Legislative Assembly Hansard 1900 - Queensland Parliament

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 1900

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Tramway Bill. [30 N OVEMBER.l Factories and Shops Bill. 2231

FRIDAY, 30 NOVEMBER, 1900.

The SPEAKER(Hon. Arthur Morgan, Warwick) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPER8. The following papers, laid on the table of the

Hou,e, were ordered to be printed :-(1) Report of the Inspector of Distilleries. (2) Report of the Board of Experts appointed

to clas,ify and grade the various staffs in the Government Printing Office.

NEW RAILWAYS. NrmANG ~·o Coor.ANGATTA-MIRANI ·ro CATTLE

CmcEK-CROYDON TOWARDS GEORGETOWNLAIDLEY CREEK BRANCH - 0LEBMONT TO llLAIR A1'HOL-lVIAREEBA '1'0 ATHERTON.

The SECRETARY FOH HAILW AYS (Hon. J. Murray, N01·man&y) laid on the table vlans, sections, and books ot reference of the above railways, together with the Railway Commissioner's reports thereon.

Ordered that the Commissioner's reports be printed.

QUESTION. CllSSATION Ol' ASSIS'l'ED IMMIGRATION.

Mr. LESINA (Cle1·rnont) asked the Premier, without notice-

Is it true, as stated in the Telegraph of this evening, that the hon. gentleman has announced that free immigration will cease henceforth P The sta:ement is made in the report of an interview.

The PREMII~R: If the hon. member will look at Hansa?·d of a fortnight ago he will see that.

:FACTORIES AND SHOPS BILL. RllPORT s~·AGE.

On the motion of the HOME SECRETARY (Hon. ,T. F. G. Foxt.on, Carnarvon), the third rAading of this Bill w"s made an Order of the Day for Monday next.

2232 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

PASTORAL LEASES BILL. COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT~-COMMITTEE.

On clause 10-" Application of the Land Act, 1897"-

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. W. B. H. O'Connell, JIIusgrat·e) said the amendmente made by the Council in the Bill were virtually formal. The first amendment was the omission of the word "or" after the word "shed" in subsection 1, which made the clause read better. He moved that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. W. HAMILTON (Gregory) did not quite understand the amendment. A lessee might have his washpool on one portion of his ru!'J, the head station on another, and a reservmr on another portion, and it would be difficult to tell what part of the run would be resumed under that provision.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The omission of the word "or" did not alter the meotning of the clause, but simply made it read better.

Mr. SMITH (Bou·en) thought the clause would read still better if they also omitted the word "or" after the word "station.

Hon. A. S. COWLEY: 'Ne can only consider the Council's amendments.

Amendment agreed to. On subsection 1-The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

The next amendment was the omission of the whole of sub-paragraph (ii.) of subsection 1. As the clause originally passed that Committee it was considered that there was some doubt as to the meaning of the words "such part," and the Parliamentary Draftsman had redrafted the provision so as to make it clear that it applied to the first resumption, which was what w"ts intended. The new paragraph which it was proposed to substitute for the one omitted read as follows:-

Upon a first resumption, then whether the land resumed does or does not amount in area to one-third of the gross area of snch holding, at least one-fourth of the external boundaries of the laud resumed shall, unless the lessee otherwise agrees, coincide with the original boundaries of the holding, or, if the ~olding consists of more than one parcel of land, w1th the original boundaries of one or more of such parcels. He moved that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to. On schedule A-The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

The Council had added a form of attestation to that clause. Though it might possibly be an improvement to have an attestation as a proof of bona fides, he did not think the amendment was absolutely necessary. However, he dirl not see any reason why they should fall out with the Council over the matter, and he moved that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to. On schedule B-The ~ECRETARYFOR PUBLIC LANDS:

The Council had made a similar amendment in schedule B, and he moved that it be agreed to.

Question put and passed. The House resumed ; and the CHAIRMAN

reported that the Committee had agreed to the amendments of the Legislative Council.

The report was adopted, and the Bill ordered to be returned to the Council.

SUPPLY. REsuli!PTION oF CollniTTTEE-PoRTPONEi\!ENT oF

Hmm SECRETARY's EsTHIA'l'ES. The HOME SECRETARY moved that the

remaining Estimates of the Home Secretary's Department be postponed until after the ERtimates of thP Department of Public Works had been disposed of.

Question put and passed,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC .WORKS,

SECRETARY ~'OR PUBLIC WORKS. The SECRETARY FOE PUBLIC WORKS

(Hon. J. Murray, Norma·t<IJy): In modng that the sum of £15,235 be granted for the Department of Public \Vorks, I have to express my deep regret at the circumstances which ha_ve re.ce:>tly occurred in this department. I thmk 1t IS a matter that must be regretted by all that the gentlPman who had filled the office of U1\der Secretary so efficiently and so faithf_ully for many years, and who had spent ovel" th1rty-four years in the service of the country, has passed away. I think he has passed from amongst .ns under circumstances of the very saddest descnption. It could not be said of him that !'is end was one of peace. His end was one, I thmk, of extreme trial and worry. I was for over two and a-half years closely associated with the gentlema:'who held the position of Under Secretary of th1s department, and I can only speak. of him as I found him. I always found h1m to be a thoroughly honourable and generous-t_Dmded man. I can conscientiously say that durml!" the whole time that I was in the uffice and assocmted with him he was never the man to utter the slightest word of censure or to speak ill of any of his subordinate officers. That I can say n:ost conscientiously. However, there are some thmgs I am very pleased at in moving this item. I am pleased that at length an opportunity has occurred which will enable me to place bef?re this House and the country some of the l~admg features of this extraordinary case-I will say this extraordinary and somew.hat notorious case.

JYir. LESINA : Infamous case ! The SECHETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

In what I have got to say I will stick as closely as I possibly can to the actual facts as they present themselves to me from beginning to end. I think it must be admitted that there can be no one in n better position than I am to judge the merits and demerits of the whole of thiS case, and of the honour and integrity, or the reverse, of the officers connected with it. This is the first time I think in the history of thie colony where a Public \Vorks Commission's r.eport.has been submitted to this House for d!>Cusswn ; and I think it is also the first time in the history of the colony where a Minister of the Crf,wn has been censured by a Roy>;l Co_mmission, an.d practically placed on hiS tnal before th1s House. I regret the circumstance• •.cry muuh, but they were not of my seekmg. Hon. members must be perfectly aware that I inherited this trouble; that the germs of all this trouble had been sown broadcast in the department long before I came into it. It is perhaps just as well that b~fore _ I proce~d further I should give . someth1:'g hke a. bnef history of what transp1red durm& the !Jme I have been in the office, and I will refer more minutely to it later on in dealing with the evidence. About twelve months after I took charge of the office a gentleman. of the name of William Taylor .Jack, an mspector of works in the department, charged the Under Secretary with paltry thiev!ng and various other offences, anrl prosecuted h1m before the Public Service Board for those offences. He engaged couneel to conduct his defence a~d to prosecute the Under Secretary, and he sa1d

he believed he had charges w hJCh [4 p.m.] were sufficient, to convi;nce me.

This was done, in the first mstance, by an exceedingly impertinent letter, t~at '."as written by this subordinate officer to !'Is ch1ef. Immediately after that l.etter was rece1;·ed, the Under Secretary handed 1t to me. I read 1t, and I said to him "1'his is a very serioug matter, indeed." "Well," he said, "this is the second

[30 NOVEMBER. J Supply. 2233

letter of this description that I have received from the same officer." I again read the _letter over, and I said, "The consequences of this are very sedous. This cannot be allowed to pass without having someinquiryintoit, "and I ordered it to be sent down to the Ci vi! Service Board, to hold an inquiry into the circumstances. I think hon. gentlemen will admit that I coulddonomore, and that, under the circumstances, it was my plain duty to do that, and whether I persecuted that gentleman or not, in doing it, mu;t remain for this House and the country to judge. I looked upon it as a duty which I had to perform. Two days after this letter had reached me, and had been forwarded to the Civil Service Board, Mr. Jack announced that he wanted to interview me in my office, and I admitted him, and he said, " I suppose you have seen the letter that I have written to the Under Secretary." I said, "I have." "vV ell," he said, "what do you think of it?" I said, "Mr. Jack, I think it a most exceedingly indiscreet letter for you to write. 1\Ioreover, I think that it involves consequences of a far more seriou; nature than you are probably aware of." "vVhat are the consequences involved?" he asked. I said," It involves these Cllnsequences : either you or the Under Secretary must leave this department on the face of that letter." "How do you make that out?" he said. I said, "In this way, if you prove those charges that you say your Under Secretary or chief is gnilty of, he has no right to remain in this office for another hour; and, on the other hand, if you fail to prove these charges that you have formulated against your superior officer, you certainly must leave this department." I think hon. gentlemen will support me in taking that view of the matter. The Ci vi! Service Board instituted an inquiry. JI/Ir. Jack had taken upon himself to prove that the Under Secretary hRd been guilty of charging cab hire tht>t was never incurred ; that he wa~ intereste::l in business outside the department, and various other offences. The inquiry was held, and he failed in every instance to prove a.ny one of these charges. Even the simplest charge in the whole lot he failed to prove, and failed most completely to prove one of those charges against the Under Secretary.

Mr. GIVENS : '\Vhv wos not he sacked, then? The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I

naturally thought, from the view I had taken of the subject, and the way in which I had presented it to him, that he would suffer the consequences, and that the Civil Service Board would have recommended his dismissal; and I can assure the Committee that when the report was sent to me, and I had had time to read it carefully, I was very much surprised at the finding of the Civil Service Board. They said that he had failed to substantiate any of the charges; and they looked upon his conduct as so reprehensible as to fully warrant his dismissal, but, on the ground that he had the reputation of being a very competent officer, they waived that, and recommended a reduction of his salary by £10 a year. Well, in view of the position that I had taken up, I was somewhat surprised. Had the matter been in my hands, he certainly would have been dismissed-there is no question about that. But you will understand that this first offence was practically waived by the Uivil Service Board believing him to be a competent officer. It was not more than threemonthsafterthis that my attention was directed to some very disgraceful work that had been carried out under the department. My attention had been directed to the character of the work, and on one occasion it was so prominently brought under my notice that I resolved I would go and see the work for myself ; and I did so. On returning to the office I said to Mr. Brady, "vVho was the inspector you have had

in charge of this work?" He said, "It was JI/Ir. Jack." " vVhat," I said, "l'IIr. Jack?" . Hon. gentlemen can easily understand my surpnse and astonishment that this man, after havmg been exonerated from his offence, had been guilty of this glaring piece of negligence in the discharge of his duty, and !:>ad allowt>d, as it we_re, the country to be robbed by interested part1es .. I say that most distinctly. The character of the work was proven to be most disgracefully bad. Even Mr. Jack had to admit that it was bad, and everyone else who saw it said it was the most disgraceful piece of work that had ever been carried out in the colony.

Mr. ANNEAR: Who said that? The SECRETARYFORPUBLICWORKS:

The evidence proved that. When the character of the work was brought under my not_ice-I wa:'t hon. members to pay special attentwn to th1s, because for the action I took I have been censured by the Press, and by this Royal Commission, and by othero-I asked Mr. Brady to call upon Mr. Jack for some explanation for passing this work. He was then at Townsville. He was written to for an explanation, and he wrote a long friendly letter by way ol explanation, which was not in any degree satisfactory to me. I could see nothing for it but to suspend h_im, which I did. I have been censured for thisand a most remarkable circumstance is that, on a previous occasion, the Under Secretary was censured for not having suspended this very officer for a very serious offence, and I have been censured for suspending the same man, so that there is a glaring inconsistency in- the argument which was brought against me. Having read his letter, I saw nothing for it but to hold a searching inquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding this case. He was suspended and brought down to Brisbane, and his case was handed over to the Civil Service Board. That was my whole connection with the matter. I suspended this officer, and handed the whole matter over to the Civil Service Board for inquiry. I thought, and I still think, that the Civil Senice Board is a totally impartial tribunal. At any rate, it is a non-pnlitical tribunal. On the other hand, the Royal Commission was really a political tribunal.

Mr. KERR: There was no Labour member on it.

Mr. LESINA: There was one spy on it. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

The inquiry went on, and it was proven most conclusively and distinctly that this inspector had been guilty of the grossest negligence in _the discharge of his duties-that he had been gmlty of helping unscrupulous contractors, and probably others, to rob the State at their own sweet will.

Mr. JI/IcDoNALD: You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying that in the House. I do not know the man.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLICWORKS: I am endeavouring, in what I have to say on this subject, to be as moderate as it is possible for man to be.

Mr. YJ:cDONALD: If he is a disgrace, you are a disgrace.

The CHAIRMAN : Order! The suhject of this debate is of such a nature that it is likely to be a very warm debate ; and if these interjections are persisted in it will very likely be an acrimonious debate. Every hon. member has a right to speak without being interrupted. The Standing Order on that subject provides that-

A member shall not interrupt another while addressing the House, except by leave of such other member, or of the House, and for the purpose of making a personal explanation. I hope hon. members will bear that in mind, and assist me by obeying that Standing Order. .

2234 Supply. tASSEMBLY.] Supply.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I have already stated that I trust, at all events, that I shall be able to place my views before the Committee in the most moderate language possible, although, should I be tempted into some slight excesses, I may be excused under the circumstances. There is one thing I may say, that those who de"ire to persecute me have not been very moderate in their language towards me ; and that I say most distinctly. The inquiry went on, and it was proven that he had been guilty of the grosse~t negligence that it was possible for an officer to be guilty of. The Civil Service Board discovered that he was not the competent officer they had considered him to be. There was overwhelming evidence to prove the man's incompetency. And what did they do? They did not even then recommend the man's dismissal. They merely recommenderl that he be suspended for four months and sent back arnonil'st his fellow officers to carry on-I think I am quite warranted in saying - the system of espionage and intrigue that he had been repeatedly proven guilty of.

Mr. ANNEAR: It never was proven. TheSECRE'fARY FOR PUBIJIC WORKS:

I will endeavour to prove it before I sit down. ·when that was done the matter was practically out of my hands, and I had nothing more to do with it. But this man Jack boasted that he had strong friends in the district who would see that the cause of his removal from Brisbane to Townsville would be fully investigated. This is a matter of extreme importance, and I would ask how is it that this man, \Villiam Tay lor Jack, an inspector in the Public \Vorks Department, could have so much influence in the community as to have this commission appointed, and this business brought before the House, with the intention of condemning myself?

lYir. REm : He was a Freemason, for one thing-. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

l\Iy connection with the matter is just as I have stated. I have no regrets for anything I have done in connection with it, and I can assure the Committee that had I the .ame ordeal to go through again, I do not know of a single thing I did that I would not do. But, instead of getting some little credit for what I did to stop those glaring abuses that were brought under my notice, I have been censured by the Press,· by this House, and by the whole community.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Not bv this House yet. "

Mr. JACKSON: You mean by the Royal Commission?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Yes. I meant by the Royal Commission. They censured me most severPly, and before I finish I will ask tbe commission to justify their conduct towards myself. I say that had I not taken the action I did I should have been unworthy of the position I occupy. That disgraceful work would have been probably still carried on, as it appeared to be getting worse and worse. It will be an interesting subject of study now to know why this work was done. It is a most extraordinary thing that an inspector wbo is paid by the public to superintend works of this description should not master his instructions. Those instructions are simple : "Here is a building to be erected ; it is to cost £3,500. There are the plans and specifications, and you are to ~ee that the work is well and faithfully carried out in the interests of the public in accordonce with the plans and specifications." Now we have it in evidence that this officer had never read the specifications. He was in total ignorance of them. He knew nothing whatever as regards the material to be used or the manner in which the building had to be put up. He even told the Royal Commission he had never read

the specifications. Did they censure him? No fear. And, moreover, they sat in judgment on the Civil Service Board, and reversed the decision of that tribunal, and recommended that thig man should be reimtated and all his expenses paid. I do not think we have had a similar instance in the history of this colony. I say it i~ one of the most di,graceful proceedings that has ever tarnished the fair fame of Queensland. When this matter is fully investir-ated, and fully explained to the public, it will be found to be one of the most disgraceful things-and I am intimately acquainted with it-that ever took place in this country.

Mr. McDoNAI,D: Because the Government could not pull the commission.

The SBCRETAR Y J<'OR PUBLIC WORKS: I trust hon. members will not interrupt me. Now, I expect that it is just possible that some hot words and some disagreeable expressions will be used in this dt>bate--;

Mr. ANN >JAR: Probably by yourself. The SECRE'l'ARY FOR .PUBLIC WORKS:

However, I intend to refrain from anything of the sort.. \Vhat I have stated to the Committee is briefly the exact history of what has occurred during the time this business was going on, and during the time I have been in this office. I think I cannot do bt-tter th<tn now criticise some of the evidence given in this case, and in doing so I desire to call special attention to tbis : th>tt the head and front of the whole trouble is this man, \Villiam 'l'aylor Jack.

Mr. JACKSON: And still he is employed in the Government service.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That man is the cause of the whole trouble, and I am exceedingly anxious that this Committee should know something of what manner of man this rnan Jack is. I think that is very desirable.

Mr. KmsTON : I don't think that is at all necessary.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I think that is very necessary.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already called the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 108, and I again inform hon. members that I intend to see that that Standing Order is observed, and that I shall have to deal pretty sharply with hon. memhe1 s who offend egainet it.

The SECHETARY FOR PUBLIC WORK8: The first we hear of Mr. Jack is his letter of a1Jplication to be appointed a.n inspector of works here, dated llth August, 1888, in which he says-

I have had a good deal of home experience in connection with Government work<;;, and am all alive to the ways in whi<~h dishonest contractors so often try to clefraud their employers, which I consider a great point for the position of inspectors. \V ell, I do not question for one moment that he was all alive to the ways and doings of dishonest contractors; but how he used this knowledge is a matter of conjecture. He evidently, in this instance, did not use it in the interests of the department. That goes without saying. I am somewhat indebted to this Royal Commission for further information with regard to this man Jack which I was not previmwly aware of. :Mr. Jack said, at que~tion 7221--

I first hr,ard of )fr. Robertson and his cab fares as far back as 1893. I was then on very good terms with .:\Ir. Robertson, and used to go out to his residence. He was having some work carried out there, and he asked me to look after it. I used to go out after office hours, and on one occasion I met an officer of the department at the Roma.street railway station. He said, " I suppose you are going to Robertson's to give him a cheap inspectionr" I did not like the remark, because there wus a great deal of truth in it. He said, " Why doesn't he shont. a cab and charge it to the office I'" I said, " What do you mean?" and eventually he told me about l\Ir. Robertson's cab fares. I was almost horrified

Supply. [30 N OVEMBER.J Supply. 2235

at the thing, and thought it my duty to warn the accountant against that officer. l think Mr. IIely is prepar~d to give evidence on that point if necessary. I took It upon myself to warn the accountant against him, because I thought he was rather a dangerous gentleman to make such statements about the head of the department. }'(r. Bell at that. time never said ''yea" or "nay," but g-ave me a blank look. I said, "I hope you do not take it amiss that I tell you about this thing." I heard about the cabs, and spoke to Beli again. He said, ; ' It has been going on for ,years, so it is reported." I thought at the time that it was a frightful thing. That coming from Mr. Jack is a very good start. I had no idea that this business dated so far back as 1893; but I can say now that this man J ~ck and Mr. Bell had evidently made up their mmds, as far back as 1893, to endeavour to get sm.ne. charge against Mr. Robertson of paltry th1evmg, or something of that description, which might be used to advantage later on. Mr. Brady, on the 15th May, 1899, found it necessary to rearrange the department by the transfer of inspectors from one district to another, and he wrote-

Mr. Inspector Jack to be transferred from Brisbane to Townsville, to superintend the works in the Northern District;

and also-There being quarters at Townsville, 3Ir. Jack'R present

allowance of £50 per annum would cease on his transfer taking effect. I minuted on that-

Refer to Public Service Board; and that board recommended-

That the transfers herein suggested be carried into effect, with the exception of ].-Ir. Jobnson's transfer, as that gentleman does not come under the operation of the Public Service Act, his apPointment being of a temporary nature. His transfer, therefore, rests with the department. And the following further minutes were made:-

Approved.-J.;u .. 18-5-9~. Government Architect to note.-R.R., 18-5-99. ~oted.-A.B.B., 18-5-99.

Mr. Jack was advised accordingly, and on the 19th May, 1899, the Under Secretary received this letter from Mr. Jack-

Sir,-1 was in no way surprised to receive your official let.ter of yesterday's date, notifying my transfer from Bnsbane to rrownsville. In this matter, as in many others, I trace your hand, and particu!a,rly fl'Om the date of my memo. to you of 13th January, 1896, the concluding portion of which contained the best advice one man can give to another, viz.: "Become an honest man, and set to others the example your position demands:." . .l!'rom that time I have been careful to note how per

sistent you have been in systematically.working against m.r. interests-a matter made easy in your position, bavmg at all times the ear of the Minister.

Fortunately for me, I preserved a press copy of the above memo., also your memo. to me of the same date bo.th of "~hich must now become public property, a~ evidence 1n my case to show the vindictive motives you have for my transfer-But Mr. Robertwn had nothing whatever to do

with tbis mar:'s transfer, nor had I, [4'30 p.m.] except to approve of the recommen-

dation of the Public Service Boardand the malicious tactics you have used to disturb the harmony which at all times existed between the Government Architect and myself.

By my honesty and uprightness in my every actionThis iR important-! have made many strong friends, all of whom will now stand me good, and who will insist that the cause ?f ~I;is transfer is thorougitly inquired into, and JUS!Jfied. That is very suggestive and very characteristic, and it is very evident from that time to the l?':esent that he has a lot of exceedingly strong friends-

In conclusion, I may state that on several occasions I luwe told the Government Architect that if ever the bn1·mony of our ofllce was disturbed, the cause would be traceable to you. And now it remains to see if my prediction is uot a correct one.

Then Mr. Robertson wrote the following memorandum to myself:-

Department of PuiJlic Works, BrisiJane, 25th .'Yiay, 1899.

~h~:'IJORANDUM.-I have the honour to enclose herewith a lt:tter, dated 19th instant, addres8ed to me in my private capacity by Mr. '\\r. 'r. Jack, one of the inspectors of works In this department, marked private, bnt whi~h. atter consideration, I cannot accept as such, as he charges me with systematically and maliciously working against his interests and influoucing t.he Minister against him, which is untrue.

The memorandum Mr. Jaek refers to, of January. 1896 (? 1897), which was equally insolent, I gave him an opportunity of withdrawing, which he promptly availed himself ol.

l\fr. Jack wrote a very impertinent memorandum, dated 2nd instant, to the Government Architect commenting on the recent appointment of Mr. Ja,mes Graham to take charge of the works now going on at the Exhibition buildings, which you have seen.

I was not aware there was any want of harmony betwepn him and the Government Architect nntil I saw the memorandum above referred to and received 1\Ir. Jacks letter of 19th instant, the concluding paragraph of which the Government Architect assures me is not true.

I cannot charge my memory with at any time or on any occasion having done anything detrimental to Mr. Jack's interests, and I am sure you will bear me out that I have not endeavoured to influence you against him in any way, but have always advised you to the best of my ability in the public interest.

I accept the responsibility of advising the transfer of inspectors recommended by the Government Architect.

I 'vould therefore ask you to be good enough to approve of the Public Service Board making a departmental inquiry into this matter, that I may not in future be subjected to such insulting letters from a subordinate officer of the department. My memo. on that was-

I quite approve of handing Mr. Jack's letter, attached, together with withdrawal memorandum dated 13th January, 18B7, to the Ptlblic Service Board to deal with, and that the board inquire into ::\Ir. Jack's charges against the Under Secretary subsequent to that date.-J.M., 26-5-99. The next document is the following memo. from Mr. Robertson to Jack, and is dated 13th January, 1897-

I have just received your memo. which, if not at once withdrawn, may lead to serious results. If you do this I will see you after the board rises this afternoon. The reply to that was-

If ~Ir. Robertson will return the memo. referred to, he can consider it 'vithdrrtwn. Please return per me'lsenger, as I am leaving for Gatton this afternoon. I want hou. members to pay attention to this, because J\llr. Robertson has been censured by the Public Service Board, censured by the Royal Commission, and censured by a good many others, for nob having at that time suspended J\lfr. Jack. I am not one of those who are prepared to condemn J\llr. Robcrtson for this, because I believe that, if he erred at all, it was through his being too generous. He was too kindly disposed a man to treat him roughly, There is very little doubt that if many men had received such a letter as this from a subordinate officer, it is possible he would not have left the office with a s·Jund skin or a sound back, and they would not have given him the opportunity of writing a second letter of the kind in the department. Then comes this letter from \V. T. Jack to the Under Secretary for Works·-[Private, without prejudice.]

Brisbane, 31st May, 1899. SIR,-In reference to my letter to you, referred by

you to the Civil Service Board, upon which I have had one or two audiences with the board, I now beg to make the following offer without pre.Juclice to the merits of the insinuations or charges contained therein, upon which I am advi:.:;ed I hnve a good case.

1st. That I will withdraw the said letter and its predecessor, if still in existence, and express my regret for having sent them, on the following conditions, viz. :-(a) 'fhat bygones be bygones, and that I be treated from to-day by vou upon my merits as an officer of the service and of the Works Department.

2236 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] SU/pPly.

2nd. That no objection be offered by you to my proposed application to have my recent transfer to Townsvill_e reconsidered. which application, I have reason to believe, will be fA.vourably entertained by the :Minister the Civil Service Board, and ~Ir. Brady. '

. The above course is taken as the outcome of a suggestion from the Civil Service Board. and in view of the number of Civil servants and others who would necessarily have to be called in to give evidence, and of the consequences likely to ensue should the inquiry terminate in my favour.

There i~ another letter from Mr. Robertson to Jack, dated 1st June, 1899-

Sm,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo.

However, the matter must be dealt with by the Public Service Board unless an unconditional withdrawal of :your letter and an apology for your action be in my hands by noon to-morrow.

That wa;; not forthcoming, and the inquiry went on. Now here are the charge; that this inspector of works formulates against his superior ofl:icer-

1. 1\:lr. Robertson imputes dishonesty in my connECtion with the contTact for hair mattresses a.t rl'oowoomba Asylum. which said contraet was approved by the doctor in charge by letter to 11r. llrady.

2. l\ir. Robertson treats me with distrust without efLnse, bnt merely on account of my previous actions taken in the interest of the department and the Government, which said actions are as follows:-

{a) In my refusing to recommend for purchase eement which Mr. Robertson requested should be obtained from 'Vallace and Co., and used here and at Thursday Island, ~lr. RobertRon being at the time monetarily interested in the firm.

J nst in passing, I would 1 efer to this, becanse an extremP effort was made by Jack to prove this charge against Mr. Robertson of having connection with a firm outside, who had been in the habit. of supplying the department with cement and other building material. 'That was entirely disproved at this inquiry, and, notwithstanding the labours of the Royal Commission, they failed to prove it; and I may mention here that they took up Jack's running here and prosecuted Mr. Robert~on for this very same offence.

Mr. REm : They tried hard to catch him, anyhow.

The SECRETARY J<'OR PUBLIC WORKS: Now, I hold that it was no part whatever of the duty of the Royal Commission to inquire into Mr. R?hertson's private affair". They had no more r1ght to inquire into his private affairs than they had to inquire into mine. They made a determined effort to prove this charge.

Mr. ANNEAR: See section 50 of the Public Service Act.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: They did not succeed, however. They made an effort to show that he wa. connected with the firm of Wallace and Co., but they never in a single instance could prove, or did prove, that that firm ever sold a single shilling's worth of material to the department. Not a single transaction could they prove between that firm and the department, so how could Mr. Robertson be sacrificing the interests of the department tn his own in a matter of this description? Then ,Jack goes on with other charges-

(lJ) In my refusing to accept the services of a man named Smith, who was incompetent, and who, on his own admission, was monetarily indebted to Mr. Robertson.

Ima.!Sine this inspector refusing to accept the serviCes of any man that Mr. Brady chose to ~end to assist him. He takes it upon himself to tell Mr. Brady that he will only accept the services of men whom he selects for himself, and

objects to Mr. Brady sending him any others. However, that was entirely di~proved also. Then he says-

( c) And also in my action in writing n memo. to ~1r. Robcrtson, of 13th January, 1897, wherein I accused him of collecting cab fare which had not been incurred.

(d) In protesting against the proposed appointment of the late H. C. Craig as senior inspector of works.

Those are the charges formulated against the Under Secretary, and I will now quote a little from the evidence, because I am extremely anxious that the country shonld know what manner of man this is who brought such charges against his superior officer. l<'irst I will read from the report of the board. They say in their report-

These matters were fully investigated, and :\Ir. Jack was given every opportunity of proving his allegations, bnt failed to do so, the weight of evidence, both oral and documentnry, refuting them; and so far from Mr. Itobertson being inimical to him, the contrary was shown.

I m) self can prove the contrary. I say distinctly that Mr. Roberts'm never by word or deed ever did anything calculated to ruin Mr. ,Jack's reputation in my eyes. Another paragraph reads in this way-

As regards the charge of collecting cab fares, there is no doubt that the Under Secretary was paid from ''petty cash" certain small sums fm• cab fares on the dates mentioned by Jack and ~IcCulloch. Extracts from the petty oash book show that fares were paid to the Under Secretary on those dates, and he himself admits ha-ving received the cab f11rcs in question, but denies having ever collected fares which he had not incurred. Neither ,Jack nor JfcOnlloch would swear, in cross-examination, that ~:Ir. Robertson did not at anv time of the day use cabs on the dates mentioned; and l\Ir. Bell, the accountant, from whom JUr. Robertson reeei ved the fares, also stated that he had no reason to believe they were not incurred.

'fhe board, therefore, hold that Mr. Jack has not succeeded in proving this charge.

After due consideration of the evidence, the board are forced to the conclusion that a combination existed bct\veen some of the witncs50es in the department to watch the movements of the -Gn<ler Secretary, not in the interests of the service, but with the view-if he cmnmitted himself-of using their knowledge as a weapon against him on some future occasion should he do anything which they considered detrimental to their interests. This is borne out by 31r. Jack, who stated in cross-examination th~tt had it not been for the recomnlendation to remove him to Townsville, he would not have brought these charges against the Under Secretary. So that you see it was self-interest which was at the bottom of the whole affair, and he would not have brought these charges if he had not been transferred. Mr. Robertson had nothing whatever to d" with the transfer except to give directions in accordance with the approved recommendations of the Government Architect. The board go on to say-

The board consider Mr. Jack's conduct has been most insubordinate and highly censurable. and thut his association with 3'Ir. }fcCulloch in carrying on a system of espionage upon the actions and movements of their superior officer wns subversive of discipline and d'screditable to all eng}!ged in it. If the btJard were not under the impres~ion that Mr. Jack believed his charge to be bond fide, they would have no hesitation in recommending his dismissal, but as they are of that impression, and knowing him to have the reputation of being a capable and zealous officer, who has generally performed his dnties to the satisfaction of the department for many years, the board feel inclined to recommend that he be more 1enient1y dealt wii:h, and they think that he should be reprimanded, and that his salary be reduced from £270 to £260 per annum, and they recommend accordingly. Now, I think hon. members will support the action I took in this matter. I told Mr. Jack plainly that if he did not succeed in proving his charges against his ~uperior officer, the Under Secretary, he would have to leave the department.

Supply. [30 NOVEMBER.] Supply. 2237

That is the position I took up from the first. I was very sorry that the board did not send up a report recommending his dismissaL I was somewhat di•gusted on learning all the eircumstances to find that the board only recommended a reduction in his salary of £10 per annum. I say plainly that if I had had my way I would not have hesitated for a moment in dismissing him, but I did not believe we would see the end of the trouble even then, because Mr. Jack had strong friends at his back, and the same trouble would have arisen over his dismissal as arose before. Of that I fPlt quite convinced. However, the report of the board was sent to me, and this is the memo. I put upon it--

Having perused the eviflence taken in this case, I am of opinion that the board have dealt too leniently with ]Jr. Jack; I therefore recommend that his salary be reduced from £~70 to £2i0 per annum. What I want to point out now is that irrmediately after this incident was closed, Mr. Jack was proved to have been guilty of neglect and incompetency in the discharge of his duties. This is the letter sent to Mr. Jack by myself in reference to the finding of the board-

Department of Public Works, Brisbane, l~th July, 1899.

Sru.,-The charges made by you against the Under Secretary having been fully inve~t.igated by the Public Service Board and refuted, I have the honour to inform you that the Governor in Council, on my recommendation, approved of you being reprimanded, and I hereby reprimand you, a.nd that your salary be reduced from £270 to £2:!<0 per annum, as from the lst lnstant.

In the opinion of the board, with which I coincide, your conduct has been most insubordinate and highly censurable, and that your association with another officer, n0t now in the department, in carrying on a system of espionage upon the actions and movements of their superior officer, not in the interests of the service, but for your own ends, was subversive of discipline and discreditable to all engaged in it.

I have, etc., JOHN ;\iURRAY.

I will quote now from the evidence Mr. ,Jack gave before the board in order to prove his charges against the Under Secretary.

Mr. O.HIPBEf,L : What has that got to do with the case?

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It has a very great deal to do with it. I want to let the strong friends of this man know what manner of man he is. That is my ohj.ct. Now, I will quote from the evidence. Mr. ,Jack is under examination, and at question 32 the follow· ing occurs:-

Mr. Price: :\ir. Robertson asked you if you could show a clean hand. Have you done anythmg that was not in the interests of the Government~ No. The only interests I had was that of the Government, and I think I attended to the'U.

J.l:fr. Pl'ice: I call for a letter to ~r. Brady from Dr. Hogg, the officer in charge of the Toowoomba Asylum.

Mr. Robertson: I think 11r. Brady must have tbat letter.

Mr. Price: In reference to that convers~ttion, I call for a letter from :Mr. Jack to the Minister for -work~ in connection with :M:r. Robertson's statements as to Mr. Jack's position. I do not know that that is of great importance, but I may explain that one of the charges against Mr. Robertson was a charge of dishonesty, and he was said to have a'ked Mr. .Tack if he could show a clean hand. Here is a piece of evidence which really shows what was at the bottom of the whole thing. Mr. Jack is asked-

1Vas it not on account of your being transferred to Townsville?-VYas that not the whole thing? 'rhat is the whole thing.

If it had not been this there would have been no action? No.

Then he is asked in cross-examination-questions 73 and so on-

In connection with this report of the Civil Service Board on the Works Department. Is that a private document? I am not aware of it.

Did you ever get an extract? Yes. How did yon get that extract? I saw it. How? In the hftnds of someone. Cannot you recall it? I cannot recall it. D~d you not as a matter of fact take an extract of that

record ? I did. Did you get it in your own room, or in anybody else'::..

room?-You took an extract, did you not? Yes; took an extract.

Did it come to you in the usual course of business? :.Vo; it did not.

Did you have any authority to take that extract? :.Vo.

Did you take it with the full knowled~re of the clerk in whose custod\" it was at that time~ No.

You took itv surreptitiously ?-That is wha.t it amounts to? Yes. Then at question 2·17 of this inquiry, where Mr. ,Jack was under examination, we find this-

11Ir. Pl'ice: Charge No. C. re collecting cab fares. 1ir. Jack, do you remember a certain memo., and sending ili to Mr. Robertson, on the 13th January, 1R97? I do,

Prior to that time you lived at ·roowongP Yes. Did .Mr. Robertson also live at 'l'oowong? Yes. And do you remember on one occa.siou-,Tnne, 181:16-

the Estimates about to come before the House P Can you tell us the date by referring to anythlng? That would be about October 7th or ~th. On that occasion the \'V"orks Estimates were about to come on for discussion before the House.

On that occasion did you come into town? I did. Did anyone come in with you? I met a gentleman at

the railway station. Captain Townley: \Vhat do you mean by a gentle-

man? .1.1fr. Jack: }iust I give his name? Captain Townley: Yes. ]fr. Jack: It was :\fr. :\IcCul!och. Captain Tmonley: 'Yhichrailway station? The Roma

street stat.ion. M1~. Price: Did you leave the train there? Yes; and

~1r. Robertson left the train there. Ca1Aain Townley : What time was this? Something

afte1· 7 o'clock at night. Mr. Price: Did you go anywhere? Mr. McCulloch

and I \Vere bou'!ld for Parliament House. Did you see }fr. Robertson? He came down George

street, walking. Captain Townley: You were walking, and Mr. Robert

son was walking in front uf you? Yes. Mr. Robertson went into the public officel'!.

The Treasury Buildings? Yes. Mr. Price: Did you see him do tha.t? He came out

and passed us. '\Ye were walking slowly. This was on the other side to Cutbush's. 3Ir. Robertson passed on to Parliament House walking.

How long did you rema1n there? Until after 9 o'clock.

Did you see anybody there? \Ve saw :Mr. Robertson leave the House.

Captain 'Pownley: Whom do you mean by we? Mr. ~IcCulloch and I.

~Ir. ~IcCulloch was still with you then? Yes. We knew the l~stimate'3 would not be on and we left. \Ve ca.llle down George street to the station.

Mr. Price: Did you see anyone? "\Ve saw Mr. Robertson on the way walking.

Captrdn 7'ownley: ·what train was this? It was the 9·30 train. I got into the train going home to Toowong. I left YJ:r . .J>IcCulloch in Queen street, near Finney, Isles.

Captain Townley: You say you were in Queen street? Vre went to the Centra.l Station.

D1d Mr. Robertson go to the Central Station? I saw ::\Ir. Robertson in the train.

..~lfr. Price: Did Mr. Robertson ride at all, either backwards or forwards? No.

Do you remember the next night?-Oaptain Townley: What was that? The next night

was the night after. Can you give me the date? It was the Sth. Mr. 8. Robertson: How are you so sure of that, when

you were not sure before whether the day before was the 7th or 8th? On the 8th I saw him again. On that evening I had an appointment with }'Ir. l\IcCulloch. ::\:Ir. Robertson passed u::..

J.Tr. Pr·ice: How was he going? Vralking. 1\rhere from P From George street. He went into a

pnblic office same as he did before. That time we stal·ted to move for Parliament House. Mr. Robertson came out and passed us again.


Captain Townley: About what time was this? It was between 7 and 8 o'clock, l ;;;:hould say.

Where did he pass you? In George street, near the church there.

Mr. Price : Where did he go to? He went to Parliament House.

How did he go? He walked from the Treasury to Parliament House.

You saw him leave Parliament Hous:e? Yes. Where did he go to? He walked down George

street. At what time? Alter 9. The Estimates were through

very early. He went down to the train. I saw him walk flown Quten street.

Captain Townley: Did you go that way, too? I wm1t out to Toowong in the same train.

Mr. P1~lce: Did Mr RobPrtson on any ~::JCcasion coming from or to Parllament House ride? ~0.

Captain Townley: That is by cab?--Jllr. PYlce: Or for that matter any other way. "'\V ere

there any other occasions that you remember? I remember other occasions. I made a memo. of these facts at the tirne.

Did you know :llr. McCulloch? Yes. 'Yas he in Brisbane about that time, and for some

little time after 1t and before? Yes. 'rh at goes to show that they were watching the movements of the Under Secretary closely night and day.

Mr. REm : That is how he neglected the contract.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is the man that had not time to look after his duties.

)ir. JACK further examined: Jfr. Pri('e: Did you make a note of any other in

stance? Yes. \rell, just refresh ymn memory? lOth August, 1896,

at about 9·5 a.m., Mr. Robertson informed :J.ir. Coxen in my presence thnt he was going do,vn to the London Chartered Rank. Having occasion to proceed to C;Lmpbell and Sons, and in taking a tramcar. I passed 2\ir. Robertson about the Queensland National Bank.

How was he proceeding? '\Yalking. He went into a building in Queen street where l'rankling used to be. I rlo not remember the name of the building. Just before 10 the same morning, after having returned to office from Campbell's, I proceeded to Leichhardt-street State School, and met }:fr. Robertson walking up Queen street, returning to office, where he collected 2s. cab fares.

J.lit·. S. Robr.,·uwn: How do you know that? The returns show 2s. cab fare.

Jft. S. Bober·tson called for the returns. ,1fr. Jack: 15th August, 1896, I met ~Ir. Robertson

walking down Queen street. He went into a building oceupied by Robertson and Bergin, solicitors. I am not supposed to say anything more; the rE;st I do not know myself.

J.lfr. S. Robertson: The return shows nothing on the 15th.

Jfr. Jack: 17th August, 1896, :lir. Robertsonproceeded down Queen stree't on foot.

raot(tin Toumb:y: You sa whim? Yes. He went into the Royal Bank at about 10·30 a m.

Is that all? 'fhat is all. Jfr. O'Jlfrtlley: There is no entry o! cab fares on 17th

August, 1896. •Jfr. PPice: Have you ever at any time seen ~lr.

Robertson in a cabP I never remember seeing l\.:Ir. Robertson in a cab.

Fnrther on I find this-1Vith regard to the entries for October, 1896: 'vere

theY made at the timer About the samR time. At the same night? Perhaps not the same night. Perha;ps the day after? Yes. Or two days after, or perhaps threE> days:: Yes. Then you did not make these entries on the same

day r As far as I remember. I did. Did you not on 7th and 8th October wait until Mr.

Rohertson had got cab fares before making entries in the diary? No, but I heard of it.

'I'he entries were always made before he got the cab ial't-s? Yes. I think so.

Did ~·on not as a mntter of fact \Vait until the cab fare~ were pa1d before you made these entries P No, it was after I 1nade the entries I got that information.

Where did you meet :>Ir. McCulloch on 7th October, 1SB6? I met him at Roma-street station.

You meant to spy on Mr. Robertson? )Jo. It was a mere coinmdence? Yes. On 8th October the same? Yes. 16th June; coincidence there? Yes. 'fhe same on lOth August? Yes. On 15th August, the same thing P Yes. On 17th August, also a coincidence? Yes. Do you say, as a matter of fact, you were not spying

on }ir. Robertson? Yes. Do you know on 6th October whether ~fr. Robertson

was down at Parliament House or not P I do not know. Do you know if he was down there during the after

noon of the 7th or 8th, or during these days? I do not know.

During the 6th, 7th, or 8th, do you know if he was down there during the daytime r I do not know during thf' daytime whether he was down or not, from my own knowledge.

As far as yori personally know he may have been down to Parliament House during the days of 6th, 7th, and 8th? Yes.

The same applies to the evening of the 6th? I know nothing to the contrary.

Did you wait until .:\1r. Robertson came out of the public offices? No; we didn't ·wait.

I suppose it was another coincidence. On the 18th or 19th June, 1896, when did you make that entry in the diary? About the time.

How is it that there is a pencil mark showing the different days in the diary? l'robably I made the entries a day or so after.

'rhe 19th is in ink and the 18th in pencil? I cannot swear positiv€ly as to the exact date.

·would you swear on your oath that Mr. Robcrtson did not go down to the Union Mortgage Company on the 18th or 19th June, 18~6? Not positively.

As a matter of fact was not this 18th June put in pencil after you had ascertained that the cab fare was for the 18th June? I never ascertained. [ ... llr. 8. Robertson reads the note in the diary for the l8t11, June.]

I think hon. members can form their own opinion of this gentleman from this proceeding. Then he i" under cross-examination again-

.~.tlr Robertsvn, }1.mior: How was it you came to make a note of this? I was advised by friends.

..:ltr. S. Roberlson: oil 15th or 17th August, do you know from your personal knowled~e whether he got any cab fares or not? I have no personal knowledge.

Do you want us to believe that you were not in any way watching and spying on ]Jr. Robe:.'t

[5 p.m.l son? I was not watching and spying. Yet when you came back and saw that Mr.

Robertson obtained cab fares you made these entries? Yes.

Mr. Robe1·tson: These are only little coincidences? Yes.

Mr. S. Robe ·tson: And then you made a point of speakin~-t about it? No. I did not make it a point. There was only one occasion I made it a point.

'Vhen you got that information you put it down in your diary? Yes.

Don't you think conduct of junior officers in this manner is very degrading? I do not think so under the circumstances.

If you were a senior officer, would you like to have your junior offir.ers watching and spying on you to see if you took a cab or a bus P I did not watch. I observed. l\..fy official duties kept me continually on the move.

For what purpose did you take notes ( To arm myself.

'Vas it not so that when occasion arises you could bring -pressure to bear to gain your own ends? I never brmg pressure to bear. I work on mv merits.

You do not consider your action degrading? No.

There is some evidence given by Mr. McCulloch that I must quote to prove in what a very trying and extraordinary position Mr. Robertson was placed. I do not think any man could be placed in a more embarrassing position than he occupied, where his subordinate officers were watching and dogging every step he took, to try to formulate some charge Ly which they could force him to urge their promotion, or im]Jrove their positions in the department-for taat was the whole object of their proceedings. Mr. McCulloch, who was associated with Mr. Jack in this business, gave the following evidence, commencing at question 582 :-

Do you remember seeing l\'Ir. Jack and "1\Ir. Robertson anywhere on the 7th? Yes. I remember the Estimates coming on on the 7th and 8th October, and I r<,member

[30 NOVEMBER.] Supply. 2239

an appointment with Mr. Jack to meet him at the Roma-street railway station. I met :l\Ir. Jack by appointment with the object of going up to the House t,o see how the Estimates were going on. Mr. Jack got out of the train-! was there when the train came in, and we walked up George street, and, if I remember right, 1\ir Robertson was in front of us. \.Ye wall{ed past opposite Cutbush's, I think. I remember him going into the opening to go into his own office, and we walked along slowly. We s~LW him come out and walk A along to Parliament House. \\re saw him go into Par-If liament House, and we went into ParHament House. I saw }fr. Robertson sitting where the Under Secretaries usually s1t. We sat, there for a certain time, and we left Parliament House and were sauntering down the street.

Captain 'Pownley: About how long was this after you went in? About an hour and a-half afterwards. \Ve strolled back down the street. .:\ir. R.obertson was ahead of us. I went with Jack, and saw him on board his train.

11fr. Price: From the time you 5.aw )ir. Robertson leave the station and till he got back to the station, did he use a cab or conveyance? No, :Mr. l{,obertson was walking, aud I think our Estimates did not come on on the 7th, and by appointment I met ~~r. Jack at Trout on's, the chemist, George street. We were standing there talking for a "\Vhile when Mr. Robertson passed. It was about 7 o'clock on the evening of the 8th. Jack and I then started off for Parliament House, too. 1\:Ir. ltobertson was ahead of us, and I :..Lm not prepared to swear he went into his otliee on the second occal::lion. \Ve went on to Parliament House; we went into the House and kept the same places in the gallery as the night befOre, and saw .Jlr. Robertson in his place. Then we saw him going down when we were going down to the station.

Jlfr. 0'1l1alley: Did the Estimates go through that night? I cannot say; I am not ph~pared to swes.r \Vhether the Estimates went through or not.

Captain 1bwnley: Yonrememberother little instances; I thought you would remember the main object.

]}fr. Price:~ Did you make a note of these things? Yes.

'l'hat is hmv you remember them? Yes. I have a little notebook in which the dates and particulars were entered. I made shorthand note<.~ of the matter which I made at the time. I have a note here of the 7th and 8th October.

Captain Townlel!: YE'!'1. Any further questions? You have the note there of having met .!\fr. Jack by

apvointrnent at the Roma street Station? You made notes of the varions occasions at the time? Yes.

Will you get us the next one, please? I have a note here on the ~,~th Decemher. 1896.

Do you remember the 24th December, 1896 ~ Yes. 1\""as the note written at that time? Yes. 'l'hen you may refresh your memory? I was sitting

in .Mr. Bell's room talking to him on that morning. Mr. Bell is the acc~JUntant in the Public ·works Oftlce. This was in the forenoon. ::.\1r. Robertson came into the room and collected 2s. per cab from the accountant.

llfr. O'JJatley: How do you know it was for cab? l\'Ir. Robertson stated to ~fr. Bell," I want 2s. for cab fare." The portion that I am now about to quote is rather interesting. Question 605-

lllt·. PriC'e: Have you any other date? I have other dates when I saw :\ir. Robertson walking past me underneath the bH.lcony. l\Iy office was facing Geor:;e street. I have seen Mr. Robertson pass, cross, and turn round the corner of the Bank of New South \Yales on foot and come back the same way, and in consequence of the occasions I had a conversation with }fr. Bell. I hav,;,~ one occasion here on the 19th September, 1896. It wa::. about 10·30 in the morning that I sctw him. In consequence of this I had a conver.,atiou with 1\f1·. :J!Iole. He was a bridge clerk at that time.

Could you give us any others P On the 28th September,lbJ6, I saw Mr. Robertson from my balcony go past and come back, and I had a c1nversation with :llr. Bell shortly after I c:tme back.

Can you tell me another occasion? I have one here on the 17th November, 1896. I saw him at 3·15 in the afternoon. He went down Queen ~treet, turned the corner of the Bank of New South Wales on foot, and returned the same way. I had a conversation with Mr. Bell shortly after that.

Any other date? I have one here on the 7th December, on which Mr. ltobertson had just gone down in front of me. It was 11·15 in the morning. I saw him then opposite Thynne and l\'Iacartney's. He was on foot. He returned on foot, because I was going back home and saw him.

Did yuu have a conversation with Mr. Bell on that oc(~asion? Yes. These are all the dates I have here.

On any occasion at all did you ever see lir. Hobertson riding 1n a cab of any sort at any time? I have never seen .:VIr. Robertson riding in a cab.

Then Mr. Bell's evidence proves conclusively that he was acting in conjunction with Mr. Jack and Mr. McCullcch in spying upon their superior officer. I shall only qnote a short extract from his evidence. Question 707-

Captain Tou1lley: What is your name? :r-,rederick Bell.

What are you ( Accountant in the Department of Public Works.

... WY. Price: VYere you so in the year 1896? Yes. And during that year you would be responsible for

the petty cash? Yes. Mr. Bell then gives the dates upon which Mr. Roberteon was paid cab fares, after which he was asked question 737-

0aptain 11ownley: ·were you aware that they were paying PM'ticnlar attention to his movements P No; .J-lr. Jack called on one occasion and said. •· Mr. Bell, you had better get 2s. ready for Mr. Robcrtson. he is coming up t.he staircnse." That suggested it to me.

Could you see from what they said tbey were paying particular attention to J:Ir. Robertson's movements? "o.

Mr. O'Jialley: Did Jack say anything more at the time? No; Jaek went out of my room by the side door. and Mr. Robrrtson came into my room and collected 2s.

Vrhat date was this? 'l'his was on the 22nd October, 1896. I put it down in pencil before it was collected, to see if 1\Ir. Jack's woeds would come true.

I will not read any more from the evidence. I think I have given sufficient to e;tablish that those men were spying upon Mr. Robertson. Now I come to the evidence given before the Royal Commi"sion. ·with regard to the alleged dishonesty of Mr. Robertson, at question 7160, Mr. Jack was aske::l by the Hc.n, J. Cowlishaw-

Do we understand your reference to his becoming an honest man '-Vas simply because you had rt asun to suspect he had been appropriating money tor cab fares which had not been spent, or had you any other reason to think he was not an honest man? rrhat was my only reason.

Kothing else in connection with the work of the office-with regard to contractors or other people in bnsiness :- ~o. The:e was nuthi11g else that coutd be termed dishonest:y at all.

1Vhy should you sug,;est that he should become an honest man i' I was ~atisfied there was dishonesty in connf'.ction with his cab fares.

That only? Yes, it was a small and paltry thing. That is the statement made by Mr. Jack when under examination by the Royal Commission, Then I was asked some questions in connection with thi8 thing, and this is the evidence at question 9906-

By the Chairman : Yes. rrhis is the memo.: HI regret that .\1r. Jack charges the Under Secretary, Mr. Robertson, with being a dishonest man, and he said, • ::\:Ir. Robertson, before you chan:e anyone with dishonesty, become an honest man yourselr'" ; and after that I ask you, Mr. 3-'lurray, as Minister for V\rorks, what do you th;uk of your Under Secretary-or any Under Seeretary, no matter what Under Secretaryrecommending an officer for promotion and increase of salary a few days after receiving such a memo. from him, charging him with dishonesty? I should say myself that he was too generously disposed altogether. If he failed at all, I thiuk his failings leaned to virtue's side. 1.'hat is the interpretation I should put upon it.

If I were to meet you in Gem·ge street, and, in the presence of another, charge you with being a rogue? [ would hit you.

You would hit me, and you would be quite right, for I should deserve to be hit; and if it got abroad, would not you have me up before the Judge of the Supreme Court and try to obtain heavy damages? Not if :you came and made an ample apology for your misconduct. That is what .rack did. That is exactly what .Tack did, and then Mr. Rubertson was blamed for not having SUS!Jended him.

Mr. HIGGS: ·where is the apology?

2240 Suppl!J. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The apology is in his evidence.

Mr. HIGGS: Read it.

The SECRETARYFORPUBLICWORKS: You can follow this up, and you will find it.

Mr. McDONALD: Oh, oh ! The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

Oh, well, if hon. members do not think there was a sufficient apology, I may tell them that Jack withdrew the charge altogether, and unconditionally. Was not that an apology?

HoNOUl\ABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

It was a good and sufficient apology. Now there is one thing that I want to draw special attention to, and that is the very glaring evidence we have got that this commission were provided with information, at the ttme they met to examine witnesse,, which could only have been supplied to them by such officers as Jack and Bell from the oflice.

HoNOURABLE :MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! TheSEGRETARYFORPUBLICWORKS:

There can be no question of that whatever, and, moreover, I was told by a friend of mine in the street that he had seen a set of questions framed upon which Robertson was to be tackled when he presented himself to give evidence. Here are some of the question" which the commission asked l\fr Robertson, which ~o to prove conclusively that they could only have got their information from the office.

Mr. STORY: How did they know about his boots?

The SECRETARY J!'OR PUBLIC WORKS Just so. l will refer to that later. Here is the evidence at question 58-

Do you remember an officer of your department tendering a voucher for 12s. 6d., representing tea-money or overtime, during the Jack-Robertson inquirj-? I have no recollection of that.

1Yas there not another voucher substituted for this, at your instigaTion, for £3 3s.? For tea-monG-y P

I will put the question again. Do you remember an officer of your department tendering a, voucher for lts. 6d., representing tea-money or overtime, during the Jack-Robertson inquiry? There were several vouchers submitted for overtime, but I do JJ.ot remember that particular one for 12s. 6d. I can produce the whole of those vouchers.

\.Yas there not another voucher :submitted for this, at your instigation, for £3 3s.? I have no recollection of it.

\-Vas the £:1 3s. voueher paid? I do not remember. The commis~ion will ask you, then, to produce those

vouchers~ Certainly.

It was impossible for the commission to have got the informaLion on which they tackled Mr. Robertson with those questions unless it wa8 supplied to them from the office by Mr. Bell or Mr. Jack.

Mr. ANNEAR : That is not true. TheSECRETARYFORPUBLICWORKS:

Here again is more eVIdence at question 117-Is it not a fact that the :J'Iinister rejected a voucher of

~~~~:?on 1t~~; ~~~i~~i1~o~;~~~rthe eugraving of some

And Lhat you got the same paid? I don•t know. Did 1\1r. Dalrymple refuse to sanction the voucher 2

don't know of that. Bv the Hon. J. Gowli&haw: Was the voucher sub

mitted? Yes, for official cards. I never heard of it being refused.

By the Chairman: You never heard of :vir. Dalrymple refu~ing to pass that voucher P !\o, nevl r.

You are aware that it was paidt I presume it was paid.

Will you kindly produce the voucher for these cards ? Yes.

How did they know of the existence of these cards and vouchers? The thing is too selfevident. Then, at question 223, there is this-

Did this man Eli. Gorton ever supply an ant preparation called" An tine" to your department? Yes.

Were instructions issued by you that this preparation should be used on Government "\York? Probably.

Vrhat was the price paid per tin for it? I don't know ; but I know it proved very effectual. It was in tins about the size of a pound jam tin.

Will you find out the price? Yes; but this was many years ago.

Will you find out how long ago instructions were issued for this? Yes.

There is more evidence that they were primed with information from the office. Then, at 347, Mr. Robertson is asked-

Do you know )lr. Camp bell, senr.? Yes. And I suppose you regard him as an honoura.blc man~

I believe so. If "dr. Camp bell says that Kelly told him, at the close

of the last inquiry, that. his first letter of complaint to. the department was written at your instigation, would you say that that was an untruth? I should not say anything of the kind; but I should like Kelly's evidence on that point.

If )ir. Camp bell says that Kelly told him that he had an interview with you, before his first letter of complaint. would you say that that was untrue? K.elly had no interview with me before that letter was written. The first time I saw Kelly, within my recollection, was the first day after I returned from my holiday. I can show that Mr. Robertson had a prosecution against this man Kelly to disprove his statement, at his own expense. I know for a f11ct myself that Mr. Rubertson never saw Kelly before that letter was written. How did the commission get this information, I should like to know? At question 532 there is this evidence-

ls it ~L fact that on one occasion there was a serious error in the books personally superviseti by you, and that :Yr. Bell an<l yourself had to return at nights to find it out? It must have been many years ago, for I have lost recollection of it. I do not think 1t could have been anything very serious.

Did you find the error out? I do not remember the circumstances.

Where did they get that information from ? --Is it; not a fact that you had to call in an audit

inspector to ascertain the error, and did he not charge twenty-five guineas for his services? I have no recollection of anything of the kind.

VVill you say it was noL so? I would not; but I say it must be a great many years ago H anything of the sort ever happened.

There are questions which could only have been supplied by someone in the office. At que•tion 1392 Mr. Bell is asked-

Did you eyer hear anything about any boots that were de:!troyed by rats on board a steamer while l\ir. Robertson was on a trip? I ha.ve heard something about it.

Did you see a voucher with that on it? Xo. ·what did you hear about it? Mr. Robet·tson went to

Rockhampton, and.wa.s aw·ay about three days, and sent in a charge of between £2 and £3-£2 15s. I think it 1vas-for porterage. l\:1r. H.obertson told me he had had a pair of boots de..;troyed by cockroaches while going up by the steamer. That is conclusive evidence that thi• commission was getting information from the office, and in a way which was not a very creditable way at all events-that is the mildest form in which I can describe it.

Mr. HlGGS : vVhaL was the comnlission for but to get information?

The SECRETARY FORPUBLICWORKS: I do not know that they were supposed to prosecute a man like that. They might have given him fair play at any rate. I will simply say this-I will not say there are none, but I say there are very few men in the Government service to-day, holding a similar position to that occupied by Mr. Robertson. I say more than that-I say there are very few men amon~ us who could go

Supply. [30 NovEMBER.] Supply. 2241

throng-h such a severe ordeal, both before the Cr vi! Service Board, where l\Ir. Jack took upon himoelf to prosecutH him, and engaged the best counsel he c mid g-et, to prove that his Under Secretary had been g-uilty of the paltry thieving of some cab fares, and before this Royal Oumrnission, where every effort was rnade to incrimirmte him-I say there are very few men among us, and very few officers in the Government service, who c·>uld corne through such an ordeal su satisfactorily as Mr. Ro~ertson did. I do not profess to be much better than my neighbour,,, but I certainly would rot like to submit to scru:iny the every.day transaction of my life, to be ;pied on by men of this description, dogging rny every n1nvernent, bringing me before a tribunal, and charging me with having done so-and-so years ago. l say there are very few men in the Government >ervice who could go through such an ordeal and come through it so creditnbly as Mr. Robertson did. Unhar•pily he is dead; but I sny, in spite of all the attempts that have been made to damage his reputation, there is not the slightest evrdence that this man <wer committed himself in the slightest shape or form in any way. His record is as clean and honourable as it is possible for any man's record to be; and I "ay it is a scandal and a disgrace tlw,t a man like 1\Ir. Jlobertwn should have been submitted to the scmtiny of a lot of spying, nnscrupulous scoundrels, who were supposed to be loyal to him in his office.

l\Ir. S•rEWAU'f: Why did not you dismiss them?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is the feeling I hold on this matter, and that is my opinion abont the late Mr. Robertson.

Mr. SnwArtT: Well, they ought to be run out of the department.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: They did not prove a single charge against himnot a single one, and hence my efforts to defend this man. I defended him through good repute and throug-h bad repute. I thoug-ht it my duty to defend him. It is one of the things that I am proud of that I would not lend myself to, or rdentify myself wit.h, the friends of these scoundrels to persecute an honourable and innocent man in this way. If I had been enticed into this disgraceful work by any of these individuals, I should have stood high in the estimation of that Royal Commission, and they would have said, "Well done, good and faithful servant ; you are the man to be in charge of this office." I say it is simply scandalous ; and I will show hon. gentlemen the manner in which the different witnesses who presented themsel veq to give evidence were treaterl. I say that the treatment that I received myself was most discourteous in the extreme. I regret in some respects that I ever presented myself befl,re the con.mi8sion; but if I had nr.t rlone so I should have been charged with cowardice, or with having something that I did not want to disclose. I will simply ask hon. members to mark the different treatment which was extended to those who presented therr.selves to these men to give evidence.

Mr. HIGGS: "These men"-is that what you call these hon. members?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I must ask hon. members to kee!J order.

l\Ir. RIGGS : I think I am very quiet, Mr. Chairman.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: ~ wan.t to <!.raw attention to the •lifferent way m w hwh w1tnesseo were received. \V hen l\fr. Bell pr~sented hiniRelf for examination the chairJnan said~

As yon are the first subortiinate officer of the depart~ent whom the commission has had to call, I should like to state to you, for your own benefit and the

1U00-6x

benefit of other officers of the department who may be called before this commission, that any evidence you may have to g1ve to the eornmission ma)' be given without any hesitation or fear of any kind. It is the intention of the commu;~ion, and they pledge themselves to that effeet. to protect auy oflicer ·who may be called upon by tlwm to give cvidenee at this in<Iuiry, and I may further state that auy thre:tt of injury or harm that may come to you or others at tlw close of this inquiry will meet with the severPst condemnation and punitjhment at the h~tuds of the Executive.

Now, I shall simply ask, what was the aim and object of this? lt was for the one solitary purpose of trying to damage mysrelf and Mr. Robertson in the minds of the public-to make it appear that we were men of such a dangerous type that the officers of the department were not safe if they went and gave evidence before this commission. From whom, I should like to know, did the hon. gentleman, who was chairman of that commission, think he would need to protect this man? \Vho was it that he wanted to protec,t him from? \V as it from myself? I ,;sk him now, from whom it was he wanted to protect this man?

1\Ir. TURLEY : He will tell you when he gets up.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I hope he will. I say that that was done with no other intention than to poison the mind of the public against the late Under Secretary and myself-it was done with the sole intention of doing that. \Vhat had this man to be Afraid of from me? I did not care what he did. He might have gone and sworn his life away; he might have sworn the department away; and I would not have touched him or persecuted him in any shape or form. I would ne1•er dream of such a thing.

.Mr. ANNEAR : Those remarks you know applied to all the officers in the department.

The SECH.ETARY :FOHPUBLIC WORKS: Did they? One of the oflicers told me that be was not afraid, not a bit of it. When Mr. Coxen presented himself, they told him that he might speak freely, and he said he was not afraid.

Mr. ANNEAH: No; he was the white-haired boy of the department.

TheSECRETARYI<'ORI-UBLICWORKS: 'fhere is the prejudice, you see! In every conduct, and in every town of the whole inquiry, that sticks out prominently, and even this expression of the hon. gentleman's now shows that it is uppermost in his mind. I only ask hon. gentlemen to judge by the evidgnce of this man Bell, and the humiliating position in which he has placed himself.

l\Ir. ANNEAl!: What caused him to be in it? The SECRETARY :!<'OR PUBLIC WORKS:

His own discreditable conduct. Moreover, I believe myself, and I think it will be found in the evidence, that in the course of the inquiry that Mr. BeE did not require to be protected by myself. He said that that was a matter of opinion. I said, "l feel, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Bell would be much safer in my hands than in yours. I fear, before you have done, you will lead him into some trouble which he would have escaped had he been left to me." I ask hon. gentlemen has not that been the case?

Mr. J ACKSON : Prophetic. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

Yes, prophetic. This man was en0onraged to go back and take possession of the office; he was told to g-o back "as what you like, we will protect you." \Vhat has been the result? He h~ts taken bRck what he said, and he has admitted that he lied over it.

Mr. ANNEAH: He has apologised, and you have accepted his apology.

22i2 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

The SECRETAUY FOlt PUBLIC WORKS: The chairnmn of the commission t,;lks about tl1e white-haired boy. ·who was Mr. Bell but the white-haired boy of the commission?

Mr. J{gl!J: Y PS.

Mr. KgoGH : Quite enough to make him grey, I should think.

The SECRETARY J<'OR PUBLic: WORKS: [5.30 ] At 67!) and following '!Utl"stious

p.m. Mr. Bc-11 is asked-'Yhat i~ your pmdtiou? Accountant in tllc Depart

ment of Pnblic Works. ·when were you appointed accountant? On the 1st

January, 1895. How many year~ have .)'On been in the Department?

Fifteen rears last month. Have yon ever actctl as Under Secretary dnrmg Mr.

Robertson's absence? Yes; on many occasions. How many tirnC!-i? I at·tcd for two wtekH iu lHOl;

four we<•ks in SeptembP-r, 1S!l2; fonr 'vecks in DP.emnber, HlD:3; four weeks in ~ovmnbcr, 1H!l5; fonr week:-; in April. 1H97; t.\'to mouths, August ~md Hcpt.mnbe1·, in 1R98; and three week~ in January, lHOO; also a week during l•!a..stcr of this year.

Arc those tile whole of the period:;? 'rhere are other short penod'3 of two or three days at a tin~e, but l have not taken allY notice of 1 hem.

Did ,}'OH find any trouble in doing .J.:1r. U.obertson's work? Not the slightest.

Have yon ever left many papers orcr for Mr. Rohcrtson to deal with on his return? Ilis tnhle has ~.tlwass been as clear as the palm of your hand, with the exception of the last time he was away-thrrf: weeks this year. I left two or three vapers then for him to deal with, but they were really matters of no import,ance at :tll.

Was your time fully occupied? H is fully occupied as accountant, but the duties I had to perform for Mr. Itobertson were very small.

How could yon do his work and your owR in oflice hours? VVcll. I consider the work I had to do in Mr. Robertson's room would take me about two hours a day if I stuck to it.

Can you suggest a way to curtail the duties of the Under Secretary~ I could do away with a lot of small stuff that the Under Secretary floes now which is really not necessary. It orcupies hi~ time, but there is really nothing in it. Nobody over sees the work, and it is of no value. Tben I come to (jUestion 72ii, and hon. members will see that it is a very nice <Juestion to ask a subordinate officer-

Can you make any suggestions for the better workh1g of the department generally~ 'l'hat is rather a straight question to ask a subordinate officer.

I ask you that question because I think up to the -present you have answered every question in a straightforward and manly way. If .YOU cannot do it now, I will ask yon, if you have any suggestions to make, will you do so before the eommission eomes to a clot'e, and send them in writing to the secretary? Yes. I will do so at your request. Then I come to question 766-

You need not amnver this question unless you like: Do yon think you could continue to perform hi~ work in addition to you1· own if you were paid an aflditional sahtry-say a.t the snmc rate as you were paid duriug his absence-that is, an extra .£2 10s. per week~ Yes; I should want to make one or two alterationt-: in the office. I should want to be relieved of paslng the contractors their money. 'J.1hat is a very big thing. If I was relieved of that work there would be no difficulty what.ever as far as I can see. Question 776 is extremely delightful, and I draw the attention of hon. members especially to it-

·win you give the commission your opinion of :Mr. Jack as an inspector of the department, also if you consider he is a truthful and reliable man? Yes. I have every reason to believe that he is a straightforward man in every way. Of course, I don't profess to be a professional man-to have any professional knowledge: bnt I believe he is the best man Mr. Brady has, and ~'lr. Brady bas said so. Some contractors have 15aid that now that Mr. Jack is not there they would not tender .any more for the VVorks Department. It does not say much for the men Mr. Brady has if Jack is the best. That goes without saying. And I have not the least qoubt that there

are contractors who woulrl only work under Inspector Jack. It would not suit them to work under an inspector who was determined to do his duty. I have no doubt there is a class of men who will not tender any more for the Works Department since Mr .• Jack left. I now cume to (jnestion 8845. Mr. Bell is again under examination, and he is asked by the chairman-

Did you see I\Ir. Robe~·t>:oon in his omce last ?'hursday week~ BeEore procceclmg, I may say I a.rn 1n a very unique position. I am betweAn this commission, the PnlJlic :serviee Board, and the :\1.inister. 1 would like to know if the protection given to me still continues.

Before you gave your evidence I made a statement tn von on behalf of the commission-"rhy do yon ask tha.t lpwst ion nqw r-H:-tve we not afforded yon to the letter the p1otection we promised? Yes.

I tell you again you have nothing to fear whatever P I should like to know wheth~r this is an iU(lUiry iuto my eondnct of last week, or whether it is in connection with the admiuistration oE the department, because I am given to understand I luwe to go bel ore the board afterwards, anll I should like to know how 1 stand at present.

You have seen in the papers of the last few days the statements made by the .::\iinistcr and the Under Secretary? Yes.

Do you read the parliamentary reports P Yes. Have yon read the statement ma,de by the Premier ill

the Hmlse on Wednesday night? Yes. After havin" read that statement, what have you to

fea.r :.--There ls a power above this eommhH:don :- t,he peolJle of the country. Do you think the people :v-111 see you suffer for a, moment hceause you come. to thiS emumission, as you are bonnd to do, and answer any question put to you truthfully? I should ho.pe not.

Contrast the treatment this man received with the treatment I received from the Royal Commission. They glared upon me like a lot of tigers. The chairman of the commission told the House on one occasion that he handled me like a cbild. I bope before I have done with him to handle him like a child.

Mr. GLASSEY : \V'hat was their motive for han<illing you in that way?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORK::l: Because I was giving evidence th~t ~id not '~lit them-that did not carry out thmr vie.ws. ::the whole thin" was planned out; certam thmg; were goingb tu result, and I came like a bombEh ell amongst them and spoiled the pla:'f: After the last question I q noted, the following took place:-

The Hnn. J. Cr)wllshau.J: 1\ir. Bell is in a per,ulia.r position, and if he prefe1·s to say n.othing .now about wh~t took place until aftm· the Publw ~erv10e Board exann-11ation, I think we should allow him to take that stand.

11/te Chairman: I think thm;e questions should be a,nf;wered at once.

R!l the Chairman: Arc you prepared t£? anK~'er the fluestions now, or would yo1~ pre~er ,to w~ut until aner the Public Service Bmtrd mqmry r I am preparerl to answer them now. ·wh~11t took place the other day you ha.ve seen in the Press, and that is the trnt1I.

In striking contrast to this, I will first qnute how the commission h>1ndled another officer of the rlepartment, named Mr. Cux~n. He is under examination by Mr. Cowhshaw-8393 and following questions-

Have you had any conversat,ion with anyone about the evidence you are to give here to-day? No, I have not spoken to anyone about it.

Not to ~lr. Robertson? I have not seen Mr. Robert-

so~.ave you directly or indirectly had any conversa.t~on wiLh Mr. Robertson about the evidence you are to g1ve here to-day? :No. ~or with :Mr. Murray? No. ~either directly or indirectly P No. What you say now is yon m~de the remark that

there would be trouble hecause Mr. Robert.son banded you a lfltter to take to Mr . .Murray, and gave you the keys of the tender-box. Is ,that so or not? I wish to explain that .Mr. Robertson placed me in charge.

You d)d not say so before? Yes; the letter states so.


Yon said Mr. Robertson handed you the keys of the temler-box. Are we to unde1·st::tnd you were placed in ch::trge r He placed me in charge. I was virtually in charge until I sa..w .:\fr. ~furray. I surrendered myself to :\ir . .:\'Iurl'ay ten minntPs afterwards.

Wa< not the effect of that that Mr. Bell was suspended~ ~o.

Yon were the junior officer; why should you be put in chargeP I cannot say that.

Yon tell the truth; we do not want you to be fencing abflut? I cannot tell you.

You must have had some convel•sation with 'lr. Robertson to induce you to make such a remHrk? The placing in charge of an officer junior to l\ir. Bell called for that remark. ThPn 1\Ir. Cow]i>haw nskerl, f111Rstion 8418-

""Pll, t.lwn, an~wer the qncstion in a straightforward way? And ~rr. Coxen replied :-Yes, I will. 'l'he letter was to this effect: "I h~vc taken suddenly ill, and I have lmndect the wm·k over to Mr. Ooxen ; owing to em·tain eireurnstances. I c:.tnnot trust Mr. nell." Now, to the be~t of my knowledge, I bc1ievc that was the contents of the letter.

That was a letter that was handed to me on hoard the "Lncinda," after Mr. Rohertson was taken suddenly ill. Then Mr. Cowlishaw goes on, at question 8451-

I hope you will make no mistake. You sfty that the letter you took to the" I1ucinda'' was in l\ir. RobGrGson's handwriting? You fix me too much. I did not :see the lett.cr. He read it out to me. I saw the envelope in :\fr. Rohertson's handwriting.

In whose handwriting was the letter? I did not see what he was writing.

Ry Jlr. Petrie: You had not the curiosity to look at it? :.Vo.

B11 the Chairman: I will ask sou this : Did you write that letter P No.

Din you know ~hat anyone else wrote that letter? No.

I mean besides I\Ir. Robertson? No. Ry Jir. Plunkett : You said you did not con!'lider that

::U:r. Bell had been suspended? Xo, there was no offidal communication to that effect.

Hon. J. Comll.~haw: 're don't want you to quibble behind the word "official." We want facts.

R!! .1."lir. Plunk elf: You say that Mr. Robertson read over the letter to you. saying he could not trust J.Ir. Bell, a.nd that he woul1leavc J ou in charge. Is that true P Yes.

Thet~ at question 8520, after referring to Mr. Rohertson's illnes8, witness was asked-

Was }1r. Robertson there at~ o'clock? I think so. Now, does he, as a rule, get there at 9 o'cloekt Yes,

sir. Every morning? Yes. Are you sure that he was there that mornin~ at

9 o'clock t I cannot S\Vear that he was, but he was there at 9 or five minutes past 9 o'clock. I cannot locate every time that I go in and out.

How long was it after he arrived that you went in to see him P 'ren minutes after my a.rrival in the office. I went in to 8ee him to get my mail clear. I went in to get the mail from him.

To get the mail from him or take it to him? He opens the mctil and I take it from him.

How lonp; did you stop with him while he was clearing the mail? X o time.

\Yell, how long? 1Iftlf-a-minute. How many letters did he have to hanrl over to you?

He opens all the letters before I go fm· thf3m, and puts them in a pigeon-hole for me to get.

How many letters did he lr.-tnd over to you that morning? I am nna.ble to tell you.

Did he hand you one? He clid not hand me any. I tell .rou he puts them into a pigeon-hole, a big tray with pigeon-holes for the papers to be put in. He does not hand me anything.

How many were there in the pigeon-holes? On the avera.ge twenty or thirty.

You think there were twenty or thirty that morning? Yes.

You went in immediately after he arrived there, and you only stayed half-a-minute:.- I had simply to pick the papers up and walk out of the room. It does not take very long to do that.

But it must ha,ve taken him longer to open twenty or thirty letters? They may ha.ve been there from 4 o'clock the day previous. I clear the p1geon-hole periodically.

When did you clear it last before 9 o'clock that morning? At 4 o'clock the previous day. but )Ir. Robertso1 does not always leave the office at 4 o'clock.

But he would not rer.cive any letters after 4 o'clock? Yes; letters come there uutil 5 o'clock.

'Well. there were twenty or thirty letters in the pigeon-hole when you took them out? Yes.

Are you sure of that now? ·lVell, sir, I don't remember. I brought them out into my room, but I did not count them.

Is it possible that he conld have opened those letters, or unything like all those letters, and put them into the p1geon~hole !--Now, yon answer that plea~e? Vren, sometimes there arc two do'l.en in one envelope.

Is it possible for him to ha.ve opened thm~e letters, read them, mlnute them. and put them into the pigeonhole? He does not minntc them then. They have to be registered before he minutes them.

But he must read them; does he not read them until afterwards? I don't think so.

Doe!:\ he not I'mtd them? I think he could answer that qnc~tion bet.ter than I. I cannot say whether he reads thfl!n or not.

\fell, what. is the custom-sm·ely you know what is the custom? I don,t know what he does with them before they are put in the pigeon-hole fDr me to take them away.

\Vhat does he cio with letters when he gets them ? Opens them and puts them in the pigcon-h~le.

Does he not read them? I cannot say.

Bnt you are in and out, cannot you say whether he reads Lhem or not-it is no use you hanging back and saying you don't know, you mu~t know? If I opened a letter I would read it. As a rule, however, he :sends thflm out for registration and for the previous papers before dealing with them.

You say he simply opens the envelopes, put~ them into the pjgeon-hole, and sends them out to you to record them, or whatever you do, and aft.er that is done they are brought back, and he reads them? Yes.

And does not read them before? I should think not, unless it be a short wire.

How long does it take you to record them and take them back!- Until mid-day.

And do you me~n to tell us that 3fr. Robertson receives a lot of otncial correspondence and does not read it until mid-day until a.ft.cr you have miuntcd it or rrcorded it, or whatever you do? ·wen, no action is taken on them.

Will you just answer the question-do you wiHh us to believe that J\fr. Robertson does not read the oftieial correspondence until mid-day-that iR, Iett.ers which come in by the early mail before 9 o'clock? I suppose he does read them. I cannot vouch for whether he does read them or not, because, if I do, I may make a misstatement. I cannot see that I can a.nswer a question about what :Mr. Robertson does. It is an awkward qnestiou to put to me.

It i.-: not an awkward question, because you are conversant with the working of the office, and you m list. know whether 1\ir. Robertson rea.ds the letters or whether he pu· s them into the pigeon-hole? I cannot say ; he is in a room by himself.

By the Chai1·man: He is not by himself when you are there with him? I am not located in his office.

But you are going in and out frequently? Yes. And you and he are on good terms, are you not l-'

Yes, on good terms officially.

But very amiable terms exist between yourself and Mr. Robertson ? No, sir, not amiable terms-official courtesy, and all that.

At question 8557-I don't want to go back to lJrevious evidence, but

there mu~t have been something existing between you and :VIr. Robertson when he gave that little pre~ent to you on that occasion which snrpnsed you so much? Jt was, I suppose, a consideration for the work done, and that wa< all thrashed out the other day.

Then, at question 8591, Mr. Cowlishaw asked-Ell 1he H0n. J. Cou;lishwo: You can say J'OU do not

know a thing when you really do know it because it has not come before you officially; you c~m tell a lie to screen yourself beca.u:.;e it is ne>t official?

And 1\Ir. Ooxen replie~~ I do not tell lies.

22!4 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

That was the way they treated this young officer, Mr. Coxen, when he came for ,·ard to give evidence-accnsed him of lying wholesale. Then at qnestions commencing at 8G78-

You wish Ub to believe that you saw :Wr. Bell at ton minutes to 4, and be told you that Mr. Robcrtson had suspended him; that j'OH hafl this convor~ation you have related with :\1r. ltobertson at 4 o'elock, and you did not tell him tbnt Bell told you he w;t--<; sm;pended? ::\fa, I never saicl a word to him on the subject.

If you think we arc going to believe that you mnst think Wf~ are vcrv crednlons P \'{ell, I ~Pn not on my oath, bnt I am telling you the exact truth.

Yon m·e tantamount to being on you oath. Are we to understand thnt your evidence is not stri.eUy up to the truth be<~ause you are not on your oath? 'V ell, you infer that you do not believe what I state.

We do not believe it. I tell you plainly I do not believe it.

That is a nice wtty to treat a witne"s who comes forwarrl to give evidence-trying to drag out uf him evidence he had not to give--

Now, wHl you be good enough t,o tell us what took place on the Saturday morning when the lHinistnr ~arne into the ottice? 'l'he ~lini~ler called M1·. Brady, Mr. Bell, 1\Ir. Conroy, and myst'lf into the room. He sai.tl he considered ::\Ir. Bell was guilt,v of gross~- I fori;ct the word he used. I do not want to misquote him.

Question 8707-Now. mind what you are saying; didn't he ;,ay that

he wou1d withdraw the commission frorn nsP I heard nothing of that sort.

He made no such threat at all? :'<o. Nor any other threat? ~o; he only said that he

would deal with 1\Ir. Bell by and by.

And also the following, 87 .J.4 and following q uestions:-

B11 the Chalrnul'n: Did you see the board's report of 1896? I have not read it all through.

Are you not the recording clerk? Yes. Did you record that report when it came in? Yes.

It was a confidential report. I read what w~ts said about myself.

You did not read what was snid about other people immerliately connected with you P No. It was a con:fidential report.

Did you read it afterwards? Yes. And you knew what was in it? I don't know tha.t

now. The Chairman: You look a very intelligent man. Witnebs: I>erhaps not. 1'he Chairman: But I think you dec •ive your looks

when you say you don't remember the tran:sactions that took place some ff'W years ago-four years ago. I am given to understand that that is putting it very mildly-that the language used was much stronger.

Mr. AN NEAR : It is word for word what wa~ said.

l\1r. BErn: The proofs were reviser!. The SECRETARY FORl:'UBLICWORKS:

Then we come to questions 8755 to 8763, inclusive-

I suppose you kill time in yarning? No. I have never neglected my wol"k.

If you were put in the position of chief clerk would you have more or less work to do than you have now? 1\lore responsible work.

I ask, more or less? It may be less. How much more pay would you have got? I don't

know. What salary does the chief clerkship carry? £300. Is that higher than Mr. Bell's salary? Yes. Then there must ha,ve been some reason for :\Ir.

Robertson recommending you for that position-1Vhat was the special reason that induced Mr. Robertson to recommend you for this position, considering thnt you would be higher pa1d and have less work P Only a. reward for service.

1Vhat service? Fourteen years. Nothing else? No. B11 JJfr. Pefrie: Don't you think Mr. Robertson

considered you the white-haired boy of the department? No. I don't know ~1r. Robertson pt\v;ttely.

The members of the commission really tried to make this boy give information that he really hadn't to give.

Mr. ANNEAR: He's a married man; why call him a boy?

The SECRETARY :FOI~ PUBLIC WORKS: Then, again, Mr. Cowlisha,w said to Mr. Coxen, question 8403-

You tell the truth, we don't want you to be fencing about. All thiH shows how Mr. Cnxen was treated by this commission. Now, I will give some extracts from Mr. Robertson's evidence, <tnd, first of all, I will refer to questions 27, 28, and 29, which read-

You are also aware that the Hon. John Murray is l\i[inister for Railw-ays, as well as Minister for 1Yorl(s? Yes.

Do you know a man named Eli Gorton P Yes. Ha~ he also been employed at Spring- Jnnft' since the

Civil Service Ronrd irJ(tuir:v? Yes ; I think so, but I don't know from my own knovdedge.

'Vt'll, I was supposed to have exercised some influence in finding employment for the~e menmen that I never heard of until they were mentioned in this evidence, and whom I would not know if thPy were present in this Chamber. (.\nestion 48- ·

Did you ~mggest any conr~e to the Minister? I did not suggest anything to the Th-Unister, but I talked the matter over with ;.\fr. :\fnrray, and the Minister gave instructions that Mr. Jack should be suspended. It w:1.s insinuated, of course, that I was instigated by Mr. Robertson to suspend Jack, and that but for him I would not have taken that action. Mr. Robertson did not attempt to influence me in the least, and I reqnired no influence of the sort at all. Question 250-

Did you not a.rrange with him, at an interview on that day, thnt if he made an application to be put in the third class and apply for an increase of salary to £300, you would send on a favourable recommendation~ I do not remember that at all.

You had no conversation with him to that effect? I have no recollection.

Is it not stated in his evidenceP I do not rem,~mber that. Do I state that in my evidence?

You do not think you had an interview with him? I do not remember it. Inspectors are coming in and out every day, and it would be impossible to remember every interview I have with them. Question 2G4-

Did you not influence the Minister to increase 1\ir Jack's Punishment by reducing his :-alar.v £34 instead or £10? I did not. I did not influence the l\'Iinister in the slighte~t degree, and no doubt if Mr. Murray was called befor~ the eomrnission he would tell you the same thing. I prepared a minute for the Cabinet embodying the recommendation of the Public Service Board. rrhat was sent back from the Cabinet that the punishment was not snffident, and that the Attorney-General was to go through the evidence-which he did. After that 1\Ir. Murray and hP. decided, without any instigation from me, tbat his sahry be further reduced. Question 426-

By Jlir. Pelrie: At the time of Mr. Jack's removal to Townsville had you anything to do with it? The only thing I had to do with it was to support Mr. Bru.dy's recommendntion, but I 1nay tell you that months before that it had been in contemplation to have a general shift of inspectors.

(~uestion 451-You ::tdmitted that the charge had been objected to

by somebody P No, I did not admit that. I was asked whether I knew of it, and I said I had never heard anything about it. I understood from what the chairman said yesterday that it had been ohjected to by Mr. Dalrymple. Then here is another question Mr. Robertson was asked-550-

You ask that? Yes. The Chairman: 1Ye will have to consider that. 1Yilness: I would like also to state that ever since I

have been Under Secretary for Works I ha.ve never <lone any injustice to any contraNors knowingly. I


~ay, if they have any complaints, they Rhould come forward here. And also I would like to say tha.t my Minist,er would lil(e to be called here as a witness. uC is going Xo1·th shortly.

TIU' Chairman: It is the intrntion of the Commission to eall the .M.~ni~ter before the close of this inttnil·y; but we are gowg to rondnct, this inquiry in onr own way. [n saying this I don't wish to ne impertinent in any way.

Now, that was quite an unnecessary ineinurttinn. At the tit_ne this ccmmissiou w.ts appointed and at ~he tnne they met I was infinitely more anx1ous than auy nH'mlwr of thP. cmnmi~Kion that a fnll and searching inquiry should be made. I was contemplating going North aml I incidentally mentioned to Mr. Robert~on that it was jnst p~>ss~ble t~at before the inquiry closed the ernnmt~Rwn m1~ht want rr1y evidence. Mr. ltnbertson mentioned that to the commission ~m! the _ch:tirman ii:Rinuatecl that I was attempt: mg to mterfere w1th them in the conduct of their business. Nothing was further from my rnmd. It was only an earnest desire nr,on my part to give them evet·y assistance I could. I honestly say so. I was most anxious to give the commission all the assistance I could because I btelieved that they had not got ~ true grasp of the case that they were called upon to consider-that they had not got a true knowledge of the situation-and ] was anxious to try, if lJOssible, to put. them upon the right track, and I thought that when I presented myself and gave my evidence-which was very :nnch at voriance with the evidence that preceded 1t-1t would ha':'e the effect of bringing them hack to sometlnog like an impartial inquiry. ~nstead of that, they looked upon me as an mtruder--at all events they looked npun me as someone who came there to give evidence that w.t• n"t at all desirablB, and they insinuated that I wanted to interfere with the conduct of their business.

Mr. ANNEAH: There was no insinuation. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WOHKS:

Oh, wasn't there? · Mr. REID: The Press made plenty of it, any

how. TheSECRB;TARY J<'OR PUBLIC WORKS:

Well, whatever the commission and the public may haVf~ thought, I was 11lfJHt. anxiouR to w·.;Hist the commission. \Vhen I found out how a simple stat.,ment made by me was constrnnd it made me think that it would be very much bPctter fnr 111P to refrain frorn giving evidence at all, :>nd I had pracLic lily resolved not to g-i vc evidence when I consulted my friends; and they pointed out, what I recognisc\d-" If you do not present yonrself to give evidence before the commission, they will come to the conclusion that you have something to conceal, and that you are afraid of bei11g examined." There waR, therefore, no alternative for me but to give evidence. I did everything I could to put them on the track, and told them the faots M I knew them; and I think that that was an insinuation at all events, that was quite uncalled for. I would jnsL ask hem. members to turn to question 7058, to contrast the treatment that was extended to Jack and to Bell ami others, with the treatment that other witnesses received from the commission. ;Jack was told this-

.,. I wish to say that the sa~c. remarks apply to you. 1 on need have no rear of any ln)nry or harm happening to you b-.,~ giving the commission all the information you can? 'l'hanl\: yon.

On on? occasion. on which this question of protectiOn to Witnesses was raised in this Chamber, I said th:>t, if there was any man connected with the whole of this Jmsiness from beginning to finish that wa" in n~~cl of protection, th:>t mn,n was the late Under Seccetary. ,

Mr. REm : Hear, hear !

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The cnnnnission t<mdered their protecLion to the 1nen they sntntwmed to give evidence against him. They raked the gutters of the conntry for witnesRe:-> to corne forward and Hwear his life away. I ,qay thnt most clistinctly. They had the TlrivilPge of surrnnnning only those witnesses they chose. They had the opportunity of selecting their own witnei:'SPfl, a.r,d they only sumn1oned those who they knew could say anything against Mr. Robertson. '\Vhen the unfortunate Under Secretary saw that the plot was thickening around him, and asked to be allowed to he represented by counsPl, the connui~sion said it was simply absurd, and that tlwy could only treat him as thev treated the other witnesses. The unfort1;nate Under Secretary says, "I think I am different frnm other witnesses. I feel that I arn uvon tny trial."

Mr. ANNEAH: '\Vhere is it saicl that it was an absurdity?

'fheSECRETARYJ<'ORI'UBLICWORKS: Mr. Cowlisbaw said that it was a simple absurdity. Here was this unfortunate man dragged before this commis,ion, and practically put upon his trial, and he not only was given no opportunity of being represented by C<•Jmsel, but he was even refused the opportunity of rebutting the lying evidence that was given against him. He wrote asking that a SPries of questions be pnt to these men when he was sick and unable to attend the meetings of the commission, but the commisRion declined to put themthey were not relevant to the case. This is the way this unfort.unate man was treated by the commission. It was a scandal. I am afraid that time will not allow me to ,Jeal

as fully with this suhject as I coni.:! [7 p.m.] have wished. I hac! a great many

notes that I intendt>d to refer to, but I find it will take np too much timf', and I sha,ll therefore f'ndeavonr to curtail my remarks as much as po,sible. Before tea I was making a comparison between the treatment accorded to Rnrr,e witllP-Rses and others, and I will qnote a few more worcls to emph,.sise tho.t. Mr. Bell is asked at fllW·;tion BN85-

R.1J flu.• Chairman: Have you rrad ::vrr. Robertson's lct.ter, in whieh he denies thnt you were suspended? Yes. J wns very sorry to see it.

'''ere t.he r.ontent.s of tl:m.t letter correct? There is not a W'Ord of truth in it.

Canyon say that the statcmentR made by Jir. Robertson in that }(:tter are ab:;;olntcly nntrueP Yes.

B11 Jfr. Pl-1/'nkeff: You don't mean the whole of the letter is nntrne, do you? I tlliuk I lmve eontradicted every word in it.

'Ihat is what Mr. Reil s1ys with regard to the letter that the late Under Secretary s.-nt to me giving Ine a RtatP-luent of wha.t oceurn~d betwPen him and Mr. Bell at the time when :Mr. B~ll said lVIr. Robertson had suspended him. r think it is a moRt extraorclinary statemtmt for him tn mal<e that therP is not a sing!P word of truth in the letter 1 receiv<'d from Mr. HobertS•>ll, and nn the very face of it I think the commission ought to have ha.d their eyes opened to the clu1racter of this m:111. ttnestion i18\13-

rrhc only time you met me waR when yon hrought in ~ome papers dealing with MarylJorongli t Ye~.

IInvc you ever been closeted with me in yonr life, l\f:r . Bell? :'<Jo.

'\Vhy should the chairman of the commission ask such a question as that, I should like to know? Snrely it implies that he had been closeted with him.

Mr. ANNEAH : That is an unworthy insinuation.

The SECRI<~TARYJWR I'FTILICWORKS: It. is a most extraordinary qum.tion to :>sk, at all events. Now, just a few words with regard to


n;vself in giving my evidence before the commisston. I want to show the treatment I received and I will do so as briefly ns possible. At ques: tion 9370 I was asked-

By flu~ Hon. J. Cowli.r;luao: Then are we to underst~nd that you do not think them competent? I did thmk the punishment sufficient.

Are we to understand that you <lo not think they are competent? Kothing of the sort. I am not iu a position to say whether they are cum pc tent or not. I did not think the punishment meted out to I\lr. Jack was sufficient for the offence.

If you did not consider the Civil Servi1~e Board competent. why did you refer the matter to them? I am not going to pass an opinion on the Civil Servwe Board, whether they are competent or incompetent. 'fhe Civil ~ervice Board were appointed by the Government to inquire into all such r.ases; and in accordance with the regnlation~ I pa»sed the whole matter over to the Civil Servke Board for their action.

And they took (•ertain action and you did not recoO'nise it? I recognised it. ' o

. Yon did not, you revised it? I recognised it, and mereased tlw punishment a. little more.

'f1hen you did not accept their 1iuding? I did with a little addition of my own. '

Bp lllr> Chairman: But if you had ae~epted their findmg, you would not have made any further alteration, would yon P In what respect?

·wen. you would have accepted thch· findincr of £10? I tell you candidly if the matter had been in 1~y hands I wo:'.tld ~n:ve dismissed 1\Ir .• rnck. That is my own cand1d opnnon, lwcnnse I thinl~ his conduct was most contemptible, and I think the public think so too.

Are you itjndge of what the public think, JUr. MurraY? The matter wa~ thrashed out in Parliament, and 1l1y CmJdnct was debated in l)arlimncnt, and Parliament supported my conduct; and that is sufficient jnsti1ication for my conduct. ¥But, I s~y, Mr. :\hnray, do not Parliaments change?

1 e~, I h~heve they do; but Pnrliament supported my aetwn w1th nn overwhelming mnjority.

.Mr. CAMPBELL: There was no vote.

TheSIWRETAUYFORPUBLICWORKS: There waK " vote. 'l'he hon. member for JYloreton himself moved a reduction of £50 in the sal":ry of the.Under Secretary, it being proposed t<; mcrease .'t by £GO. The House thoroui!i-hly d1xcussed thB very mntter, and when the division cnme I had an overwhelming majori1;.y in fnvour of my prnp•>sal. 'l'he chnirman went on again to ask-

'rhen, w11y is thi~ ca~e again referred to us? This is under m1other charge altogether.

No, this commission, I believe, is appointed to inquire into the working of the '\Vorks Depnrtment? I understand it is.

By 1lir. PetriP : If the Public Service Board's reeommendations are not carried out \V hut is the O"ood of their recommending a thing-!-' 'rhat is a matter

0

you can settle in your own mind, l\Ir. Petrie.

By the Hon. J. Cou;llshaw: Did not the Public Service Board recommend that Mr. Robertson should be cen~ured too P Mr. Cowlisba\V, I am not here to be browbeaten by yon.

IIrm. J. Cmollf;ha,zn: I am not going to browbeat you. ThP Chairman: You mnst not evade any of the

q11cstions put to you, :J.'Ir. ::vrurray. JlTI". Jllu;-ray: You must understand, Mr. Annen.r, I a.m

not going to be browbeaten by any member of this commission.

'l'he Chairman: I am here to see that you Rre not browbeaten, ::\ir. ~1unay: and I am sure Mr. Cowlishaw would not do anything of the kind.

.Mr. 1llurray: I will munver thequr"ltions that are put to rne, but I am not going to have any answers dictated to me.

'!'he Chairman: No one is doing that. lJfr. J}furray' You had better not attempt it. lion .• J. Cowlishaw: If you will give a truthful answer

there will be no necessity.

• Tust " few minutes ago the hon. member for MMyborough, Mr. Annenr, told me he mnde no such remark. \\Then Mr. Cowlishaw Httys that to me, what does he in,innate? \V"" not the

i nsinuation thnt I was there to tell lies ? He

never mncle such a rmnark to any one of the other witnesses-Bell, .Jack, JYJ:cCulloch, and hosts of others; but this insulting remnrk was made when I pre"mted myHelf. I can honestly say that if I had heard thnt remnrk I woul<l hnve risen from my seat and walked out of the place ; but I did not know it was mnde until I saw it in print. Then we have at 9871-

Witness: I am not dictating questwns. Ask your questions, and I will answer them.

Bu the Chairman: Do you suggest that ~fr. Cowlishaw or myself have any personal interest in tllis inquiry? No. I shonld be sorry to suggest anything of the sort.

"'Thy should we have any persona.! interm~t in it? I have no per~oual intereS;t in the matter whatever. I am only anxious to see the matter settled.

The lion. J. Cou;lishaw: I may say that I have wi:;~hed to withdraw from this commission before now.

The Chairman: I hope Sfr Cowlishaw will continue to be a member of this commission nutil the inquiry IS

closed. VVe value J1r. Cowlishaw's professional experience very much, and also the fair mauuer in wllich he has acted to every witness. I hnve just given a sample o[ his action townrds myself. Now I tnrn to question 9934-

:Now, coming back to that letter, does not the action of 1\Ir. Itobertson in tearing up that letter, in whieli Mr. Jack (•.harges lli>11 with dishorwsty--tlocs uot that aetion look like trying to bribe Mr. Jack to keep tlniet? No.

It does not? f\ o. That is your opinion? That is my opinion-most

decidedly my opinion. Tllat is a straight answer, :\fr. 31nrray? Yes, that js

a straight answer, Mr. Annear. Do you think, :\fr. 1\inrray, that making that

ch~trgc--? I would like to know if .a-fr. Jack is represented by connsel here P

No; but there is a gentleman engaged here--? Who is her Before I go further, I wish to sny that when I was giving my evidence they had a gentleman named Hobbx there acti11g as secretary to tlie commi,sion, and the first day I wns there I noticed him prompting the chairman. I never replied to any of his questions, but this gentlemar! prompted him to put another to me. I wns mul~r cross-examination by this mnn Hobhs, the secretary to the coinrnisswn, and it becaine so flagrant that I stopped giving my evidence ami called attention to it, and I have the strongest suspicion possible-nnd I think I have very strong ground for the suspicion-that that gentleman, while being paid as secretary to the con1mission, waq conducting the case in the interests of Mr. Jack.

Mr. ANN EAR: You ought not to say that. The flECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

I have very strong ren•ons for saying it. Mr. REm : Quite true. Mr. ANNEAR: It is not true.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I may say, further, that Mr. Jack was sitting at my back all the time, and when I gave some evidence that did not please him, he rose from his seat and challenged me by saying, "'l'hough you are Minister, I shall nut sit still and listen to this."

Mr. J ACKSON : He apologised afterwards. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

He made no apology whatever. This man Jack was retained by the commission-after I allowed him to remain in town until the inquiry was over -he wns retnined by the commission and was furnishing the commission from day to day, and honr to hour, with the necessary information in regard to getting witnesses to give evidence against Mr. Rnhertson .

Mr. ANN EAR : Do you think that is trnR? The SECRI<~TARYFOR PUBLIC WORKS:

I have the strongest reason for believing- so. Mr. RllW: It's true, right enough.

Supply. (30 NOVEMBER.] Suppty. 224~

The CHAIRMAN: I c:.ll upon the hon. member for Ennggera to observe the Standing Orders and not interrupt.

Mr. REID: I did not know I was interrupting. The CHAIRMAN: Tlw hon. member was

interrupting; and if he contim1es to interrupt I shall have tu take other action.

lYir. REm : \Ve won't be allowed to smile soon. The SI<~CRETARYI~ORPUBLIO WORKS:

To continue the evidence where I left off-This. gentlema..n i::: the RPeretnry of our commisRion,

a. barrister by profession-!' He seems to be prompting you, _jlfr. Anneal\

Yes, he is prompting me all along. You Rec, Mr. Murray, you know l nm only what you call-and I have never yretcnded to be anything more than-a shtqJln worl\inguum, and Mr. Jiqbbs is here to assist me. You must llcLVC known that t,lJe able letters :von have sren in the papers could not have hecu dieta.te'd anti written by my:-~elf. I have lHtd the assit'tan<~e of Mr. Hobbsi' l~tlt heiR only there to t}lke note.;, not to in~trnet yon.

Mr. Hobhs i~ here as the se('.ret:lry of this commission We do not want any dhwussion about ~ir. Hobhs. His Unties are delined by the nommission, signed Uy His l<~xcelleHcy tlle G-overnor, and eouutersigned by the Hon. R.. I>hilp, I>remier i-'

'l'here was a man named Kelly who waR summoned by Mr. Hobbs to come from 'roowoomba at his own expense, and he was handled very rc?ugbly hy the eornrnission when he presente;l lHmHeif to give evidence. 'rhis is No. 2fl3i>-

Ry the Hon. J. Cowli8haw: \\'hat did you say? I Raid 1 wonld be better prepared to give my evitleneu tomorrow. as I had travelled a long journey, ana it was very ln.te, and [ vn:~s :mffering fromtt cold.

\Yhat did he say? lie said," All right, Ke1ly.'' l>itl you have any talk :tbout the cvidenee you 'vcrc

to give~ _:\l'o eouvertmtion, good, bad, or iuditl'erent. rrhm·e nevm· was a word i!mid abont the evidctJce.

Ru the ClwiN1UUl: You say it was about 3 o'eloek yon saw ):1r. Itollert~on? As near ns I can go.

You were llcre yesterda.v before t.he eommisxion commeneed? rl'he eonnni~~ion wns jltXt sitting, and T s•oppe,l outside for <L quart,el· of an hour or ten minutes, and went away.

Ry the llon .• J. Cowlishmo: Did yon sec 1\fr. Rohertson he1·et No.

Was it yonr intention to go to his ofllcc to see him he fore he eame !' Yes ; to see if my evidenec was going to be taken yesterday.

·rcll UR what took place; what conversation did yon have wHh him P I told him I had arrived.

Then there iK this at quPRtion 21>2G-BtJ t/lp, lion . . /. Oowlhdww: You say the Mini~ter ga,ye

you assi:stanee. 'Vas that monet,ary as!'listanee :, He gave me nothing. He allowed me to prove wy statements.

No other assistance? J\To. I nm"'er received assistnnce from anyone yet

'fhe only assistance you got from him was his going down to look at the work? rrhat is all. He allowc<l me to prove my stntement:s.

A great deal has been said, anrl a very serious charge was made in this House last) ear by the hon. member for Moreton-namely, that the evidence taken at the .Tack-Robertson inquiry had be<·n cooked and fa],ified, and that the Avidence presented t,, this Hmtse was not a correct copy of the evidence given. I said in this House on that occasion that it was a very serious charge to make against the department that important public documents passing throng h the hands of the Under Hecretary had been falsified or faked in their passage, and that I would take the <mrliest opportunity of satisfying myself and the House whether the charg-e was teue or not. I took that opportunity, and wrote to the Public Henice Board. I told them the statements which had been made in the House, and asked them to let me know whether the evidence as printed had been falsified or alteretl in any shape or form, and I have got their reply, which I shall rt>ad further on. Numbers nf witursses who presented themselves

before the Royal Commission to give evidence were told in the plainest terms possible that the evidence I refer to had been cooked or faked, and it wail insinun.ted that it had been

. ~tltered by the Under Secretary. A more slan-derotls, a more vicions thing could not be done again3t any man, because I do not think it iR possible to charge a public officer with a more serious offence than that of falsifying or cooking public documents passing through his office. This lie had g:me forth to the !Jllblic, and was apparently doing the work it was intemled to do -namely, P''isoning the public mind against that officer. JYlr. McOnlloch is one of the witnesses who said his evidence had been falsified. He Raid-

lire notice that yon gave evidence at the Robertson.Tac:k inqniry t Ye:;;.

Ouc witues~ who gave evidence before this commission said llis cvident~e given at that inqniry, as printed, wa:-; ineorreet. \V a~ .vonr evidenec nt tha.t inqniry read over to your It was not.

The commi1-'siOn W(JU!d like to hear anythiug- you have to ~ay in mferenee to that i-' 1 tender sou this eopy of m.v lWideue\J as printed in the otlieial report, 'vith my o1·igina.l eorrentions You will i:We that it hns been slanghtered. I have had to entirely alter the whole or it.

It is a mmt remarkable thing that Messrs. Bell, .Tack, and McUulloch ttre the only three witncH<es who practie<tlly charge the U nd<'r :Secretary with having falsitied the evidence. \Vhen th"y saw their evidence printed and placed before the public, they could oee th01t it was of a far more dam1ging character than they anticipated it wonld be, and now they tt·y to shelter themse! ve' by saying that they never said those things, but that they said smn<ething else. 11r. Jack, in giving evidence befnre the conunisKion, sa.id the evidence as printed was altogether wrong, and that it would have turned hiR own father against him. But it has been proved that the evidence is absolutely correct, and the connmssiun know now that it is absolutely correct. It is a disgrace that this lie should have been allowed to go broadcast all over the country, and do its deadly work against the Under :Secretary. I was so annoyed at Lhe circumstance that I wrote to the commission, and forwarded to them the whole of the mttnnscript, and asked them if, after a perusal of the documents, they saw that the chnrge that Mr Robertson had hhified or faket1 th<> evidence was utterly without foundation to withdraw the accugation. Mr. tT ack gave further evidence on this p"int at qnesti•m 7171, as follows:-

By the Chairman: Willyon con1inueyourexphmation in rcf'erence to the result of t.ho mquir.Y t I have h(~re a nopy of the report of th~Lt inqniry which was presented to Pt1rliament, and I ha.ve never bad an opportunity until now of explaining-the matter. 'l'hiH wa.s prpsented to Parliament. as a eorreet eov.r of the evidence taken at the inqniry. I sat- rtll through the inquiry with my solicitor, and I would like to state that this is very far from huing a eorrect eopy of the evidence. 'l'he evidence is fl;amed in sw:ll a way as to re:t<l against me, and not aga.inst the UtHler Hecretal'y for ·works.

That iR what be was driving at all along. The charge was that JYJ.r. Robertson had faked the evidence to read against JYir. ,Tack, and not against hirnKelf. Mr. tTack continued-

If the evi.dcmec a!'> taken hrtd been truly pnbliRhed, I flo nnt think l\Ir. I\inrray would have insist.ed nvon a fnrther dbrating, aud I have been Sllllf'.ring under this st.lgma all the time. "\Vhy, the report which was issued by the Pnhlic Servie: Board would have turned my own father again~t me.

The man admits that his conduct was of such a degrading character that it would have turned hi' own fatlwr agn.iust him, and I say his conduct waR Hnfficimtt to turn ngainBt hhn any man who had a desire for fai1· play.

Mr. McDONALn: \Vhy do you keep him in the department ·?


The SECRETARY FOR PUDLICWORKS: 'Well, he is there, but not with my will. But he goes further than that, :t!Hl says the evidence as printed is not correct. Nevertheless, it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the evidence is correct. He further said in his evidence before the commission-

! was acnused of spying and espionage. There was no spying or espionage necessary in connection with my knowledge of ~Ir. Robertson's failings. The inquiry was a private one held before the chairman ot' the Pnblic Rervice Board and l\fr. O'Malley, and I had no opportuuity of having my evidence read over to me or or eorreeting it. The first I he~rd of the matter after the inquiry was a notice which appeared in tlJC Brisbane 'Peleyraph of dale lOth July, lt>99. It is as follows:-

Then further on he was asked-\\~hat are you raading from?

He replied-It is an extract from Hansard. It is really my own.

That is rather important. He said he was reading an extract from Hansrt'rd, which was really his own. That extract from Hunsard was the quotation made by the hon. member for Moreton.

Mr. CAi\fPBELL: \Vhat is wrong about that? The SECRETARY l<'OR PUBLIC WORKS:

Mr. Jack put that information in the hand" of the hon. men1ber, thinking that, after giving his evidence, he could put another face upon it by submitting 8\ idence which he never gave. That was what we,s wrong about it. The hon. member brought it up in this Honse to show that Mr. Robertson, or someone, had been guilty of falsifying the evidence. But to continue the quotation-720fl-

1Vhat are you now reading from? It is an extract from Hattsanl. It is really my own.

What you are now reading actually took place? Yes; that is, as near as possible. It is certainly more correct than the printed evidence.

By the Hon. J. Cowlisltaw: Do you charge Mr. Robmtson with having made alLerations in the t:vidcnce? I do not know who to charg(~ wHh it.

Who were the reporters who took <'lm~:n the evirtrnce? One was a young fellow in the Pnhlic Rcrviee Boarrl, and the other is an officer in the Agricultural Department,

On this subject Mr. Bell gave the following evidence, at queetion 70G :-

You gave evidence in the Robertson-Jack inquiryla~t year? I did.

Have you got the report before you? Yes. Do you consider the evidence coaect so far as it

relates to your~elf? No, I do not. There is not much or m,v evidence, as you can see, but it is not eorrect.

'iVill you state where you wish to make any cJrrections? Y£ ~. rrllere is question 750, on page 31. 'fllC question was, " As far as yon are personally eoncerned, you do not know whether Mr. Itobertson incurrerl these cab fares or not?" The answer there is put as a~ o." My answer was, "How could I tell, when I am in the office all day."

Bnt I shall not quote any further on this matter.

[7.30 ] In connection with the same thing, p.m. I am asked some queetions-

Yon see that even the Under Seer. tary admits that the evidence was sent to him, that he had it typewritten, and that he sent it on to be laid before Parliament? I am in total ignorance of all that. I did everything I pm:;sibly eould to satisfy myself and the House that the evidence, al::" printed, was the evidence as taken by the shorthand writer.,; and that is what I recommend :rou to do. I presume the notes of the shorthand writers are available still. It is between the shorthand writers who took the notes and tlu~ Public Sf~rvice Board who heard all the evidence as to whether the evidence was falsified or not.

By the Chai,.,.man: We want your evidence to-day? I have told you all I know. I am in total ignorancB.

·You can say yes or no to the qne:iition r Yes or no to what?

As regards the alteration in this evidenrc? I sav I am certainly not aware that the evidence was altm:ccl. nor do I believe it.

That is the way I was tackled about it. Now, the action I took in rPgard to this was to write a letter to the Public Service Board asking them to make inquiries on the subject. The correspondence was published in a document laid on the table of this House last segsion, :tnd was in the hands of the Royal Commission the whole time-if it was not it was available for them and it was their bounclen duty to get it. It would have proved to them most couclusive~y that the evidence had not been altered. Yet m the face of that knowledge they allowed this lie to go forth to the country, and rather eNcouraged it than otherwise, until they were pmctically brought to bay about it, and compelled to stop the>r insinuations. This is the correspondence on the matter-

Devartment of Public Works, Brisbane, 2Jnd )[ovember, 18\JH.

Mr:::\IO: THE SECRl-:TARY, PUBLIC SJ>:HVfC": BOARD.

Jack t~. llobertson.

The arcuracy of the evidence in the above inqniry as printed h~Lving been questioned in the IIou~e of A!-sembly, I am dircet.ecl by the Secretary for -works to ask you to be goo<l enongh to h:~ve tbe shorthan~ notes compared wHh the printed evidence, and advise the JUiubter whether any mistake has been mndc.

The manuscript evidence submitted 1vith your report is enclose<l herewith.

R. ROBERTSON, J. ~L. 22-11-89. Under Secretary.

Public Service Board, Brisbane, 27th ~ovember, 1899.

Re Jack v. Rob&rtson.

SIR,~I ha Ye the honour to acknowledge th~ receipt of your memorandum of the ~2nd instant .. askmg that the shorthand notes in the above matter might, be emupared with the evidence.

Haviug, by direetion. C'tused the ~videnr;e to he compared by tbe shorthand writers \Yith their shm:tliand notes. I have been informed by them that ~uch endenee is a tull and true tram;cription from the notes, with the exerption of SlH'h eorrcctionsynd substitutions a~. ~u:~ specHied on the aecompanymg sheets mm ked A and "H."

The manuscript evidence is returned herewith.

I have, etc .. JAS. P. RICHARD, Secretary.

The Under Secretary, Department of Public Works.

Brisbane, 27th November, 1899.

Re Jack v. Uobei'l8on.

STn.-1 certify that the evidence in my handwriting, here,vith, is and contains. to aH intents and 1m~·voscs. a true transcription from my sllorr.hand note~, With the exception of the errors !-l)ecified on the attached sheet marked "A," I baYing. us direeted, carefully re-examined and c'ompared the manuscript with the notes.

I have, ete., T. W. lllcCA "\YLF.Y.

The Secretary, The Public Service Board, Brisbane.

Brisbane, 27th November, 1899.

Re Jack v. Robertson.

8nt,-I certify thnt the evidence, .herewith, typewritten b:r me, if' and contains, to all lntent!:-1 and purposes, a ti·no transeription from my shorthand notPS, with the exception of the errors specified on the attached sheet marked •· B," I having, by direction, carefully re-examined and compared the manuscript with the note~.

I have, etc., R. WILSON.

The Secretary, Public Service Board, Brisbane.

The corrections are set forth in the paper, but time is too valuable to refer to them. Now there is the letter which l wrote to the Chairman of the \Vorks Commission forwarding this docn· ment and in that I said that repeate<l statement~ having been me,de as to the falsification of thH evidence taken at the inquiry, I trusted that; from a perusal of the docum~nt he would see that the statements which had been made

Suppl;IJ. [30 NovEMBER.] Supply.

were without foundation, and that he would therefore see the .itmtice of withdrawing the insinuations against the officers of my department. That letter was signed by myself. Now, I think tbctt knowing the seriou;; nature of the,e charges and the serious effect they would have upon the reputation of the late Under Secretary for \Vorks, it was the bouuden duty of the cornmission, in all fairness, to have made a public statement that they had examined the evidence and found it to be substantially correct. I got an ackn.1wledgment of that letter, and that is all we heard about it.

Mr. ANNRAH : What about the report ? TheSECl:mTARYFOH.PUBLICWORKS:

I am going to refer to that. This is from the report of the commission laid on the table a few days ago-

At the 1\finister's re<tuest we tested the accuracy of the reports of the evidence taken at the J:tck-Robertson inquiry. V\re caused an examination and comparison of the shorthanfl notes and the transeript eopy to be rmtde, and the report furnished to us shows that the otficlal rcprwt of the evidence in the main is RnbstantiallJT correct.

I say that in all fairness an apology was due from the. commis,;ion :o the late Under Secretary, be~ause tt was Irnposstble to make a more serious charge against any ofhcer in the public service.

Mr. ANNRAH: Did the commission make the charge?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I have quoted the conduct of the commission all through, anrl h'we shown that they were encomaging this lie to get abroad ; and even at this late hour I think it was their bounden duty to apologise for the serious injury done to the late Under Secretary in circulating such a slander. I have no time to do what I would like to tlo, bnt I could refer hon. members to the evidence given with regard to the character of the work in the Stock Institute by Mr. Inspector .Jack, who w:ts inspector over that huildincr while it was being constructerl. He gave evf: dence on the subject before the Public Service Board and before the Royal Commission and to wy mind the ev\dence he gave before the cOinmission should have. opened their eyes to the character of this man.

Did you see any of the mortn,r mixetl at the Stock In~titnt.e ~ I saw it in the heap. 1~on did not .see any of it mixed? I cannot recall any

of 1'L being mixed. Did you know that cement hfld to be mixed with

the_mortar? I did not know anything about cement unt1l I returned to Brisbane from Townsville.

Here this inspector of works is handed specifications for a buildinc; to be erected under his superintendeuce, and he admits before this commission that he was in total ianorance of those specifications. Yet the corn mfssion saw nothing in this to change their opinion about this man. He was asked-

Did. you not read over the specifications? They certn.mly should be read over, but at that time there really was not time to keep fully in touch with the specifications. 'rhat mortar, which was specified, wa~ an entirely new departure-one-fifth of cement to five parts of lime mortar. and I think, in fairness to myself, my attention should have been drawn to that alterntion. He simply says that some officer of the department should have taken him on one side and said, "Here, Mr. Jack, you are so busy, you have no time to read over those specificatione, I want to read them for you, and you will then know what tbo"e specifications are." He said he had n•> time to read them all, and the dP.part-nwnt should have been n,cquainted-- ·

lYir. JAOKSON: Read the whole of his answer. The sgcRETARY FORPUBLICWORKS: Bver sinre I have been in the department the specili

ca.tinn for mortar has been two parts of sand and one part of lime,

,Just so-it is evidence at all events that he never read the specifications.

Mr. ,TAOKSON: He thought when a new departure was made he should have had his attention drawn to it.

The SJ<~CRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Then he would have had no necessity to read the specifications over. Question 72:)\J-

But if you do not read the specifications and look at the plans before you commence supervising, how do you know whether the work is properly tlnne or not? You are l{'.lite right there, but really in the way we carried on. we never got time. 'rhere \Vas really no snpervisi.on, and that is what has canscd all our trouble. "\'Ye never got time.

Are we to understand that all the inspectors wol'k in the same way P I am speaking of the Brisbane office. I prestmted a list yesterday in which I mentioned [artyseven works I lHLd to supervise. 'l'here were really forty-eight. In addition to that there is a list that the secretary has been unable to get, for me, showing that I had US2 small works to supervise for which no Gaze!IP tenders were called. 'rhose small works require dealing with on an average three times, so that 6S2 multiplied by 3 would give 2,046.

I will show from the records of the office the actual work that he bad in band at this particular time. 'rnen he goes on about paying this contract. Question 7541-

He would be overpaid on that certificate? Yes; but there must have been some mistalw somewhere. I remember Herd coming down to the oflice for the last payment he got from me, anrl I made an appointment to see the building. I failed to keep th;tt appointment. He came the next morning, and I again failed to keep the appointment. I said, "How much do yon want~" He replied, "Only suflicicnt to p::Ly lilY month I_\· hills." He named the amount, and I told him tn mali:e out, a vonchel' in the office, and I would ta1m a run out to the work. He thtm left the voucher, and I signed it. "'hen I signed it I had still six days in which to stop paymeut i• there was not sufficient work done. I went to the correspondence braneh and asked how mneh was standing to the credit of the contract. I must have been informed of the sum, because I saifl, " Oh, he eau hRve thi~. easily." I had still five days in \Vhich t,o stop the voucher. It would be 1iltering through the process of payment. At all events, I did not get nv to the building, or I might have got up there and seen the quantity of work. Rut tllere must haYe heeu some mh;take in the office, because they had not rPcortled the payment before that. I presume I must have got wrong information about the amount standing to tile credit of the work. There should have been £183, and instc~d of that thern was only £~:~. I can ttnite understand how the mistake oecurred by the way things were going on.

Question 7547-

And you say you signed the voucher without inspecting the work? Let me explain that. The 1-Vorl\s Department has two paydays a month~onc on the 15th and the other ou the 28th. Supposing a contractor camPs in and asks for a dra\Y. His vmwher must be in six clear days before either of the paydays. He would ask the inspector to look at the work because he wanted money. rl1lle inspector would go to the work if he could. If he could not find time, then he would make arrangements to meet the contractor, and probably the inspeetor would have to disapvoint him. 'l'he eoHtraetor might come down and say, "·when can you come r·· I \Yould say, ".:v.t:ake out yonr vouelwr, leave it here, and if it is all right it will be s.i,gned." By comparing the amount of mone.v standing to the credit of the work with the voucher. we would kuow what we would be safe in giving the contractor.

·without inspection? No, we intend to inspect.

But in this case you did not inspect? I might have inspected.

You signed that voucher on the ma,n's word? No, I did not do that. The contractor would ask for money. If you eaunot go to the job, yon get him to make out a voucher, which, if correet, yon wonld pn~s for payment. :say he makes out a voneher for £50 on a .£;200 job, and he leaVP,S that with yon, and you have uot seen his work. You will sign the voueher ~ but there is no chance of that being paid until you have seen the work. It is only filtering throngh a process.


Question 75G3-BI! the I!on, J. Cowlh;lww: Then we n.re to under

stand that you give certificates ou the ttnantity of work without studying itR quality P ·well, I regret to say it has been done.

Now, in the face of that, they exonerate this man and say that he should be reinstated and all his expenses paid.

Mr. BRIDGES : The commi,sion does not say that-it is in the minority report.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Well, there is evidence given by a bricklayer named Shorter as to the character of the work of the Stock Institute, and I recommend hon. members to read it. I will content myself with quoting these three questions-No. 1267G-

Rylrir. Plunkett: Have you seen the Sto~k lngtit,nte siuee you left? Yes, when I was down in Hrisbaue ln.Nt., about four months ago.

'¥ere there men working on it thenP Yes, one of the bricklayers was working pointing it.

Did you ever see n. worse building than the Stock Jn:.;titute? I have seen some had ones, but that wns n. daisy.

That is the Stock Institute, and he calls it "a daisy." H.e was a practical man, a bricklnyer, and he saw the character of the work and knew all about it; am!, in the face of this evidence, those hem. gentlemen exonerate this officer, and say that I persecuted him. It rests with hem. members to say whether a man of this description shnll be allowed to remain in the public service of this colony any longer. Now, I have to refer to what I conceive to be a rather painful aspect of the whole question, and it goes to show the temper this R·,yal Commission were in, when they were examining witnesses in this c::tse, and it goes to prove most conclusively the strong hi as that they had. It will be remembered that Mr. Robertsnn was taken seriously ill. He wa~ unable to attend to the office, I think for the time; I saw him in the office one morning. \Vhen I got in in the morning, I founfl him lying there in a very serious state; and this is how 1\fr. Coxen was asked about it, the commission insinuating that Mr. Robertson was shamming-question f\3il7-

Ry the Hon J. CouJlislunn: Before you went there the Un'ler Secretary wa8 taken ill, w:.ts h~~ not~ Ym;;.

\\'ere you preRent when the ::vrinister saw him r I was not.

You saw him immediately after the :\fini:-:t.er left, did you not? I do not know~ the time the l\'linh:ter 'vas the1:e.

I have not time to read all this.

Mr. Rmn: Plenty of timn.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: No, I have not time.

Mr. MoDoNALTl : Go on. It is our last night ont.

The SBCRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Question 8560-

Bu 11fr. Pt!triP: Yon say that althoug-h he was so very ill he was able to read that letter which he gave you to take to sbow to Mr. :VInrray? Yes.

You think that if he were able to read that letter he wn.s able to \Vrite it? I should think so. l\'fy own opinion is that he wrote it.

It is your opinion that he wrote it? I have no reason to believe that he did uot.

I will only give my own evidence in regard to thiH matter. I do not know what the HonsP or the country will think of it. At question 10850 I am asked-

Did it not seem strange to you that you had left J1r. Robcrtson on the (>Ouch at his offiee so ill that he could not be moved to his house, and that \Vi thin a few minutes he conld send you a letter of t.ha.tt-~ortP Is that an insinuation that he Was shamming?

Answer the question? Answer mine. I ,\t;ay it is an insinuation I an~ not prepared to answeT-an insinuation that is unworthy of you,

I ask yon--he was so ill he could not lJe taken to his honsc. Did it, not strike yon as being very ~trange that a few minntes after yC'u left he was able to write a lrttP.r to you? It strike~ me it is a very nuwttrranted insiuuation on your part to say he wa!'i shaunning.

Mr. ANNEAR: Nobody ever said he was shamming.

The SJWRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS (continuillg)-

Will you answer my question? ·will you answer mine?

Yon are here to answer m us? I bad a certificate front a doctor that 3-fr. ltobert::;on was dangerously ill, and yet you insinuate he was shamming all the time.

I ask you again, did it not strike ym~ as being v~ry singular that he should get up and wnte a letter hke this only a few minutes after he W;di~ reported to_ be dangeronHly ill P It did not strike me in the same light as it strikes you, at. nny rate.

I mn as1dng yon questions a.nd you try to evade tlu~m; von bave been doing that all the afternoon? Wllat buve you been doing all the afternoon?

1'he lion. J. Cowlishaw: I have been pntti.ng straightforwm·d que,:.;:;tions, and have not been able to get straightfonvard answers.

By the (}!wh·man: ·we learn a greLt deal, from time to time. by experience. Did it not strike yon. Ut~lLday, that Dr. Hopkins TnH8t have b(•en an CXf'f'lJtiOmtlly f'lever man to prescribe for l\Ir. Robertson autl the {mre to heRO etreetnal in SH<'h a short timer I tl!ink son had better _:;et Ur. IlOllkins's evidence. rrhe tloeLor left n, oertHicnte on the table. st:Lting l]mt Mr. ltohertson hnd bec~n taken scrionsly and ~uddenly ill, aud that as .-.:oon a:;;; he was a little better he wn....;; to bo taken home and not come back to the o!llee for some days. Snrel.v tllat ought to be snflicient t'or you that )fr. hohertson \VfLS ill.

If I was suffering from some illness, and wanted a sveed\' {~ure, I should like to have the sam~ dol'tor if I poHsibly conld? Yon had better ay ply to lum.

I trnst I mn not going to be ill for some time? It is all rig M, then.

I s<ty it is impossible to find, in the history of t!le Civil Service nf the country, anythmg more dishonourable than that. Here was a man stricken down, and never after that was able to re-ent''" the office and I say it was nothing bnt the erne! treatment he received that brought him to that comlition. And when he was lying on his deathbed this is the way that that Royal Commission taunted me with the condition of that man's illness. I 'ay it is a scandalous disgwce. I dn not know whether the country are prepared to support the ccnntni~sion. A Roya~ Conn;tisRion ought, above all ~h1ngR, to be rLn 1mpartial and honourable tribunal, and not cond~scend to that sort of thing. I say it is a disgrace to them.

Mr. HEm: They put him in his grave, anyhow.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It is for the House to give its verdict. I am simply quoting the evidence as it appearR. I will now get b~ck to some practical matters, because I want to get through as quickly as I can. It h<~s always been said that Mr .• Tack was overworlced and over-taxed, that it was impossible for him to give attention to the works he was placed in charge of, and that he had more work to do than any of his fellow-officers. Here is evirlence showing the extent of the work connected with the Stock Institute. Mr. Bra,Jy was Pxamined at the .Tack-R<,bertson inquiry on this subject, and he was asked by lHr. 'l'hynne, question 10:3-

IIave yon the certificates given by M"r. Jack? Ye~. they are in the dctmrtment.

When did Jir. Jack's duties in connection with the Stock In:-;titute Building begin? 1Yhen the building was cmimtmwed Mr .. Jack was abRent on leave of ahsencc. 'l'he foundations 'vere ynt in and the base conr~e during hl.~ Iea.ve of ah:•enee. lie was in charge of the WfJl"k from 1st F{'ln·uary, ltl!·H-l, till 29th .July, Ji:H-19, and during that time the brickwork comylah!ed of was execntt'd. J\11' .. Jack was in sole charge durmg the whole time the brickwork was carriPd out.

Supply. [30 Nov:itMB:Ea.] Suppiy.

Mr. Thynne tendered "Certificates for payment of Contractor," which \Vere admitted-l!.~.chibit 4.

By ;ut'. Th!Jm~e · Tha last two certificates were given by .VIr. Murdoeh? 1'lla.t is so.

At what stage of the progresg of the work did Mr. Jack cease to supervise it 1 'J.1he contract amounted to £!,S33, auct the whole amount had been paid with the exception of £83 when Mr. Jack left. It would be inft~rred from that that the building, in his opinion, was almost completed, beca.use, according to the con~ <litions of contract, only 90 per eent. of the value of the work completed should be advanced to the contractor when it is executed satisfactorily. 'rhere ought really to have remained when the building was completed, £183.

At question 3G40, Mr. Jack is asked by Mr. Blair-

Now, when did you leave the Stock Institute ? I left Brii3ba.ne on the 31st July.

'!.'hen question 3645-fn what stage were the works when you left? The

roofs were on and the floors were laid. About how onen do you say you inspected that

work? I cannot very well tell you ; I kuow sometimes I was not there for ten days or a fortmgb t. I could never get sufficient time.

How was tha.t? 1Vell, it \Vas on account of the continuous demand on my time in all sorts of matters.

It h~ts been suggested in evidence already that it might be po:-~sible for you to order certain work to stnnd ove1 until you could be present to inspect it. Is tha.t possible as the work is going on P You could tell the men to hang off if yon 'vere only going to be an hour or so away, but you cannot keep them off their work for an indefinite time.

rrhat 'vonld be an unreasonable thing? Decidedly. I would not ask men to do it •.

I am almost com!Jelled to read these extracts, because during the whole course 0£ this inquiry false reports wer<e circulated to the public, on w hi eh in~ ffreat measure. the public were forming their npnnon on the menr.s and demerits of the case and on the merits and demerits of Mr. Jack. My only desire is to place the real facts before the House and the country with regard to the work M:r .• Jack had in hand. This is what he shelters hin~self behind, and where his friends are doing their be,;t to shelter him, by makiug it appear that he had f"rty·eight contract• in hand at one time, and that it was !Jractically impossible for him to look after them ; also that he had more work to carry out than any other inspector in the department I have incontestable proof that he harl even less work than the other inspectors had. In answer to question 7083 in the evidence before the Royal Comrrnssion, :Mr. Jack states-

! had forty-seven contractR on hand, tlltrteen of\\ hlCh were brick and two stone, and I had all these other matters to deal with also, in additiou to the general duties of the office. It was utterly impossible, with a q~~rter of these things to attend to, to exercise superVIsiOn of all work. I may say that the supervjsion of work in this district for a year or two back has been a farre. Our time is occupied in most trivia.! mattersprobably a11 urgent in their 'vay.

The chairman asked, queotion 92G7-[8 p.m.]

Do yon think it possible for one man to look after forty-eight contracts at the same time P

Mr. Petrie asked, question 11288-If you had forty-eight contracts and several other

sn~all works to look after, as well a.s otfice work, do you thmk that one man could do the work, supposing am on~ those forty-eight contract.:: there '"ere two such as the Stock Institute and Agricultural Building?

Then ag,Jin the chairman, Mr. Annear, asked Mr. W. L. Vernon, the Government Architect of New South Wales, the following question 11838:- ,

Now, snppO~'<e that you had twenty or thirty contracts within a 1'adius of from 5 to 10 miles from vour office in Sydney, say non tracts aggreg-ating about~ £16,000 or £17,000- we have it in evidence that there were fortveight contracts in and around ·Brisbane, some as lar lls

Gatton, going on at the game time-we would just like to get your opinion as to the number of inspectors that you would have-ben.riug in mind that the largest building, that of the Agricultural Department, is a £:3,000 building, and also that there are t\vo nearly £3,000. the nggregate amount being from £16,000 to £2(),d00-sorne of them very small jobs, but always requiring attent,ion?

The statement that Mr. Jack had forty-eight contracts to attend to at one time is not trueit is far from the truth; and it was simply made to mislead the public.

Mr. AN NEAR : Do you think we were clever enough to mi,lead the public?

The SECRETARYFORPUBLICWORKS: I know the public have been mi,led in this respect by the members of this commission, because the greatest number of contracts that lVIr .• Jack had to attend to at any time were nineteen. '!.'hen further on Mr. Plunkett asked the following questions, commencing at No. 11947 :-

Do you think it possible for one man to properly supervise works extending over 40 miles?

But in the instance I am referring to there were forty-eight contracts going on at one time?

Amongst those forty~mght conLracts were tlle Agricnltural Building and the Stoci.;: Instituter

Then JV'lr. Petrie asked the following :-

We have it in evidence that in some of our outside districts, where there is only one inspector, it sometimes takes him a month to get from one phwe to another. The vn,rious Government otlieers in charge, not being professional men, do not take any responsibili y, and H they see any defective work they do not often point it out to the inspector; and 've have it. iu evidence that 80metimes work has been scamped iu some of those outside places through the insvector not being able to visit them often enough?

Now, it must be remembered that Mr. Jack attended the sittin!'s of thiA ltoyal Commission from day to day, and he listened to all the evidence, knowing full well that the witnesses were being misled by the commission with re·gard to the amount of work he had to SU!Jervi•e; and he had the !Jrivilege of reviewing tlw whole of the evidence given, including my own. i\Ir. .Tack gave evidence on the last day the Royal Commission sat for taking evidence, and he then stated that he had had forty-eight contracts to attend to at the same time--during the year. It was impressed on the public by the members of this commission that that was so. But what are the actual facts? Mr. Brarly handed in a list of the works under Mr. Jack's and the other inspectors' supervision for the twelve months ending 30th June, 189tl, with the number of contracts in hand during each month, and it will be seen, by referring to Exhibit 7G attached to this commission's report, th<tt 1Ir. Jack's supervision for those twelve months over contracts was as follows :-In July, 1898, he had 2 in hand; in August, 4; in September, 5; in October, 9; in November, 10-and Mr. Murdoch was temporarily in charge of lVIr. Jack's district from the 19th December, 1898, to the end uf January, 189fJ-in December, HJ; in January, 1899, 23 ; in February, 19; iu March, 17; in April, 14; in May, 11; and in June, 13; so that the average number of contracts that Mr. .Jack had to supervise in any one month was eleven. Those are the actual facts and figures, and they show how far the public have been gulled with regard to Mr. Jack's work by this commission. Then of the works, Mr. ,Jack supervised ten contracts under £100, 'cventeen between £100 and £200, eil:;hteen between £200 and £300, and thirteen between £300 and £500, and only six over that amount. Mr. Brady made a minute on " letter from Mr. "~N. T. Jack, dated 13th :February, 1900,

2252 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.) Supply.

headed "Explanation re unsatisfactory work," which was marked Exhibit lOin the commission's report, and which minute reads-

Durinu Ortober, 1898, )fr .• Tack hnd the s11pervision of 8 contract.~; Jilr. Sicven!'.on, 29; :\Ir. Cry le, 4 (including \.Varwick uew Po.st Oftlee) ; l\fr. ,Johnson, 17 (including TorJwoomba Asylnm and Dalby Oommmption Hospital); 3-lr. :J.IcGcc. 16 (including Rockhampton Lands Otriee and Mount :Jiforgan Com·thon!'C) ; l\fr. Ifannington, 13 (including Charters Towers Post Ofilce rlock tower); antl Mr. Park, 7 contracts in the far North.

Durin{l FebrNary, 1R9!), -:\Ir. Jack had superviRion of lB <'On tracts (6 of the number completed during the month); Mr. Stevenson, 2-1; Mr. ,Johnson, 23; Mr. :\.1cGce, 16; :\fr. I-Iannington, 20; and Mr .• T.wk, 16. Mr .• Tack's work was mainly in Brisb··ne, within 2 miles rartins of the rrr<·nsury RnHding; whm·cas, in the case of the other inspectors, tlte works were seattered over a large area of the colony, and, in many instan~es. were hundreds of miles apart, involving murh tr:tvcl-1ing, ineluding Sundays and lute nights. rrhe fadlities in Brisbane for inspecting works cannot be compared in any way with the rest of the <:>o1ony, and an energPtic and industriam:: inspentnr would have no diflknlt.v in lookmg after double the number of contracts in the Brisbane district to that given above as being under -:\:Ir. Jack's supervision.

Mr. Jack never had more tb~nl nineteen contracts in hand at ono time. t.his number being attained in February, 1R99, and those contracts 'vcre itll in Brisbane within a mile of the Treasur,· Buildings. whereas Inspector Stevouson, in the Southern division, in December, 1 ~!l8, had forty c•ontract~ at one time; 1Ur. In~pector Johnson, in Jiarch, 1899, had, in the Darling Dmvns and '\\'e~tern district, twenty-five <:>on tracts; i\lr. Inspector ).t[eGee, in Xovember, 18HS, had, in the Central division, eighteen contracts; 2.\'Ir. Inspector Hannington, in Def~cmber, 1898, had, in the ~orthern division, twentY contraets; and ~'V1r. Inspeetor I' ark, in the Cook and Carpentaria distriet, in Februa1·y, 189~. had slxteen contraets; the works in the Xort.hern, Central, and other districts outRide Brisbane being seattcred over very wide arras of the colony, involving much travel~ ling in inspection.

This goes to prove most conclusively that l\fr. ,Tack had le"s work to do thrtn any of the other inspectors in the rlepartment. I have one matter to refer to as it is a matter of consid~erahle importance. A great deal was made at the time of the close of the inquiry about certain docnments which, it was stated, wonld have thrown light upon the whole prnceec!ings if they had been available, and it was insinuated that they were wilfully suppressed by the F nder Secretary. This is the correspondence with regard to Exhibit 75-

Tin: SECRETARY TO '!'HT<: PURT.lC \YmtKs lNQUTRY Co1'tT:au~sJoN to THl<: CHIEF SECRJ<C'J'ARY.

Telegraph Chambers, llth October. 1900. SIR,-I have ihe honour. by direction of the Chairman

of the Puhlic \Vorks Commission, to forward hert-with Exhibit 7fi, tendered by Mr. Hrady at the late inqnir:'i"· rrhe exhibit in question is a return showing the number of days Mr. Inspector Jack was absent from Brisbane, and compri:-.es the original return and two copies of same. I am also forwarding a memo., in the handwriting of the late I:-nder SPcretary, im:trueting- Mr. Bell to have this return -preyared. I have now the honour, by direction, to requm;t that these papers may be printed for the information of members of the Jio\lse I may mention, in reference to the memo., that it was received from Mr. Bell personally, and I should tberefm·e esteem it a favour if you \Vonld kindly mmse it to be returned to me at your e~n·lie~t convenience.

I bave, etc., 12-10-00. EDWIN HO!lBS.

Ascertain from Premier and VVorks if tlwre be any objecr.ion to printing this as Empplementary to th~e report of the vrorks Cornmission.-J.R.D.

B/0. The Under Secretary, Depar·tment of Public Works.-H.S.D., 12-10-00.

I see no objection to this heiug printed, providing that the extracts from the evidence given before the Public Service Board as n.ppended hereto are also printed, from whieh it will he seen that t.he redueP.d l'Pt.nru for tllirt.een months ending 3h:t July, 1809, wa:.~ really what \Vas asli:ed for by Mr. Jacl<'s eonnsel. "i\lr. Robertson may in error have asked l\'lr. Bell to prepftrc the return for nineteen montlls, but when the draft

return was submitted to me I :::aw that it was for a wroug period, and Mr. Robertsoncorreeted it by ~triking out the portion covering the tlrt~t six mouth:g at my itl.s1.igation.-A.B.B., 15-10-00.

This is an authenticated list, showing that during the thirtefm months in which these works were in hand Mr. ,Tack was absent eleven and a· half days. I have another little com1'laint to make against the Royal Commission. It was frequently insinuated by tl'e connnis,ion that certain docrmumts were suppressed which would have been very valuable evidence if they had been available. I aiD not aware of any docun1ents being supprefh8d, so far as the department is concern~d, and I do not think anything has been suppressed. But I ha' e here two letters. The first is from thA Isis Central Miliing Company, Cordalba, 2fit.h August HIOO, and is addressed to" ,J. T. AnnPar, E~'h 1\~,-L.A., Chairman, Public WorkH Cornn1I~Hwn -

SJH. -The dirertors of the I:-.is Cent.ral Sugar ::\Iill f1om1;any, Limited, aft.er reading tlte evhlencc given before your coullnissiou relating to the VVorks Department and the central mills, have authorised me to bring the following fact~ in connection with onr eompaHy and the \\'orks Department before yonr commif>sion:-

'rho Under Secretary visiterl our Uistrict twi1•c the fil·st time to explain the working of t.be ~ug-ar VVorks Gunrantee Act to the farmers around Curda.lb~t, :md afterwartls to nscl~rtain if we understood the t1;ndcrs for erection of our mill and plant, and if \Ve were sathlied to accept the recommendn.tion of t.hc Government inspecting engineer on both oecnsious giviug us every informatlon in his pmver that. would prove useful to us. and eerta.inly never approached us in any way in fav01n of ~lll.Y -person. In fa.nt, one of our members mooted the question of appointing Mr. H. 1tohertson as our ~wlicitor; he quashed it at onee, remarldng a. local m an would he he~t for us.

'I' he U IHlcr secretnry was also of great help to UR in getting onr depntation pavers into order before interviewing- the }liniHter, and we eonsider he was in!"trnmental in nidiug- us to float a fairly sueeessfnl eentra.l mill in the face of the hostility shown to us by the Government valuator, who ma.cle a, valnatiou for us 1irst in lHH-t. for the :-;mu of £17,9:12, together with a report tlutt was greatly in onr favour. rrheB he must have rhang-ed his mind, a~ in 1;,!1:1 he m::Jde a Hl'Cond valuation at £18,012, ignoring the J:11·ge nnprovements we had made in the meantime, af'coraing to arrangements made with us hv the :Minister. that if we put a certain acreage under Cane the mill would be granted.

I have not time to read the whole letter, but it winds up-

\-Ye beg leave to refer you to document~ and correspondence in the \Yorks IJC]Jartmcnt. which we h~ve no doubt will bear out these statements, and, takmg into consideration tho way we have bnen treated, we think it woulll be most uurair if we h:ul not borne onr testimony as to the Under Secreta.ry's m~efnlne:-;s to the Isis Central ::\Till, and we have no doubt to others al!'o.

I have, etc.; JA:lf~:s ELWOOD.

Chairman, IsiR Central Mill Company, Limited.

Mr. ANNEAR : The comnns"wn preferred evidence to letters like that.

The SECRETARY I<' OR PUBLIC WORKS: That letter was knppressed. Anything that was in favour of th" Under Secretary was supprP&S8tl.

!Vlr. Rr.:m : Hen.r, hear! TheSECltETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

ThiH was n.mongst those which wue suppressed. It was acknowledged, but it was never made public. It was simply suppressed by the comrnis~ion.

Mr. ANNEAR: They were forfeited.

TheSECltETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Here is another letter which was sent to the commission by the lHossmn.n Central Mill Company-

Mossman, 22nd August, 1900. SIR,-I have the honour, as chairman of direct.ors of

the Mossman Central Mill Company, Limited, dnriug six out of seven years of" the company's existence, to

Suppl!J. [30 NovEMBER.] Suppl!J. 2253

inform you that the whole of our business with the "'\\'"orks Department has been, so f~r a~ the Under Secretu.ry is concerned, of an entirely satiSfactory nature.

All of our correspondence has been given prompt and careful consideration, and, when in Brisbane, both myself and other representatives of the company have received every possilJle attention and courtesy from ::\ir. Robertson, l\'Iy eo-directors and I were very pleased with l\1r. Robertson's visit to mu· mill and district in 1RD7, ns he was able to give us much desired information concerning our business with the department.

Please permit me to add that, in my opinion. where t.ile t~ovcrumcnt wtts advancing such large sums as in the eal';e of central sugoar mills, it Wa!' also desirable in the pnblic intcre~t that the permanent head of the department charged with the administration of the Act should have a personal knowledge of the district where the money was expended, and of the people responsible for its repayment.

I have, etc., Signed by

CnAlRM.tN OF Duu·:cTOJts oy l'Iossl\lAX CJo~NTRAL MILL Co.M.P.\NY, LniiTED.

The Chairnm.n, ''forks ltoyal Commission, Brisbane.

That also was suppressed. It was not even acknowledg-ed, simply because it h>td a tendency to favour 1\'lr. Robertson and put him in a somewhat favourable light beiore the community, which had been so deluded by the acLiuns of the Royal Commission.

:\Ir. ANN;;AR: Do you state, as a fact, that that letter was not acknowletlged?

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS: One of them was acknowledged.

Mr. ANNEAl\ : I s»y both of them were acknowledged.

TheSECRETARYFORPUBL1CWORKS: 1\Iy information is that one of them was acknowledged and the other was not. However, neither of them was printed '" an exhibit, white everything that would tell against 1\Ir. Robertscn was printRd as an exhibit, and not only printed as an exhibit, but circulated broadca;t all over the country. When the late unfortunate Under Secretary was laid up and una.ble to move from his home, he asked thot no less than eighty-three questions should be submitted to some of the witneRses to rebut some evidence that was given against him. The questions were handed to a member of the commi,sion, Mr. Bridge', and he was asked if he would be kind enough to put them to the witnesses who presented themselves. That was also declined, and the chairman said-

Those are all the questions we have to ask you to-day. The conuniHsiou consider that many of the questions submitted by l\:11'. Robertsun to be put to you are not relevant Lo the inquiry.

There w"re a great number of questions sent in by Mr. Robertson to be asked of witne""es, but I unfortunately have not time to go through them now. The late Under Secretary simply desirBd that they should be asked in order that they might to some extent counteract the lying evidence given against him, but evidently they were not the kind of fJUestions which the gentlemen composing the commiqsion desired to ask.

Mr. BROWNE: They are printed as an appendix to the report.

The SECRETARY FOa PUBLIC WORKS: I believe they are. I have very little more to s.<y, and do not desire to occupy more than a few miuutes longer. I regret very much that I am compelled to leave out a great deal that I intended to speak upon, and which I wished the public to be enlightened upon, but I do not want to monopoli•e the whole of the time. I desire, however, to read the Hoyal Commission's opinion of Mr. Bell, the Civil Service Board's opinion of him, and Mr. Bell's opinion upon himself. I think this will prove interesting to hon. members. In one question the chairman s»ys

that he asks the qnestion of Mr. Bell "because I think up to the present time you have answered every question in a straightforward and manly way." At questionlOS38 I was under examination, and I am asked-

}Ir. Bell was advised to write a letter to the com~ mission, and he here by 10 o'clock on Friday morning? You did not advise him to make me acquainted with what was going on. .J.ir. Bell did not require to be protected from me.

'l'llat is a matter of opinion? I believe he wonld have been mueh safer in 1ny hands than in yonrx. I a.m afraid you will lend him into some tronhle which he would have esca.ped if he had been in my hands.

I believe the commission did lead him into trouble by promising to him a quite unnecessary amount of protection.

Mr. ANNEAl\ : That is promi,ed by every comtnission.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hon. member never promised me any protection. (Laughter.)

1\1 r. l<'rsHER: He says he " handled you like a child."

1\Ir. ANNEAR: Mr. Petrie also said that you should have our protection.

TheSECRETARYFORPlTBLICWORKS: Fine protection I got from the hon. gentlemen. This is what the commission say in their report regarding Mr. Bell-

lire had )fr. Bell under examination, and have had several opportunities of judging the work done by him, and we regard him as a very efficient officer; and, further, \Ve would like to state that his evidence was given in a thoroug-hly straightforward manner.

That is very nice incleed. Now, hear what the Public Service Board have to say abuut 1\Ir. Bell-

After careful consideration of the evidence, the board find-

1. 1'hat the Under Secretary dirl not suspend the .d.coountant on the I9th July last, and Jlir. Betl waR well awrtre that he harl not been swqJenrled when he ,·epo'tled the ma ter to the chairman of the c·ornmis,c;ion;

2. That ::\fr. Bell was guilty of gross insuhotdin~Ation in his condul't towards the Under Secretary on several occaf'ious; and

3. 1'bat a serious breach of discipline was committed by .J.Ir. Bell in reporting the di~:mgreement between the Under Secretary and himself to the clutirman of the commission in:stead of to his Minister.

And this is wh:tt Mr. Bell has to say about himself-

'Vorks Department, Briobanc, 26th October, IDOO.

Sir ,-In view of the proceedings R~aim>t me now pending before the Public Service Board, who have cited me to appear before them on l\1onl1ay next. [ vcnturo to Hppeal to you in the hope th~Lt you ma.y be pleased to reconsider your determination to press the charges made against me.

I am sure, sir, that I feel acutely the poslt.ion in whieh my own rash and mistaken conduet h:.ts placed me.

I acknowledge that my action w:-ts insnbordin:-tte a ncl indefensible, and I now express my sincere contrition for the t-~ame. If, sir, _you can see your w:ty to accept my humble apology for what I have done, I can assure you that I shall never offend again, and that I shall to the utmost endeavour to prove myself a loyal servaut of the department.

I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant,

(Signed) FRED. BELL, Accountunt. The Hon. the Minister for ·works, Brisbane.

That is the gentleman whom this commi,sion has pornplimented upon his straightforwardne"s and trnthfuluess in giving his evidence on every occasion that he ap[Jeared before them. I say it bimply amounts to this: that that was the class of witness that suited the purposes of the commission, and I think there is very ample proof

2::!54 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Su]J'ply.

of that fact to he found in the evidence. I arrive at that conclmion largely from the way in which they treated me when I appeared before them. Now, this Royal Commission, when Mr. Rohertson was before them, simply put him upon his t.nal, and br.onght paltry charges against him, snch as chargmg the department with the cost of a pack of visiting cards which he took with him when he went on his tour in the North. They went over everv voucher he had presented for year's back for tm velling expenses, and they scrutinised every one m the closest pos,ible wav. I say there are very few Under Secretaries who could st.and the nneart~ing of every p<ltry little certificate they have given on account of travellin~· expenses in the smne way that Mr. Robertson bad to stand it .. The commission even went the length of trymg to prove that he bad defrauded the department in making a charge of 2s. 6d. for the carriage of his portmanteau from the wharf to the hotel. They unearthed evPry little item like that, tried t~ make the very m.ost of it, and aseumed that thev were payments thal should have been made by him"elf instead of by the department. At question 44!) they ask Mr. Robertson-

Yon tolfl us VC8terday that you had charged for visiting cnrcts? I have the voucher for that. Thev are not speeially <tpplieable to the Northern trip. [Exhibit 15 J

5th Angnst, 1897-100 each cards from plates, 10s. En?ra ving two card plates, £1 5s. For Under Scc~·ctary and Government Architect, re

"Sorthcrn tr1p,

Then again they ask-

On one of these tours of inspection, did yon not get tho department to pay for some of your private expensPs? No.

Is it not a fact tha.t the ::\1i.nister rejected a voucher of yours on that visit up North for the engraving of some cards? I am not aware of that.

And that you got the same paid? I don't know. Did "Th'Ir. Dalrymple refuse to sanetion the voucher?

I don't know of th<tt.

Ru the Ilnn. J. Cowlishaw: ''Vas the ·voucher submitted? Yes; for o1Hcial cards. I never heard of it being refused.

Ry the Chairman: You never hem·ct of l\'Ir. Dalrymple refn~ingto pass that voucher? Xo. never.

You are aware that it was paid? I presume it was paid.

VVill you kindly produce the voucher for these cards? Yes.

It iR very evident the source that all this information came from. It is information that they

could only get from 1\[r. Bell. It [8'30 p.m.] was imposoible to get it otherwise.

Then there is Mr. Bell's evidence at q ne,tion 13!)1-

H!! the Hon. J. rowli.o;haw: Yon referred just now to the vouchcl' for viRiting car11s. I asked you hefon'), are

you qnit.e :m re that no voncher was ten[8·30 p.m] dcreU to the Minigter for an~·thing supplied

to :Mr. Robcrtson on any trip that he took? Xot with t.he ex~eption of that voucher, which I submitted myself to the :M:inister.

Did you ever hear anything a.bout any boots that were destroyed by rats on board a steamer while ~VIr. Rober son was on a trip? I have heard something about it.

Did you sec a voucher with that on it? No. ,,.hat did you hear about it? }fr. Robertson 'vent to

Rockhampton, and was away abont three days. and sent, in a chn.rge of between £2 and .£3-£2 His., I think it was-for porterHge. Mr. Robertson told me he had hatl a pair of boots destroyed by cockroaches while going up by the steamer.

That was the amount of lJOrteragc for a three days' trip to Rockhampton? Yes.

Yon do not know whether, in that porterage, an item for boots was inchu:led? I do not know. There was only the item of porterage.

Mr. RohPrtson said;in)eply' to that-This iE untrue. I was away nine and a-half days.

The voucher is with the commission. It is for porterage and cab hire.

I am very anxious to know if those gentlemen when travelling on the commis•ion were as careful of their ow1i expenses, and would like their own vouchers as strictly criticised as thev criticioed those of the l>tte Under Secretary. ·I have here a list of their expense".

An Ho:<OURABLE MEMBER: That's interestin~;

Mr. LES1NA : \V e ought to get the expenses of the other commissions as well--treat them the same all round.

The SECRETAHYFOR PUBLIC WORKR: This i" a statement of the money spent by the Public \Vorks Commission in entertaining guests, etc., and you must under"tand that this commission had two guineas a day and £1 a day travelling expenses allowed. The places they visited were Charters Towers, Townsville, Rockhampton, Bnndaberg, Maryborough, and Gympie, and here are the items-

£ 8. rl. Guests' luncheon dinnet 2 11 6 ·wines and drinks.. 2 3 6 Champagne 2 5 0 Cigars ... 1 7 6 Fruit... ... o 2 6 Refreshments for guests 3 4 0 Cards 1 17 0

Mr. Hobertson charged only 2s. 6d. for cards.

Mr. ANNEAR : \Vhat cards are they?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKR : I'm sure I don't know. Then there was £3 5s. fid. for hire of sitting· room. There was £33 2s. 6d. for cab fares and porterage. Of this, £7 2s. was spent at Charters Towers. The sum of £27 5s. was paid to B. Cohen, solicitor, for services rendered. The commission had a barrister as secretary ; and why they should pay a solicitor £27 5s. for services rendered I do not know, unless it was he who framed the marvellous report. Three bags and one writing·ca'e were purchased at a cost of £617s.; and the total incidental expenses, as per list, were £213 llR. ld. Then, with regard to witnesses' expenses, every one of the witnesses who received expenses from the commission came forwa.rd to give evidence against Mr. Robertson. This is the list-

Thos. Wclsby M. J. McOarthy Thomas Page (Townsville) Chas. McKichnie John Cnrrie Jamcs Valentine I. D. Fletcher J. D. Herlithy W. T. Jack, expenses

Ditto ... R. W.McOnlloch ...

£ 8. rl. 1 1 0 3 10 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 I 1 0 2 2 0

17 R 9 15 1R 9 3 15 0

Mr. ANNEAR: What was the total?

'rhe SECRETARY JfOR PUBLIC WORKR: £53 4s. Gd. \V hen those hon. genLlemen tried so hard to put Mr. Rnbertson into a corner in regard to his expenses when travelling on rlepartmental duties, T think it is only fair that I should retaliate in that way,

Mr. AN NEAR : Y on went outside the commission to get that.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hon. member went outside the commission to get the inforrr,ation he got. I say that most distinctly. I am only going to say a few words now with regard to the work of the commission.

The PnEMIER: There is only one night for this discussion.

Mr. MoDONALD: It's a positive diograce!

Supply. [30 NoVEMBER.] Supply. 2255

TheSgCRETARYFORPUBLIC WORKS: I will simply sq this : The commission devoted three-qu><rters of their time--I am convinced of this-they devoted three-quarters of their time to the white1vashing and exoneration of Mr. ,Jack, and the incrimination and persecution of the late Under Secretary; and it appe•red to me that they set forth on their mission with that one object in view-determinP.d at all hazards that Mr. Jack should be reinstated and th<tt the unforturmte Under Secretary should be pnnished and proven guilty of some criminal offence or other. I have here a report showing the practical results of their efforts-showin~ the utility of their report dealing with practical matters. I have not time to read it ; but I wish to say there is scarcely a thing they recommend in their report of any practical use or valne bnt was in hancl before the commission set out, ancl is now being c'uried out. They make a charge upon myself, which I think is very unusual indeed. I think it is the first time it~ the hi.,tory of_ the country, {.'l'<lb.,bly in the h1stnry of Au"traha, when a man in the position in which I am placed has been charged in the way I have been charged by this commission with having neglected my duty. This is what they say in their report-

The Honourable Joh~ Murrny, l\'Iinister for "\Yorks, wa" exammed at considerable length on matters counected with the department, Hnd we muf;t express our reg-ret at the attitude a-ssumed by him during his examination. I could make a very lengthened reply to that because I am convinced that my evidence wa~ not acceptable to them. It did not help them to carry out the work they had in hand, hence it was objectionable. The only reply I shall make is to place in contrast to it the commission's opinion of another witness wh<) presented himself for exa.rnination-

V\t~e had Ur. Bell under examination, and have had several opportnnities of judging the work done b~' him, and we regard him as a very efficient omeer; and, further, we would like to state th<Lt his evidence was given in a thoroughly straightforwa1·d manner. They also say-

'l'ho :Minister dors not appe~r to have had a grip of the 0:1erations ot' this import:tut Department of Public \\"orks. I quite believe that in their minds I had not a grip of the Department of Public Works. It would have satisfied them much better if I had not drawn attention to bad work and made an effort to remedy it. I suppose if I had winked at those thing-> and identified myself with Mr. Jack and his strong friends, I would not ha\'e had this brought against me by the Royal Commission. If I had iflentified myself with Mr. Jack and his strong friends, and allowed them to rob the department at their sweet will, I would have given much greater satisfaction and my administration of the department would ha,•e stood much higher in the e;timation of the commission. They say also-

\Ve regret that the ::vlinister for Worl(s, when he saw the nature a.nd extent of the defet~tive wor\\ at the Stock Instit.nt,e and Agrienltural Buildings, dict. not immediately take aetion in regard to :\fessrs. Brady, Pye, and :\lnrci0ch, as well as to Inspector .rack. \i\,..e consider that blame attaches to all or thes four officers, and, in our opinion, the action of the 'Minister in sing-ling out only this one officer for punishment has the appearance of an act of persecution. I think they are the last m~n who should make a charge of persecution against me, and I believe I can retaliate in this respect, and charge them with having persecuted the late Under Secretary to a very considerable and disgraceful extenr .. 'With reference to the evidence given at the ,Tack-Robertson inquiry, the commission say-

At the ~.finister's rcqnest \Ve tested the a,c,·uracy of the reports of the evidence taken at the Jack-Robertsou inquiry. We caused an examination and compari-

son of the shorthand note~ R.nd the transcript copy to be made, and the report furnished to us shows that the official report of the evidence in the main is substantially correct.

That apology comes too late. They also say in paragraph 7-

\\re consider that the Under Secretary has to a certain extent a:lowed his private interests to unduly interfere with the duties attftching to his office by his advocacy of certain courses of action which tended to the betterment and advancement of those interests rather than to a more proper. administration of the department.

I say that is not the case. They have not succeeded in proving anything whatever against the Under Secretary ; in not a single instance have they proved that he sacrificed the interests of department to his own interest, and I can give that statement a flat denial. If Mr. Jack hac! been in Mr. Robertson's place, and he bad been accorded the same treatment as has been meted out by the commission to l'IIr. Robertson, I can suggest a few questions which would undoubtedly have been pnt to him. I would ask Mr. J:wk this question-·"You say, in your letter of application for appointment, that you understand the ways and doings of dishonest contractors?" I am astonished that they did not ask him a question like this-" Do you consider that the contractor who built the Stock Imtitute an honest contractor?" But they never asked him that question. Again they might have asked him, "Have you a fairly good knowledge of the ways and doings of dishonest inspectors ?" But they never asked him that question. They might also have askerl, "Do you consider the inspector who was placed in ch%rge of the Stock Institute Building an honest inspector?" But they never asked him that question. Again, "Do you think it possible for an inspector to superintend buildings of that description without having read the specifications?" But they did not ask him that queotion. Again, "Now, tell us plainly what was the nature of the arr>tngement or understanding between you and the contractor?" They never asked him that question, but they would have asked Mr. RobArtson that question very quickly.

Mr. ANNEAR: How do you know ?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I know from the nature of the questions put to Mr. Robertson.

Mr. ANNEAH : \Vho wrote those questions? The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORK::>:

I wrote them myself. The CHAIRMAN: Order! When the bon.

gentleman commenced his addres,; I intimated th:tt I should insist upon Standing Order No. 1 Ul being observed, and I now call upon the hon. member a second time to observe that Standing Order.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WOHKS: I am "orry that I have taken up so rnnch of the time of the Committee, but I really could not help it, for the matter is an extremely intricate and important one, and it has attracted infinitely more attention than it deserves. What I complain ot is Lhat the whole of this city seems to have taken sides on this question. The public Press of the city has lent itself to this diabolic<tl job, as I can prove most conclusively from extracts which I have taken from the newspapers of the colony a' the case was going on. But I will proceed with the questions which I say Mr. Jack might have been asked. "Do you not think that that building was a glaring proof of the dishonesty of both the inspector and the contractor?" That question was not asked. "You say you have many strong friends in Brisbane, who will see you through all your troubles-who might these strong friends

2256 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Suppty.

be? Have you and your strong friends frequently ~ound Mr. Robertson, the late Under 8e~retary, m the way of yourself and your friends m control)in~, the department to your li_king ?" And agaw, I suppose your strong fnencls do not agree with your removal to Townsville; they no doubt frequently found you ust>ful in passing such works as the Stock Institute Buildings?" Those are questions that I would have put to Mr. Jack. Now I have finished. There is a saying, a very trne and effective one, to the effect that he who steals a· man's purse steals trash, but he who filches from a man his good name steals something which clnes not enrich him, but makes the victim very p,.or indeed. That is the task this commission set themselves out to perform, it is a task they say they have accompli,hed, and they have the audacity to Cdme down to this House and "sk the House to endorse their action.

HONOURABLE JVh;i\!BEI\S : Hear, hear !

• Mr. CAl\IPBELL (11foreton): In ap]Jroaching- this queNtion I shall endeavour to do·"' without any feeling. I feel it very much indeed that I should have to reflect on the Ministerial head of this particular dep>trtrnent, but it will be necessary before I have finished to refer in various ways to what, from the evidence, I consider to be vindictive action on his part in relation to the officer he has gone to so much trouble to show in the worst possible light. The task entrusted to the commission was to inquire into the administration of the Works De]Jartment. The circumstances which led to theappointmPnt of the commission are fresh in the memory of those who have followed the case. \V hen we were dealing with Supply last year I refecred to the question which is now so very prominently before the public. .The hon. gentleman in the course of his speech this evening stated that I then charged the late Under 8ecretary with having falsified and cooked the evidence given in the Jack-Ho\,ertson inquiry. I challenged him to produce Hansard and read my statement, butheclid not reply. \Vhat I said on that occasion was that the parties who gave evidence at the inquiry referred to had no opportunity of listening to the evidence they were sup]Josed to have given, and did not know what it was until it was printed and laid on the table of this House. I submitted that tbat method of conducting an inquiry was absolutely unfair, and that the Public 8ervice Board were greatly to hlame for not having followed the course usaal at the police court and other courts-that i", of reading to the witness what he is supposed to have said. I do not think I should tire the Committe« by rettding what I then said, because it is of some length, but I may say that therG is not one remark in the whole of my speech which will br;ar the construction put upon it by the :M.inister. Other hon. members made interjections, and talked about c"oking the evideuce, but I carefully refrained from saying anything of the kind, merely pointing out, that the shorthand writers were not infallible, and that probal,Jy they had made mistakes. To show you how careless the hon. gentle1nan is in quuting Inatters of this kind, I hitve only to refer you to his own evidence at question 93!)0-

Thc inHecuracy of the evidence published and the absolute want of justice i.n not allowing es,ch witness to hear the evidence he was supposed to have given-he said the whole thing was a Star ChambAr trial, did not 3lr. CHmpbell? That is a direct charge against the Public Service Board

Did l\Ir. Campbell mnke that statement in Parliament? Yes, [ believe he did, 'V ill you allow me to follow thiR up~ I watched closely the remarks Mr. Camp hell had made about evidence having been falsified, at all event~ that the printed copy of the evidence was not the evidence given.

That is exactly what I did say, and I said nothing whatever about falsifying and cooking the rep"rt, but the hon. gentleman, in his desire to mislead the House, ovulooked that. I want to say at this stage uf my remarks, that the inquiry to which the Minister h>es referred to-night at such great length, was an inquiry into charges made by Mr. Inspector Jack ag<>inst the late Under Secretary. He failed in substantiating those charges-at any rate, the l'ublic Service Board held- that he did, and they recommended his being cli,rated to the extent of £10 per lLnnum. The .Minister then reviewed the evidence, or, as he says, "perused the evidence," and he thought the board had dealt too leniently with this unfortunate man, and he rPcommended another £20 reduction, or £30 ver annum in all. That was agreed to by the Executive Council. I would like now to ask the Ministor is he still satisfied that he perused the evidence on that occasion ? Becau'e while the hon. gentleman stated that he had perused the evidence and actually n,inuted the recommendation and report of the board with the statement, claiiuing to know everything about it and to be itS convinced as to the facts itS the board who held the inquiry, and on that knowledge recommended the further reduction by £20; yet, when at que5tion 9401 he was asked by the commission whether he had seen this evidence before it was printed, his answer was-

No, I never saw the report until it appeared in print.

In spite of the minute on the document to which I have referred, he tells the commission that he never saw the report until it a]Jpeared in print, and we all hacl an opportunity of seeing it. At quc>stion 52 it will be found that the Under Secretary was asked about the same thing, and he said he received it in transcription form. He saw it all right before it got into print, and before it was typewritten. Now, what does Captain Townley say on the same subject, because there were great rumours and suspicions about this, and the hon. gentleman who is so suspicious about everyone else should certainly have his own house in order. Captain Tuwnley says that the Public Service Board hacl it typewritten before they sent it to the \Vorks Department. Now, who is tel·ing the truth in all this business-the Mini,ter who said that he had perused 1t and had satisfied himself that the man was more to blame than the Public Service Board thought him. and afterwards told the commission th:.t he had done not!: ing of the kind and had not seen the report until it was in print; the late Under Secretary, who said he had seen it in transcription form; or the chairman of the board, Captain Townley, who said that the board had it typewritten before they sent it on to the \V orks Department? The hem gentleman has statP.d to· night that this House supported him by a big majority in connection with this question last year, hut I oay that the question was never up in the form in which it is up now. I took the stand on that occasion that the Under Secretary of the Works Department was not required and recommenrled that he should be found a position somewhere, else in the service, that if the Government were so economicitl and so anxious about saving money they should find a position for that gentleman somewhere else, because he was not required there. To be consistent I moved the reduction of the vote by the proposed increase of £50, but of course that motion was defeated. Rightly or wrongly Mr. Inspector Jack was found guilty at the fi1st inquiry by the Public 8ervice Board and fined the amount I have stated.

Mr. KERR : Do you que,tion the Public Service's Board's decision?

Supply. [30 NoVEMBER.] Supply. 2257

Mr. CAMP BELL: What I want to say is this: That the question of that inquiry ha' no bearing what<wer upon the question before us, That man, unfortunate or not-I hold him to be unfortnuatP.-for I know 1\fr. Irnpcctor Jack a gr•mt d"al better than the Minister does, nnd I regard him as one of the whitest men I know. I would be a coward and a cur if I did not stand up here and say so. I am convinced that this House, if it had to decide the question aside from party feeling an<! the politicotl interests involved, would find the man ab8olutely guiltless of the charges lai<l against him of incomIWLeuce and n~'glt'Ct of du~y.

Mr. REIJJ : ·what about the Stock Institute?

Mr. CAMPBI<~LL: I will come to that directly, and will deal with it. I am setting myself out to shuw th>tt the l\iinister has acted unfairly to this inspector. The evirlence proves conclusiwly that l\Ir. Inspector Jack respect· fully Jm•tested against bBinlS sent to Townsville. He had been in 'l'ownsville and in various p]ac~s in theN ortb, and his wife's be>tlth had broken rlnwn there ; the whole of the time he was in Brisbane he was under heavy doctors' expenses nnd he prodnced to the Minister certificates fro~ llrs. \Vbeeler and Hopkins that his wife was not in" condition to go back to the 1'\ orth, tlmt her hea,lth would br0ak rlown again there, >tnd that there was no possibility of her keeping her health there. The Minister turned an absolutely de>tf ear to that, >tlthnugh he talked plenty of sentiment to-night. There is no use in bringing up thpse old issnes, when the man was punished for what he did befor.e. [t is British fnirplay, and should charactense members of this Home to agree that a man h>tving been punished once for an offence, that should be conHidered sufficient "~'cl it s~ould not have l!een dragged up against hnn agam >tll >tlong the hne, as the \Iinister did to-night. I take the hon. gentleman's case to be an ex~eedingly bad one when it is necesFary for hnn to go so far out of his way to vilify and dmg this man d<~wn in the 'mire. Now, under .sorr~ewhat peculiar circumstances, it

comes to light that the Agricultural [\J p.m.] Building is a building in which the

work has not been satisfactorily <lone; and in a somewhat similar manner the Stock Institute comes along. Mr. Brady got a letter or communication, which had been placed before him by the Under Secretary, in connection with the Agricultural Building, calling >tttention to the defective nature of the cement work outsi<!e, and Mr. Brady visited the place, and he satd there was no truth in the statement. That did not satisfy Kelly, who had instituted the complaint. If anybody takes care to peruse his evidence he will find that Kdly was not trying to get a.t Mr. Jack; be was !'ot trying to get at Mr. Bmdy, but at JV!r .. \Vlnte, the plas:-erer, who did the job. He dmtmctly says, and m a most malicious way too, that th:>t man bad refused him a job, and ttt other t1mes that he would not work fur him on any account.

l\1r. Rgm: The evidence does not show what you are stating.

Mr. CAMPB.ELL: I s>ty that it does. Mr. REm: I say that it does not. The CHAIRMAN: Order ! Mr. CAMPBELL: I have gone very care

fully through the evidence, and everything I am saying to-night I can absolutely prove. The two jobs I have referred to bemtme the subject of very great notice. I my se If was t>tken round by the Minister to be shown those very b>td jobs. I confess that I could not see anything much amiss. The Minister was disgusted that I said

1900-6 y .

so, but I rettlly claim, from the knowledge I have of the class of bnildings those were, that the Government them se! ves were >thsolutely to blanw in tbe matter. I do not blame the officers of the departmenL Lhemselves. I bb.me the Government for cheeseparing in matters of this sort, and so gettinlS bad work d,)I!P. These jobs were cut duwn deliberately. Take the Stock Institute. Mr. Pounrl wanted >t building which would be nbsolutelv dust-proof-which would be absolutely steady. \Vhat was the consequence ? There were rough brick walls inside? Anyone who knows >tnything about 4~-inch w>tlls and 9-inch walls knows that it was ~>tbsolutely impossible to have, as the Minister expected, smooth ~icle' to walls of that rlegcription. The insirle, I believe, is now being plastered to get rid of the difficulty. The Minister stated in his evidence that it cost £400 to >tbsolutely renovate and put in order the Stock Institute building, owing to the faulty supervision of Inspector Jack. That is absolutely aw>ty from the facts. The facts are that it cost £64, and the figures are here in the r.-port for any hon. gentleman to see. Men aro siluply pointing the brickwork outside. The walls are hollow, connected with ties anrl in that w>ty the bacl work has come along. \Vben this letter W>ts written to 1\Tr. ,Jack at Townsville, asking him to explain the bad work in connection with these particular jobs, he replied by a letter which will be found on page 487, Exhibit 10. I w>tnt to read this because the Minister claimNl that ,Jack made a most tmsatisfactory and ev>tsive reply. I contend that it is about as manly tt reply as you could e,·er expect a man to write. Mr. Brady's lettEr is-

Department of Public Works, Bri.~bane, Rth I~ehruary, 1900.

ME:MO.·-I have the hononr to inform you that attention has been called to the very nmmtisfactory character of the work carried out under your inspection nt the offices of the Depa-rtment of Agrieulture, 1\~illimn street. An ill-'llJPCtion made yesterday by tho Hon. the :J'linistcr for -works and myself revealed the fact that the spceification had nOt been complied with in respeet of the cement pla~tering of the external walls. :\fany of the Qnoins at tbe main an~les and parts of the cement plastering are quite llollow, the angles and faces are not plnmb, the surfaces have not been evenly trowelled, and it is evident that the proportions of two parts of sand to one part of r.ement specified for plastering has not been adhered to.

The work generally is of a slovenly character, and not of the standard l'eq_nired by the spec~ficai:.ion.

Complaints have also bcPn ma~Je of the charaete1: of the work in the Stot~k Institute Building, the erectiOn of which was in your charge. The mortar used .was of a most inferior quality, the brickwork badlr btnlt, the joints in same being unusually open, tl1e floors out . of level, and generally the work was not of the (1uahty reqnired by the specifieation.

I have, by direction of the Minister, to request you to fnrnh;h by return mail an c':planation of your conduct in allowiug such inferior work to pass.

A. B. BRADY, Government Architect. IHr. w·. T. Jack, Inspector of \Yorlcs, Townsville.

This is Mr. Jack's reply-Townsville, 13th February, 1900.

Sru,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt. of your letter, dated the 8th inst:mt, calling m.r attentiOn to the allecred unsatisfactory character of the work carried out"'under my inspeetion at the offices of the Agricultural Department, Vfilliam street, als? the Htock Institute Bui1ding, Brisbane, and requestmg me to furnish an explanation of my conduct in allowing such inferior work to pass, etc.

1'fhile exceedingl;y regretting the alleged u_nsatis~ factory character of the work, I find it rather difficult' in the absence of the works and specifications, to offer an:v explanation which mn,y be considered in any way satisfactory, and it is to be regretted that tbe.defects referred to were not ohs(·rvAd earlier, or durmg the time of my recent visit to Brisbane, so that I co~1ld have bad an opportunity of making my explanatwn face to face with t]Ie work and ~pectiications.


Regarding the offices of the Agricultural Department, you are aware that this contract \Vas a combination of new and old work, carried out at a time when I was extremely buf'y, with tiUHicient work on hand and general duties to IJCrform, enough to keep two or three inspect(n's fully employed.

~,rom the start to the finish of this contract I was continually conscious that the work wa:; not being suflicicntly supervjsed, as the nature nf this particular eautract called for the full scrviees of a com\Jetent inspector to properlylooknfterit. And, no doubt, you may recall my frequently making that remark to you when asldng for general assistance.

In this contract, as in others, work whicll was, perhaps, not altogether correct, yet noL bfid enough to condemn, has been accepted, in nonsidoration of the contractor vcrforming olhcr necessary wol'ks for which no provision was made in the specification~ yet hnd to be met.

Even ·what lit.tlo time I had. at my disposal to attend to this work was often interrupted a:1d occupied by Mr. MciJean and other ofliccrs ot' the department consulting me rcptrding matters vcrtaining to the work, and improvmuents, etc.

As previously stated, I find myself unable to make any satisfactory explanation in the absence of the works and ~peciti.C'ltion. But, if you are agreeable, I am willing to pay my own steamer fnre to Brisbane. a lid there nmke my explanation in the presence of the works and speeifications. He was willing tu pay his own fare, and come down and umke his explanation. \Vas not that a very manly stand to take? \V as there anything of a sneak abollt a mttn who would do that sort of thing? Mr. ,T ttck goes on to stty-

I \Vonld al~o point out that during the vrogrc~s of the works referred to. I was absent on leave for six weeks; also that the Stock Institute Bnildin~ was not completed, and was still in the eontraetor's hands at the time of my departure from Brisbane to Townsville. At the ~amc time, I do not attribute the de feels to my absence on hm ve. And su on ; I need not read more of his letter. \Vhat does the Minister do? He tells us tonight thttt he looks upon thfit letter tts a most unsatisfactory document. I should like to know how a more satishctory ttnswer could be written. Unless the l'!Iinist8r was prejudiced in the worst possible way he must have accepted l'!Ir. J11ck's offer and allowed him to come down. But no; he promptly suspended the mttn ttnd ordered him down here for his trial. There was no inquiry ttbout this. It was an attempt tu get rid of the man at any price, anri under ttny circumstances. The old style of punishment was not sufficient ; he must be got rid of by hook or by crook. The Minister saw he had mttde a mistttke in not putting Mr. Jack out before; now he would put him out. That was the idea in his mind, I imagine. Commenting on this matter the Royal Commission say, in pttragraph 34 of their report-·

As to Inspector Jack's connection with the b11ildings referred to, it is a matter for regret that the ~linister should havp, prejudged the case by s.1spending tbat officer. in the face of Inspf'ctor ,Jack's offer to come to Brtsbune, at his own exponse, to oxvlain 1nattcrs, a course to which .:\Ir. Brady wa .. -; fa vonrnblo. Mr_ Brady cannot understttncl it. He says he cannot under"tand why Mr. Jack's offer to come down to Brisbane was not accepted. He personttlly thought it was the proper thing to do, but he was never consulted on the matter. As the professional head of the department he certainly ought to have been consulted. And thttt is where a very gmve evil in the depttrtment comes in. I pointed out twelve months ago thttt the Under Secretary of " depttrtment of this kind ought to be a professionttl man, and have direct contact with the Minister. The Minister ignored him in this case in his anxiety to get Mr. Jeck punished in some way_ The commissioners say in paragraph 3 ::Jf their report-

"'\Ve venture to express the opinion tbat the netion of the :\linister in authorising the expendit.nre of £316 in trying to prove one of his subordinate officers gnilty of either incompetency or neglect of duty Wits both l!~-necessary and unjustifiable. ·

I am with them must heartily in that. 'l'o show how deliberate the attempt was, I need only refer hon. members to ttnother portion of the report. The Minister stttted that Mr. J ttck, httving engaged counsel for his defence, the depttr·tment were compelled to engage counsel fur the prosecution. The facts me all the other wtty, and that statement was absolutely exploded hy the Royal Commission. In question 542 Mr. Robertson said the department engaged counsPl after it was known that Mr. Jack had engagPd Messrs. M orris and Fletcher. Mr. Bmdy-quP~tion 8~9-thinks Mr. Thynne was engag<'d on the 8th March. According to question 871, Mr. Robertson told Mr. Brady to get the best solicitor, and to spttre no pains to prove the department's case. At question 881 Mr. Brady says-

I was told to prepare the case for the department, and to employ the best professional advice I could get.

Did that look as if they wanted to deal fairly with this unfortunate man ? In question 9.521, Mr. Jl.'lurray said l'!Ir. Brady Wtts not instructed to employ the best solicitor he could to prove the case ag-ttinst Mr. Jack. \Vhich are we to believe? The Under Secretary saJ s there was an instruction; the Minister says there was not_ \Vith regard to this case the Minister does not seem to know what he is talking about half the time, ttnd the commission were justified in saying he had not the grip of his department. Mr. ]<'!etcher-question 0820-says distinctly tlmt the first time Mr. Jack called on them wtts the lJth l'!Iarch. Mr. Jack himself says-question 7117-that he arrived on the 8th March, ttnd saw his solicitor on the !lth l'!brct1. 'l'hat is ttbsolutely correct. Jl.ir. Pye ttnd Jl.1r. Murdoch, the first and second assistant architects, both think Mr. Thynne had worked up the case before Mr. Jack's ttrrival. But the clinching part of the whole business is contttined in Exhibit-!, page bOO, where there is a letter to Mr. Thynne engaging his services tts solicitor, dated the 7th March. So that the statements of the :Minister ttnd the Under Secretttry ttre absolutely incorrect. They did not want the public to know that they were thP first to stttrt the ball rolling in that way. vVhat can be thought of an attempt made to hoodwink the House and the public by saying that Mr. Jack himself was the man who started this business? In any case wlmt was Mr. J aek to do? He was being hunted to death in connection with the matter. The punishment previously imposed on him wtts not sufficient. InstPad of it being fiual, as in all other tribun;,ls, he must be followed up anrl. still further J•twished. Another remarkable thing is tlmt the first item charged is on the 6th March, a rby ettrlier than the letter sent to JI.Ir. Thynne engttging him. I ask b it not self-evident that 1\Ir, Jack was a doomed man? Finding the department bad engaged the best legal tttleut they could get, Mr. J·ack was perfectly justified, and showed himself " mttn, in determining to fi2"ht the issue rather than be expelled from the department bmnded as the Minister would have liked to brand him. 'fhen, again, Mr. Brady, who in one way may be taken as int-erested, and in another way as not interested-he, as the professional head of this depttrtrnent, absolutely says, without ttny reservation, that Mr. ,Tack's case had been pn judiced in the eyes of the public; and what sensible man is there that will say to the cuntmry? Then, again, in answer to question 8f>5, he said thttt he and thfl Under Secretary, Mr. ltobertson, met Mr. \Vhite in <-lneen street, anrl that Mr. Robertsnn ttd vised Mr. \Vhite to write to the depttrtment admitting the had quality of the work in this


parcicular building, and that was how this letter, which is marked "Exhibit D" in the bo!lrd's report, ca.tne to be written. Now, I rr1ay have to nmke s<>tne rem>trks reflecting upun all the of!icers of this department, and particularly :VIr. Brady, Mr. Pye, and Mr. Murdoch. It is only cnmmun justice that the whole business should be puc befure the public in its true light. I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not at.t<tck these gentlemen peroonally, but only in their official capacity; and I am only doing this with the idea of getting at the truth of the whole business; and so that hon. membe'" may lJu able to ju·lge as t•J wheth·•r ::'11r. Jack is the 1u..tu the :'11iui-ter says be b. At the Civil Service R>ard inquiry, which was the first inquiry held in connecLion with this matter, J\Ir. .Murdoch, in answer to question 5204, said he had been kept extremely busy; and renwmber, he was the man who took up Mr. ,Jack's duties after Mr. Jack was transferred to Townsville. Mr. 11urdoch also said, at question 5208, that he had to work on Saturdays and Snndays; and yet the Minister and Mr. Brady s~y they were not aware that their officers were overworked. Then, again, J\fr. J\lwdoch said he had the assistance of 1\Ir. Stanley and Mr. Stevenson when he took over J\1r. J,wk's duties; and now I wish hon. members to listen particularly to the answer given by 1\lr. Murdoch to question 5333, which was: "I was able to g8t through Jack's work and my own work satisfactorily." Mr. ::Yiurdoch made thttt statement before the Public Service Board, and the board, in their report, on pages 2 and 3, attttched tremendous weight to that statement. In fact, that was really the only ground tl1Py hn<l for condemning 11!'. Jack in connection with the work at these two buildings. They believed that statement of Mr. Murdoch, and they penalised 11r. Jack in consequence. On page 3 of their report they say--

1. Thnt this is the first complaint ag~tin"it J.Ir. Jnck of a simitar character during twelve years' faithful service.

3. That the Government Architect st:>tes }fr. Jack hitherto performed his duties so satisfactorily as to gain his cutirc confideuce, and that he hali the highest ovinion of his ( \:lr. Jack's) competency.

3. 'rhat during the progress of the works in question a great part of his time wa8 occupied in attending to various minor clnties, from some of which he might ha Ye been relieved.

But later on we find that Mr. Murdoch wrote a letter to Mr. Brady asking to be relieved of minor dnties, which he said were quite enough for one man to attend to. And now I am going to quote from Mr. Murdoch's evidence on the Royal Commission. He was asked, question 22GD-

Did you find your time fully taken up in carrying out tho!!e duties, and did :\lr. Jack complain to you about br:·ing overtaxed with work;. Yes MT .. J:tck com}Jlainetl freqnently about being overtaxed with work. He did not complain to me about it, but I know for a fact that he comvlained to his superiors about it.

He also said, in reply to question 2270, that after he took charge hiH time was "Too fully occupied· hut then I had about twice the amonnt of work that Mr. Jack had. I httd two districts instead of one." Then he was asked, question 2317-

Is there anything previons to that that ::\fr. Jack should be blamed for more than yourself or any other person who might~ ha.ve been supervising- the work, or looking after it, after :11[r. Jack left? I think my~ elf that, ~Ir. Jack might hn.ve seen to all the work at an earlier period of the building, but from what I know of what ::ur. Ja.ck was doing, I am not inclined to blame him.

But he blamed Mr. Jack readily enough at the first inquiry, and I contend that it was in con-

sequence of J\Ir. JYiurdoch's first statement that J\ir. Jack was put down. Then J\Ir. J\[urdoch was asked, question 2323-

Did you ~tt any time ever compl:tin to :VIr. Brndy, after having taken over .J!l·. Jack's duties. that you could not exercise proper supervision over the work? Yes; I w1·ote an otficial lettnr to )fr. Brady saying I thought the small works, and works in connection wilh furniture, were more than enough for anyone.

·what has the _\i[inister got to say to that? He has never attempted to deal with this side of the matter, and I think that if he wished to du the fair thing he should have quoted the evidence on both sides of the question; but he has only in a most pronounced manner searched out bits of evidence that he thinks go against the character of the man he wishes to vilify. Then Mr. ?\Iurdoch was asked-question 232!1-

Are you prepn.rcd to state that your work was all right and no fault found with it? No, I cannot.

He didn't know, and why should the other mun be blamed, for both men were overworked, and Mr. Murdoch di"tinctly stated that he had not sufficient a"sistance in his work. The Minioter said that !\1 r. Jack shonld have read the specific.ttinns for these two works, and that he should have known what the ingredients were that shoulil have been put in the mortar-how much cement and how much lime and sand, and I say that if any vital departure was made in this respeet from those specifications, J\Ir. l\!Iurdoch is the officer who is responsible for it. \Vhy, the hon. gentleman has no grip of his department when he talks in the way he ha' done to-day. Mr. Murdoch says thttt he did not see the mortar mixed, and be did not know how much cement was put in it.

Mr. DmLgy: He ought t.o have known if he saw the mortar.

Mr. C A.MPBELL : The hon. member f,,r Woolloongabba is talking about something he knows very little about.

Mr. DIBLEY: I know as much about the matter as yon do.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I would like you to show me anything I don't know about it.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member address the Ch;;ir ?

Mr. CAMPBELL: Then, again, Mr. Mnrdoch und Mr. Brady have admitted that Mr. J aek is one of the best impectors they have in the Works Department. Hon. members who have

followed the case will remember that [9'30 p.m.] Mr. Jack was charged with altering

the bond. Now, Mr. Murdoch in his evidence admits having given instructions for the alteration. He says that the inspection was inefficient, and he ex plains that by saying that there was not enough inspection. He says in his answer to question 53:33 in the Public Service Board inquiry that he was able to do Mr. Jack's work as well as his own, presumably without any help, but, if hon. members turn to page 496 of the report of the Royal Commission, they will find that although Mr . .Tack went to Tnwnsville on the 29th July, 1899, and Mr. ;yrm;doch was appointed on lHt August, Mr. Stevenson was appointed on 3rd October as an additional inspector, :Nfr. Boddan on 6th February, 1900, Mr. L~ing on 1st ,June, 1900, and Mr. D. B. McSwaine on 16th January, 1900. So that four additional men were put on to do the work that Mr. Murdoch was able to do, in addition to his own. Mr. Jack was supposed to do this work, and he wrote letter after letter protesting. The Secretury for \Vorks says that from time immemorial this unfortunate man had been writing him letters protesting against the way in which he was being overworked, th;tt this was a part of his little g~m~J~showjng the absolute


bias o the hon. gentleman's mind. It is a perfect infirmity with the hon. gentletuan-this Jack trouble. He cannot possibly see any other side to it under any circumstances. Now, at the time the Royal Commission was sitting there were actually six persons doing the work that was formerly done by Mr. Jack. In fact at the time I spoke of previously there were six, because l'dessrs. Stanley and Graham were on in JYir. Jack's r.ime. But after he went to Towns> ille these other four men were appointed, because it then dawned on Mr. Brady that Mr. Jack bad actually Le en right. [f Mr. Jack's protests had boen attended to at the time they were made, all this terrible trouble would have been a voided, ~,nd thereforG from that point of view I hold 1\lr. Brady very largely to blame. Now let us see how the great fair phty that the s, cretary for "Works talks of was extended to 1\Ir. Jack at the Public Service Board inquiry. lG should have been the desire of the hon. gentleman to get at the truth of the matter. It should not have been his object to "down" any particular man in the service, but quite the other way. Now, what are thefttcts? Mr. Murdoch's evidence -the evidence of the witness whom the departInent were ~a.tisfiecl would be datnaging to th1~ir side-was ahwlutely withheld, and 1\ir. ,Jack's counsel were obliged to subpcena him to get his evidence. Is that a fair way of conducting an inquiry before the Public Service Board? ·why this partiality? There is no getting away from it th>tt partiality w>ts displayed of the very worst order. If the department wanted to get at the truth fairly anLl squarely, without any desire to punish or "down H any 1nan, why did they refuse tu call Mr. JYiurdoch when asked tu do so by 1\ir. ,Jack's counsel? \Vhcn he was called by JYir. Jack's counsel, 1\Ir. Thynne httd the vrivilege of cross-exarnnung hin1, and it was perfectly impossible for Mr. Jack's counsel to crosR-exan1ine again. His evidencein-chief was all that they could get from him, and I say a manifest injustice was done. It will be seen· by questicm lt\32 th>tt Mr. Pye thinks that JYir. Jack had good reason to eo m plain. Being the first assistant architect he ought to know a great deal more about it than the Minister. He says in question 1814 that Mr. Jack complained again that he had too much to do. In 1815 Mr. Murdocb made a similar complaint to Mr. Pye. In 1816 he says that Mr. Murdoch complained of having to work a.t nights and on Saturdays and Sundays, and in 1871 Mr. Pye thinks that one inspector should have been given charge of the Agricultural Building and the Stock Institute, with nothing else to do, and I perfectly agree with him. On question 238:1 he thinks that Mr. Jack is as good an in,pect"r as we have, and on question 2336 be thinks it was generally known in the office that Mr. Jack was guing to be shifted. This leads to another question. JYir. Jack believtd absolutely-and the Public Service Board say that they are convinced that he believed the charges which he made-when he was chaffed in the department about being shifted to Townsville, that Mr. :Robertson was responsible for it. He was perfectly justified in that belief, although the evidence which has been adduced since shows that he was wrong. Still a man can be excused for believing the chaffing that he got. \Vhy was his removal talked of in the office? There must have been some fire where there was so much. smoke: The Secretary for Works saysquestwn 9581-that Mr. Jack's repeated pr••te,ts were part of his little game. The hon. gentleman absolut~ly and deliberately charges this man with bemg a knave-a man who is deliberately trying, plotting, scheming, for some object of his own, to persuade the Government Architect that he is being overworked when he is nothing ol

the kind. The Minister's judgment is absulutely warped, and he cannot po~sibly see it from any other aspect. I would !tke bon. members to turn to pages 214 to 217 of the Public Service Board inquiry, and read 1\ir. Jack's protests. His first protest was dated 21st March, 18\l5. It is addressed to Mr. Brady-

Sir,-As requested by you-Mr. Bmdy must have requested him to write, and there rnust have been some convers~tion between them on th9 subject-

Snt,-As re(tuestcd by yon, I have the honour to report that the work" in the S()uthcrn division are insullicicut,ly supervised, inasmuch as the works are too nurnerons for any oue officer t.o prl)perly look after. Attached I have Ill'Cparcd a list of the works in hand, and worJ.;: for which tenders arc now being invited. but time will not permit of any list being prepared of many minor works a-Pd mu.tters I have to deal with daily in and around Brisbane, which, in thmm;clves, arc sufficient to keep one oflicer fully employed. Now, that is a strong statement-

The works in this division, although they may not be or any magnitude, take up as much time, and a.re as numerous as they were a few years ago, when it occuvicd the services of five oflicers to supervise. At present I have occasionally to obtain assistance from the draftsmen, who, Mr. Pye informs me, cannot he stmred from the ollice. as be has snflicient work to keeD them all busv. Neither is it fair to the work that druJtsmen sho'uld have t'l go out, as, in most ca::;es, they arc inexperienced in supervision. I shall not quote the whole letter. Mr. Brady makes the following note on that:-

::\fr. Foreman Jack having complained to me of the amount of work he has to undertake, and of hi:::. inability to exercise c1licient supervision of all the works in the Sonthern diviswn, I desired him to put it in writing. :Mr. Craig's absence for the pas I·. three months has been a decided loss and an inconvenience, but I am causing all the assistance possible to be rendered to Mr Jat•k by such of the ofllce staff as can best be svared Mr. Colledge is superintending concrete at Uoodna, J.\rlr. StanlPy similar work at the G.P.O., and 3-!Jr. Stevcnson is almost exclusively employed in in~ specting and reporting upon work. I~ the p1·esent condition of things is likely to be contmuous, ~m extra foreman on the staff would be indispensable, but this bclng the period of the year whe? t.hc number of wo_rks authorised is mmally small, I thmk that t.he appmntment of ~L seT~ond foreman for the Southern division mi{)'ht be deff'rrcd until the passing of the next year's esti'matcs.-A.B.B., Government Architect, 21~3-93. On that the Under i::lecretary says-

No action at present necessary, as in all probability the works wi.ll decrease rather than increase during the next few months. On the 22nd April, 1897, Mr. Jack again protested, and wrote the following letter :-

Report re Superrision of Concrete. In mv opinion it is absolutely necessary that the

mixing Of concrete should be done under proper supervision. But I am not aware of having at all times drawn upon the officers of the dra[ting staff to inspect same ncit.her would I on this occasion, if I could possibly ftnd time to do so myself. I an: sure, if you take into consideration the works I have 1n hand and the matters I have daily to deal with, you cu,nnot but admit that I have more than any uno oflicer should reasonably be expected to attend to. To properly k~cp pace ·with my work, I have to take papers home w1th me every other night, ofttimes being employed on them nntil the small hours, and even Easter }fonday found me back in the office at wol'k.

No doubt a considerable amount of time is daily taken u11 in getting to and from the worl.:s under my charge, and in getting to the numerous places r. h~ve to visit in attending to the various matters pertammg to my office, through having to wait for 'buses .and cars, and in the distanees I have to walk. But this cannot well be avoided without a conve;yance of some sort.

In every instance when assistance in watching concrete has been HSktd ibr. the application has been made purely in the interest of the department.

Y.l. T. JACK, Inspector Of VYorks.

On that Mr. Brady says-Chief Drattsman to Note.-! have requested ::\llr.

J~Lck to instruct Mr. Boddcn to relieve Mr. Stevenson in the supervision of concrete mixing.-A. B. B., Government Architect, 22-4-~7.

Supply. [30 NovEMllER.] Supply. 226i

Here is a further protest made on 21st October, 18!!8-

Report re Jn.<mfficient Sapernir~ion of Work8, etc. I lmve the lwnour to report that the works under

my charge, together with the papers to be dealt ·with, repret->ont1ng works most. of which call for inspection, report, and estimates, are at the present time receiving insutlicient supervisirm, as they are far too numerous for any one oflicer to give even indifferent attention.

I have prepared a list he.~ewith of non tracts in hand and papers a\vaiting to he dealt with, to which must be added the daily aecumulation of p:1pcrs and other matters w·hich in thomt-ielve~ are sufficient to nccupy the full time of an oflicer, apat·t. frutu tile supervision of actual works. At present my time is almost wholly occnpietl in supervising the putting in of the concrete ~rst iioor of arc~tde nt Parliamenta,ry Buildings, a. very unportant piece of wor~c .\ir. Valentine, having resigned his pos;ition as sub-inspector (of wllieh I have not y0t reeeive1l any otneinl information), has caused this import~Lnt work to be entirely thrown on me: awl, as this contraet re(1uil·cs careful watehing, it leaves me very little time for the snperviRion of other ettually important works. Apart from the work rcpl'Bi:!Cnted by the attached list·, a great deal of my time is occupied in dealing wHh contractors, correspondence, consulting with heads o.f departments and others regard1ng proposed alterations, rearrangements of offices, new furniture, fittings, and other matters; also in selecting ma.tm·ials for contractors' works at the local merclumts.

As the insufficient supervision of works at all times mea.ns a very f_;reat loss to the Government, and very often diserc<ht to the department, it is absolutely necessary that I receive sorne competent assistanee, and to this end I would suggest that I b~ relieved of all the St::tte school papers pertaining to improvements, repairs, painting, and fnrmture, this work being alone sutficient to oeeupy the full Serviees of an otlicer.

Personally, I delig-ht in being kept busy and fullhanded with work; but thestra.in h- beeoming too great for even the most energetic otlicer, and for the welfare of the wDrks.

I nmy also state that so far the now post office at rJ100WOng has hcen RUperviscd OUtside of official lwnrs, and tlmt up to the present I have been keeping pace with my worl( hy prepa,ring- estimates and reyorts, etc., at home at night; but as I c,tnttot promise a conLinnnuce of homework, I trust you will, in the interest of tht~ works, cnuse some rearrangement to be at once made.

W. T. ,JAOK, Inspc<'tor o! Works.

There was pmcticnlly no attention paid to that, anrl on the 27th l<'ebruary, l~MJ, Mr. Jack wrote-

lfll:Mo.-Reverting to my memo. add1·egsed to you, dated 2lst October, re the ilumtlicicnt :-mpervision of wm·b1, etc., witlJ accompanying lhts of works ami paper8, etc .. then 011 ha.nd, 1 oeg to state that the condition of affairs is daily becoming wot;se, owing to the increased wm·k of the offiee

In the intert-lst of the deva.rtmcnt, it is ahsolntcly neees~ary that some rearrnngement or assistan<'e b·e grantecl me, as I iind the papers awaiting to bo dea.It Wtth :.tl'C qnite voluminous enough to fnlly engage the services of one olllt~er. 'l'he works in hand are not receiving sufllcient supervision, and contractors appeal' quite conscious of the faet, with tho result that the department is not obtaining the class of work it ought to.

Snrcly the man could not be the abwlute knnve tl1o1t the Minister tries to m:tke him out when he could pnt his nnme to protests of th>tt sort ! I contend that, if it was justitiable to suspend • Tack for neglect of work or incompetency, in tho bee of the repPnted protests he mat!e against overwork, and the repented re<]uests he made for assistance, then the Minister himself shonld have been suspended long ago.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS: That is what you want.

Mr. CAMPBELL : It is not what I wnnt. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \Vomcs: Oh, yes,

it is. Mr. CAMPBELL: I think I have rearl

enough to satisfy any fair-minder! man tha.t it wns well known to lhA department through .rack thnt the work he was supposed to supervise was not being supervised, in conse<]nence of the im-

possibility of him keeping pace with the amount of work he had in hnnd. No mnn with a fair mind can hold to the contrary. I wu.nted to quote next from portion of the Public Service Bortrd evidence, but I cannot at present lay my hand upon the ex\ ract.

Mr. GrvENS: Oh, spnre us any more. Mr. CAMPBELL : I regret if hon. members

nre getting tired of it, hut I must do justice before everything. The <]nestion is whether this man is entitled to fair pby, or whether he is to be hounded out of the public service for faults which were, 1 contend, not his.

The SrwR!lTARY I<'OR PuBLIC Worucs: He has hounded others out.

Mr. CAMP BELL: He has done nothing of the sort. 'l'here is no question bnt thnt I have shown conclusively how abRolutely one-sided this perse!'ntion hns been. If the depnrtment wished to be fair, why was not Mr. Th<lurdoch allowed to g-ive evidence before the Public Service Bonrd? \Vhy did they hold him back? Is tlmt not evidence that the desire wns to down Jack? All through the piece every effort hns been made to hound the man out of the service. The Minister is prejudiced from the top of his head to the soles of his feet against this man, and I do not believe that any man living could alter his opinion.

The SEORIL'l'ARY l!'OR PUBLIC vVORK;J: You could not.

.Mr. CAMP BELL: I do not suppose I could ; but fortunately I have the right of putting the other side of the ca;;e before the public. I find, at <!Uestion 10703, the Minister says he will not take the opinion of Mr. l'y<" and Mr. Mnrdoch that ,Jack had too much to do. Mr. Bmdy, Mr. Pye, and :Mr. 1Inrdoch, the three men most mtp,tble of jndging-the three professional men in the department-are of thnt opinion ; and yet the 11inister declinPs to accept their professional ad vice on such a subject. I really do not know, undPr the circumstanceR, whose advice he would be likely to accc·pt. .Mr. Mnrdoch says, at <]nestion 108!JG, thnt tl1e real causP of ~T ack'H snspenHion was "the glaringly b>td work which he bar! passed in the Agricultural Bnilding >tnd 8tock Institute"; hut I have shown that his suspensinn was caused by the desire to get rid of him. After all, what was the matter with the Agricultural Building? It was simply found that in consequence of eertnin details not having been supplied, a rmstake had been n1ade with the CJllOins. 'l'he brickwork h>td gone up, it had to come down again, and the <]nnins had to be pbntcd on. lYlr. Pye, I believe, gave authority for that, but ::tccording to the evidence Jack wns chnrged with it, nlthongh he says in eviclence which hns not been contradic'ed that 75 per cent. of the work on that bnilding was done during his absence on leave. Is that not nn extenuating circumstance in the mind of the Minister?

The Sgcrm'l'I\HY l''OH Ptmr.rc WoitKS: That .is not true.

Mr. CAMPBl~LL: It is absolutely true, and has not br.en contradicted .

'!.'he SJW!tlt'l'AltY l''OB Pum.rc vVortKR: I will contmdict. it.

Mr. CAMPBELL: \Vhy dirl not the hon. gentleman do so when he wM speaking? It is in the evidrmce, anrl has not been contradicted.

Mr. ANNEAl\: And there are the rec,rds to pr.we H.

J\fr. CA"Ml'Bl~LL: At any mte the cost of mpairing- the work is given at about £15, nnd that is thP g-laringly bad work of which he is accused. J\.foreover, Mr. 'Vhite, the plar<terer, explained-and I know >1 good deal nn this subject myself--that the work was done in exceptionally hot wentlwr dnring last DecPmber, and the opinion of expert.s will show that the


specific[ttion made it [l,hsolutely impossible that the work should be done well. 1fher<• was nothing in thespecificationlo CcnHpel the walls to be wetted and properly prepared, and the consequencA was that the cement dried too quickly on the brickwork. Yet Mr. Brady said that Mr. J::.ck ought to have seen this as it went on. Mr. ,Jack said he could not pos"ibly be there as he had so many other things to attend tu. The Minister, [l,t questions 10B22-3-4, admits that Mr. llrady, Mr. l'ye, and Mr. Murdoch were all aware of the defect.i ve work of the Stock Institute befnr0 the contractor was paid. He also stated, in repiy to. question 10G33, that if l\lr. Jack had had time to visit the Stock Institute only once during its coastruction he would have c,mdemned it. Mr. Hrady saw it more than once, and he <lid not condemn it. At this stage I would like to re:td the evidence from question 10G32 to queotion 10G43-

By the Chalr1nan: Now, you stn,ted in evidence on 3\londay htst that Inspector Jack's action in writing to :."\'I.r. Brady pointing out that he had too much work to do was pctrt oi'his "little game "P Yes.

\Vill you explain what you mean by his ''little game''? It ought to be apparent to you. 'rhe only defence that ::\1r. ,Jack conltl make, and did make. was that he was overtaxed. 'l'hat is the only defence he could possibly make for passing the inferior work that w;ts under review. Of course he had to impress that fnet upon 1\:Ir. Brady, and therefore good work \vas not to be expeetcd from him, Bnt why did )fr. Jaek pnss such Uisgracefnlly bad work in the tace of the Tep11tation he had for being a competent officer. It was not because he had too much work to do, because I have pointed out that if he had time to visit the Stock Institute ouce <lnl'ing the whole time of its erection, his duty was to condemn t1.1e 'vork. 'l'ha.t w-as a very simple and plain duty; bnt instead of doing that he g;tVe monthly certificates, from time to time, reporting that the work was going on satisfat~torily until nearly complnkd.

B!J the !Jun. J. Cowlishaw: \Vhat about the other insvectors?-And we also have had evidenee that the Government ATchitect vislted the work several times~ The Government Arellitect nceessarily looked to Mr. .Tack, who was entrusted with the dut.y of Reeing tlmt Lhe work was well and faithfully done. rrhat was the respomdbility resting on Mr. Jack; but he ne: .. derted his duty altogether, and allowed a class of work to he done which is a disgrace to the colony and a disf:,'T:tcc to the department.

But you stated that if Mr. Jack vi~ited the work only oncu he ought. lo have seen the disgraceful natut·e of the work? Yes.

18 not the Government Architect ~mpposed to be a snperior officer to Mr. Jack, and to lmve more ln1ou.~ledge, both scientific and practical, of the work that is going on? I suppose so. But :Ylr. Jack stands almost in the same relationship to Mr. Brady as .:\'lr. Bnttly does to m~. I depend entirely upon my professional ollicers to sec that the work is properly done. Mr. Brad.y depended entirely upon his inspectors, who bad no other work to do than see that the work was well <tnd faithfully done.

"\Vhat did .\fr. Brady go there for, then? He can speak for himself. If the Government Architect is to be held responsible for the character of the work to be done, there is no necessity for inspectors under b) m at all. He depend5 upon the inspectors to see that the work i:o; well and faithfully done, and if they neglect to <li~clmrge their duty faithfully they are deserving of the very severest censure.

Do not run away from the point. You said that if Mr. Jack went to that building once he should have been able to see suffinient defects to induce him to ~ontlcmu the work. \\"hat I want to ask you is thi:-;: Mr. Erady told us that he visited t,he same work several times and tlid not see defective work. Why did he ~tot see it? lie 'vas relying on the reports of his inspector.

Ano;;wer my question. Is it the Government Archi~·ect's duty, when he goes on a job, to see that the work 18 properly done? I suppo~e it is his dnty.

He was there several times. How do you get away from the fact tha.t the Government Arehltet;t was on the work several timF" and did not see the defective work r I do not get away from anything.

You <'Ondemn .:vrr. Jack very strongly. "\Y"hy, when you know the Uovermneut Al'chiteet was several times on the job an.tl d.itl not see the defeet,s, do you not condemn him? You hall better get l\Ir. Hrady's evidence.

You answer the qncstion. You ~re the person over 3Ir. J;wk and lVI.r. Bratlv. You lmve saitl that.. .\Ir .. Jaek eonhllmve ~een the Uei·ef~L~. You. know the evrdcuee i:-:; that .:\fr. Drndy wu .... <;; on the \VOrk three or four times. VYhy do you not courlemn him as strongly as you du ..\lr. Jacl\:? As stronglj'!

Yes, as strongly? Certaiuly not.

I don't think I need read any more of th~t. There is a great deal more of the same sort showing the animus and bias which actuated the .Minister in dealing with Mr. Jack. Now, I propose to give the opinion of some experts as tu the particular buildings. Jn reply to <1uestion 121GB, Mr. Addison says there should have been a clerk uf works on the Stock Institute thn whole of the time. JY1r. Robert J!'erguson, surveyor to the JY'Ieat and Dairy Board, who is, in n1y opinion, one of the mo~t cornprtent men in (,l,ueensland to-day, gave evidence ::os to the specified brick bond being bad, defective walls, faulty roof design; <tnd showed th>1t first-class work was impossible under the spectfications. I think so, too. Then there is Mr. l'. Nott, a reputable builder in South Brisbane. He sny.< the plans and specifications were not good enough to ensure first·clas< work. \Vhat more cnndemnatory position coulcl the department occupy than expecting a poor unfortunate iru;;pector to get good work with plans <tnd SJJPcifications that prohibit the possibility of good work being got; <tnd then, when he protests a.gaitist being overcrowded with work, attributing to him the very worst motives? Mr. Nott says, in reply to question 92G7, that ·the prevalent opinion in Brisbane was that Mr. Jack suffered injustice by h.wing too many jobs to attend to. At l)Uestion l303G, it will be found that ~[r. Ferguson thinks it impossible for any clerk of works to be responsible for cement facing or cement concrete unless he is on the ground to watch it being gauged. There is a man th[l,t knows, and he says that a man should be there the whole of the time. In this connection I want to sr~y, in cn.se I overlook it later on, that the method adopted in the Rail w<ty Department, over which the hon. member presidesbut which he does not seem to know much <tbout either-the method is to have an inspector on every job--th<tt is, on every building in connection with railway construction where inRpectnrs are required; bntthe \\forks Department is cheesepared down so that one man has to attend to so many dut.ies that he is bound to mess up the whole lot. I believe there are three inspectors at the new

Central Station. At question 12!J4 [10 p.m.] .Mr. Brady blames Mr. Jack, and

Mr. Jack only, foe the defects in the quoins on the Agricultural Building. At question 1300 he said Mr. Jack should have detected the defects if he had seen the quoins being fixed. I am sorry that Mr. Brady made such a remark as that, because it is absurd. The defects could not have become observable until some considerable time afterwards ; unless it was seen that the material was drying too fast nobody could see that the work was bad, ~nd that is the reason the defects were not observed until after Mr. J auk went to Townsville. JY1r. ]!'ergus.m, at question 12945, Sitid the specifications were faulty in connection with the cement work, because they did not provide for wetting the walls. If good work is to be done in hot we<tther, it is absolutely necess<try that the walls shoul<l be saturated with water. At question 431:\2 Mr. Thompson explains why coring was adopted at the Agricultural Building. There is evidence to show tit at .Mr. .Tack was not responsible for the bad work in that building, ancl that hio superiur officers were the persons rctt!ly rc;;ponsiltle. At question 4t08 !VIr. 'fhom pson states that he was cotuplimented on the character ,,f the work by JYlr. Brady. Mr.

Suppl;1j. [30 N OVEMBER.j Supply. 2263

Bmdy denies that, and says he mtty httve said smnething about some particular romn. J\[l'. Thomp:-;un HU.:VH he wrote to his partner· the Rmne evening, the 2nd .June, lS!i!J, telling him tlmt Mr. Brady said, "Thmupson, this job does your finu credit; I had n•1 idea it would lnok >O well," and he produced a press copy of the letter to the connnisRion. I think therP is no gf;tting away from the fact that Mr. Bmdy did compliment the firm on the good character of the work. That is further proven by the fact thttt when Kelly wrote complaining C:f •he character of the wnrk, 1\tr. Brady wrote on his letter that there was "no truth" in the allegfltion that the wmk wa' bad. Theref~re it is proved beyond doubt that lVIr. Brady d1d compliment the contractor' on having done g~)od wnrk, and, having done that, !le fthsolutely relwved M1· .• Tack of responsibility 1ll the matter. Mr. Brady also says that he went np to the Stock lnstitnte b.tterly, and that the only defect he saw there was in the bonding of the brickwork. 1\lr. Murdoeh, at r1uestion 22!10, aclmits that he gave instructions for tho alteration in the bonfl, and yet it has het~n ::-;ought to sndclln the responsibility for the chango on ~[r .• Tack. Then why was thttt .£2G3 released? The Public Service Board point out in no nncerta.in terms. that both ::VIr. Brady and l'l1r. lVIur<loch, knowmg that the work was had, were absolutely to blame in anthorising the payment of that money. \Vhy does the Minister not ta.ke action against those men? Why does he saddle all the blame on the one poor, unfortunate man ? All the other men, in his view, apparently, are guiltless, but this unfortnnate man i., the embodiment of guile. Mr. lVInrdoch says he did not see the cement pnt into the mortar. Mr .• rack did not reotd the specification-he had Hot time-a.nd he was not advised that cement should be added to the mortar. Now I come to another despicahle phase of this pmceeding--the effort tn saddle JVIr .. Tack with a lot of bad work that he never had anything to do with. There was a ddibemte, well-thought-out pbn to sa<l<lle Mr .• Tack with the resp<msibility for cert>tm works which :tre no IV known to he def<1cti ve. \Vith reference to the gnnshml at Victoria lhrrncks, ::Vir .• Tack, ttt question 13G:iG, stntes that it WHs a building- he had ntwt•r seen. At qneRtion !lOG it is stated that the Under Secretary snblllitted to the emmuission a private letter received frow Clmrters Towere cn_nlpl::tiJ?ing :tbout dPfPetive work in a building w1th whiCh Mr .• Tack ha.d nothing whatever to do. At questions l:lGii2 and 131ili3 he is charged with the res1tonsibility of the defective drainage at Government HmJRe. lVIr. M urdoch, howe\ er, was manly enough to explain that he was ro·ponsibleforth>ot work. Agotin, at question 1121fl, we find that Capt>tin IJewis sent in a report about a g-nnshed, drawing attention to the fact that it was a bad job. Th<tt letter was sent to the Under RecmL>ory, bnt it is missing. ::Vir. J\!Iorry, one of the inspectors, w;os instructed to go ancl see this gm1shed, but by <>n aecident the armoury, a job of which Mr. Jack was in charge, was mentioned in the inRtructions, and J\!Ir. 1\Iorry after inspecting it reported that he found the armoury a first-class job. \Ve do not hear n.ny more about the gnnshed after that; but I should like to know why the man who was responsible for the bad work there was not suspended, and why the men who were resp•msible for the bad work in other places were not also suspended. I shall now read" short extract from the evidence of Mr. lVlorry to show what an outside inspector has to do. This is at question 12271-

Yon are prepared to say that thn.t job was a good piePe ot' work? Oh, yes, eertailJly. There is no qnestion about tha.t. 'l'he deviations feOJn Uw contract did not affcet the qualit.r of the work. 'l'he '\Vork is good. I wonld jlt~t like to say a word or two. A great

dertl llns been s:tid ahont t11e Unties of inspertor~. and I wonld like the emHmisl::'ion to unller:;;taucl that there is a tlifl'crenee between tllc duliel-l that some inspectors are calle(i upon to dbclmrgc and ot,lJcrs. 'l he duties of au inspector in eharge of ann building, for in8tauce, arc ttnitl-' different from those of a district inspentor; and I \VOUl{l ju~t J·iJ\e to pnmnerate t11e duties. What I wi8h to point ont is that wllile the mall in charge of n. tlistl'ict is called an ins~~eetlH'. yet very often tile duties "\Vhkh he i:s called on to verform are p1·aeticaUy tho~e of a tr;dnPd architect., aml a mnn who has not hacl that training ca.nnot be exl)L'cted to discharge tho~e <luties as a man properly t.rainefl would do. Siuce I was before the commission last these are a. few of the duties I have had to perform: Dct>ignillg for hot\Trtter apparatus for Parliament Ho11~e. alld umking pltms and spucitic:ttions for the ~a.me, awl inspecting i.t on eompletion; designs for a.n antiseptic tunk at Diamanti.na Orphanttge Bnilrling; report on drainage at Collmdie, and taking the levels; insvection of the retaining-"·vall at the Xaval ~tores, Knngaroo Point, aud prevaring an estimate of cost; inS1H~ding :tnd l'CllOrtiug on tllc rlnt!Uage at Immigration UC!H)t. K:tng:u·oo lJoint; design for a dm;trnelor for tlcad animals at tlw Stock Inst.tLutc; exanlinlng tile draimt,~e aL Government Ilonse and l'etnedyiug defects of !-.nme; g-eneral supervision ~f the Lands Otlke plans and spt~eilications; ~evcral in~pections at the Stock Im;titnte, the armoury, and a.t the GovPrnmcnt Stores. '!'hose have been some of Lhe dntics I have hnd to discharge si nee I was before the Commission last. It would he qnite impossible for snch insppctors as would be pbwcd upon any ordinary hnilding to discharge all those dnLim~ nnles~ he had a speci:d tl'aining for it. V\~hat I want to make clear is that there is a distinction. Hespecting the responsibility of the Government Architect in connection with thAse mtttters, I \V ant to fd ve smne opinion8. J\1r. Ferguson is of opinion that whoever is in charge of the department should under all circumstances take the re,ponsibility. Mr. Brarly himself admits the same position ; ami Mr .• T. ,T, Clarke, who wa.s Colonial ArchitPct, held the mme view. lVIr. Clarke aLo gave evidence at question 10G84, that after long expPrience of the office he could with a eh id clerk carry out the duties of Under Secretary aloug with those of Colonial Architect. If the Recret ary for "\Vorks were present, I would like to ttsk him now whether Mr. Brady finds any <lifficult.y in doing the duties of the Under Hecretary in addition to his duties as Government Architect. I take the oppmtunily of saying that if there is to he n, reorganisation of the depn,rtment, there are offic•·rs tlwre who are trained architPcts, and they should have >on opportunity off.-red to thmn for advancement-and there are not many opportunities in the department. The l\1inister was at very gnmt pains to show that thPre wa'-l very nnwh leRR work being done at the time 1\Tr .. Jack gave np his dnti"s here and went to Townsville, than there is at the present time; hut J\!Ir. Brady himself, at qnE'stion 1234, says tlmt there was more work in Brisbane at the time 1\Ir. ,Jack was here than there is now. There iR qnc.·.tion a,nd anHwer for you; and he admits that in lVIr .• Tack's time, without all the assistant inspectors that have been put on since, there was nwre work than there is now. I do not know what more anybody can want to prove the p.>sit.ion. It is getting late, and I will try and bring matters to a close. I b;ove endcctvoured to bring the state of the fotcts rebting pctrticularly to the case ot Mr .• Tack in a precise manner before the Committee. The M in iNter made so much of this unfortunate man's first little failure-a failure that the Public Service Board evidently did not think much of, for, having a first-class opportunity of hearing the whole of the evidence, and judging between the witnesses, they said that £10 reduction was a snfficient puni"hrncnt for the case. J<'or this the Minister says he ought to h>ove been dismissed; bnt. I tak" it that the tribunal who tried him ought to be, and rnnst be, the best jndges in the case. I h:we shown that the MinistE>r reviewed, or pretenclPd to have rP;iewecl-for I have shown from his own evidence th;ot he never


perused the evidence, and never saw it until it was in print, and took nCl trouble about it; but his mind was qnit.e made up as to what a bad lot .Tack W;Js. '!'here was no need for him to wander through the evidence to satisfy him that he might minute it as he did, and send it on. His colleagues naturally enough took it that he knew all about it, and that what he pro· posed was the proper thing to do, and they endor,ed his recommendation. He then ignored the certificatee of two reputable and leading medical men in Brisbane that Jack's wife's hPalth precluded the possibility of her leaving Brioobane, and, with a heartlessness that C<•rtainly does not do the Minister credit, he separated man and wife, and compelled Jack to keep two houses, he disrated him another ,£20, and cut down his expenses another £10. Is that the action of a mrtn who wanted to do a fair thing by a subordinate? Then as to the charges of incompetency and neglect of duty, I think I have shown sufficient to convince any m:tn whose mind is open that Jack cannot he h8ld responsible for that at all, and that Brady, Pye, and Murdoch adntit their responsibility. The Minister himself admits their responsibility. I have shown that both men had the same jubs, and that both men were so overcrowded with work that they could not possibly supervise these buildings prnperly. How, under the circnmstances, can theMinistercomedown and claim that the one man is blamable and should have been thrown out of the service altogether? There is also the other point that he never took nnv action at all against the Under Secretary and the othAr officet·s found to be equally blamable. \Vhy should one official have been sin~led out, and no attempt be made to reach the others? \Vhere is the fairneos of th<tt? The hem. gentleman pretends to be very fair, and makes a great fuss over what he calls the persecution of one individual; but what about the persecution of the other individual, and there has been nny amount of it all along the line from start to finish? HoNOURABLI~ MEMBEHS : Hear, hear ! Mr. CAMP BELL: I would like to hwe

]ward the hon. member to-night-and I hr.pe he will do it in reply-try to explain with some show of reason why it is that Jack's abilities were not recognised. I think the hem. gentleman in the act.ion he has taken is unworthy of himself. I have read every one of tile letters produced, and I say no man could have written straighter letters on the point than these have been, yet the hem. gentleman would ma,ke out that this man is a perfect and absolute knave, always plotting and scheming some mischief or another. On the principle that it takes a cert,tin man to catch another certain kind of man, I think the hem. gentleman must be a pretty good hand at that game himself, or he wonld have been a lot more careful in the statements he has made. I have shown that Mr. Brady has recognised that there was too much work for Mr. Jack to do, for four or five men were appointed shortly afterwards. Mr. Murdoch himself said, "I cannot pr.ssibly do this work. Thern is more than enough work for ono man to do." Surely that is not part of Mr. Murdoch's little game. If it was part of Mr. Jack's little game, why was it not also part of Mr. Murdoch's little game? If Mr. Jack was guilty, why was not Mr. Murdoch? If Mr. Jack's proteRts were not taken notice of, why were Mr. Murdoch's? I have pointed out that Mr. Jack was blamed for the faulty roof, and the contractnr was paid £40 to make alterations in it, showing that the desi,m was wrong. lYir. Jack was not to blame for that, and I havp, shown that he was not to blame for thE' other things. .Tack wnB charge·! with the defecti"e coigns in the Agricultural Building, and I have

shown thai he was not responsible for that. Mr. l'ye was the man in charge of that work, and I have shown that l\lr. ,Tack had not the opportunity of seeing a great many of the coigns fixed, that he probably did not see any of them fixed, and that there was no chance of his knowing how these coigns would behave for a considerable time afterwards. I think I have pretty well finished. [ could, like the Minister, probably go on for another hour, but I am afraid hon. members will get weary of the business. I do not want to exhaust the only chance Mr. Jack has. I know that a man can go too far wit.h an argument, and weary the House by t.alking too long, and I have no desire to do that. I have attem[Jted to show, at all events, that the House should do justice to Mr. Jack-that he is a man who wants hands held out to help him along; that he is a man who has been downed over and over again-downed merciles"ly, and absolutely followed to the very end. I am sorry, extremely and sincerely sorry, that the Under Secretar:y, Mr. Robertson, has passed away. No one Is

more sorry for that than I am. It would have been a great deal better for this debate if that gentleman had been alive. I say that Mr .• Jack, at any rate, has acquitted him,elf well so far as the charge of neglect of duty in this particular case is concerned, and that there is no use going back to the old thing. 'l'hat has nnthing to do with this case, and it was most unfair and most unmanly, and beneath contempt, for the hon. gentleman to drag all this dirty mud into the forefront again in order tu down this unfortunate man. It has nothing to do with the case. Mr. ,Jack has exr1iated his offen~e in the first case, and the hem. gentleman himself said that he was exonerated from it. How is it, if he is exonerated, that this is dragged up again? It shows that there is no exoneration, and the desire is still to follow him. I hone the Government will comider this matter, mid will see that justice is done to this man and that he shall have restitution. I want to say, also, that I consider the hon. gentlemen who compo>ed this Royal Commission deserve t.o be cnrnplirnented on the way in which they have done their work. They have spoken straight out, and I have gone through the evidence very carefully for weeks and weeks, and I say their findings :.re borne out conclusively and absolut1ly by the evidence. I leave the case in the hands of hon. members, knowing and feeling that justice will be clone, and if party issues and political side winds are cnt out of the question the whole House will he with me. ,

Mr. BROWN:E (Croydon): I have no intPntion of detaining the House for more than a few moments. I am not going to follow the very bad example either of the Minister for Works or the hon. member for Moreton in this matter. All I want to say is that I feel very disappointed at the tone this debate has taken. It was supposed that it was the report of the Royal Comn,ission we were to disctiss-the report of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the administration <1f the Department of Public Works of (lueensland, and into :tl! matters pert1tining thereto, and what has the di"cusRion been? lt has been a rehash of a dispute between a man named Jack, an inspector in the department, and the late Under Secretary, Mr. Robertson, and the pres<'nt Minister for \Vorks. That matter ought to hal'e been sGttled last year, but, as I have said before, practically a farce has been made of the whole thing by the Minister inchargP of the department and the Public Service Board. 'l'hey had the facts in their possession, and they ought to hal'e settled the ma1.ter last year. Now, what does the case resolve itself into? An inspector of the d•'partm<mt was charged with incompetence, and he, in conjunction

Supply. [30 NovEMBER.] Suppi1J. 2265

with two other officers, made separate and distinct charges of positive dishonesty against the Under Secretary ofthatdepartrnent. They charged him with point-blank dishonesty-with robbing the taxpayers of certain small sums for cab hireand other charges of dishonesty are brought against him. This was thrashed out by the Royal Commiqsion, and what would betheplaincommonsense position to take up on the m~-tter? If one single tittle of that evidence was true, I say the Under Secretary was not fit to be in that department another twenty-four hours. If it was not true as the Public Service Board seem to consider; then if three officers in the department have stooped tu bring charges against the head of the department, which they have failed to prove, are they fit to be in the public service?

The SEl'HETARY FOil PUBLIC \VoHKS: No. Mr. BlWWNE: The hun. gentleman has

talked about having a little backbone, but what did he do? liFJ rlP.dnntPrl .!H"'!othe!.· £20 frm!!. l\'fr . • Jack's salary, but did he not know the fearful state of disorganisation there was in the department and the system of espionage that existed, for they admitted that they had been for a long time spying upon their chief, and httd brought charges of dishonesty against hi m? Knowing these things, did he think for one single moment that theshihing of one man to Townsville and reducing his salary by £30 a year could settle the difficultv? This Royal Commi.<sion with the witnesses,..expenses, and other expenses' and the time that has bePn occupied 1~ this House, and the cost of printing, will nmount to £5,000 or £6,000, and all to settle a quarrel which might and should h:tvfl been settled by the Minister or the Pnblic Service Board. Now, I am not going to take either side in this question. We ha_ve heard quite enongh about it. It is very ev1dent that Mr. Jack has some very powerful friends, and the late Under Secretary had some Vl'ry powerful friends, too. There was one remark which t.he 1\linister for \Vorks made that I took particular notice of to-night, and which seems to be very peculiar. He referred to these powerful friemls of Mr. Jack, and also to some unseen influence that was working all the time, and he said that it was through that unseen influence that this Royal Commission was appointed. Now, the hon. gentleman was a member of che Ministry that appointed that Royal Ccmmission, and when he makes the statement that some unseen influence was working with the Government, well he surely ought to lw man enough to say what that unseen influence i,;. J~ither his colleagues in the Government are thnronghly disloyal to him, and they have been ~ryi!1g to get him into a corner somehow, or he Is disloyal to them, when he tells this House that there was some unseen influence that caused this commission to be appointed.

The Sgcl\ETAHY ~·ou PuBLIC Womcs: Jack sald so.

Mr. BRO\VNR: I am not concerned with what Jack said. Jack has said so many things that I think ;rack will he a historic name on the records of this House. This ·~ ack and Robertson matter will be something h ke the case of J arndyce v. .T arndyce in "Bleak House"-it is going to last for ever. That is what the hon. gentleman stat.ed, and

hon. members ought to be told what [IO·;JO p.m.] unseen influence this is that induces

the Government to appoint a Roval Commission, with all the expenses attache<i" to it, anrl with very poor results, as far as we can sAe to-night. All we have had so far is a rehash of a thing that h:1ppenerl last year. Both the hon. gentlemen who have spoken luwe quoted more from the Civil ServicA Board inquiry than from the report we have before us. It is only a

very small report-some 14,000 questions-and yet they could not find enough in it to bolster np the cases they were supporting. They have had to go back to the dead and buried Public Service Board inquiry. I would like to point this out. There has been a special day set apart for this discussion, and the greater part of the day has been monopolised by the Minister. As it is going on there need be no end to it, and we can get no expression of the opinion of the House. 'rhe only way to get that would be for somebody to move a small reduction in the salary of the Under Secretary for Works. Otherwise, memher after member will be getting up-first Mr. Jack's friends, and then Mr. Robertson's friends-and there will be no practical result whatever. There have been some very strong statements made. The Secretary for Works has accused the members of the lloyal Commission-all of whom sit on his own side of the Hou::;c cf hn.vi:ng- hcmndcd tbc 1~1e Under Secretary to his death. That is a very serious charge for the hon. gentleman to bring against some of his principal supporters. The hon. gentleman has also spoken of Mr. Jack as a man who is absolutely worthless, incompetent and untrustworthy, and a schemer. And yet that man is still in the public service of the colony. Surely if that is the character of Mr. ,Jack, he ought not to be in the department a single day longer. Nasty remarks were also made about the accountant, JYlr. Bell. The Mmister seemed to have carefully prepared his speech. He had en,)ugh material before him to have served any ordinary member a whole session. I will gnarantee I have not used so much material during the eight years I have bLen in the House. And what did it all amount to? The hrm. gentleman has shown us that Royal Commissioners are expensive luxuries, and that those expensive luxuries are brought about by unseen influences moving the Government of which he himself is a member. 1\lembers of Parliament, am! the public, who have to pay the cost, want to know what this unseen influence is, how it is worked, and where the pressure comes in. I say the hon. gentleman will not be doing his duty to the House, or to his colleaguPs, or to the people of the country if he knows, and does not tell us in his reply, what this unseen influence is. I am not going any further into the discussion, because, nnle-c:.s Rome n1otion is n1oved, nothing tangible can result-there will be nothing but talk. The party I h<we the hononr to lead never do believe in talk, and they are not lilwly to follow the example of the Minister for \Vorks. Before I am going to paso my ver· diet, I want some of the members of the Royal Commission to give their side of the question. I listened attontively to the Minister for \Vorks, and I have read the report of the commission and a good de"! of the evidencecertainly not all. Life is too short to read through all the repnrts we have had l~id before us this session, and I understand there 1s anothf'r coming which will knock all the rest into a "cocked hat," containing something like 40,000 questions. I say, again, I regret this has not been a discussion on the administration of t.he \:V arks Department, but only a rehash of the old case of Jack vers1's Robertson over again. " Mr. ANN]!]All (JJfaryuorough) : I believe it is the desire of hon. members that I, as chairman of the Royal Commission, should say a few words. I had thought that the work of thro commission, as contained in the document laid on the table, would be criticised hy hon. members, and that if anything was said agaimt it it would be our duty to defend it. Neither myself nor my brother commissioners wished to rosh into the debate while our report, based on th~> evidence taken, was under discussion. I am deeply

il266 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

indAbted to the hon. member for MorPtnn for the lucid explanation he has givc.n of certnin portions of that report which had been referred to hy the Minister. In fact, the bon. member has talwn away a good rleal of my speech. I did think the Minister for \Vorks would have criticised the report of the commission, and have tried to sl1ow that it was not borne nut by the evidence. That would have been a fair ground for the bon. gentleman to have based his speech upon. But he only referred to t.hat one particulRr paragraph in the report which affected himself. He has not even Rttempted to show that the report is not borne out by the evidence. Bnt the hon. gentleman has a! ways approached this subject with a prejudiced mind, and with a viciously prejudiced mind, against one man. The hon. gentleman sa it! the end of the late Under Secretary was brought about by extreme trouble and worry. The work of the Royal Commission took about thn>e months and a-half. The worry referred to bsted over eighteen months. The Public Service Bnttrrl, consisting of three gentleman who receive most reasonable salaries, never bronght. up a conclnsi ve report on which the l'rlinister could act. There was no finn,lity to their reports, and this commission was hronght into existence by the Governor in Council-what for? I thought it was to ascertain the truth-that it was to inquire into the :tdministration of the Works Department-and I think that we arrived at the truth. There is one paragraph in our report which states that the ·works DepartmPnt is in a most deplorable con·lition, and there is no doubt that it is in that condition, and that condition will not be remedied until the hon. gentleman anrl his colleagues--

Mr. BROWN~J : Are removed. Mr. ANNJ<jAR: Act upon onr recommenda

tions. (Laughter.) Now, I stand in tlllR HmlSe-ond I speak for my brother commissioners, as well as myself-and I sny distinctly that from the very first day tha~ the commission took evidence till the conclusion of the taking of the evider.ce, never an unkind woni or :tn nngmwrmm Rxpression was UHed tmNardH a.ny grmtlmnan who ea. me forward and g-ave evidence. I never had an angry word with the late Under :-;ecretary, and I say that not one insolent question was put to that gentleman. Now, the MiniKter has s:tirl that this was a p.1litical tnbunal; but I d<'ny t.hat. As far as I am aware, nn political questions were dealt with by the commission. \Vho were thP commissioners ? The hon. members for Nunr!ah, Toombul, Albert, the Hon. ,T. Cowlishaw, and myself. Now, I ask how it can he shown that this commission was a political tril1unal ? The Minister, Rgain, has stated that the conduct of the commission and our report was disgracefnl; hut that stntement is hardly worth replying to. I say that the blame in connection with the matters that were inquired into should rest on the shoulders of four officials-chiefly on the Colonial Architect, on Mr. Pye, the Assistant Government Architect; on Mr. Murdoch, and on Mr. Jack. "\Vhy should all the blame be put on one man? I say that these four officials are equally to blame; hut what dv we find? That Mr. ,Tack was perscented ; he had to defend himself against the best legal assistance the department could get, and was put to the cost of £2ii0. The other three officers were equally culp:tble, and Mr. Brady, as hPad of the department, more so than Mr. Pye or Mr. Mnrdoch. If any hon. member employs an architect, he holds him responsible for the work he is in charge of; and I say that the Colonial Architect is the officer most responsible in this case, and he can't get away from that rt>sponsibility. 'fhen, again, the Ministt>r has referred to the abuse that he has received from the Press of the colony ; but I have not seen him

nhnsed in any respectable pftprr in the colony. I think, mnrteover, that the people of the colony are indebted to the reNpPctablt> nwtropolitan journals for the prominence that they lmve given to the proceedings and the evidence taken before this cotnndssion. Now, I \vill just refP.r to one pnper published in Brisbane, which is a sl.rung l'rlinisteri:tl organ, and what does it do? It not only vilifies and ecandalises hon. members sitting opposite, but it doles out the same treatment to many hon. memhers sitting on this side of the Chaml1er. Not eighteen months ago, this paper said that the Ministry and the hon. members snpp~rting the :Ministry were nothing better thnn a band of lepers. 'What is the reason that this incorruptible Minister, who HayR he would never do anything agninHIJ the interrste of the people of the colony, is boosted up by this production (holding up the Street), in which the whole of one page is taken up by what ?--the cut of a locmnot.ive. (Laughter.) I '"''k that the work of this Hoyal Commission he judged by the eviLlence. I thiuk that is a vf'ry fair request to make. I will now show what I call the vicious bias of the 1\Iinister for 'Works. The h(m. gentleman si ated not ve1 y long ago, and it is recorded in 1-fan,,nnl, t.hnn 1\!Ir .. Jack was given a. send-off l)y son1A contractor" ; that he attendC'd a banquet; and that the contractor for the Htock Institute was present at that banquet. Jlut that is not correct, for this is the letter that was receivnd by me as chairman of the commis~ion, dated 8th August, 1900-

"\Ye ob!'crve, with regret, certain in~innations. ns reported in the tln.ily papers or the 7th inF.tant, 1rade hy the ::Hinister for Worl{S \vlwn giving evi.dell<'f' before vonr commission, He is reported to hnve :-:~aid:-~" Xo (lonbt the in!:<pector w-ho was lenient WHS most ~atisfac•tory to the contraetors. Mr. J:-wk w:~s popular \Vith the contractors. and they gave him a banqneL priol' to his leaving for 'fownsville. The contractor for the Stot>k Institute was one of t.lios:c who took a promi.uent part, in giY'mg i\ir. Jack thf~ scnd-ott."

rPlu~ a hove imlinnation may he ronstrncd as a reflertion npon the honour antl integ-rity of t.hose c~ontractm·s who \Yere present nt the senfl-off, \Vhi<~h we n~sP.nt. For t.hc information of your emmnis~ion and tlle 1\fini~ter for 'Wm·k!'l, we, th.e ('Ommittee who ~igued the ad(lrc:-;s, (lesi.re to state t.hnt the contr:wt.m· for the Stot'k In~titnte did not take :t prominent pa.rt. nrdtlwr \VfLS ho prmwut at the sPml-off. In fairnes~ to l\Ir. Ja('k, it 1s but right we sllon!(l state that it was with great Oitri<mlty we induced him to aecept the send-off. whieh was sauetio11etl by the Aeting Premier in writing.

\Ye have, etc., JAS. OAMPBET,I,, .TAYI.ES TRAOKSON. Pl<:TJ<:R !<'Llcll!NG AND ROO<. ll:l'I. WAKI,l•'U]T,D. vni,LIAYJ RTlH<;~;T, UEOIWE GOUGII.

There is a complete denial of the Minist.Pr'A ~t.atement. Jt st>Ptns to me that from the evirlrmce t.ha.t Mr. Rohertson overshadowed the Minister himself and all the officers in the department. 'fhere is little wonder that the Minister has persisted in a certain cnnrsH of action-in condemning a man who I say the evidence proves is a "white" man. I say that there is no whiter man in the Public Service, or one who poRseRses greater ability than l'r'Ir. .Tack, whom the Minister has sn much maligned, not only to-day, but on every possible occnsion.

The SEORET,\RY ~·on PUBLIC 'Worms: I have not maligned him.

Mr. ANNEAR: The hon. gentleman referred to Mr. Coxen's evidence. Now, I maintain that the questions we put to Mr. Coxen were in the interests of the whole Civil Service. \Vhat do we find ? The hon. gentleman referred to a voucher for 12s. 6d. for tea money. Mr. Coxen was willing to accept 12s. Gd. That was the amount of his voucher as his claim for tea. money; but the voucher was returned to him

Supply. [30 NoVEMBER.] Suppiy. 2267

wit.h a memo. from the Under Secretary, saying, " The Minister thinks that you should have a litrJ., m~om," and, instead of 12s. Grl., he g:we him tlw sum of £R 3s. I do not wish to say one wo1·d nga.inst l\fr. Coxen-I have no caw.::e to do so-but the statement that I now make in the interests of the whole Civil service is borne out by the Auditor-General, Mr. Deshon, and by Utptain Townley. Mr. Coxenis eighteen months junior to the accountant, and receives a salary of £180 per annum. He is in the fifth class, but the Under Secretary-and his recommendation was minuted by the Minister-recommended that he should be promoted to the third class, and that he should receive an increase of £120 a year. The Auditor-General and the chairman of the l'ublic Service Board say that is most unusuo.l, anrl that it is against the Public Service Act, and it is no wonder that my brother commissioner, Mr. Petrie, should make the remark that Mr. Cox en was the white-haired boy.

:iYir. NEW~<LI,: You don't say he was not worth it?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. ANNEAH: The Secretary for Wor·ks

said he wondered where we ll'ot the evidence from. I c!tn assure him we did not go to the gutters of Brisbane to get one parLic!e of it. The evidence, came into the c >m mission in shoalsanonymous-which "e took very little notice of. There was no trouble about getting evidence after the first few witnesses were examined, who were officers of the department. No evidence was obtained in a dishonourable manner. It was obtained in a proper way. It speaks for itself, and I dare say hon. members h:we read a good deal of it. But I would ask the hon. gentleman where he has got some of the evidence he has given this evening? He ha.s told the Committee that he did nothing in an nnderhand way-he. would nut go outside. But he went outside of the report this evening to gc·t a document that he read as regards the expenses incurred by this commisson. Now, I m,tke this statement-that there never was a connnis"ion appointed in this colony that cost less for witnesses or other e>:penses than the Wmks Commis,;ion. \Ve had to do a little entm·t,.ining wherever we went. The mayors of the different town< placed the town halls at our disposal and charged us no rent, and we i:1viterl them to dinner with us.

Mr. l\1AXWELL : At the Government expense. Mr. ANNEAR: Entertaining did not amount

to more than £12 or so. I say that it is mean and contPmptible for the ban. gentleman to come here this evening and t0 rea.d that outside the evidence. I thought this debate was to discuss the report of the commisRion--

Mr. BuoWNE : Hear, hear ! 1\Ir. ANNEAR: And the evidence the hon.

gentleman has quoted is quite outside the report. The SlWRETAHY FOH PUBLIC \VonKs: Practise

what you preach. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. ANNEAR: We have practised what we

preach. I believe the whole of the expenses that were paid to witnesses did not amount to over £1.~. The hon. gentleman referred to £1\0. Well, Mr . .Tack was brought down from Townsville; he had to remain in Brisbane, and he was kept here by letters written by the secretary to the Chief Secretary, which said that it was necessary to have his evidence here. Under the Public Service Act he was en tit], d to so much a day while he was away frnm his place of residence, or where his work was situated, and to show the pettin~ss of the Secretary for Works against the man he said, "I will not pay you one shilling. You shall lmve no money from me." The Auditor-General's opinion, I believe, was asked. However, we got a letter from .the Chief Secre-

tary, informing us that :Mr .• Tack was entitled to this amount. I think it came to about £:12 10s., and that brings up the amount to the £fi0 that the hon. gentleman referred to thi~ evening-. I trust his collen.gues are proud of the document which the hon. gentlmmm read.

MEMBEl\S of the Opposition : Hear, hear ! Mr. ANN EAR: The hon. gentleman, no

doubt, told thP truth when he• told the Committee this evening that he did not want to give evidence. He did not want to be there. He referred to a remark that I made, that I hoped that Mr. Robertson would not take what I said as an impertinence. vVhen the late Mr. Robertwn had finished his evidence-the hon. gentleman will find it in the report, word for word, as I am telling it-he said, "1\Iy Minister will return from Oaboolture "-I think it was-" to-morrow. He is anxious to give evidence before the commission." Mr. Cow lis haw said, "There will be plenty of time." 'l'hat did not suit thR Under Secretary, who said, "As soon as my l\1inister returns from Cab•Joltnre he is going to the North, and he will be away for a long time." I tlwn made the remark, "JYir. Robertson, this commission have decidEd to conduct this inquiry in their own way. Do not take my reply in an impertinent Rense."

Mr. DAWSON: Hear, hear! You were quite right.

Mr. BROWNE : Then you got a telephone message. (Laughter.)

Mr. ANNEAH: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. J·ust on taking the chair of the Ct)n1misRiuni a messenger carne in and told n1e that the Minister wished to speak with me through the telephone. I went to the tele· phone--

Mr. MAXWELL : He blew your ear off. Mr. ANNJ<JAR: And I saw from the tone of

the hon. gentleman that he was very excitetl. He called me by name, and said, "An near, is that you ? " I said, "Yes." Then lw ~aid, "Have you seen the Tele[J?Ytph?" I said, "Yes, I have." He said, "How dare you tell that paper that I was anxious to cnm8 h8fnre the commission t.o give evidence? " I said. "I have not told the paper anything of the kind. I have never mentirm8d your na.me to any paper or to the corrnnisRi<m, hnt," I said, "every word that appeared in the Teleg1'aph is absolutely true." I would like to have had a snapshot of the hon. gentleman to see the state he was in. I said to him, "If you don't speak quietly, I can't hear what you are saying;" bnt the more I told him to speak quietly, the more he bellowed, and, in fact, I left the telephone, not having understood all he had s·<id.

Mr. \V. HAMIW'ON: A good job you were not both at the same end of the telephone.

Mr. ANN EAR: The hon. gentleman referred to the remarks I made to Mr. Bell when he came before the commission. I think I can be borne out by hon. members in this Committee that those remarks. or the tenor of those remarks, were addressed to every witness, especially to those in the employ of the Government. Had we not acted as we did I think there wm1ld have b ·en !l'reater reluctance on the part of "itnesses togiveevidencethan was actually shown. 1'\o that the great offence v.hich we committed in this

respect proves to he nothing after [11 p.m.] all. The hon. gentleman complains

that we did not give the Under Secretary sufficient opportunity to come before the commission. That I absolutely deny. l~very facility was afforded him. E\·ery paper containing the evirlence was forwarded by the secrebry, 1\Ir. Hobbs, to the Under Secretary. In fact the taking of evidence was postpnnerl for some 'time, as we thought the Under Secretary


would recover and be able to give further evidence before us. The hon. gentleman also went out of his way to insult the "ecretary to the con1rnission.

Mr. BROWNE; A very mean thing. Mr. ANN .!<JAil: He went out of his wav to

insult the son of one of the grande,.<t old gentlemen who ever lived in Queensland-the late Dr. Hobbs. He says that Mr. Hobbs prompted me and wrote the questions out for me. I say he did nothing of the kind. By profeBsion Mr. Hobbs is a barrister. I never met the young gentleman until the day before the commis,ion commenced to take evidence, but I am very pleased to have had his acc:pmintance and the benefit of his assistance. 'rhe secretary performed the clerical work of the commission and he never acted as my henclnn::m. As I explained to the Minister, I am not a lawyer; I am merely a working man, and I was very much indebted to Mr. Hobbs for the as,istance which he not only rendered to me, but to every member of the commission ; and if the hon. gentleman, in making appointments to his department, will have men of the same standard as Mr. Hobb_s he will never have occasion to regret any appomtments he may make. The hon. gentleman also said that Mr. Hobbs was the advocate for Mr. Jack. \Vhy, a gre:tter misgtatement could not be made. There is not one scintilla of truth in it, and I declare here thttt Mr. Hubbs simply did his duty as secretary to the commission. The hon. gentleman said the commission should apologise for their condnct to somebody. I am at a loss to know to w hon• I should apologise. I have done nothing that I can reproach myself with, and I think if any apology is to be made the hon. gentleman should apologise to me.

Mr. DAWSON: Hear, hear! Mr. ANN EAR: And he should apologise to

my brother commissioners. Here is a statement to be made by a Minister of the Crown--addressed not to members on the opposition sid~, but to members of his own party-he says that the c'>rmni,sion were only a band of murderers. That is how the hon. gentleman desig-nates us.

Mr. MAXW~cLr. : He nev0r "'id that to-night. The SECI\E'l'ARY ~'OH Pum,ro \V aRKS : I never

said so. Mr. ANNEAR: Thtere are two gentlemen

who are listening to me who can bear out what I say.

Mr. DAWSON: "Who are they? The CHAIRMAN : Order 't Mr. DAWSON: It is not out of order to ask

who they arP. The CHAIRMAN: Order J The hon. mem

ber is interjecting, and that is disordmly. Mr. l)A WSON: I am not interjecting. Mr. ANN EAR: The hon. gentleman trtkes

exception to the questi<ms put to him by myself as regards the late Under Secretary being taken ill in the office. It seemed to us at that time most remarkable that there should be such a sudden and effectual cure whereby Mr. Robertson could go to his table and write a letter virtually suspending Mr. Bell, the acc<>untant. I trust I shall be believed when I say that I entertain for Dr. Hopkins the greatest respect. l look upon him as a most skilful man. I have every reason to know that a member of my family would have been no more had it not been for the skill of that gentleman a few months ago, and therefore . in saying what I did I meant no reflectwn upon him. I fnlly believe what he said, th"t Mr. Rohertson was very ill, and I would not take up<>n myself to impugn the CPrtificate that he gave. 1:-\Lwh " thing was far from the thoughts of any one of us. The hon. gentleman referred to two letters sent to the commission which were not

included in the report. \Vell, we received any number of letters of that kind. One of those letters came before the commission the day before we finished our work, and I contend that if the gentlemen who wrote those letters from the Mosman or from the Isis had wished to give evidence, they would have been heard. It was our duty to receive evidence when it was offered. Letters, we know, can sometimes be had for the asking, and we preferred evidence. I do not for a moment deny the statements made in those letters. I do not say they are not ab"olutely true, but if we had attached all such letters as that which came into our hands to our report it wnuld have been a very bulky document indeed. The hon. gentleman also takes exception to the fact that we did not submit to witnesses all the quest,lons sent in hy Mr. Hobertson. I believe chat, ha<l we submitted all those questions, we would have been at work for two or three months longer than we were. Mr. lto'Lert~:;on on two occm:;ionR can1e before the commission <>nd gave evidence, and I believe he told ns then all that it was possible to tell us. 'fhe hon. gentleman also referred to the vouchers. \Ve!l, I think it Wfts part of our duty to see that the vouchers issued by the department were in order. But what did we find ? The Minister told the comnnsswn t.hat before vouchers could be paid they had to be initialled by him. \Vhy, we fonnd one voucher for the expenses of iY.ir. Rohertson and Mr. Bracly for the two months' trip up North amounting to £170, and there was on it no initial of the JI/Iini"ter.

Mr. BRillG~cS: \Vas that in Mr. Murray's time?

Mr. ANNRAR : I do not think it was, but we were inquiring into the department and not particularly into what had taken place since the hon. gentleman had became ,\linister. At all eve.nts, the fact remains that we discovered this voucher, and we have the evidence of 1\Ir. Ueshon, the Anditor-Ueneml, to the effPct that it 'vas irregular.

The SEORE1'ARY FOR PUBLIC VVORKS: J-Te says nothing of the kind. He says distinctly that it is quite compet•mt for an Under Secretary to do so.

Mr. ANNEAR: The hon. gentleman has spoken "bout witnesses' expenses. I have mentioned the total amount paid ; but I desire to mention that when the Public Service Board were holding their inquiry some of the professional witnesses received "" much as £15 15s. and £18 lHs. eftch. There is no exception to that, because it is the will of the Jlil.inister to sheet it home to Mr. ,Tack. I did think the hon. gentleman would h:we refHred to the report of the commission. This is one of the paragraphs in the report-

'Ve are of 01linion tha.t the position of professional head of the department sllonld be held by a thoroughly tra-ined and competent architect, possessin,g sntlicient practical knowledge to enable him at all times to act upon his own responsibility.

\Vhat does Mr. Pye, the first Assist.ant Colonial Architect, say about this? In reply to question 1GG!l he said he prepared the seconrl contract for the Tre"sury Building; 1G71-he is responsible for the designs and working drawings ; 1672-Mr. Bmdy does nothing on design; lG78-Mr. Brady does not undertHke design ; 1G84-he considers a qnalifi•'cl architect necessary; 1871-the Stock Institute and Agricultural Buildings were enough for one man to look after. I arlmit what the hon. gentleman stated this afternoon -that once Mr .• Tack had eighteen contracts to look after at one time; and Mr. Pye said the Stock Institute and the Agricnlt.nral Building were enough for one man to look after. JVT r. Murdoch also said there should be a duly qualified


architect. Of course, it iK for the MiniEtry to give effect to the recommendations in the report. We have nothing to do with that; but I be lie Ye we haYe done our duty fully and imparti<>lly. The hon. gentleman would le<td hon. members to believe, I suppose, that we must have >'pent a sum of money on cards. I am not awa~e of one shilling having been spent on cards of any kind. If any of my brother commissioners knew that such is the case, I hope they will correct me.

l\1r. PLUNKETT: Not a farthing. Mr. ANN BAR: I am going to refer now to

two m<ttters to show that there was a determination to shift Mr. Jack at all costs. The armoury buildings are at the Victoria Barracks. Before the military authorities will take over a building from th8 Works Department they send one of their officers to inspect it, and Captain or l\iajor Lewis inspected the armoury, and reported that it was a first-class job. Eight months after Mr. Charles Miller, the contractor, was paid without the Government Architect being consulted, the late Under Secretary, Jlilr. Rohertwn, v.rote a memo. to Jliir. Arthur l\lnrry instructing him to go and inspect the building. Mr. Marry inspected it, and reported that it was a first-class job in every particular. Captain Lewis came before the commission and gave the same evidence-that there is no !Jetter job in Brisbane. The Toowong Post Office was built by the same contractor, and an officer was sent to inspect that building twelve months after it was completed. \Vhy? Because Mr. Jack was the insr>ector. And I want to point out that this was done while the commission was sitting-when they saw that there was not sufficient evidence to carry out what they wished, and they thought something might be found by having these works inspected. These two works were carried out hy l\1r. Charles Miller, contractor, of Brisbane, a rnan who 1s known to do good work, and they, were both inspected by Mr. Jack, whom the hon. gentleman tried to hound out of the service ; and yet they were told that there were not two better works in or around Brisbane.

Mr. REm: You know better than that. Mr. ANN:BJAR: I don't know anything of the

kind. 1\'Ir. REm: As a bricklayer you know better. Mr. ANNEAR: I am now geing to say some

thing personal to myself. The Chief SecretHry l11.id the report of the Royal Commission on the tnble on a Friday afternoon. The following Wednesday the Rockhampton Bulletin ca111e out with a leader criticising-and I think fairly and ahly-the report of the commission. The same afternoon the Rockhatnpton Record, also a very good paper, came out with a leader criticising the commission. I believe a relative of the hon. gentleman at the head of the department is p.rt prorJrietor of the Rncl<hampton Record. In that leader they say-and they believe thHy speak with truth-that my action on this commission has been br')ught about because I am a disappointed man. They say that I was an applicant to the late T. J. Byrnes for the position held by the hon. gentleman. I give that statement a most emphatic denial. I ne,·er was an applicant to the late 'l'. J. Byrnes ''r to any body else f"r the position held by the hon. gentleman. During the time I have been in this House, I have been "whip" on three different occasions. Once I did it for the honour of doing it, and on two occasions I was paid. ]\n· six sessions I uccu~ pied the chair you, Sir, now occupy. An hon. gentleman, who is no more with us, whose memory I shall ever revere and respect, the late Sir T. Mcilwraith, met me on the balcouy and said to me, " Jack, I offer you the Chairmanship of Committees. \V ill you accept it? If you do, the first time I have an opportunity

to give you something better I will give it to y"u·" I said, " Sir Thomas, I accep~ the offer you make."

An HoNOURABLE l\fE~mER : That was the price.

Mr. ANNEAR: Hon. memhm·s know that I was chairman ot this cmmnh,sion, and I make the statement that neither directly or indil·.-ctly did I ever intimate to the Premier that I wanted to be chairman, or even a member of that commission. Any little position I may have held during the time I have been in this House has come to me unsolicited.

1\lr. BI\OWNE : The unseen influence in the Cabinet.

Mr. ANNEAR : I am very glad the hon. me m her for Croydon has referred to thftt. I am sure the Premier will ponder it over in his mind, that he has a colleague who will lead him to victory, a colleague who will fight the battle <Jf the party in the country, and who will stand up and sav there was undue influence.

1\fr. "BROWNE: Unseen influence. Mr. ANNEAR: Unseen influence in the

Cabinet to bring about the appointment of this R<·yal Commission. As I see the Premier is now in his place, I may repeat that I am charged all over the colony with he'ng a disappointed man, and with having been an applicant for the position now occupied by the Secretary for \Vorks. I do not know whether there will be any leader of a Government in this colony who will consider me qualified to occupy the pos1tion held by the hon. gentleman; but if there should be, the position will have to cornR to me; I will not solicit it. I thin¥ there should be a he>tlthy political life existing among us, and I would not solicit a po,ition of that character. I trust that I shall occupy a position in a Govemment elected by the people of the country, but I think it is most unfair for a respectable paper-I suppose there are few more able writers in the colony than the Hon. C. H. Bnzacott-to publish the statement that I was a disn.ppointed man, and that I w11.s an applicant to the late Hon. T .• f. Byrnes for the position of Secretary for \V orks. I was never an applicant to anyone for that position, and I do not begrudge the hon. gentle-1llan his office. Does the Secretary for \Vorks think that I am not surrounded with friends? And does he not know that I have been inf<>rmed that it hus been said in the halls and lohbies of this House that the \Vorks Commission are nothing but a band of murderers?

A.n HONOURABLE l\lEMBER: \Vho said that? Mr. ANNEAll : I will give my authorities.

'l'here shall be no equivocating about the matter. That statement was made to me by the hon. member for 1\Ioreton, 1\'Ir. Campbeli, and the hon. member for Toombul, Mr. Petrie.

Mr. l'ETHIE: It is quite correct. lYir. MAXW~JLf,: \Ve have been called as.<assins. The CHAIR:\fAN: I have on several occa-

sions callerl the hon. member for Burke to order for interjecting. I now warn him that if he continues to interject I shall treat his interjeetions as disorderly, and as disregarding the anthority of the Chair.

Mr. HrGGS: This place is becoming quite disorderly.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member is disorderly in making that interjection.

Mr. BROWNE (leaving the Chamber): Let the Government keep a quorum.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! I have been elected to the chair to maintain order, and I shall rule according to the Standing Orders.

Mr. BROW:>E: It is fixed up for one side to· night : leave it to them.

Mr.· AN::'If:EAR : I am very sorry that this little friction has occurred, for the interjections have been good-natured. I m:tintain that the

2270 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Suppl'lf.

Government Architect cannot shift his responsibility on to his subordinates. As Government Architect he receives a very fair salary, and he is responsible for the work of his inspectors ; and it is no use for the Minister to say that the blame for the faulty work found in either of the building.< which h"'ve been referred to should be laid at the door of Mr. Jack. \V e entirely disagree with that statement. I think Mr. Jack has been most severely treated by the Minister in having his salary reduced as it has been. The hon. gentleman should have told the Committee-how this troublecame about. Mr. Jack sent in a voucher for lRs. 3d. for car and 'bus hire for one month, aml the Under Secretary sent baek "hat voucher to the accountant telling him that it would not be paid until the details .vere furnished. At this I suppose ~ir .• Jack lost his temper. He went to the office of the Under Secretary, and certain words passed between them. Mr. Jack said, "Before you charge rne \vith being a dis~ hone:;t rnan, beconte an honest rnan yourself." 'flmt was tbe whole cause of the trouble the Public Service Board bad to decide. \Vith regad to the letter that was written by Mr. ,Jack to the Under Secretary charging him with dishonesty, if it was unfair it was the duty of the Under S<'cretary to have suspcmded Mr. ,Jack, but he did not do that. His wmds were, I believe, "Let bygones be byl-(ones, and I trust we sh"'ll get on better in future." Two or thr·ee we<'ks afterwards ~Ir. Jack, with whom the ~Iinister was so indignant for writing that letter, was recommended by the Under 1::\ecretary for an increa'e in salary. It is very painful to have to refer to these things, but the :Minister did not consider it Jl"'inful, for he went into the whole question. No matter how humble a person in the public service may be, justice should be done to him. I should like hon. members to read the evidence of the chairman of the Public Service Board, Captain Townley. I am not gcing to discnss the Bill now before the Honse, but with regard to that gentleman I may say that what we have gut to complain of is not of what he told the commission, but of what he did not tell them. '\V e could get very litt!A iuformation from him. \Vhat is the good of "'Jl!JDinting a Royal C.Jmrnission if they cannot get information ? I thought the commission would have been able to get evidence that tl<ey required, especially from an officer of the Government, but Capt"in Townley almost refused to give evidence. \Vith regard to the urg>enisation of the dejJartment, I sh,mld like hon. members to refer to Exhibit 80, in which certain ~ug~e . .,tions are rnade by Mr. Rohert 'b'erguson. I agree with the hon. member for Morctun that there is not a more cornvetent man in the colony to look after the \Vorks Department than l'v1r. Eubert 'b'erguson. It has been a great loss-a loss of thousar;ds and thousands uf ]Jtmnds-to \lueensland that Mr. I<'erguson has n<>t )yen in the Government Architect's office. Had he be~n there the trouble which h"'s occurred would nevH have taken place. There is also Exhibit 81, containing .;uggestiotJs by Mr. J. i:l. Murdoch, a gentleman who gave his evidencein a straightforward way even when it told against hhmelf, a gentleman who would not depart from the trnth; and there are in J<:xhibit S:l valuable suggestions from Mr. J. J. Cl ark, who was at one tiwe Colunial Al·chitect in this colony. Mr. Clark designEd the Treasury Buildings, and I think everyone knows him to be a competent man. There is no architect in Au.,tralia who has carried off more first prizes in competitions for desi~ns t.han Mr. Clark, the last he ohtaiued being the prize for the designing of the ~plemlid hospital which is now being erected at Newcastle in New South \Vales. There is also an exhii.J1t of Mr. Morry, a most

competent officer of the department. I say that all these exhibit<;, if uot beneficial to

[11"30 p. m.] hon. members to peruse, will be very beneficial to the Government of the

day. The Secretary for \V mks takes exception to the treatment he received when he came to give evidence Lefore the commission. \Vhy, the hon. gentleman began to fight the very moment he came. He was "'s crusty-in fact, he would give us no evidence. I say that he came there with a prejudiced mind. His mind was made up in one direction, and no evidence whatever would shift him. He came there determined at all costs and at all hazards to back up certain officms of the department, and to down the man that he had an antipathy against. Now, he referrml to Mr. McCulloch this evening. \V ell, I thiuk Mr. lYicCulloch a worthy and competent officer, and in the Courier a few days ago I saw that he is doing very good work for the Government ut the Proserpine Sugar Mill. They h,ve had a good season, and, unrler the manngernent of Mr. McCulloch, that mill is going to give a good return for the season. If you read the evidence you will see how it was attempted by officers of the department to show that that man was giving what was not a proper valuation for some land at Bauple. He g"'ve a valuation uf £3GO for it, hut at the same time there ""'s a mortgage on it, held by the Government, for over £GOO. He was asked to show cause, when the papers came to be stamped, why the valuation was reduced from nearly £1,000, in the first instance, to £3fi0. lYlr. McCnlloch drew the attention of the Minister, the hon. member for ~Iackay, tu the facts, and that gentleman at once saw that the valuation was correct, and that there was no devi:>tion from the first valuation at all. The Minister did say at the outset that he was prepared to give us the fulle·,t information ; hut all through I am sure that the hon. gentleman quibbled and avoidE?d answering fjUestions in every possible way. I'do not know what the hem. gentleman thought we had tu do. Did he think that when we were appointed as a commission, and undertook the performance of a certain duty, that we went there just to take up our fees, and do nothing? I contend that as a commission we tried to carry out onr duty. \Vben the hon. gentleman was confronted with certain vouchers of the late Under Secret.ary, he wanted to know where we had got them, ~tnd insinuated_that we bad no right to havA them in our possession. Hon. members will see that at question 10784. I say we got th"se vouchers in a pruper way by writing to the Premier, and they were forwarded to the secretary of the comn:ission. We got them in a proper way, and we did not get them in the way the hon. gentleman got the statement he read to the Committee this evening. The hem. gentleman read out that statement to try to bring ns into disgrace and di,repute by stating the fewpunnds t!Htt were sp<mt fur <·xpenses. I say we were most careful in expenditure, and so far as the work of the commission goes, I think we did good work--work we have no rea<,em to be ashamed of. I am very proud of the work we did, and, in fact, we did too much, it seems, for ~ome people.

HOKOUHABI.E ~IEMmms : Hear, hear ! Mr. Al'\NEAE: I ask hon. members what

was the duty of the head of the dep>trtment? \Vas it not the duty of the Minister to come and help the commission as much as possible to arrive at a decision which would bring abnut a better working of his department? That, I maintain, wa;, his duty. But the hon. gentleman gave ns

' no bel p whatever. He tried to thwart us in every way. I say the Minister came there to do that. 'rhere is no getting away from it. Read the evidence. The Iron. gentleman talks about

Supply. LBO NoVEMBER.] Supply. 2271

the people of the country. I have been through the country a little lately, and I am certain that if it came to a vote to-morrow the people of the country would, by an overwhelming majority, back up the work done by the Works Commission. It was done in the interests of the people and was done conscientiously. Now, the hon. gentleman has been very active indeed. He told us on several occasions that if he bad his will he would disregard altogether the recommendation of the Public Snrvice Boarri-'' If 1 had my will, I would ha Ye sacked him frnm the service "-and he tells us that with such bitterness-" I'd sack him, and he should not remain in the service a dayJonger." \Vhy did he not apply the same principle to the late Under Secretary and the others who, as you will see at question 9384, were condemned by the Public Service Board as well as Mr. Jack? Oh, no; he w;;,s the man that had to go. He was to be put out of the way at all lmzards. But I make this statemeut.: Let hon. rnem bers read the evidence, and in my ovinion there is nu more honest, straightfsrward man in the Government service than this man the hon. gentleman would like to condemn.

The SEORE'l'AllY ~'OR PUBLIC \VollKB: Then God help the service.

l\It·. AN NEAR: Now, what do we see? During the whole time the evidence was tak•-n, was there an unkind word ut.tered by Mr. Jack, or an unmanly word of the Minister or of any officer in the Public \'Vorks Departn1ent '/ I say there was nut. \V by? Because he is a gentle· man, he was educated a gentleman, and he conducted himself as a gentleman during the whole of that inquiry. There is an addendum here, signed by the hon. mernbPr for 'roombul and myself, to which I wish to refer. I am very sorry, indeed, that the hon. gentleman took three or four hom·s this evening to go into this question, but after what the hon. g-entleman has tried to insinuate, I do think that, in the interests of the commission, I should take up a few minutes to defend our position. This is the addendum to which I refer-

The commissioners having unanimously expressed their opinion tl"Jat ~<the action of the Minister in authorising the expenditure of £:Jl6 in trying to prove one of his subordinate officers guilty of either incompf'tency m· neglect of duty was both unnecessary and uujnstifiable" (see para~raph :i), and al~o 'having blamed }lessrs. Brady, PJ e, and 1\:Iurdoch, a~ well as Inspector Jack, and these officers having suffered no loss, pecuniary or otherwise, we are ot the opinion that the practice hithct·to adopted of allowing the Crown I..JaW Office to eondnct such inLtuiries where ncce.;Har.r should have been adhered to in thi~ ca:.;c. The llinister's explanat.ion of this matt er i~ that he was informed, presumably by the Under Secretary. that Inspector Jack lmd st·cnrcd strong legal as.sistancc. and that the department had to follow suit. Full inveNtigatwn has proved beyond <tUCt'tioll that counsel was Ycrbally cngn~ed by the department on 6tll ::\larch, and Umt such engagement was confirmed hy letter on 7t,h Mareh; wl!i!e, on the other hand, Inspector .raek did not arrive from 1'ownsville till Hlh )larch, atHt did not see his solieitors until Hth lTar<'h. His solicitors have also stated to tho commission that they h~td no communieation with him until 8th March. It is therefore clear to us that the )1 inistcr wat" strongly biased in the matter by the circumf'tancPs already referred to. We are of the opinion t.hat Inspector Jack wns larg-ely the victim of circumstance~. aud we recommend that the legal expenses incurred by him be reftwded.

There is no doubt that the legal expenses incurred by Mr. Jack were forced upon him by the con· duct of the department and the Minister. The Minister, and I think the late Under Secretary, said that they did noL engage legal assistance until they were assured that Mr. Jack had engaged counsel. \V ell, it is clearly proved that Mr. Jack had no idea of engaging a solicitor until be knew that the depa.rtment had secured the senices of the Hou. A. J. Tllynne, and such being the case, Mr. Jack is

thoroughly vindicated, and having been forced to spend that money, I trust the Executive --I know the Minister will not do itwill see their way to refund that expeuditure. It has to be remembered that he was suspended for four months, while Messrs. Brady, Pye, and Murdoch suffered no inconvenience. They were not suspended; they were in receipt of their salaries, and for the defective work in the Agricultural Building and the Stock Institute they were equally as much to blame as Inspector Jack.

1\fr. BRIDGES : The commission did not say that.

Mr. ANNEAR: I think the majority say that.

Mr. 13RIDGES: No. . Mr. ANN:KAR : The Hon. the Minister pa,;ses

his opinion on the conduct of Mr. Jack and the value of his services ; but what did he tell the commission? In answering question lOD:il, he admitted that he seldom or ever went through the offices of the department, and his knowledge of the practical operations of his department was very vague. Yet he pronounced judgment on an officer of his department, and it is clear th<tt he never even went · through the drafting-room. The commission have made their report, that the Minister's action in spending £316 on the second Public Service Board inquiry was tot:tlly unnecess<try. If thty wanted legal assistance, the Cr·uwn Solicitor was thoroughly competent to carry out the work, and the employment of counsel by the department was absolutely uncalled for. I trust the Minister will not try to 14et out of this, because the Minister stated he told Mr. Brady to engage coun>el after he had heard Jack had done so. I think it cannot be proved that Jack was the first to engage counsel. The Public Service Board made recommendations, and the Minister totally disregarded both the Pubilc Service Board and the rccommendationsof the Public Service Board. He altered their recommendations, and he gave recommendations of his own, that we consider had no regard to the Act at all. I feel sure I am wearying hon. members, but I would like to refer to one more fact. The lYiinister told the Committee that Mr. Jack h~d plenty of time to properly supervise the numerous works under l1is care. He admitted that Mr. Jack had nineteen contracts to look after at one time, hut he said Mr. Jack could very well look ttfter the whole of them. \Veil, we nre told by cmnpetent authorities-! think by Mr. Marsden, ::Y1r. Vernon, lYir. :Ftrguson, and JYir. Murdoch -that two of these contracts were qnite sutlicient for one man to look after. \Vh ile this commission was taking evidence there was a sort of panic in the \Vorh Department, because when we began the number of inspectors in the differem districts w:ts increased. \Vhen Jnck cou1plained of insufficient supervision of work there were three iuspecto"'--Inspector W. T. Jack, Brisbane district; Acting Inspector G. B. Steven"'m, Southern and \Vide Bay district; and temporary Inspector J ohnson, 1Jarling Downs and \Vestern district. \Vhen we began to take evid<>nce there were these inspectors: J. S. Mnrdoch, G. B. S~evenson, Jas. Graham, Arthur Morry, E. H. Alder, W. Atkins, Jas. Graham, A. Lang, Brisbane and districts, and D. B. McSwaine, suburban and south-eastern district~. In addition to those there were J. J. McGee, Toowoomba; P. S. Johnston and some otlicers who were sent out from the drafting-room to do inspection work. Now, I think it has been clearly shown that it was impos,;ible for any one man to look after the work that this one inspector had to look after. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I do think that when the Minister calls upon other


people to reflect "'nd apologise for statements they m»ke, he will also consider that he should apologise and withdraw the statements that he has made concerning the commission. I tell the hon. gentleman, and I tell this House, and through thi; Hou'e the people of the country who know me, that I have nothing to reproach myself with. I have done my duty to the best of my ability and according to what I believe to he right. I have no regret for anything I have done, and I believe the time will come, if our recommendations are adopted, when such a reform will take place in the ·works Department tlmt there will be no n1ore occasion for Rovnl CornrniRsions or such Public Service Board iuq uiric,s as have taken place during the last eighteen months. The Royal Commission had a duty to perform and they have performed it fearlessly. They have strongly recommended that the department should have a competent !J.,ad. \Vhat would be thought of General Roberts sen<ling a regiment of soldiers into the field in South Africa without a competent commander? That competent head should be an architect. 'rhe gentleman at present holding the office of Government Architect is e, most competent bridge builder. The bridgeB carried out by 1\Ir. Bmdy are a credit to him. But the time has arrived-as is conclusively shown by the evidence given before the Royal Commission-that a competent architect, a man conversant with buildings, should he put at the head of this the most important department in the colony of Queensland.

At eight minutes to 12 o'clock, The· CHAIRMAN said : In accorr'ance with

Standing Order No. 171, I call upon the hon. member for Dalby, l\Ir. Bell, to relieve me in the chair.

1\Ir. BELL thereupon took the chair. Mr. REID (Enouucm): I am wrry to have to

get up at this late hour of the night to take part in a debate, out of which, though rather intt3resting fron1 son1e point8 of view-, I do not see that any good will come. But on several grounds I am impelled to speak. I am thoroughly ''onversant with the works carried out by the department, having had a long experience in the building trades ; and on personal grrmnds I want to rebut some of the statements which have been made and put into the report of the commission. If the commis8ion had confined itself to inquiring into the administration of the \Vorks Department, ldt out all personal f,?eling examined the varioce buildings that have bee~ erected within the last few years, and taken the evidence of people with inform,;tion and knowledge, the result of their labours would htwe been good. That they did not do. From beginning to end they were occupied in whitewashing one individual and blackening another in the department. It was s><id that this inquiry into the Agricultural Building and the i::ltock Institute was brought about by a man named EAly. Being thoroughly conversant with the subject, and knowing Kelly, and the reasons why those buildings we~e bronght under the no~ice of the department, I gn·e that a most emphatJC denial. To mv own knowledge neither Mr. Rol>ertson nor ·Kelly knew each other until they met at the \Vorks Department. \Vhy Kelly took it up was this. The hon. member for Brisbane North. Mr. Macdonald-Paterson, the memberfor the Valley, and myself, and one or two others, introduced a deputation of stonema~ons to the \Vorks Department with reference to the new lands office. The masons were very anxiouK that that building should ~e built of stone. Mr. Brady was personally m favour of stone, but pointed out that a brick building with a cement fac'l would be very

much cheaper. I was hauled over the coals by several of the buildi11g trades for asking that the bnilding should be of stone. Kelly, who is a pL>Rterer, and who be!ieved that a brick building with a cement face would last aK long aR stone, took theque,tion up, o.nd put his views before the department in a letter. He did not consult any person before writing that letter, as the commission tried to prove, and to say that he, in conjunction with l\fr. ltobertson, brought about the inquiry, is to my own knowledge an absolute fabrication. Kelly, as men in the building trade know, is a very good plasterer, and like most rnechanics he was anxious to see h l~ own trade go ahead. The bricklayers aho were anxious to see a good building put up. The way public buildings have been con· structed lately in Brisbane is not only a disgrace to the department and to the Government, but to the city itself. 'fradeRmen like Kelly and others I could mention were anxious to see the buildings improve, and inspectom carry out the work they were appointed to do. The hon. member for Moreton stated that Kelly bronght this up simply through spite against \Vhite. I deny that, and the evidence will prove it. Kelly had no objeclion tn \Vhite, but he did object to a man t>lking up work who wonld not em]•loy mechanics thoroughly conversant with their trade, hut who only wanted men who would slum over the work. Such work is a disgrace to a building, and no good mechanic would have his name attached to it. That was the sole rettson why Kelly and others took up this question. I will now deal with the c~se of a man who has

been very severely handled by this [12 p.m.] commission, and pa~e after ];age

of evidence was taken in trying to prove that Mr. Robertson was connected with his bnsiness in some way. I know both Gurton and Kelly, and I know that they are both good plasterers. Mr. Gortnn wanted to tender for this job under the \Vorks Department, but he was ad vi sed not to, because the \Vorks Department officials would not listen to him. Now, wme friends of Mr. J·ack's have statPd outside this House that these two men were instigated by Mr. Robertson to bring the whoh' of this business about-to bring charges against l\lr. Jack; but I deny that. I wish to get away from the personal 'part of this matter, but, from the '"ay the evidence has heen taken, I am really compelled to go into the whole question, Mr. Gorton at one time sold a comp<'"ition called "an tine," to which the l\IiniAer has referred to-night ; and when Mr. Gorton and Mr. Robertson were giving evidence, the members of the commission tried to prove that Mr. Robertson had gone out of his way, as Under Secretary, to try and get this "antine" used in the \Vorks Department. '!.'hey insinnated that Mr. Robertson had some interest in its rnanufactnr,, and ssJe-that it was a composition made by Mr. Gorton, and that Mr. Robertson w"'s advancing money to him to e:trry on the production of this composition. Nothing of tbe kind, for this corn position is made by a firm in Sydney, and Mr. Gorton is only the agent for it here. I can say that it is as good whiteant stuff as I have ever seen, for I have used it myself. Mr. Hannington, the senior inspector, reported on it years ago, and afterwards its use in the department was done away with. I am only referring to that to prove that Mr. Robertson had no connectinn with the manufacture of this "anti ne." Now, I have for a number of years always looked upon lYir. Jack as a strong persrmal friend of mine, for he lived beside me for a long time at Toowong, and we had a good many chats together; but I could give the House a good deal of information about the way in which he has tried to injure Mr.


Robertson's name. Now, I never had much to do with Mr. Robert3on. I only spoke to him once, for whenever I went to the Works Dep>1rt· ment I aw>tys saw Mr. Brady and he understood what I wanted. I did not go to Mr. Robertson, because I knew he was not a professional man in cnnnec~ion with the buiiding trade, and therefore what I have said is only in justitication of Mr. Robertson's char.wter as Under Secretary. Now, I have here a circular letter, copies of which have been sent to some of the Ministers and to the Cogrier, which I will read, and then hon. members can draw their own condusions why the 111 tt'el'.i c 'ntained in it have been 1nade puulic. H is c:1iefly oa tne strength of the statements made in this circular that I have risen to-night to speak. I am not going to say how it came into my pos.session, but it reads-

)'lr. Robertson instigated 11. Kcll v to attack ,Jack in a letter. Kelly complied, hoping to get at Bradr, upon whom he had a do\vn. Kelly ha . .: confessed this to :\Ir. J. Oampbell, senior. Reference to Ur. Campbetl is permitted.

I may say that l'!Ir. Campbell has denied that. The circular goes on to say-

After }fr. Finncy's first election two stouemas.ons named_ S. l\Iackestry and Eli Gorton, both rampant

. Labour men, received work through 1Ir. ltobertson. G01·ton is a specially violent IALbour man, and Tieid's-

That refers to my self-right-hand man. Gorton has now anothDr billet.

There is one sentencA in this circular that I will not read, for obvious rensons. The rest of the circular letter reads-

After 3!r. I•~inney's election, JI.:Ir. Robertson immediateJy inquired about the vonchors for the furniture supplied by :Jfr. Finney for Government House, :tnd had the account not been proYr'd to have "been paid before the day of nomination, 3-lr. Finney "\\ould have been unseated.

Mr. ~funay, the 3'Ii.nister for ,,-arks, is very much struck with Mr. RC\t)e1·tson, and is (·ertainlv biased in his favour. So that iftherenort onl\Ir. Jacks is dealt with during the l'rcmiel''s al)scnce np North, ::\.fr. Jack will stauct a poor show of getting fah· play.

This circular was sent to Ministers, to the Courier, and others to try and prove that lYir. Jack's downfall was brought about through politicnl feeling. Hon. members will see that on the face of this document. Now, I don't know anything about Mr. Robertson's politics; but I wish to state that there is one p.,mgraph that only Mr. Jack and myself knew anything about, and what I complain about is the dastardly and contemptible and mean way in which the matter is brought into this circular. It has been stated that lYlr. Jack is a "white man " that he only wants fair play, and that he wants to fight fair and square. If it had not been for· the peculiar position I am placed in by this circular beinq issued, I might not have spoken at all to-night. After I was defeated at the last general election for Toowong by Mr. Finney, I ascertained that Mr. Finney had a contract to carry out certain work <tt Government House, and I said that I thonght that any man who had a contract under the Government should not hold a seat in this House. Mr. Jack was supposed to be an exceptionally good friend of mine. It was said that he had got me numbers of votes, and he comes from the same part of the country that I do. I spoke to lYlr. ,Tack on this matter, unknown to any other person in Queensland, and I did not even :efer to the subject to any member of my committee. I knew l'!Ir. Jack was in a Government position, and I did not want to influence him one way or the other, hut I went up to him and said : "Look here, Jack, can you find out for me if l\-Ir. I<'inney has got a contract for work to be done at Government House." He said,

1900-6 z

"Look here, old Robertson put this thing through two days befure the election." I then said, "Oh, then, that stops that show," This is exactly what took place, and here we find this information in this circular. The matter was only mentioned becween Mr. Jack and myself, aud probably if I had mentioned it tu anybody

·else, I would have been prepared to go to the law courts and fight JYh. Finney over the business. That is why I say that this contemptible thing could only have been put forth by Mr. Jack. I do not know anything about Mr. Robertson's political opinions except that he and his family were alw:ws put down in Toowong as very strong anti-labour. There are other things in this document which, as I have said, were only known to lVIr. ,Jack and myself, but, as there is a young lady's name mentioned, I do not wish to bring it into this debate, but it c•.1nfirms me in my belief that this document was issued by none but Mr. Jack.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC "WORKS: Hear, hear!

l'vlr. l{,EID : This g·ot up my indignation, and, in justice to Mr. Robertson, I give the whole thing a fiat denial that he ever did anything for these men because they were supporters of the Lal.Jour party. Another thing that has been brought against Mr. Robertson is that he tried to get G01·ton and Kelly on to the rail way works. The cummission tried very hard to prove that the Secretary for Railways used his influence to get Kelly a job at the culverts on the lYiain Hange as a reward for bringing about the inquiry ahout Jack. Now, I can say that neither the Secretary for Railways nor the Works Department even knew that those two men were at wo,k there.

The SECI\ETARY FOR PCBLIC vVORKS: Hear, hear!

Mr. REID: Gorton got a job on account of his ability. He had been an inspector on the milway, but be lost his work owing to the stoppage of railway works. He had a good record m the department, and when there was plastering work to do the engineer in charge of the work, knowing that he was a good man, gave him a job, and he took Kelly as his mate. I do not believe that anyone besides the engineer on the range knew that they were working there. l'!Ir. Robertson had absolutely nothing to do with it, and yet the commission tried for page after page of the evidence to prove that they were appointed for political reasons, and to prove that Mr. Robertson was mixed np with the Labour party. Anot;her thing that they tried to prove, in order to show JYir. Rohertsnn's connection with the Labour party in Toowong, was in reference to the employment of Gorton on Victoria Bridge. At that time things were very dull, and he went there to collect tickets, and the commission went out of their way to impute dishonesty to him, and, unfortunately, io back up the commission, l\Ir. Robertson himself seemed in his evidence to say the same thing. :From some of his evidence, he seemed to be very flurried ar worried, because be gave answers that were absolutely incorrect. I believe that he afterwards contradicted them when he went home and had time to think it over. I give an emphatic denial to the statement that Gorton was gnilty of dishonesty when employed on Victoria Bridge. The practice was when people were crossing the bridge to give them a ticket, and tear it np when yon received their 3d. Instead of tearing the tickets up when he received them, Gorton put thethreepences in his bag, and afterwards tore up all the tickets together and gave in the money, and on that they tried to make out that he acted dishonestly. He has been a friend of mine for years and yet~rs, and he iG just as honest as, if not


more honest than, themembersofthe commission. The whole thing was brought up with the object of proving that Mr. Roberts,,n was connected with the Labour party. I shall now deal with Mr. Jack and his work, which is the most important matter before the OornmittefJ. The hon. member for Moreton stated that he considered the Agricultural Building and the Stock Institute very fair jobs.

Mr. 0AMPBELL : According to their specifications.

Mr. REID : Well, as one who has had a very long experience in the trade, and as one who has supervised work in the old country-good jobs, and doing "field-ranging" in London, putting up "jerry" buildings-I say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the Stock Institute is the most disgraceful building I have ever seen.

HoNOURABLE 11EMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. RJMD: I speak as one who knows what

he is talking about. I dn not know whether the Government Architect, Mr. Jack, Mr. Murdoch, or Mr. Pye is to blame for it, but any man who visited the building and passed a voucher for it deserves to get the sack straight away-I do not care who he 1s.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. REID: I do not wish to say that Mr.

Jack is to blame more than anybody els<', except in this one particular-that he was the inspector there.

Mr. ANNEAR: The Government Architect signed the vouchers.

Mr. REID : I blame the lot of them, but I wish to point out that the Government Architect depends a great deal upon his subordinate officers. It was Mr. Jack's particular work to report upon the Stock Institute, and to see that the work was properly carried out. It does not matter whether he visited it when the work was first begun, whether he visited it when it was half-way up, or when he visited it. At one visit any tradesman could see that it was a disgrace to everyone connected with it, and, if Mr. Jack had put his foot down and condemned it, I should have said that he was doing his duty. But, when he passed the work, and allowed the vouchers to be signed, knowing what the work wa~ like, then I say he is more to blame than the others, being the inspector who had to look after the job.

Mr. AKNEAR: Have you seen the stockyard? Mr. REID : I have seen the stockyard, but I

never saw a stockyard the same as the one up there. I may say, in passing, that the specifications, the building, and everything conmcted with it, are a disgrace to the department. They even drew out the plans of tbe drains to run up hill.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. REID : The whole place is a disgrace,

and Mr. Jack, being the inspector, is more to blame than the others.

Mr. ANNEAll: He is only one of four. Mr. REID: I know that, but he was there to

see that the work was right. It has been stated to-night that he was tno busy. We have been told by the hon. member for Moreton that that is perfectly true. Well, we will give him the full benefit of it; but it did not require half-adozen visits to see bow the work was being done. It is no good people telling me how an inspector should go about his work. It has been stated here and by the Government Architec', and so forth, that it required one man to attend to tlw the Ag-ricultural Building and the Stock Institute. Perhaps it did, but if men need to have an inspector on the job the whole time to watch everything they are doing, then the sooner the department is rid of such contractors the bettex for the department. !

do not care wbo the inspector is, the builder can swindle him if he wants to. I have had to do it myself. I have had to do work that I knew was not right, and when the inspector came on the job I had to smother it up and tackle something else until he bad gone, or I should not have been kept on. I say that all contractors, more or less, break the specifications, but I hope few break them in the same way as they were broken at the Stock Institute. Therefore, I say it is no use making excuses for Jack. Take the floors of that building, for instance. They are like the back of one's hand. The joists have all been twisted in the sun, and never straightened. The proper plan, of course, is to take a strai~ht edge and etraighten the joists before you lay the floor. That was not done in this instance. 'Why, if you stand a chair on the floor three legs are on the ground and one up in the air, and the cases standing round the wall are all an} how. Now, in reference to the brickwork : It is a 9-inch wall inside, and 4~ outside, with a cavity in between. I do nut blame Mr. Jack so much for this; it is an example of the ways of the office. They put on a roof on that 4~-inch wall, which was originally constructed to carry iron, and then they alter the specification and make that same roof carry tiles. They do not put in any ties across the rafters, or strengthen the roof in any way, and the consequence is that the weight bulges the walls out. After that they had to put in tie beams and iron plates to pull the walls into iine again, and even now they are all twisted and out of line. I do not specially blame .Mr. Jack for all that, but I say he is equally culpable with all tbe others in the office. When the Stock Institute was going up I went to the w,.rks Office and spoke to Mr. Brady about it, alth<,ngh I was not a member of Parliament at the time. I told him that the building was a disgrace, and asked why the department allowed the contractor to go on like that. \Vhat was the excuse? The tender was very low. There you have the whole question. The Government do not give a proper price fur their work. Tbe people in the Works Depar!ment, instead of informing the Government that the work cannot be done for the money, allow these ridiculously small tenders to be accepted, with the consequence that for the last ten or eleven years prices have been sinking steadily lower and lower, until it has come to such a pass that no one can put up a proper building under a Government specification. Mr. Brady knows that that is perfectly true.

Hon. D. H. DALllYMPLE: A good inspector should not pass the work.

Mr. REID : That is exactly the point. That is the point th:>t Kelly and Gorton take up. T s·o.y if a tender comes in, and it is known that the tenderer cannot put up the building for the money, the Government have no right to accept the price ; and if they do let the job at an unprofitable figure, then the way to stop this inferior work is to make the contractor stick to his bargain and crush him out of existance with his sloppy work. That is the best of all cures. Make the contractor carry out the specifications. Svme say that it is haru upon the contractor. It may be hard upon the contractor who cuts prices down to such a disgraceful level; but it is right for the contractor who wants to do good work, but wants a fair price for it, and in the end it will be good for the colony, for it will have the result that we sha.Jl have buildings erected which will be monuments of good work, such as we see in the law courts. What I find fault with is that instead o! the commission looking into the real work of the \Vorks Department they hold up Mr. Jack as an emblem of purity and everything that is

Supply. [30 NOVEMBER. J Supply. 2275

good. That is how the whole difficulty has arisen. There has been too much of the personal element in this commission, instead of which a searching inquiry should have been made into the department as " whole. The questions put by the chairman of the commission were poisoned from the very beginning, and I say that without fear of contradiction. I wondered where the deuce thov conld be getting their information from. "The unfair· ness of the whole thing was most marked. The questions put to Kelly and Gorton showed that the whole thing came from Jack and other people who were tryin:; to down lVIr. Robertson, becau'e J"ck was going to be sent to Townsville. If he had not had such powerful friends behind him as the hon. munber for Moreton and his father, we would have heard very little of this fuss. I thought at one time that Jack had been unfairly treated, but when I found him issuing a circular such as the one to which I have referred, knowing it as he did to be a deliberate lie, I turned against him. Now, in reference to the Toowong Post Office. When that first came under my notice, things were going on in the usual Government way. Certain thing-s we .. e being put up and pulled down ag-ain, and I wondered who was going to pay for them all. I heard about the specification, and in order to satis!y myself I w~m to see Mr. Brady, and asked Ill m some questwns about the specification. I aho went to the Ministe·r in the House and told him certain things. Mind, I had no feeling against the contractor or anyone on the job. I only knew that certain thiogs were being done that ought not to be done, and I spoke to the Minister about them. He told me that it was imposolible fo.r him to remember all those technicalities, and asked m" to write tht'lll down on paper. I then came to the table h:re and wrote down there and then a nnmber of questions. The commission nwde a gi eat deal of fuss over what they called an anonymous letter which was sent to the Minister, and they got into a terrible state about it. Now, when I wrote what I did I had no intention whatever of using it except for the purpose of getting those questions answered. I wanted to know why certain things were done. I never for a moment thought it necessary to sign the letter. It was more of a reminder than anything else to the Minister, and when I h,,ttrd all this noise about an anonymous letter, I began to ask myself what it was all about. He said he took "it to Mr.

Brady, and from Mr. Brady to Mr. [12·30 p.m] Pye, Mr. Jack's bosom friend, and

somehow Mr. Pye and Mr. Jack happened to meet at the Toowong Post OfficP, and every question I asked was answered, and they were all amwered differently. The work was carried out different to the ~pecificatione. I was satisfied that I was right; but the individual who went to inspect the work was the cause of the work being bad, and that was Mr. Pye himself. Perhaps, according to the money paid, and the plans and specifications, the job was good enough ; but, for a Government job, I consider it is a disgrace to the place. I want things tn be done as they should be done. I don't want such a condition of thing that a contractor tries to get home by doing bad work.

Mr. CAMPBELL: You are trying to get home on Jack.

Mr. REID: No. I only mentioned the Toowong Post Office because the hon. member for Maryborough made a great deal of that building being inspected twelve months after it was built. The hon. member for Mnreton has referred me to the following portion of the evidence:-

Bll .Mr. Petrle: In writing that letter, had you :wy wish to lnjnre any p(~rson in the 1\rol·ks Department? The reason I wrote it was not to injure any particular

man in the department, but to come at l\-Ir. White, the "jerry" coutractor. I have been watching him a long tim(', not for weeks but for years.

It is what I stated before-that \Vbite and such contractors as those are no credit to the building trade.

Mr. ANN EAR: There is not a better plasterer in Australia.

Mr. REID : I am not speaking about the man's ability as a plasterer, but I say that, in consequence of the price he gets for his work, he is knnwn in the trade as a jerry-builder, and I would like to see \Yhite and many more deprived from gettiqg Government work, or else ?ompelled to dro proper work under proper speCification". Mr. Kelly had no de8ire to get at White a,; an individual; but, as a jerry-builder, he wanted to get hirn stoppeJ from carrying on works for the Government, It was not from spite or viciousness that Kelly did this, because he would have done exactly the same if it had been anvone else; and I think a man is ju•tified in" trying to put a stop to disgraceful jerry work, and getting good work done for the Government. I would like to remind the hon. member for Toombnl of the work his father and family have done in Brisbane-work that will be a monument to them long after the family are dead. His father could not have competed with those jerry-builders and paid the wagp; he paid to his men. I say that the eotnmi,;sion should have inquired into the question of tenders and specifications, and the way the works an' carried on generally. But the commi>sion was composed of men who were not equal to doing that work properly. The hon. member for Maryboroagh has had experience of bnckwurk, but that is about all he knows of building The Hon. Mr. Cowlishaw is an architect but he is past the age when he could be exp;cted to go into the matter with any vigour, There should have been on the commission men of energy-including a good architect, a good builder, a good foreman and inspector of works connected with a good firm. What do the hon. member for Nnndah and the hon. member for Toombnl know about these matters? They are very good in their ow!1 particular way, but no~ fit to be put on a commissiOn to get at the real workmg of the \Vorks Department, and what the working of th>tt department should be. I find fault with the Government for appointing that commission. I do not know whether the members were appointed as sops, and I don't care. The only thing I am interested in is seeing that the Works Department 1S placed on a proper footir:g, so th:'-t the disgraceful work that has been carrred on m the past will be no longer possible. Whether the Government appoint Mr. Brady or some other architect, I trust that this exposure, if it has no other effect, will result in Government contracts being carried out aceordin(( to _specifications. One reason why I am supportmg the Minister, who is a political opponent of minea member of a Government for which I have very little rEBpect politically-if it had not been for the present Minister for \Vorks sticking to Kdly, these things would never have com_e out. I scty that with a full knowledge of the ~rrcnrnstances. Y on may as well appeal to an weberg as ask a Government official to review his own wnrk, and that is the reason they suppressed Ke.lly's letters. Kelly, however, is a man who can take care of himself even if there were a million men against him, and he has carried this matter through to the benefit of the Govern· ment, to the benefit of the people of the colony, and to his own detriment, because he has been boycotted by all those jerry-builders ever since he exposed thmn.

Mr. C.HJPBELL : He said he wonld not work for them on any conditions,


Mr. REID : And he would not work for them if he could help it, but he is like m<tny more men, and must take work when he needs it, even under objectionable conditions. I say the Minister in findirg him a job has only recom· pensed him for the good he has done for the department and the public. I could have gone further into this question and have shown that Mr. Robertson has been maligned and abused, and I may say, if it afl'.>rds any Ratisfaction to Mr. Jack and his friends, that if it had not been for the worry and persecution he suffered in this matter Mr. Robertson would have beenali veto.day and supporting his family. The CO£Ilmission are not to blame for what has happened. I may say that one man told me personally that he would have that man down or be the death of him. Another of the friends of Mr. Jack said when Mr. Robertson was laid up that he hoped he would die before he g-ot up.

Mr. MAXWELL : Why don't they sack Mr. Jack?

Mr. REID : I was just about to refer to that point. I am not SUlJporting the Minister, except in his ~,ction in taking Kelly through, in which I think he done his duty. He went to the buildings with Kelly, who pointed out to him the defects in the work, and although the hon. gentleman knows nothing about buildings he saw at once the rascality which had been carried on. But do hon. members think I support the Minister in the weak way he has dealt with this question? I do not aor.>rove of his vacillation in that matter. If the non. gentleman had any backbone he would have cleared up this matter properly or else have burst up the Cabinet, or have left them and exposed the pernicious influence which is at work. I know the power that is behind the throne. The Minister has had a lot to fight against, and I could name the individuals who have been the cause of the difficulty. If it had not been for their influence there would have been no necessity for the in· qu_iry which has taken phce in connection with th1s matter, and we should not have had this waste of time to-night. If the Government or the Secretary for Works had had the courage to take the bull by the horns, we should have bad a reformation in the administration of the department. I give the Minister credit for what he has done, for sticking to Kelly, and also for the way in which he stuck to Mr. Robertson when he was being persecuted when he was doing his duty in his own particular way. If the members of the commission who have spoken about the difference,, which existed between certain officers were less anxious about individ11als and more anxious to see good work done and public buildings erected, tbey would have taken a different course. If they had let a job to a man privately, and that man had done such work as was done in the cases in question they would h~ve. refused to pay him one penny: But because 1t 1s a Government job, and Mr. Jack and others are very nice fellows, they would see the country bled and bad work passed, ~imply for the sake of friendship. If I had my way I would clear the whole lot out of the department. Primarily I blame Mr. Jack for many of the bad jobs, but I also blame everyone in the department who was on those jobs and did not condemn them. I trust that the Government will see that the department is cleared out, or else that the men who are there are b~ace:J. up to do the work properly. I have no objection to any of them being kept on, not evE>n to Mr. Jack, 1f they do their work properly. All I want to see is that the work of the depar'ment is done properly. I went to Mr. Brady about .two years ago, and suggested to him that more mspectors should be appointed, and the

excuse he gave for not appointing more was that the Government would not give him the money. I also went to the Minister a long time ago, and spoke to him about the way the work was being carried out, and suggested that a plaste-rer, and if necessary a painter and a plumber, should be appointed as inspectors. He said, "What can we do with all those men? How can we find work for them?" It is very easy to find work for them. There is a lot of work done between Brisbane and Rockhampton, and each of those tradesmen could be employed in inspecting the work with which he was specially acquainted. For instance, Mr. Jack, who is a very good mechanic, might go to the Stock Institute and not notice the defects in the brickwork, but a bricklayer would observe them with his eyes shut, and condemn the work straight away. Then you could send along a plumber, and he would examine the work with which he is familiar, and so on. After they had inspected that job they could go to other jobs in the Southern division, and in that way you would have each branch 'lf the work supervised by men who had a practical grip of it. But how are inspectors appointed? Quite recently the department held an examination, and some men spent £8 or £10 to attend that examination, which was a humbug and a farce. A lot of tricky questions were put on the paper, and the man who got the most marks got the job. Why, the most fatheaded fool who did not know anything about the work might get the most marks. That is not the way to select men for inspectors. The proper way was to appoint men with the best credentials as practical tradesmen, and then if they did not do their duty satisfactorily sack them. I believe there were some thirty or forty candidates at that examination, but the whole thing was a farce, and the department is more or less a farce. I trust that things in the department would be thoroughly looked into, and this jerry-building put a stop to.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. GIVENS (Cairns): I do not propose to

enter into the question at any great length at this late hour, and it is somewhat unfortunate that from the way the matter is before us we have no opportunity of giving an expression of opinion upon it one way or the other. It is to be regretted that this commission when it was appointed did not devote more of its attention to investigating the working of the department and less to the personal squabbles between officers of the department. So far as I can see, the main result of the work of the commission has been to censure the Minister as head of the department, to censure the late Under Secretary, and to white· wash one or two of the officials, and notably Mr. ,Jack and Mr. Bell. I would not know eithtr if I •aw them, and I never saw the late Under Secretarv more than two or three times; but having attended the sittings of the commission two or three times I say, without the slightest hesitation and with the most absolute conviction o.f its truth, that if ever there was a biased tribunal ever sat to try any is me, that was the most grossly biased tribunal I ever saw.

HoNOUHABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. GIVENS: And especiaily so far as the chairman was concerned. Anybody who sat there and listened to the questions that were put would see at once that the chairman had constituted himself the special pleader and the special advocate for Mr. Jack and one or two officers of the department, and though he talked very glibly to·night about the persecution of officer<~ of the department, he was the special persecutor of the late Under ~ecretary.

Mr. ANNEAR: That is your opinion.


Mr. GIVENS: That is my opinion, and we know that the whole thing has been a bit of pique n,nd jealousy on the part of the hon. mern· ber because he does not occupy the pos:tion of Secretary for 'vVorks instead of the hon. gentleman who does occupy it.

Mr. ANNEAR: You do not believe my word? Mr. GIVENS: The hrm. member's word!

Do we not know for a fact that he was always blowing to his constituents that when the next Ministry was formed he would be a member of it?

Mr. ANN!cAR: I never rlirL Mr. G IV ENS : And in order to justify himself

he had to kick up a row with somebody. Mr. ANNEAR : You should state what is true. Mr. GIVENS: Does the hon. gentleman mean

to say that I am stating what is not true? Mr. ANNEAR : Yes. I deny your statement.

I never told my constituents anything of the kind.

Mr. GIVENS: Or any of them? Mr. ANNEAR: Or any one of them. Mr. GIVENS: I have very definite know

ledge which leads me to think altogether different. The members of the commission have attempted to whitewash Mr. Jack, and they have said that he is a persecuted individual, that he is a first-class officer, and should be reinstated. In fact, they go go far as to censure the Minister in order to whitewash that officer. Well, according to that officer's own evidence, given before the Public Service Board inquiry, he is a vile spy and traitor in that department. That is what that man is. According to his own evidence, he watched the late Under Secretary for years, he spied on him for years, >tnd the paltry little knowledge he obt>tined he kept up his sleeve that he might hold it in terror over the late Under Secretary.

HONOURABLE ME>IBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. AN NEAR : Not true. Mr. REm : I know it for " fact myself. I

could have told you more about that myself. I know the sort of spy he was.

Mr. GIVENS: He watched at the entrance to the 'vVorks Department, he spied upon him over at the Tre:tsury Hotel, he watched him going up the street, he dodged him up to the rail way station to see if he would take a cab, and then he accused him of cheating the department out of 7s. 6d. cab fare. If Mr. Jack had had such an anxious deSire for the purity of the Civil Service, or the welfare of the department in which he was employed, and if he was doing the spying for the good of the department, he would h:we immediately disclosed any peculations he discovered, and have shown what he discovered to the Minister ; but he was spying upon his superior officer simply that he might obtain some knowledge that would give him "ome power that he could hold in terror over the chief of his departmeut for his own particular benefit.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. GIVl<~NS: That is proved cnnclnsively

from Mr. ,Tack's own evidence. I was taught from my earliest boyhood to hate, detest, and abhor spies and traitors, an cl .Mr. Jack is the very essence of a spy, and the very e"'ence of a traitor. That is the position I take up. As soon a" ever Mr. Jack found he was not gPtting all the favours he thought he was entitled to, he immedi>ttely started to kick up a row with the Undrr Secretary, but if the late Under Secretary had given Mr. Jack all the favours he thought he was entitled tu we would never have beard a single wcrd about any of the petty peculatiuns which Mr. Jack accused him of hRving been guilty of.

HoNOURABLE l'VIEMBERS : Hear, hear! Mr. GIVENS: I hold the Minister worthy of

censure for not having dischargnd ,Jack as soon as he found that the charges he had m>trle against his superior officer, with an ulterior

motive, had not been sustained. The hon. member for Moreton has been very ardent in his advocacy of Mr .• Tack, and from the discussion one would think that ,Jack was of more importance than the department. He overshadows the department and avery issue put before the Royal Commission.

Mr. CAliiPBEr.r.: The Minister accused Jack, and I defended him.

Mr. G IVl~NS : I don't envy the hon. member the task of defending a man like Jack.

~fr. CAMPBELL : Re is as good a man as you are.

Mr. ANNEAR: He is a ten times better man than evr>r you were in your life.

Mr. GIVENS: Is he? Well, upon my soul, I am very pleaeetl indeed to find that the hon. member for Maryhorough does not for a single moment preoume to place me in the same class as Mr. Jack.

Mr. ANNEAR : Because Mr. Jack is a gentleman.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : Order! Mr. GIVENS: If Mr. Jack is a gentleman,

that is more th>tn I c>tn say for the hon. member for Marybnrough.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : Order! I am afrnid that the hon. member for Maryborough me, de use of an unparliamentary remark.

Mr. ANNJoJAR: \V ill you tell me what it is? The ACTING CHAIRMAN :The hon. mem

ber distinctly a sed an interjection which inferred that the hon. member for Cairns was not a gentleman. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr. AN NEAR: I assure you I never inferred it. 'vVhat I stated was that Mr. Jack was a gentleman. I don't infer for one moment that the hon. member for Cairns is not a gentleman.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : Do I understand the hon. member to assure me that he did not mean what I thought he did?

Mr. ANN EAR: I beg to assure you that I did not mean what you thought I meant.

Mr. G !YENS: I am not finding fault with the hon. member for Moreton for advocating the cause of his friend Mr .• Tack. It is the duty of one friend to defend another. I have not the slightest doubt that the hrm. member has very good reasons for regarding ~1r. Jack as his friend, or we would not have heard his advocacy of J nck's cause to-night. The hon. member for Maryb<;rough said that th6 Minister should have adopted the report of the commission as it was borne out by the evidence. I consid~r that the commission have proved that

contention right up to the hilt, be[1 a. m.] cause there are very few of the

conclusions >trrived at which the commis,ion were anything like unanimous upon. I think more than half the commission did not sign the report censuring the Minister and whitewashing Mr. Jack and the other offict>rs who were in trouble. They disclaimed some of the conclusions which are put in, and, I believe, wrongly put in the report. As a matter of fact, it is not a report of the commissi<m, but a minority report. The hon. member for Maryborough said there was not one angry word said by any member of the commission, or, in fact, by anybody else. \Veil, I was present at two or three sittings of the commission, and if ever nn hon. gentlewan occupying a position on a judici>tl tribunal tried to bounce witnesses, it was the chairman. He bounced the witnesses in a most arrogant fashion, and he tried in my own hearing to bounce the Minister, but I am very glad the Minister was not bounceable on t.hat occasion. The evidence brought out by the commission is worth absolutely nothing, because it is brought up by a biased commission, the members of which only asked such questions as would support the


conclusions they had previously decided to arrive at. The Mini8ter, who the chairman said in my hearing- was most vicious and biased, showed every courtesy to the commission, and he stood far more than I would have done had I been in his position. We have heard something about a letter that Mr. Anne::r re<td from a contractor who gave a send-off to Mr. Jack when be was being traneferred to Townsville, to show that the commission were not biased in favour of Mr. Jack. I do not place any value on that letter, for the reason that the very fact of the send-off being given showed that the contractors regarded Mr. Jack as a good friend to themselves, and they did not want to part with him. Any instlf'C· tor who does his duty honestly and manfully is bound to run counter with the contractors sooner or later, and my own experience is tbat no inspector can be absolutely in the favour of all the contractors, unle;s he gives undue favours to the contractors, or, in other words, favours the contractors rather than does justice to the department and the country which find the money to pay hon. members. Then as to there being no better inspector in the public service than Mr. Jack, we have it in evidence that some of the work which Mr .• hck inspected wag in a most disgraceful condition, and should never have been passed by any inspector. That being so, I fail to see how the commission arrived at the conclusion that he is the best inspector in the public service. All these facts show that the commission entered upon its work in a biased fashion, that they have brought in a biased verdict, and, therefore, no ma,n who has the interest of the public at heart, or who has any desire to see fair play between man and man, would place any value whatever either on the report or the work of the commission. I am one of those who think the Minister is deserving of censure in this matter, because, knowing the conduct that Mr. Jack had been guilty of, and knowing the conduct one or two others had been guilty of, it was undoubtedly his duty to immediately discharge those officers. He knew that the department was in a disgraceful state, that the conduct of these officers had caused a condition of disorganisation, and that as long as they remained it could not be properly organised. The Minister m<tv contend that he had not the power to discharge tho~e men, but he took upon himself to alter the recommendations of the Civil Service Board, and if he had the power to do that, he bad the power to disregard their recommendations altogether, and sack this man straight away. It wa.s his bounden duty to do that; and had he done it the trouble and expense of this commission would have been avoided. Then, take the case of Bell, the poor craven creature who haq given the most abject apology ever penned by the hand of a man-a man reduced so low that he would do anything and say anything to keep his billet, and the commission have tried to whitewash Mr. Bell to the same extent as they have Mr. Jack, and, as they have not succeeded in whitewashing Mr. Bell, who has admitted his guilt and made a most humble and abject::tpology, I think we are justified in crmcluding that they have not been any more successful with Mr. Jack. With regard to Mr. Robertson, on three m four occasions I have had to see him on departmental matters for my constituents, and I always found him courteous, atteHtive, and with such a knowledge of the working of his department that he cou d tell me n,t once the details of any subject I inquired about. I think the,t is rather a good recommendation for an under secretary. It is, at all events, one which I cannot give to all under secretaries I have had dealings with. Therefore I L1il to see where the late Under Secretary was deserving of censure. As a matter

of fact I believe the commission have arrived at an absolutely wrong conclusion, and have turned the matter topsy-turvey. Instead of whitewashing Mr. ,Jack and Mr. Bell and censuring the late Under Secretary, they should have g-iven a certificate for honesty and capacity to the late Under Secretary and have censured the otficers whom they have whitewashed. At this late hour of the night I rlo not propose to det1dn the Committee any longer. If by any word of mine I could absolutely condemn the commission and the results of it and at the same time record a vote in favo{•r of the action of the Minister for Works, I should record it unhesit!ttingly. It is not often I am in accord with the gentlemen on the front Treasury bench, but in a case like this, which is altogether outside party politics, it is our du_ty to be fair between n,an and man. The commission treated the Mini:;ter most sh:tmefully, and I do not think his colleagues are acting in a loyal manner towards him, otilerwise they wuuld back him up much more than they do.

The HoME SECRETARY: vVho says they do not back him up?

Mr. GIVENS: If they did they would have got an order from the Governor in Council dismissing every one of those disloyal office:s straight away, Public Service }3oard or no Pubhc Survice Board. If the Minister had been backed up as he ,.ught to have been, after the disgraceful persecution he has been submitted to by a grossly-biased commis~<ion, every one of thoee officers would have been sackecl. If this sort of disloyal conduct is allowed to continue, there will be an end to all organisation in the departments and if officers have nothing better to do than to play the spy on their superiors the sooner thev are kicked out of the servlCe the better. I ho1ie them will be no more of this maudlin sympathy with men who are guilty of such disgraceful conduct.

Mr. PETRIE (Toombul): As one of those terrible cmnmiseioners I think it devolves upon me to say a few wMds. I can safely say that so fnr as I am personally concerned I was not biased in any way, and I can safely say the same for my brother commission''""· I have no axe to grmd. I have acted on my honest judgment on the evidence before us, and am prepared to stand hy the conclusions I c::tme to. I do not back out of them one hit. T am still of the opinion that the Minister had not a proper grip of his department. The hon. gentleman saw fit to-night to bring forward a document ehowing what the expenses of the Works Commiseion were. When people fight I like them to fight fairly, and in this instance I do not think the Minister has done so. But I was astonished that he even came near us. When he ca:rre here we had a job to keep him here, and on one or two occasions I thonght he would clear out altogether.

Mr. MAXWELL: No wonder, the way you trea.ted him.

Mr. PETRIB: I never like to be disrespectful to anybody, or to impute motives. My work on that commission wns clone without fear or favour to anybody, and I believe that if we had brought up a report to suit the Minister we should have been blamed just as much as we are being blamed now. The hon. member for Maryborough referred to a statement of the Minister for Works, that the members of the commission were murderers. That may have heen said in the heat of the moment, but I am sure the hon. gentleman was sorry for it afterwards. We all say things in the heat of the moment that we regret afterwards, and I think the Minister did regret saying that. Not a single member of the r.ommission wished to do any injury to the late Under Secretary-whose lamented dEath we


all deplore-or to any officer in the department. We were appointed to do a certain duty. If we have done it badly the verdict of the public will be against us; but, aR I said before, it appears to me that, no matter what report we brought up, we should not have escaped blamB from some· body. As the question has been gone into at great length by the hon. members for Moreton and Maryborough, I do not intend to say more at present. I regret I had not an opportunity to speak earlier in the evening, and it seems useless continuing the discnosinn fit this late hour. I simply rose to back up the report in every respect. It contains onr honest conclusions, and if they are wrong we are to blame. I am not going . back on my position ; I am !'repared to 'tiCk to my guns, and I know that my brother commissioner" are prepared to do the same. I regret that this discussion has lastRd so long, and I regret exceedingly that many hon. members have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter earlier in the evening. I am not going to prolong the debate, for I think very little good will come out of the report of this commission; but I hope that the Government will adopt a lot of the recommendations we made, and that they will reorganise the "\Vorks Department, for that is wanted, and wanted badly. I think that the sooner our recommendations are carried out and gi ,·en effect to, the better it will be for the department and the country generally.

Mr. MAXWELL (BU?·ke): I think it is inadvisable for this debate to go on any further. I think we have beard sufficient about the Works Department to last this Chamber for wme time. I do not see what good this discussion has done. If any hen. member moved a reduction in the vote, ten to one the members of the commission would vote againot it. I can see very little use in going r,n with this debate any longer. For my own port, I tl.ink that there are a good many officers in the "\Vorks Department who are blameworthy, and I was in hopes that the Jl;lini,ter would have cleared the whole lot out from the top right down to the boy who carries the messages. I think it is time that this was done, and, moreover, I think it is time this debate w"s done. Probably on any other question, under the cireumstances, the hon. member for l\1m·yborough would have got up and moved "that the question be now put." I think we should pass t.his item and 1 hen be. allowed to go home. * Mr. STEPHENSON (Ip8wirh): Although I am reluctant to cause the Committee to sit here la teat night or into the small hours of the moming, I wish to say that I do not arrive at the same conclusion as the hon. member for Burke that this dr bate should be now closed. It is true that I do not approve of all-nightsittings, bntit must be remembered that a considerable time was taken up hy the Minister in opening this debate lctst night, and so some hon. m em hers who wanted to address the Committee bridly have been precluded from saying anything earlier. I confess that I was greatly impressed by a portion of the speech of the hon. member for Enoggera, which was rather a startler to me; and had I been a member of the commisoion which brought up the report that the Committee are now discussing-that is, supposir:g the hon. member's statements are incontrovertible, and they have not at present been disproved-I should have been ashame9 of the fact that my name was attached to th1s report. I have gone through this report pretty carefully, and I certainly do not agree with the hon. member for l\1aryborough that anyone reading the evidence would arrive at the conclusion that he has arrived at-that the report is borne out by the evidenc'. On the contrary, I see very little justification for the language that is used in the report. Of course I

know that that is a matter of opmwn ; but I think that, if the hon. member for Maryborough himself will read through the evi,Jence dispassionately, in his cooler moments, he will see that the evidence by no means endorses his statements.

Mr. ANNEAR: You are the first one I have heard say that.

Mr. STEPHENSON: Neverthele~s, Mr. Bell, that is my opinion. Unfortunately, I have not heard all the speeches of the hon. members who hrtve preceded me, but I say most emphatically that if the hon. member for Maryborough will go through the evidence in his cooler moments that I believe he will arrive at the same conclusion as myself. I might not have spoken at all now only I wish to refer to something which made a great irr,pression on my rniud, and which seems to me to bear out the contention of the hon. member for Enoggeratha.t it was the determination of some people to "down " the Minister for '.V orks or the late Under Secretary, Mr. Rohertson, or both those ge11tlemen. Some little time before this commission started their 'ittings I happened to be speaking to a gentleman who is not connected with either House of Parliament, and who may be supposed to be a disinterestad person, and when the subject of the appointment of this Royal Commission was introduced, he asked me what I thought of tts c"nstitution, and I said that I thought that, as far as I could judge of the qualifications of the members of the commission that the appointments were not bad ones; but I said that I ventured to think that one or two of the members of it might be bi,sed. His reply was, ""\Veil, we shall see something before long," and mark you, J\fr. Bell, this commission had not satat all then. This gentleman further told me that he had seen a string of questions that were to be put to certain witnesses by the members of this commi"ion which would hunt the Minister for "\Vorks "ut of office before he was many weeks older. If the commission had held any sittings when these remarks were made, or if the report of the commission had been framed, I should have said it was very easy to say that then, but it would be very hard to prove it. But there are several hon. members in this Chamber to whom I have repeated that conversation, and I think that they can bear me out in my statements. I said to this gentleman, '' Snrely you don't mean to tell me that the men who are going to sit on this commission have any predetermination to 'down' the Minister or the Under Secretary, or both." He said, "\Veil, I have seen these strings of questions." That conversation made such an impression on my mind that I repeated it to several hon. members. And, bearing in mind th;;t conversation, when I saw the attitude assumed towards the Minister by the chairmnn and another member of the commission, I began to think that there was some justification for the information which this gentleman gave me. And had I been in the position of the Minister for Works I should flatly have declined to answer many of the grossly insulting questions which were put to him. And, moreover, they were, I consider, put in a grossly insulting manner, am! with the deliberate intention of causing the Minister to lose his temper and place him<elf in a wrong r,osition.

:11r. ANNEAR : Not in a grossly insulting mRnner.

Mr. STEPHENSON: I judge from the reports in the nP.wspapers, and, if

[1·30 a. m.] they were not correct, then the hon. member was belied. However, for

that I am not responsible. I did not attend, as a spectator, any sittings of the commission, becaURe, after the conversation that I have referred to, I wanted to keep my mind as free from bias as I could ; but I myself

2280 S1t!f.JP Z!J. [ASSEMBLY.] Suppl;l/•

would not ho,ve submitted for five minutes to the line of examination to w hi eh the Secretary for ·works was subjected, principally at the hands of the hon. ffi('mber for Maryborough. I would have told the hon. m ern ber to get his evidence from any source he liked, but that I would refuBe to sit there and be buiiied by him, bt• 1au•e it was a process of bullying, without a doubt. Fortunately, perhaps, the hon. gentleman was cooler than I should have been under the circumstances, and he answered with a great deal more civility than I should have answered some of the queries that were put to him. I have read a good many reports of Royal Commissions, but I say emphatically that I do not regard this particular report as being worth the paper it is written on. I am astonished that hon. gentlemen should have framed such a report unrler the circumstances. I am astonished that any man or men should have gone into such :tn exceedingly important inquiry with a predetermination to find certain parties guilty, no matter what the evidence to the contrary might be. Apparently, in taking up this line of conduct, there were witnesses-or there was a witness, at all events-who was of material assistance to the commission, and, apparently, for some time the majority of the commis>ion scored; but, as later developments occurred, and as they saw what appeared in the Press, people began to wonder how this c >m mission was going to end, and what sort of a report the commissioners were going to present to His Excellency the Governor. The hon. member for Toombul said, during his remarks, that if the mmnbersof thecon11nission were wrong in a.rriving at their conclusions-and most impartial inquirers will a~ree with me that they were distinctly wrong in several of the most imJ.>ortant of the conclusions they arrived at-then the public would he against them. \Vel!, my experience goe., to prove that the public is already against the commission, and they certainly are not likely to be any more favourably inclined towards the commission and its report as a result of to-night's deb:tte.

:Mr. ANNlcAR : The report has scarcely been discussed.

Mr. STEPHENSON : I have h<1ard the hon. member previonsiy say that. I do not know how far he is justified in saying it, bnt, if it were not so late, I should certctinly like to discuss a few extracts from the report rr.yself. I took somenotfs at the time I speak of, which I regret I b:we not now got by me, and I should certainly have liked to refer to them, but I have no dFsire to unduly prolong the debate. There are certain part~ of the report, however, whiuh struck me as being very )_Jeculiar, and one of those portions which now occurs to me I shall mention. It is absolutely astounding to me that the majority of the members of the commission should have singled out a gentleman named Bell for commendation for the straightforward and clear manner in which he had given his evidence. vV ell, to read that paragr:q ·h in the report of the commi>sion, and then read a letter which appeared in the papers two or three months after the report was framed, and compare the two, and estimate the value of lYir. Bell's straightforwardness :mdofhis impartiality, would cause many people to smile, if it were not such a serious matter. vVhy the commission should have singled out this as the only one of all the witnesses who gave evidence because of his straightforwardness is absolutely astounding, and I am quite sure that not one man in a hundred will endorse the opinion expressed by the commission with regard to that particular gentleman.

Mr. ANNEAR: He was not the only one, though.

Mr. STEPIIENSON: So far as my recollection goes he was the only one. He was certainly the only one singled out to be praised in such fulsome terms.

Mr. ANN~JAR: vVhat about Mr. Murdoch? Mr. STEPHENSON: I do not know so much

about Mr. Murdoch, but I sny again that Mr. Bel~ was the only witness who was so fulsomely praised by the rnajmity of the members of ~he commission ; and, in this connection, I thmk the member of the commission who scored, both with regard to that particular subject and throughout the framing of the report generally, was the hon. member for Nundah. I confess that were I a member of the commission I wouH vPry much prefer to have been the nne who took up the position taken up by the hnn. member for N undah than that taken up by the other members. It is quite true that the hem. member for Toombul may have been justified in saying that he was satisfied with the contents of the report, and that he would sign the report now, with his present knowledge, just as readily as he signed it then.

Mr. PE~'RIE: I spenk from my standpoint. 1\tr. STEI'HENSON: 'rhe hon. member

spenks from his own standpoint, and I find no fault with him for that, but if the hem. member had exercised his own judgment a little more, and had been less influenced hy the judgment of another member of the commission, he would not speak in such positive terms of the correctness of the report and of the recommendations which it make<.

HoNOURABLE JYillMBEltS: Hear, hear! Mr. STl~PHENSON: There was another

witness at the inquiry who appears to me to come out with flying colours, and who was, so f:tr as I know, the youngest man who was ex:unined. That was Mr. Ooxen. So far as I know, I have never spoken to the gentleman, but I confess that on reading the reports in the papers from day to day of the examination, I came to the conclusion that i\Ir. Onxen was v,•ry much more deserving of the enloginms passed upon JYir. Dell tho,n was the gentleman who received those enlo,-iums at the hands of the commis,ion. Not~~itbsto"nding that he is a young man, and being placed in such ciccumstances might natur>1llV have lust his head, he seems to have ganged the situation most accurately, and without losing any time he went to the Minister and aske~ hi!!' to consider that if he accepted the posthon m which Mr. Robertson wished to place him temporarily, his action was sure to be misconstrued. I think that gentleman is to be commended for the attitude he took up in a trying sitnation, and I think it would be fortnnate for the Civil Service if we had in it more men of his stamp-a level-headed young man who, although he might have been supposed to become intoxicated with his temporary success yet saw clearly what the result was likely to b'e, and asked his official bead to relieve him from the [JOSition. I venture to say that amongst the seventy-two members of this Hou-,e there are very few, either young or old, who would have so accurately gauged the po:;ition as :Mr. Ooxen did. I agree with the hon. member for Toombul in thinking 1 hat it is unfortunate th:1.t between 1 he time of the presentation of the report and its discussion in this House the gentleman whose actions bave been so much in evidence should have passed over to the majority. During my short parliamentary career I only had occa~ion to go to that gentlen1an on one occasion in connection with a matter that had been dealt with by the Minister in a certain way at the Under Secretary's instigaticn. I did not approve either of the Minister's decision or the Under Secretary's ad vice, but I admired all


the more 1\fr. Robertson's courage in standing up for what he believed to be right, and in tenaciously occupying the position which he had taken up, even though members of Parliament might differ from him. It would have been a comparatively easy matter for him to have acted on my suggestion, and I believe he would have been j1mtified in doing so, but he thought differently, and I cannot help giving him credit f,lr his firmness. I mention this because it will be seen that I am in no way biased in coming to my conclusion with regard to the commission's report by any interviews on matters appertaining to the DejJartment of Works which I might have had with the Under Secretary. Unquestionably the late Mr. Robertson was badly treated by the majority of the members of the Royal Commission. Unquestionably, too, the opinion outside is that both Mr. Hobertson and the Minister were being persecuted by some members of the Royal Commission. The impression was that that commission was not the impartial body which a Royal Commission ought to be, and its findings are not such as the public outside have a right to expect, or such as nineteen out of twenty men would undoubtedly arrive at under the circmnstances. As far as outsiders could judge, there was a determination at the very outset to prove, with regard to the dispute in which Mr. Jack was concerned, that be was right and Mr. llobertson was wrone(. That line of conduct was never deviated from in one instance all through the long inquiry. I regret to have to say this about a commission, but I say it because I think it is my duty to say fearl<·ssly what I know; and without saying anything disrespectful of the members of the eommission-who are gentlemen with whom I am personally on friendly termsI say that I never perused an important document such ns this with more contempt. I am quite sure the more the public react that report, and the more they read the debate which has taken place during this sitting of the House, the more conclusively will they arrive at the decision that the report is no credit to the commission, and islikeiy to be of very little set vice in the reorganisation of thel \Vurks Department, if such is in contemplation. I do not pretend to say that the working of the department is by any means perfect, but I do say that some members of that commiSSIOn did not go into the inquiry with unbhwed minds, and we could hardly expect that their report would be any more imparLial than it is if we believe that before the commission even sat a string of questions was seen by a gentleman in no way connected with Parliament or the commission, and which 1t was declared by him would down the Under Secretary for Works. I just tell the House the facts as I heard them, and I leave it to hon. members to draw their own conclusions.

Mr. STOHY (Balonne): Of course when the Royal Commi"sion sat and framed this report they knew it would become public property. They knew also that it would be discussed, and it was their bn&iness to conduct the inquiry on such lines as to deserve the approbation of this House and the public generally. I am sorry to say, from my readmg of the evidence, that that has not bt,en done. 'l'he report simply blisters over with bias against two men and in favour of one. There is no use in repeating what has already been said, and I will confine myself to a very few remarks, and deal with something that has not been touched upon previously. The report itself is so wanting in unanimity aR to be almost valueless. In the addendum of the Hon. J. Cowlishaw, he objects to paragraphs 2, 7, 27, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 (in part), 39, and 46. There are only forty-five paragraphs, and he objects to at least one-fourth, although he had the advantage

of hearing the whole of the evidence, and seeing the manner· in which the witnesses gave it. The hon. member for Nundah objected to paragraphs 2 21 33 37, and 39-all very important parag~aphs. 'If there v. as not unanimity in the commission, how could they possibly expect that there would be unanimity on the part of the public or in thi3 Chamber?

Mr. ANNEAR: What about the report of the rail way corrunissioners?

Mr. STORY: That is a different thing. That is a matter dealing with the physical features of country, and I suppose it would be impossible to get a number of men to agree as to the different routes and other matters connected with a proposed railway. But I do not intend to go into that now. There is one thing that struck me as being most peculittr. Mr. Hobertson was a very old Civil servant in receipt of a salary of £650 a year. To better his position he went into a system of peculation. In J anuarv he embezzled, per day, 2j,d. ; in F~bruary, 3d. ; i~ April, 2j}d. ; ~n May, lj,d. ; m June, 5j!d. ; m August, 4d. ; ~n October, 6~ct. ; and in December, 6!d. ; a total m twelve months of something like £3 16s., or 5s. 8Jld. per month, averaging 2d. a day. Can any reasonable man believe that a. man in a position like that, with thousands passmg through his hands-and Mr. Jack himself said be knew of nothing else di8honPst whatever-! do not think anv reasonable man can believe that a man holding that position would risk it for 2d. a day. The amount is so utterly paltry. And it is not supposed th"t he embezzl,,d the whole of it. He must have travelled in trams and cars sometimes ; and supposing he spent 50 per cene. of it legitimately, that leaves his embezzlement at ld. a day. How did he intend to invest it, I wonder ! I never heard of a man holding such a position and having such an income running such a risk for such a paltry ridiculous sum as this.

Mr. PLUNKETT (AZUert): The hon. member for Ipswich commenced his speech with a cockand-bull story about something that somebody told somPbody else he had witnessed.

iVfr. S'l'l<~PHENSON : It has never been controverted.

Mr. PLUNKETT: I don't believe a word of it. It would be unparliamentary to say what I think of it, The first thing the Minister said about the commission was that it was a political commission.

Mr. ANNEAR: He said the commis,;ion was a political tribunal.

Mr. PL UNKETT : What was his meaning? Did he mean that the members of the commission were appointed by the head of the Government of which he is a member to injure the hon. gentleman hims~lf? I am sorry he is not in his place at present, because I should like to know how. I say there was nothing political about it,

The HOME SECRETARY: It was composed of politicians.

Mr. PLUNKETT: There is no r0:1son for saying that it was a political commission. The hon. member for Cairns said it. was a biased commission, but I don't think it was biased at all. I may tell you that I hesitated at first when the Premier offered me a seat on the commission, but I am very glad now that I availed myself of his kind offer, and as I have never yet thanked the hon. gentleman, I take this opportunity of doing so. The persons who have been criticised in connection with this matter are the Minister himself, the late Under Secretary, Mr. Brady, Mr. Jack, Mr. Pye, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Hobbs. With regard to the Minister for Railways, I have always had the honour of being a warm person~tl


friend of that hon. gentleman, and I don't think I have ever done anything to break our friendship. Mr. Robertson and I were very old friends-always on the moet friendly terms; and up to the day of his death, I challenge anyone to oa.y that ever one word dropped from me which would warrant anyone in saying that I would do anything to hurt Mr. Rohertsun in any sense of the word. If there was any bias, it was in favour of the Minister, and the late Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Brady, but I do not think there was any bias. I think the hon. gentleman said also that Mr .• Jack had sufficient influence to get the Royal Commission appointed, but I think its appointment was the outcome of a promise made in this Chamber last session. 'The hon. gentleman said some very curious things about us-amongst other thinKs that we bad done what was dishonourable and unnJanly. I challenge any man, either inside or outside the House, to say that he ever knew me to do a dishonourable action, and I think the hon. gentleman ought to apologi~e for saying anything of the kind. He also objected to us getting the testimony of subordinates; but if we had not got evidence from subordinates, I think we would have got very little from the heads. He also said that when he was giving the evidence we glared at him like a lot of tigers; but I can assure you that such is not the case. There were hot words between himseli and some of the members of the commission, and I think perhaps both sides were to blame ; but I think he might have taken matter.~ a little more easily, instead of saying that we glared at him like tigers. The hon. gentleman was also very unwise in his

allusion to the secre'tary, Mr. [2 a. m.] Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs only did hi"

duty, and he did it very well indeed. I do not know any young man,' or any old man either, who would have done the work better than it was done by that gentleman, and it must be remembered that Mr. Hobbs was the appointee of the Government. In anv case he did good work for the commission. The hon. gentleman spoke strongly about the statements made concerning the evidence given at the .TackRobertson inquiry. I do not like to mention name•, but I may say that I heard more lies told on that commission than I have heard for a long time. \Vhen we went to Bowen we there met a gentleman named Mr. McCulloch, and I can assure the Committee that lYir. McCulloch told us that his evidence at the inquiry referred to had been cooked. When we come to Brisbane we fom.d that every word he said in connection with that evidence was dieproved by the gentlemen who examined the documents. A good deal has been said by the hon. member for Ipswich, and, I think, by the hon. member for Balonne, about the report of the commission being worthless. I would ask the Committee to consider the fact that the Minister in charge of this department has stated that the suggestions are being carried out at the present time, and that the matter was in hand before the report was received. I do not think we could have higher praise given to the report than the admission of the Minister who has the working of the depn.rtment, and should know all about it, that they are practical. Another thing the hon. gentleman did, which was unworthy, not only of a Minister, but of a man, and that was to complain of the expem;e the country was put to by the appointment of the commission. That was the hon. gentleman's final blow at the commission, and I think it was quite unworthy of him, and very petty. The hon. gentleman was himself a member of one commission, and he tried a very long time to get thn.t commission appointed.

People in glasfl houses should not throw stones. I do not say that because I care what the expenses were. I do not object, and I do not suppose the other members of the commission would object, to the expenses of the commission having the greatest publicity, but in my opinion it was bad taste on the part of the Minister to introduce that matter into this discussion. The hon. gentleman also complained of our stating in the report that he hnd not a grip of his department. Well, I say the same thing now ; the hon. gentleman has not a grip of his department. I am not going to blame him for all the things which have occurred in that demoralbed department. The hon. gentleman had a legacy, which it was very difficult to get shut of all at once; there were men in the department who onght to have been out of it three or four years before, and I do not blame him for all that has happened during the last few yeMs, as these things have been smouldPring for a long time. But I blame him for not taking stronger measures to put an end to what was going on, and I think we would have bee.J;J. jnstitied in saying more than we did on that aubject. The speech of the hon. gentleman was <me continual diatribe ~,gainst Mr. Jack. I am not a friend of Mr. Jack's, and I have nn special feeling towards him. His conduct in dogging the Under Secret>try was worthy of dismissal at the time. A man who would act as he did desen•ed instant dismissal. But the speech of the hon. gentleman was " Mr. Jack, Mr. Jack," un t.il I got tired and almost sick of his continual references to that officer. It was-1 will not say a pettifogging, but a petty speech, as far as that man was concerned. Anybody listening to the hon. gentlmnan would irn<1gine that JVIr. Jack was the Works Department, for it was always JVfr. .Tack, or Mr. Robertson. I would say nothing but what is r:ood about the dt·ad, and indeed I have no occosion to speak oth6rwise of Mr. Robertson. \Ve have been accused of being the cause of his illness, and as l1eing murderers. I disclaim that entirely. \Ve would he the last men in (,lueensland to say a thing that would impair that gentleman's health, much leos to cause his death. JVIr. Robertson and I were very good friends up to the time I saw him last, and I should have been very sorry to do anything that would cause him pain. The Minister also said a great deal about bias on the part of the commission, and what Mr. ,Jack did and what Mr. Robertson did, hut he never said a word about Mr. Brady, Mr. Pye, and Mr. Murdoch. I think he did just mention Mr. Mnrdoch. Those gentleman formed a larger part of the Works Department than Mr. Jack, but it is all right in connection with them, and all wrong in connection with Mr. ,Tack. The hon. gentleman said he had no bias against Mr. Jack. But I think he had. I am not saying that Mr. Jack did not deserve that bias, hut I repeat that, if the Minister had done his duty at the time Mr. .Jack was dogging his superior officer, he would have dismissed him then and there. I, however, blame the hon. gentleman for making Mr. Jack the scapegoat for the whole lot, and for not treating the others as he treated Mr. Jack. I shall read a short extract from the evidence given before the commission by Mr. Brady. We have heard a great deal this evening from the hon. member for Enoggera about the disgraceful state of the Stock Institute. It was mentioned by the hon. member for Enoggera that the roof was originally intended to be iron and was afterwards altered to tiles. This is the evidence of Mr. Brady at question 1193-

By Mr. P/unkelt: Do you not think the roof should have been better tied in the first instance? If it had been built to tbe design it would not have spread.


W ~s it originally designed to carry iron ? No, tiles ; and It would have been sufficiently strong to carry tiles without spreading if it had been built as the drawings show.

It was not? No. You said your attention WfL15 first called to it, and you

visited it with :Mr. :J.furdoch? Yes. You also said you saw at that time that the bon .ing

was wrong? Of the brickwork. You say you did not discover any other irregularities,

such as bad mortar and the floors not being level? You could only see tl_Ie edges of the mortar, and to all appearH.nces then It seemed good.

It seems to me it was a very loose inspection of the whole matter? It was not a final inspection. The final inspection was made by '.\'fr. Murdoch in October.

Mr. 1\furdoch was with you on that occasion, and that was the only fault you could find? 'l'hat was the only fault we found at thfLt time.

v\'as the money all paid over? No· there was £83 and the deposit money. The defect in the bonding was not sufficient to warrant me at that stage of the work, the inspector having been in charge the whole time, in requiring the contractor to rebuild the walls. They had been passed n p to that stage.

. 'When you and :Yir. :J.furdoch saw this imperfect work, did it not make you suspicious of something more p I had, up to that time, perfect confidence in Mr. Jack. I always expected work done under his supervision would be first rate.

You say t~at under ~fr. Jack's supervision something was wrong r 1'he bonding was wrong. . Might it not foll~w that something else might be 1mperfect, and that It would be necessary for you to make an inspection? That might have followed. Had I known the mortar was ,:;;o bad at that time, there would have r~een s:lme trouble. Not knowing that, I let the defect m the bonding go because the stability of the building was not affected by it.

Now Mr. Pye gives this evidence at question 1903-

By Mt. Plunkett: You said the plsns of the Stock Institute were prepared wllile you were away on your holiday, and that when you came back you initialled those plans? 'rhat is so.

Did you) before initialling those plans, feel confident that they were as they ought to be? Yes. I had confidence in the gentleman who had prep'arecl them.

Did you examine them before you initialled them? Yes.

You said you went to the Stock Institute to inspect, and that you only inspected a portion of it- the roof? That is correct. I was sent up to inspect the roof.

From what position did yon inspect it-from the inside or the outside of the building? I inspected it from the inside, and had a general look at it from the outside.

Aft''r going into the building to inspect the roof, you did not remark the flooring being out or level in any way? I did not notice the fiooring at the time.

You only just looked at the roof and came back again? Yes.

Was there any mention made in the specifications about the inside walls being plastere<l? Some of the rooms were plastered.

IV'" it spedfied th&t only the upper rooms were to be plastered, or the whole? Only u. portion.

Y.ou als~ said yon .did not know enough about the drams to give a defimte answer without inspecting the plans? Yes.

Are you aware that those drains are so constructed th~Lt the water is running in a different direction from what was intended? No.

Are you aware that some of the drains do not take any water at all, where that was intended P I Rm not aware of that.

As far as I can see, there are only two men employed on this £250 job, at the outside of the building, at the present tune. Could not there be any means of getting more men employed on that work so as not to keep an inf'pector at a big weekly wage to inspect the work of those two men? [ ,•fa an8wer.]

You were present at the Stock Institute to-day. Did you inspect it thoroughly P I went over the building and inspected it.

A.s a professional man, what is your opinion of it, talnng It as a whole-I will not ask you are you ashamed of it, hut what do you think of it as a whole? Do you mean with regard to the quality of it?

The quality of it, and everything in connection with it? I do not think the quality of the work is first class.

Do you think the way it has been carried out reflects credit on the Works Department? I do not think the way it has been carried out is a great credit to the

1Vorlu; Department. Some of Lhe material in it is very good, but the workmanship is not very good. 'l'he mortar was very defective.

Do you not think it is a discredit to the 1\.,.orks Department o! Queensland that such a job as that should be passed? It certainly ought to be better than it is.

Do you not think it is a discredit to the Government, and to the Department of 1\~orks especially, and also to those who had the erection of it? I think it is. Now I will give you what Mr. Murdoch says. Question 2403-

By 1lfr. Plunkett: I think you said there were two draftsmen employed on the Stock Institute work? Yes, Morry and Ilutton. Marry did the work for the stockyard bnHding, and Hutton did the plans for the main building.

You also said thn.t .:\fr. Brad\' went over this building with you, and inspected it P Yes.

Do you consider the walls snificiently strong to support the roon Yes.

Are vou aware that the walls have been bound together with iron rods P '11 wo iron rods have been put in to keep the walls together .

When you inspected the work, how long was that before you interviewed the contractor? The con~ tractor was there then, Every time I came in contact with the contractor, I had a row with him.

Yon were aware that the work was imperfect? Yes. And yet you passed the work and gave back the

deposit? I grlve back the deposit without consulting Mr. Bmdy, believing that I had done everything that it \vas possible to do to get the work done without resort to arbitration.

Don't your think it would have been better to resort to arbitration-do you think it was arig-ht thing to give back that deposit? I thought that that building, as a structure, was as good as any other building. I knew it was deficient in finish ; but I thought it would stand as long as the best building.

Did you rem(Lrk the flooring of the building? Yes. 1Vho was the inspector when that fioorir1g was laid

down P That was before I came on the work. You think you were justified in pa%ing that building

and giving back the deposit r I thoUght I was so justi-1led; but I thought very seriously about the matter. I should have liked to have kept it hack, hut the disposition was to pay him up, heHeving we had got a building, in which the stability would not suffer. I uever saw the inside of the walls of the building·.

Still, you passed it.? Yes. I think I might have had a portion of the walls taken down.

}fr. nrad,v was aware that you passed it ? Yes ; he countersigned the final voucher.

"\\~as ::\Ir. Bra.dy aware that you gave back t.he deposit? He was not actually aware of that. He was away in the North at the tin1e. I knew I had sufficient money in hand consequently released the deposit.

By J1Ir. Bridges: When you first went to the Stock Institute-I do not mean during the ~npervision of the foundation-did you notice any defects? Yes.

In your opinion could an inspector go on this work without noticing the defects? I think, with reasonable care, they would bA apparent to anybody.

Even if they only went once a week? Yes. I think vou stat ... d that when vou found the work

defective, ind before you gave the-final certificn.te, you complained to the office and to l\-Ir. Brady? Yes; I told 11r. Brady that it was a very had joh, and I suggested that he should see the building.

Which be did? Yes. llir. Brady knew that it was had work then, rtnd that

you were going to insist on the contractor doing certain work to remedy the defects? Yes. I think he suggested the extent or the remedies-that the walls should be cleaned with spirits of salts and tuck-pointing.

Would you have considered yourself justified in telling the contractor to make these alteratlOllS, with the idea that you would then pass the work, without consulting ;\'Jr. nrady? No. I would not have passed the building without consulting )fr. Brady.

Could yon not have made the contractors pull down the defe<'tive walls? The money in hand would not have been enough to meet that expenditure.

Can you not follow the con tractor any further than the money in hand? I don't know. I am only going to refer to one more portion of the evidence, that given by the Secretary for Works himself, at question 10896-

"'~hat was the real cause of your suspending Mr. Ja.ck? 1'he cause was the glaringly bad work which he had passed in the Agricultural Building and Stock Institute.

2284 [ASSEMBLY.] SupplJJ.

Do you believe Mr. Jack when he says that the gre:tter part of this faulty work was done while he was away on a holiday? I C.o not think that was the case. The greater part of it was done while he was there.

I speak particularly of the Agricultural Building. He said the greater part oi the faulty work was done while he was away. Is that true? I could not sav. I am informed not. ~

You t:~uspended him for the bad work he had passed at the Stock Institnte? Both buildings.

But you say you do not know whether he was responsible for the bad work at the Agricultural Building? No. I af'ked Mr. Brady who was the inspector over that work, and he told me :l!r. Jack. I said, "Call upon him for an explanation."

Was the building finished at that time? Both were finished.

Mr. Brady himself visited the Stock Institute four times P I hn.ve been told so.

Mr. Brady must have seen the defective work? Yes, but you can surely understn.ud that there is a diff(Jrencc between an inspector whose duty it is to inspect the work as it progresses, and a casual visito1· like :llr. Bratty.

Mr. Brady said the inspectors were under his charge? Yes.

He himself visited these works at different times. 3-fr. Pye gave evidence that he visited it at different times, and inspected it P Yes.

Mr. Yi urdoch and Y!r. Brady inspected it ; and 11r. Brady gets out of the difficulty by s:1ying it was )Ir. Murdoch gave the final certifimtte. 11r. Murdoch and Mr. Pye knew it was imperfect work, :\Ir. Jack knew it waH imperfect work. and ~1r. Brady allowed. :\'Ir. Murdoeh to give the final certificate, although they could sec thnt it was not good work? Yes.

Though every one of them knew thn.t the work was anything but what it had a right to be? Ye•,. Perhaps they wanted to shield ~1r. Jack.

But does the country pay these men to shield l\·1r. Jack? I am not aware of their 1notive; it may have been to shelter Mr. Jack.

Arc these men paid salaries to shield Mr. Jack ? Ko; but it may be that that is what they wanted to do.

VVhy, then, did you single him out as being the only man blamable, when everyone, from the chief downwards, was equally to blame? You must understand that he was especially set apart as inspector of thf'"'e two works. It was to him the pln.ns and specifications were handed, and he wa:. to see these works faithfully and honestly carried out. crhose were his instructions; the others did not get those instructions.

Had not Mr. Pye, after visiting the building, a right to make a report to Mr. Brady? I think he ought to have made a report to him.

'\t\'"asthere nothing ranklh1gin yonr mind, more than the manifestly bad work that Jacl{ had allowed to be done, that made you sn~pcnd him and allow the other men, who 'vcre equally guilty, to eseape? Because they were not equally guilty. 'l'hat is where you and J differ.

I think they were, and by the Pnhlic Service Board Mr. Murdoch aud Mr. Brady were censured for passing imperfect work. Did you ever take any action in connection with that? No, I have not taken any action in connection with that.

But did not, you think that these men had the right to be visited with some share of censure, and that the whole of it should not be concentrated on :Mr. Jaek? They may get it yet, for anything I know.

We were appointed for the purpose of inquiring into this matter. I mn.y tell you that while I have nothing to say against you as Minister, there is serious complaint against ynur department. 'rhere is no doubt that your department stinks with the public. 'fhe fact is that these men allowed thc~e imperfect works to pass ; and I have no hesitation in saying that .Mr. Brady and Mr. J,lurdoch were equ&lly blamable with Mr. Jack? Well, I do not think so.

Have you ever censured either Mr. I~rady or 1\ir. Murdoch? Kat publiely; but I have spoken to them about it.

At twenty minutes past 2 o'clock, Mr. MAX\VELLcalled attention to the state

of the House. Quorum formed. Mr. P L UNKETT : I asked the Minister, do

you not think this man had the right to be placP.d under some censure, and he said-

Yes; but I will explain that the \iVorks Department is one of which you are likely to hear a. great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the colony, because there are

a great number of small contractors scattered over the length and breadth of the whole colony, and they take small contracts under the department; and, as a general rule, if they do not get everything they ask for, and if they are too strictly supervised, and the conditions of their contracts enforced, they naturally complain; and there is not the least doubt about this: that the inspector who is the most lenient to the contractors is undoubtedly the most acceptable. Mr. JacA was very popular amongst the contractors. They entertained him at a banquet before he went away to Townsvil1e; and this contractor 'vho built the Stock InRtitute was ono of his leading hosts. He was one of the men who got up the entertainments for Mr. Jack, and naturally .:Hr. Jack was a man that might, suit contractors very well, because he is lenient to them in passing work--

.11Ir. Jack: I ~my this is an insinuation against my character, and I won't stand it even fJ~om a M1nister of the Crown.

The Chai,·man: I hope, 1\llr. Jack, yon will not interrupt.

j}Jr. Jack: I beg your pardon, but my feelings got the better of me at this insinuation.

The Chainnan: Order! 1l1r. Jack: It is an insinuation against my integ1·ity. 11fr . .1lLurray: I am only showing how the thing works

out. The Chairman (to Mr. Jack): I hope you won't intrude

again. Mr. Jack: Well, I beg your p"rdon, but 1 really lost

my sell. . ..:lfr. Jllurray: I think it would be very mnch better if

l\1r. Jack lmpt away from this inqniry. I do not think it is fair that ~ir. Jacl{ should sit from daylight till dark at this commission.

The Chairman: J-Ir. Jack does not do that. 'fhis iR n. public int1uiry, and he has the same right to be here as any other member of the public

111r.11Iurray: '\'V ell, I think it is very bad taste of :lir. Jack to be here •tl ways.

'Ttw Chairman: That iR a matter of opinion, you see. IJy Mr. Plunkett: He is treated the same as anyone

else coming in. I think he is unwise~ I will say that. 'l'he only thing I have to say, and it is rather curious that I find there are very many of that opinion, is that I think all these fmll' men are just as guilty as one another; and I want to know if th0re was anything rankling m your mind against J\Ir. Jacl{ P ~othing was rankling in my mind at all.

But vou ~eem to have concentratccl everything on Mr. Jack? ::\Iy attention was drawn t.o the bad character of the work, and I felt that, if I had one clear duty to perform more than au,)ther, it was to make some effort to stop that class of work and to punish the offcnftor; and it is because I have done that that there has been all this trouble.

Now, I believe the Minister was quite right in punishing Mr. Jack, but I blame him for not doing it a good deal earlier than he did, I think he was to blame for allowing a state of things which he knew existed to continue so long. Whether it was political, or whether it was other influence that was at work in the department, it was not an influence in favour of the good work that onght to be done for the country. It is some proof that the report of the commission has not been in vain, when the Minister for ·works has said that he intends to give effect to nearly all the recommendations of the the commis,ion. I am very glad to hear that that is to be done. It is not too soon. I think that Mr. Bell was blamed for a good many things, but whether he was guilty of them I do not know. I think, however, that he acted with a great want of tact in con1ing to the con1n1ission in place of going to the Minister. No one can gainsay that the head of the department was the first man that he had the right to make a complaint to. Whether it was that he considered the Under Secretary and the Minister were working together against him, I do not know. I do not know what his reasons were. He, however, came to the commission first, which was very unadvisable for him to do; but as for the commission telling him to go back to the office, whether the Minister liked it or not, that is not true. The chairman advised him, as


any sensible man would have done, to go back to his work. He gave him no further promise. He certainly did give an offer of protection, but that was only what he !>'We to all other witnesses. The chairman did the same thing as we went round the colony ; so that, so far as making a point of that in connection with Mr. Bell alone, I do not think there is anything in it. I have nothing more to say. I believe the work of the commission was carried ouc faithfully and honeotly, a.nd, so far as I am concerned, there was no political bias or personal feeling against any of these three men. If there was any bias it was in favour of the Minister for Works, Mr. Brady, and the late Under Secretary for Works. I hope the time has not been wasted, though I think it has been an exceedingly dreary debate. Still I thought that, holding the position I did as a member of the commission, I was perfectly justified in saying the few words I have Haid upon the subject.

Mr. BRIDGES (Nundah): I would not have made a statement in the House to-night, but that the other members of the commission have spoken. I will not keep you long. I think a good deal has been said that I intended to say. As for the Public Service Board report upon Mr. Jack, I will just read to you his own summing up in connection with the matter. Mr. Jack says that the evidence in connection with that inquiry, if it was correct, would have turned his own father against him, and he was not surprised if it had turned the Minister a.gainst him. But he sheltered himself by saying that it was not corrpct. It has been proved that the evidence was correct. There has been a good deal of influence used in connection with this matter, and I will give you one little experience. I was looked upon as one who, at any rate, was not a strong friend of this person from the start. I was waited upon one day in the city, and was told that unless I altered my attitude towards Mr. Jack some people who have influence in the city would see that I did not get returned to this House again.

HoNOURABLE MEllfBEBS : Oh, oh ! Mr. BHIDGES: I just told him that I in

tended to do what I considered to be my duty, and whether I was re-elected or not was a matter that did not concern me at that time.

HONOURAm.E MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. BRIDGES: There is no doubt there was

some influence working, and I was surprised at the attempt to bring me uncler it.

Mr. GrVENS: In what direction was that influence worked?

Mr. BRIDGES: I want to say that I, as one of the commissioners, felt ashamed at the treatment meted out to two or three witnesses who came before the commission.

Mr. ANNEAH: Why didn't you say that at the comrnission ?

Mr. BRIDGES: I did say so at the commission. I said so one day when we had Mr.·Kelly, a working man, giving evidence. I was ashamed at the treatment that man received, and I consider it was a disgrace to any civilised community. If you look at the evidence you will see th" t I

did put in one or two quiet questions [2'30 a.rn.] to that individual to show him that

at any rate some of the cmnmission believed he was an honest man. I believe he gave his evidence in a straightforward manner, and that the colony owes a debt for the stand he took. I am sorry to hear to-night that that man is suffering for the action he took on that occ, si on. Another who suffered was a friend.of hie, but not to the same extent. I do not think he would have taken it. He seemed a stubborn sort of fellow who would not be browb< aten in the same manner. The way Mr. Coxen

was treated I am sure none of us ought to be proud of. Any questions I put to him, or some of the other commissioners, were put in the interests of justice, but none of us eau be proud. I am sorry, and I apologise to that gentleman and others that I did noc stand up in their defence and put a stop to the crossquestioning and the infliction that was peing inflicted upon them, because they could not be tripped into saying what was not true. It is known that those witnesses were all on one side, but I am of opinion that they were just as truthful as those on the other side. But those on the other side were not browbeaten, neither were questions put to them in the hope that they might be trapped into saying something that was never intended.

Mr. ANNEAR: Not one witness was browbeaten.

Mr. BRIDGES: Everyone knows that those three men were browbeaten in a shameful way, and I regret that I did not stand up-and there were othem who would have assisted me-in stopping the unseemly and disgraceful proceeding of that commission. I take upon myself p~rticular blame that those men did· not receive fair play.

l\1:r. ANNEAR: You must luwe been coached lately.

Mr. BRIDGES: Nobody coaches me. The hon. member well knows that what I say is correct.

Mr. ANNEAR : I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member in order in repeating a statement which I say is decidedly incorrect? I repeat that I never attempted to browbeat any witness.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I am not prepared to say that the hon. member is out of order in what he has said, but he would be out of order if he persists in carrying on an altercation with the hon. rrember.

Mr. BRIDGES: If I have done anything wrong, I apologise ; but the hon. member must not challenge me, or I may say something else. ·

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order ! Mr. BRIDG:B~S: I have no wish to transgress,

and I only ask the hon. member to leave me alone. As regards the report, I believe some of the recommendations are good. There is no question tha& the department is disorganised, and that the colony is suffering from that disorganisation. What is wanted is a strong competent man at the head who will thoroughly reorganise the department. It is no use going into the question of the buildings which have been brought into sewh prominence ; but those who are re8ponsible for their disgraceful condition certainly ought to suffer, and should not h>tve an opportunity of repeating what they have done in the past. vVith regard to the em ployment of counsel by the department, I signed a report disapproving of that, because I did not think it was necessary when an officer of the department was on his trial for his own defective work. Without the employment of counsel, the result would have been very much the same, and there would have been a great saving of expense to all parties. The hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Stephenson, referred to certain questions. I do not think there is very much in that, but I have no doubt that what he says is correct. When we met there were a good many questions for us to consider. I do not know where they came from, nor do I see much harm in them.

Mr. STEPHENSON : Do you say that those questions shonld have been in the possession of individuals not connected with the commission at all, before the commission sat?

Mr. BRlDUES : I don't know who had those questions. I am quite satisfied that what the hon. member for Ipswich states is correct.


There is no doubt that many questions were framed before the commision sat, and that they were pretty rough ones, too. And no one could come to any other cone! usion than, if they were answered in a certain way, the Minister for Works would have been changed, if not the Ministry. The Minister made reference to some questions that I was asked to put to certain witnesses; but many of those questions were leading questions, and as I was of opinion that information had been obtained from undesirable sources, I did not feel inclined to ask them, and I did not. I muHt say that the Under Secretary felt keenly hi< position. In the first place, he seemed to tuink that ile was being accused of altering certain evidence; and certainly it looked rather dark for that gentleman in this respect. It was said that certain evidence had been cc.oked in order to make matters hlacker for some persons anrl brighter for the Under Secretary, and he was the only one who was snpposrd to have had the custody of this evidence. So he felt his position keenly-that he was "under a cloud," so to speak, for some time. I admit that I attached my name to a clause which expresses the opinion that the Under Secret,ry had allowed private interests to clash with his public duties.

The SJJ:CRE'rARY ~'OR PuBLIC WoRKS: There is nE> proof of that.

Mr. BRIDGES: I have no wish to spe<k ill of the dead; but I have so stronJ.i sentiments on that point. I will say what I have to say of the dead as well as the living ; and in this case the wor•t thing that we could see was that the litte Under Secretary lent £50 to someone who afterwards got work in the \Vorks Department. But the loan was well coveted. I signed my name to that clause because I <lid not think it was proved that the Under Secretary was guilty of the conduct referred to. I think it is far better to mention this now than to allow the country to think that

·something terribly underh:wd had been done. 'l'hen, again, a great deal of evidence wa" taken with regard to a certain partnership, and we certainly tried our best to inquire into that matter. It was elicited that the Under Secretary had lent money to a certain firm, but it was also proved that the company had not received any assistance or benefit through Mr. :Kobertson being in the Government service. I also say that three or four witnesses were not fairly treated, and I muse now apolog-ise for noc having trit'd more than I did to protect them from the unfair treatment they received.

Mr. LESINA (Clermont): It is evident that very little interest has been taken in this debate by the majority of hon. memberB in this Chamber. Yet it has been looked forward to for some time by the public, as is evident by the crowded state of the galleries during the earlier part of the night. Still, as far as hon. members opposite are concerned, this question has hung like a damp blanket over the Chamber. \Vhy is this ? Who is to blame for this ? When hon. m"mbers on thi" side marle very pertinent interjections, they were promptly sat np. •n by the Ch.,irm'ln, Mr. Grimes.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Mr. LE::liN A : I think that the lack of inte

rest in this debate on the part of hnn. members on this ,;ide is attributable to the conduct of the hon, member for Oxley when in the chair. I don't know whether he was ihspired to take that action--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: 1'he hon. member must not m<tke any reflections or criticisms npon either the Chairman or the Acting Chairman.

Mr. LESIN A: Then, again, we hoped to have a decent discussion on this Works' report. Bnt the Minister for Works maue altogether too long a speech in moving this vote, and defending himself from certain charges that he thinks have been made against him. I think he should have formally moved this vote, and he should have allowed other hon. members to take up the running; because he woPld then have t.he right of replying. Now, I wish to refer to the clause in the report of this commission which reads-

The l\iini:;:ter does not appear to have had a grip of the operations of this iml)ortant Department of Public Works. 1'o clear himself of that charge, and also of other charges levelled ag,linst him, the hem. member h:ts forgotten the important recommendations made by the commission. He <lid not make a solitary reference to that during the course of his whole speech of four hours anti ten minutes. He certainly has put up a record for the lengthy speech of the session, and henceforward stonewallers on this side will sink into inoignificance compared with the herculean effort of the Secretary for Works. The recommendations of the commission are more important than these peLty squabbles which have engaged the attention of the people of the Works Department for some months past. 'l'he troubles of Jack, the troubles of Bell, the troubles of other persons, and the troubles of the Minister who has become entangled in this wretched ofEcial squabble are matters of no consequence tome, or to members of this Chamber, or to the people outside. \Ve know that this expensive commission was appointed. I believe it did excellent work, and I am quite satisfied all theirrecommendationsshould be carried outassoonaspossible. If that were done it would have the support of the majority of this Chamber, and the Press ofthecolnny which represent public opinion. To leave that important aspect of the question alone, and to drag us wearily along forfoursolid hours, pointingoutwhatBelldid, and what Jack did, and what somebody ehe did, is not only a sheer waste of public time, bnt it is belittling the work of the commission. The hon. gentleman went out of his way to do that. He saitl the commission were practically persons who had raked the gutters of Brisbane to gather garbage for the purpose of defiling cerbin persons against whom they had a " set." If that statement is true-and coming from a Minister of the Crown it ought to have a certain amount of truth behind it, because he spe·oks with the full consent, I suppose, of the Cabinet, otherwise they should have had the moral courage to get up and say so-if it is true that the commission has set itself to gather garbage from the vilest gutters of Brisbane for the purpose of defiling the character of persons in onr public service, then the commission should return its fees. \Vhy should they expend public money in gathering garbage for the purpose of defiling the characters of public aervants and of injuring by their tactics a Minister of the Crown ? It seems to me that the statement of the hon. member will live for a considerable time. He has made similar mistakes on other occasions, which will be remembered for many years to con1e, as this will be remembered throughout the colony, and certainly by members of the commission-even by the hon. member for Nundah, who has made an ap . .Jogetic speech to-night. I believe he went back on sentiments which he was not game t<> utter when he was a member of the commission, and which he has changed during the past f<lrty-eight hours, or the last fortnight. I do not think that the hon. member would have any more thought of delivering a speech like that under any other circnmstances than those which Fevail to-night than he would have thought of flying, and the hon. member for

Questions. [3 DECEMBER.]

Nundah flying is a stretch of imagination I am not game to venture upon. I trust the House will insist on the Secretary for Works carrying out the recommendations made by the cornmission. I am sure that if they are adopted they will very Ia.rgely improve the Works Department. If they are not carried out we shall have another argument against the appointment of Royal Commissions in the futnre. They are appointed, voluminous reports are sent in for the consideration of bun. members, but very few members read the evidence. They generally go by the report of the commitision, and, very likely, by the inspired criticisms of the persnns who, have waded through the evidenee. I believe that this is the most useful commission which has been appointed, and I believe it has justified its appointment. I never was a believer in Royal Commissions, and I never voted for one, but this commission has shown that the Works Department is thoroughly disorganised, and that app:<rently it has been ruled by a very weak and incompetent head. If their recommendations are carried out, then it will be thoroughly reorganised on a solid basis, and the public will not be put to the loss of several hundreds of thousands of pounds as it has been in the past through public works improperly constructed because they have not been properly superviHed. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with the cornmission, and I have only risen to say so, and to point out that the Secretary for "\Vorks should not have taken up four hours and ten minutes in laying down his case. Even if he had had to read it, he might have got through a very clear, judicial statement of his case in about an hour.

Question-That £15,23"' be granted for the Secretary for Public Works-put and passed.

The House resumed. The AcTING CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the Committee obtained l~>ave to sit aoain on Monday.

The House adjourned at 3 o'clock a. m.

Standinq Orders. 2287

Legislative Assembly Hansard 1900 - Queensland Parliament

Documents

Transcript of Legislative Assembly Hansard 1900 - Queensland Parliament