/
19011213_senate_1_7.xml
3036 lines (3036 loc) · 195 KB
/
19011213_senate_1_7.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1901-12-13</date>
<parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>8690</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1901-12-13</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>8690</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MORTALITY OF KANAKAS</title>
<page.no>8690</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8690</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTV</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DAWSON, Anderson</name>
<name role="display">Senator DAWSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the PostmasterGeneral intimate when I am likely to get the return concerning the mortality of the kanaka and white populationin Queensland? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Postmaster-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall furnish the return as soon as I can get the information. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAH</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WALKER, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator WALKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the PostmasterGeneral say when we may expect to get u precis of the correspondence about a site for the federal capital ' Honorable senators will be going away shortly for some weeks, and this paper is looked forward to with great interest in New South Wales. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I believe the return is being prepared, but I am not able to lay it on the table to-day. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>leave of absence</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- With concurrence, I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That leave of absence for six weeks be granted to Senators Cameron, Harney, and Millen, on account of urgent private business. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">While I do not feel sure that the motion is necessary, still there are some doubts whether a difficulty may not arise under section 20 of the Constitution Act. These honorable senators have been absent for a fortnight, and if we should adjourn for six weeks, it may bring them within the operation of that section, which says - </para>
<quote>
<para>The place of <inline font-style="italic">a.</inline> senator shall become vacant if for two consecutive months of any session of the Parliament lie, without the permission of the Senate, fails to attend the Senate. </para>
</quote>
<para>To prevent the possibility of such an unfortunate occurrence, I think it desirable that leave of absence should be granted. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is rather objectionable if it is to be drawn into a precedent to put three names in one motion, but the circumstances of this case are peculiar, and it may be allowed. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>LARCENY OF LETTERS</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask the Postmaster-General if it is true, as stated in the <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane Observer,</inline> of the 7th inst., that about 100 letters, said to contain money, addressed to Brisbane firms, have gone astray in the Postal department, and will he cause a thorough inquiry tobe made into the complaints made by Brisbane firms as to the failure of the Postal department to trace the missing letters 1 </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have no official information on the subject. I shall make inquiries in regard to any complaint which comes before me. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSTAL DEPARTMENT : INCREMENTS</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the PostmasterGeneral, <inline font-style="italic">upon</inline><inline font-style="italic">notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Will he, before the distribution of the amounts to be provided for increases to salaries of certain deserving officers in his department, inform the Senate as to the names, positions, and present salaries of the officers to whom it is proposed to grant such increases, and the amount of such contemplated increase in each case ? . </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- - All the information available will be given to the members of the Senate who may desire it, but I cannot place such information before the Senate, because after the money has been voted it will be necessary to .obtain reports from the chief officers in each State, and probably the approval of the commissioner under the Public Service Act before a final determination as to increases is arrived at. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>DISTRIBUTION OF PAPERS</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K54</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SARGOOD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- According to the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, on the 11th of December, the Minister for Home Affairs laid on the table, by command of the Governor-General, a paper in reference to the Hare system of voting in Tasmania. A similar report has not been laid on the table of the Senate, and I would suggest that if possible it should be circulated during the recess, in view of the notice of motion given by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> on that question. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- The arrangement is that all papers laid on the table of either House shall be sent to every member of the Federal Parliament. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I thank the honorable senator for calling my attention to the matter. I shall endeavour to obtain a copy of the paper and lay it on the table during the present sitting. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>SUPPLY BILL (No. 5)</title>
<page.no>8691</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">Resolved</inline>(on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake)</inline> - </para>
<quote>
<para>That so much of the standing orders be suspended as will permit of the Supply Bill (No. 5), when received from the House of Representatives, passing through all its stages without delay. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL</title>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake)</inline> proposed - </para>
<para>That the Bill be now read a third time - </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1U</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PULSFORD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator PULSFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to put on record my protest, not only against the general character of this Bill, but also, and more particularly, against the way in which it was introduced here and carried through its various stages. In effect it is a postal tariff, and it ought to have been accompanied with all the information that is necessary for its due consideration. That information ought to have been in the hands of honorable senators sufficiently long to enable them to grasp all its details. The Bill should not have been proceeded with until the public of Australia had had a reasonable opportunity offered them of understanding how its details would affect not only the finances of the States, but the various and complicated business interests. I hope, however, that the other House will be afforded fuller details before the Bill is debated, as it is one of great financial importance. It ought to be anunderstood thing that an important measure affecting the finances of the States generally, and even affecting important business interests, should not be rushed on either House, and should not be passed until the whole of Australia has had an opportunity of carefully considering all the details and of expressing public opinion thereon. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTV</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DAWSON, Anderson</name>
<name role="display">Senator DAWSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have noticed a very bad practice growing up in the Senate. A persistent effort is being made by honorable senators to debate all Bills on the third reading which ought to be a formal stage. I record my protest against the practice, which, I think, is a pernicious one. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Itis quite in accord with the standing orders. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTV</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DAWSON, Anderson</name>
<name role="display">Senator DAWSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know it is ; but it is a very bad practice, which is not followed in other Parliaments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Before the Bill is read a third time I should like <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake</inline> to explain to me the effect of the first schedule. In Tasmania many newspapers are sent separately by the proprietors to private individuals. If these newspapers come under the second section of the first schedule, which provides that there shall be1/2d. postage paid on newspapers posted within the Commonwealth for transmission therein, for each newspaper the subscriber will have to pay l1/2d. Will it be possible under the first portion of the first schedule to post in one parcel all the newspapers which are going to a district? Supposing, for instance, that a dozen subscribers to a newspaper live in a small country town, will the Postmaster-General allow the proprietor to bundle together those newspapers, although they are separately addressed, and allow the postmaster at the country town to distribute them to each subscriber? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8692</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>PostmasterGeneral</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is through a misapprehension of the wording of the schedule that a good deal of the opposition which was manifested in the first place against the provision arose. We take newspapers in bulk, and weigh them and carry them at the rate of1d. per lb., no matter how many or how few may be in one wrapper, but all separately addressed. We go further than <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> desires. We not only accept them and weigh them by bulk when they are to be sent to one separate district, but we do exactly the same if they are to be sent all over the Commonwealth. Newspapers separately addressed all over the Commonwealth can be brought by a proprietor or newsvendor to the post-office, and there weighed in bulk and charged at the rate of1d. per lb. The rate, therefore, for a newspaper weighing 4 ozs. or less - and that is a heavy weight for a daily - would be1/4d. If the newspaper weighs 2 ozs. - and a number of them weigh less than that - the rate will be onehalf of a1/4d. each. That is a very slight burden indeed, and it is a great concession, because, in five States, newspapers are taken in parcels to be delivered to one person at 1d. per lb. The concession we have made in the schedule is that we accept them at the same rate and deliver them separately to the addressees. I hope that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pulsford</inline> on consideration will see that the Bill has not been rushed through in any way. It is a measure for amending the rates with regard to the transmission of certain newspapers and telegrams. When the second reading of the Post and Telegraph Bill was moved in June, I was asked to state the intentions of the G overnment with regard to the rates. I was afterwards asked the same question several times, and the answer always was that as soon as that Bill became law I should introduce an amending Bill. I feel sure that honorable senators generally were expecting that I should fulfil my promise. The newspaper rates are those which were recommended by the conference of permanent heads of Postal departments that sat more than a year ago, and brought up by their report. So that I cannot see how the Senate has been in the slightest degree taken by surprise. I told honorable senators that I proposed to introduce a schedule amending the existing rates in such a way as to attain uniformity among the States. That has been done in this Bill ; and I do not think any scale of rates would have answered the end in view better than the scale proposed.Whenthe measure was introduced there certainly was no protest against going on with it in committee. . If there had been a strong feeling expressed against proceeding, I certainly should have yielded at once. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
<para>Bill read a third time and passed. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PUBLIC SERVICE BILL</title>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(consideration resumed from December 12, <inline font-style="italic">vide</inline> page 8632): . </para>
<para>Clause 27 (regulations for entrance examinations). </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K54</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SARGOOD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- This clause provides for regulationsforcertainpurposes. Honorablesenators will be of one mind as to the desirability of insuring that the service shall not contain undesirable characters. Hence it is necessary that the ordinary precautions that are taken by the States with regard to the character of applicants for the civil service should be taken here. I beg to move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That the following new paragraph be inserted : <inline font-style="italic">- " (a)</inline> A preliminary examination as to the character of candidates." </para>
</quote>
<para>In Victoria for many years past the applicant has been required to supply a certificate as to good moral character and industrious habits. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Who gives the certificate? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K54</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SARGOOD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should imagine that in some cases it is given by a clergyman, or by a bankmanager or schoolmaster. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6J</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHARLESTON, David</name>
<name role="display">Senator CHARLESTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- In South Australia, most lads leaving school obtain a certificateof character from the school teacher. That could be done in such a case as this. I think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sargood's</inline> suggestion is a good one. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0X</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PLAYFORD, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator PLAYFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should be more inclined to find out the character of the parents of the applicant for admission, because often, if the parents are vicious, although a young man's conduct may be all right at first, he will develop undesirable qualities later on . If I were proposing to take a young man intoconstantemployment I should prefer to find out whether his parents were of excellent character. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>PostmasterGeneral</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - This clause refers to the conduct of examinations. I agree with what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sargood</inline> has said, and think that there must be some provision in the Bill to that effect. But the object can be attained by regulation. Surely when a lad is a candidate for admission into the service the commissioner may make inquiries into his moral character. It would be better to put such a power in the clause dealing with regulations. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6D</name.id>
<electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Miles</name>
<name role="display">Senator STANTFORTH SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- The clause refers to the qualifications of candidates for employment, and one qualification is that the applicant shall be a person of good moral character. I think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sargood's</inline> amendment is one that the committee should accept, but we should confine ourselves to the character of the applicant, and not as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Playford</inline> suggests, visit the sins of the parents upon the children. If a youth is of good character the greater credit redounds to him, if his parents are of bad character. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator STANTFORTH</inline>SMITH (Western Australia). - With regard to the medical examination I should like to obtain an expression of opinion from the PostmasterGeneral as to its nature. If we are to have a system of life assurance for our public service we must have it on those of good health, and must have a different arrangement as to persons who are not physically strong. But it would be a very cruel thing to deny the right of any person to enter the service because he was not physically strong. Such persons are unable to find employment where physical exertion is required, but may be quite capable of mental labour. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8693</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0X</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PLAYFORD, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Playford</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yet the honorable senator would give them the minimum wage. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8694</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6D</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Miles</name>
<name role="display">Senator STANIFORTH SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Exactly, they are to get a minimum wage on account of mental ability. If we refuse admission to the clerical division to people who are not physically strong, it will mean that no such person will be able to earn his living. If the banks and other large institutions followed the example of the Government, they also would prescribe that unless a person was physically strong they would not employ him. If the avenues of mental employment are closed to such persons, they will have to starve. I do not mean that persons suffering from consumption, and diseases of that description which would be injurious to their fellow workers, should be allowed to enter the service, but there are physical ailments which would by no means incapacitatea man from doing clerical work. We employ 8,000 civil servants, and if the Commonwealth takes over other services, we may employ double that number. It would be very cruel if people on account of physical infirmities were not allowed to enter the service. It would be carrying out the Darwinian theory of the " survival of the fittest," and those who were not physically strong would bo left to starve. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator PLAYFORD</inline>(South Australia). - If we are to adopt the principle of the minimum wage as laid down last night so energetically by the labour representatives, it will be perfectly proper to say that only strong men shall be allowed to enter the service. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments used yesterday. I hold, on the contrary, that there are many men who are not physically capable of doing a certain amount of work, and who are not worth a certain wage, but whom it would be a cruelty to keep out of the service altogether. Now those honorable senators who voted for the minimum wage see the effect that is going to be produced. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Smith</inline> voted with the labour party last night, but now, in the kindness of his heart, he recognises the mischief that would be done by carrying out the principles then advanced. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8694</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- -No honorable senator who voted for the minimum wage intended that any applicant for a position should be employed if he was incapable of doing the work. What <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Smith</inline> means is that a man may be a very good clerk, though he may have a wooden leg, or only one eye. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator PLAYFORD</inline>(South Australia). - The analogy of the wooden-legged and the one-eyed . man fails, because no insurance company would trouble about such defects if the man's health was good. He might live as long as a man with two legs or two eyes. The fact is that we have made a. great mistake in inserting the minimum wage provision as it will prevent a number of men from earning wages of £80, £90, or £100 a year, and it will prevent many from getting into the service, simply because they cannot come up to the standard of work which will be fixed. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8694</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are touching, in. this clause, on one of the most painful problems that have to be considered, and that is, what is to be done with persons who are afflicted with such bad health as to be disqualified for ordinary occupations. In the interests of the public service, I think that they ought to be debarred from entrance to it. Very painful cases have sometimes come under my notice in administering a department. What, for instance, is to be done with an officer of a department who develops consumption? He cannot be turned out upon the streets. He may be entitled to no pension or gratuity, and he refuses to resign. He cannot be permitted to continue to work in a room crowded with other persons, and in one or two such instances what I have had to do has been to give such men practically permanent sick leave. The service must be protected against cases like that. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8694</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVC</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DOBSON, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator DOBSON</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">- Senator Smith</inline>has raised a question of some importance, but I see no way of remedying the difficulty he has suggested in the Bill, because, under clause 52, it is required that every officer before the confirmation of his appointment shall effect an insurance on his life. It must be understood that every life insurance office will require every officer to pass a very strict medical examination. It appears to me that it is better to leave the clause as it stands. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Clause agreed to. </para>
<para>Clause 30 - </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Except as hereinafter provided every person admitted to the public service shall in the first instance be appointed by the commissioner on probation only, and may be continued in such probationary position for a period ofsix months, but may be dispensed with by the commissioner at any time during such period. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>After the period of six months on probation has expired, the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the commissioner, upona report from the permanent head, confirm or annul such appointment. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- It appears to me that sub-clause (2), of clause 30, leaves the door open for the continuance of a practice which has existed in most of the States of keeping on probationers in the public service <inline font-style="italic">ad infinitum.</inline> There is nothing in the clause to make it compulsory upon the commissioner to take a man off the probation list and put him upon the permanent staff, and under this subclause (2) he may remain on the probation list for ever. If no one suggests a better amendment I am prepared to move the omission of the word "may," with a view of inserting the word " shall." It does seem to me that it should be compulsory upon the commissioner to take some step to remove probationers to the permanent staff after six months' probation. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- This appears to me to be a merciful provision. If we strike out "may " and put in " shall," it will mean that the officer to whom the commissioner will not give another six months' probation must be dismissed. Under the clause as it stands, if, after a probation of six months, the commissioner comes to the conclusion that an officer is not giving satisfaction he has the option of giving him a further six months' probation, but if the alteration proposed is agreed to, and he must either annul or confirm the appointment at the end of six months, he will annul it. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>SenatorFRASER (Victoria).- The apprehension I have is that any number of temporary hands may be kept on under this clause for a life-time. It would be better to provide that after a probation of twelve months an appointment must be confirmed or annulled. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator CLEMONS</inline>(Tasmania). - I agree with what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Fraser</inline> has said, and I agree also that there is force in what has been said by the Postmaster-General. I do not wish to do anything harsh, and perhaps we should not be in too much of a hurry to dismiss a probationer after six months. I still think, however, that my original contention holds good, and that it is not desirable that in the public service we should have a number of temporary hands employed for an indefinite time. I move - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the words "for one further term of sis months," be inserted after the word "may" (line 9). </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That would limit the term of probation to twelve months, and would give the commissioner a further period of six months in which to ascertain whether a probationer should be continued in the service. Twelve months is an ample probationary term, and the amendment I propose will meet the objection raised by the PostmasterGeneral. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- If there is a feeling in the committee in favour of limiting the probation to twelve months, what is desired can, I think, best be secured by inserting another subclause to this effect - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The period of probation shall not in any case extend beyond twelve months. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable and learned senatorcares tosubmitan amendment in that form I am perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment I have moved. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVC</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DOBSON, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator DOBSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- We have to thank <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> for pointing out a serious blot upon the clause, because the number of temporary officers continued in the service of the States has been so large as to be a scandal. We must dosomething to put an end to that system, but, at the same time, we should be merciful to any man for whom a probationary term of six months is not sufficient. I think the best way to deal with the matter would be to add the following words to the clause - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Or retain any person whose appointment is not confirmed for a further period of six months, at the end of which latter period such appointment shall either be confirmed or annulled. </para>
</quote>
<para>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. </para>
<para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake)</inline> proposed - </para>
<quote>
<para>That sub-clause (2) be amended by the addition of the following words : - " or extend the period of probation for a further period of six months, provided that the whole term of probation shall not in any case extend beyond twelve months." </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8695</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- That will do. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>SenatorFRASER (Victoria). - I grant that the words proposed to be inserted by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake</inline> may be sufficient, but in some departments of the public service in Victoria a great number of probationers have been employed for years and years. They go in for six months, are put off for a week, and then go in for another six months, and that practice is carried on regularly. Under this sub-clause there is a danger of a probationer going in for a year, coming out for a week, and then going on for another year. Unless the clause is well drawn that practice may be introduced into the Federal service. </para>
<para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator CLEMONS</inline>(Tasmania).- What <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Fraser</inline> has just said is well worthy of the attention of the Postmaster-General. It is very desirable that he should draft a short provision, which would render it impossible for a probationer to re-enter the service, except after an interval of twelve months ; otherwise we may have a continuous series of temporary officers with breaks of a week, possibly of a day. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K54</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SARGOOD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is evidently a real danger to be apprehended. Even under the Victorian Act these evasions have taken place. This sub-clause is certainly more elastic than the section in that Act, which provides that the appointment shall be for a period of six months absolute, and goes on to say that at the end of that period the Governor in Council may not extend it, but confirm it, and if it is not confirmed he ceases to be in the service. That section has been evaded toa considerable extent in this State. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would suggest the insertion of another sub-clause, in these words - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>No person who has occupied the position of a probationer for twelve months, and whose appointment has not been confirmed, shall be eligible for re-admission to the service. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The committee should pause before it accepts the suggestion of the PostmasterGeneral. The effect of such an amendment would be to disqualify a man not for a short time, but for ever. Supposing that owing to the exigencies of the finances the commissioner had to retrench, and that he discharged any probationers. They would be disqualified to re-enter the public service at anytime, not because they wereincapable, but simply because, owing to the exigencies of the Treasury at a certain time, they were not appointed. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons)</inline> proposed - </para>
<para>That the following be inserted as a new subclause : - </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="3.">
<para>No such probationer whose appointment shall be so annulled as aforesaid shall be eligible as a probationer at any time within twelve months from the date of the annulling of such appointment. </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The object of the probationary period is to find out whether the probationer is a man who should be admitted. As the clause reads now, if at the end of six months the commissioner is not satisfied with the officer, he may allow another six months to see how he shapes, and at the end of that time he has to decide whether the officer has shown himself fit to be admitted. The committee is now asked to provide that if the commissioner then annuls the appointment, the man is not to be eligible for re-admission at once, but may be eligible for re-admission at the end of twelve months. Only two reasons, it seems to me, can be advanced for making that distinction. One is that during the period of twelve months he may so improve that he may become fit for another trial, but I think that is entirely unlikely. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- Give him a chance. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would sooner give him a chance by letting him go on in the service for another term of six months than let him make a second start after an interval of twelve months spent out of the service. I do not see why the man should be debarred for a period of twelve months. The same objection applies to the argument of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce,</inline> that through the exigencies of the service a man may not be required at a certain time, but that he may be required afterwards. The man may be required within a week or a fortnight, but why should he be debarred from re-entering the service for twelve months? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8696</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1U</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PULSFORD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator PULSFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Postmaster-General does not quite grasp the case. In the public service we have an ebb and flow of work. There are times when there may be a sudden increase of work, and then it may be very desirable to take on for a limited period men who have been out of the service for a year. If the commissioner has not power to re-engage those men for a limited time, he may have to take for a limited period men who have had far less experience. The amendment gives a little elasticity which the service requires, and at the same time is just and fair, not only to the service, but to the probationers. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir FREDERICK</inline>SARGOOD (Victoria). - At first sight there would appear to be considerable force in the argument of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce,</inline> but I think he will see, on reflection, that if financial stress arose, there would be everyinducement to keep on the probationers at £40 or £50 a year, and to . dispense with those who were drawing high salaries. First of all, we wish to get into the service capable men. They are to be taken in as lads, and allowed six months in which to show their adaptability to the position. If they display their suitability the appointment is confirmed. If, on the other hand, they are not quite up to the mark, but the commissioner thinks that a little more time may qualify them, there is power taken in the clause to give them another six months' trial. Then if he still fails, his appointment is absolutely annulled. That, I think, is quite right, and we ought not to go beyond that. Neither should the young man be taken back as a probationer. He has had two chances, and that should be enough. But it does not necessarily follow that the young fellow shall not be employed in the public service at all. He could be employed under clause 40 in temporary employment. That, it appears to me, is the way in which the equities of the case could be met. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator CLEMONS</inline>(Tasmania).- The reason for my amendment is that it is notorious in the public service that there have been temporary officers whose services have been dispensed with, but who at the end of a week or a fortnight have been taken on again. I have put the amendment in a modified form, because I recognise what some honorable senators state, that we should not be too harsh with these men, and should not say absolutely once and for all - "You shall never become a probationer, and never have any chance of entering the service." </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8697</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7R</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STYLES, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator STYLES</name>
</talker>
<para>- If a youth fails to pass his examination at the end of twelve months, he should not in justice to other applicants be allowed to enter the service at all. By that time he will have had two chances - one at the end of six months and one at the end of twelve months. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8697</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Suppose he is not appointed because the service is overmanned. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8697</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STYLES, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator STYLES</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are not dealing with that. What I say is, that at the end of twelve months the probationer will have had two chances to pass the examination, whilst other candidates will have had no chance at all. If this amendment is agreed to it will mean that many a young fellow will say - " Oh, I don't care about the examination, because if I can't pass it now, I shall have another chance in twelve months." Hence he will waste his time. He will be like Mahomet's coffin, hanging between Heaven and earth. If he fails to pass in twelve months he should lose his chance. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8697</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- For ever? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>