House of Representatives
4 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
TARIFF PROPOSALS
QUESTION
- VICTORIA BARRACKS, SYDNEY
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL
- Second Reading
PREFERENTIAL BALLOT BILL
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
- Second Reading
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3858

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister if he will afford the House an opportunity to deal with the Federal Capital question before the close of “the session?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– If possible; but within the last two days a request has come from certain honorable members, asking for an opportunity to visit another site.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is that site Albury ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No, Tooma. I understand that an invitation is coming from Albury. The request to which I refer is being considered ; but if we wait until the advocates of all the eminently admirable sites have been satisfied, the inquiry will, I fear, have been too prolonged to allow us to settle the question this session.

page 3858

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the declared urgency of the Government’s preferential trade proposals, will the Prime Minister make available to honorable members, without delay, all information, within reason, of an authoritative character bearing on them? I understand that they are to be debated to-morrow.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I doubt if the table of the House would bear all the information obtainable on the subject, but the statistical and other information necessary to throw light on our proposals is being prepared, and will be made available as soon as possible.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am surprised to hear that the preferential trade proposals are to be debated to-morrow. I understood that the Tariff alterations were to be considered then. Will the Prime Minister indicate definitely the course of business, so that we may come prepared to deal with the question put before us ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– We shall to-night dispose of as many of the measures on the paper as we can deal with, and to-morrow the first subject for discussion will be the proposals of the Tariff Commission in regard to agricultural implements. When that subject has been dealt with, the New Zealand treaty, and the preferential proposals, will follow. That, I think, will be more than enough to occupy us this evening.

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Prime Minister intend to deal also with the Tariff Coramission’s report on harvesters?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes. Those proposals arc included in the term “ agricultural implements.”

page 3858

QUESTION

VICTORIA BARRACKS, SYDNEY

Mr KELLY:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Was not the Home Affairs Department prepared, in January, 1005, to arrange to revest in the State of New South Wales such portions of the Victoria Barracks, Paddington, as were not necessary to be retained in the interests of the Defence Department?
Were not the papers in connexion with the proposed exchange of the Victoria Barracks, Sydney, for another site minuted by the then Minister as follows, in January, 1905 : - “ It could be arranged to revest in the State of New South Wales a strip along Oxford-street of sufficient depth for shops; reserving, of course, sufficient entrances from ‘ Oxf ord-street” ?
Was not the member for the district informed accordingly, by direction of the Minister?
The Departmental decision having thus, through the usual channel, been communicated to the Paddington Council, did the Department not regard the published Ministerial ‘ decision as an undertaking ?
If not, why was the said decision made public by the Department?
Is the Department now in a position to take the course decided upon in January, 1905?
If not, why ?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

Yes, but subsequent to the date mentioned.
Yes, by the Minister of Defence, but this opinion was subsequently varied.
Yes, by the Department of Defence.
No.
A copy of the minute was forwarded to the honorable member for his information. 6 and 7. The Department of Defence has made a second report confirming the decision arrived at, June, 1905, that it is undesirable to return to the State the Oxford-street front age.

page 3859

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

There are three measures on the paper termed, for’ technical reasons, alterations of the Constitution, though it is doubtful if any of them really deserves that serious title. The only proposed alteration which would have immediate effect, if agreed to by Parliament and approved by the voters at a referendum at the next election, provides that the date at which senators shall commence their term of office shall be altered by six months, in order to permit, under normal conditions, the election of members to both Houses to be held in the autumn instead of, asnow, in the spring. The second may foe termed an enabling alterations If it were approved, a future Parliament would have power to pass an Act for the taking over by the Commonwealth of the whole of the debts incurred by the States up to the present time, whereas now we can take overonly such debts as were incurred prior to Federation. The Bill of which 1 have moved the second reading also provides for an enabling alteration. Hitherto the Commonwealth has walked in financial fetters, which were deemed necessary prior to the complete union and fusion of interests to which we are still looking forward, the chief restriction being that imposed by section 87 of the Constitution, generally referred to as the “ Braddon blot.” The terms of that section are that -

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth -

That is, until the end of 19 10 - and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides,’ of the net revenue of the Commonwealth from duties of Customs and of Excise, not more than one-fourth shall be appliedannually by the Commonwealth towards its expenditure. The balance shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be paid to the several States.

– The Treasurer was speaking only with regard to our general revenue and expenditure for the year, and not in reference to the old-age pension scheme. The proposal for old-age pensions is several years old, but the scheme ofmy honorable colleague necessarily dealt with the ordinary finances of the year apart from any such change as is now proposed, which can only come into force if approved by the people, and, at the earliest, in our next financial year. A change of this kind indirectly affects the present method of making payments to the States. In this instance, our course is clear, because the matter has already been fully considered and welcomed by those from whom perhaps, opposition had been apprehended. The attitude of this Parliament with regard to old-age pensions was indicated by the appointment of a Royal Commission, whose first and second recommendations were as follows: -

That old-age pensions should be provided throughout the Commonwealth, and be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue. 2 That a Bill for this purpose shouldbe sub mitted by Your Excellency’s Advisers for the early consideration of Parliament.

Mr Frazer:

– The Commission were opposed to the ear-marking of special duties.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I shall deal with that matter presently. The first recommendation refers to paragraph 16, to which I am about to allude. TheCommission declined to commit itself to any particular proposals that were made for raising revenue, but concluded by saying -

Your Commissioners recommend that, during the operation of section 87 of the Constitution, which provides for the return by the Common wealth to the States of at least three-fourths of the net revenue from Customs and Excise duties, an arrangement should be made by the Commonwealth with the several States by which sufficient money should be handed over to the Commonwealth for the purpose of making good any deficiency in the Consolidated Revenue caused by the establishment of an old-age pension system.

The Commission, without limiting itself in any way, or favouring one tax more than another, proposed that the States should be asked to make concessions which would enable this Parliament to deal with the oldage pension question. That very proposal had already been elaborately considered at the Hobart Conference, at which the right honorable member for Balaclava entered into this question very fully, and, in my opinion, settled one important preliminary. When we are proposing to alter section 87 of the Constitution, the question naturally arises whether the change would be likely to affect the States Treasuries. The right honorable member for Balaclava told the members of the Hobart Conference, in so many words, that if, for instance, duties, were imposed upon tea and kerosene, none of the States Treasurers would be affected. He said -

They do not get the money now, and there is no hope of getting it in the future.

He told therm and they assented to his statement, that the first important consideration in this regard was that, so far as the Federal Parliament had expressed its will, it had decided not to impose these or any other revenue duties as part of the ordinary Tariff, under which only one- fourth of the revenue would be retained by the central Government, and the remaining threefourths distributed amongst the States. As long ago as, the beginning of last year, the right honorable gentleman recognised that it was impossible to look forward to any amendment of the Tariff in that direction, and I do not think that his opinion has ever been disputed, or that it is likely to be successfully controverted. Under these circumstances, it is plain that, practically, the States will not be placed in any worse position than at present if new duties are devoted to special purposes in the manner indicated. At the Hobart Conference the suggestion which the Old-age Pensions Commission repeated was made by the then Prime Minister, the right honorable member for East Sydney. At page 91 of the report of the proceedings of the Conference he put the direct questions -

Are you in favour of a national system being prepared to give us the help necessary, and allow us to keep the money out of the three-fourths of the Customs taxation ? or
Are you disposed to consider the imposition of special Customs duties on special articles, so as to provide the required fund,’ and that the proceeds of the special duties should be given to the Commonwealth for that special purpose?

A debate ensued, which extended over pages 93 and 94 of the report, and was resumed at page 109. The final result is given at page 110, when the then Prime Minister again put the question -

Do the members of the Conference say that if we put on such duties as tea and kerosene duties for the purpose of finding money for a national scheme of old-age pensions, they will, so far as the present members of the Government are concerned, facilitate that by passing such Acts as are necessary to enable us to retain the whole of such duties for that purpose ?’

That is, for old-age pensions. I should have mentioned that at page 93 the Prime Minister pointed out -

Acts would have to be passed in the State Parliaments authorizing the payment to the Federal Government of certain moneys.

Therefore, he put to the assembled Premiers the very proposal which was afterwards .adopted by the Old-Age Pensions Commission ; that is to say, that each of the States should pass an Act agreeing to the appropriation of certain revenue for the special purpose of providing old-age pensions. When a division was taken, the representatives of three States voted Ibr the proposal, whilst the representatives of three other States opposed it. The Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia voted aye, whilst the Premiers of Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania voted no. The question was again revived in the most clear and explicit manner at the Sydney Conference, at which I had the honour of being, present. Personally, the Premier of New South Wales expressed himself at page 27 of the report of the proceedings as being very strongly in favour of the proposal, and he quoted a letter from the then Premier of Western Australia-, Mr. Rason, who intimated that he wished -

To see associated with any system of old-age pensions established by the Commonwealth authorities a provision, made by them, to raise a portion of the cost by means of duty on kerosene, tea, or other articles of universal use.

The report of the discussion which ensued extends from pages 27 to 34, and it will thus be seen that it was very fully debated. I think that it will be sufficient for me to read some of the remarks which were made by the Premiers when they were summing up their conclusions. The report at page 34 is as follows : -

Mr. ASHTON. Then, ought we not to say that, if a Federal old-age pension scheme is instituted, the revenue necessary to meet the cost should be raised by new taxation?

Mr. PEAKE. Yes; that is practically Mr. Kidston’s view, and we agree with it. We do not dictate to them on what it shall be raised.

The PRESIDENT:

– All except Tasmania are agreed that the question of old-age pensions should be taken up as a Federal matter, with the proviso attached that the Federal Government should, in any scheme of old-age pensions, provide the revenue by additional taxation for that purpose, not to meet the whole of the cost, but to go towards the cost.

Mr. KIDSTON. We are all agreed that it is incumbent on the Federal Government, if it adopts an old-age pension scheme, to provide the revenue required to finance it without trenching on the Customs revenue now returned to the States. We can stop at that if you like, but we can go a little further, and express our willingness to agree with the proposal made by the Federal Government at Hobart - that they should impose new Customs duties for the purpose of raising revenue for an old-age pensions scheme.

Mr. PEAKE. We will not agree to tell them how they shall raise it.

Mr. EVANS. So far as my opposition to the Commonwealth Government adopting an old-age pension scheme is concerned, I desire to say that it is wholly for the reason that, as regards Tasmania, the time is not opportune, but I am not against a Federal old-age pension scheme at the right time.

Motion, by Mr. Kidston, agreed to -

That it is incumbent on the Federal Government, if it adopts an old-age pension scheme to provide the revenue required to finance it, without trenching upon the Customs revenue now returned to the States.

Mr Glynn:

– That was their chief anxiety.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes ; that was carried without any opposition except such as was expressed by Mr. Evans in the terms I have quoted. The representatives of five of the States entirely indorsed the proposal.

Mr McCay:

– The resolution was a little ambiguous.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It was; and attention was directed to it at a later stage. As stated, the proposal was indorsed by five of the States, whilst the re presentative of the sixth’ State gave it his qualified adhesion, holding the view that it was inopportune. I had the pleasure of again meeting the Premiers, and discussing the matter with them. I quote from pages 128 and 129, as follows: -

Mr. KIDSTON. We might add to that resolution, so as to make it clear, the words, “ In the event of special Customs duties being imposed for this purpose, the States will waive their claim to their three-fourths of those particular duties.*’

That was generally agreed to by all the Premiers as expressing the sense in which they wished their former resolution to be understood. At page 129, Mr. Kidston stated -

It is well to have it made clear that if the Federal Government adopt this method of raising revenue for old-age pensions, the States Governments are quite prepared to waive their claim to three-fourths of that special revenue.

They agreed .that all that was required was to make their intention clear to me, and the president of the Conference stated that he was sure that I understood all about it. By reference to page 130, it will be found that as regards the general proposal of the Premiers in regard to the Braddon section, I said -

To that there is the one important amendment mentioned by Mr. Kidston - that a part of the Customs revenue specially dedicated to the purpose of old-age pensions would be, by consent, omitted from your proportion.

There was no doubt whatever that we were entirely in agreement as to what was to be done. The Premiers specifically said, “ If you wish to impose fresh Customs or Excise duties for the purpose of establishing a system ‘of Federal old-age pensions, we will agree that you should be authorized to devote the whole of the sum raised from those duties to that object.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That was, no doubt, very kind of them.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It was kind of them, as the honorable member says, especially of New South Wales and Victoria. Those States are at present paying- old-age pensions, while the other States only make various minor provisions towards the same end - provisions which are referred to in the report of the Old-Age Pensions Commission. New South Wales and Victoria annually set aside from their revenue a sum aggregating about ,?700,000 with which to pay old-age pensions. Under the operation of this proposal, that portion of their revenue would be set free, and they would be able to devote it to other purposes. When it is said that it was kind of the

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite so; but I am glad that the honorable and learned gentleman did make’ the remarks in question. . I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to ; debate adjourned.

page 3865

PREFERENTIAL BALLOT BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 31st August, vide page 3802) :

Clause 1 -

This Act may be cited as the Preferential Ballot Act 1906, and the Principal Act as amended by this Act may be cited as the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1906.

“The Principal Act” means the Commonwealth Electoral “Act 1902 as amended by the Electoral Divisions’ Act 1903 and by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1905.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

– Having carefully considered this so-called Preferential Ballot Bill, I certainly am not satisfied that it will carry out the professed intention of the Government. It is claimed that it provides for majority rule, a claim with which I do not agree, and in order that that object may be achieved, I move -

That after the word “ the,” line 1, the word “ Compulsory “ be inserted, and that after the figures “ 1906,” line 2, the words “ and shall apply to the Senate and the House of Representatives,” be inserted.

– It would not be proper for me to put at the one time the two amendments. If I were to put the second one, any honorable member who desired to move a prior amendment would be unable to do so.

Amendment (by Mr. Frazer) proposed -

That after the word “the,” line i, the word “ Compulsory “ he inserted.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I am opposed both to the clause as it stands, and as proposed to be amended by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie. I think it would be better to take a test vote to determine whether the Committee is in favour of the preferential system for which the Bill makes provision, and I, therefore, intend to move that the word “preferential “ be struck out. The returns for the last general election show that only in Victoria and Queensland did a majority of the electors record their votes at the elections for the Senate, the percentages being: - Victoria, 51.18; Queensland, 54-83; South Australia, 32.65 ; and Western Australia, 28.35. A slightly higher vote was polled for the House of Representatives, but even in that case Victoria and Queensland were the only States in which a majority of the electors recorded their votes. In Victoria the percentage was 53.83, and in Queensland 57-03, Western Australia again being the lowest on the list. How can. honorable members be returned by an absolute majority when the majority of the electors do not take the trouble to record their votes, and when we have a number of candidates in each electorate splitting the votes? Under the system proposed by the Government, we shall still have honorable members representing minority votes. I certainly am not in favour of the proposal that this- system shall be compulsory. Surely honorable members of the Labour Party realize that we have arrived at a stage when both the other parties in the House are opposed to us. The Labour Party has to fight unaided. Under this system we should find the free-trader preferring to give his second vote to a protectionist candidate rather than to a labour candidate, and the protectionist voting for the free-trade candidate rather than for the nominee of our party.

Mr Frazer:

– I do not dispute that.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Then, the honorable member is proposing to make it compulsory for supporters of the Labour Party to give a second vote to candidates nominated by the other parties.

Mr Frazer:

– I am opposed to placing on the statute-book legislation which the people mav or may not use.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I have stated that I am in favour of compulsory voting. If voting were made compulsory, we should secure an expression of the will of the majority, and if, in addition, we had preferential voting, that would be doubly certain. I hope that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie will vote for my proposal, because he agrees with me -that, if a preferential vote is cast, it will be cast against labour candidates, as probably the majority of both free-trade and protectionist supporters will be anti-Socialists. It would save time if we took a test vote on the proposal to strike out the word “ preferential.”-

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist

– I should prefer a straight out vote, such as that suggested by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. I understand that the object of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie is practically the same as that of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, and therefore I hope that he will withdraw his amendment, to allow the question to be tested fairly. He wishes to provide for compulsory voting, but I ask him to leave the provision as it stands. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has. pointed out that electors may object to the compulsory principle.

Mr McCay:

– If preferential voting is right, should it not be made compulsory?

Mr GROOM:

– The electors should be at liberty to vote as their consciences dictate. The Bill has been introduced because of the unsatisfactory results which sometimes follow the existing method of voting, by which the successful candidate is returned on a minority vote.

Mr McCay:

– The system provided for in the Bill does not make it certain that the person returned is the choice of a majority of the electors.

Mr GROOM:

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member make it compulsory that the electors should express their preference?

Mr SALMON:

– Yes. I think that it should be compulsory upon the electors to express their preference in regard to candidates for election to this House in the same way that it is compulsory upon them to vote for three candidates in connexion with the Senate elections. The elector who will not express his preference must have a very, low idea of the duties of citizenship. I do not think much of the citizen who, when he was_ asked which of two candidates he intended to vote for, said that he did not care much for either of them, and thanked God that both could not be elected. When a man has those sentiments he should become a candidate himself, ‘ and endeavour to discharge duties which he regards others as incapable of performing. It is not too much to ask any man who desires to see his country progress to exercise his preference, even in regard to candidates whom he does not desire to see in Parliament. Any man who declines to give a preference vote must be a blind partisan, and bound hand and foot to some party organization which will not allow him to exercise his free choice. I would compel all such men to express their preference, and not to be bound by the judgment of others. We are suffering too much from the effects of the dictation of organizations which have verv little responsibility, but desire to seize the reins of power.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I wish to withdraw my amendment, and substitute another in order to avoid unnecessary discussion. I propose to strike out the word “the” instead of the word “ preferential.” That would have the same effect, and would enable the feeling of the Committee to be tested.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.-! confess that there is some force in the statement made bv the Minister that I am interested in preventing this unscientific measure from becoming law.

Mr McColl:

– Why did the honorable member vote for its second reading?

Mr FRAZER:

– If the honorable member had been in his place he would know that I voted against the motion for the second reading because I did not think that the Bill would achieve the result that was claimed. The debate which has taken place since then has amply indorsed my view. I am strongly opposed to legislation of this imperfect character being placed upon our statute-book, because I do not think that the people should be in a position either to observe a law or leave it alone, just as they please. If preferential voting is to be provided for the expression of preference, it should be compulsory. My object would best be achieved by allowing the honorable member for Hindmarsh to move his amendment, and I desire to withdraw minein order that that may be dope.

Amendment,by leave, withdrawn.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I move -

That the word “the,” line 1, be left out.

The honorable member for Laanecoorie considers that the adoption of compulsory preferential votingwill bring about a most desirable change in our method of conducting elections. I do not agreewithhim. Upon one occasion, I was a candidate for election to the Legislative Council of South Australia, and was opposed by two extreme Conservatives. My supporters could not, under any circumstances, desire that either of my opponents should be elected, because, in their view, they were the enemies of all progress.

Mr McWilliams:

– But one of them must have been worse than, the other.

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr McCay:

– No. I said that it was mathematically more correct than that provided for in the Bill, but practically exceedingly difficult. Both systems are bad.

Mr GROOM:

– We have to consider how we can remedy the existing system. The proposals of the Government are the best and most practicable that have been put forward, and I therefore ask the Committee to accept them.

Question - That the word “the” proposed to be left out stand part of the clause - put. The Committee divided -

Ayes … … … 18

Noes … … … 26

Majority … … 8

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3882

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30th August (vide page 3736)) on motion by Mr. Groom -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Bill has been introduced to enable proposed alterations of the Constitution to be submitted to the people. One of these is that our parliamentary elections should be held at a later period of the year than is now permitted by the Constitution. The Bill provides generally for the taking of referenda, and is closely related to our electoral law. Therefore, whenever the electoral law is amended, this measure must also be amended.

Mr Groom:

– We must have absolute uniformity. In the States the ordinary electoral machinery is used for the taking of a referendum.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That shows the need for assimilating as quickly as possible the electoral law of the Commonwealth and the States.

Mr Deakin:

– Great strides have been taken in that direction.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– One realizes the nature of the democratic Constitution under which we live in considering a Bill such as this. What was spoken of ten years ago theoretically as something to look forward to is now an accomplished fact, and we are proceeding to demonstrate the practicability of the principle of the referendum, and the facility with which the Constitutionmay be altered. I admit that the passing of the Bill does not alter the Constitution, but the confirmation of measures submitted by the process provided for in it would do so. Many nations would give much to be able to accomplish alterations in their Constitutions so easily. Therefore this Bill, . small and apparently unimportant as it is, is of value as indicating the democratic era in which we are living. The Bill is a measure which can be discussed with greater advantage in Committee than upon the motion for the second reading. I say that the more readily because I have not looked into the measure very carefully, and therefore am not in a position to discuss it in detail. I trust, however, that it will not be rushed through before honorable members have had a reasonable opportunity to give it careful attention.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- No doubt the Bill is very largely a Committee measure. The Bill ought to have been introduced at least twelve months ago. It is purely a machinery measure, tobe taken advantage of whenever an amendment of the Constitution is required, and it should have been complete in itself instead of being composed for the greater part of references to our electoral legislation, which is more or less of a transitory nature. There are one or two provisions in the Bill which may very well be referred to at this stage. I think that the Government are confusing the functions of the Judiciary with those of the Executive. In clause 6, provision ismade that the GovernorGeneral may cause to be attached to the writ for the submission of the proposed law to the electors a copy of the proposed law,or a copy of a statement certified to be correct by a Justice of the High Court setting out -

the text of the proposed law ;
the material parts of the Constitution proposed to be altered by the pro posed law ; and
the material parts of the Constitution as they would be if the proposed law were passed and assented to.

Surely if is not desirable to force the Judiciary to forestall in the manner proposed their judgment as to the meaning of the proposed law.

Mr Groom:

– They will be required to give their certificate only as to the form of the section in which the proposed amendment is to be incorporated.

Mr GLYNN:

– The provision goes beyond that. The certificate will have to set out the material parts of the Constitution proposed to be altered, and as they would be if the proposed law were passed and assented to. In other words, they are asked Before any argument takes place before them to forestall their deliberate judg ment as to the meaning of the proposed law.

Mr Watson:

– That would be a great mistake, because it would lessen litigation.

Mr GLYNN:

– The honorable member is so permeated with suspicion that one cannot offer any criticism upon a Bill without exciting his opposition. I would point out to him that at the Federal Convention I endeavoured to have inserted in the draft Constitution a provision which would permit the Attorney- General to submit matters of this kind for the judgment of the High Court before any litigation was entered upon. Very important issues have been settled in Canada and in the United States in that way. Had my proposal been agreed to, we should nothavehad such a large array of forensic talent appealing before the High Court in order to argue questions relating to the constitutionality of our Acts, and attempting, among other things, to bring the States Governments within the operation of the Commonwealth Arbitration Act. At all events, we could have dispensed with a great deal of litigation by bringing any questions in doubt before the Court immediately after a law had been passed. My point is that under the Bill as it stands it is proposed to ask the High Court, before any argument takes place before them, to explain the effect of the proposed alteration of the Constitution. The amendment that I contemplated in the Constitution did not provide for any judgment of an extra judicial character being given with regard to our legislation.

Mr Watson:

– It may be that we have power under the Constitution to do as the honorable and learned member desired.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not think so. The necessary provision could not be made in the Judiciary Act, because we had no power under the Constitution to do as I have indicated. The power is conferred by some of the American States and the Canadian Constitution, and has been availed of with great advantage. I think that I am fully entitled to question the wisdom of asking a Justice of the High Court, without argument, to give a sort of judicial pronouncement as to the meaning of certain proposed legislation. In the event of matters being argued before them subsequently, the Court might be very much embarrassed by being brought face to face with a previous decision of this nature. I do not know what would be the position if the Justice were proved to be wrong. Suppose that a certain matter had been submitted to the electors upon the opinion of a Justice as to the effect of a proposed law, and it was subsequently found, after mature consideration and argument, that the prima facie impression conveyed to the electors was wrong. Then we should have a law adopted under a mistaken view with regard to its meaning. That is possible under the Bill. I think that I have shown that the Bill deals with something beyond mere matters of procedure. I quite approve of the provision that the result of the vote given by the electors shall be tested in the Court only at the instance of a State or of the Commonwealth. The matter is one upon which we should not allow any individual to raise a question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definition).

Mr CARPENTER:
Fremantle

– I should like to know whether it would be possible to extend the scope of the measure so as to permit of any question, including one that did not involve an alteration of the Constitution, being remitted by way of referendum to the electors? Personally, I am very glad, indeed, that we have accepted, almost without discussion, the principle of the elasticity of our Constitution. The American people make somewhat of a fetish of their Constitution, which has been referred to by their plutocracy as one of the grandest checks upon democracy that could possibly be devised. I should be very sorry to see any manifestation of that spirit in Australia. The Commonwealth Constitution should be an instrument for broadening our powers of selfgovernment. I am very glad that we have indicated our readiness to alter the Constitution whenever we think it is desirable, and that we are determined not to allow the letter of the Constitution to prevent us from doing that which we regard as beneficial for the whole of the people.

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist

.-The object of the Bill is merely to deal with alterations of the Constitution, and contemplates a referendum upon matters affecting both the Commonwealth and the States. The machinery provided for might, with modifica tions, be used in some otherBill for the purpose of enabling a referendum to be made upon other matters ; but it would be undesirable to mix up a general referendum upon matters in which, the States are not concerned with machinery which is intended to apply merely to the amendment of the Constitution.

Mr Carpenter:

– Perhaps so.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 -

The Governor-General may cause to be attached to the writ a copy of the proposed law, or a copy of a statement certified to be correct by a Justice of the High Court setting out -

the text of the proposed law,

the material parts of the Constitution proposed to be altered by the proposed law, and

the material parts of the Constitution as they would be if the proposed law were passed and assented to.

– The honorable member is just as free to express his opinion upon a judgment of the High Court.

Mr McCay:

– But one’s opinion upon the judgment of the Court would not affect that judgment, whereas our opinion upon what was the material part of the Constitution proposed to be altered might affect the expression of opinion by the Justice. When we are criticising the opinion of a Judge, we are criticising it before a Court of Appeal, namely, the people.

Mr GROOM:

– We frequently hear the judgments of the High Court criticised. We had a notable instance of that in connexion with the case which involved the liability of Federal officers to pay income tax. The serious point in the criticism of the honorable and learned member for Angas is that there might be some difference of opinion if a Justice of the High Court were called upon to give an abstract opinion upon any specific proposal to alter the Constitution. The desire of the Government is to insure the presentation of an impartial statement to the electors so that the latter may be able to say, “No matter what others may think, this is the statement of a Justice of the High Court.”

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I think that we shall be committing a great mistake if we agree to the retention of the words “ Justice of the High Court.” Either we are asking a Justice of that tribunal to give an opinion as to the effect of a proposed law, or else we are asking him to declare theway in which the Constitution . would read if a proposed amendment were given effect to. The latter can scarcely be intended. We would never ask a Justice of the High Court to undertake work of that character. The object of paragraph c is to secure an expression of opinion as to the effect on our Constitution of any proposed amendment, assuming that it were assented to. That statement would be given by a single Justice without

Evidence of any proclamation or other act of state of any State may be given in all Courts within the Commonwealth by the production of a copy thereof, either -

proved to be an examined copy thereof, or
1. purporting to be sealed with the seal of that State.

I think that the accuracy of a State Act is similarly proved. If I am not mistaken the method of proving the form in which Bills pass the States Parliaments, and the records of those Parliaments themselves, is the production of a certificate under the hand of the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Mr Groom:

– A printed copy of a Bill is sufficient.

Mr GLYNN:

– Why should we be so particular to tell the electors the exact form in which we have passed any law ? If we do that we shall be submitting to them all sorts of Chinese puzzles. Take the Braddon clause as an illustration.- When it is submitted to the electors, surely we shall not explain under the hand of a Justice of the High Court the effect of the amendment of the Constitution proposed. As a rule, the electors have a very poor idea of the elaborate arguments which have been employed in the Legislature before a Bill has passed through the crucible of the two Houses of Parliament. If they were compelled to listen to the -pros and cons advanced in this House, they would probably be more confused than when they entered it. Instead they arrive at conclusions in a rough-and-ready way upon general principles.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

.- I shall be glad to learn that the Minister recognises the force of the’ criticism of the honorable and learned member for Angas. It seems to me that this clause may be interpreted in

Mr Groom:

– I think so.

Mr McCAY:

– If that be what is intended it is not necessary to requisition the services of a Justice of the High Court. The certificate of the Clerk of the Parliaments, or the certificate of the Attorney-General would be quite sufficient. If, on the other hand, the provision means that a Justice of the High Court is to certify generally as to what portions of the Constitution __will be affected by the alteration proposed, and as to the general meaning of the Constitution, in consequence of that alteration, we are treading upon very dangerous ground. Let me give a specific instance to illustrate my point. Let us suppose that a proposal is made to amend section 87 of the Constitution which is known as the “ Braddon section.” Under this Bill two things could happen. A Justice of the High Court might simply certify that section 87 was the material part of the Constitution proposed to be altered, and he might certify the form in which that section would read if the proposed alteration were actually made. In other words, he might make merely a textual statement. It is not), necessary to avail ourselves of the services of a. Justice of the High Court to do that. But if on the other hand he were required to certify as to what other financial provisions of the Constitution would be affected to any material extent by the proposed amendment of section 87, we should be getting on to very dangerous ground indeed. I strongly urge the Government to accept the view that all we desire is the setting out of the text of the proposed law, and of the verbal alterations which, would be made in the Constitution bv the proposed amendment. Either the Justice of the High Court is to certify merely to verbal correctness, or he is to certify to legal questions. The first duty is unnecessary, and the second is dangerous. In my judgment we might use the words “ the text of “ in both paragraphs a and 6.

Mr Groom:

– Yes.

Mr McCAY:

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I quite agree with the last remark made by the honorable member for Bland. lt would certainly be well, in cases of doubt, if we could obtain the decision of the Court on the question of whether or not certain, proposed legislation was within, the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament, instead of our having to pass the Bill before being able to have the matter determined. It seems to me that, whilst the proposal in this clause that we should obtain from a Justice of the High Court a definite opinion regarding the matters stated, is excellent in/ theory, it would, from a political point of view, prove unsatisfactory. All these questions will be political ones, and if the politicians interested in them are incapable of placing their views in regard to them before the electors, they will be very different from those who took parti in the Federal campaign. I think honorable members will agree that during that campaign no point was missed. The most outrageous statements were made, and yet the people cheerfully accepted the Constitution. We ought to refrain as much as possible from appealing to the Justices in any matter regarding our Constitution. The day will come when this Parliament will have so many powers that it will practically have, so to speak, original jurisdiction. I do not say that it will be to-morrow, or next week; but the time will come when the electors will vest in us many powers that we do not at present possess.

Mr FISHER:

– In my opinion, it is not desirable that there should be the possibility of conflict between Justices of the High Court and politicians, but the proposal to have copies of a proposed law certified to by a. Justice of the High Court, setting out, not only its text, but the material parts of the Constitution proposed to be altered, and as they would be if the law were passed, might lead to serious controversies. It would be argued that Justices differ as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and the bringing of the High Court into controversial politics would not benefit that institution, norwould it lead to the elucidation of the questions in dispute. I agree with those who contend that the arrangement provided for in the clause would be better left to an officer of Parliament and the legal authority advising the Government. In my opinion, it is only a. matter of time when the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament will be so much enlarged that this will be practically a sovereign Parliament. Notwithstanding the fact that’ we have a written Constitution, there is a spirit of unification amongst the people. Their desire is to have one national Parliament which will deal with all questions affecting Australia as a whole. I do not detract from the good work done by the Parliaments of the States, when I say that the people feel that our powers are too restricted.The measure is necessary to provide machinery for the extension of our powers from time to time as the people think fit to allow it. Another difficulty which occurs to me in connexion with the clause is that the Justices of the High Court may decline to undertake the duty imposedupon them. No doubt they would desire to meet the wishes of Parliament ; but they might be averse to giving extrajudicial decisions in regard to points which might ultimately come before the Court., Therefore, I ask the Government to suggest some other way of providing for these certificates. No doubt information of the kind referred to should be afforded when a proposal is submitted to the people ; but I think that the Government of the day should be responsible for any statements that are made in regard to the effect of their proposals.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The Minister of Home Affairs in admitting that the honorable and learned member for Angas had brought to bear on this clause avery important criticism voiced the opinion of the Committee generally. It seems to me that we should hesitate about passing the clause as it stands. To my mind, it confuses the executive and judicial functions of government. Probably an alteration could be made which would meet the destructive criticism levelled against it. We all agree that a machinery Bill is necessary to give facilities for altering the Constitution from time to time as the necessity may arise, and I share the view of the honorable member for Wide Bay that, as time goes on, it will be found, that the people must be appealed to for extended powers. At present we are “cribbed-, cabined, and confined.”

Mr.Fisher. - The people will demand the exercise of larger powers by the Commonwealth Parliament.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– To some extent, they are doing so now, although they are being largely misled as to what we are actually doing. Unless we are given wider powers, we shall not be able to achieve all that was aimed at when Federation was established. The clause may create conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary. A Justice of the High Court might give an opinion quite contrary to that of the Executive of the day, which might find itself frustrated thereby in its desire to put a proposal before the electors. The GovernorGeneral is to cause to be attached to the writ a copy of the text of the proposed law; but as the honorable and learned members for Angas and Corinella have pointed out, it is not necessary that it should be certified to by a Justice of the High Court. The Courts, I believe, generally accept printed copies of Acts as correct pronouncements of the law; but when further confirmation is required a certificate is given by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Similarly, I think that a certificate as to the correctness of the text of a proposed law might.be obtained from some officer other than a Justice of the High Court. The Justice is also to certify to the material parts of the Constitution proposed to be altered. But while any one mayknow what is the intention of a proposed alteration, it is not always possible to say exactly what its effect will be. Often an alteration has a much wider effect than was intended. It is quite contrary to my notions of the proper working of constitutional government to obtain a decision from a Justice before the pros and cons have been argued in Court by gentlemen learned in the law and representing the two sides of the issue. The certificate of a Justice of the High Court obtained before he had heard argument on the question, would therefore be unsatisfactory. In Switzerland, when a proposed law is referred to the people, copies of it are exhibited on railway stations, at post-offices, at the entrances to churches, and at other places, and the electors are asked to say whether they will or will not accept it. An epitome of a proposed law might be something quite different from the law itself.

Mr Fisher:

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I propose to move an amendment because I think it is most undesirable that Bills should be piloted’ through the House by Ministers other than those who have charge of them.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member knows that my colleague cannot avoid being absent.

Mr FISHER:

– I did not know that, and I am sorry to hear it. Knowing the Attorney-General as I do, I believe that he is strongly in favour of the clause as it stands. I am just as strongly opposed to it. Argument may convince me of my error, but I shall not permit myself to be “ wheedled “ into the position of agreeing to pass the clause upon the understanding that it may be recommitted at the option of the Minister of Home Affairs. This is a most important matter. How are the people to obtain any conception of what we are doing if we do not understand what we are doing ourselves ? It is incumbent upon the Government to show the necessity for this proposal. Too many of these important machinery measures have been permitted to slip through without discussion. I will presently move1 -

That all the words after the word “ law,” first occurring, be left out

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I think that there is considerable force in the contention of the honorable member for Wide Bay. I am puzzled as to what are to be- the functions of the Justice of the High Court under this clause, and of the points as to which he is to certify. It is quite clear that he cannot give an interpretation of the Constitution. That can only begiven bv him in a case arising between two parties which has been argued before the Court. At. the same time, I agree with the Attorney-General that it is necessary that there should be some kind of statement submitted in connexion with any proposed amendment of the Constitution, and I would suggest to the honorable member for Wide Bay that he should move to strike out the words “ a. Justice of the High Court,” with a view to inserting in lien thereof the words “ the Attorney-General”” or “ the Clerk of the Parliaments.” Certainly, I would exclude the interference of a Justice of the High Court in a matter an which he has no functions to discharge, and in which he possesses no jurisdiction.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I have no desire to embarrass the Government in this matter. At the same time, I hold that those who are opposed to this clause should be afforded an opportunity of clearly, expressing their dissent from it. I accent the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and will move -

That the words “ a Justice of the High, Court,” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu, thereof the words “ the Attorney-General.”

Mr MAHON:

– If I had to choose one of two alternatives, I should say, “ Let Parliament interpret for the people the proposed alterations which are to be referred to them,” and, if an amendment is moved in that direction, I shall support it.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr Fisher:

– Would the public understand a statement framed by a Justice of the High Court any better than they would understand a statement prepared by ourselves ?

Mr WILKS:

– Exactly. I am glad that the honorable member for- Darling has taken up the position of a strong advocate of the principles of responsible government. If there be any legal difficulty in the way of giving effect to the proposal of the honorable member for Wide Bay, the AttorneyGeneral should have pointed it out. He has not done so. He has not shown that, under its operation, the rights of the public are likely to be invaded. In my judgment, nothing is to be gained by a consultation between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Home Affairs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– It is only just to the honorable member for Wide Bay to say that I will undertake - in the event of the clause being passed in its present form - to recommit it.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– I have no desire to labour this question, and I do not wish to put the Committee in an awkward position. If the Attorney-General will not agree to give effect to the wish of the honorable member for Wide Bay, I will move to-morrow that all the words after “proposed law” be left out. If the Constitution is to be amended as frequently as some honorable members suggest, and the people are to be expected to carefully look into the details of proposed amendments, the Federation, instead of being regarded as a blessing, will be considered a curse. The people desire to have some time to earn a living for themselves, and do not think Parliament should expect them to inquire into all these details. The Constitution was not considered line by line by the people. They looked at its general effect, and were satisfied. The position will be the same in regard to any amendment of the Constitution, and the people in casting their votes will be largely influenced bv . party views and press criticism. 1 do not believe in the intervention of a Justice of the High Court in these matters, which ought really to be left to public agitation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am glad that the AttorneyGeneral has taken a reasonable view of this matter.

Mr Isaacs:

– I offered two hours ago to agree to the clause being recommitted if it were passed in its present form.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The proposal that we should formally approve of the clause is not satisfactory.

Mr Isaacs:

– lt is much better that the Committee should decide the matter after they and the Government have had full time to consider it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think that the clause ought to be reconsidered, and that the statement for which it provides should not be issued, , either by a Justice of the High Court, or even by the Government of the day. The certificate should issue from the Clerk of the Parliaments. He alone should certify that the proposed law has been passed by this Legislature, and represents the matured consideration of both Houses.

Mr Salmon:

– The intention is that the effect of the proposed alteration of the Constitution shall also be shown in the. certificate issued by the Justice.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not think that anything of the kind ought to be done.

I will undertake to say that the honorable member would have no difficulty in finding three Justices, one or two of whom would set to work to show very easily that the certificate was not correct, and did not represent the law. . Moreover, in spite of any statement by a Justice, we should be bound to interpret the proposed law for ourselves, and to show what its political bearing would be. Therefore, nothing would be gained from the point of view of public utility - on the contrary, something would be lost- if we began to project the Justices of the High Court into our political quarrels. That is the very last thing we ought to do. I do not think that a Justice is necessarilv the best judge of the political bearing of any question that goes before the people, and which we have to determine for ourselves, according to our party and political views.

Mr Salmon:

– Then the honorable member suggests that a proposed alteration of the Constitution should go before the people, just as the Constitution itself went before them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Exactly; and probably the honorable member would be heard expressing one view in regardto it, whilst I gave utterance to another.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– It would be well to postpone the further consideration of this clause. I certainly do not agree with the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Dalley. It goes too far. To my mind, it is not sufficient that the Governor-General may cause to be attached to the writ a copy of the proposed law. That copy should be certified to be correct, and I should leave with the Government of the day the responsibility of issuing the certificate.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I wish to show the honorable member how foolish it would be to leave a matter of this kind to the Government. Is he not aware that only the other day both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Customs assured me most solemnly that when the preferential trade agreement with New Zealand was being drafted they fought for a day to secure a remission of the duty on oranges. As a matter of fact, they did not know that there is no duty on oranges.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– And the honorable member did not know that they were free until he spoke to his constituents about the matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Quite so; and when I sought for information from the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Customs told me that they had battled for a whole day to secure the remission of the duty. It was left to some of the fruit-growers in my constituency to tell me that there is no duty on oranges. If the Government knew so little about a matter of that kind, how could we trust them to certify to the matters dealt with in this clause?

Mr Hutchison:

– Because their certificates would come under the review of the House ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No. After the proposed law had been passed, the GovernorGeneral would take action, and this certification would not. come before the House. I do not think that the Government should have this responsibility intrusted to them. It would involve too great a temptation, especially when the matter was one with which some political feeling was associated. It would be quite as inappropriate for the Government to certify as it would be for a Justice to do so. We have in the Clerk of the Parliaments an authority who has to do only with the continuing duties of the Parliament as such. He stands outside party considerations, and is as willing to Help one side as the other, without any party bias or suspicion of such a tiling. I think, however, that we might allow the clause to be formally passed, on the understanding that the Government undertake to recommit it.

Mr Isaacs:

– Hear, hear.

Mr Fisher:

– Any recommittal that may be necessary to effect consequential amendment will be made?

Mr Isaacs:

– Should there be any alteration in the clause requiring consequential amendments in other clauses, those clauses will also be recommitted.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Voting on same day throughout Australia).

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the Attorney-General, consider that this clause is necessary - that it is necessary to enact that the vote shall be taken on the same day throughout Australia? Is not that question governed by the Electoral Act?

Mr Isaacs:

– No. That Act relates to the election of members.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I understood that the Electoral Act was to apply to this Bill.

Mr Isaacs:

– There is no general statement in the . Hill that it shall apply.

Mr.JOSEPH COOK.- But I think ‘’ if we had a general reference to the Electoral Act, on the lines adopted in clause 4, the whole matter would be much simplified.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– I quite agree with the honorable member for Parramatta that it is desirable to make the Bill as simple as possible; but it is better still that we should be sure of its effect. So far as possible we have incorporated by general reference the provisions of the Electoral Act, but where we were not sure that that course could be safely adopted, we made a specific reference, which, I think, is after all the best thing to do.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (one vote only).

Mr Fisher:

– Will a person who votes more than once, or votes fraudulently, be liable to a penalty ? I do not see the connexion between the clauses of the Bill and the penal provisions of the Electoral Act.

Mr Isaacs:

– Clause 4, sub-clause1, provides for the application of the provisions of the Electoral Act relating to the punishment of electoral offences.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Action at scrutiny).

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Are the provisions of the clause a replica of the machinery of the Electoral Act, or are they entirely different ? To my mind, the two sets of machinery should be as nearly alike as possible. If the taking of a referendum is to be done on the same day as the election of members of Parliament, anddifferent machinery is used for the ascertainment of the results of the two ballots, there will be as much confusion on the part of those conducting operations as there would be if two systems of balloting were provided for the election of Members of the House of Representatives and of members of the Senate. One of the strongest reasons urged against the Preferential Ballot Bill was that it applied one system of voting to the election of Members of the House of Representatives, and another to the election of senators, which, it was said, would create confusion. But the confusion arising because of the difference there referred to would be as nothing compared with that which would result If the system of counting and scrutinizing the votes taken during a referendum were different from the system adopted in connexion with the election of members. I suggest that the Government should simplify thismachinery as much as possible, and make it as nearly as it can be made the same as that adopted in connexion with the election of Members of Parliament. There may be a reason for. the elaboration of the present electoral machinery, and, if so, I should like to know what it is. We should not depart from our present ‘procedure unless we cannot avoid doing so. It must be remembered thatthe average presiding officer, poll clerk, or scrutineer, is not more nor less intelligent than the average voter, and if two systems of voting would be likely to confuse the average voter, so two systems of scrutineering and counting would be likely to confuse the average official.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- The Bill provides for the taking of a referendum at any time, not merely on the occasion of a general election. Clause 4 enacts that the provisions of the Electoral Act shall, as far as practicable, apply to the taking of a referendum, but under clause5, a writ for a referendum may be issued at any time, and under clause 11 the voting must take place on the day appointed by the writ. There may be urgent reasons for taking a referendumon some other occasion than a general election.

Mr Isaacs:

– Under the Constitution a proposed alteration must be submitted not more than six months after it has been passed by Parliament ; so that it may not be possible to wait until a general election.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– There are several strong reasons why latitude should be allowed. It might be very inconvenient if a referendum could be held only on the occasion of a general election. A national emergency might demand an immediateappeal to the people. The Bill has been drawn with a view to that possibility, and the elaboration of the machinery clauses has been necessary to carry that intention into effect.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– It will be desirable, where practicable, to save expense and trouble by making a referendum and an election coincident, but section 128 of the Constitution provides that proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution - must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

As the honorable and learned member for Bendigo has pointed out, a sudden emergency might demand an immediate appeal to the people, and if the referendum could not be taken except during an election, the House of Representatives would have to be dissolved. There would be no saving of expense in an arrangement of that kind. We are compelled by the Constitution tomake the measure elastic in regard to the time at which a referendum may be taken..

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– There is a great deal in what the honorable member for Parramatta has said, that if the machinery provided for thetaking of a referendum is similar to that provided under the Electoral Act, it will be easy to submit a proposed alteration of the

Constitution to the people on the occasion of an election, but if two sets of machinery are provided confusion will arise. The machinery in both cases should be similar.

Mr Isaacs:

– It is similar; but we cannot adopt the machinery of the Electoral Act en bloc. For instance, it would be absurd to provide for the appointment of scrutineersby candidates.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ROBINSON:
Wannon

.- It seems to me that the ballot-paper set out in form B would prove very confusing. There are three different sets of squares, in two of which sample votes are given. I think it is undesirable to print these examples upon the face of the ballot-papers. There are no such guides for the elector upon the ordinary ballot-paper. If the examples were printed upon the back of the ballotpapers the effect might not be so confusing ; but I doubt whether even that plan would be a good one to follow.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I think that the honorable member for Wannon has advanced a valid objection. Each of the forms contain two sample sets of squares, and then the voter is invited to place his cross in one of another pair of squares. At first sight I thought that the squares were merely printed in the schedule with a view to indicating how the votes were to be recorded, and not with any idea of having, them reproduced upon the ballot-paper. The two alternative sets of sample squares should certainly be eliminated from the ballot-paper, and if the honorable member for Wannon moves in that direction I shall certainly support him. As the Attorney - General has already indicated, the electors have become accustomed to placing a cross beside the name of the candidate in whose favour they propose to vote. They will be called upon at the next election to use that method of voting for members of both Houses of Parliament, and it is desirable that they should be permitted to follow the same clear course in regard to each of the referenda papers placed in their hands without being called upon to studyany elaborate directions.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am quite certain that a large number would notstudy them.

Mr WATSON:

– No; I think that many of them would give up the effort altogether.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– Personally, I quite agree with what has been stated by the honorable and learned member for Wannon and the honorable member for Bland, and I undertake to have the schedule recommitted, when, no doubt, the Minister of Home Affairs will submit alternative forms.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 3904

PAPER

Sir John Forrest laid upon the table the following paper: -

Transfers of amounts under the Audit Act approved by the Governor-General in Council, financial year 1905-6, dated 3rd September.

page 3904

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business : Defence Depart ment : Tenders for the Supply of Harness.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

– I think that it is a most objectionable and pernicious practice for the Government to make use of one firm as against other firms in the way. that has been mentioned by the honorable and learned member for Angas. Even if tenderers were permitted to reduce their prices to the level of the tender of the South Australian firm, we have no guarantee that the quality of the material which they would supply would be equal to that used by Messrs. Holden and Frost. I wish to specially emphasize that point, because the Imperial War Office declared that the material supplied to the South African contingents by the firm in question was the best obtainable in any part of the world.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– In reply to the observations of the honorable and learned member for Angas and the honorable member for Hindmarsh, I undertake that the case to which they have referred shall be inquired into, and that full information in regard to it shall be forthcoming.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060904_reps_2_33/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 September 1906

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

VICTORIA BARRACKS, SYDNEY

Mr KELLY:

Mr GROOM:Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Mr DEAKIN:Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

Mr Wilkinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Frazer:

Mr DEAKIN:

The PRESIDENT:

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McCay:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McCay:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McCay:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Wilks:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Wilks:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Wilks:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Bamford:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

PREFERENTIAL BALLOT BILL

Mr FRAZER:Kalgoorlie

Mr Kelly:

Mr FRAZER:

Mr Watson:

Mr FRAZER:

Mr Watson:

Mr FRAZER:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr FRAZER:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr HUTCHISON:Hindmarsh

Mr Frazer:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr GROOM:Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist

Mr McCay:

Mr GROOM:

House of Representatives
4 September 1906

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay