ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

officials. It seems to me that the Commissioner is addicted to the rule which has hitherto been applied very freely in the Civil Service

Unto every one which hath shall be given, and from him that hath not even that he hath shall be taken away.

A man formerly getting £600 or £700 a year gets £800; a man formerly receiving £150 a year has £25 taken off. I do not think that the Parliament of the Commonwealth desires that this sort of and thing should continue; if the Public Service Commissioner continues to act in this manner, I think we shall have to take steps. That is just about the size of it. We will not threaten the Public Service Commissioner, but we desire to tell him very plainly what Parliament desires him to do. I should like to read to honorable senators an extract which appeared in a Brisbane newspaper, and which details the work done by these letter-carriers. They commence duty on English mail mornings at 5.30 a.m. Many of these men live in the suburbs and have to get up at about 4.30 a.m. for breakfast, in time to deal with the 5.30 a.m. mail. There are no trams so early in the morning They are not in a position to take cabs, and very few of them, I suppose, ride in their own carriages

On other mornings they go on duty at any time before, but not later than, 7 a.m. as required. Up till 8 a.m. their time is occupied in sorting mails and arranging correspondence for their deliveries. The first delivery takes from 8 a.m. till 10.30 a.m. till in some cases I p.m. They must breakfast at home, and, as most of them live in the

suburbs, this means at 4.30 a.m., and sometimes no breakfast at all, if they unfortunately sleep too long, as they are liable to fines if not present at roll call. If required, they must be in attendance t sort steamers' mails between deliveries, and also attend in turn at any time from 5 p.m. to 10

p.m.

Here are men who have to be at work at 5.30 in the morning, and are liable to be called on at any time, and yet they are treated in this fashion

They have the usual inside work, and one delivery on all holidays, except Good Friday and Christmas Day. For thirty years they have been paid English mail allowance, to cover all claims for overtime and holidays. This being a fixed amount, was an incentive to diligence and a prewas absent on ventive of loitering. If a man English mail morning he received no allowance for overtime or holidays worked during the week. To deprive the poorest paid of postal employés of the sum of 18 per annum is retrenchment The Commissioner overof a very drastic kind. looks the fact that the conditions of labour in the Queensland Postal Department are not the same as in other States of the Commonwealth. If more

money is paid in Queensland for overtime than in the rest of the States, more is demanded from the employés. It is worthy of note that, even in times of the greatest financial depression and consequent retrenchment in Queensland's Public Service, this allowance was never interfered with. That shows pretty clearly the conditions to which these men are subjected. If the English mail money is not restored some equivalent provision should be made. practical result of the abolition of this allowance has been to reduce the wages of the men from £18 to £26 a year.

The

Senator Lt. Col. NEILD.-It is a very serious reduction in the wages of men receiving small pay.

Senator STEWART.-It is indeed a serious reduction on small salaries. The attention of the Public Service Commissioner ought to be called to it.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD.-And of the Minister.

Senator STEWART.-And of the Mini

ster, certainly. There were a number of other matters to which I intended to allude, but I will keep them for another occasion.

Senator Lt. Col. NEILD (New South Wales). I wish to mention one matter while the Post and Telegraph Department is under discussion. I urge as strongly as I can that if it is not possible to make fortnightly payments of salary throughout the Commonwealth service, at least it should be granted in the Post and Telegraph DePartment.

I have recently had opportunities to get some knowledge on the subject, and I know that it would be very much in the interest of the service, and of the persons employed. Therefore, I take the opportunity to urge upon the Government an early consideration of the matter, in the hope that they will give effect to the wishes that I have expressed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia Attorney-General).--I shall take an early opportunity to communicate to the proper quarters the observations which have just been made by my honorable friend, Senator Neild, and also the other matters to which attention has been directed by Senator Givens and Senator Stewart. Senator Stewart has referred to the general and clerical divisions of the service, and Senator Givens has alluded to the examinations which have taken place in Queensland, involving the passing of fourteen candidates out of twenty-eight, and the absence of notification. He has also referred to the fee of 158. All of these matters are under the control of the Public Service Commissioner, and having listened to the forcible

remarks of honorable senators, I will take care that due attention is paid to them. But I would point out that the great object in appointing the Public Service Commissioner, and setting up the present system, was to keep all matters of detail affecting the service under the control of the Commissioner, and not unnecessarily to interfere. But my honorable friends have pointed out matters which they urge are grievances requiring attention, and, as I have said, I will take care that they are communicated to the proper quarter. With regard to the much larger question, in one aspect, referred to by Senator Smith and Senator Higgs, I will only say that there can be no doubt whatever that those honorable senators have studied it carefully. They will recognise that the moment competition on the part of the Pacific Cable was threatened, there was a reduction in the rates charged by the Eastern Extension Company.

Senator STANI FORTH SMITH.-It was a case of "Don't shoot, colonel, I'll come down."

I am

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-Nothing could more effectually prove the great public benefits that accrue from competition, which is the life of trade. The subject has been discussed at length, greatly to the instruction of the Senate. sure that what has been said by my honorable friends will be of advantage, and I thank Senator Higgs especially for his remark that the test is as to what is best for Australia, for 'Australian trade, and for the Australian community.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time, and passed through its remaining stages.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia-Attorney-General).—I moveThat the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 12th October.

I have made all the inquiries possible, with a view to meet the convenience of honorable senators, so as not to call them together when there will be no business to transact. The debate which is now proceeding in another place, involving the fate of the Government, is not likely to close this week, and possibly may continue to an uncertain time next week.

Senator GIVENS.-Can the honorable and learned senator tell us how it is likely to end?

Senator GUTHRIE.-There can only be one ending.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-I think also that there can only be one ending, but that which some honorable senators have in their minds may be remote.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).-I shall oppose the adjournment of the Senate for so long a period. I fail to see why we should adjourn for a fortnight, considering that there is any amount of business to proceed with. It does not matter whether the existence of the present Government is about to end or not, the people of Australia have their requirements which need to be attended to.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-If the Senate will pass a vote of confidence in the Government we will go on with business.

Senator GIVENS.-We, in the Senate, are much more likely to pass a vote of noconfidence in the Government. I have had a motion on the paper for a considerable time. It concerns a matter of great consequence to the whole Commonwealth. At the suggestion of the Attorney-General I postponed it when it first appeared on the paper. But honorable senators must be aware that if one does not take advantage of the date when one's motion has precedence it is quite possible that that motion may never be reached. I find that my motion is set down for the 6th of October, that is, to-morrow week. It has precedence on that day. If, however, the present motion of the Attorney-General is passed, and the Senate adjourns for a fortnight, I shall lose my opportunity. If the Government do not wish to proceed with their business, why should not private members be allowed to go on with theirs? We are sent here to transact the business of the Commonwealth, and many of us are doing so at considerable personal inconvenience and much financial loss. But when we attend we are asked to adjourn week after week. Cannot the Attorney-General see his way clear, under present circumstances, to move for an adjournment for a week?

Senator CLEMONS.-Does the honorable senator want to bring us all back?

Senator GIVENS.-We are elected to attend here, not to stay away. Senator Clemons would look black if his constituents did not ask him to again represent them. The honorable senator was sent here to do the people's business, to which he is

expected to attend. Some of us live so far away from Victoria that we could not visit our homes, even if we adjourned for a month.

Senator GUTHRIE.-And, therefore, the honorable senator wants to make "the other fellow" attend?

Senator GIVENS.-Does that interjection mean that honorable senators object to come here to do the people's work? If honorable senators cannot find time to attend this Chamber, their constituents should see that they get representatives who can? I take a severe view of the duty of the parliamentary representatives of the people. Senators may say that they are masters of the situation for the period for which they are elected, but unless they attend to the wants of their constituents they ought to be relieved of their parliamentary duties. I intend to carry my protest so far as to call for a division; or, perhaps, the better way would be to move an amendment. I move

That the words "Wednesday, 12th October" be left out, with a view to insert, in lieu thereof, the words "Thursday, 6th October."

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).-I am not satisfied that we are increasing our prestige as a Senate by these frequent adjournments. At the same time, I think that some consideration should be given to those who, if they are brought back next week, will be deprived of a visit to their States, which are a thousand miles nearer Victoria than is Queensland. It occurs to me. however, that inasmuch as the other House has on, at least, two occasions paid no attention whatever to motions of want of confidence carried by the Senate, there is no reason why we should not go on the even tenor of our way, provided the Attorney-General and the Vice-President of the Executive Council are willing to conduct the business.

Senator Lt. Col. NEILD.-But supposing those Ministers absent themselves?

Senator HIGGS.—If Ministers were to treat us with such disrespect, we might carry on the business in their absence. I venture to think, however, that neither the Attorney-General nor the Vice-President of the Executive Council would act in that

war.

We have

which Senator Givens has given notice; indeed, we might even proceed with the consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Let us continue our business until such time as the Government is turned out, when we could adjourn to allow another Government to take office, or an appeal to be made to the electors. I sympathize with those honorable senators who are anxious to do some business. been here for six months, and so far as I can remember, the only Bill we have passed is that dealing with the Federal Capital site. I feel bound to support the amendment of Senator Givens, on the ground that the other House does not pay this Chamber sufficient respect, and further that we should do more for ourselves and the country by ignoring the little squabbles in another place.

Senator STYLES (Victoria). When Senator Givens took a similar stand on another occasion, I supported him; but I am afraid I cannot vote for the amendment he has submitted. On the last occasion notice only of a motion of want of confidence had been given; but now that motion is being discussed, and may terminate at any time. The division may be taken between now and next Wednesday; and as we in this Chamber are unanimously of opinion that the Government will be de

feated

[blocks in formation]

Senator Sir JoSIAH SYMON.-The honorable senator surely does not mean that?

Senator STYLES.--Under the circumstances, I ask Senator Givens not to press his motion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-I ask Senator Givens not to press his amendment for reasons which I shall show in connexion with his own important notice of motion. It was with a view to giving the honorable senator a clear day on which the matter could be debated that the motion was placed on the notice-paper for the 6th October. And the honorable senator must see that it is a proposal, which, although made by a private member, is one on which of the Government-if there be a Government

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-No. Senator HIGGS.-No doubt there is a certain amount of business which we could do while the discussion is going on in another place. We could discuss motions of the character of that

in power, responsible for the business of the country-must express some opinion. No Government who are the subject of a no-confidence motion, which may terminate, as those who moved it seem to hope, though not very sanguinely

Senator STYLES.-Oh, yes!

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-There is a kind of despairing hope that the motion. may eventuate adversely to the Government. Those hopes are not likely to be realized, but there is no objection to their being entertained, and if they are realized by any mischance some other Government will be responsible.

Senator GIVENS.-If the Attorney-General still holds office will he promise to give me a day for this motion?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.-I have just ascertained the position of matters, and I am sure the honorable senator does not impute to me any desire to throw obstacles in the way of his motion. When we meet

on the 12th October, it is hoped there will be a clear field, whatever the eventualities are in respect to the motion of want of confidence. All the motions will be on the business-paper, and, beginning with Thursday, 13th, the business may be arranged for each subsequent Thursday. The honorable senator will, therefore, be in a better position to make sure of the time when the motion will come on than he would be if we met next week, when it would be impossible, at any rate, with a view to pledging the Government to any particular action, to discuss a proposal of the kind. As to Senator Higgs' remarks, I may say I find my position in not being able to carry on the business of the Senate most embarrassing. If honorable senators were to adopt a motion to adjourn until only next week, and agree that that motion should be treated as one of confidence in the Government, and as an inspiration to me, I should favorably consider the propriety of carrying on the business. However, I do not think that that is the intention, and I ask Senator Givens not to press his amendment.

Senator GIVENS.-In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

PAPERS.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON laid upon the table the following papers:

Amendment of regulations, Naval Forces, Statutory Rules, 1904, No. 59.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

That the present Administration does not possess the confidence of this House.

Mr. SPENCE.-I wish to make a personal explanation. When speaking last week I instanced something over seventy services which are nowadays performed collectively, and amongst them I mentioned the care of children, the aged, infirm, and lunatic, and because of an interjection I was led to remark that the State in some cases even took children away from their parents, having in my mind the cases of the neglected children of dissolute, drunken, or incapable parents. The Minister of Trade and Customs yesterday drew the inference from that remark that I advocate the taking of children from their parents, a most unwarrantable and unfair misrepresentation of

the facts. The only comment I made on the subject was that the State of South Australia had been very successful in the care of infants. The Minister's statement was therefore very unfair, especially coming as it did after he had lectured honorable members on the desirability of avoiding misrepresentation of any kind. My remarks were also misrepresented on a second but less important point. In dealing with the question of Socialism, I mentioned the fact that the honorable members for New England and Lang, who support the Government, believed in the single tax, which I regard as a socialistic proposal, and I said that thinkers on the question had stated that if it were carried into effect, the State would have so much money on its hands that it would have to cast about for some means of utilizing it, such as the maintenance of free railways. The Minister of Trade and Customs, however, stated last night that I had advocated the nationalization of land. I have carefully read the report of my speech and I find that I did not make any special reference to land nationalization, and I certainly did not argue the question. In today's Argus, however, the Minister is reported to have said

Mr. Spence the other day pointed out the ad. vantages of land nationalization. There are only two ways in which the State can get possession of the land-buy it or confiscate it. I am sure Mr. Spence would not advocate confiscation.

Mr. REID.-He has several terraces.

I shall be very glad if the right honorable member will tell me where they are, because I do not know. The statement that I discussed land nationalization in my speech is absolutely untrue, and the arguments which follow, and which the Minister of Trade and Customs attributed to me, he should

discuss with the honorable member for Lang at the next caucus meeting of the party, when, I venture to say, he will get rather the worse of the argument. think that it is only right that I should call

I

attention to these inaccuracies before the matter goes further. I am sure that the Minister does not desire that my remarks should be misrepresented by him, particularly after what he said in the early part of his speech; but, on re-reading my own speech, I know that I have been misrepresented.

Mr. MCLEAN.-In fairness to the honorable member, I think it right that I should say that if I have misrepresented him, or inaccurately represented him, I very much regret it. I certainly did so uninten

tionally.

If I misunderstood him, it must have been because, owing to the brevity of his remarks, he failed to make his meaning quite clear.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE (Hume).—It has been stated by Ministers and supporters of the Government that no reasons have yet been alleged why the present Administration should not continue to hold office; but, before I resume my seat, I shall try to give a few such reasons. Some persons may think that they are not very strong ones, but in my opinion they are very strong. I cannot deal with the matter, however, without repeating to some extent the remarks which I made about a fortnight ago, when my speech was abruptly brought to a conclusion by the count-out, though I shall not do that to any greater extent than I feel to be necessary. In the present unique condition of affairs, I think it right that the history of this session should be stated, especially since the Minister of Trade and Customs had the temerity to say last night that the Watson Administration was fairly treated.

Mr. MCLEAN.-I think I said "indulgently treated."

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I think that the

honorable gentleman used both words; but either word would have been incorrect. If honorable members will cast back their minds to the commencement of the session, when the Deakin Government introduced the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, excluding the railway servants from its operation

lic servants. Sir JOHN FORREST.-Excluding all pub

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I hardly think that all public servants were excluded, though I am not sure about that. At any rate, the railway servants were excluded. The members of the Labour Party, however, had gone to the country in favour of the inclusion of the railway servants, and they and some other honorable members were returned to support that provision in the Bill. It was scarcely to be that expected members pledged would turn round upon the promises which they had given to the electors. I know, not only from the statements made by members of the Labour Party and by its leader, but from other statements which I have heard, that it was furthest from the wish or the intention of that party to destroy the Deakin Government. But they would have been recreant to their pledges to the electors regarding the inclusion of

SO

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »