Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 23 November 1905


Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia) - The business of the Library has been slummed over altogether too long. I do not know how suggestions made by other honorable senators have been received' bv the Library Committee - and I do not think we have any right to blame the Librarian in this matter - but I entered the name of a book in the suggestion-book, and waited for several months to see whether any attention would be paid to my request. As the book was not obtained, I came to the conclusion that there was little need for the suggestion. I think that some alterations might well be made in connexion with the newspapers supplied to the reading rooms. Amongst the papers supplied there are, for instance, the London Times and the weekly edition of the Times, whilst there are many other papers published in the old country that are not supplied. The London Daily News and the London Daily Telegraph are also supplied, and these newspapers practically belong to one school of politics. Papers representing another school of politics are not taken .into the Library at all - such, for instance, as Reynold's Newspaper, the Glasgow Mail, the Dublin Freeman, and the Manchester Guardian. Some American newspapers are supplied, but why we should have American and Canadian newspapers, when those to which I have just referred are not provided, I am unable to say. I should have made some suggestions on the subject long ago, had any notice been taken of the entry I made in the suggestion-book. The Library is a very important part of our institution, and there is unquestionably a great deal of work for the Library Committee to do if they choose to do it. If it is not done, it can hardly be expected that honorable senators will make any suggestions as to books, or newspapers which ought to be provided.

Senator CLEMONS(Tasmania). - I should like Senator Playford' to give the Committee some explanation of the items for postage and telegrams. It used to be the practice to include this item under the heading of the Library. Last year, I find that the actual expenditure was ^474


Senator Sir Richard Baker - That was only for a part of the year. During the year, the vote was divided, and separate votes set down for the Senate and the House of Representatives. More than ^474 was spent during the year.


Senator CLEMONS - I find that the amount set down last year was ,£700. I understand that it has been decided to divide the votes for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and I should like Senator Playford to give the Committee some explanation of the manner in which the money is spent. On these Estimates, £300 is set down for the Senate and ^675 for the House of Representatives, so that the total appropriation is £975, as against .£700 for last year. I think that an increase of £275 °n postages and telegrams is .too much. I wish that Senator Playford would explain exactly how the postage stamps are used, and what are the rights, as apart from privileges or favours, of members of either House in this regard. Lately I have had my eyes opened to a state of things of which I must confess I had not the faintest idea. I have learned that a member of either House can practically apply for as much value in postage stamps as he likes, so long as they are marked " O.S."


Senator Sir Richard Baker - No ; it is limited to £2 worth.


Senator CLEMONS - But how often can a Member of Parliament apply for £2 worth of postage stamps ?


Senator Sir Richard Baker - I do not know.


Senator CLEMONS - Perhaps there is a limit as to each application.


Senator Stewart - During the session?


Senator CLEMONS - No. I think that a member of either House can apply for £2 worth of postage stamps every day, if he likes. Perhaps Senator Playford will explain first, if it is a fact that a Member of Parliament can apply for as many stamps as he likes, so long as he does not in each application ask for more than £2 worth ; and, secondly, if there is practically no limit to the amount -which a member of either House can spend on telegrams, presumably on public service, but possibly on private affairs in innumerable cases.

Senator PLAYFORD(South AustraliaMinister of Defence. - I must acknowledge that my ignorance of this matter is of such a character that I cannot give an explanation. I have never got a pennyworth of postage stamps, and therefore I have not made any inquiries. Perhaps I may have had a telegram sent away, but it has always been on business connected with public affairs, and not with private affairs. Years ago I heard it stated that some Mem bers of Parliament used to get jos. worth of stamps at a time, and others up to £2 worth at a time; . but I never took the trouble to look into the matter. I considered that it -would be carefully looked into by the President on the one hand, and the Speaker on the other, and that they would see that no abuse took place.


Senator Clemons - Is it their duty to do so?


Senator PLAYFORD - I was never curious enough to inquire, because I believed that no abuse would take place.


Senator Clemons - There is a sum of £975 wanted.

Senator Sir JOSIAHSYMON (South Australia). - If Senator Clemons had looked at the schedule, he wound have found how that total was made up. I shall give the figures as I understand them, because the matter ought to be made clear. A sum of £g5 is debited as spent last year.


The CHAIRMAN - I desire to ask the Minister whether the item of £15 under the heading of the Library covers the postage and telegrams for members of the Senate or House of Representatives?


Senator Playford - No; only for the Library.


The CHAIRMAN - In that case, I would remind honorable senators that we have passed the item of postage and telegrams for members of the Senate.


Senator Clemons - This is most unusual, because hitherto this item has always appeared under the head crf the* Library, and naturally I did not look for it under the head of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Senator Sir JOSIAHSYMON (South Australia). - It is really the same item. £95 for part of the year was debited to, the Senate; £41°, for part of the year, was debited to the House of Representatives; and ,£474, the item on which we are engaged, was debited to the Library, making a total of ,£979 for last year. This year we are asked to vote ^300 for the Senate, and £675 for the other House, making a total of £957, or £4 less than last year's expenditure.


Senator Clemons - That explains the amount, but what about the method?

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - I suppose I am responsible for this expenditure, so far as the Senate is concerned. It has been taken away from the Library, and put under the Senate. Some senators used to go and ask for an unlimited supply of stamps - for £5 worth at a time.


Senator Clemons - Senators did?


Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER - Yes. I limited the supply to £2 worth, and it caused a good deal of unpleasantness. I confess that the control of this expenditure is a matter of great difficulty. At one time I was thinking of getting a schedule made up to show the value of stamps for postage and telegrams used by every senator and laying it before , the Senate. If that is desired for next session, I shall see that it is done.


Senator Clemons - Can it be done for this session ?


Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER - I think that some honorable senators rather abuse the privileges. I know very well that, although I have to send the whole of the correspondence of the Senate, and all the official telegrams, I do not use anything like as many postage stamps as some private senators do.


Senator Clemons - I shall ,ask for a return to-morrow.

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH (Western Australia). - I think it was a good thing for the President to show exactly the amount which is voted for postages and telegrams for the use of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate comprises about one-half as many men as the other House, therefore we shall be able .to see if one House or the other is using an extravagant amount. I do not know, but I presume that there are cases in which too large an amount is appropriated by members for telegrams and postages. It is quite" easy for some members to send off a dozen or twenty telegrams in a day, concerning matters which are political, but which at the same time are not of sufficient importance to warrant the incurring of that expense by the Commonwealth. If a motion or clause be carried, it may be possible for 1 member of Parliament to send off twenty telegrams to that effect. That expenditure is absolutely unnecessary, but at the same time it relates to political matters, and legally' a member of Parliament is entitled to send the telegrams.


The CHAIRMAN - I would ask honorable senators to confine their attention now to the item of £15 for postages and telegrams for the Library, as the item for postage and telegrams for senators has been dealt with.


Senator STANIFORTH SMITH - We have been thrown off the track bv the division of this vote into three! items. I. do not wi'sh the idea to go out to the public that senators are receiving -£5 or £2 worth of stamps, and either disposing of them or using them for other purposes.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - Oh, no.


Senator STANIFORTH SMITH - Of course, it is understood that these stamps are perforated with the letters O S, and could not be disposed of, though they might be used for private correspondence.


Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The honorable senator assures the public that the stamps are not sold?

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH.Yes.

Senator STEWART(Queensland).- As a member of the Library Committee, I wish to express my regret that it has met only once during the present session. I think tha,t it ought to meet more often. The fact that it meets only once or twice in the session shows that its members take very little interest in the affairs of the Library. I think that if we had an intelligent Committee - as I suppose we have - and its services were utilized as they ought to be, we might do very good work in these early years of the Federation.


Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The honorable senator can always ask the Speaker to convene a meeting of the Library Committee.


Senator STEWART - One does not like to be continually asking the Speaker to call a meeting. I think we ought to have regular monthly meetings. In that way the interest of the members of the Committee would be quickened in the work. I observe that a large quantity of fiction is continually passing through the Library. I should have thought that members of Parliament have quite enough fiction here to satisfy them. I should like to hear some member of the Committee express an opinion as to whether it is one of the functions of a Parliamentary Library to provide novels for members. My impression is that the books in 'the Parliamentary Library should be principally of a kind calculated to help members in their work.


Senator Mulcahy - A good novel will do that sometimes.


Senator STEWART - Perhaps ; but, unfortunately, we have not many good novels nowadays. I have skimmed through a few of them, and did not find that they were of much use. I do not know whether they cost us much. Probably the President can give us some 'information.

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - I am not the chairman of the Library Committee, and am not sure as to what is done; but I think that the novels are not bought ; they are, I believe, obtained by means of a subscription to a circulating library. I think that the subscription is paid by the State of Victoriabut I am not sure.

Senator O'KEEFE(Tasmania). - I call attention to the fact that books, bookbinding, and insurance are grouped together in one item. That does not give an idea of how much money is spent on books, how much on binding, and how much on insurance. It would be well to tell us exactly how much is spent on the purchase of books.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - Nearly all the money has been! spent on books.


Senator Keating - That includes newspapers and magazines, and the binding of them.


Senator O'KEEFE - Can the Minister give us any information about the item ^200 for fitting up rooms in the basement ? I suppose the rooms are for the storing of books.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - Yes, for the Federal Library.


Senator Keating - It is for books purely- belonging to the Federal Library, which now consists of about 8,000 or 9,000 volumes.


Senator O'KEEFE - Two hundred pounds seems to be a large sum for that purpose. I presume that the money is spent on fittings.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - That money is wanted for shelving.


Senator O'KEEFE - It seems a large sum to spend on shelves.

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - I may mention- that the Parliamentary Library was offered one work which we could not take, and one of the reasons was that we could not find room for it. I do not know how many miles of shelving it would have occupied.


Senator O'Keefe - Miles?


Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER - It was something enormous. It was a complete set of the Imperial Parliamentary Papers. I am not sure, but I think that one of the public institutions in Victoria had a duplicate set and offered it to us. but we had to refuse it.

Senator Sir JOSIAHSYMON (South Australia). - I should like to confirm what the President has said. I am not a member of the Library Committee this session, but I have been a member of it, and I think that the Commonwealth is very much indebted to that Committee for the work it has done. It has established' the nucleus of a great Commonwealth Public Library. I am one of those who would be prepared to spend twice the amount of money set down in the present Estimates for the purpose of assisting towards that end. Every pound' of the money has been thoroughly well spent. One of the very first things that we as a Commonwealth should seek to establish is a thoroughly satisfactory national Library, of which the community could be proud. In the United States, one of the finest libraries in the world has been established in connexion with Congress, and it is now housed in a magnificent building thoroughly worthy of it. In future, however, I think that it would be well to divide the money spent on books and bookbinding for the Library from the amount spent on light literature. I, however, should be prepared to vote for an even larger expenditure on books than has been authorized on these Estimates.

Senator DOBSON(Tasmania). - It seems to me to be obvious that a bad practice may spring up with regard to the item "Temporary assistance." I find that expenditure under that heading runs through almost all the Departments, and some of the votes are exceedingly large. There is a vote of £410 for temporary assistance in connexion with the Library.


Senator Keating - Temporary assistance has been necessary because of the commencement of a very exhaustive catalogue.


Senator DOBSON - I thought there might be some special reason for it. But I find that £400 was spent last year. If the Library has not sufficient permanent officers to do the work more should be employed, and the cost of temporary assistance represents the salaries of two permanent officers. I think it would be much better to put them on the Estimates, so that we might know exactly what we were doing. If between now and to-morrow the Minister will allow a clerk to go into the matter I am satisfied he will find that the amount which is annually voted for temporary assistance and petty cash represents some thousands of pounds.

Senator CROFT(Western Australia).- I would direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the salaries paid in the refreshment- room are exceedingly low. Take the case of the steward of the refreshmentroom, who receives a salary of .£'182 per annum. That officer virtually has to control the whole of the arrangements for that room. He has to supervise the cook's supplies, and he is required to possess all the knowledge necessary to run an hotel. Every time that we see him he must appear in evening dress - indeed, he requires to dress much better than I can afford to do upon my parliamentary allowance. By comparison, the messengers, who receive ^156 per annum, and are supplied by the Government with their uniforms - although

I admit that they earn their money - are much better off. But I particularly desire to call attention to the sweating which goes on in the dining-room, where extra men are occasionally employed. I am informed that the head waiter there receives £2 per week, and that temporary waiters are paid 35s. per week. What they get when they are only engaged for the day or for the evening I do hot know. But I respectfully submit it is a disgrace that we should pay men who work in the parliamentary diningroom only 35s. per week, and expect them to dress according to the recognised custom. Not only must they always appear clean and tidy, but they must necessarily have acquired considerable proficiency in their calling.


Senator Dobson - Do they get any other advantages, apart from their salaries?


Senator CROFT - So fir as I am aware, they receive nothing beyond their meals whilst they are so engaged.


Senator Dobson - Do they get one meal or three meals a day ?


Senator CROFT - I suppose that they get two meals daily.


Senator Keating - Cannot they work elsewhere ?


Senator CROFT - They may do so. That, however, is no justification for sweating them.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - There is no sweating.


Senator CROFT - I have been informed in the clubs and hotels that I visit, by men who are engaged in the same calling, that, whilst the wages which our waiters receive are as good as those which rule elsewhere, they are very low, and are certainly a disgrace to such an institution as the Commonwealth Parliament.


Senator Dobson - I do not think that the honorable senator ought to accuse us of sweating.


Senator CROFT - I am quite prepared to accept some of the blame myself. I say that we ought not to allow this item to pass without recognising that we are paying these men too low a wage. Senator Keating has interjected that thev are permitted to work elsewhere. Is it not sweating to compel them to work elsewhere, late and early, in order that they may earn a livelihood ?


Senator Keating - I find that they da not work elsewhere.


Senator CROFT - I am informed that occasionally they do. I bring the matter forward so that whoever is responsible for the existing state of affairs may effect an alteration therein. I admit that these officers receive about the same wage that is paid for similar work elsewhere, but I contend that that fact does not justify us in paying them such a low salary. Surely these men should be a trifle better paid than are waiters in private employ, especially when we consider that the ordinary rate which obtains in that calling is very low indeed.

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - I do not think that Senator Croft is justified in using such strong language. I object to the expressions " sweating " and " disgraceful conduct," especially when the honorable senator does not know the full facts of the case. I may tell him that a great many of the waiters in the Parliamentary Refreshment-room are engaged only for a meal. They come in for that meal, and are paid the rate which is fixed by the union. We pay the union rate of wages, and if there be any disgrace attached to that rate, it is a disgrace to the union.


Senator Croft - Is it, indeed?


Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER - The union fixes the rate of wages, and we have to pay it. That rate depends upon where the waiters are engaged. For example, if a luncheon is given in the President's diningroom, the union declares that they must receive 15s. each; but if they are engaged in the ordinary dining-room, they receive only 5s. each. Why that is so I do not know. It is one of those union mysteries that I have never attempted to penetrate. Seeing that we pay the union rate of wages, I object to Senator Croft declaring that the men are being sweated. It must be recollected that, in addition to their wages, all their meals are supplied free. That is a great consideration. I would further point out that the Commonwealth is already losing very heavily over this department. I do not know what the loss was for the year ended 31st September last, but the loss for the year ended 30th June was nearly£1,100.


Senator Clemons - That is because honorable senators are fed too cheaply.


Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER - We tried the experiment of raising the tariff, but we lost more by so doing than we did by making a lower charge. What are we to do? Obviously we must either close the refreshment-room entirely, or continue to carry it on at a loss. I do not think that we should go out of our way to pay to the waiters higher wages than are paid by anybody else, and higher wages than those fixed by the union, especially in view of the loss which we are at present incurring.

Senator CROFT(Western Australia).I accept a certain amount of blame for having allowed this item to pass for two years without raising any objection to it. If, as Senator Baker says, the union rates are only 35s. per week-


Senator Sir Richard Baker - I did not say what was the union wage.


Senator CROFT - If union men are employed for a single meal, I presume that union men are also employed by the week; and if the union has fixed the standard wage at 35s. per week, we may rest assured that it did so because the employers took fine care that a higher rate should not be established.


Senator Clemons - The employers?


Senator CROFT - Certainly.


Senator Clemons - But they get 35s. plus their keep.


Senator CROFT - What would be the value of their keep in a case of that kind ?


Senator Clemons - That would depend upon what it would cost to keep themselves.


Senator CROFT - When I was working my lunch was not worth to me more than 5d. or 6d. per day.


Senator Clemons - But all their meals are provided for them.


Senator CROFT - That is, if there is something left after we have done.


Senator Staniforth Smith - They have their Saturday afternoons and Sundays off.


Senator CROFT - I had my Saturday afternoons and Sundays off when I was working, but I did not consider that that was any reason why my wages should be reduced. I would point out that the waiters do not have all their meals provided for them, because only two meals per day are served in the refreshment room. In any case, it is a disgrace for us to pay such a low wage.


Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Why ? Thirty-five shillings is a very good wage, when meals are provided.


Senator CROFT - I do not consider that £2 5s. per week, in addition totheir keep, would be too much to give them. The men are called upon to provide their own dress-suits, and that in itself involves some tax upon them. They have to learn a trade - because it is a trade - and they should be able to take home at least £2 5s. to their families. The keep of one man in a family "makes little or no difference. I trust that the House Committee will take this matter into consideration, and endeavour to increase the pay of the waiters. I am sorry to hear that the Refreshment Room does not pay, and I am doubly regretful that I cannot suggest a remedy. At the same time I shall be no party to justifying the action of the House Committee in paying so low a wage' as that to which I have directed attention.


Senator Sir Josiah Symon - I suggest that the deficiency in the accounts of the Refreshment Room might be remedied if the) tariff were doubled.

Senator GIVENS(Queensland).- If that were done, no one would go there at all. I should like to know what the regular union wages are t


Senator Clemons - The waiters are being paid at union rates.


Senator GIVENS - We must recognise that some of them are afforded only casual employment, and I should go to the full length of saying that we ought to pay them the highest rates ruling outside.

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - I complained to the controller of the refreshment department that I had to pay 15s. each for waiters to attend upon one meal, and I asked him what rate was paid to waiters who were employed in the ordinary refreshment room. He' stated that the rate of remuneration was 5s. per meal. I asked him to account for the difference, and he said he could not do so, beyond stating that the rate in each case was fixed by the union.

Senator HENDERSON(Western Australia). - I am somewhat confused in respect to the items in connexion with the appropriation for defraying the cost of the electric light supplied to Parliament House. Provision is made for a payment of £45° to the Railway Department, whereas the actual expenditure last year was only actual


Senator Playford - That is only an estimate. The amount actually paid depends upon the extent to which the light is used.


Senator HENDERSON - I should like to know what price per unit is paid to the Railway Department.


Senator Sir Richard Baker - I believe 4 1/2d. per unit.


Senator HENDERSON - I find that in addition to the payment to the Railway Department, provision is made for the annual charge for interest and upkeep of plant for supplying electric light. I should like to have some explanation of that item.

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - When we took over these buildings from the Victorian Government, we took up the contracts running in connexion with them. The State Government installed the electric lighting plant, from which the Victorian railways, as well as this House and the Victorian Government buildings, are supplied, and it was arranged that the three Departments concerned should each pay a fixed sum per annum towards the interest on the money borrowed to carry out these works, as well as to provide a sinking fund in respect of it. Our contribution under" that agreement now amounts to ,£428 per annum, although, when we first entered into possession of these buildings, it was higher. We also pay for the light that we actually use. The ordinary price, I believe, is 6d. per unit, but inasmuch as the three Departments concerned were making the contribution I have named, the Government of the State agreed to supply them at the rate of 4 1/2d. per unit. Whether this arrangement be a good or a bad one, we cannot help ourselves, inasmuch as it forms part of the agreement under which we took possession of these buildings. I may mention that whilst our expenditure in respect of electric light is more than it used to be, we are consuming much less gas. A year or two ago we voted ,£500 per annum' for gas, whereas the cost is now only ,£300 per annum. As against that reduction, we are now paying about £100 per annum in excess of the sum that was formerly paid in respect of the electric light. It will thus be seen that the cost of lighting these buildings is less than it formerly was. I 'repeat that as these arrangements form part of the contract between the Federal Government and the State authorities, we cannot help ourselves, but Sir Malcolm McEacharn. who was a member of the Joint House Committee, and was familiar with the electric lighting system, informed the Committee, after investigating the matter, that the cost of lighting Parliament House was verv low. As to the point raised by Senator Smith, I may explain that the dirtiness of the water sometimes supplied in the lavatory is due to the presence pf what is termed a " dead end." The Metropolitan Board of Works has on three or four occasions tried, I believe at considerable expense, to remedy this state of affairs, but has not succeeded.

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH (Western Australia). - I have no doubt that the explanation given by Senator Baker for the dirtiness of the water often supplied in the lavatory is correct, but it seems to me that there should be a remedy. Honorable senators, on visiting the lavatory to wash their hands, sometimes find it impossible to use the water. The Metropolitan Board of Work's undertake to supply private individuals with water capable of being used for such purposes, and surely they should not make an exception in our case. If a private individual were called upon to pay water rates, he would certainly object to an impure supply, and I fail to see why the Federal Government should be called upon to pay for such a service. . The President has told us that the Metropolitan Board of Works has found it impossible to remedy the evil, but I do not believe that it is. If the pipe now stopping at the lavatory were carried further on, we should obtain a better supply, and considering how generously the Victorian Government has treated us with regard to the use of these buildings, it is somewhat remarkable that the Metropolitan Board of Works should fail to remove all cause for complaint in this respect. I feel confident that if the Government brought the matter under the notice of the Victorian authorities, they would see that an alteration was made. Even if the change necessary to provide us with a purer supply involved some expense, the cure would be a permanent one, and would be beneficial to members of the State Parliament when they once more entered into possession of these buildings. I do not think there would be any objection to the Commonwealth Government bearing a proportion of the cost. Whilst dealing with the sanitary services, I wish to point out that this House is the only building in Melbourne which is not sewered. Under the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act, all private premises must be connected with the sewerage system. and private individuals, irrespective of their financial position, have been compelled to incur the expense of complying with that law. I have known men to pull down private houses, or remove them beyond the ambit of the Metropolitan

Board of Works, rather than incur the expense of sewering them. If the law is carried out in the case of private individuals, regardless of their ability to bear the expense which compliance with it involves, I fail to see why an exception should be made in this case. Why should the State Government defy a law which they were instrumental in passing? Why should they not sewer these buildings, when all private and public buildings in Melbourne, including hospitals and otherphilanthropic institutions, have been connected with the sewerage system in the interests of public health?


Senator Playford - I stated, in answer to a question a day or two ago, that the Department of Home Affairs was again in communication with the State Government in reference to this matter, and was endeavouring to expedite the work.


Senator STANIFORTH SMITH - We have been put off with specious promises of that kind ever since the inception of the Parliament. We have never heard of a definite refusal from the State Government. Time after time, Ministers have promised that the matter shall be brought- under its notice - Mr. Justice O'Connor having made that promise during the first Parliament; but can the Minister of Defence inform us whether that has been done, and, if so, what reply has been received?


Senator Playford - We are trying to make an arrangement.

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH.Seeing that we occupy these premises without charge, by reason of the generosity of the Victorian Government, I think we might offer to pay something towards the cost of the work.


Senator Playford - If we were to agree to pay interest on the money expended, it would be sufficient.

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH.Will the Minister endeavour to have something done? Will he make representations on the subject to the Minister of Home Affairs ?


Senator Playford - Yes.

Senator STANIFORTHSMITH.During the summer months, the condition of the earth closets in this building is such' that it is positively unpleasant, and, I believe, unhealthy, to remain in their vicinity. I should like to know,- too, if it is necessary to employ both an engineer and an assistant engineer in looking after the building?

Senator Sir RICHARDBAKER (South Australia). - It is absolutely necessary to employ two men. The building is a very large one, and they are fully employed in looking after telephones, electric bells, and electric lighting, and in making various repairs.

External Affairs : Secretary : Commonwealth Gazette : Immigration Restriction Act, Legal Expenses : Secretary to Executive Council.

Divisions 11. to 15 {Department of External A fairs), ,£42,498.







Suggest corrections