/
19111013_senate_4_61.xml
5860 lines (5860 loc) · 342 KB
/
19111013_senate_4_61.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>1911-10-13</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1911-10-13</day.start>
<para>The President look the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PERSONAL EXPLANATION</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<type>personal explanation</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- During the course of the discussion on the Naval and Military Decorations Bill yesterday afternoon I used a remark with regard to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Walker</inline> in, as I think was apparent to every one in the chamber, a jocular fashion, namely, that he had "almost acted the part of a political traitor by supporting the Government." The remark appears in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> in cold print. It, of course, ought not to have been made, even in a jocular fashion, and I feel that an explanation is required from me and, to some extent, an apology, which I now offer to the honorable senator. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>RAILWAY GAUGE</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>SenatorMcCOLL asked the Vice-Presi dent of the Executive Council, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice-</inline></para>
<para>If he will lay on the table of the Senate copies of all correspondence between the Governments of the several States and the Government of the Commonwealth on the question of the railway gauge for the East and West Transcontinental Line? </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MAILS : FLINDERS ISLAND</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</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 Minister representing the Postmaster- General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Will he include in the next schedule of postal services for which tenders may be called, direct mail services for the Flinders group of islands with both Launceston and Melbourne? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answer to the honorable senator's question is - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Consideration will be given to this matter before the expiration of the existing contract. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSTAGE RATES</title>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<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 Minister representing the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Will the Government include in any Post and Telegraph Rates Acts Amendment Bill introduced this session an amendment of the existing rates of postage for Savings Bank and Building Society Pass Books and similar postal articles ? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answer to the honorable senator's question is - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>The Government do not purpose making any change in the rates of postage on the articles mentioned. </para>
</quote>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keating)</inline> agreed to - </para>
<quote>
<para>That there be placed upon the table of the Senate copies of all correspondence with, and representations made to, the Department of the Postmaster-General since the passing of the Postal Rates Act 1910, relative to the now existing postal rates for Savings Bank and Building Society Pass Books, and similar postal articles. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>SUPPLY BILL (No. 3)</title>
<page.no>1373</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Senate and Supply Bills - Treasurer's Advance - Contingencies. - Post and Telegraph Department : Fatality to Line Repairer : Departmental Accounts : Telegraphists' Grievances : Stamp Marking Machine : Increase of Expenditure : Country Offices : Post Card Rates - Development of Northern Territory: Finance - Immigration - Federal Capital Designs - Quarantine - Governor-General's Residences - Lithgow Small Arms Factory - Payment for Warships - Site for London Offices - Old-age Pensions - Commonwealth Finance : Note Issue - Public Works Expenditure : Borrowing - State Debts - Retirement of Military Officers - Subsidized Press Cable Service - Destroyers : Crews - Compulsory Training : Insubordination : Seditious Literature. </para>
<para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor)</inline> proposed - </para>
<quote>
<para>That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill passing through all its stages without delay. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I do not desire to do more than to again draw the attention, I am afraid uselessly, to the practice which is growing up of systematically ignoring the Senate as a branch of the Federal Parliament. There is no question that it was within the competence of the Government to have brought down before to-day the business in connexion with which we are asked to suspend the Standing Orders. I expect that we shall be told later that the Supply asked for is on the ordinary footing. If so, it was just as competent for the Government to bring in this Bill a week ago as it is now. There is a systematic endeavour on the part of the Government, aided by the officials, to purposely hold back these measures until they are able to come here and throw upon us the responsibility, if we refuse to suspend the Standing Orders, of leaving them in the position of being unable to pay the public servants. We are to be coerced into legislating under circumstances of that kind. There is not an honorable senator, I do not care on which side he sits, who does not know perfectly well that the procedure which is growing up, and in connexion with which this Government has been the worst offender that we have ever had- </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1373</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>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">SenatorO'Keefe. - They have all been alike. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have made that statement again and again, but I hold that this Government is certainly the worst offender that we have ever had. The remarkable feature is that this Government was going to alter all the wrong-doing of the past. We are now to be told that we must suspend the Standing Orders which were shaped in order that the Senate should have a full and fair opportunity to consider any proposals submitted ; in other words, to prevent the rushing through of proposed legislation which, on maturer consideration, the Senate might desire to amend. Our rules are systematically being suspended simply that the Government may deny to us the opportunity of criticism, or throw upon those who wish to criticise the onus of blocking the payment of public servants. That this is being systematically done is proved by the presence on the business paper of this contingent notice of motion. It was put there, not because of a sudden emergency arising, but because a month ago the Government determined that there should be no fair consideration of a Supply Bill. Not merely have the Government taken up this attitude, but it is characteristic of the Department. In order to avoid, as they are doing, a full and fair examination of proposals, the Treasury hold these measures back until the last moment. I defy any Minister or officer of the Treasury to say that this Bill could not have been put in print a week or a fortnight ago. So far as ordinary services are concerned, it does not contain an item which the Department did not know of a month, aye, two months, ago. There can be only one reason why the Bill has not been submitted here before. The Department knows that if it can withhold the Bill until the clock is striking the eleventh hour, it will be saved a lot of trouble, because there will be no time for us to press inquiries on points on which we desire information. If the Senate is prepared to tolerate that state of things, the Opposition is, of course, impotent to do more than to enter a protest. I do not expect, nor should I invite, honorable senators on the other side to do anything to place the Government in an awkward position. I do not intend to take the responsibility of doing any- thing which would delay the payment of salaries which are earned, and which ought to be paid ; but I do invite honorable- senators to let their views be known to the Government, in order that we may look forward to a better state of things than that which has grown up, and which, as is shown by the presence of this contingent notice on the business-paper, it is the intention of the Government to continue until Parliament declares that it will have no more of such procedure. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>Western AustraliaMinister of Defence</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I wish to say a few words in explanation, which perhaps may avoid a debate on this subject. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has attempted to show that the Senate has been placed in a worse position than the other House. That is not so. The other House had exactly the same time to deal with the measure as the Senate will have. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- You are wrong there, because if the other House had not passed the Bill yesterday it would have continued its consideration to-day. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- The honorable senator's statement that the Senate is placed at a disadvantage as compared with the other House is not correct, because both have exactly the same rights in debating the measure. The honorable senator attempted to make out that some injustice was done to the other House by delaying the introduction ot a Supply Bill until . the end of the month. As he has held Ministerial office, I was rather surprised at him making the statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was because of that that I made the statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- The fact that the time is approaching when the Budget statement must be delivered makes it uncertain as to when the Supply Bill can be introduced, because the Government are always called upon to determine whether they will withhold certain items from Ihe Budget, or include them in the Treasurer's Advance. There is a disposition on the part of this Govern ment to avoid including items in a Supply Bill which ought properly to appear in the Budget- statement. ' In such circumstances, the introduction of a Supply Bill is left as late as possible, so as to avoid the inclusion of contentious matters, which ought properly, to be submitted with the Budget. The introduction of the present Bill was left to a late date, in order to avoid the very thing which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has been talking about, and that is the hurrying through of debatable items which ought to receive proper discussion in connexion with the Budget. With regard to the statement that the Senate has only today in which to deal with the measure, I desire to point out that there again the Government are, to a very large extent, the victims of circumstances. Had it not been for the unfortunate occurrence of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor's</inline> death- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is cowardly to bring that in - absolutely scandalous. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- It is only right to state the facts. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is that the reason why this contingent notice of motion is on the business-paper? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- The facts have to be stated in justice to the Government. We were not aware last week that a sitting of the other House would be lost this week. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why did not the Government bring this Bill forward in the other House a day earlier? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- Will the honorable senator allow me to make an explanation? He can believe me or not as he thinks fit. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- You are ignoring the facts. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- Had the Government known that a sitting of the other House might be lost this week, they undoubtedly would have brought in this Bill last week if they could have done so. The Government are not to blame for the loss of a day's sitting in the other House. It was only a right and proper thing for the House to adjourn, and but for that fact this Bill would have reached the Senate yesterday instead of to-day. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why was not the Bill introduced into the other House a day earlier? Had that been done we could have had the Bill yesterday. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1374</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>- The Bill was introduced into the other House as soon as possible. If the business of the other House had been advanced by an additional sitting it could have been introduced a day earlier. Under the circumstances, honorable senators will see that the Government have studied parliamentary control over public expenditure by deferring the introduction of the Bill as late as possible in the month, and that it is owing to the loss of a day in another place that this measure reaches the Senate a day later than it would otherwise have done. Consequently the contention of the Leader of the Opposition is entirely groundless. Further, the Bill is based upon the ordinary Estimates except so far as it relates to certain items which will be fully explained to the Senate. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>. - It would be an insult to the intelligence of honorable senators to expect them to believe - despite the statement of the Minister of Defence - that this Bill -could not have been brought forward last Wednesday. The Minister has failed to give anything like an adequate explanation of the reason for the delay which has occurred. But I would point out that in connexion with- this Bill there is a much larger question at issue. It must be abundantly .evident to everybody that the Senate has no control whatever over the financial policy of the Government. That has been a feature of the administration, not only of this Government, but of all past Governments. It is now the middle of October, and it will be well into November before we shall have an opportunity -of critically examining the position revealed by the Treasurer's Budget. It is a maxim which has long been established by experience that finance is government, and government is finance. How cak the Senate at this late stage of the year discuss critically and exhaustively the financial policy of the Government as contrasted with that of other Governments, and from the stand-point of the urgent necessities of the Commonwealth - that is to say, of the enormous expenditure to which we are committed? For this reason I say emphatically that the Standing Orders should not be suspended. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GIVENS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Givens</name>
</talker>
<para>- The longer the honorable senator continues talking on the motion the shorter will be the time at our disposal to discuss the details of the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know that -every word which I utter is delaying the payment of salaries to our public servants who have earned them. But this <inline font-style="italic">ad misericordiam</inline> appeal is always made in connexion with Supply Bills. On the present occasion there is absolutely no excuse for it. It is perfectly plain from the statement of the Minister of Defence that this measure could have been introduced very much earlier. But the practice is becoming more intensified every year of transmitting Supply Bills to this Chamber under -circumstances which prevent us from exercising any control whatever over the financial policy of the Government. If we could successfully resist the suspension of the Standing Orders on the present occasion we have ample justification for adopting that course, and I, for one, will willingly support it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5F</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SAYERS, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator SAYERS</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I confess that I heard no reason - either from the Vice-President of the Executive Council or from the Minister of Defence - why the Government could not have introduced this Bill into another place last Wednesday, so that it might have reached the Senate yesterday. If that had been done we should have had time to adequately discuss it. But the whole of yesterday was absorbed in debating a matter which is absolutely of no importance to the Commonwealth. I am sorry that not only the present but previous Governments have adopted the practice of bringing forward Supply Bills at the eleventh hour, and asking us to pass ' them. We have repeatedly heard the cry raised, " Unless this Bill be passed immediately our public servants must remain unpaid." I hope that we have heard the last of that sort of thing, and that in future we shall be afforded ample time to adequately discuss important measures of this description. Unless a departure is made from the practice which has been hitherto followed there might as well - as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> has remarked - be no Senate at all. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I have no objection to the Leader of the Opposition discharging his functions by finding fault with anything that the Government may do, and I am sure that Ministerial supporters will not object if he continues to do that for a long time. We all recognize that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> is a very capable Leader of the Opposition. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Let the honorable gentleman take the private opinions of his own supporters on this question. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<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>- The Minister of Defence has explained the position occupied by the Government in this connexion. Had I attempted to do so the debate would have been closed, and Senators St. Ledger and Sayers would have been denied an opportunity to urge their objections - objections with which I have been familiar ever since the establishment of the Commonwealth. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SAYERS, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sayers</name>
</talker>
<para>-If the honorable gentleman wishes to get his Supply Bill through he had better be a little more CiVil. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<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>- To be uncivil was the last thing in my mind, and I am sure that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sayers</inline> ought not to object to the jocular manner in which I feel disposed to treat this question, because he is a bit of a joker himself. The Minister of Defence has explained not only why this Bill has been introduced a day or two later than it would have been under other circumstances, but why Supply Bills are almost invariably brought forward a day or two later than they ought to be. The Leader of the Opposition stated that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to introduce Supply Bills late in the month because a contingent motion in reference to them had been placed upon the businesspaper. I can assure him that not a single member of the Ministry is responsible for the motion save myself. I placed it upon the business- paper without consulting anybody. I did so because from the inception of this Parliament I have recognised that a difficulty may arise in connexion with the presentation of a Supply Bill, if we have to rely upon the passing of the motion without notice to secure the suspension of the Standing Orders. As honorable members know, such a motion requires to be carried by an absolute majority. Consequently I thought it wise to place upon the business-paper a contingent motion relating to all Supply Bills, so that if anybody is to be blamed in that connexion it is myself alone. I hope that honorable senators will permit the Bill to pass through all its stages to-day, and that they will exhibit the same expedition that they have always shown in dealing with Bills of this description. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>. - In moving - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That this Bill be now read a first time, </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I merely wish to observe that the motion will afford honorable senators an opportunity of criticising the administrative acts of the Government, and of dealing with any other matters to which they may desire to call attention. Upon the present occasion we are asking for two months' Supply in the hope that it will prove sum.cient to enable our various public services to be carried on until the Budget has been presented and the Estimates approved. The amount of Supply for which the Government ask is £1,409,534. On a previous occasion, when Supply was granted for only one month, the amount involved was £1,038,016. Honorable senatorsmay think that the sums asked, for by the Government are excessive when compared with the amountsgranted under previous Supply BillsHonorable senators must bear in mind that the Supply Bill for two months, passed at the latter end of last session, the Bill for one month's Supply passed recently, and this Bill for two months' Supply, involved a total amount of ,-£3,023,000 for five months. When we come to consider that under the circumstances previously existing the Supply asked for a similar period would have'' 'amounted, approximately, to £2,760,000, the amount asked for the five months of the current financial year showsan apparent increase of £323,000. But it must not be forgotten that in taking over the Northern Territory we accepted responsibility for interest payments as they matured on the Port Augusta railway andi to cover the deficit on the Territory itself. These obligations amounted in the first instance to £40,000, and in the other tosomewhere about £50,000. We must realize,, also, that during the last year or twothere has been a very material increase in the staff of the Post and Telegraph Department, and honorable senators must be aware that the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth are gradually increasing. In connexion with the Defence Department, an increased expenditure of £206,000 is necessary to defray the cost of services that have been instituted and tc« give effect to the compulsory training of our boys and youths. This increased expenditure of itself almost entirely accountsfor the total increase of expenditure for thefive months of £320,000. As a matter of fact, the necessary increases in respect tothe items to which I have referred account for a total increase of £412,000- on the amount ordinarily provided in previous years for five months' Supply. I am further able to show that there are very few cases in which the amount asked for in this Supply Bill for two months is double what was asked for in the previous Supply Bill covering one month's Supply. For theParliament for the two months we are asking £4,943- For one month, in the previous Supply Bill we asked for £3,070. For the External Affairs Department we are asking in this Bill for £80,416, and: in the last Supply Bill for one month- £124,725 was asked for. For the AttorneyGeneral's office we are in this Bill asking for ,£7,636 for two months, whilst in the last Supply Bill for one month .£3,923 was asked for. For the Home Affairs Department we are asking in this Bill for a little more than the proportion for other Departments. This is because the Home Affairs Department is the one in connexion with which most work involving expenditure has to be done. We are asking for £96,200 for the two months, covered by this Bill, whilst we asked for £30,975 for one month for this Department under the previous Supply Bill. For the Treasury Department we are asking in this Bill for £26,013 for two months' Supply, and in the last Bill for one month only we asked for .£20,960. For the Trade and Customs Department we are asking for £58,424 in this Bill, and for one month only we asked for .£34,885 in the last Supply Bill. We are asking in this Bill for £270,215 for the Defence Department to cover two months' Supply, and in the last Supply Bill we asked for .£233,277 for one month's Supply. For the PostmasterGeneral's Department we are asking for two months .£575,687, and in the previous Supply Bill we asked for one month's Supply <inline font-style="italic">£366,</inline><inline font-style="italic">box.</inline> There are two items which have appeared in Supply Bills for some time past to which a reference may be made. One is for refunds of revenue. In the last Supply Bill we asked, to cover one month's Supply on this account, for .£20.000. In this Bill we are asking for £40,000 to cover two months' Supply. For the Treasurer's Advance account, a vote which is necessary for the purpose of keeping works going which are provided for in the general Estimates, we are asking for the two months ,£250.000. In the last Supply Bill for one month we asked for .£200,000 on this account. Honorable senators will, therefore, see that the amounts provided for in this Bill have been kept very much below double the amounts asked for in the last Supply Bill for one month's services only. If this Supply is granted, we earnestly hope that, before it is exhausted, the Budget will be before honorable senators, and, when the Budget papers are laid on the table of the Senate, the Government will afford an opportunity for a full-dress debate on the administration and financial policy of the Government. If honorable senators will consider the matter from a common-sense point of view, they will agree that that is the occasion for which they should reserve themselves. It is not on every paltry Supply Bill, to meet the ordinary services of the Commonwealth for one month or two months, that grievances and complaints should be ventilated. They should be reserved for the debate on the Budget itself, and less time should be wasted in the discussion of current Supply Bills than has been the case in the past. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Before the honorable senator resumes his seat, he might point out the items of the Bill which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> said could not be decided on until the last moment. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<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>- The PostmasterGeneral, for instance, could not tell exactly what amount he would require to carry him over the passing of the Budget until he knew at what time the Budget statement would be made. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does he know now ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<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>- Well, he has a better knowledge now than he had <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> week ago, because the Treasurer is in a better position to say how far his work in the formulation of the Budget has advanced through the returns sent in from the different Departments. Honorable senators must see that the Post and Telegraph, the Defence, and the Home Affairs Departments have not an easy task in estimating what will be required to carry on the services under then- control. The AttorneyGeneral, the Treasurer, and the Minister of Trade and Customs might put in an estimate of the requirements of their Departments at any time. They might, in fact, have a standing return to cover monthly Supply, but the three other Departments to which I have referred are in an entirely different position. I have no desire to curtail debate on the Bill, and, between now and 4 o'clock, honorable senators should have plenty of time at their disposal to say all they desire to say on the various items of the measure. If it should be necessary to reply to their statements, I hope that any information that is desired will be forthcoming. Members of the Government who represent the different Departments in the Senate will do all they possibly can to satisfy, not merely the curiosity, but the earnest desire for information of honorable senators. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I have no desire to refer again to the matter we were discussing a few minutes ago on the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders, except to reply to two statements made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce,</inline> who followed me in that discussion. lt is greatly to be regretted that the honorable senator should have used as a reason for the delay in the introduction of this Bill the sad event in connexion with which the Senate recently passed a resolution. To my mind, it was little short of contemptible for the Government to shield their neglect under that unfortunate occurrence. There was no reason why this Bill should not have been introduced in the House of Representatives on Wednesday last, and that would have enabled us to have dealt with the Bill yesterday. The attempt to shield themselves behind the unfortunate event, for which we all feel regret, was little short of contemptible, and was quite unworthy of the Minister of Defence. The statement was flatly contradicted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who asked us to permit the Bill to go through because it is intended to meet the ordinary current services. If that is what it is for, there is no reason why it should not have been drafted a month ago. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> declared his surprise that I should have raised the objection ' I did, in view of the fact that I had some Ministerial experience. But it is because I have had that experience that I feel there is upon roe the obligation to say that what I saw of the attitude of the officials of the Treasury justifies me in making the statement that there is, df set purpose, a deliberate attempt to hold back these Bills_ to the last possible moment. I did what I could then, and I am doing what I can now to combat that. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3G</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RUSSELL, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator W RUSSELL</name>
</talker>
<para>- The statement is unworthy of the honorable senator. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is it unworthy of me when I see an evil to speak .about it? I wonder what frame of mind the honorable senator can have got into if, when he sees what he regards as an evil, he will not speak about it for fear of ruffling the susceptibilities of the Ministry he so slavishly supports. I am sure that the honorable senator would himself be the first to protest against anything of the kind. Any one who sees what he regards as an incorrect way of doing public business has imposed upon him the responsibility of speaking about it, if he is to be worthy of the position he occupies as a member of this Parliament. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3G</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RUSSELL, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator W RUSSELL</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator did not practise what he preaches. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I certainly did ; and I remind <inline font-weight="bold">Senator W.</inline> Russell that in the early days of the present Government the Minister of Defence was candid enough to admit that the predecessors of the present Government had done much in the direction we all desired of affording the Senate an opportunity to discuss finance. That admission can be found in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline> I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council for information in connexion with the items of this Bill, some of which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> said could not have been determined upon until the last possible moment. I venture to say that the answer I received will not carry conviction to the mind of any one. He told us that the PostmasterGeneral could not determine exactly what amount would be required for the ordinary current services. There is no reason why he should not have known months before, or at any time after the ist July last. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<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>- The honorable senator should remember that the services of the Post and Telegraph Department have been increasing every month since the end of the last financial year. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1378</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- They have not increased much during the last week, and this Bill could have been introduced a week ago, because there is that extremely elastic vote - the Treasurer's Advance - which is intended to meet cases of that kind. And here let me draw attention to another evil which is growing, and it is decidedly an evil from the stand-point of those who believe that Parliament ought to exercise a real, and not an imaginary control, over the finances of the country. When we started Federation, the first Treasurer's Advance amounted to £25,000. For a long time it hovered in the region of £40,000 ; but it has been gradually growing, until to-day it has reached no less a figure than £250,000 on this one Supply Bill. The amount on the last Supply Bill was £200,000. That is to say, during three months we have given blank cheques to the Treasurer to the amount of £450,000. That enormous sum having been advanced in so short a period, it means, if that rate continues, that little short of £2,000,000 a year is passed by Parliament without the Senate or another place having the slightest knowledge as to how the money is going to be spent. It is perfectly true that later on Parliament must be informed ; but we must not lose sight of the fact that we are only informed as to the expenditure of the money when it has actually been spent. I admit at once that there must be a Treasurer's Advance Fund, but do not honorable senators think that the fund is growing to a dangerous extent, when we find £1, 800,000 a year, at the present rate - assuming that it does not continue to grow - being expended without Parliament knowing anything about the direction of the expenditure? Is it not dangerous that this Advance Fund should continue to be augmented at this enormous rate without Parliament exercising any check over the channels down which the money flows? I cannot regard as financially satisfactory a system which declares that something like a sixth or a seventh of the total revenue may be spent without Parliament being informed as to how it is to be spent. I consider that a more careful scrutiny on the part of the Government, and of the Treasury officials, might obviate the necessity for making these big demands - for asking for these blank cheques. Fuller information ought to be given to us as to "the purpose for which the money is required, and as to why the Treasurer's Advance has been allowed to mount up from a few thousands until we are within reach of a couple of million pounds, concerning which we are not told a single thing. I wish to take advantage of the opportunity - which is furnished by our Standing Orders - when we are dealing with Bills of this kind, to refer to a few other matters. One to which I wish to direct attention is an extremely unfortunate occurrence, which will, I am sure, command the sympathetic attention of the members of the Senate. I refer to the recent fatality to a line repairer in . this city. Every one who has read the newspaper reports to-day concerning this event must come to the conclusion that there is somebody upon whose shoulders the weight of blame rests, and it is a very heavy one. The facts reported cannot be lightly passed over. The evidence is not of an <inline font-style="italic">ex parte</inline> character, because the Post and Telegraph Department was represented officially at the Coroner's inquiry. We cannot assume that the gentlemen who were there representing the Department would allow an unjust imputation to rest upon the service. The facts show that the unfortunate linesman, in the course of his duty, was required to climb a pole which was so rotten that it collapsed under his weight, resulting in his death. The remarkable circumstance is that the pole was known to be rotten months ago. That information was dis closed on the evidence of the- .Department's own officers.' I will make first a quotation from the remarks of the 'Coroner. He said - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The post was certainly rotten J there seemed to be definite evidence on that point. But the question seems to be how long 'a post, should be allowed to stand after it is condemned. I think it should not be allowed to stand at all. How it stood so long I am at. a <inline font-style="italic">loss -to</inline> conceive. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That was the. coroner's summing up after listening to the evidence" of the departmental officers. Further . evidence showed that the unfortunate linesman was required to climb a post which WaS known to bo rotten months ago. Here is the evidence of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. J.</inline> E. Braddock. lines foreman. He said that - </para>
<quote>
<para>He had examined the post in. July, when he. saw a cross on the pole. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Other evidence intimated that when a pole* was condemned it was the practice to place a cross on it. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RAE, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Senator Rae</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is the usual practice. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is the usual practice. The witness went on - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>It then looked all right. He tested it with <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> tomahawk, and it appeared fairly sound. He condemned the next post. On an inspection on 9th September, he "shoved" the post, and -.it appeared to be all right. He would examine about sixty-six posts in a day. The condemned posts should be renewed in a reasonable time. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Durcks,</inline>electrical engineer, also gave evidence. He was asked by the coroner- - </para>
<quote>
<para>Co you allow posts to stand until something serious happens, or leave them until you can get the contractor to remove them? </para>
</quote>
<para>The answer was - </para>
<quote>
<para class="block">Until we can get material to renew them. </para>
</quote>
<para>That answer discloses a state of impotency and stupidity little short of criminal. When a post is condemned the only. standard which the Department has for determining whether it shall be removed is when the officials can get material to renew it. If the material is not at hand the rotten post is not removed. I venture to say that if a private employer had spoken as did this official of the Post and Telegraph. Depart; ment concerning a fatal accident to a workman, there would have been: - and rightly so - an outcry of indignation from one end' of Australia to the other. Further, thewitness said - </para>
<quote>
<para>In some cases, a life of two years- is allowedafter the pole had been "condemned.". On .account of cost in some districts, it is customary to renew a number of posts at a time', and not singly. After inspection in July, steps were being taken- </para>
</quote>
<para>And we know how long a Department can be " taking steps " - </para>
<quote>
<para>Co procure material to renew these posts. The cross is a signal to men to be careful. </para>
</quote>
<para>I direct attention to the fact that the Department, according to this evidence, knew that the post was condemned in July last. It then proceeded to "take steps" to get material to renew it. Does it not occur to honorable senators that a Department which is in constant process of requiring material for renewals ought to have plenty of that material on hand, and not wait until a post is so rotten that it is ready to fall down before being prepared to effect a renewal? Surely it would have been an ordinary business-like proceeding to have stores and material ready for use. Further, the witness said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The pole in question was in a very bad condition. It should have been renewed some time ago. Wc had a report that the pole was condemned in July. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The coroner remarked - </para>
<quote>
<para>But it was condemned before that? </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The witness replied - </para>
<quote>
<para>Yes; but I do not know where the previous report is. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">This matter would be a subject for Gilbert and Sullivan but for the unfortunate tragedy connected with it ; and I can only say again that, to my mind, the facts revealed at the coroner's inquest indicate an amount of stupidity which is little short of criminal. If such conduct were exhibited by private employers in the management of their business, and such an occurrence resulted as was the case here, it would, in my judgment, justify a charge of manslaughter being launched against some one. </para>
<para>While on this subject, may I express an opinion which I have previously enunciated in the Senate. It is that the time has arrived when we should introduce in connexion with our Public Service a provision - call it what you will - tantamount to the obligation which is imposed upon every private employer whose business requires the lives of his workmen to be risked in the performance of their duty. There should be a system by which compensation should be paid to those dependent upon a workman whose life is taken under such circumstances as these. If we call upon a private employer to make compensation, why should the Government escape? As we call upon private industry to carry this obligation, why should not the same responsibility attach to a Government Department? I hope, before long, that steps will be taken to insure that all employes of the Public Service who may be injured in the course of their duties shall receive compensation in the same way as do persons in private employment. </para>
<para>While I am dealing with the Post and Telegraph Department, I should like, to draw attention to another reform which is greatly wanted there. Of course, there are many reforms which are required in connexion with the Department, and I am not going to detain the Senate, and tie up this Bill, by dealing with all of them. But there is one in particular that I had hoped the Government would have seen fit to deal with. It is this : So far, we are still without satisfactory accounts to show the financial workings of the Department. We have none of that knowledge which an ordinary business man would consider that it was his first duty to require concerning his business operations. We are told in the report which has been issued by the Postmaster-General that the revenue of the Department for the year amounted to £3,901,000, and that the expenditure amounted to £4,122,000. But there is no proper system of accountancy by which we may be able to see which particular branch is responsible for the leakage, and which particular branch is profitable. I do say that we can never regard this Department as being worked on a satisfactory footing until accounts are presented to Parliament in such a way that we may know exactly how each branch stands. We are told that quite a new system of keeping accounts has been introduced. It may be new. I do not doubt it. It may be regarded by the officials as a vast improvement upon any previous system. But, so far, it does not enable Parliament and the country to understand the business side of this great business undertaking, and therefore from our point of view the new system is not one whit better than the old one. Also, dealing with the same Department, I should like to ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether the Department has yet received any communication from the meeting of telegraphists held in Sydney yesterday, at which four " demands " were formulated. The first was - </para>
<quote>
<para>That this meeting demand that no alteration in staffs take place until after consideration of the Royal Commission's report, and that all voting in favour sign the resolution. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The second " demand " was - </para>
<quote>
<para>That this meeting strongly resents the Commissioner's action in repudiating his ruling, as laid down in his classification scheme, that six hours be a day's duty for telegraphists in the Head Office, and seven hours in country offices. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The third " demand " was - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the executive telegraph to the Prime Minister, asking him to have the introduction of broken shifts and hours of duty lengthened beyond their statutory limit in the Sydney Head Office postponed until our delegates interview the Postmaster-General in Melbourne on Tuesday. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The fourth " demand " was - </para>
<quote>
<para>That if the demand of this meeting on the Prime Minister for postponement is not complied with, Head Office telegraphists ignore broken shifts, and sign on their usual staffs on Monday. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I should like to know whether a communication conveying these resolutions has been received bv the Postmaster-General, and whether ii is the intention of the Government to comply with the " demands " ? It will be interesting, both 1:0 the general public and to these telegraphists, to know at once whether these " demands " upon the Government are to be met in the same way as they have been submitted. </para>
<para>Passing from the Post and Telegraph Department, I have to express a regret, which I believe will be shared by all members of the Senate, that, so far, the Government have given no indication of having developed, or even considered, a policy in relation to the Northern Territory. Whatever differences of opinion may have existed with regard to the terms upon which the Commonwealth should take over that vast area, there can be none, and will be none, as to the fact that it is one of the big tasks awaiting Australia to open up and develop that country. It was, however, idle for us to take over the Northern Territory if we are to leave it there. We might just as well have left it to South Australia as have it remaining idle under our control. It was a public pronouncement that we accepted the responsibility of opening up and developing the Territory. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- Did you expect us to have developed it already? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not expect the Government to develop the Territory, nor do I ever expect them to do so. But I did expect that within eighteen or twenty months they would have brought down some proposals, or at least have given us an indication of their intentions. If they had merely said that they were preparing a scheme which they hoped to submit to Parliament the position would be different, but so far as the Senate is aware we are not one whit further ahead to-day than we were when we signed the agreement wilh South Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHATAWAY, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Chataway</name>
</talker>
<para>- They have reversed the policy of South Australia about subsidizing prospecting parties. </para>