Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 14 June 1904

Mr WATSON (Bland) (Treasurer) .In justice to the honorable and learned member, I might explain that at the time that I made the communication to the press I certainly thought that . he had intended to include in his suggestion the question of the payment of increments. I think that perhaps there was some confusion in the minds of each of us as to the exact matter to which we were referring. If the honorable and learned member will refer . to the report of his speech he will find that he said -

If they accept money at all they must accept it as a complete discharge of our obligations to date.

Mr Deakin - But I had not then touched upon the question of increments.

Mr WATSON - No; but the question of increments is included in our obligations to date. The officers say that they are in any case entitled, as from 31st March, 1901, to the amount calculated as due to them on the basis of the verdict given in the case of Bond v. The Commonwealth, and also to the increments which have accrued since then, and which are now payable to officers in corresponding positions in South Australia. Therefore, the words " to date " led me to believe that the honorable and learned member was referring to a quittance for claims in respect to increments.

Mr Deakin - No.

Mr WATSON - I am glad to have that explanation. I may say, further, that the statement in the press is hardly correct in one minor particular, to which I refer only because the honorable and learned member has mentioned my colleagues in the matter. The question has not been before the Cabinet, but I have decided for my own part that I shall not insist upon any quittance being held to cover claims for increments. We can quite agree with the honorable and learned member as to the desirability of obtaining a quittance concerning any other claims officers may have. The form in which that quittance can be phrased in the receipt is another question. 1 merely sought to convey to the press the information that I would not insist upon these officers abandoning their claims to increments, simply because we were willing to pay them whatever amount was ascertained to be due to them under section 19 of the Act in question.

Suggest corrections