, and arranging them in their order of importance. ‘ They recommended that, for the year 1909-10, upwards of £600,000 should be expended ; for 1910-n, £910,600; and for 1911-12, £525,000.
– How much are we expending this year in excess of the amount expended last year?
– Some.£200,000 or £300,000.
– Then the proposed expenditure is something like,£300,000 of what the Conference proposed?
Treasurer, or nearly twice as much as was expended last year. All these works have been reported on, and recommended for execution. I have had nothing to do with the preparation of the list. One or two complaints of omissions have been made to me, but having had them investigated, I do not think that I can interfere. If any honorable member brings forward an omission from the list of works proposed to be carried out this year which he would like to have investigated, I shall see that inquiries are made, but I did not feel called upon to investigate the multitudinous items in this schedule. I shall be pleased to take a note of any criticisms which honorable members may have to offer, and to do what I can to rectify omissions.
.- I wish to take advantage of the statement just made by the Postmaster-General to reiterate my strong objection to the financial policy which has characterized the administration of his Department since the inception of Federation, and which is in evidence in the Estimates now before us. At page 76 of the Budget papers, there -is the statement that the proposals of the Government for the ensuing year involve a payment out of current revenue of £136,000 for buildings and sites in connexion with the Department, and £564,000 out of revenue” from the current year under the heading of “ Telegraphs, telephones, and special cables.” These two sums give us a total of £700,000. That amount is to be paid out of the revenue for the present year for reproductive works which will produce revenue for a long course of years. I am glad that events in connexion with the recent Conference of Premiers have made it likely that the Government will not submit a proposal for issuing Treasury bills in connexion with these Estimates, because the project of raising money in that way, on the ground of a deficiency in the revenue for the current year at a time when that revenue has to bear the burden of an expenditure of £700,000, on works of utility, which will be used for at least thirty years, is to my mind a system of ffinance which cannot be justified either on the part of a political assembly or a body of business men. If the affairs of the commercial community of Australia were conducted upon such principles, the business of the Commonwealth would be reduced to universal confusion and ruin. I denounce again the absurdity of burdening the cur- rent revenue - whose legitimate service is the meeting of current expenditure - with these enormous charges. They cannot be justified on any principle of sound finance. In this way we are absolutely destroying the efficiency of the Department in some cases. Since the establishment of Federation, a committee of experts was appointed to determine the amount that would be required to place the Post and Telegraph Department in a position to carry out its work efficiently. That committee reported that such efficiency could not be secured unless there was an expenditure on the Department of something like £2, 000,000. In the face of that official report, this pernicious system ‘of starving and crippling the Department in the attempt to pay out of current revenue burdens which should be distributed over a number of years has been persisted in, and has reduced the convenience of the public to a minimum’, has been a source of widespread disgust and irritation, and is absolutely without justification. It is a kind of finance that would disgrace an establishment of juveniles, and I am sorry that it has been perpetuated and intensified in these Estimates. Millions of money in excess of the three-fourths of Customs and Excise revenue to which they were entitled have teen returned to the States, and surely those who do not believe in borrowing might well have applied some of that surplus revenue to placing our Federal services on a satisfactory footing. We must all take our share of responsibility for having allowed the Department to become a by-word throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Its officers have been exposed to all sorts of criticism. And for what reason? Because they have not had a chance to do their work honestly and fairly. It would be just as ridiculous to ask an expert to do his work without the requisite machinery as it is to expect the officials of the Post and Telegraph Department, and especially those of the Telephone Branch of the service, to carry on their arduous duties under present conditions. Those engaged in the Telephone Branch of the service throughout Australia have most arduous duties to perform, and they are held up to universal odium, not because they are inefficient or unfaithful, but because they have never had a chance to transact public business in a proper way. The first reason for this is that the appliances necessary for effectively carrying on the telephone service have never yet been supplied. We must take the responsibility for that, and it is our duty to put an end to so discreditable a state of affairs. The position is the same in regard to our military service. I cannot dwell on that subject at present, but it is sad to think that the two great administrative Departments which were handed over to the Federal Parliament have been so miserably muddled during the last eight years.
– Starved in the interests of the States.
– Whatever the cause, it is unjustifiable. Our rotten system of finance has come to a head when we find on the one hand a proposal to take out of current revenue this year £700,000 to build works which will last for from thirty to fiftyyears, and simultaneously to issue Treasury bills to cover a deficiency in the public revenue. This £700,000 is to be ‘charged to the revenue of this year. One of the worst features of finance is the manufacture of deficiencies, and it is for that reason I have expressed my opinion in such strong terms.
Sir WILLIAM LYNE (Hume) (2. 30].- [f we follow the example of the right honorable member for East Sydney, we shall’ really have another Budget debate, and that is not my desire, although, as yet, I have not spoken on the financial proposals of the Government. However, I may say that I differ entirely from the right honorable member, because I think that this money should be found out of current revenue. We are told that, in consequence of the action of previous Treasurers, the Post and Telegraph Department is in a state of inefficiency j but I ask the right honorable member what was his attitude when I endeavoured to obtain money in order to put matters right? On more than one occasion I have expressed very strongly the opinion that it is a wrong principle to starve the Departments merely in order that money may be returned to the States.
– Does the honorable member not think that it is a bad policy to construct permanent post-offices out of current revenue?
– It is a good policy to pay everything possible out of revenue. I remember that when the right honorable member for East Sydney, as State Premier, issued, or proposed to issue, a loan, repayable in thirty years at so much each year, I opposed him, as I oppose him now. As I say, I never was in favour of depleting the Departments in order to return revenue to the States ; but when any proposal to the contrary was made, we found so many honorable members here acting as the representatives of the States, instead of as Federal representatives, that it was very hard indeed to overcome the difficulty.
– The honorable member did not know then that he could keep the money.
– The moment I did know, I asked that a law should be passed, to enable us to keep the money, but in that I was not supported by the honorable, member and others opposite ; indeed, there was a great outcry, and the matter was finally taken to the High Court.
– The honorable member was not the whole Government,’ was he?
– I was Treasurer.
– A Treasurer cannot do as he likes.
– I forced the measure on, but I received no help from the present Treasurer.
– The honorable member speaks in the first personal pronoun every time.
– The Treasurer’s speeches are worse than a noted speech of the late Sir Henry Parkes, which was all the first personal pronoun. If it had not been for my persistence, the measure to which I refer would not have been passed. However, I maintain that this £700,000 odd ought to be paid out of revenue.
– Not by the issue of Treasury bills, surely?
– No ; I am more strongly against the issue of Treasury bills than the right honorable member ever was, and shall oppose the system whenever I have the opportunity. When the revelations as to the state of the Post and Telegraph Department came down on us like an avalanche, I, not being Prime Minister, could not curb the expense of the Department, and I was not going to promise expenditure that I could not provide for. The time has arrived now when the money should be provided, though not by the issue of Treasury bills; and next year all the money required can be found unless some ridiculous compromise is made in the meantime. We have no official infor mation from the Government, but I should like to know how the Treasurer is going to pay £9,500,000 for this and the other services in 1920, when, according to his own statement, he will have only £5,500,000 to pay it with. I only mention this casually, because it will come up for discussion on