representations they may wish, when the new Parliament will be able to proceed to pass it with as little delay as possible.
This is the second time this Bill has been introduced in this Chamber, and the third time it has been before the Federal Parliament. It was first introduced in 1912, by Mr. Hughes, then AttorneyGeneral, but was only read a first time. It made its second appearanoe in 1914, when it was submitted by Senator Gardiner, and when it reached Committee, and was considered as far as clause 179. Since then it has undergone some change, but except in a few instances which I will deal with specifically later, not of a substantial nature. I propose, however, to discuss at this stage the main features of the Bill, and the desirableness of placing this measure on the statute-book. The power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on the subject-matter of the present Bill is contained in section 51 (xvii) which gives this Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency.
At the present time bankruptcy and insolvency are under State control. Each State has its own laws, ‘ which correspond in principle, more or less, with those of the others. Some, however, give greater facilities than others in the settlement of debts, without recourse to bankruptcy. For example, Victoria is the only State which has made provision on the lines of the English Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914. New South Wales has now provision forcompositions or schemes without bankruptcy. It is considered that in order to make any sys tem of bankruptcy law complete, it should include provisions for all those matters, and the present measure accordingly contains appropriate provisions. Again, in the case of bankruptcy under State law, theinvesting in trustees, &c., of property of the bankrupt in another State is attended with great inconvenience. The bankrupt is now required to execute all the necessary conveyances, transfers, &c., but under a Federal law all property of a bankrupt in the Commonwealth may Be vested in the Official Receiver or trustee by virtue of the sequestration order or the appointment of the trustee, as the case may be, and no other legal formalities are required. Again, the effect of a Federal bankruptcy law will be to obviate the necessity for considering the question of domicile in the respective States. All that will be necessary under the Bill isproof of Australian domicile or certain specified residence.
The scheme of the Bill follows closely the lines of the English Bankruptcy Act 1914, and the English Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914. Under the Bill, howover, no receiving order is made as a preliminary to bankruptcy. The course of proceedingsunder the Bill is, briefly, as follows: -
- Commission of act of bankruptcy by debtor.
- Presentation of bankruptcy petition by debtor or creditor.
- Sequestration order made bv the Court and property of bankrupt vests in Official Receiver named in the order.
- Composition or scheme of arrangement may be agreed to, after sequestration, and if Court approves of composition or scheme it may annul sequestration order.
- If no composition or scheme of arrangement agreed to, creditors may appoint trustee of estate in whom property of bankrupt will then vest.
- Trustee will realize and distribute estate in pursuance of the provisions of the Bill.
- Discharge of bankrupt in accordance with provisions of the Bill.
In addition to compositions and schemes of arrangement after sequestration, provision is also made for compositions and schemes of arrangement without bankruptcy. These provisions follow closely the provisions of the South Australian Insolvent Act 1886 and the West- - eni Australian Bankruptcy Act 1898. Provision is also included for the making of Deeds of Arrangement. The English and Victorian laws have been followed in this respect.
It is not proposed at this stage to make a detailed comparison of the provisions of the Bill with those of the English and State Acts. If necessary any. points of difference in any particular matter can be explained when the Bill* is in Committee. I mav, however, state that a concise comparative statement of the leading features of the English and State Acts, and also a table showing where similar provisions to those in the Bill may be found in the English and State Acts, have been prepared by direction of the AttorneyGeneral and will be circulated among members. An important departure has been made in this Bill from the Bill introduced in 1914. In the 1914 Bill the clause relating to the avoidance of preferences followed the English provision, and in fact the provision of all the States except New South Wales. That provision was briefly to the effect that certain transfers, payments, &c, in favour of any creditor, with a view of giving that creditor a preference, should be void. The New South Wales provision is that the transfer,. &c, is void if it has the effect of giving a preference to a creditor. In the former case it would be necessary to prove the intention of the bankrupt, often a difficult matter and involving much time and expense; whereas in the latter case it is comparatively simple to prove that a creditor has, in fact, been preferred.
The provisions of the Federal law will apply to all debtors, including married women, foreigners, and persons having privilege of Parliament, and will, as regards priorities of debt’s, &c, bind the Crown. The Bill will not, however, apply to corporations, partnerships, associations, or societies registered under any Act of the Commonwealth, or a State which provides for the winding-up thereof.
The administration of the Federal law will be in the hands of the AttorneyGeneral, who will have power to delegate his powers under the Bill.
The permanent officials for the purposes of the Bill will be an Inspector- General in Bankruptcy, and such Registrars,” Deputy Registrars, Official Receivers, and other officers as are necessary. For the purposes of the Bill the Commonwealth may be divided into districts (not necessarily corresponding to the States and Territories). There is to be a Registrar for each district, and such Deputy Registrars as are necessary. The Official Receivers will be the officers who will have, subject to the provisions of the Bill, control of the estates of bankrupts. One Official Receiver will, of course, deal with several estates.
The Courts on which bankruptcy jurisdiction will be conferred are such Federal Courts as Parliament creates for the purpose and such State Courts or Courts of a Territory as are specially authorized to ‘ exercise that jurisdiction. No new Courts are created by the Bill.
The Courts invested with bankruptcy jurisdiction under the Bill will have that jurisdiction throughout the Commonwealth or any specified district, and proceedings may be transferred from Court to Court or from place to- place. Any question of law arising in any bankruptcy proceedings may be referred to the High Court for its opinion. With the exception, of certain specified matters, the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy Judge may be exercised in chambers.
A Registrar will have power to make interim orders in any case of emergency, and in addition will have power to exercise certain jurisdiction in chambers and such powers as the Court delegates to him.
A Bankruptcy Court will be able to review, rescind, or vary its orders, and mi appeal will lie from the Court to the High Court.
Every Court having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Bill is to have a seal, and judicial notice is to be taken thereof after signature of the Judge or Registrar of the Court.
Where a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy there are three courses open under the Bill -
- Bankruptcy petition.
- Proposal for a composition or scheme of arrangement without sequestration.
- Execution of a deed of arrangement for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors.
The principal course to which most of the provisions of the Bill relate is petition for the sequestration of the debtor’s estate either by the debtor himself or by a creditor.
A petition may be presented by the debtor himself, and shall allege that the debtor is unable to pay his debts. The presentation will be deemed an act of bankruptcy, and a sequestration order will be made forthwith. Acts of bankruptcy are defined in clause 50, and are of the same character as those mentioned in the English Bankruptcy Act and State Acts.
A creditor will only be entitled to present a petition if -
- the debt owing to him amounts to £50;
- the debt is a liquidated sum;
- the act of bankruptcy on which the petition is based occurred within six months before the presentation of the petition; and
- the debtor is domiciled in Australia, or has resided or carried on business in Australia during certain specified periods. (See clauses 53 (1) (d)).
Two or more creditors may join in a petition where the aggregate of the debts owing to them is at least £50. A secured creditor, if he wishes to petition, must give up his security, or give an estimate of his security, when he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor for the balance.
A creditor of a partnership may present a petition against the partnership if he is entitled to present a petition against any one of the members of the partnership. A majority of the members of a partnership resident in the Commonwealth may present a petition against the partnership. A creditor who may present a petition against all the partners of a firm may present a petition against any one of them. Proceedings under a sequestration order obtained on a petition by or against partners may be consolidated. Provision is also made for the consolida tion of proceedings on other petitions. Where a sequestration order is made against a member of a partnership the Court may authorize the trustee of the estate to commence and prosecute any action in the name of the trustee and the bankrupt’s partner. Partners may take proceedings or be (proceeded against under the Bill in the name of the firm.
If a debtor dies after presentation of a petition, proceedings shall be continued as if he were alive. The Court may stay proceedings under a petition, and, when there are more respondents than one, may dismiss the petition against any one of them without prejudice to the effect of the petition as to the others. Where the bankrupt is a contractor jointly with other persons, those other persons may be sued without the joinder of the bankrupt. In proceedings under the Bill a corporation may be represented by an authorized officer, a firm by any member thereof, and a lunatic by his committee or curator bonis. A petition may not be withdrawn without leave of the Court.
A creditor’s petition must be verified by affidavit, and must be served in the prescribed manner. The Court, if satisfied with the proof of the debt of the creditor, and the service of the petition, and of the act of bankruptcy, may make a sequestration order, and the debtor then becomes bankrupt. If the Court is not so satisfied, or is satisfied that the debtor can pay his debt’s, orthat an order should not be made, it may dismiss the petition. Where the debtor denies that he is indebted to the petitioner to such an amount as would justify the petitioner in presenting a petition against him the Court may stay proceedings on the petition, but may for just cause make a sequestration order on the petition of some other creditor. On the presentation of a petition the estate of the debtor will be immediately placed in the hands of an official receiver, who is required -
-
as regards the debtor -
- to investigate the conduct, property, &c., of the debtor, the actual cause of bankruptcy, the amount of his assets and liabilities, and the books and accounts kept by him; and
- to report to the Court within thirty days after the presentation of the petition the result of his investigations and what action in his opinion should be taken by the Court; and
- to make such other investigations and reports concerning the debtor’s conduct and the causes of his bankruptcy as are prescribed or as the Courtdirects ; and
- to take part in the bankrupt’s public examination ; and
- to take part in the prosecution of a bankrupt for an offence against the provisions of the Bill; and
-
as regards the estate of the debtor -
- pending the appointment of a trustee, to act as trustee;
- to summon, and preside at, the first meeting of creditors; and
- to advertise the sequestration order and such other matters as are necessary.
Upon sequestration the property of the debtor will vest in the official receiver named in the order, and be divisible among the creditors of the bankrupt in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. No creditor, other than a secured creditor, can then without leave of the Court commence or continue any legal proceedings in respect of debts owing to him. In the event of a subsequent petition being presented against an undischarged bankrupt the trustee in the prior bankruptcy will hold the property of the bankrupt acquired since he became bankrupt until the subsequent petition is disposed of, and will then transfer it to the trustee in the subsequent bankruptcy.
The Official Receiver may, on the application of any creditor, and if satisfied that the nature of the bankrupt’s estate, &c., requires it, appoint a special manager of the estate to act until a trustee is appointed, or so long as the creditors require, or as is prescribed. The special manager will receive such remuneration as the creditors determine, or as is prescribed.
Every sequestration order must be advertised in the prescribed manner, and notice thereof must be lodged in the office of the Registrar of Titles in each State.
Within the prescribed time after the making of the sequestration order, the bankrupt must file a statement of his affairs, showing -
- particulars of his assets, debts, and liabilities;
- names, &c., of his creditors;
- securities held by his creditors; and
- such other information as is prescribed or the Official Receiver requires.
If the Official Receiver thinks it necessary he may appoint some person to assist the bankrupt in preparing his statement of affairs.
The first general meeting of the bankrupt’s creditors will be held within fourteen days after sequestration. At that meeting the creditors will -
- consider generally as to the mode of dealing with the bankrupt’s property as provided in clause 65;
- probably appoint the OfficialReceiver or some other qualified person to be the trustee of the estate; and
- probably (if at all) appoint a committee of inspection for the purpose of superintending the administration of the estate.
As regards trustees in bankruptcy, the Bill contains suitable provision as to their appointment, remuneration, functions and release.
It may happen that the bankrupt, after the making of the sequestration order, may be able to make some proposal to his creditors for the purpose of satisfying his liabilities. He may do this by making to the trustee a proposal for -
- a composition in satisfaction of his debts ; or
- a scheme of arrangement of his affairs.
The trustee will then summon a meeting of creditors, and, if the creditors accept the proposal, the bankrupt or the trustee may then apply for the approval of the Court. The Court, before giving its approval, may require the bankrupt to be publicly examined, and, in any case, must hear a report of the trustee as to its terms, and as to the conduct of the bankruptand any objections made by or on behalf of any creditor.
If the Court is of opinion that the terms of the proposal are unreasonable, or unlikely to benefit the creditors generally, it must refuse approval, and if it is of opinion that an offence against the Bill has been committed by the bankrupt, it may refuse approval. The Court will have power to annul the composition or scheme if default is made in any payment under the composition or scheme, or if it appears to the Court that the composition or scheme cannot proceed without injustice to the creditors or the bankrupt, or that the approval of the Court was obtained by fraud. If the Court approves the composition or scheme it will have power to annul the sequestration order and vest the property in the bankrupt or some other person. The acceptance of a composition or scheme will not release any person who would not be released by an order of discharge. The provisions of the Bill as to compositions and schemes after sequestration follow the provisions of the English Act and the New South Wales, South Australian and Western Australian Acts on the same subject, and those of the Victorian Act relating to compositions and schemes without insolvency.
The provisions as to the public examination of the bankrupt are not now compulsory. The Court has a discretion which is intended to be exercised only where it is absolutely necessary in order to ascertain in full particulars of the conduct, trade, dealings, property and affairs of the bankrupt. Thus, in many cases, where the whole of these matters are clearly ascertained by the official receiver in the course of his investigations, a public examination will be unnecessary.
Further, the bankrupt is expressly charged with the duty of assisting in the administration of his estate. He must attend the first meeting of creditors and give such information as the meeting requires; deliver to the official receiver all books,&c., relating to his estate; and do such other things as are required, as. provided in clause 74.
One of the acts of bankruptcy provided by theBill is failure by the debtor to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice under the Bill. Any person who has obtained final judgment against the debtor may serve a bankruptcy notice on the debtor. The notice must be in the prescribed form-, and may be served on a married woman, even though no execution can issue at law on the judgment.
If after a bankruptcy notice is served on a debtor the Court is of opinion that the debtor has absconded, or is about to abscond with a view to avoiding payment of the debt or avoiding bankruptcy proceedings, &c. , the Court may order his” arrest. The debtor may also be arrested if, after presentation of a petition, it appears that he is about to remove, conceal, or destroy any goods to prevent thetrustee obtaining possession df them, or any books or documents which may be of use to his creditors ; also if he fails, without good cause, to attend any examination, ordered by the Court.
In addition to the examinations provided by clauses 66 and 67, the trustee or any creditor who has proved may at any time apply to the Court for the examination of the bankrupt or his wife, and any person known or suspected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belonging to the bankrupt.
Clause 79 (1) says-
All debts and liabilities, present or future, certain or contingent, to which the bankrupt is subject at the date of the sequestration order, or to which he may become subject before his discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the date of the sequestration order, shall be deemed to be debts provablein bankruptcy.
If the Court finds that the value of a. debt cannot be fairly estimated it shall not be provable. Provision is made for accounting when there have been mutual credits, debts, and dealings between thebankrupt and other persons.
An attempt has been made to collect together in the Bill all provisions as to priorities. Clause 82 shows the actual: order of distribution of the estate, and contains references to the clauses in which provision is made for special charges or postponement of payment. In the English and State Acts the payment of wages has early priority. This is the case under the Bill, but a new exception is included as regards members of the bankrupt’s family. The provisions as to priorities also apply in the case of compositions and schemes after or without sequestration, and in the case of deeds of arrangement. Special provision has been inserted in clause 120 by which the Court may, where the liabilities do not exceed £300, order a larger rate of dividend to be paid to certain creditors, for example, the butcher, baker, &c.
The principle of relation back, which was not contained in the 1914 Bill, has been included in this Bill. This principle is common to most systems of bankruptcy law. Under the Bill the bankruptcy will relate back to the first of the Acts of bankruptcy within three months next preceding the presentation of the bankruptcy petition.
The English Act has been followed as regards the property of the bankrupt which is divisible among his creditors. As regards property not divisible several matters have, however, been added. These include certain policies of life assurance and for annuities and endowment, goods hired under a contract of letting and hiring, and chattels, &c. , in respect of which bills of sale, stock mortgages, and liens on crops and wool have been registered.
Goods against which execution has been levied or which have been attached remain, subject to the Bill, part of the property of the bankrupt divisible among his creditors, unless the execution or attachment is completed before presentation of a petition.
The usual provisions are made for the avoidance of settlements made by a bankrupt within certain specified periods before bankruptcy. Any settlement, not being in consideration of marriage, or bond fids for value, or a settlement made on the wife and children of the bankrupt, of property which has accrued to the settlor in right of” his wife after marriage, shall., as against the trustee in bankruptcy, be absolutely void if the settlor becomes bankrupt within two years, and voidable if he becomes bankrupt within five years.
Any covenant or contract made in consideration of marriage, for the future payment of any money, or for the future settlement of any property, to or on the wife or children of the settlor, in which money or property the settlor at the date of the marriage had no interest, shall bo void if not executed at the date of bankruptcy. The persons entitled under the settlement may, however, be entitled to claim a dividend out of the estate after all other claims are satisfied. Further, all payments of money or transfers of money made in pursuance of any such contrast or covenant shall be void unless made under certain specified circumstances.
Every conveyance, &c, of property, every payment made, every obligation incurred, and every judicial proceeding taken Or suffered by any person unable to pay his debts as they became due, in favour of any creditor, having the effect of giving that creditor a preference over other creditors, shall be deemed fraudulent, and be void as against the trustee in bankruptcy. The terms of the New South
Wales Act have been followed in this provision in preference to those of the Acts of the other States and of England. This phrasing is considered preferable, as it will obviate the necessity for proving intention to prefer.
Certain bona fide dealings with the bankrupt before sequestration are, however, protected, provided they took place without the other party knowing of any available act of bankruptcy.
Upon the appointment of a trustee, all the property of the bankrupt vests in him, and the trustee is required to take possession of all property capable of manual delivery, such as books, documents, &c. As regards property of the bankrupt vested in him, the” trustee has all such powers in relation to that property as the bankrupt would have had but for his bankruptcy.
Upon a new trustee being appointed, the property will pass from the old trustee to the new trustee. Further, more than one trustee may be appointed, and they will then hold jointly, but, if the creditors so direct, may exercise their functions separately. The trustee will have power, subject to certain specified limitations, to disclaim any onerous property.
Generally the trustee has very wide powers of dealing with the property of the bankrupt. He may, amongst other things, for example, sell any of the property by public auction or by public tender, transfer any stock, shares in ships, &c, in the same manner as the bankrupt could before bankruptcy; compromise any debt not exceeding £100; and generally use his own discretion in the management of his estate and its distribution. In addition, he may, amongst other things, with the permission of the creditors or the committee of inspection, or by leave of the . Court, sell by private contract all or any of the property of the bankrupt, bring or defend actions relative to the property of the bankrupt, mortgage any part of the property of the bankrupt, and make an allowance out of the estate for the support of the bankrupt’s family.
Having realized any property of the bankrupt, the trustee must then, with all convenient speed, proceed to distribute it in the manner provided by the Bill, The first dividend will ordinarily be distributed within four months after the first meeting of creditors, and subsequent dividends af intervals of not more than six months. When all, or as much as possible, of the property of the bankrupt is realized, the final dividend will be declared. The bankrupt is entitled to the surplus after all the creditors have been paid in full.
A bankrupt “may,” within the prescribed time, and “ shall,” when ordered by the Court, apply for his discharge. The Court may -
- grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge;
- suspend the operation of the order for a specified time; or (c) grant an order subject to any conditions with respect to any earnings or income which may afterwards become due to the bankrupt, or with respect to his afteracquired property.
On proof of certain facts - such as failure by the bankrupt to keep such books of account as are usual in the business carried on by him - that the bankrupt has contributed to the bankruptcy by an unjustifiable extravagance, or that he has been guilty of fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, the Court “shall” either-
- refuse the discharge; or
- suspend the discharge for a period of not less than two years; or
- suspend the discharge until a dividend of not less than 10s. in the £1 is paid; or
- require the bankrupt, as a condition of his discharge, to consent to judgment being entered against him by the trustee for any balance, or part of any balance, of the debts provable under the bankruptcy which is not satisfied at the date of the discharge, the balance or part to be paid out of the future earnings or afteracquired property of the bankrupt.
An order of discharge shall not release the bankrupt from -
- any debt on a recognizance or with which the bankrupt is chargeable at the suit of the
Crown for any offence against any Act or State Act relating to, any branch of the public revenue, &c., unless the Treasurer certify his consent to the release; or
- any debt incurred by means of fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which he was a party; or
- any liability under an affiliation order, &c.
Further, an order of discharge will not release any person jointly bound with the bankrupt. Otherwise an order of discharge will release the bankrupt from all debts provable in bankruptcy.
Special provision is made for the modification, by rules or regulations, of the provisions of the Bill in cases where neither the assets nor the liabilities are likely to exceed £20.
A creditor of a deceased debtor may, under the same conditions as hecould present a petition if the debtor were alive, present a petition to the Court for an order for the administration in bankruptcy of a deceased debtor’s estate. Upon the prescribed notice being given to the legal personal representative of the deceased debtor, or, if there is no legal personal representative, to such person as the Court directs, the Court may make the order, or, on cause shown, dismiss the petition.
The provisions relating to ordinary bankruptcies will, with slight modifications, apply to the administration in bankruptcy of estates of deceased persons.
Where a debtor is desirous of making provision for the payment of his debts, and the fulfilment of his liabilities without becoming bankrupt, he may call a meeting of his creditors, and place before them a proposal for a composition in satisfaction of the debts due to them from the debtor, or for a scheme of arrangement of the debtor’s affairs.
The creditors may accept the proposal by extraordinary resolution, but the acceptance will not be binding on them until confirmed by an extraordinary resolution passed at a subsequent meeting, or in such other manner as is prescribed, nor until the lapse of seventeen days from the confirmation, and, in the event of the
Court appointing a day to consider the composition or scheme, it shall not be binding until the Court has approved it. The Court may reject the composition or scheme if it thinks the terms are not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and for other specified reasons.
If default is made in payment of any instalment under the composition or scheme, or if it appears to the Court that, owing to legal difficulties, or for any sufficient cause, the composition or scheme cannot proceed without injustice, &c., to the creditors or debtor, or that the approval of the Court was obtained by fraud, the Court may, on the application of a creditor or debtor, annul the composition or scheme, and may forthwith make a sequestration order in regard to the estate of the debtor.
The order of rejection or annulment will only take effect if a sequestration order is made by the Court on its own motion, or on the motion of the debtor, or a creditor, within seven days of the order of rejection or annulment.
The creditors may, at a meeting called to consider a proposal for a composition or scheme, resolve that the debtor execute a deed of assignment to a trustee named in the resolution. A certificate of the resolution, signed by the chairman, must be filed in the Court. The chairman signing the certificate will have power to grant a warrant for the seizure of the personal estate of the debtor, and within seven days after the passing of the resolution, the debtor must convey and assign his real and personal estate by deed for the benefit of his creditors to the trustee named in the deed. The deed must he executed by the trustee within seven days after the execution by the debtor, and must be assented to by three-fourths in value and one-half in number of the creditors. Every deed, until set aside, will release the debtor from all provable debts, and vest in the trustee all the property of the debtor except certain specified necessaries.
From and after the execution of the deed by the debtor and the trustee, all parties to the deed, and all persons bound thereby, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and have the benefit of, and beliable to, all the provisions of the Bill as if a sequestration order had been made against the debtor. The trustee of the deed will have the same powers, rights, and remedies with respect to the debtor and the property as a trustee in bankruptcy or creditors of a bankrupt have with respect to a bankrupt and his property. In addition the trustee will have certain specified powers and functions.
The Court may at any time before the final winding up of the estate declare the deed to be void on the ground that it does not comply with the provisions of the Bill, or on the ground of fraud, &c., and may make a sequestration order against the debtor.
Senator MacDonald:
– I call attention to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.]
Senator PEARCE:
– The order of avoidance will only take effect if a sequestration order is made. When a deed is declared void, all acts done bona fide by the trustee before notice of avoidance shall be valid. The trustee of the deed is to be remunerated as the Court decides, or as is fixed by the deed. Dividends under the deed will only be paid to creditors who assent to the deed in writing. The provisions as to compositions and schemes and deeds of assignment follow generally the provisions in the South Australian and West Australian Acts.
The provisions of the Bill as to deeds of arrangement do not apply to compositions or schemes, after or without sequestration, under other provisions of the Bill, but they do apply to the following instruments made, for the benefit of creditors generally, or, where the debtor was insolvent at the time of the execution of the instrument, for the benefit of three or more creditors, namely: -
- on assignment of property;
- a deed of or agreement for a composition ;
-
where creditors obtain control over a debtor’s property or business -
- a deed of inspectorship for carrying on or winding up a business;
- a letter of licence authorizing the debtor or other person to manage, &c, a business with a view to payment of debts; and
- an agreement or instrument for any purpose mentioned in (i) or (ii).
A deed of arrangement will be absolutely inoperative and invalid unless it is registered within ten clear days after its execution by the debtor, or, if executed outside Australia, within ten clear days after the time at which it would, in the ordinary course of post, reach Australia if posted within one week after its execution, and before the date’ of registration or before the expiration of twenty-eight days after the date of execution by the debtor, or such extended time as the Court allows, it receives the assent of a majority in number and value of the creditors.
The provisions of the Bill as to priorities, proof of debts, respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors, examinanation of bankrupt and other persons, control over property and person of debtor, and as to trustees, will apply to deeds of arrangement as if a sequestration order had been made against the debtor. A trustee must give security to administer tho deed properly unless security is dispensed with by the creditors, in which case he must file a statutory declaration to that effect. If a trustee fails to give security, &c, when required, the Court may declare the deed void or appoint another trustee in his place. - The provisions as to deeds, of arrangement are based on the provision of the English Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 and the Victorian Insolvency Act.
Unclaimed funds or dividends held by any trustee under bankruptcy composition, scheme, or deed of arrangement are to be paid into such account at the Treasury as is prescribed. Any person claiming to be entitled to any such fund or moneys may apply therefor within six years- from its being paid into the account. If not claimed within 1X years the fund or money is to be paid into revenue. The Bill contains the usual provisions as to offences in relation to bankruptcy.
Debate (on motion .by Senator Keating) adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 October 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19221010_senate_8_101/>.