House of Representatives
7 December 1911

4th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3893

QUESTION

BANK RESERVES

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that, under a Federal law, the Canadian banks are required to hold 40 per cent. of their reserves in Government notes ? If so, will he introduce similar legislation here?

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am not sure that the honorable member correctly states the Canadian position, but I think that our arrangements are better, so far as the note issue is concerned. I shall give the honorable member further information on the subject later.

page 3893

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister received any communication from the Premier of South Australia in regard- to the passing of an enabling Bill for the construction of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway ? If he has not received an intimation of willingness to proceed with such a measure, will he remind the Premier of South Australia of the terms under which the

Commonwealth tookover the Northern Territory, which gave it the right to construct the proposed railway ? Will he, further, cause inquiry to be made as to whether the Commonwealth, under the Northern Territory Agreement with South Australia, cannot construct the railway without the passing of an enabling Bill by the South Australian Parliament?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– Communication’s have passed between this Government and that of South Australia, and I have a lively hope of a reasonable settlement before the year closes. I should not like to interfere further. There is no doubt about the Commonwealth right to construct the proposed railway, but it is not our policy to exercise that right under present circumstances. We hope that the Government of South Australia will accept the terms prescribed in our Bill, which we think fair and reasonable.

page 3894

QUESTION

WIRELESS STATION, HOBART

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The PostmasterGeneral was good enough to inform me that he was prepared to take into consideration the advisableness of establishing a wireless station at or near Hobart. Is he yet in a position to give definite information in regard to the intentions of the Government in this regard?

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I hope to be able to do so to-morrow.

page 3894

QUESTION

MONDAY’S SITTING

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether, in the interests -of the expedition of business, he does not think it advisable to meet on Monday next at half-past 7 p.m., instead of not meeting at all on that day?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I have indicated that, if all went well, Monday next might be a holiday for honorable members, but I should be glad to consult their convenience in regard to the proposal of the honorable member.

page 3894

QUESTION

NAVAL COLLEGE

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I understand that the Premier of Tasmania has offered to the Government a site at Hobart for the Naval College. Has the offer been considered by the Cabinet, and, if so, can the Minister representing the Minister of Defence inform the House what steps are to be taken ?

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I understand that the Premier of Tasmania made reference to a block of land somewhere near Hobart.

Mr Atkinson:

– He offered a building.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The Minister of Defence desires a site on which buildings of a suitable character are already erected.

Mr Atkinson:

– There are buildings on the site to which I refer. It is the best site available.

Mr RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact, as stated recently in the Age, that it has been decided to locate the Naval College temporarily at Osborne House, Geelong?

Mr ROBERTS:

– I have not seen the paragraph referred to, and the Minister of Defence has not acquainted me with his decision in the matter.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Is the report on the site in the vicinity of Hobart, that was first selected as the most suitable, yet available ?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The reports on all the sites were laid on the table, in accordance with the promise made by the Minister of Defence. There has not been a report upon the Hobart site.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is the decision to accept the Geelong site to be regarded as a further concession to that broad national view which is always so greatly flaunted by the Victorians ?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The Prime Minister informs me that the Minister of Defence has stated to him, in a recent conversation, that no site has yet been selected. When a site is selected, it will be the best in the interests of the whole Commonwealth.

page 3894

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Telephone Lines : Officers : Inquiries Abroad

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. How many applications for country telephone lines are now before the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for erection in New South Wales?
  2. How many of these lines are approved for construction ?
  3. How many of the number is it estimated will be erected this financial year?
Mr FRAZER:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible.

Mr WEBSTER:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Government intend to. send three of the leading telephone officers to Europe and America?
  2. Is their mission to inquire into telephone facilities in such countries?
  3. Would not one officer have been sufficient to carry out the mission in view?
  4. What will be the result of the absence of the chief engineer; Mr. Herbert, assistant engineer, Sydney; and Mr. Morgan, telephone manager, Melbourne, on the telephone service of Australia?
  5. Can such officers be spared without risk of seriously impairing the efficiency of such branch?
  6. Would it not have been wise to include a postal expert to report on postal facilities in place of one of the three gentlemen named, and so complete the inquiry ?
  7. Is this the result of the report of Mr. Ramsay Sharp on the telephone service?
Mr FRAZER:

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

  1. The Government has no such intention at present. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. See answer to No. 1.
Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
for Mr. Austin Chapman

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What is causing the delay in constructing the telephone line between Braidwood and Nerriga?

Mr FRAZER:

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible.

page 3895

QUESTION

RIFLE RANGE, EDEN

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
for Mr. Austin Chapman

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware that members of the rifle club, Eden, New South Wales, are obliged to travel 10 miles to the rifle butts at Pambula, owing to the failure to provide a range at Eden ?
  2. What is the reason for the long delay in providing a rifle range for Eden?
Mr ROBERTS:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Difficulty in securing a suitable site. Owing to objections raised by two adjacent land-holders and the adverse report of the District Surveyor, the State Premier of New South Wales refused to grant permissive occupancy for the site which was approved by the Department’s officers. Steps will be taken to have a further inspection made if the members of the club can recommend another site. Instructions will be given to the Military Commandant togrant every facility.

page 3895

QUESTION

VEND CASES

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

With reference to the question asked on the 5th instant on the subject of payments in connexion with the Vend cases, has he yet ascertained the total amount paid for witnesses’ expenses, and the amount paid to each witness ; if not, will he say when the information will be given ?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Not yet. I expect to have the complete information in a day or two.

page 3895

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether he has any guarantee that the immigrants coming to Australia are skilled artisans or experienced agricultural labourers?
  2. If he has such guarantee, can he say what proportion of the new arrivals belong to the respective classes of skilled artisans and experienced agricultural labourers?
  3. Is there truth in the statement that a large proportion of the newcomers belong to the unemployed and unemployable classes of Great Britain and other countries?
  4. Has the Commonwealth Government power to prevent the importation by the States of undesirable white immigrants?
Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 and 2. No.

  1. Not so far as I know.
  2. Yes.

page 3895

QUESTION

SALE OF CORNSACKS

Mr McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is true, as stated in the press, that standard cornsacks are sold in Calcutta for 2s.9d. a dozen, and may be landed in Melbourne for less than 4s. a dozen?
  2. Is it a fact, as alleged, that an honorable understanding exists between the Calcutta manufacturers of cornsacks and the Australian importers in the trade, and that, in consequence of such honorable understanding, the said manufacturers will not sell cornsacks direct to farmers’ unions or individual farmers in Australia?
  3. Is it the intention of the Minister to encourage the manufacture of cornsacks in the Commonwealth; and, if so, by what means?
Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Such a statement was made, but its ac curacy has been challenged. The average f.o.b. price, Calcutta, of jute corn and flour sacks imported into Australia during 1910 was 4s. 2d. per dozen. The price f.o.b., Calcutta, of a recent importation of cornsacks was 5s. per dozen.
  2. I am not aware of any such understanding, but would be glad to be furnished with any evidence of refusal on the part of manufacturers to supply farmers’ unions or individual farmers.
  3. The question of the local manufacture of cornsacks has already received my attention. I have invited local manufacturers to furnish me with information as to wages, cost of production, &c, as sat out in the Tariff schedule provided for that purpose, but up to the present moment they have failed to do so. In one case a schedule was received, but the more important imformation desired was omitted.

page 3896

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

Clause 20 -

AH moneys necessary for the payment of the cost of construction pf the railway up to and including the time of ‘ the opening of the railway for traffic shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund ot out of any moneys standing to the credit of the Loan Fund, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund according to appropriations from time to time made by Parliament for that purpose.

Senate’s Amendments. - Leave out “ and the Consolidated Revenue Fund -and the Loan Fund “ ; leave out “ from time to time.”

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The first amendment of the Senate corrects an error which was made by my acceptance of an amendment from the honorable member for Angas. The word “ Fund “ appeared twice in the clause, and the amendment of the honorable and learned member was inserted after the wrong word. The object of the Senate’s amendment is simply to correct the mistake, and to give expression to what the House thought it was doing. The second amendment made by the Senate relates to the deletion of surplusage. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3896

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

hi Committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments., resumed from 6th December, vide page 3841) :

Clause 8 - (3.) There shall be included among the debts which are in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt and in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up to be paid in priority to all other debts, the amount, not exceeding in any individual case one hundred pounds, duc in respect of any compensation the liability wherefor accrued before the date of the sequestration order (or any other order corresponding thereto or having the like effect) or the date of the commencement of the winding up and the provisions of any laws relating to preferential payments in relation to bankruptcy and the winding up of companies shall have effect accordingly. . . . . .

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out “not exceeding in any individual case One hundred pounds.”

Upon which Mr Tudor had moved -

That the amendment .be agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The consideration of this amendment was postponed last night at the desire of the honorable member for Bendigo and the honorable member for Parramatta.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It seemed arguable.

Mr TUDOR:

– I admit that I was not very clear on the point, as the amendment had only just been placed in my hands. The Bill provides, I understand, that no seaman can claim more than ^500 in compensation for any .injury which may happen to him. This clause deals with the bankruptcy of shipping companies or owners of steam-ships, and in the distribution of the assets gives a seaman who is entitled to compensation priority over other creditors to an amount not exceeding ^100. The Senate has struck out the limitation on the amount of compensation to which a seaman is entitled in a case of bankruptcy. The debts of ordinary seamen, or other debts, may be shut out if we allow seamen who are entitled to compensation to receive up to the full amount. The Senate desires the omission of the limitation because it considers that the cases of seamen desiring compensation in these circumstances will be very few, as it will be a very rare event for a steam-ship company to become bankrupt. I cannot see that there is” very much in the matter, but I do think that in a case of bankruptcy, a man who has been injured should be entitled to more than other creditors. It is quite possible that if the limitation is retained a seaman, who would be entitled in ordinary circumstances to ^500, would have to rank with ordinary creditors, that is, with other seamen whose wages might amount to £100, and he would be tied down to that. Without the limitation he would be entitled to any amount up to ^500.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– The more I think over this proposal the more it seems to me to be quite unfair. If a shipping company becomes bankrupt, its shareholders lose their money, and some of them may be quite as poor as even the injured seamen who have lost their all.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not think they will be affected by this proposal, which only relates to creditors.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There may be creditors in a similar position.

Mr Fisher:

– If they are .liable to anything, the amount will he called up irrespective of this provision.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why should other creditors be placed at a disadvantage ?

Mr Fisher:

– That is another matter.

Mr Tudor:

– Whether they are creditors or shareholders, they will be equally unfortunate in a case of bankruptcy.

Mr Hall:

– Do you think that a man who loses his leg is not entitled to more than a man who loses £200 worth of sugar?

Mr J OSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It is a question of a poor man who has invested most of his “ sugar “ in a shipping company having to pay what bit of it remains to a man who is injured. Such a case, the Minister says, is very unlikely to occur. We are providing for anextreme case, and it seems to me that the Minister would be well advised to leave the provision out of the Bill.

Mr Tudor:

– What we desire is to leave out the limitation, which also appeared in the Bill of the Deakin Government, to which the honorablemember belonged.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If it is provided in that Bill, it must be right.

Motion agreed to.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 3897

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- This measure when it passed its last stage had reached a very interesting point in respect to the communications which the Prime Minister was then receiving from the States. Is there any further development in that regard ?

Mr Fisher:

– No. All the States have protested against the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Mr DEAKIN:

– And has the matter stopped there?

Mr Fisher:

– Yes, so far as I know. I shall make inquiries.

Mr DEAKIN:

– This is a question in a sense outside the ordinary range of considerations that would attach to the Bill. It is yet possible for the Government to retain the Savings Bank clauses without entering into that direct and immediate competition with the existing institutions in the States which is not only possible under the Bill, but. according to the declaration of Ministers, is inevitable. From time to time since the opening of the debate on the measure, the whole ofthe members on this side, and a number of members sitting behind the Government, have called attention to the fact that such a competition between what are practically all Government institutions is in the highest degree undesirable, and can only imply loss to the community. The Government have been pressed from the outset to hold their hand in this regard with a view to the development of a scheme which would enable the whole of the savings of the Australian community to be handled on some plan of cooperation.

Mr Fisher:

– I believe two or three other pretests besides those of the States have been received.. One has come to hand from the Chairman of the Savings Bank of South Australia.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Do any of those communications make a proposition or suggest an opening for co-operation?

Mr Fisher:

– No.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I anticipated that, in moving the third reading of the Bill, the Prime Minister would make a few statements regarding this matter before it passed from our control.

I do not propose to offer any observations as to the first portion of the Bill. The House has declared its will, and with a good deal that is included in that portion the majority of members on this side are in accord. On the question of the Savings Bank, we are faced by an entirely different position. In the first portion of the Bill, we come into competition with private institutions, which have no such claim upon us as the public institutions called Savings Banks that have been established in every State. Some of these are directlyguaranteed by, and related to, the State. Others are indirectly, but effectively, guaranteed of the assured support of their Legislatures. Any proposal to enter into competition with them by establishing a Commonwealth Savings Bank should be preceded by a demonstration of the fact that they cannot cope with the Savings Bank interests of the people. That has not been shown.

I do not claim that the existing system of separate Savings Banks associated by agreements for certain important purposes is complete or perfect, because it might be made more complete and more perfect,but there is no obstacle to their closer union, and certainly it is not a patriotic course for this Parliament to place any obstacle in the way. At the same time, there are other reasons, not the least pressing, or insistent for settlement, why the Commonwealth should be associated with these Savings Banks and their combination. There is no obstacle in principle to such an association. There are indeed possible benefits and advantages from it, not particularly to the Commonwealth as a Government, nor on then side to the State Governments, but to the community as a whole, and to all their representative bodies.

It is plain that the highest and best course in this matter is one which would make for national union - some system which shall extend and add to the existing Savings Banks. This can he accomplished by their association with the Commonwealth Bank. The one obstacle that stands in the way has been placed there by Ministers themselves, by the proposed blending of the receipts from the general and savings branches of the bank. If the dividing line which we advocated could be drawn between those two branches of the National Bank, there would be nothing to prevent absolute cooperation between the Savings Bank of the Commonwealth and the existing Savings Banks. On the contrary; it is possible that by the blending of the different institutions in those States which have more than one Savings Bank some advantages could be immediately offered. It is certain that, backed by the Commonwealth,’ the whole of the Savings Banks of the States, whether absolutely united within each State or not, could be carried on much more effectively in the future. I doubt if it is possible to add greatly to their already high effectiveness to-day, but with institutions of this sort, we shall be, of course, providing for a much larger future than that with which we ourselves have to cope.

Mr West:

– There is nothing to prevent the States co-operating with the Commonwealth in the matter.

Mr DEAKIN:

– There is nothing to prevent them, but the matter is so important that we are entitled to ask that the steps which we have urged from stage to stage should be taken now, as they should have been taken long before this. The very least the Government could do in existing circumstances is to undertake that no action will be taken by them under the Savings Bank portion of the Bill until Parliament has had an opportunity of con sidering the outcome of the communications at present passing between them and the Governments of the States.

Mr West:

– That would involve too much delay.

Mr DEAKIN:

– There can be no question of delay in connexion with the Savings Banks, because no one could affect to believe that the citizens of Australia are now suffering in any way from a lack of adequate provision or safeguards in their own local Savings Banks. Whatever small margins of this kind may appear in any State or States can be best met by such conjoint action as that which we are urging.

It seems to me that it is very unlikely the Government will be able to undertake anything worth mentioning in connexion with the Savings Banks branch of the proposed bank before April or May next year. So that no sacrifice is asked for, and no delay is likely to occur. It would afford a great measure ofsatisfaction and relief to a very large section of the Australian public and to many members of this House if the Prime Minister would undertake that, even should the establishment of this bank be much more expeditious than we at present expect, so that its ordinary business will be launched within the next few months, no direct steps will be taken to invite Savings Bank deposits. That is, no step of this kind will be taken until the State Governments, so far as they represent these different institutions, in some cases in an indirect and in others in a direct fashion, have a full opportunity of placing their views as to the interests of these State institutions and their constituents, the people of the States, before the right honorable gentleman and his colleagues. The right honorable gentleman might undertake to give those views consideration, and at some period of next session most convenient to the Government, announce what I hope will be a cooperative agreement covering the whole of Australia, or else give the reasons which lead the Government to put that aside in favour of some other scheme to be explained to Parliament. As I have said, this practically involves no delay whatever, but it will be an assurance which will give satisfaction. It must be remembered that these State Savings Banks have already about£54,000 000 of the money of the people of Australia deposited in their care. If we could come to some co-partnership arrangement in regard to our own Savings

Bank methods and issue we should start, so to speak, with that ^54,000,000 behind us. That itself would be a great advantage.

Mr Fenton:

– I hope that will come about.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That would be a thoroughly Federal operation of a Federal institution. Protests have been received from two Chambers of Commerce in Adelaide and Sydney, the Secretary of the Western Australian Parliamentary Party, a gentleman, whose name is, I think, that ot” an ex-banker, and also from the Premiers speaking for the several State Governments. These are representations which, as honorable members will agree, deserve our best and most serious consideration. I am, for the last time, pleading for this consideration so that nothing should be lost in the way of an opportunity for union, so that if the Commonwealth is to be forced into acting independently, it will only be because there has been a want of the co-operative spirit displayed either on the one side or the other.

Mr Fenton:

– The depositors seem to be very calm.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Of . course, they are aware that whatever may be the effects of any policy that is pursued, the State Governments are practically liable to them. No matter what may happen, their deposits must be assured. Contingencies of the kind suggested by the honorable member, one does not desire to regard as even possible.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– If their existing position is satisfactory, that is the best of all reasons for saying that we need not interfere.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is absolutely so. The Government are, however, .taking a certain course. If I have succeeded in satisfying the Prime Minister that there is nothing to be lost on the part of the Commonwealth Government or Parliament by, if necessary, a suspension of action in bringing this particular part of the measure into operation until Parliament has a further opportunity of considering an alternative proposition which he may lay before us during next session, I think we shall close this portion of our business with a feeling of general contentment’ on the part of all who have been engaged in it.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition has put the opposition in regard to the Savings Bank proposal very fairly. If I am unable to agree with his suggestion it is not because I am not in full sympathy with much that he has said regarding the protection of the interests of the Savings Banks of the States. I have said very frequently during the second-reading debate and the Committee stage of the Bill that the Government have a perfectly open mind on this question of discussion and negotiation with the States Governments. But to refrain from bringing the portion of the Bill dealing with the proposed Commonwealth Savings Bank into operation at the same -time as that relating to the genera] banking business in any particular building is a course which the Government could not justify.

Mr Deakin:

– Does the honorable gentleman mean to say that the Government expect to have buildings open and to be ready to transact banking business on any scale at all within the next four or five months?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes. In all probability before this Parliament will meet to legislate next year there will be banks open, for the transaction of business.

Mr Page:

– I think the honorable gentleman is very optimistic.

Mr FISHER:

– But, even supposing that were not so, to defer the operation of this portion of the measure with the intention of renewing the discussion upon it next year to determine whether the policy proposed should be proceeded with, or the matter dealt with in a different way, would really be to suggest that the Government cannot be trusted with powers which they believe to be necessary and beneficial. It is a suggestion that if this proposal were shown to need amendment, the Government would hesitate to propose its amendment. That does not apply to this Government. If we find that we have made a mistake we shall be just as ready to seek to amend the proposal as we have been to introduce it in the form in which it is now before honorable members.

Sir William Lyne:

– Do I understand that the honorable gentleman is replying to the debate?

Mr FISHER:

– No. Honorable members are sometimes under a misapprehension regarding the third reading of Bills. There is no reply. The honorable member for Hume will not be prevented from saying anything that he desires to say.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then the Prime Minister had no right to speak at this stage; he has already moved that the Bill be read a third time.

Mr FISHER:

– I think that the formal moving of such a motion is not regarded as a speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The mover of a motion for the third reading of a Bill has no right of reply.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But is he not taken to have spoken in formally moving such a motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The formal submission of a motion for the third reading of a Bill is not regarded as the making of a speech. When the Order of the Day is called on, such a motion is taken as having been formally moved. The Minister in charge of it is not regarded as having spoken in formally submitting such a motion; otherwise he would not be al- lowed to speak again. The practice in this Parliament, as well as in others, has been to allow the Minister in charge of a Bill to speak either when moving that it be read a third time, or at a later stage of the debate ; but when he exercises his right to speak, in submitting the motion, he is not allowed the right of reply.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am not aware of such a practice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I refer the honorable member to standing order 261, which provides that -

A reply shall be allowed to a member who has made a substantive motion to the House, or moved the second reading of a Bill, but not to any member who has moved an order of the day (not being the second reading of a Bill) an amendment, the previous question, or an ‘ instruction to a Committee.

The honorable member will, therefore, see that the right of reply is allowed only to the mover of a substantive motion, or a motion for the second reading of a Bill. If the Prime Minister had spoken in submitting this motion he would not have had a right of reply, so that any one desirous of obtaining information from him in the course of the debate would have been unable to secure it. It is, therefore, usually taken that the Minister in charge of a Bill merely submits the motion for the third reading, and is allowed, if he so desires, to speak at a later stage.

Mr FISHER:

– The point is a very interesting one. Returning to the Bill itself, I desire to say that I heartily reciprocate all that the Leader of the Opposition has said regarding the desirableness of our working in harmony with the States. I repeat what I have said several times during the debate on this Bill, that this Government has no desire to make a raid on the funds of the State Savings Banks. Indeed, we take upon ourselves the responsibility of saying that if any such danger arose we should feel it to be our duty to act as the guardians of the interests of the States and of State funds. That, however, does not touch the main question which has been raised as to whether the Commonwealth should establish a Savings Bank, and when I say that we are ready and willing at any time to meet the representatives of the States in order to discuss this matter with them in its broader aspects, so far as it affects the people of the Commonwealth, and that we, as a Government, feel that it is our duty to protect the interests of the States, as well as those of the people of the Commonwealth, I think it will be admitted that I have said all that is necessary to remove the false impression that has been created by the outrageous and unnecessary statements made by public men regarding the danger of a raid upon the funds of the State Savings Banks. It is significant that even the unreasonable language used in the effort to raise an outcry in this respect has not ruffled a feather, so to speak, so far as the great community of Australia is concerned. The fact is that the people rely upon honest financial dealing as between the responsible representatives of the Commonwealth and the States.

Mr Fuller:

– They think that since no notice has been taken of the protests of the State Governments it is not worth while for them to take action.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not agree with the honorable member. Not very long ago the State of which he has the honour to be a representative came into direct conflict with the Commonwealth authorities, and the commercial section of the community in New South Wales backed up the State Government, although they were in conflict with the constitutional power of the Commonwealth. They held public meetings and were going to create a civil war. Most sensible people in Australia know very well, however, that the provision made in this Bill for the conduct of a Savings Bank business is simply an economic and necessary proposal to be associated with a general banking scheme. I hope, as, I believe, honorable members opposite do, that, as the result of discussion with the representatives of the States, we shall be able to make a financial arrangement that will, not only protect the financial position of the Commonwealth both here and abroad, but will be of even greater assistance to the States themselves. We see developing to-day a financial position that is really beginning to embarrass the States. Whilst that is obvious, it is not my duty to speak of the financial difficulties of the States save as a citizen and as a representative of the people in this Parliament. I desire, however, to state that so far from wishing to humiliate, to cripple, or to in any way embarrass the States, either in regard to their general financial position, or in the matter of their Savings Banks, this Government has in view the protection of their financial interests and the well-being of thepeople generally. So far as it will be economically advantageous to the people to have this Bank, effect will be given to our scheme, but as soon as we reached a point at which it would be injurious to the States, and not beneficial to the Commonwealth,’ this Government would see to it that such a policy was not pursued any further. I prefer to allow the Bill to pass as it is with the assurance that I have given on behalf of the Government.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I have been rather amused at the objections that have been raised by the States to this measure. One would think that something in the nature of a burglary was contemplated in regard to the State Savings Bank funds. I have failed, however, to learn that on any occasion the depositors in those institutions have had a. word to say in opposition to this scheme. Apparently, they arc quite satisfied. I think it essential that the Commonwealth should be responsible for all these funds, and it can be responsible for them only by adopting a Savings Bank system. I do not think the Bill provides that money that has already been received by the States Savings Banks shall be transferred to the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Mr Fisher:

– Certainly not.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The £50,000,000 of deposits referred to just now are not to be raided.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Surely the Commonwealth could not take that money from the State Savings Banks?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– One would imagine from what has been said that it was going to do so.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– No one has said so.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Nine-tenths of the people of New South Wales have been led by statements in the press to believe that such is the intention, and I was not quite sure on the point myself until I read the Bill.

Mr Roberts:

– They were led to believe it by Opposition speeches.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– By statements in the Opposition press.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Another grossly inaccurate statement by the Honorary Minister.

Mr Roberts:

– I repeat that they were led to believe it by Opposition speeches.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I shall not say that. I do not want to have a disagreement with my honorable friends. I do not want to get into any row which may lead to my being turned out, as some members of the New South Wales Parliament were the other day.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We pay this Honorary Minister so much a year to shout out incorrect statements.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If the honorable member for Parramatta would be quiet there would be fewer interjections., The position is simply this : The States can carry on their Savings Bank business in the future as they have done in the past if depositors choose to put their deposits in the State Savings Banks. At the same time, the Commonwealth will carry on its business, and I hope that it will be doing so before long. But I wish to point out to the Treasurer that I do not think it would be a wise thing, as a handle is being made of the matter just now, for the Commonwealth to take away the use of the postoffices from the States as places at which deposits may be received for their Savings Banks.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Government are going to do that.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think the Prime Minister will be wise to allow it to be understood clearly beforehand that, at any rate for a time, while the two systems are being dovetailed one into the other, State Post-office Savings Bank depositors can still deposit their money through the post-offices.

Mr Fisher:

– There is no intention to turn them out - none whatever.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I did not think that there was.

Mr Ryrie:

– The Prime Minister said that it was impossible to carry on both businesses in one building.

Mr Fisher:

– I have said frequently that the States will not get notice to quit.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not think that the Government will do anything of the kind. It would be a harsh proceeding.

Mr Page:

– What is the difference between giving’ a man notice to quit and starving him out?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not think that what I have stated would be a good thing to do, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will not do it.

Mr Fisher:

– There is no intention of bundling them out.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– We are getting accustomed to the action of some States in always objecting to everything that is done by the Commonwealth. It does not matter what it is, if the Commonwealth is going to do anything there is a strong objection in some quarters. I should like to say here - because I intend to say it somewhere else in future - that the only remedy I can see is to have a subdivision of the States, so that some of them may not be so powerful as they are.

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member is a statesman.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– That is the only solution of this difficulty. There is too much State influence altogether, especially on the part of the larger States. There is too much interference with the functions of the Commonwealth Government. But if the Commonwealth does nothing to prevent State Savings Bank depositors depositing their money through the post-office, and leaves the people the right to deposit with the Commonwealth or the States as they please, no harm can be done to any one. I am very glad to hear that the Prime Minister does not intend to take away the use of the post-offices for the time being.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– He did not say that.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– He did.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– He did not.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I heard the Prime Minister say that he did not intend at the present time-

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– To bundle them out.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– To take away the use of the post-offices.

Mr Ryrie:

– He said the other day that he would.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I put the question to the Prime Minister as to whether he was going to do it at once, and while the process of dovetailing the two systems is going on, be the period long or short. Until the people thoroughly understand the question, I would give them the right to deposit money through the postoffices just as they have it at the present time. I understood the Prime Minister to say that that would be allowed.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear !

Mr McWilliams:

– If you put another office in the same building for doing the same sort of work, how can both carry on?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Very easily.

Mr Ryrie:

– The Prime Minister said distinctly that they could not, and that the States must go. . He said that the States could use the railway stations.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– He does not say so now.

Mr Fisher:

– I said “eventually.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Eventually, I have no doubt, a separation will come ; but not for some time. The Prime Minister will, I hope, provide, when he does undertake to receive deposits from the public, for a different system from that which used to prevail in New South Wales. In that State the deposits received were placed in a general fund, and at one time the money was lodged with two banks - the Bank of New South Wales and the Commercial Bank - and the Treasurer drew on those banks for money deposited by Savings Bank depositors.

Mr Fisher:

– No Treasurer could do anything of the kind under this Bill.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not want that to be done. ‘I appointed the Commission which unearthed that practice in New South Wales. It was shown to be a highly improper thing to do. These deposits should be kept, in the interests of the people, as distinct as .they can be. I think it will be acknowledged that it is better for the Commonwealth than for a State to be responsible. The Commonwealth could not allow any State to make default. It would have to come to the rescue. It is far better that the Commonwealth should be responsible to the taxpayers than that it should have to do anything of that kind. I am quite satisfied that it is a very good thing that the Government should have power to do what they have taken power to do under this Bill.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I am very glad to hear this altered attitude of the Prime Minister with regard to the Savings Bank business.

Mr Fisher:

– There is no alteration.

Mr J H Catts:

– Is not the honorable member very sorry?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member for Hume has succeeded in getting from the Prime Minister an assurance which no honorable member on this side has been able to get.

Mr Fenton:

– He has said over and over again what he said this morning.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– What has the Prime Minister said over and over again?

Mr Fenton:

– That he had no intention of ignominiously bundling the States out of the post-offices.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Prime Minister has stated over and over again that the State Savings Banks were to le “ disadvantaged.” That is his expression.

Mr J H Catts:

– Read it out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member can look up the Prime Minister’s speech for himself.

Mr J H Catts:

– It is a villainous misrepresentation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am quoting the Prime Minister’s very word. I shall now quote the whole passage. I have no objection to obliging the honorable member, and I hope that he will apologize when I have done so.

Mr J H Catts:

– Let us hear it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– He said-

Because it will probably be superior to and more convenient than the State Savings Banks, it will ultimately grow, perhaps not at the expense, but to the disadvantage of the States Savings Banks.

Now will the honorable member for Cook apologize for stating that I misrepresented the Prime Minister?

Mr J H Catts:

– That is not the way the honorable member put it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I said that the Prime Minister stated that this bank is to “disadvantage” the State Savings Banks.

Mr Fenton:

– He did not say that he was going to push them out, as the honorable member stated.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I could not put the matter in plainer language. The Prime Minister stated that this Commonwealth Bank - will ultimately grow, perhaps not at the expense, but to the disadvantage of the States Savings Banks, so far as their growth and development is concerned.

Mr Fisher:

– Exactly.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Their “growth and development “ are to be “ disadvantaged “ by the setting up of this Commonwealth Bank.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is not the purpose of the Bill.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is stated by the Prime Minister to be the effect of the Bill.

Mr J H Catts:

– It is notthe purport of the Bill.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not wish to answer the honorable member’s quibbles - he is beneath contempt in the way he goes on in the House ! The Prime Minister is thus further reported -

Mr Groom:

– Will the Commonwealth Govern ment continue to do their work as they are now doing it?

Mr FISHER:

– I shall not commit myself to that. I think it is impossible for two Savings Banks to be carried on in the same post-office without some difficulty arising.

I hope the honorable member for Hume is listening to this. To-day, the Prime Minister proposes to do nothing in the way of bundling the States out; he is going to allow them to remain to their own disadvantage under serious difficulty. The States are to be disadvantaged by the operations of the Commonwealth, and it is to be made utterly impossible for them to carry on business in the same office. What is to happen in a small Savings Bank in the country where there is only one officer to do the work for the two institutions? When a man comes in with a deposit, he will be asked by the officer, “In what bank do you wish to place the money ? “ and the man will probobly reply, “ I want a Post Office Savings Bank.”

Mr J H Catts:

– The officer will see the Savings Bank book.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– But the man may desire to open an account.

Mr J H Catts:

– Will he not know in which bank he wishes to make the deposit ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Many people in the country will not know there is any distinction, particularly if the business be carried on in the same office; the “Post Office Savings Bank “ will be the only idea in their minds. The result must be that the officer will do the business for the Commonwealth Bank, to the disadvantage of the State Bank. The Prime Minister is quite right when he says that the two institutions cannot exist in the same building ; and, in my opinion, the States would be absolutely idiotic to permit any such arrangement.

Mr Sampson:

– The Prime Minister said he would not allow the two institutions to be conducted in the same office.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not think the Prime Minister said quite that, but, rather, that it would be impossible without serious difficulty arising. In plain language, it means that, when the Commonwealth Bank is established the State Bank must go as quickly as possible. It needs only a moment’s reflection to realize that the States would be foolish to allow their business to be conducted by officers who are not in their pay or under their control. I have heard nothing about “ grabbing “ the money, except in the sense I am now indicating, namely, that as the banks cannot exist side by side, the business must go to the Commonwealth. The first duty of the officer in the bank will be to say that he represents the Commonwealth ; and, as the depositors will not really care in which bank he places his money if the interest is the same, the officer will do his duty by his employer. The honorable member for Wimmera, who interjected a moment or two ago, has called my attention to the following extract from the reported speech of the Prime Minister -

Mr Ryrie:

– Would the Prime Minister say whether the States will be interfered with in their use of the post-offices?

Mr FISHER:

– If I may express my own individual opinion - I am not speaking for the Government in this matter -

That is a strange doctrine on the part of the Prime Minister in a matter of prime policy ! -

I believe that it would not be possible for the Government to carry on two Savings Banks in the one office. I must use my common sense in this matter. It is not a question of aggressiveness. There are, of course, many post-offices at which there are not Savings Banks.

This supports my statement that, while it is not proposed to bundle the States out, the two -institutions cannot exist side by side, and the Prime Minister expects the operations of the Commonwealth Savings Bank to disadvantage the operations of the State Savings Banks. The States, having provided those facilities for so many years, may well feel a little perturbation when they realize the truth of the Prime Minister’s remarks.

Sir William Lyne:

– By-and-by there will be only one bank, because the people believe in the Commonwealth.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then the States must take their Savings Banks elsewhere.

Sir William Lyne:

– Of necessity, they must go.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then the sooner they go the better. If I were a State authority I would not permit a State bank to be controlled by an officer who was in charge of a rival bank.

Sir William Lyne:

– Why should it be a “ rival “ bank?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It can be nothing else, when one deposit is offered to a man controlling two banks.

Sir William Lyne:

– I am afraid the honorable member is indicating what he desired the Prime Minister to say !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It does not matter what the Prime Minister said; the facts speak for themselves. The Prime Minister very properly told us that he must use his own common-sense in the matter, and his common-sense teaches him that it is impossible for the two banks to exist in the one post-office. We all know that ; and Parliament ought to have something better to do than interfere with a business which is now excellently conducted by the States. The object of Federation is not necessarily to exercise all the powers conferred by the Constitution, but only those which can be prudently exercised, much better than by the States, for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth. The States Savings Banks are excellent, and successful in every way ; and yet it is proposed to interfere with them without motive or purpose - without its being shown that there is any grievance to redress. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why this change should be made; he only thinks it advisable to open a branch Savings Bank in connexion with the general bank. What he does not say we must infer, namely, that he wishes to collect funds by means of the Savings Bank to help to finance the Commonwealth Bank. That is where we part company from him. We say that the States Savings Banks have always existed for the purpose of encouraging thrift on the part of the people, and not for the purpose of embarking upon ordinary banking business such as the Commonwealth Bank must undertake if it is to compete successfully with existing institutions.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- It has been said by honorable members opposite that there is no public demand for this

Bill. It seems to me that they adopt two attitudes towards all progressive legislation. Either they cry out that there is no public demand for it, or, if there be a demand, they take care to ignore it. Consequently they are opposed to progressive legislation all the time. Their main business seems to be to invent reasons why no liberal measure should be placed upon the statute-book. That was the form of argument which they adopted in opposition to the note issue and to the imposition of a Federal land tax.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I claim that the people have demanded it. Evidence of that is to be found in the overwhelming majority which has been returned to this Parliament pledged to the establishment of a Commonwealth bank of issue, deposit, exchange, and reserve - a great national banking institution without any limit to its operations.

A difference of opinion has been expressed in regard to the interpretation of that policy. Some of the State Premiers are a little apprehensive as to the probable effect of the Savings Bank clauses of the Bill. Now, one of the cardinal principles of the Labour movement is that a duly constituted caucus of the Federal Labour party shall interpret the platform of that party and decide its details. A similar method is followed in respect of the interpretation of the platform of the State Labour parties. The State Labour parties cannot interfere with the discretion of the Federal Labour party in determining the details of its own platform; neither can the Federal Labour party interfere with the discretion of the State Labour parties in determining their own platforms. The Federal Labour party has interpreted a great National bank of issue, deposit, exchange, and reserve to include, amongst other things, the establishment of a Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Mr Atkinson:

– Was anything said about the establishment of such a bank at the recent Labour Conference?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr J H CATTS:

– One of the arguments which has been advanced by honorable members opposite is that the Bill has not been approved by the people. I submit that the electors have returned an overwhelming majority to this Parliament in favour of this great national banking policy.

Mr Ryrie:

– They were ready to believe that they would get cheap money.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am not now concerned with what they were led to believe. I am not discussing that point. I am only concerned with their emphatic demand for this legislation.

Mr Atkinson:

– The honorable member will be very much concerned when he finds how disappointed they are with it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The same dismal prophecy has been made inregard to every progressive measure which has been submitted by the Labour party.

I submit that the Bill would be altogether inadequate if it did not contain provision for the establishment of a Commonwealth Savings Bank. Take, for example, our Federal Territories. Does anybody say that we should not provide in this Bill for the establishment of a number of Savings Banks throughout the Northern Territory? Then, again, is not Papua our own exclusive domain? Why should we not establish Savings Banks there? Surely, too, we should have power to establish similar institutions in the Federal Capital’ area. There can be no answer to the Savings Bank provisions of the measure. I am aware that some criticism has been levelled at the possible administration of these provisions in the future. But I am not going to believe that any responsible Minister will administer them for the express purpose of harassing the States. If I am present in this House when any such policy is attempted, I shall enter a vigorous protest against it.

Mr Hedges:

– If the honorable member gets permission to do so.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member for Fremantle reminds me of a cockatoo which, in reply to anything which may be said to it, says “ Scratch cocky.” The only answer which the honorable member can make to my statement is, “ If the honorable member gets the permission of the Caucus.” That is the parrot cry with which he answers every argument.

From the remarks of the honorable member for Parramatta it would appear that the Prime Minister had taken up two distinct attitudes in regard to the Savings Sank provisions of this Bill. He evidently thought he had got hold of some words uttered by the Prime Minister which were hostile to the State Savings Banks, and, as a result, he was in the seventh heaven of delight. But when he afterwards discovered that the Prime Minster had used words which might be interpreted as being friendly to the States, he raised all sorts of objections. Although he said that he was glad to note the Prime Minister’s change of attitude, he was very sorry about it, because he would have been delighted to quote . during the next electoral campaign utterances of the Prime Minister antagonistic to the Savings Banks of the States. Even if the Prime Minister had said in the first place that he intended to operate the Commonwealth Savings Bank to the disadvantage of the Savings Banks of the States, and had afterwards said that he would not do so, “it would be fair to accept his later statement.

Mr Fuller:

– It is a fair thing to show that he has altered his mind at the instance of the honorable member for Hume.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do not admit that he has done so. In any case, the second statement should be welcome to those who objected to the first. But apparently nothing will satisfy honorable members opposite, and the only thing the Government can do is to push ahead without regard for them, taking their criticism for what it is worth, which is not very much.

Mr Fuller:

– That is what the Government is doing.

Mr J H CATTS:

– When the honorable member sat on this side of the Chamber, he did not pay much attention to the objections of the Labour party.

Mr Fuller:

– I did not.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Now the Labour party is doing the same.

Mr Fuller:

– Doing it very effectively.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am glad that we are doing our work effectively.

Mr Fuller:

– The Labour party is very effectively not taking notice of what is said on this side.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It will be seen, if the records are consulted, that the Government has made use of a good many suggestions from the Opposition side.

Mr Fowler:

– The Opposition has licked a good many Government measures into shape.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Which of those statements is correct? One honorable member complains that the criticism of the Opposition is not regarded, and the other that the Opposition has licked Government legislation into shape.

I cannot believe that the Commonwealth Savings Bank would be operated to the disadvantage of the Savings Banks of the States. The Commonwealth Government will desire an amicable arrangement with the Governments of the States to secure the most effective operation of this and every other piece of Commonwealth, legislation.; If I am here when there is any refusal tomake reasonable reciprocal arrangementswith the States, I shall strenuously opposesuch a policy. The members of thisParliament are not returned to harassthe States, or to prejudice the working, of their institutions. We all desire that Commonwealth and State institutions should’ work together harmoniously in the best, interests of the community. The Commonwealth depends for the carrying out of many of its services upon State officials.. It uses State officials for the construction of its public works, State railways for the transport of its posts, and in remote places, State railway stations for the transaction! ‘ of post and telegraph business. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Commonwealth would desire to work in antagonism to the States. If it tried to do so, the States could1 prevent it. Were a bumptious Minister desirous of interfering with State concerns,, the powers of the States would be found sufficient to bring him to reason very soon. The States could retaliate by withdrawing, facilities used by the Commonwealth in. connexion with State services. Whilst honorable members here acknowledge thatit is not intended by the Government to plunder the Savings Banks of theStates, the Liberal press does not do so. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, for example,, publishes articles headed “ A Raid on thePeople’s Savings.”

Mr Ryrie:

– We do not control the press..

Mr J H CATTS:

– They control honorable members opposite.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member has just given evidence to the contrary.

Mr J H CATTS:

– This newspaper manufactures war-cries for honorablegentlemen opposite, who would not be returned without its support.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorablemember confine himself to the question ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Although honorable members opposite do not make thesestatements, the Liberal press makes them. They are, however, absurd, because the Commonwealth cannot take money from the Savings Banks of the States. Any money that may be transferred to the Commonwealth Savings Bank from the Savings Banks of the States will be transferred by the voluntary act of existing depositors, whowill make the change in their own interests..

Mr Sampson:

– They will have no option if there is only one Savings Bank.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That will not be the position. When the Federal election is held, eighteen months hence, the people will know for themselves that there has been no raid on their savings. I hope that an amicable arrangement will be made with the States in this matter, so that there may be a consolidation, and the establishment, of one institution tor the whole Commonwealth. Probably there are places in which there are now no Savings Banks, where a Commonwealth Savings Bank could be established without competing with the institutions of the States. In other districts where there are State Savings Banks, they can be left the field, at any rate, for a considerable time, and an amicable arrangement can be made between two banks to represent each other in various localities. That principle has been followed by private banks, and surely an arrangement which can be made by such banks for the conduct of their affairs could be come to between the Commonwealth and the States.

The honorable member for Wilmot asked why could not the Commonwealth come to some arrangement with the States?

Mr Atkinson:

– No; why did not the Commonwealth consult the States?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Commonwealth Parliament cannot stand still in relation to a policy which has been indorsed by the people of the country until some arrangement has been come to with the States. We can go ahead with our legislation, and leave the door wide open for making an amicable arrangement which the States may feel will be in their interests. The Prime Minister has stated openly, and his statement has been indorsed on this side by one member after another, that there will be an open door, that there will be a desire on the part of the Commonwealth Government to meet the States amicably, and come to some arrangement for the consolidation of the Savings Banks. That is an invitation to the State Governments to submit any suggestions which they may feel would be in their interests, as well as in the general interest, and, should it be necessary to embody such an arrangement in the law, then the Prime Minister has stated definitely that he will be prepared at a subsequent date to bring in a measure ratifying it.

Mr Sampson:

– The Government have had plenty of time at their disposal.

Mr J H CATTS:

– No matter what explanation is offered from this side, the honorable member will offer some other criticism.

Mr Sampson:

– You have had eighteen months in which to do something.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It is the profession of honorable members opposite to criticise and oppose, and, no matter what arguments are offered in support of a thing, they will invent something to be used ‘ against its acceptance.

I was very glad to read in the cable news of to-day or yesterday that such an eminent authority as the London Times has stated that this Bank Bill, introduced by the Labour Government, is based on sound, conservative, and safe lines.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– That is why you like it, I suppose.

Mr Atkinson:

– That is what your friends will not like.

Mr J H CATTS:

– In regard to a Bank Bill, I would rather see the. House err on the side of conservatism than make a rash experiment which would impair the financial status of the Commonwealth. We can liberalize this measure from time to time, as experience may show to be necessary, and on the safe side. Our friends in the Liberal party opposed the Bill at the beginning because it was a dangerous piece of legislation. But they have now come right round to the point when it is not only dangerous, but altogether too conservative, and they would like to see it altered.

Mr Atkinson:

– No.

Mr J H CATTS:

– There- is no accounting for the attitude of the Opposition. As has been stated, they are “ the wreckage of all parties.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must not deal with that matter.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am simply pointing out, sir, that the Opposition are cemented together by their opposition to everything.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That has nothing to do with the question before the Chair.

Mr J H CATTS:

– However, the dismal predictions of the Opposition with regard to the measure will certainly be exploded. I believe that, as years roll on, posterity will bless the day when the Commonwealth Labour party introduced its National bank policy, and provided such banking facilities and such relief from the paws of great private banks, which *:e only concerned in exploiting the wealth of all for the benefit of its shareholders.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– I think that this is a fitting opportunity to make a final protest against the passing of this measure. I base that view on the fact that there has been no demand for a general bank carried on by the “Commonwealth. It is a question - and one that will have to be settled - as to whether the general business of banking is within our legislative powers under the Constitution. I should say that it is not, though we have ample power to carry on a banking business, that is to establish a central bank to manage the financial transactions of the Government, including the taking over of the State debts and the control of the note issue. Whether we have the power to embark on the general business of banking I am not sure, but I ami inclined to think that we have not. Another objection I have to the Bill is that this departure is being taken without any advice from any authority of eminence. It seems to be the practice nowadays that Bills dealing with the most difficult and intricate questions are brought here, and passed without the House being informed as to whether advice has been sought, and if it has been sought, what has been the result of the reference to eminent persons acquainted with these matters? In this case we have not been informed lhat any inquiry has been made, or that any one has advised the Government in the matter. They seem to be all-wise, in fact, omniscient, and are prepared to deal with anything and everything without asking the opinion of those who are competent to advise. I fear that we are running a good race towards disaster in embarking on projects which are ill-considered, and not based upon the advice of those who are accustomed to deal with such matters.

Mr Poynton:

– You are not opposed to the Commonwealth conducting its own banking business?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– As I said in my speech on the second reading, I am not opposed to the Bill, so far as it deals with the control of the financial matters of the Government, such as the floating of loans, and the taking over of the State debts, and matters of that sort, though I should prefer another method of doing it. Nor would I be opposed to the provisions in regard to Savings Banks if I th’ougHt that their enactment would be to the advantage of the people of this country. I can see advantages in the establishment of National Savings Banks, but my objection is that the present proposals will, at the present time, be injurious to the States by invading the arena which they have already entered, and which is very necessary for their finances, and also their development. There can be no doubt that it will interfere with the States in their developmental powers, and even if we have the right; why we should do anything which would cripple or injure them in the development of the country, I am at a loss to understand.The States are the developers. They have all the industries of the country to promote. They have control of manufacturing and of agricultural and pastoral settlement, and also the municipal work of the country to direct. They, therefore, want these funds, as they have been accustomed to have them, for those purposes. I can speak with some experience, because many local matters connected with development in Western Australia are provided with funds from this source. I am at a loss to understand why we should desire to monopolize these funds when there is no necessity for the Commonwealth to have the money. Surely the savings of the people iri each State ought to be used in the interests of those people in the development of the . resources of the State rather than be absorbed into the Federal Treasury. For that reason I am opposed to this Bill. It is, however, only carrying out the policy that has been pursued in this House by the Ministerial party of trying to reduce the importance of the States whenever they have an opportunity. One would think that the States belonged to other nations, and that we had nothing to do with them, judging by the vendetta that has been pursued in this House for a long time, and is being pursued now against everything that belongs to the local Governments. You cannot reduce the importance of the States in a better way than by depleting its revenue, because by that means you make it less capable of carrying on the work of development. We have had several instances of this. At one shot they invaded the arena of State taxation by means of the land tax. They are going to invade it again by means of the Commonwealth Savings Bank. All these actions of theirs lessen the powers of the States to carry on their work economically, and I suppose we shall see other shots later on, all having for their object the reduction of the importance of the States, not in any direct way under the Constitution, but by the indirect means of depleting their revenues. The States should have been given some time to settle down after losing the millions of money of which they were deprived under the financial agreement on the termination of the Braddon section. The taking away from them of ^3,000,000 or ^4,000,000 of revenue per year by that means, and the invasion of their arena of taxation by a Federal Land Tax, ought to have been sufficient for us at present. Not content, however, with taking from them ;£r 1,000,000 during the last two years, the Government propose to cripple therm further. The Bill will do injury to the States, and is not necessary, because there is at present no shortage of funds in the Federal Treasury.

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

– I desire to indorse almost every word of protest uttered by the right honorable member for Swan. The honorable member for Cook, in the latter part of his, speech, which he evidently intended as a peroration, made a general accusation against the Opposition of opposing this Bill as they had opposed all Bills. The honorable member is frequently very slipshod in his language, and he was not less slipshod in the speech which he has just delivered. I have heard a number of speeches on this side of the House which by no means condemned the general principle of this Bill. They took exception to two or three of the most salient points in it - first t’6 the form of the government of the bank ; secondly, to the failure to remove those clauses which would inevitably lead the public to consider it a political bank; and, thirdly, to the proposal to take the Savings Banks moneys out of the hands of the States. The general principle of a Commonwealth Bank Bill I for one - and I heard others adopt the same view - have approved as one that could be made very useful to the Commonwealth in the future in the large and important financial transactions which it would conduct. Experience, however, has shown honorable members on this side that there is an enormous danger in having a» bank which is intended to handle such stupendous sums of money, practically in the hands of a Government. We have urged again and again that the experience of other parts of the world in assisting the Governor of a great institution of this sort by a board of men eminent in commerce and finance should have been followed here. With regard to the Savings Banks, we have also shown again and again that the effect of the competition which seems likely to be the result of the Bill, judging by the observations made by the Prime Minister, will be to induce the public to remove their moneys from the State Savings Banks in order to get some extra interest from the Commonwealth Bank’. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he will not object to the State Savings Banks carrying on that part of their business in the same buildings. I can foresee the result. The post-offices will very much resemble the polling booths, because we shall have people advocating, to those who have money to deposit, on the one hand the Commonwealth Bank and on the other the State Savings Bank, at the door of the same building. *

Mr Ryrie:

– They will be touting for money !

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

– There will be touting similar to that practised by the representatives of candidates at the doors of polling booths. We shall have people inviting intending depositors to place their savings with the State Savings Bank and others, including, it “may be, the postmaster, under instructions, inviting the public to transfer their deposits from the State Bank to the Commonwealth Bank, or inviting new depositors to give their preference to the Commonwealth institution.

Mr Fenton:

– Does the honorable member not think that an amicable arrangement mav be made?

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

– I do. That is a very wise suggestion, but the Government have taken no notice of it.

Mr Fenton:

– Yes, the Prime Minister has said that they have left the door open.

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

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong is now experiencing what honorable members on this side have very frequently experienced. We cannot get these valuable suggestions listened to. The honorable member says that the door is open.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is open for the States to go out.

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

– The Prime Minister might very well have told his supporters who have made that suggestion that he thinks well of it, and will enter into negotiations with the State Governments with the view of bringing about some amicable arrangement.

Mr Fenton:

– He said so very definitely.

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

– He has not said so in any speech which I have heard from him.

Mr Roberts:

– He said distinctly that he would invite the States to negotiate.

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

– I am very glad to hear it. That would be a step in the right direction, and should result in the avoidance of a great deal of trouble and inconvenience to the public. I am reminded that the Prime Minister said -

I shall not dogmatize upon this question, which has been sprung upon me, but I think the position of the Commonwealth will be best and most expeditiously served if we pass this Bill providing for Commonwealth control, on the understanding that when the States have arrived at an agreement, and express a desire to do so, they will be able to come in and be shareholders with us in a co-operative banking concern.

No doubt the door is open, but this is an invitation to existing institutions to come cap in hand to the proposed new bank and ask to be admitted to partnership in a rival concern.

Mr Fenton:

– The Prime Minister said in addition to what the honorable member has quoted, “ I will also approach them with that object in view.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– “ ‘ Will you walk into my parlour? said the spider to the fly.”

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

– I do not join with the honorable member for Parramatta in that expression of want of confidence. I did not hear him say so in any speech he made while I was present in the Chamber, but if the Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to confer with the States in order to see whether they cannot come in and participate in this great banking concern, we may be approaching in some degree the antediluvian scheme of the honorable member for Darwin, which was first submitted to the Brisbane Labour Conference, and then thrown into the waste-paper basket by his colleagues. It now seems to be in the way of being partially taken up again. What I wish to emphasize is that it seems to be an axiom with the Commonwealth Government that this Parliament is what is popularly described as “top dog” in everything that is done in the way of legislation in Australia. Honorable members opposite seem to be under the impression that the Commonwealth Parliament was brought into existence to dominate the State Parlia ments, whereas the distinction between them is merely a division of functions, one dealing with national affairs, and the State Parliaments dealing with local affairs. It has been frequently pointed out, and statistics have been quoted in support of the contention, that the State Governments have already borrowed a large part of these Savings Bank moneys for their internal development, and, amongst other things, to make advances to their settlers. In his opening speech, the Prime Minister, in answer to an interjection of mine, said that the Commonwealth Bank: might be so much more economically administered that it would be able to offer better terms than the State Savings Banks, and I inferred from that that the right honorable gentleman was in a mood to enter into competition with the State Savings Banks. I am very glad, therefore, to have had the subsequent assurance, though it was not in the passage which I have just read, that, instead of taking up this attitude of the superior legislative power, the Government will recognise that the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of theStates have equal powers within their respective orbits. I am very glad to learn that the Prime Minister is disposed to come down from the pedestal which the Federal Government are so fond of mounting, that he is prepared to approach the State Governments in a fair spirit, and to invite them to take part in this matter.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– He says that he is willing to do so. How much faith can. be put in that?

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

– If the right honorable gentleman is not willing to do so he is a greater master of humbug than I used to think him. I confess that his Scotch accent used to have a very convincing effect upon me, but I am bound to say that a comparison of many of his utterances with his subsequent performance has satisfied me that there is no more plausible man in this House than is the Prime Minister, will all his Scotch accent. If the honorable gentleman givesthis House his assurance that he is willing to confer with the State Governments, that ought to be sufficient to justify the State Governments in approaching him in order that some arrangement may be made to prevent what might be a disaster to the States, if the more haughty attitude to which I have referred were continued by the Federal Government.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The State Governments approached the Prime Minister only last week.

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

– The honorable member for Parramatta is more pugnacious than I am. I am satisfied from the quotation put into my hands that the attitude of the Prime Minister is not going to be so -dogmatic and superior as I was at first inclined to think it was. The Prime Minister was not present when many honorable members on this side addressed themselves to the Bill. No member of the Government heard some of the speeches from this side, with the exception of the honorable member for Adelaide, who was occupied with other things at the time. The Prime Minister did not hear one-half of the speeches which have been made by highly competent members on this side. Unless he has read Hansard carefully, which I do not think compatible with the due performance of his many other duties, he must be unaware of a large part of the criticism offered on this Bill. I therefore desire to say, in order to meet the accusation of the honorable member for Cook, that I have heard member after member on this :side repudiate the idea that we have been setting up any unreasonable obstruction to this Bill. Honorable members on this side have approved of the principle of the measure. They have acknowledged that the proposed Commonwealth Bank might be an extremely useful institution in dealing with the very large sums of money which will be involved in the conversion of the State debts and in the financing of our own important affairs. But they have taken exception to three very weak features of the Bill. One is the government of the bank; the second is the ground for suspicion that the Treasurer is going to keep his hand upon the button of the management, so as to give the public outside the idea that the bank will not be ruled entirely upon the recognised commercial principles of the great cities of Australia; and the third feature to which we have taken exception is the proposal to enter ‘into competition with the States in connexion with the business of the Savings Banks. These three cardinal objections I take now. But, apart from them, I approve of the principle of the Bill, and I express the opinion that the proposed bank may be very useful in the future, so long as it is managed with due caution and a proper sense of the responsibility that at taches to an institution which handles the most sensitive commodity in the civilized world.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- The honorable member for Cook does the Opposition an injustice when he accuses us of trying by every means in our power to block the passing of this measure. Many of us have already declared that we favour the establishment of a Commonwealth Bank on proper lines, and that if well managed, and confined to matters that properly come within the scope of such an institution, it may prove of considerable value. The Bill as it stands, however, ought to be opposed, because it contains several objectionable features. This bank will touch every aspect of our commercial life, and also, more or less, our social life, so that we ought to be very careful to see that it is established on a proper foundation. There should be no complaint if, in order to have a scheme that will represent the matured judgment and opinions of the House, a delay of a few months takes place before this Bill is finally passed into law. One of the blemishes of the Bill is that it provides for one-man control, whilst under certain clauses, political influence may be brought to bear, and there is a danger of the bank becoming, sooner or later, a political institution. Then, again, in view of the Savings Bank provisions of the Bill, I think that we should be justified in voting against the motion for the third reading, and I, at all events, am prepared to do so. The Government have committed an error of statesmanship in failing, first of all, to approach the States before proposing to inaugurate a Savings Bank system. They claim that this Bill embodies part of their policy as outlined at the Brisbane Conference ; but the scheme approved by that Conference made no mention-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That matter has nothing to do with the question now before the Chair.

Mr ATKINSON:

– But, sir, the policy of the Labour Government, as explained at the Brisbane Conference, had a lot to do with this Bill. ‘

Mr SPEAKER:

– We are dealing now, not with a question of policy, but with a motion for the third reading of the Bill.

Mr ATKINSON:

– The Commonwealth and State Parliaments are governmental agencies in respect of one and the same people, and each is supposed to be working for the well-being of the people. That being so, the Commonwealth

Government have shown a want of statesmanship in failing to approach the States in regard to the establishment of a Commonwealth Savings Bank before actually submitting such a proposition. The Savings Banks of the States are already doing good work, and uniformity has practically been secured by them. It is now proposed that the Commonwealth shall duplicate the Savings Bank machinery of the States, and in this respect I think that the Government contemplate a very serious business lapse. If we are going to keep in front of us the main object for which we ought to be legislating, we should endeavour to provide for one set of machinery, instead of two sets, to do the Savings Bank business of the people. An unfortunate position will be created if the Commonwealth Savings Bank enters into competition with the State Savings Banks to secure customers. If the general bank proposed to be established be properly managed, the public will soon have confidence in it, and it should have no difficulty in obtaining whatever proportion of the deposits now made with the State Savings Banks is required for our purposes.

Mr Fenton:

– The money ought to go there automatically now.

Mr ATKINSON:

– In other words, the honorable member says that, because this money has been deposited with the State Savings Bants, it ought to be transferred to the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Mr Fenton:

– I mean that the State Savings Banks at the present time have to do a lot of business with the existing banking institutions.

Mr ATKINSON:

– Why . should the Commonwealth enter this arena, and try to perform work that is already being well done by the States Savings Banks ?

Mr Poynton:

– That “gee-gee” has already been flogged to a standstill.

Mr ATKINSON:

– There has been no argument from the Government side of the House that should lead us to ease off. the flogging. The Government are taking’ a step in the wrong direction in proposing to establish a Commonwealth Savings Bank on the lines for which this Bill provides. I recognise that we have the constitutional power to create a Commonwealth Savings Bank, but we ought to exercise that power with judgment and with prudence. This duplication of machinery shows a want of business foresight, and a lack of regard for the interests of those for whom we have been returned to legislate. Another damaging feature of this scheme is that we have no guarantee from the Government that deposits made with the Savings Bank will be kept entirely separate from deposits made with the general bank.

Sir William Lyne:

– They will be kept separate.

Mr ATKINSON:

– The honorable member is in error. The accounts are to be kept separate, but the Government reserve to the Governor the right to place to the credit of one general fund the deposits made with both the general bank and the Savings Bank. The Prime Minister refused to give us any guarantee that money deposited with the Savings Bank would be kept separate from that deposited with the general bank. That is a serious matter from the point of view of the depositors. If, owing to bad management and unwise investments, losses are made, how shall we be able to make good the interest to which depositors in the Savings Bank will be entitled? I hold that the Savings Bank funds should be kept entirely distinct from those of the general bank. We are committing an egregious blunder in rushing in in this way, and entering upon Savings Bank business in connexion with this institution. There must be something at the back of the minds of the Government urging them on in this direction. Perhaps they think that all the money now deposited with the State Savings Banks will go intothe coffers of the Commonwealth Savings Bank, and that it will enable them to carry out various projects. There is, however, no necessity for such a scheme. If the Commonwealth Bank is what it ought to be, it will gain the confidence of the people, and those now controlling the State Savings Banks would be glad to lend us whatever money we required for national undertakings. If the money in the Savings Banks is properly manipulated, it will be of immense assistance to Australia in time to come. It will have a steadying influence in many directions in time of trouble, and should also materially assist us in finding the money that will be required when we proceed totake over and meet the debts of the States as they fall due. The Commonwealth will have to assume those debts as they come due, and the money now in the Savings Banks, or part of it, could be loaned to the Commonwealth Bank if it enjoyed the confidence it ought to inspire. This great question of handling theState debts is pressing more and more upon us every day. I do not propose to say any more, but feel compelled to vote against the. third reading of this Bill, and could not let it pass without entering my protest.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I shall not vote for the third reading of this Bill, and desire to protest emphatically against the Savings Bank provisions of it. I have no objection - quite the opposite, indeed- to the Commonwealth establishing a bank for the purpose of conducting general banking business. A commercial bank would have my approval if it were run on proper lines. But even from the general point of view, it would have been, not only courteous, but in the interests of the Commonwealth Bank if the Prime Minister had sought the advice of the various State Premiers in advance. Because if this Bill is to fulfil its proper function and the bank is to be a truly national institution, we must work in association with the State Governments ; and the time to consult with them is not after the bank is established, but when the general principles on which it is to be established are laid down. That has not been done. The Government have resisted all criticism and all attempts made by honorable members on this side to improve the machinery of the measure.

Mr King O’Malley:

– O - Oh, no.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Absolutely. The Government are determined to have their own child, dressed in their ownway, without any alteration whatever. Having secured their object, they do not invite, but say that they are willing to meet the States in consultation.

Mr King O’Malley:

– S - Some one must start the thing.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– As the Treasurer has been unbending in his attitude towards this House from first to last, with respect to everything connected with the bank, is he willing to concede to the Premiers of the States that which he would not consider here? Surely there is not much likelihood of that. The honorable member for Parkes seemed to be exceedingly hopeful, but he qualified his. hopefulness very much before he sat down.

Mr King O’Malley:

– H - He is a statesman.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The Minister of Home Affairs claims to be one also.

Mr Webster:

– There are three of you then !

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Statesmen are plentiful in this House. The honorable member for Parkes is hopeful that something will come out of the Conference. I am not.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - Then it will be the fault of the States.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I protest against what was said by the honorable member for Cook, who attributed the friction between the Commonwealth and the States to the States. I say that it is not so. What chance is thereof friendl y co-operation in general matters between the States and the Commonwealth, when the avowed intention and policy of the Government of the day is to encroach at any and every opportunity on State rights in every direction? The referenda proposals were an expression of that attitude.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member confine his remarks to this Bill ?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I am showing the necessity for co-operation in these financial matters in order to promote the success of the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must discuss the Bill.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I am discussing the Bill, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has stated that he is going to meet the Premiers of the States, and. the honorable member for Hume was allowed by you this morning to laythe charge against the States that the difficulty of co-operation was due to their conduct. I say that it is not so, but as Mr. Speaker will not allow me to pursue that theme, and to answer the honorable member for Hume-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has no right to say that I would not allow him to reply to any statement that has been made. But the honorable member was entering into a different question altogether. I cannot permit that course.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Then I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to intimate to me that I was perfectly in order in making a statement in answer to the honorable member for Hume?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If I had not considered that the honorable member was out of order I should not have interposed. But the honorable member must not interpret my remarks as he has done. Even if the honorable member for Hume did make certain observations which may be interpreted as the honorable member interprets them, it would be going beyond the scope of this debate to discuss them at length, and the honorable member must not do so.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I do not wish to transgress the Standing Orders, but the longer I am in this House the less I seem to know about them, because fresh precedents are created two or three times a week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect upon my ruling, and I ask him to apologize to the House for having done so.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I do apologize, and I will do my level best to keep within the Standing Orders. I do not wish to offend, but I have had a fairly long parliamentary experience, and the rulings are so entirely different from-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will proceed with his argument.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I wish to refer now to the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning, and to the way in which that statement has been emphasized by at least one honorable member, who, by interjection, insisted on the desire on the part of the Government to cooperate with the States and to enter into consultation with them.

Mr King O’Malley:

– H - Hear, hear.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– But other statements have been made, one of which was to the effect that the Prime Minister’s desire is not to interfere with, or to suppress, the existing Savings Banks throughout the Commonwealth. I maintain that the first object of this Government in connexion with its banking proposals is to lay hold of the capital that is deposited by the people in the Savings Banks, and to use it to run this institution that has no capital of its own.

Mr King O’Malley:

– O - Oh. no.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Very well ; I maintain that it is so, and I wish to give reasons for my belief, reasons which I get out of the mouth of the Prime Minister himself. The honorable member for Hume has to-day given his benediction to this new Savings Bank, and he says there is no reason why the two banks should not operate in the same offices. The honorable member, as a practical business man,ought to know that such a state of affairs is most unlikely. The Bulletin, which generally sets the lead in financial matters to honorable members opposite, ridicules and scorns the idea ; and the Prime Minister has told us that the superior attractiveness of the Commonwealth Bank will eventually prevail, and that in the future there will be only the one bank.

Mr Riley:

– What is there wrong with that ?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The Prime Minister says that it is not the intention to immediately bundle the States out of the post-offices; and what does that mean? The honorable member for Maranoa, who is one of the principal supporters of the Government, when the Prime Minister spoke, interjected, “ Starve them out !” and that is an indication of the tenderness and consideration which will be shown to the State institutions. If the Prime Minister is anxious to consult with the State Governments, why does he not postpone this measure until the forthcoming conference of Premiers has been held ? The right honorable gentleman, however, refuses to permit any delay in connexion with this proposal ?

Sir William Lyne:

– Hear, hear !

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The honorable member for Hume evidently indorses the idea. Only this week the Prime Minister received a joint request from the State Premiers for a conference; and if there is anything practical in the words of the right honorable gentleman this morning, he will hold his hand. A postponement of the kind would not really cause any delay, seeing that the Premiers’ Conference is to be held soon after the close of the session. This would be an act of courtesy to the States Governments, and the matter could be discussed in a conciliatory spirit, with a desire to promote the interests of both State and Commonwealth.

Mr Wise:

– A sort of financial agreement conference?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– At present I am dealing with the Savings Bank proposal. It is pleasing to observe that several Government supporters, who represent country constituencies, do not like the Savings Bank portion of this Bill. The honorable member for Grey, for the first time this session, felt it to be his imperative duty before he took the Chair, to speak strongly from the point of view of a country member, representing an outlying district which will suffer more than any other part of the Commonwealth.

Mr Poynton:

– I asked that the door shall be left open.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The honorable member did more than that; he made one of his earnest, straight-out, speeches - out of the fulness of his heart his mouth spoke. He is not the only country member who takes the view he expressed. I was hoping that the expressions of disapproval by interjection, if not by direct speech, during the secondreading debate, would bear some fruit when the division was taken ; but such did not prove to be the case. The Bill has a twofold aspect from the point of view of the States. There is the Government aspect connected with general financial business, and there is the aspect of the Savings Bank, which in each of the States is a popular, and, in essence, a philanthropic institution. I believe the Commonwealth is determined to have all the blood out of the Savings Banks of the States as quickly as possible; but we may depend that the trustees of these banks, who are proud of their institution, are not going to take this “ lying down,” but are determined to fight. The Bill introduces competition by the institution of a bank for which there is no need.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member ought to be in a State Parliament !

Mr Roberts:

– He was kicked out of the State Parliament.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I am here to represent the States in upholding the Federal Constitution, and I hope I shall always do so. I appeal to honorable members opposite, who pose as lovers of humanity, and as the representative not of the wealthy, but of those who make up the bulk of the Savings Bank depositors. The Bill introduces an unnecessary duplication, which can only increase the cost of management and lower the rate of interest. 1 advise my friends to see what their pet organ - the Bulletin - says about the business. It points out that the Government are evidently determined to proceed in spite of any advice to the contrary, and in spite of the forthcoming conference of Premiers. There are four ways, the Bulletin tells us, in which this Commonwealth Bank may be run ; the first being to open big offices in the capitals or the large cities, with the inevitable result, for a long time, of a small unprofitable shadow of a bank. That is the first suggeston of the Bulletin, and the second is-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do I understand the honorable member to be quoting from a newspaper article commenting on the Bill before the House?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I am quoting the Bulletin’s opinion as to how the Commonwealth Bank should be run.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do I understand that it is an article dealing with the Bill before the House?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– It is dealing with the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr SPEAKER:

– With the Bill before theHouse?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I have no desire by any side wind to quote anything contrary to the Standing Orders. The article deals with the McGowen condemnation of this bank.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in quoting the article.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I wish I were in order.

Mr Roberts:

– And so do we.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The Commonwealth Bank is to be started without capital and without having a connexion. There are two courses open to the Government for obtaining these. First, it can buy an existing joint stock bank and take over its business, increasing that by the prestige of the Commonwealth, or it can absorb the Savings Banks of the States, and obtain their capital and connexion. It is the latter course that is proposed. The Government intends to establish its general bank by means of the capital deposited in its Savings Bank, and by taking from the Savings Banks of the States the post-offices, whose agency has contributed so much to their success, to bring about the transference of Savings Bank deposits from the State institutions to that of the Commonwealth. A large section of the community will undoubtedly be attracted by the idea of a Commonwealth Savings Bank, believing that a National bank must be stronger than a State bank. But what will have a great effect in bringing about the transference of deposits from the State Savings Banks to the Commonwealth Savings Bank will be the taking away from the States of the post-office agencies, and handing them over to the Commonwealth. The public does a great deal of its business with the post-offices. People go there to post letters, to buy stamps, to send telegrams, and to obtain money orders and postal notes. While the Savings Banks of the States may not be destroyed, some of their business will be taken from them by the competition of the Commonwealth Savings Bank, and thus their profits will be diminished, and the interest to depositors reduced. Moreover, the establishment of a Commonwealth Savings Bank may cause a considerable drain on the deposits of the State Savings Banks. The excellent management of the latter has so inspired confidence that they have been able to conduct business on a minimum reserve. But if there is a large withdrawal of deposits it will probably be necessary to realize on securities, which may mean discounting and large sacrifices, whereby the depositors will suffer. I would impress it upon the Prime Minister that there has been no demand for a Commonwealth Savings Bank, and that there is no need for it. Savings Bank business has been excellently managed in the interests of the community by financial experts, with whom it has been a labour of love. The State Savings Banks are philanthropic institutions in the best sense of the term. Therefore, I say, “ Let the Government establish its general bank, but leave in abeyance the Savings Bank provisions of the Bill until the people ask that they be put into effect. At present they are generally condemned.”

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- Although it has been stated at least halfadozen times by the. Prime Minister that the open-door policy will be pursued, some honorable members opposite are not satisfied with the assurance. Even if it were the fact, and I do not think that it is, that the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that the door would be slammed in the face of the States, it is undeniable that he has since expressed himself in quite opposite terms. Personally, I see no objection to a man changing his attitude in regard to any measure, when he is convinced that his first position was a wrong one. I do not think that the Prime Minister was ever antagonistic to the Savings Banks of the

States, but it is urged by members of the Opposition that he has changed his attitude, and, according to the honorable member for Parramatta, he has done so because of a speech made by the honorable member for Hume. Let me, therefore, remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on the 28th November last -

To-day we are told by the same honorable members that it is going to be a great institution.

At first members of the Opposition pro’phesied all sorts of doleful things, but when their panic cry was not taken up outside, and the depositors in the Savings Banks did not seem to be alarmed, they altered their tune. I am one of those who think that even if Parliament made very big mistakes, it would not injure this great country very much.

To-day we are told by the same honorable members that it is going to be a great institution, which will overlap others and prevent the States from carrying legislation in the same direction. This Government is not antagonistic to the States; on the contrary, it is most friendly to them.

Mr Gordon:

– Why not take them in as partners?

Mr FISHER:

– Already the Government of the honorable member’s own State has agreed to bank with this institution, quite apart from any question of partnership.

I do not say that we are shutting the door against the States coming in. We leave the door perfectly open, so far as this proposal is concerned, but I do not think it would be wise to delay the passing of the Bill until the States came to an agreement regarding the question.

I shall not dogmatize upon this question, which has been sprung upon me, but I think the people of the Commonwealth will be best and most expeditiously served if we pass this Bill, providing for Commonwealth control, on the understanding that when the States have arrived at an agreement to come in, and express -a’ desire to do so, they will be able to come in and be shareholders with us in a co-operative banking concern.

We ought to be satisfied with that declaration of the Prime Minister. When I spoke previously on the Bill, I said that I hoped the open-door policy would be pursued. I am content with the Prime Minister’s assurance, and we might now allow the Bill to pass. So far as I can gather from all sections of the community outside, it is meeting with great approval. I am glad to know this, because I believe it will be of great benefit to the great mass of the people. It will have a strengthening influence on all our banking institutions, make even the

Savings Bank system stronger than it is at present, and thus be, in time, what we all desire it to be - a bank of banks, and a bulwark to the banking system of Australia.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- The Savings Bank part of the Bill is a most serious matter for Australia. The Prime Minister said no protest against it had come from the people; but what more could the people do than send their protests through the Premier of each State? The Premiers and the State Governments are the representatives of the .people of the States,- and they have sent in protests which should carry weight, even with the Federal Ministry. Protests have also come from those who are running the State Savings Banks. The statements now made by the Prime Minister are somewhat on a par with those made by a person who is caught in wrongdoing, who usually protests his innocence, saying that he never intended to do harm, and that if he is let go he will “put it back.” That is not the sort of thing we expected from the Prime Minister. If the Government were honest in their intention to benefit the people of Australia by establishing a universal Savings Bank system, they should first have approached the States. Had they come to this House with a proposition to run a uniform Savings Bank throughout Australia they would have met with very few protests from this side so long as they did not freeze out the States. In running the Savings Banks up to date, the States have” Been really helping the people. These have been philanthropic institutions, which men of business have given their time and knowledge to devise means of running in the interests of the people. The Government now propose to increase the cost of management of the banks which take care of the poor people’s money. If the Commonwealth takes only 25 or 30 per cent, of the business from the existing Savings Banks, it must duplicate the expense of running them, and that money has to come out of the pockets of the poor people who own the deposits. The States have, up to date, received more in deposits than they have had to pay out in withdrawals, and had a right to assume that each year they would have to provide more means of investing the surplus. If the Government are going to decrease those deposits, the States will have to find money to meet the withdrawals from some other source. If that is not known, it should be known; and if it is known it becomes ob vious that the intention of the Government is to harass the States. If the States have to realize on any other securities to meet the withdrawals, it will mean depreciating their securities. If they have to borrow, they will have to do as we see this morning is being done by Western Australia, which is advertising for money at 4 per cent. This shows that the actions of the Federal Government are even now putting up the price of money. This proposal has been sprung upon the States. In this city, one of the finest buildings ever put up in Australia is being built for a Savings Bank. Honorable members should look at the fine granite work in the new building in Elizabeth-street. Do the Ministry think that any State Government would have been mad enough to go on with that expense had they known .that this proposal was to be sprung upon them? The money which is putting up that building is coming out of the poor people’s pockets. It is part of the Savings Bank money, which has been contributed by the very people whom the Government are supposed to represent and protect from the inroads of persons who are supposed to want to exploit them. The exploiting is now being done by their supposed friends. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth cannot offer these people any more interest for their money than they are getting now. Perhaps the Government are not aware that a large amount of the money in the State Savings Banks is contributed bv the school children by the penny Savings Bank system. Are the Government going to commandeer all that money also? Can they do anything better than the State Banks are doing with it? Have they the machinery to collect it from the children? We dare not go into the State schools and try to do it. Any fool without knowledge can break up a complicated piece of machinery, but he cannot put it together again. It has taken a life-time of thought and effort to build up these institutions, but the Government propose to smash them up in two minutes by passing in an irresponsible way this Bill. They do not know what they are doing. They are groping in the dark. A large proportion of the money in- the State Savings Banks has been invested in Australia in properties on which a heavy tax was imposed only last year. This money has been advanced in land investments, being obtainable for a fixed term, whereas an ordinary bank overdraft may be called up at any time. In all cases where the Savings Bank Commissioners have invested money for fixed terms, so as to have a regular income from it, they will be liable to be called upon to realize all at once, or will have to borrow money to pay back the withdrawals, instead of receiving deposits to carry them on. There is no doubt that the whole scheme is ill-advised. None of us would say there was any harm’ in the adoption of a uniform system throughout Australia, but the Government have gone the wrong way to work. The work should have been done by arrangement with the States, and even then I doubt whether it would have been any better than the present system. Where is all the special knowledge coming from in this Parliament? Have we as much knowledge as have the combined Parliaments of Australia, and the people who have been running these Savings Banks for years past? All at once we are going to harass them by diverting the deposits into other channels and leaving them to find the money to meet the withdrawals from any source available. It is very discreditable to this Parliament that such a measure should emanate from it. The fact that no limit is set to the amount of money that can be deposited proves to me that the Savings Bank will be unable to pay interest. This system will depreciate the savings of the poor people, and help people who have large amounts to deposit hurriedly, because the Government propose to give them interest from the time they pay the money in. No bank could be run on such lines. Any bank that has tried it in the past has gone to ruin. Other banks can dump a quarter of a million into them, and expect them to pay interest on it at once. It is quite possible that a quarter of a million is well within the mark, when we remember that we are dealing with the whole Commonwealth.

Mr Mathews:

– We should have legislation for conspiracies of that sort.

Mr HEDGES:

– It is not a question of conspiracy. The Bill particularly says that the amount of deposits will not be limited. Honorable members opposite have spoken of that provision as if it were a good thing ! I am also under the impression from several hints that have been dropped that union funds will be hurriedly deposited and interest expected on them at once. Many unions have a great deal of money, as we know, but in the past I do not know of any means by which they could have deposited the money and received interest on it, and yet had it at call. If the Savings Bank is to be established for that purpose, it is a proposal that we should have fought shy of.

Mr J H Catts:

– They do that now in New South Wales. They can get interest on money, and have it at call.

Mr HEDGES:

– I am sorry to hear that is being done. I would expect that: statementfrom the honorable member for Cook, because he has no doubt handled union money, and would not let it lie idle if he could avoid it. The system, may be carried on in New South Wales, but how can one bank pay interest throughout Australia on deposits to any amount, withdrawable at call? The bank must have investments that , will produce not only the interest it pays, but also enough to pay for management. This bank cannot pay any higher interest than the Savings Banks are paying now, and I beg the Ministry to reconsider the proposal seriously. Let them put it on one side. Who cares about the other part of the Bill if it suits the Government to pass it? But surely the Savings Bank part should be reconsidered. It is ill-advised, and requires the consideration of some one who is competent to give the Government better advice than has hitherto been given them.

Question - That the Bill be now read a third time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 37

NOES: 23

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3919

ELECTORAL BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th December (vide page 3840), on motion by Mr. King O’Malley. -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- Last night I dealt with the defects of our present system, and succeeded in showing, I think, that some substantial alteration is necessary. I suggested that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the working of systems adopted in other parts of the world, so that the House might have the latest information on the subject. I also explained at some length what is known as proportional representation, and gave a list of countries where that system is in operation. I propose now to make some quotations in which the advantages of that system are pointed out. Proportional representation has been adopted in the Transvaal, and in the Johannesburg Star of 29th October, 1909, we have the following statement in regard to it:-

The authors may fairly congratulate themselves that they have proved it practicable in working and fair in result. The business of counting the votes and allotting the preferences was sure to be a slow one at the first time of asking, but there was no hesitation and no confusion. The proceedings in the Wanderer’s Hall went forward with the steady certainty of clockwork. . . . The whole trial was a high one in a town like this with a considerable element of illiterate voters. But taking it all through, we have no hesitation in saying that the working of the new system was a conspicuous and unqualified success. . . . Taking the most detached view of the division of candidates, and of the forces behind them, we see no reason whatever to dissent from the claim that the new batch of councillors does, as nearly as possible, constitute a reflection of the electorate.

The Rand Daily Mail, of Johannesburg, writes of the system as follows -

Both here and in Pretoria it may claim to have proved a success. The ten councillors elected here may fairly claim to be representative of every shade of public opinion.

A still more important statement is made by the Bloemfontein Friend of 25th March, 1 9 10, in regard to the working of the system in connexion with the Senatorial election in the Orange Free State, which, as honorable members are aware, is a member of the latest Union in the British Empire. The statement is -

Yesterday’s result has justified the claim of the Government party. It has returned the proportion of senators which was its due, while, on the other hand, the Opposition got the mathematical proportion it was entitled to, and not the three representatives it stipulated for in the event of a compromise. The election, therefore, is a complete justification of the claims put forward by the supporters of the proportional representation system of voting. In addition to the satisfactory fact that the proceedings went through without a hitch, the result has demonstrated the absolute fairness of the single transferable vote. This fact should be an incentive to the further extension of the system, say, for instance, in the case of the next municipal election in Bloemfontein.

The Bloemfontein Post of 26th March, 1910, wrote -

The outstanding feature of the election was the absolutely smooth working of the system of proportional representation, which proved in practice as simple and as accurate as it was scrupulously fair in character. To Mr. A. M. N. de Villiers the thanks of Parliament are certainly due for his management of the event. His thorough grip of the principle made the working go like clockwork, and his arrangements were so thorough and complete that the papers were run through without a hitch or correction.

We have the further statement -

Proportional representation has come to stay, and the pioneers of Thursday can feel a healthy glow of satisfaction in the successful accomplishment of a memorable task.

Such a report will never be made of an election in Australia until we have adopted a more modern system than that which we have at present in operation. According to one of the authorities I have just quoted, the system of proportional representation adopted in connexion with a recent Senatorial election in the Orange Free State has proved most satisfactory, and, whilst not giving to one of the parties all that they expected, has returned the number of ‘ representatives to which they were mathematically entitled. The London Morning Leader of 6th June, 1 9 10, contained the following statement : -

Proportional representation provides the only instrument for enabling Democracy to register its opinion at the polls, which is free from anomalies and contradictions. Logically, an overwhelming case has been made out for it, and as it has been practically tested in South Africa, Norway, Tasmania, and elsewhere, nothing except sheer obstinacy can any longer oppose the adoption of the transferable vote among ourselves.

Surely these definite statements of approval should induce us to see the wisdom of at least conducting an inquiry into the working of such a system before we attempt, as we are now asked to do, to amend what is really an obsolete method. The Minister has not suggested that other systems to which I have referred have any serious defects, nor has he suggested that any inquiry should be made as to their working. Whilst proportional representation is being adopted in other parts of the world, we are trying to .amend, in a very imperfect manner, an Act passed at a time when the systems which I have brought under the notice of the House were hardly known in any British community.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - I notice that the American States are copying the Australian system.

Mr HEDGES:

– The Minister would have us believe, I suppose, that the authorities I have quoted know nothing of this question. The Morning Post of roth May, toto, stated that -

If the object of representation is to represent the opinions of the electors, then the present system is absurd.

That was a reference to the system which the Minister of Home Affairs is now defending. The Aberdeen Journal of nth May, j 910, wrote of the proportional system -

The system has the advantage of being perfectly fair and equitable ; but while the Commission thinks that of all the devices for securing minority representation, the transferable vote has the best chance of ultimate acceptance, it does not see its way to recommend its adoption. The reasons for this very inept conclusion are not particularly impressive.

The Commission referred to did not favour that part of the system which relates to the transferable vote. The Yorkshire Daily Post - and this is an authority that ought to appeal to the honorable member for Wakefield - wrote of the report of the Commission referred to -

Members of the Proportional Representation Society will, no doubt, find in this report encouragement to persevere in their efforts to convert the country to their cause.

The opinion was expressed by the Weekly Times of 15th May, 1910, that “ On the whole the general trend of the report makes for proportional representation”; whilst the Christian Commonwealth - an authority of which I am sure the Minister approves - in its issue of 18th May, 1910, expressed the opinion that “ Proportional representation is the only way to get the representation of minorities.” The Pall Mall Gazette of 31st March wrote -

If the Government wanted any evidence of the willingness of the House of Commons to reform the method of election of its members, they could not hope for a stronger testimony than that afforded in the speeches in the excellent debate last night on Mr. Aneurin Williams’ motion.

These quotations from various newspapers show that proportional representation is at least receiving some attention in countries that have to cope with electoral difficulties such as those with which we have to deal. The Spectator of and April, 1910. contained the following : -

We say, without hesitation, that proportional representation is the greatest political need of our day. Without this corrective the party system will gradually grow stricter and tighter, and in the end will strangle all liberty and independence in the nation.

The London Argus, April 2nd, 1910 : - The acceptance of the principle of proportional representation by Parliament is a step in the right direction, and we hope to see it applied sooner or later. . . .

The Daily Graphic, June 7th,’ 1910 : - This device ma)’, indeed, be regarded as a step towards proportional representation. The advantage of the complete system is that it gives a much wider choice to the elector, and thus permits the representation in Parliament of minorities whose opinions under the existing method of election receive no expression of any kind. The need for such expression is being more and more felt, for a growing number of intelligent electors is no longer content to vote black or white according to the bidding of rival caucuses. Life is too complex for such a crude division as this, and the irritation which a large section of the public feels with our whole political system is mainly due to the fact that neither party represents the thoughtful citizen who tries to judge national questions on their merits, and refuses to be gulled by electioneering cries.

Surely we have evidence enough here to prove that the system of proportional representation deserves some consideration. There is also a report by Mr. E. J. Sternberg, Electoral Officer of Western Australia, who is well known as one of the highest authorities in the Commonwealth on electoral matters. He went to Tasmania and other parts of the world, and studied this system in operation ; and this is what he says -

The influence of party organizations would not overshadow that of Parliament; their power would be limited to that which legitimately arises from organization ; their approval would not now be essential to any successful nomination.

I should now like to read some testimony from Belgium in favour of proportional representation -

  1. The following statement may be interesting, not only as evidence of the satisfaction proportional representation has created in political matters in Belgium, but, also, as being the opinion of a statesman of high repute, vis., Count Goblet d’Alviella, Secretary to the Belgian Senate, namely : -
  2. We have gained the consciousness that the groups of deputies fairly represent the proportional forces of the respective parties.
  3. We have secured for each party the ab solute right to choose and return its own leaders.
  4. We have introduced more sincerity into the electoral platform.
  5. Political life has never been more active; it has even reached several districts where there had been no contest for more than twenty years.
  6. We have everywhere diminished party animosities, and all parties are satis fied with the working of the system.

The following additional advantages may fairly be claimed for proportional representation : -

  1. It widens the choice of electors. When ever the official nominee is unacceptable, the electors can nominate a further candidate without affecting adversely the representation of the party in Parliament.
  2. It would insure the election of the ablest men of all parties, thus strengthening thepersonnel of Parliament.

Dr. Reuter thus testifies to the efficiency of this system in Finland -

The Swedish party was represented by twentyfive members; the Socialist party - a larger party - returned eighty members ; there were now, he believed, eighty-live. Some of the opponents of “ proportional representation “ who were also opponents to Socialist ideas objected to such a large number of Socialist members. Some said if they had the second ballot there would be no Socialist members. “ Proportional representation “ stood for justice and fairness, and if they had 40 per cent. of Socialists in the country they were entitled to have fair representation. He thought their experience with “ proportional “ voting showed that it was easily grasped by the electorate.

Then we have a

Summary of the Main Advantages Claimed for the System of Proportional Representation.

  1. It will give the Legislature a fully representative character.
  2. It will provide for direct representation in the Legislature, not only for the majority in the electorate, but also of all substantial minorities.
  3. It will be the means of giving to each party a share of representation in strict proportion to the number of votes recorded in favour of each party.

This is a most important statement in view of the fact that, at the last Commonwealth elections, the Labour party, with only 24,000 votes more than those recorded for the Libera] party and Independent candidates, secured eighteen seats in the Senate. It requires, on an average, 112,000 votes to elect a senator; and yet. this party, with a majority of votes only sufficient to elect a little more than one-fourth of a man, secured all the seats. If there had been proportional representation, the Labour party might have got ten seats and the other party eight, though, in strict equity, they should have had nine seats each. All parties should be fairly represented in the Parliament of the country, because then it would be impossible to force through measures objected to by, perhaps, nine-tenths of the electors. The writer quotes John Stuart Mill, as follows -

In a really equal Democracy every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately, but proportionately.

He then proceeds -

  1. It will secure an increased number of desirable candidates for Parliamentary honours.
  2. It will almost to a certainty result in the retention continuously in the service of the people of the most prominent and able public men irrespective of parties.
  3. It will enable political questions to be approached upon a broader basis.
  4. It will enable candidates to widen their platforms.
  5. It will revive interest in political matters and elections.
  6. It will give more independence to individual members of the Legislature.
  7. It will prevent the minority in the electorate securing a majority of representation.

That is exactly what has happened here. As I pointed out yesterday, the Labour party are in power in this House on a minority vote.

Mr Cann:

– There are five honorable members opposite who were elected on a minority vote.

Mr HEDGES:

– I have no desire to traverse the ground again, as these interjections tempt me to do.

Mr Cann:

– Every man on this side was elected by a majority!

Mr HEDGES:

– In Queensland the Labour party, with a majority of 4,381, secured six seats as against three secured by the Liberals. In New South Wales the Labour majority in the aggregate was 14,770, and they secured seven seats more than did the Liberals. If we take Queensland and New South Wales together, the Labour party got a majority of ten members with 19,000 votes, and those ten members represented only an average of 1,900 electors for the House of Representatives. In Queensland each

Labour representative in this House received on an average 14,200 votes, while the average vote for each Liberal here was 26,789.

Mr Chanter:

– Why does the honorable member say “ Liberals “ to-day when yesterday he spoke of “ Fusionists “ ?

Mr HEDGES:

– I say “Liberals,” and I mean “Liberals.” The figures I have read cannot possibly be controverted in any way.

Mr Cann:

– Tell us about the electorates in which Liberals were elected by a minority vote.

Mr HEDGES:

– The figures in regard to the Senate elections will give the honorable member all the information he desires.

Mr Cann:

– We polled over 250,000 votes in New South Wales.

Mr HEDGES:

– The votes for Labour in New South Wales numbered 259,640, and those for the Liberals 244,860, giving a majority, as I said before, of14,770, with which the party secured seven seats more than did the Liberals. There never was a more defective system on earth.

Mr Page:

– How is it that the honorable member never found this out until the last election?

Mr HEDGES:

– I quoted these figures before, and they are reported in Hansard; but, as usual, honorable members opposite take no notice of what is said on this side, though when they are in Opposition they criticise every word uttered by the supporters of the Government.

Mr Kelly:

– Will the honorable member tell honorable members opposite how many votes Labour polled in the Boothby electorate ?

Mr HEDGES:

– I do not desire to deal with events so recent. The evidence furnished by Mr. Sternberg’s report is worthy of attention. He has studied the question for years, and, as I have said, has visited other countries in pursuit of information. He says -

The task of the returning officer and his subordinates is not quite so easy, but no difficulty has as yet been met with in completing quickly and accurately the necessary calculations….. The main object of an electoral system should be to secure an equitable and effective representation in the Legislature of the opinions in each electorate. The effect of such representation upon party politics is an issue of only secondary importance, and should be dealt with as a result of the altered conditions as they arise. It seems more reasonable to assume that misrepresentation, or non-representation, would have a more detrimental effect upon parties than would a just and equitable measure.

So far as the argument is concerned that the “ proportional representation “ system should favour the election of “cranks” and “faddists,” it should be remembered that a candidate must, under that system, at least poll a “ quota,” and a “ fad “ that can claim such support is a “ fad “ no longer, but must be treated as a proposition worthy of more or less serious consideration in practical politics…… By this law, those personal conflicts which today are so deplorable would be rendered sensibly less bitter, if not altogether obliterated. . . . “ Proportional representation “ is - to use a graphic reference made to it by a French politician, as follows : - “ The present law is, ‘ thou shalt kill thine adversary,’ but the law of elections under the proportional system is, ‘ you and your adversaries shall have each your just share.’ “

We require our just share of representation, and expected that the Bill would contain proposals for securing the proper representation of the electors. I observe that clause 2 provides that rolls may be altered by the Divisional Returning Officer by adding the names of any persons whom he is satisfied are entitled to be enrolled ; but it does not say when he may do this. Apparently, he may do it at any time.

Mr Cann:

– Rolls are never altered after the issue of a writ.

Mr HEDGES:

– Apparently, the Returning Officer may alter the rolls at any time, and strike off names, too. Unscrupulous men at times may fill these positions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is now dealing with matters of detail.

Mr HEDGES:

-I hope that consideration will be given to the system of representation which I have brought before the House. In my opinion, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the systems how in vogue in other parts of the world, to furnish Parliament with information upon which it can base a more effective and just electoral system than is now provided. I do not point out the defects in the existing law because the Labour party is in power. The next election may reverse the position, and, if it does, I feel sure that the opposition to the existing system will come from Labour members. It is acknowledged to-day in England that the party in power has more than twice as large a majority as it is entitled to have. We require a system which would secure to all political parties their just representation.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

.- The honorable member for Fremantle has been careful not to express his individual opinions, and when asked for the authors of the statements he read, he avoided replying to the question. The Age will not feel complimented by the manner in which he dealt with figures relating to the representation of parties in this House. Although he asserted that the Labour party was returned on a minority vote, and that 14,000 electors returned seven members-

Mr Hedges:

– In New South Wales.

Mr CHANTER:

– That is not so. Not one Ministerial supporter was returned on a minority vote, but five members: of the Fusion party represent minorities. Therefore, had the system which the honorable member advocates been in force at the last election, the Fusion party would have five members fewer than it has now. I have not been to Peru, France, Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere for information, nor have I supplied myself with quotations from almost every newspaper in the Empire and other countries, but I have informed myself on this subject by referring to the tabulated returns of the Electoral Branch. The honorable member seems not to be aware that a Select Committee was appointed and took a considerable amount of evidence regarding electoral matters, and that the present electoral law is largely based on its recommendation. Some of the members of the Fusion party have by inference attributed all the wrong-doing in connexion with elections to supporters of the Labour party.

Mr Fowler:

– Accusations of, wrongdoing also came from the Ministerial side.

Mr Sampson:

– And we are waiting for proof.

Mr CHANTER:

– I shall give the honorable member proof, though, perhaps, be will not like it. A few years ago I had in my possession for a period, and the officers of the Department had in their possession for a period, documentary evidence that would have completely damned in the Courts several high officials controlling the interests of the party which was then opposing me.

Sir John Forrest:

– What had they done ?

Mr CHANTER:

– I will bring the right honorable member into the drama directly. Those men did everything that evil minds could possibly prompt them to do in order to insure a big victory for their own party. I do not like bringing myself into the question, but honorable members opposite have asked for proof.

Sir John Forrest:

– We want you to say anything and everything you can say.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member can reply to some remarks which I shall make directly regarding his own action in the matter. Honorable members opposite ask for proof, particularly in regard to postal voting. I have documentary proof in the case of the election I contested in 1903. The officers of the Department also had the proof which would have put men, not in this House, but connected with the electioneering campaign, and occupying very high positions in society, into gaol if it had been used.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why did you not put them there?

Mr CHANTER:

– The election was voided on other grounds. The right honorable member had charge of these documents as Minister of Home Affairs for the time being. When I was returned to the House, my first act was to ask for the papers, in order that the law should be put into force against those men, and the right honorable member’s reply to me was that they were all burnt by his orders.

Sir John Forrest:

– No.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member gave me that reply, and he can hunt it up for himself.

Sir John Forrest:

– I deny it. I deny that I ever gave any order to burn papers surreptitiously and wrongly.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member gave orders to have them burnt, as Minister in charge of the Department.

Mr Fenton:

– You do not suggest thai he did it with any bad intention?

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not say that at all.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not think I ever gave instructions to burn any papers.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member did. The Act at that particular time said that the papers should be retained until the election could no further be questioned, and the right honorable member held that as an election had been contested by an appeal to the High Court, and the appeal had been decided, there was no necessity to retain them,, and, as Minister, authorized their destruction. Those papers were absolutely necessary for me to prove in the Courts the offences that were committed against the Electoral Act.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– What was done?

Mr CHANTER:

– In one case, which I could have proved, one individual who was a strong advocate of the party opposing me at the time, took a public position in regard to them, and was Returning Officer for a booth ; there was no poll clerk, scrutineer, or other person there to check him, and the vote of every person whose name was on the roll for that booth was recorded, although I was in a position to prove that at least a dozen of them never recorded their votes at all.

Sir John Forrest:

– What has that to do with postal voting?

Mr CHANTER:

– I will give the right honorable member the facts regarding postal voting directly. I was also in a position to prove that paid canvassers of my opponent secured the services of police as witnesses to all postal votes, and travelled round the district day after day with them, not for the purpose of taking the sick people’s votes about which so much is said, but for the purpose of inducing others, who would have gone to the poll and voted the other way, to vote by post. They actually took the bankers who happened to be justices of the peace around with them. Honorable members know the influence that a bank can exercise in all these matters, and they got postal vote after postal vote by that means. I could also have proved that another justice of the peace, the manager of a number of stations under a large company, went to every employ^ on his runs and asked them to vote by post in his presence. They wanted to vote against his candidate, and some of them told him so, but when the papers came before the Court and were scrutinized it was found that every one of those votes had gone to my opponent, and not to me, as the voters had intended. I could have proved numbers of other cases of the same kind by the documentary evidence which was destroyed. I intended to purify the conduct of elections, no matter what it cost me, and my first action when returned to the House was to .move for a return of the papers in order that punishment might be meted out to those who had done wrong.

Sir John Forrest:

– Was that postal voting ? The. man has to write the name of the candidate himself.

Mr CHANTER:

– That was done. I venture to say that there has never been another case in Australia where every name on a roll has been polled for one particular candidate.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why did not the honorable member ask for the papers before they were burnt?

Mr CHANTER:

– How could I get them when I was not a member of the House ?

Sir John Forrest:

– You could have got a member to move for them.

Mr CHANTER:

– That is not fair. I was kept dangling between Heaven and earth from December, 1903, until the following May. All my time was taken up with solicitors and counsel, and I never dreamt that the records would not be in existence in the Department when I wanted them.

Sir John Forrest:

– There was nothing in that. Why did you not write to me and ask for the papers?

Mr CHANTER:

– How could I have thought that the papers would be destroyed ? It shows the necessity for an alteration in the law, so that all papers of this kind shall be kept’ in the Department for three years. The offences cannot always be proved at the time they are committed. Why was there this undue haste in burning them?

Mr Ryrie:

– How long after were they destroyed ?

Mr CHANTER:

– The election took place in December, 1903 ; the appeal to the Court was made within thirty days, the election was voided, a second election was held in May, 1904, the writ was returned about the 2nd or 3rd June, and I then took my seat. I could only apply to the Minister in charge of the Department for the papers.

Sir John Forrest:

– You did not apply to me.

Mr CHANTER:

– I applied to the right honorable member publicly in this House. Could I have done any more?

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member seems to think that, instead of fighting the second election in order to retain the seat for my party, I should have frittered my time away here looking for papers. _ I thought there would be time to deal with the papers after I had dealt with the organized forces which I had to fight in order to retain the seat.

Mr Archibald:

– -Provision should be made to have papers of that sort impounded by the Court, so that that trick may not be played again.

Mr CHANTER:

– If this Bill passes, it cannot be played again, because it is provided that all the papers shall be retained by the Department for three years. One might not be able to ascertain tomorrow that offences had been committed to-day, but within a week” one very often could do so. If, in the meantime, however, the documentary evidence had been destroyed, what further action could be taken? The documentary evidence proving that an offence has been committed ought to be available. I refer to this matter because of the objection that has been taken by so many honorable members to the abolition of postal voting. I could, if necessary, give many more cases showing the need of an amendment of the Act. Although, I am not in a position at this stage to prove my statements by documentary evidence, I could at the time have done so, and, shouldhave been allowed an opportunity to prove that these offences had actually been committed. My words can be corroborated by officers at present in the Department of Home Affairs, who worked with me for three weeks, and saw, the documents to which I refer.

Mr Page:

– Did they disappear?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why did not the honorable member come to me if I was in office at the time?

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member was in office, and I was supporting him, but I do not think that he was supporting me. Do honorable members of the Fusion party need further proof of the necessity for this reform? If they do, I have plenty more to give them. I am repeating now, not what I have heard, but my own actual experiences. There are many ways in which the Act has been defeated, and I am afraid that even as proposed to be amended it will often be evaded.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member claim that his election was lost on the occasion referred to through the manipulation of the postal voting system?

Mr CHANTER:

– I unhesitatingly say that the system was abused. Station managers, as well as justices of the peace, in their private capacity, went from place to place, and almost demanded that their employes should vote by post in a certain direction. That was at the general election in 1903. I was also in a position to prove that some of these men went to their employes saying “ We are going to vote for so-and-so, “ and suggested that they should do the same. Further, I could have proved that some of these justices of the peace availed themselves of the postal voting provisions of the Act to record the votes of some individuals for candidates for whom they did not want to vote. Even the banking corporations in some cases allowed branch managers to go from house to house, as justices of the peace, and to induce people to vote by post in a certain direction. At all events, although the head offices were informed of the action of. these branch managers they took no action.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member’s side did the same.

Mr CHANTER:

– No.

Sir John Forrest:

– I know that they did.

Mr CHANTER:

– Then the right honorable member should be able to prove his statement. I could, if necessary, give the names of the people to whom I have referred, and I challenge the right honorable member for Swan to show whether any justice of the peace, postmaster, or other person authorized to witness a postal vote, went outside his own office to do so in the interests of the Labour party. I am referring, not to officials who witnessed the postal votes of those who called at their offices and asked them to do so in the ordinary legitimate way, but to persons who, day after day, and week after week, went round to various people, and, if they did not deliberately ask them to vote for a certain candidate, at least said, “ You know that I should like you to vote for soandso, and that I am going to vote for him. Your employment depends upon me. There are so many employes on my run, and if I do not find that a certain number of votes have been cast in favour of the candidate whom I support there will be trouble.”

Mr Sampson:

– Were the votes counted in separate booths at that time?

Mr CHANTER:

– There were only five counting centres for the whole of the large electorate of Riverina. The interjection recalls to my mind the action of a justice of the peace who was placed in charge of a polling place, and who, according to law, was not allowed to open a ballot-box, or to see how any vote was recorded. The ballot-box had to be sent to one of the counting centres. This justice of the peace, however, refused to allow in the booth during the whole day a man whom I had appointed under my own signature as a scrutineer, and the votes cast at that polling place were known practically as soon as the doors were closed, although the counting centre was 30 miles distant. Certain people wanted to ascertain how the employes on a neighbouring station had voted.

Sir John Forrest:

– But that has nothing to do with the postal vote.

Mr CHANTER:

– Quite so. I am merely anxious to show that the whole system has reeked with dishonour.

Sir John Forrest:

– It is a very good plan to abuse the other side.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member and his party have asked for proof, and when it is offered to them they do not like it. I think I have said sufficient to show that honorable members on all sides of the House should join together, quite irrespective of party considerations, in an effort to frame a law that will enable the true will of the electors to be reflected in this House. I have put before honorable members only a tithe of what I know regarding these matters. The honorable member for Darling Downs knows what action 1 took on the occasion referred to. He was a member of a Select Committee that inquired into our electoral system, and which found that many abuses existed. As the result of the report of that Select Committee, the Electoral Act was amended. Our electoral law is certainly better than it was in 1903, but will any one deny that at the last general election, and more particularly at the recent referenda, the evils associated with the general election of 1903 were not equally rampant? I asked the present Government to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, with power to travel, stating that I had information of wrong-doing in connexion with the referenda poll, and wanted to sheet it home to the offenders. That request, however, was refused, and as a private member without Ministerial power, I could take no further action. I am simply endeavouring now to assist my fellow members to pass a law that will put an end to the evils of the existing system. It is not a question of whether the evils of the existing system are going to hurt the Labour party or the Liberal party; but, unless they are removed, they must undoubtedly injure the people. Until the existing state of affairs has been remedied, it will be impossible to ascertain correctly the people’s will. I think I have said sufficient to show that there is ample justification for the abolition of postal voting. I should be glad if some means could be devised to enable the sick and the infirm who cannot leave their homes to record their votes. By the abolition of postal voting, some people must be disfranchised ; but the number of those who are really sick, in proportion to the number of those who are supposed to be sick at election time, is comparatively small. I saw two ladies vote by post, their reason for so doing, as stated by them, being that they believed that they would be sick on polling day. When polling day came round, they presented themselves at the polling booth, and proposed to vote there.

Mr Ryrie:

– They were voting for Labour?

Mr CHANTER:

– They were voting for my opponent.

Mr Ryrie:

– How does the honorable member know?

Mr CHANTER:

– I am prepared to tell the honorable member privately the names of those ladies, but I shall not make them public. The officers of the Department knew them.

Mr Ryrie:

– What right had the honorable member to see their votes?

Mr CHANTER:

– The High Court had ordered a scrutiny of the votes, and I had an opportunity to recount the whole of them.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That must have been years ago.

Mr CHANTER:

– No; it was comparatively recent. If the honorable member will assist me to secure the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire during the recess into the working of our electoral system, I will guarantee to give absolute proof of something similar that took place at the last referenda.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member think we shall ever get an Electoral Act that will make every one vote honestly ?

Mr CHANTER:

– I think that we ought to try. We punish wrong-doing in other walks of life, and there cannot be a greater wrong than to deprive an elector of his vote.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Has the honorable member brought those cases under the notice of the Government?

Mr CHANTER:

– Undoubtedly.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then why does the Government not take action?

Mr CHANTER:

– Because all the documents are gone.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is the use of having a Royal Commission if there are no documents ?

Mr CHANTER:

– I shall produce the documents which are necessary, and sworn evidence to corroborate them. I could go on giving more cases. There is one section of the Fusion party which I do not hesitate to mention, namely, the Women’s National League; and there are others.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why not name them?

Mr CHANTER:

– I shall name them to the Minister if he will take action.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the Minister not take action?

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member would not take action when he was Minister.

Mr Sampson:

– Two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr CHANTER:

– It is all very well to talk in that way.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nobody over here denies that some of these things are done.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member must have been asleep. Speaker after speaker, on behalf of the Fusion party, has called upon us to prove our assertions ; and yet the moment I attempt, in a calm, temperate manner, to offer proof, they get quite excited.

Mr Sampson:

– What proof is there, except of six years ago?

Mr CHANTER:

– Since 1883 a certain number of postal votes have been recorded. Those votes have gone in favour of one particular section, and they increased both in 1906 and 1910, always in the same direction, as admitted by honorable members opposite. Is that not enough proof of the evil?

Mr Sampson:

– Does that justify the Government in wiping out postal voting?

Mr CHANTER:

– It amply justifies the Government in wiping out this evil by some means. I admit once more than I am somewhat troubled in my mind in regard to persons who are really sick, whom I should not like to deprive of their votes. I have given the matter much consideration, and have arrived at certain conclusions as to how their votes may be recorded under proper safeguards. The method I have in my mind might prove very costly, but it is quite possible that such a proposal may be made before the Bill leaves Committee. The Labour party do not desire to deprive really sick persons of the opportunity of voting, but they do desire to prevent the hale and hearty, for political purposes, posing as sick.

Mr Sampson:

– There is a spirit of repentance coming over the party opposite !

Mr CHANTER:

– Not at all ; I do not think that the party needs any repentance in this connexion. The Labour party are not in a financial position to hire buggies and horses, and get the services of bank managers and others to go round the electorates week after week for the purpose of witnessing signatures.

Mr Sampson:

– A constable may be called upon.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member is wrong; no elector can call upon a constable to come to him to witness signatures - he must go to the constable. 1 am. not referring to the legitimate duties performed by the police, justices of the peace, and others who are charged with the duty of witnessing signatures, and who remain in their office for the purpose ; I am speaking of people who, for party purposes, have been carted around electorates week after week.

Mr Sampson:

– A constable in many instances does the same thing.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why should they not, so long as they are acting legally.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member for Wimmera and the right honorable member for Swan both approve of this method, but I do not.

Sir John Forrest:

– Then make it illegal !

Mr CHANTER:

– We are making it illegal, and, so far, removing temptation to do wrong.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member say that sick people should not be visited?

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member must not put in my mouth what I do not intend to say. I admit that I am troubled somewhat in regard to those who are really sick, and it may be desirable that some provision should be made in regard to them.

Sir John Forrest:

– Butthe honorable member will not do anything.

Mr CHANTER:

– I shall.

Sir John Forrest:

– I am glad to hear it !

Mr CHANTER:

– If any reasonable safeguard can be devised so that there may be no abuse, the sick ought to be enabled to record their votes. Whether this should be accomplished by the sick being called upon by a registrar or a doctor, and a certificate given, I do not know, but something of the kind may be done.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - I know of doctors giving certificates on the other side.

Mr CHANTER:

– When a medical man makes a declaration in such cases as these, it must be accepted as professionally true.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– How would the honorable member provide for those away back?

Mr King O’Malley:

– P - Provide polling booths for them.

Mr CHANTER:

– The reply to the interjection is that polling booths must be increased.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Hear, hear; but the Government will not do that.

Mr CHANTER:

– Although the substitute for postal voting may not have been absolutely condemned, it has been faintly condemned by honorable members opposite, but, in my opinion, it isa great advance, and provides a safeguard. The principal Act provides that an elector shall record his vote in the place for which he is enrolled, or in some other subdivision, by voting on what is known as the “ Q “ form, which necessitates what is practically a sworn affidavit. Outside the electorate, however, the Act provides that he may vote only at a certain specified place, and in the presence of a certain specified officer, who must be either a Divisional Returning Officer, or an Assistant Returning Officer. If the officer on duty happens to be an ordinary Presiding Officer, the vote cannot be recorded. The Bill provides that an elector may record his vote at any polling booth within the Commonwealth on signing his name to a declaration that he is on the roll elsewhere, and has not voted before. Of course, the Returning Officer has no proof as to the accuracy of the name, or the other particulars, but, having given the elector a blank ballot-paper to fill in with the name of the candidate, he wires to the Divisional Returning Officer of the electorate for which the elector says he is enrolled. Later, the Returning Officer of the division named by the voter receives the signed declaration, and compares it with the elector’s card kept in a cabinet, and if the signatures do not correspond, the vote is not recorded. Is that not a careful check?

Mr Sampson:

– That is provided the man signs the card.

Mr CHANTER:

– He must sign the card.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member says that we can always be sure that a card is signed ?

Mr CHANTER:

-We are sure of nothing but death. The card arrangement is the basis of the whole system. The honorable member for Darling Downs,

I understand, asks whether we can guarantee that the individual signs the card, and I admit that we cannot. I know, however, that, as a householder, I received a card, as did every qualified person in my house, and it was my duty to see that the cards were properly filled in and witnessed. In nine cases out of ten, I am convinced that the signatures would be absolutely bonâ fide.

Mr Sampson:

– It will be all right in the great majority of cases.

Mr CHANTER:

– I believe and hope so ; and, so far, we are in agreement. If the voter at a distant booth proves to have been dishonest, then I dare say, in some cases, if not in all, it will be possible to identify him. The honorable member for Maranoa has just handed to me the reply which he has received from the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of Queensland to his application for enrolment. It reads as follows -

The Commonwealth of Australia. State of Queensland.

Electoral Division of Maranoa.

You are hereby informed that your application for enrolment under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, dated 27th October,1911, has been received, and that your name will be included in the new roll for the sub-division of Barcaldine now in course of preparation.

H. Allars,

Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of Queensland, per A.H.G.

Date 7th November,1911.

A similar reply is posted to every applicant for enrolment. It has been said that by the abolition of postal voting between 20,000 and 30,000 persons will be disfranchised, because that number took advantage of the system at the last election. As a matter of fact, however, the greater number of them will still be able to exercise what is known as the absentee vote, if theycannot go to the polling booths in the ordinary way on election day. Some objection has been made to the fixing of Saturday for the holding of elections. Personally I do not mind what day is chosen, but I recognise the obligation to do all that is possible to prevent any section of the community from being deprived of its rights and privileges. It must be remembered, however, that Saturday afternoon is almost universally a holiday throughout the Commonwealth, and this gives almost every member of the community an opportunity to record his vote at leisure.

Mr Atkinson:

– In some places Wednesday is the compulsory half-holiday.

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes, but in most places Saturday is the half-holiday. Saturday is the half-holiday in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. Polling day should be a holiday or a half-holiday. The Commonwealth has no power to declare any day a holiday, or a half-holiday, but an arrangement might be made with the Governments of the States whereby some other day than Saturday could be declared a holiday for the purposes of Commonwealth elections, and this would remove the objection to the fixing of Saturday.

Mr West:

– If that were done working men would lose time.

Mr CHANTER:

– Something has been said about scrutineers. I agree with the honorable member for Lang that when evils are known to exist, we must do our best to remove them, or to prevent their recurrence. The best way to prevent abuses in connexion with polling is to have in every booth a scrutineer for each candidate, to protect the interests of the person he represents. When one individual has to act as Returning Officer, poll clerk, and scrutineer, he may well, on occasions, be tempted by political bias to do something which is not quite right, but abuses cannot occur when the candidates are represented by scrutineers. At the referenda poll, a poll clerk was provided at each booth.

Mr Atkinson:

– - Who would pay the scrutineers ?

Mr CHANTER:

– The Government should do so. In my division there are 132 polling places, and were I .to appoint a paid scrutineer for each of them, I should exceed the £100 which I am permitted to expend during my candidature.

Mr Groom:

– In the large country divisions it is impossible for the candidates to appoint scrutineers for each polling place.

Mr CHANTER:

– If each scrutineer were allowed ros. 6d., the cost would not be more than £10,000 or ,£12,000.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member would not ask a man to work twelve or fourteen hours a day for that sum.

Mr CHANTER:

– Perhaps the remuneration should be more, but, in any case, it should be paid by the Government.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - If there were a scrutineer at each polling place, we could dispense with 4,000 poll clerks at 15s. apiece. I understand that to give effect to the honorable member’s proposal would cost £10,000 for every general election.

Mr CHANTER:

– Of course, there would be the saving that the Minister speaks of.

Mr Sampson:

– Would each candidate nominate his own scrutineers?

Mr CHANTER:

– Of course. In reply to what has been said about the delay in the exercise of what is known as the absentee vote, I would point out that when such a vote is recorded in a remote place, the fact is at once telegraphed to the Divisional Returning Officer, and the polling paper sent on by post. ThuS, the Divisional Returning Officer knows before the voting papers come to hand how many absentee votes have been recorded, and when they are not enough to affect the result, he can declare one of the candidates elected without waiting for the papers. It has been said that it is selfish of the party now in power to put forward the proposal in the Bill, with regard to political organizations, because it is alleged that some of our organizations pay their organizers continuously, and that they act as political missionaries. It is suggested that the purpose of the clause would be defeated, as those people would not have to send in returns of expenditure. I know of 011I37 one organization that could possibly come under that denomination, and it certainly has not got its organizers out continuously. I refer to the Australian Workers Union. Of the other bodies, numerous as they are, all over Australia, quite a number have no organizers at all. If they had, and used them for political purposes, they would be just as much amenable to the law as are other political organizations. We know the organizations connected with the Fusion party- The old Protectionist party, the old Free Trade party, the old Liberal party, the old Tory, or Conservative, party, and the Women’s National Association, have now all combined into one body, but they still have a great many political organizations, although they all follow the same road on election day. It was not altogether in the minds of the members of this party, or of the Government who framed this Bill, to meet the cases of associations of that kind. The desire was to cope with associations of other kinds that are supposed to be industrial associations, and that interfere unduly in political questions, and find money to intervene in political fights. I allude to the large wool-broking establishments in this and other cities. For that statement, again, I can find proof, if proof be necessary. Any money expended on behalf of any individual, whether he is a Labour or a Fusion candidate, for political purposes should be expended honestly and openly, and a record should be kept of it, in order that the world may know who spent it, and with what objects.

Sir John Forrest:

– Especially in the case of die trade unions.

Mr CHANTER:

– The trade unions would have to do exactly the same as any one else. No preference is given by the Bill. Any one who spends money for a candidate has to make a return. If he does no wrong, he has nothing to fear.

Mr Atkinson:

– How long before the election would the honorable member permit that expenditure?

Mr CHANTER:

– If I had my way, I would apply the provisions of the Bill all the time ; but we can hardly regard an election as contemplated until there is an intention to issue writs. Perhaps it would be as well to fix the period as beginning immediately preceding or succeeding the issue of the writs.

Mr Atkinson:

– Does not the Bill contemplate expenditure only within three months of an election?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes ; is not that enough ?

Mr Ryrie:

– Then why does it not say so?

Mr CHANTER:

– It does. It has been urged that newspaper proprietors should not be called upon to make returns, in the way prescribed by the Bill. Here, again, an attempt has been made to throw upon the Labour party the stigma that its organs, which are very few, are to be exempt. That is not so. The clause applies to all alike. The Worker, in Sydney, the Worker, in Brisbane, the Labour Call, and every other paper will have to make returns.

Mr Groom:

– Under this Bill, will all subsidies have to be returned?

Mr CHANTER:

– All amounts paid for the insertion of matter as political advertisements.

Mr Groom:

– What if a union, such as the Australian Workers Union, requires its members to send in certain donations to subsidize a paper?

Mr CHANTER:

– The members of the Australian Workers Union are not required to send in donations for the support of a Labour newspaper. Some of them, called the working members, pay j£i per annum, and others, who may be called honorary members, pay ros. per annum, to their union.

Mr Spence:

– That is not correct. The shearers pay a subscription of 15s., and the shed hands 10s.

Mr CHANTER:

– At any rate, thosepayments are not made for the purpose of subsidizing a newspaper. Irrespective of whether he pays 1.5s., or 10s., a member of the Australian Workers Union is entitled to receive a copy of the Worker free, for the period covered by his subscription. All the members of the Australian Workers Union do not receive the Worker, but they can do so if they wish, so that these payments cannot be called a subsidy. I cansay, without consulting the Worker, that it is not at all afraid to make any return of the moneys it receives for political purposes. Objection is also taken to the provision in the Bill designed to meet the case of paid canvassers. I say unhesitatingly that it is not in the interest of the purity of elections that the canvassers who have been employed in the past for the purpose of bolstering up the fortunes of one particular party should be allowed to continue. To my own knowledge, and the knowledge of several other honorable members, some of the most disreputable individuals of hoth sexes, who will stick at nothing, have been employed as canvassers to mislead the electors in every possible way. The party opposite say, “ Why should we not have our paid canvassers, when the Labour party have them?” My reply is that we have not got the paid canvassers, nor have we had them. The only ones I know of that have done any work in that respect are the organizers of the Australian Workers Union. The other bodies on our side do not pay any canvassers, and have not attempted to do so. During the last election, and in the referenda campaign, thousands and thousands of pounds were spent in the interests of a certain party. Where did that money come from? It is useless to deny that it was there. The late secretary of the Women’s National Association stated publicly on the platform that she was in receipt of £4. per week continuously from funds which they had, and was proud of it. A gentleman named Martin stated publicly at Rushworth that the Fusion party had 147 paid canvassers then at work in Victoria, each receiving a salary. Miss Grace Watson has advertised in the Age that she found some of the money herself for the organizing work of that party, and has not been paid for it yet. If a Commission of inquiry is appointed, there are honorable members in this House who will undertake to produce proof of whence someof that money came. We know who the trustees of the fund were forVictoria and for New SouthWales. Some of them are not very far away from me at the present time. It would be interesting to know what the amount subscribed was, and for what purpose it was contributed.

Sir John Forrest:

– According to the honorable member, we have no business to have anything.

Mr CHANTER:

– If this Bill becomes law, returns of all expenditure of that kind will have to be made.

Sir John Forrest:

– They can make a return.

Mr CHANTER:

– If they spend money similarly in the future, they may find that their returns will get them into serious trouble. The right honorable member, in his calmer moments, cannot possibly approve of what the honorable member for Echuca would call “ immoral expenditure.”

Sir John Forrest:

– We must have organization ; but we cannot have it without paying for it.

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not object to organization, but I object to them paying all the derelicts, political and otherwise, of Australia, whom they know to be sufficiently unscrupulous to go round-

Mr Atkinson:

– They would not be employed if they were known to be unscrupulous.

Mr CHANTER:

– If I were to name one or two who were employed by the combined association in Melbourne - ifI were to describe their characters - honorable members opposite would be ashamed of them.

Sir Robert Best:

– I suggest that the honorable member should do so.

Mr CHANTER:

– Then I shall say that a woman who is connected with the Dr. Peacock case was employed as a paid organizer of the Women’s National Association together with Mr. Packer, the derelict of a trade union.

Sir Robert Best:

– Go ahead !

Mr CHANTER:

– I am also in a position to prove, if the honorable member for Kooyong will assist me in securing the appointment of a Royal Commission, that abundant impersonation took place at the last election in his own electorate, and was organized by some of the leading officials of the Women’s National Association.

Sir Robert Best:

– Prove it. It is idle to make these absurd statements.

Mr CHANTER:

– The statement is not absurd, but I am not going to assume the rolê of prosecutor. I asked the Government of the day to appoint a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to deal with this matter, and was prepared to prove my statements before such a Commission. The Government of the day ought to be the prosecutors in such cases.

Sir Robert Best:

– Of course, they ought to be. The honorable member should make them take action.

Mr CHANTER:

– No honorable member desires personally to proceed against any one in regard to these matters. It is enough for us to state the fact so that the responsible authorities may take action.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– It is easy to make a lot of wild statements, such as the honorable member has made, but he should give us the proof of what he says.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong will give the honorable member one or two interesting statements.

Sir Robert Best:

-As valuable as those made by the honorable member about a witness in the Peacock case?

Mr CHANTER:

– “A witness” does the honorable member say ? He had better make a little further inquiry into the matter to which I have referred.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– Was this woman employed by the Association after the Peacock case had cropped up?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– What part did she play in the case?

Mr CHANTER:

– I shall not mention her name, but she was not a principal in the affair.

Sir Robert Best:

– What was the electoral offence?

Mr CHANTER:

– My complaint was that a certain party were employing derelicts who were so unscrupulous that they would not hesitate to mislead the people in any way.

Mr Atkinson:

– The honorable member, instead of making these cowardly statements, ought to prove that people were misled.

Mr CHANTER:

– Let the honorable member bring pressure to bear on the Government to institute an inquiry, and . I will prove my statements.

Sir Robert Best:

– The honorable member can bring pressure to bear upon them with better effect than we could hope to do.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member overrates my powers. I asked for the appointment of a Select Committee and my request was refused.

Mr Groom:

– Did the Minister refuse the honorable member?

Mr CHANTER:

– I asked that a Royal Commission or Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into these matters.

Mr Riley:

– And the answer to that request is this Amending Electoral Bill.

Mr CHANTER:

– Quite so.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– What happened in Adelaide ?

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member for Wakefield made a number of statements as to what happened in Adelaide, but I am concerned, not with what was done there, but with what we do in this Parliament. We are supposed to be intelligent, honest, upright, and moral in every respect; it is assumed that we would not permit anything to be done for party purposes that we would not have done for individual purposes, and instead of indulging in recriminatory assertions the two parties in this House should join together to put clown a wrong wherever it is found to exist.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– The honorable member has made a serious charge against the Minister of Home Affairs. He has said that he offered him evidence of impersonation, and that he took no action.

Mr CHANTER:

– I repeated, again and again, the statement that I was prepared to prove certain things, and the Minister’s answer to me was practically, “ We are dealing with this matter, and are going to bring in a Bill that will prevent the recurrence of such offences.” Circumstances alter cases, and honorable members, when in Opposition, view matters from a totally different stand-point from that taken by them when on the Government side of the House. Before the honorable member for Kooyong entered the chamber this afternoon I stated that I had at one time abundant evidence ‘ to place before the House; that I had submitted a resolution with the object of presenting that evidence, and that, owing to departmental action I was denied the opportunity to produce it.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member never took the trouble to see the Minister about it.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member has made that statement a. dozen times this afternoon.

Sir John Forrest:

– And I shall say something else that will checkmate the honorable member when the opportunity offers.

Mr CHANTER:

– If at the time referred to I had been in the right honorable member’s place as Minister of Home Affairs, I should have felt it my duty to watch the proceedings before the High Court in the case of Chanter v. Blackwood, and also other cases; and I should have taken notice of the reports of the officers of the Department made from knowledge acquired from a scrutiny of the papers. I presume such reports were made, and if they were, I should have arrived at the conclusionhad I held office as Minister of Home Affairs - that a serious state of affairs was disclosed, and that it was necessary that every document in the Electoral Branch of the Department should be preserved for years until certain offenders had been punished. I should not have allowed the whole of the documents to be destroyed within three or four months of the election in connexion with which the offences occurred, and before the individual who could prove that certain offences had taken place had an opportunity to get re-elected to this House, and to move for a return of the papers.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member might never have got back again.

Mr CHANTER:

– Even so, the information would have been available. I do not know whether or not the officers reported to the right honorable member, who was then Minister of Home Affairs ; but they ha’d certain knowledge, and it was their duty to acquaint him of what they knew in this regard. I presume that they did so; yet all these documents were destroyed. I had not intended to speak on this motion, and should not have done so. but that honorable members opposite had complained again and again that the Government were doing a great wrong to many people by abolishing the postal voting provisions of the Act. They asked for some justification of our action, and I thought it well to give certain proofs of wrongdoing under the existing law.

Sir Robert Best:

– The honorable member has given us nothing.

Mr CHANTER:

– The honorable member was outside attending to other business when I gave the iproofs to which I refer; and I am not going to repeat them for his benefit. He may read my speech in Hansard. I have made statements that can be corroborated by officers in the Department of Home Affairs ; and I think that I have shown that there is ample justification for the action taken by the Government in submitting this Bill.

Sir John Forrest:

– Depriving sick people of the franchise.

Mr CHANTER:

– The right honorable member knows very well that there is not a law that does not do injury to some one. I have already said that I should be glad if some scheme could be devised whereby the right to vote could be secured, under proper safeguards, to those who are really sick. It often happens that the few have to suffer for the good of the many, and possibly a few unfortunate individuals may have to be deprived of the franchise in order that our electoral system may be purified. The Government have not gone as far as I should have liked, and have advised them to go; but they have done what they consider is best in the circumstances. This is an honest attempt to improve the electoral law, without any thought of benefiting either one political party or the other ; and I think it will go a long way towards removing temptations to do wrong that have hitherto existed in connexion with our electoral system.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- The honorable member for Riverina has delivered a speech that, in some respects, is undoubtedly a contribution of value to the debate, but, in others, is characterized by matter which I think he will regret when he comes to read it. It is a pity that any political party should be charged on the lines that the honorable member has adopted in dealing with his political opponents, and more particularly in referring to some person who appears to have been mixed up with a squalid case, and who was at the same time an employé of a political organization. So far as I have been able to ascertain, that person was discharged from the employ of the association as soon as it was discovered that she was mixed up with the case referred to. It ill becomes a member of any party to take extreme illustrations of that kind, and to seek to apply them in a general sense, as the honorable member has sought to do. Would it be fair, for instance, to put forward a case that has just been tried in the United States of America - the case of two trade unionists convicted of heinous crimes, and who were taking a prominent part in the Labour movement in America - as an illustration of the tendency of the Labour movement generally. I should reprobate just as strongly anything of the kind from my own side as I do now when it comes from the other. The honorable member for Riverina evidently regards it as an enormity that a man with money, who takes an interest in politics, should spend some of that money on the cause in which he believes. I fail to see anything wrong in that. I should say that the action of such a man is quite as worthy of our regard as is the action of political associations which squeeze money out of unwilling working men for political objects. It goes without saying that there are many associated with Labour unions who pay their contributions very unwillingly. But for the force of the compulsion, there would be many who would not pay ; in fact, I believe there are some who refuse to do so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Socialist movement would not be what it is to-day but for the wealthy devotees of the cause.

Mr FOWLER:

– No doubt money has served a very useful purpose in all our great movements. It has served its purpose in connexion with the Labour movement ; and so long as it is employed in a legitimate way, I see no objection. The original Act up to the present time has fairly safeguarded the interests of electors in this respect. Even with the stringent provisions now proposed, I fail to see that the law will be made in the least degree effective in securing the aims and objects of the Government. I do not think that, in these times, the expenditure of money accounts for any very considerable accession of political strength to a party. So far as my experience goes, I find that lavish expenditure of money very often creates a suspicion in the minds of the public which causes them to vote in the opposite direction. Personally I would rather have to fight my elections with a scarcity of money than have those large amounts poured into the constituency that the honorable member for Riverina assures us are being thrown broadcast over the Commonwealth.

The honorable member gave us some interesting, if to him unpleasant, re- ‘ miniscences of his experience many years ago in connexion with an election for the Federal Parliament. Those of . us who were in Parliament at the time remember the greater part of what he has now related. I do not think there was any member of this House at that time who did not welcome the honorable member back with a feeling of satisfaction that he had fought a good fight, and had emerged triumphantly, thus showing that, after all, the absolute might that he so much condemns now was not sufficient to prevent the electors from doing him justice. But the honorable member endeavoured to prove too much ; and I do. not think he was altogether logical. He wishes us to understand that the postal vote was exercised frequently in an improper way. That may be so; but that is no argument why the system should be abolished. It is perhaps a reason why we should endeavour to secure better administration in connexion with this phase of the law. But to penalize even the few that the honorable member himself admits will be penalized, is neither fair nor equitable. He pointed out in his reminiscences that in one or two cases ordinary votes had been subjected to an influence of an improper character, and had been cast in a way other than what the electors concerned would have wished. If we are to carry that argument of the honorable member for Riverina to its logical conclusion, we must also abolish the ordinary vote. No law devised by the Legislature can prevent people doing wrong if they wish to do wrong. The only thing we can do is to secure that wrong-doers will be punished with all the strictness that the case demands. In my opinion, electoral offences ought to be severely punished ; and no Minister ought to shirk his duty when cases of the kind are placed before him. If, as the honorable member said, the Minister has had not one, but several, cases brought under his notice of a deliberate breaking of the law as it now stands, he is making a very serious charge against the Minister, in so far as the latter does not set the law in motion.

Mr Chanter:

– The Minister has set the law in motion in some cases, as honorable members will hear directly.

Mr FOWLER:

– I have yet to learn in connexion with the- numerous charges and assertions of maladministration that any one rase has been prosecuted to a finish by the head of the Department. If there are such cases now, particularly cases in which the Minister hesitates to act because charges are made against women, I remind him that he has no right to show any partiality to a sex. The law is, or ought to be, no respecter of persons ; and the Minister ought to prosecute indiscriminately all who have broken the law.

There is no doubt that this Bill, like the curate’s egg, is “good in parts.” There are some provisions that undoubtedly we could adopt with advantage - a few here and there - but it has been proved time and again that the Bill, as a whole, is a purely partisan production, for which the officials of the Department decline any responsibility. The Minister is unable to say that the very important alterations proposed have been assented to by the head of the Department; and this is very serious. If there is any matter that ought to be kept out of the operation of political partisanship, it is the making of the necessary arrangements to enable people to record their opinions on polling day. It appears, however, that the ordinary safeguard has been thrown aside - that the Government have brought down a measure largely to suit themselves, and, to a certain extent, to operate against those who are opposed to them in politics. In another place, this Bill has simply been riddled with criticism ; and any selfrespecting Government would have thrown it under the table. It has been brought to this Chamber, however, and, although some attempts have been made to defend it, the criticism that it has been subjected to on this side, for the most part, has been met with gibes, jeers, and laughter, which remind me of nothing so much as the scriptural allusion to the “ crackling of thorns under a pot.” There is no doubt that there is a curious kind of self -consciousness on the other side that this Bill is not altogether one which a self-respecting Government ought to introduce.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order; the honorable member used that expression a while ago, and I then thought it might have been used inadvertently, but he ought not to repeat it.

Mr FOWLER:

– I am at a loss to understand, Mr. Speaker, wherein I have transgressed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has attributed” unworthy motives to a number of honorable members on the other side, and he must not do so.

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not wish, to transgress any rules of debate, or- to question your decision, Mr. Speaker; and if I have said anything out of order, I withdraw it. I was not aware, however, that I had used any expression which went beyond legitimate criticism. T. hold very strongly that this Bill is a partisan measure, which will meet with reprobation from the “electors on that account. There is one feature of it which I believe will be regretted by all members, no matter on which side of the House they sit. It undoubtedly adds to the troubles of the political candidate, whose lot at best is not a bed of roses. It will be practically impossible for any candidate who wins an election, no matter how conscientiously he may have conducted the campaign, to make sure that he will not be unseated for occurrences absolutely beyond his purview or control. That is not fair or reasonable; and I hope honorable members will have this consideration in their minds when this Bill is in Committee. There is one clause of the measure which appears to me remarkably unwise and unnecessary ; and that is the clause providing for compulsory enrolment. I am absolutely at a loss to understand the why and wherefore of this provision. If it were followed by a clause providing for compulsory voting, I could understand it; but merely to compel electors to put their names on the roll is to do something, the utility of which I fail to see. Nay, more, it will react on the party that makes such a proposal. There are many people who do not wish to be troubled with politics, or to vote, and who do not desire to put their names on any roll ; and when they are confronted with a law of this kind, they may retaliate by voting against the party who impose upon them what they regard as an unnecessary amount of inconvenience. That is my idea regarding the matter, as a student of human nature. Such a provision, cannot possibly have any advantage politically ; but must react in the way I have indicated. I am very glad to see that there is a disposition, even on the other side, to criticise some of the provisions of the Bill. I am glad that the honorable member for Hunter intends to use his vote to amend and improve some of the clauses of this measure, because it is an indication that the Government do not mean to stand fast by them. Had they declared the clauses to be vital, no member of the Labour party would have dared to vote against them. But Ministers, seeing that the Bill requires a good deal of revision, have thrown it on the table, and told honorable members to do what they like with it. I hope that, when it emerges from Committee, it will be, like the Highlander’s gun, repaired, lock, stock, and barrel, and very much benefited by the alteration which it has undergone. To sum up briefly, I regard the measure as a foolish and clumsy attempt to secure a partisan advantage, which will react injuriously on those responsible for it. I shall do what I can to remove its objectionable features.

Sir John Forrest:

– I wish to make a personal explanation, as I understood the honorable member for Riverina to suggest that I had done something wrong or exceptional, when Minister of Home Affairs, in ordering the destruction of certain ballotpapers. I shall read the official papers, without comment of any sort. The facts are that on the 19th April, 1904, the Chief Electoral Officer wrote the following to the Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs: -

Section 150 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that - “ All ballot-papers used for voting shall be preserved as and in such, custody as shall be prescribed until the election can be no longer questioned when they shall be destroyed.”

As the period prescribed in clause 194 («) of the Act for the filing of electoral petitions, viz., forty days from the return of the writ, has expired, and the validity of the elections can no longer be questioned, I propose to have them cremated after the Honorable the Speaker’s con. sent has been obtained.

The memorandum was submitted to me, as Minister at the time, and I wrote on the margin “ Approved, John Forrest, 21st April, 1904.” The Chief Clerk was directed to prepare a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to whom the following communication was sent by theSecretary -

As the period prescribed in clause 194 (e) of” the Commonwealth Electoral Act for the filing, of electoral petitions has expired, and the validity of the elections can no longer be questioned, I have the honour to request that you will be good enough to obtain the consent of the Honorable the Speaker to the ballotpapersused for voting being destroyed by fire, in accordance with the requirements of section 159 of the said Act.

To that the following reply was returned : -

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant (received this day), and in reply to inform you that the Speaker sees no reason why the ballotpapersused for voting in the last general election of the House of Representatives should not now be destroyed.

I have no personal recollection of this matter, and know nothing more of the subject.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- The Bill is rather one for discussion in Committee, where I shall do what I can to improve it, and members of the Opposition who make suggestions for amendments likely to bring about the purification of elections will find that they will be favorably received by those on this side.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That has hardly been our experience.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member is always listened to attentively, and his arguments are duly weighed.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member cannot say that the honorable member’s suggestions are ever adopted.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not complain of want of courtesy, but of the ineffectiveness ot our attempts to secure amendments.

Mr FENTON:

– The Opposition speaks with two voices on this subject. It complains that Opposition suggestions, even if emanating, from a member possessed of the wisdom of Solomon, would be disregarded by the Ministerial party ; but when a measure has been placed on the statutebook, and proves a success, they claim that its effectiveness is due largely to their amendments. This shows their inconsistency. On other Bills I have at times been in company with members of the Opposition in my attempts to secure amendments, and on several occasions last session I found myself almost a lone lamb amongst wolves.

Mr Riley:

– On the Federal Capital question.

Mr FENTON:

– On the Federal Capital question nearly every one constitutes himself a Whip, so great is the desire of the majority to push on with works in the Federal Territory. Although it has been stated in the press, and by honorable members opposite, that we are content to deal with petty details of electoral administration, instead of giving effect to the successful experiments of other countries, I would point out that the percentage of votes cast to the number of electors on the roll is increasing every year, and Western Australia recently established what must be a record. I do not think that postal voting is provided for by that State, because in the official return of the polling no mention is made of postal votes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is an absent voters’ provision.

Mr FENTON:

– There is also one in this Bill.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not of the same kind.

Mr FENTON:

– It allows an elector to vote in any part of the Commonwealth.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– If he can get to a booth.

Mr FENTON:

– A man will be in a very peculiar place if he cannot get to a booth. The Western Australian returns show that very few are prevented from going to the polling places.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– What percentage of votes were cast in Western Australia?

Mr FENTON:

– The votes cast were 75 or 76 per cent, of the number of electors on the roll, and in one electorate 97 per cent.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– That looks like personation.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member objected strongly to a suggestion from this side that immoral practices have been indulged in at elections, and I do not think that he ought to cast a slur on the electors of Western Australia. At Guildford, a suburban electorate with 4,935 names on the roll, 4,075 persons voted; at West Perth, with 4,339 names on the roll, 3,652 persons voted, and there were fifty-three informal votes. In North Perth 5,283 were enrolled, and 4,318 voted. At Leaderville 4,730 were on the roll, and 3,904 voted. At Avon, a country constituency, 3,164 were on the roll, and 2,187 voted. I read in the West Austraiian that in one electorate practically 97 per cent, of those on the roll recorded their votes. That struck me as phenomenal. I have taken out these figures practically at random, to show what a wonderful poll was put up in Western Australia without the assistance of the postal vote. This proves conclusively that if people have the mind to do it, they will record their votes. Anything I can do to facilitate practically everybody in the community recording their votes upon election day in an honest and straightforward fashion, I shall be glad to do. Many honorable members on the Opposition side have described this Bill as containing fantastic innovations, and establishing bad precedents. I take it that, particularly in our electoral system, when we find that mistakes have taken place, it is only right that we should endeavour to rectify them.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Yours is the first party for half a century that has put back the hands of the clock by disfranchising people.

Mr FENTON:

– That is an imaginary statement.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is an accurate statement.

Mr FENTON:

– I am confident that, in quite a number of the States, where they have not the postal vote, they are not likely to introduce it ; while in Queensland, where they had an experience of the way in which it was dishonestly manipulated, the Liberal party, who were then in power, took the first opportunity of wiping it off the statutebook. I give the credit to the Liberal side of politics for doing that. When they found that a certain system, of voting was being dishonestly manipulated, they wiped it out by a big majority.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Queensland has increased the facilities for voting.

Mr FENTON:

– It abolished postal voting.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And put in something just as good - absent voting.

Mr FENTON:

– We already have absent voting provided for, as I have explained. A great deal has been said as to the vote recorded at the last Federal election. I think the right honorable member for Swan was the only one on the other side who gave the Labour party credit fori having a real majority. He said that the official figures disclosed that the Labour party had a clear majority of about 60,000 electors. I have worked the result out in much the same way.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– I do not think that you are far wrong.

Mr FENTON:

– I took the official figures, selecting in each case the highest successful candidate for the Senate on the Labour side, and the gentleman who polled the highest number of votes on the other side. In New South Wales, Senator McDougall polled 249,212 votes, and Mr. Gray 220,569, or a majority of 28,643 votes in favour of Labour. I have not taken into account the three Socialist candidates in that State, or the two independent candidates who stood in Queensland. If I included them, “they would just about neutralize one another. In Victoria, Senator Findley polled 217,573 votes, and Sir Robert Best, now the honorable member for Kooyong, 21.3,976 votes, or a difference of 3,597 in favour of Labour. In Queensland, Senator Givens polled’ 82,234, and Mr. T. Glassey 77,895, or a’ difference of 4,339 for Labour. In South Australia, Senator McGregor polled 58,955, and Mr. D. J. Gordon, the present honorable mem ber for Boothby, 50,729, or a difference of 8,226 for Labour. In Western Australia, Senator Henderson polled 44,215, and Mr. Kingsmill 37,263, a difference of 6,952 for Labour. In Tasmania, Senator O’Keefe polled 31,304, and Mr. Henry Dobson 24,422, or a difference of 6,782 for Labour. My figures work out a total majority for Labour of 58,539 votes.

Objection has been taken to Saturday as polling day. If it were possible to hold our elections on a day to which no objection could be raised, it would be most desirable. We should avoid, in every possible way, wounding the religious susceptibilities of any one. I believe that by extending the hours of polling, our Hebrew friends will have an opportunity of recording their votes without violating what they consider sacred principles relating to their Sabbath. There is another section of the community whose objections I do not know how we can meet ; but I understand that, in political questions generally, they do not take a very active interest. I refer to the Seventh Day Adventists.

Mr Fowler:

– I understand that they do not vote at all.

Mr FENTON:

– I believe some of them do ; but I think that in most parts of Australia, if we hold our elections at a certain time of the year, they will have ample opportunity of recording their votes without violating their religious scruples. As a matter of fact, the Christian Sabbath’ is violated over and over again in connexion with many governmental institutions by Federal and State Governments ; but we do not find the same objections being raised by certain individuals. I am not very much in love with Saturday as a polling day, and it will be a new experience for us in Victoria. I hope it will be favorable to the majority of the electors getting to the polls.

Mr Charlton:

– At any rate, the Labour party cannot do much worse in Victoria.

Mr FENTON:

– The adverse result at the last State election was largely due to the fact that the Federal Parliament sits in Melbourne, and a number of Victorians seem to think that it is the only real Parliament. It is very difficult to get some of our most active Federal political workers to take an active part in State politics in Victoria. I think honorable members cn the other side will find when the next Federal election arrives, that there will be a very different stir in this State. I do not know how we can meet every objection in regard to polling day; but when we are legislating for the whole Commonwealth, we have to do what we consider is in the best interests of the community as a whole. If one or two States make a serious objection, we may take it into account, but we cannot legislate simply to please them. I should not like to think that anybody had to refrain from exercising the franchise on account of religious scruples. South Australia and Queensland have had experience of Saturday elections. I do not know whether any protest has been made in those States ; but the weight of evidence seems to be in favour of elections being more successful, and larger polls being obtained, by holding them on Saturday. Although I represent a city constituency, with a fairly compact population, I consider we have not the number of polling booths that we ought to have. If we can increase them, it will add to the facilities for people to record their votes, and I intend to use my best endeavours to have quite a number more in my electorate than there were during the last contest.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Then what must the condition be in the country districts?

Mr FENTON:

– As one who has resided for a considerable time in the country, I know that it is very difficult indeed to vote there, and I would be prepared to sacrifice a few polling booths in my own electorate in order that country electors might have greater facilities. We must have more polling booths everywhere. Not only is it difficult to obtain suitable buildings, but sometimes the polling places in subdivisions are inconveniently situated. The nearer you can get to the centre of a large subdivision the better the position for a polling booth. Although additional polling booths may lead to an increase in the cost of elections, they will give increased facilities to the people, and thereby insure a larger poll. The great bone of contention in this measure is the abolition of the postal vote. It is about time that we abolished it.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Why?

Mr FENTON:

– Because certain practices were indulged in at the last election and in the referenda campaign. These seem to be gaining strength, and the whole tendency is in the wrong direction. At the last Federal elections, it was known in a certain district that quite a number of applications for postal ballot-papers had gone out fairly late, and it was generally realized that, by the first post on polling: day, many of these would come to hand. The persons who were likely to receive these application forms were known. A motor car was accordingly engaged, and a medical man who, although not now in practice, was, as a member of the medical profession, an authorized witness under the Act, drove round in the car and collected’ twenty postal ballot-papers within a small area. The persons concerned voted in his presence, he witnessed their votes, took the postal ballot-papers away with him, and they were subsequently conveyed by a man in another motor car to the Returning; Officer at North Melbourne.

Sir John Forrest:

– They ought to have been posted.

Mr FENTON:

– They were not. That case came under my own notice ; and it applies to a comparatively small area. Within two hours these twenty postal votes were collected on the day of the election, and were handed in to the Returning Officer before 2 o’clock.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Were the people sick who voted in that way?

Mr FENTON:

– I am not going to say that all of them were sick.

Sir Robert Best:

– Does the honorable member say that they were not sick?

Mr King O’Malley:

– O - Of course they were not sick. I shall give the Opposition, later on, some medicine in the form of experiences in my own electorate.

Mr FENTON:

– I am only pointing out what can be done under the existing system.

Sir John Forrest:

– But what harm was done in that case?

Mr FENTON:

– Honorable members opposite, I am sure, will agree with me that the secrecy of the ballot should be maintained inviolate. It is one of the most sacred features of our electoral system.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not know that it is “ sacred.”

Mr FENTON:

– I think it is. It is all very well for the right honorable member for Swan to speak in that way. A man in his independent position does not care who knows how he votes ; but there are many men to whom the secrecy of the ballot is of the greatest importance. Their position is such that they do not desire any one to know for whom they vote. The secrecy of the ballot is one of the finest features of our electoral law. By no other means can Parliament be made a true reflex of the feelings of the people. There are many honorable members who’ can recall the days of open voting. They were before my time; but I have heard some of the old pioneers say that, in those days, in many places, a man, as soon as he voted, had to be very careful that he did, not get his skull cracked. Australia gave to the world the principle of voting by ballot, which has been accepted by many countries, and is one of the finest reforms ever introduced. I shall cling tenaciously to the secrecy of the ballot, no matter what other honorable members may do, and I unhesitatingly say that that secrecy has been thrown to the winds so far as postal voting is concerned.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is there anything inconsistent with the secrecy of the ballot in a man telling some one else, if he chooses to do so, how he is going to vote?

Mr FENTON:

– If the right honorable member for Swan and I resided in an electorate in respect of which a Fusion candidate and a Labour man sought election, it would be quite unnecessary for him to brandish his ballot-paper before me in order that I might know tor whom he voted. I should very naturally, and, I think, rightly, assume that he would Vote against the Labour party’s candidate. But, whilst he and many other men of affluence can afford to state openly for whom they are voting, the disclosure of the way in which a man has voted often leads to his being boycotted. I can speak from personal experience. I have been boycotted. In a town not far from Melbourne, I disclosed my real political views in a newspaper that I was conducting there, as well as on the public platform, with the result that my political opponents tried to starve me and my family out of the district.

Sir Robert Best:

– They were evidently following a bad example.

Mr FENTON:

– I find that the ex:ample is nearly always on the same side.

Mr Sampson:

– Is not the same thing ‘done on the honorable member’s side?

Mr FENTON:

– So far as 1 am aware, our party has never resorted to the boycott. I always speak against, and scout the idea of any one resorting to it.

Mr Fowler:

– Has it not? Tradespeople in some constituencies will tell the honorable member that they dare not vote at all.

Mr FENTON:

– I can quite understand a man who has changed his political coat entertaining such ideas; but I am speaking out of the fulness of my experience. The honorable member for Maranoa has told us how he was boycotted at one time because of his advocacy of Labour principles ; and I question whether there is on this side of the House an honorable member who has not, at one time or another, been a marked man because he has dared to express his political views with the freedom that a Britisher should always claim. I honour a man’s political opinions; but when party politics are allowed to enter into and interfere with the social and business relations of the people, as they have been, it is time to complain.

Mr Page:

– The position is not as bad as it was.

Mr FENTON:

– Thank God it is not; and no one has done more to fight against such tactics than has the party of which I am a member.

Mr Fowler:

– They resort to the same tactics.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member may say so, but I know what the position is. I spoke a few moments ago of the action of a medical man in collecting postal ballot-papers, and I desire now to refer to another case in which a medical man was concerned. During the recent referenda campaign a certain office in the city sent to medical men, more particularly in the metropolis, a circular to the following effect: - “On polling day there will be under your care a large number who may not be able to vote by attending a polling booth. Enclosed you will find a number of application forms for postal ballot-papers. Will you kindly see that they are distributed among your patients, and see also that they get postal ballot-papers and vote.” One medical man told me that he received such a circular, and that” he saw that all his patients obtained postal ballot-papers. He added, “ I witnessed their votes, and saw that they voted all right.”

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– What did he mean by “ all right “ ?

Mr FENTON:

– I am not going to say. That statement was made to me by one of the most reputable medical men in Melbourne, and he informed me that he knew how all those people voted.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Then he broke the law, and the honorable member should give information to the Minister, who, in turn, should prosecute him.

Mr FENTON:

– That medical man did only what scores of other medical men did in connexion with the referenda campaign.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is not the same thing done on both sides?

Mr FENTON:

– I am not arguing for one side or the other.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I should hope not, birt what was wrong if a man-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I appeal to honorable members not to continue these interjections.

Mr FENTON:

– A man who violates the electoral law should be punished, no matter to which side he belongs. I am out to purify our electoral system in the interests of the people, and believe it advisable from the information and experience which honorable members generally possess to abolish the system of voting by post.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is it a breach of the law to ask a man to vote for a certain candidate ?

Mr Chanter:

– It is on the part of an authorized witness.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member for Parramatta said that this was the only Government that had made a retrograde step in connexion with the electoral law by proposing the abolition of postal voting. In reply, I would draw his attention to a debate which took place in the Queensland Legislative Assembly in August, 1907, on the Elections Acts Amendment Bill, and which is reported in the Queensland Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XC1X.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– But under the Queensland Act all women voted by post at the State elections.

Mr Page:

– That is not correct.

Sir Robert Best:

– They could do so.

Mr FENTON:

– They could do so if they wished. The .Home Secretary of that day, Mr. Hawthorn, in explaining the measure, said -

The next feature of the Bill is the proposed abolition of the postal vote. It has been found in practice that the provisions for the postal vote are of such a nature that fraud is made easy.

That was the statement of a responsible Minister on the Liberal side of politics.

Sir Robert Best:

– But in rega-rd to an Act, under which every woman, without exception, had the right to vote by post.

Mr FENTON:

– Quite so. It was optional for a woman to go to a polling place and record her vote or to vote by post. The fact remains, however, that this quotation refers to what occurred in con nexion with a postal voting system. Mr. Hawthorn continued -

It is known that there was considerable abuse of the provisions during the last election, and it is therefore suggested that the best way todeal with the postal vote is to wipe it out altogether.

I gather from the debate in the Queensland Legislative Assembly that the presiding officers in several constituencies voluntarily forwarded to the Electoral Department reports of the manner in which voting by post was carried out. The Home Secretary Himself indicated that these reports had been forwarded to him in many cases without any request on his part. Independent presiding, officers, having seen how the systemhad been abused, thought it their duty to acquaint the responsible Minister with the facts. The Returning Officer for Toowoomba, Mr. Thomas Mowbray, P.M., reported as follows : -

The general tendency of the voting by post certainly impairs the secrecy of the ballot in more ways than one. It is within my knowledge that at the last election the handwriting of the voter on the postal vote could be identified by officials engaged in counting at the close of the poll. The freedom of the elector is forestalled, and the too generous use of the postal vote may cause an election to be decided’ before polling day. The fact that the votesof 243 male electors given under the postal system were recorded for candidates at the May election, I think, indicates that the .declaration these voters made - that they would be absent from the district on polling day - in order to obtain such a right, was not always in accordance with actual conditions.

The next report is from Laidley -

  1. Agents, in some cases justices of the peace, canvassed for postal votes, and a few application forms were sent in which had been signed by justices of the peace as witnesses, but without any signature of applicant. The latter must either have forgotten to sign, was not aware that he had to sign, or the form was signed by the witness first and then carried round.
  2. There is nothing to prevent a person signing an application for a person unable to write,, and then signing the certificate also.
  3. It has been said by persons of both sides that application forms have been signed by persons other than the name would imply, and there may be some truth in the statement.
  4. In view of possible abuse, I think the vote should be abolished. Extra voting places might be appointed, so as to give female voters better opportunities of recording their votes. The presiding officer might be paid on a sliding scale according to votes polled, and this might prevent any great increase in the expenses.
Mr Groom:

– The postal voting in Queensland was quite different from the Commonwealth postal voting, inasmuch as there were not the same safeguards in the case of the former. 1

Mr FENTON:

– I have looked ‘at the Queensland Electoral Act, and I .do not place the same interpretation on it as does the honorable member. The Queensland system seems to have been hedged round with considerable restrictions, and the penalties amounted to a fine of £100,; and, I believe, imprisonment with or without hard labour. Even under such circumstances as these we find offences committed.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member is referring to offences under the Queensland Act.

Mr FENTON:

– The principle is the same ; and if there were these abuses in the case of the State we may expect to have them in the case of the Commonwealth. It Ss very strange that in Victoria, the smallest State but one in the Commonwealth, with nearly every elector within easy distance ©f a polling booth, the number of postal votes cast at the last election should have “been 14,000 out of a total of 29,000 for the whole Commonwealth. I desire these reports to be recorded in Hansard iri order to show that the cases of abuse are not isolated, and also to have them accessible in case we desire to refer to them later on.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The honorable member will require all the cases he can find !

Mr FENTON:

– I travel as much about the country districts of Victoria as most people, and I find the farming community highly appreciative of the legislation which has been introduced and passed by this Government.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The electors of Victoria did not show themselves to be appreciative the other day.

Mr FENTON:

– Whether it is the absence of the honorable member for Parramatta or not, I do not know, but, somehow or other, there is great difficulty in Victoria in stirring the people up, in State matters, to anything like the enthusiasm they show in Federal matters. The next report is from the Returning Officer at Ipswich, Mr. James McGill -

As soon as the applications began to come in I noticed that electors who were residents in Ipswich signed to have the postal certificates sent to another address than the address specified at the top of the application. I interviewed the Hon. A. H. Barlow on the matter, and it was found that in that respect nothing could be done to prevent such a course. Scores of postal certificates went to one address, and were taken out to the several electors by the justice of the peace, collected and posted by £im.

In examining the ballot-papers, myself, assistant, and scrutineers were satisfied that in a very large number of cases the voters did not write the names,- because whilst there, was the usual want of similarity in the signatures on the postal certificate, the writing on the ballotpapers was exceedingly good, and of a similar character. I am of opinion that the postal voting in a great number of cases was not a secret ballot, and that it is open to very great abuse.

The next report is from Sandgate -

The proportion of irregularities rapidly fell from quite 50 per cent, in the beginning to about 5 per cent, towards the end of the election. This was due to the fact that the canvassing was carried on chiefly by about six justices of the peace, who quickly learned how to fill in the forms.

I understand that, just prior to the election in Queensland, the State Government appointed 500 justices of the peace for the purpose of facilitating the voting.

Mr Spence:

– The position was said to be worth £4 4s. a day.

Mr FENTON:

– I do not know anything about that, but that number, I understand, was appointed- ; and I suppose the Government took care that the justices of1 the peace were of the right stamp.

Sir Robert Best:

– Postal voting has been abolished in Queensland.

Mr FENTON:

– The Government who appointed these justices of the peace were rejected by a very large majority ; and the incoming Government took the first opportunity to place on the statute-book an Electoral Act in the best interests of the community.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– This is supposed to be a fair statement; and yet we are asked to believe that the justices of the peace, who were appointed,), were of the “ right stamp.”

Mr FENTON:

– If honorable members can prove that I am wrong, they are quite at liberty to do so. The report from Sandgate continues -

If this canvassing were considered undesirable, it might be checked by issuing forms of application to intending voters only; either personally or on their written orders. The certificates were evidently watched for by the justices of the peace who had canvassed for them. Very serious danger of improper action lies here. I believe that very often the envelope containing the completed ballot was given to the canvasser to convey to the post-office. Even greater breaches of the Act are possible and probable at this stage ; but of this I have no legal evidence. Nor do I see any means of checking these malpractices without an alteration of the Act. But if the Legislature were to limit the faculty of witnessing certificates to postmasters with an exception in cases of necessity in favour of duly-qualified medical practitioners, I think few honest voters would be deprived of the franchise, especially if both sexes were placed on an equality. The postal vote makes large demands on the time of the returning officer. When in order, about ten can be dealt with in an hour (applications). They also occupy a good deal of time in counting.

The next report is from Ravenswood -

I have necessarily been kept very close in office for the whole of the month of May, as the agents of each candidate were very active and diligent, and constant attendance, pressing for their certificates as they lodged their application, particularly those that were destined for outside places. … Of the postal votes, I deem it right to report this : that it has been very much abused, through the fact of agents being permitted to act for the applicants (particularly the women), and which, I think, was never the intention of the framers of the Act. If agents were not permitted to so act, and that the applicants themselves only were obliged to apply, either personally or by letter, much of the discontent that is expressed generally over this class of vote would be obviated.

I understand that under the Queensland Act the voter himself was supposed to post the ballot-paper, whereas, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it is taken in charge by the authorized witness for posting. Under any circumstances a considerable leakage may take place. I am informed that one way of ascertaining how an elector voted was to give him a piece of fairly clean blotting paper, so that after the name had been written and blotted, it could be quite easily read on the blotting paper.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr FENTON:

– During the dinner adjournment, I. have ascertained from the honorable member for Perth that the Western Australian electoral law is similar to ours, and provides for voting by post, whereas I made certain deductions on the assumption that it did not. I find that the leakage in connexion with postal votes at the last general election for the Commonwealth was more considerable than I thought. I do not say that the blame for it is attachable to the authorized witnesses, because no doubt a number of persons, after applying for a postal ballot-paper, did not use it. The number of postal ballot-papers issued was 36,820, and the number of postal votes recorded 29,249, of which 14,049, or nearly one-half, were recorded in Victoria. The postal votes returned too late numbered 2,126, and the postal ballot-papers not returned numbered 5,445, or together 7,571. Honorable members opposite have stated that the repeal of the postal voting system has been proposed by. the Labour party for its own purposes, but I find from the figures relating to the Victorian votes that four other Labour representatives and myself obtained more postal votes than our opponents. My postal votes numbered 100 more than those cast for my opponent. I have quoted the opinion of Mr. Hawthorn, at the time Chief Secretary of Queensland, and of half-a-dozen returning officers, against the postal voting system, and I propose now to give that of” Mr. Kidston, when Premier of the State.. He said -

Every one of us knows quite well that the way in which postal voting was carried out in. many cases made it, to all intents and purposes, open voting. … It was open voting, under this peculiar condition that it was open voting done under the eye of some one who probably had some power over the person voting. …… That was the objectionable feature of it. The thing that I wish particularly to point out is this : Whatever evils resulted during last election from postal voting is not a circumstance compared with the evils that will take place at the next election if postal voting is still in existence. … I venture to assert if another election takes place with the postal vote provisions in the Electoral: Act unrepealed, then all parties - and all candidates for that matter - will do their best to get the great bulk of the women to vote by post. . . . To all intents and purposes, if we continue our Elections Act with this blemish in it, we abolish the protection of the ballot so far as women are concerned, and certainly so far as the majority of women are concerned.. (Hear, hear.) There are plenty of women in such a position that they can protect themselves. There are plenty of women who are in such a position that they are not afraid of their husband’s position if they vote the wrong way. . . But, unfortunately, there are a large number of women who are not in that happy position, and it is chiefly for the protection of them that it is Sought to remove this blemish from our Act without any delay about the matter at all. … I consider that it is the duty of this House to wipe out the postal vote root and branch, and wipe it out at once.

Those must be regarded as serious statements, in view of the source from which they come.

Sir Robert Best:

– I suppose the honorable member regards Mr. Kidston as quite an authority on this and other matters?

Mr FENTON:

– I do not know about other matters.

Mr Chanter:

– He was Leader of the Fusion party.

Sir Robert Best:

– And is therefore an authority ?

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member may look upon him as an authority if he likes. I regard a case as being made all the stronger when it can be supported by the testimony of witnesses on the other side. This reform - I spell it with a capital R - is no sudden spasm with the Labour party. . You, Mr. Speaker, when addressing yourself to an Electoral Bill on 27th October, 1909, said -

I rose, however, to deal more particularly with that portion of the Bill which relates to postal voting. To my mind it opens the door to the most flagrant violation of the secrecy of the ballot? At the last by-election for Echuca no less than 1,800 postal votes were recorded.

This Bill provides that -

An elector who -

  1. has reason to believe that he will not during the hours of polling on polling day be within seven miles of any polling place for the division for which he is enrolled . . . may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.

Under that clause every elector in the community could record his vote by post.

Mr Sinclair:

– And why not?

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– The honorable member ought to know what occurred in Queensland at the State election before last. A more disgraceful state of affairs could not be imagined. Under the system of voting by post there the secrecy of the ballot was violated in the worst possible way. Any man may say that he has reason to believe that on polling day he will be more than 7 miles from a polling booth, and will, therefore, be able under this Bill to vote by post.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– We have a similar provision in the electoral law of South Australia, and it has not been abused.

Mr McDONALD:

– The people of South Australia are apparently so honest that they need no laws to control them.

Mr Groom:

– But how does the honorable member say that the secrecy of the ballot was violated in Queensland?

Mr McDONALD:

– The then Government of Queensland appointed 300 justices of the peace of their way of thinking, so that their party might have their services in witnessing postal votes. In many cases these justices of the peace were canvassers and paid agents of the very party that had conferred upon them the commission of the peace. I know of cases in which women were asked by these canvassers to record their votes by post, but refused to do so. In one case the manager of a mine at which the husbands of some of these women were employed was taken to their hoiuses, and practically demanded that they should vote by post. In some instances the canvassers went so far as to tell the women that if they did not vote by post their husbands would suffer, and in certain cases their husbands were actually discharged from their employment. I know something of the facts. The secrecy of the ballot was violated in a way which no honorable member of this House would approve. As a justiceofthe peace I went round collecting postal votes in the ordinary way, and do not hesitate to say that I knew how every person voted whose postal vote I witnessed.

Mr Groom:

– Without seeing the papers?

Mr McDONALD:

– One could not help see- ing how they voted. A woman must be pretty brave if she refuses to record her vote by post or to vote in a certain way when requested to do so by a justice of the peace who is manager of a mine in which her husband is employed. Some of these justices of the peace went even further than I have mentioned. They carried with them small pieces of blotting paper to blot the signatures of the voters, and in that way ascertained for whom they were voting. Other members of the Labour party also opposed the adoption of the postal voting system then.

The Minister of Home Affairs says that he intends to provide for the nomination form by regulation, but there is a form now in a schedule of the Act, and I think that it or an improved form should remain. A candidate should be able to ascertain by reference to the Act in what terms he will be required to nominate.

To let honorable members understand the manner in which elections are conducted in some places, let me read a card issued in connexion with the recent Victorian elections. It is as follows : -

The electors were practically told that unless they voted for Craven their votes would not count. A more disgraceful piece of electioneering I have never known. It shows the principles - or want of principle - upon which our opponents act. Let me now illustrate the methods of their journalistic sponsors. The Argus, just before the last referenda, published articles headed, “ How to Vote,” and gave this instruction to the electors -

This was such a flagrant infringement of the Electoral Act that the Electoral Officers notified the Argus proprietors that unless it was withdrawn proceedings would be taken against them. They thought discretion was the better part of valour, and withdrew it. I simply mention it to show how some of our journals will degrade themselves in their efforts to deceive people who may desire to record an honest vote. As a rule, I do not complain much against newspapers, but some of the provisions which have been inserted in this Bill with relation to the press appear to be to some degree justified, when resort is had to such schemes to deceive people as the one I have just quoted.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is not all this superfluous? Why cannot we take it for granted that they are all rogues on this side, and all angels on that?

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member for Parramatta is not quite so angelic that we are likely to hear theflutter of his wings. There have been some prosecutions under the electoral law. The following is an example that occurred in Victoria : -

Louis Lesser, a J. P., and a wealthy storekeeper at Coleraine, was recently fined at Hamilton for offences against the Electoral Act. He was tried in the police court, before Mr. Williams, P.M., charged on several informations with having committed breaches of the Federal Electoral Act in regard to postal ballotpapers in his capacity as an authorized witness. The first case taken was that in regard to Selina Campbell, a married woman, of Coleraine, whose name appeared as an elector on the roll. In relation to this, three charges were preferred against the defendant, namely : -

That on April 22 last he witnessed her signature on an application for a postal certificate without being personally acquainted with the facts stated, and not having ascertained by inquiry that the statements made by her were true; (2) that he had induced her to make a false statement, to tEe effect that she was ill, and would be unable to attend the booth on polling day; and (3) that he attempted to influence her vote. After hearing evidence the bench imposed the following penalties : Campbell’s case, first charge, £5, with £5 5s. costs; Bird’s case, £2, with £5 5s. costs; James’ case, £2, without costs; the other charges in these cases dismissed.

Honorable members on the opposite side have been asking for proof. The honorable member for Riverina endeavoured to give them substantial proof out of the bitterness of his own experience. He gave them actual facts of what had occurred in his own case. In fact, his speech was so strong an indictment against the present system of postal voting that every honorable member who desires to see our elections conducted on honest principles should vote for the Bill. Because I believe this Bill will purify our elections, I shall vote for the second reading.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– I look upon this as one of the most important measures that could be brought before any Assembly. It involves the purity of our rolls and the efficacy of the machinery through which we hope to secure an expression of the voice of the people at elections. Before dealing with themerits or demerits of the measure, I wish to make brief reference to some of the speeches made by honorable members on the Ministerial side. Attacks have been made by them, not only upon honorable members on this side, but on those who have been taking an active part in elections, and organizing for the Liberal party, and, in fact, on any one who has anything to do with the Liberal party in politics. I do not so much mind attacks being made on members on this side, such as that on the right honorable member for Swan, to the effect that when in office he had burnt a lot of papers. That insinuation was made, and the right honorable member for Swan had to rise, as a matter of privilege, to prove that he had not been guilty of any reprehensible conduct in the matter. I do not so much mind the attacks made upon the men folk, such as those which the honorable member for Riverina made on managers of stations. He said that one man in particular induced thirty of his employes to vote by post, and that they all voted the one way. This was a most extraordinary thing, he said ; but in making statements of that sort, the honorable member is casting a serious slur on the men engaged in grazing or agricultural pursuits. Any man who will be told by the overseer or manager of a station the way he must vote is only a crawler, and not worthy the name of a man. The honorable member really says that those men are miserable crawlers, and that when the manager says, “ You have to vote for the Liberal candidate,” they all say, “ Yes, sir,” and sign their names itv front of him so as to let him see that they are voting as he wishes. The workers on station and farm properties are absolutely independent nowadays. One word from the boss will make them vote as they like. If the manager wants them to vote one way, they will vote the other. At any rate, that is my experience. Then we are told that the mistresses of the poor servant girls direct them how to vote, and that the poor, meek creatures who have no spirit at all say, “ Yes, m’am,” and vote exactly as their mistresses want them to. Honorable members know very well that to-day it is not the servant girl that is afraid of the mistress, but the mistress who is afraid of offending the servant girl, because she knows very well that she will clear out, and that her place cannot be filled. It is just the same on a station. As a matter of fact, all Hie proofs which the honorable member for Riverina was going to give us turned out to bc simply allegations.

Mr Chanter:

– They are not allegations, as the officers of the Home Affairs Department know.

Mr RYRIE:

– The honorable member did not prove anything. He simply made allegations, and I say to him, “ I deny the allegations, and scorn the al legator.” I do not so much mind the attacks that have been made on the men folk engaged in organizing work, but I do deprecate those made upon the women organizers belonging to our Liberal Leagues. Disgraceful and cowardly attacks have been made from the other side upon those women.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw that remark.

Mr RYRIE:

– I withdraw it, but attacks have been made upon the women engaged in Liberal organizations. Honorable members on the other side should recollect that the wives, and relatives, and friends of members on this side are often members of Liberal Leagues. There is no reason why they should not be, and it is a very serious matter to charge them with being guilty, practically, of criminal offences. Honorable members opposite should recollect that members on this side have made no attack during the debate, so far as I am aware, on the women who have been engaged in organizing for Labour candidates at elections. I recognise that the wives, relatives, and friends of honorable members opposite are often engaged in working for the Labour party, and Labour members should be careful in making these charges against women who assist our side. The .honorable member for Riverina in his calmer moments will be sorry that he introduced a certain case in Melbourne in connexion with our Liberal organization. It was most unseemly of him to bring that in. Those who are responsible for engaging that person as a Liberal organizer-

Mr Chanter:

– Do not say Liberal organizer; use the proper term, “Fusion organizer.”

Mr RYRIE:

– I am simply taking what the honorable member said. I do not know in what capacity this person was engaged, but is it to be supposed that those employing her had any intimation that such a case was to be brought before the Court? I. understand that when they did know about it- this person was dismissed from her employment, whatever it was. The honorable member, therefore, might well have left the case alone. A great deal has been said about pressure being brought to bear upon voters to vote in a certain direction, but nothing has been said about pressure being brought to bear by members of the Labour party on their comrades. I know of several specific cases where the “ shed reps “ have wanted to know how certain men voted. They say, “ Well, lads, flash your ballot-papers ; let us see how you voted,” in the case of any one they do not trust. I take it that if one of those men had voted Liberal, he would be likely to be called a “scab,” and, perhaps, kicked to death before they had done with him.

Mr Fenton:

– That is a nice thing to say.

Mr RYRIE:

– It is no worse than the honorable member has said about pressure being brought to bear by ‘our side. The honorable member for Maribyrnong said he knew of a doctor who had witnessed a number of signatures. The honorable member made that statement, and I am as much entitled to say that it is not true as he is to say that my statement is not true. The honorable member said he knew that this doctor had seen the postal votes signed.

Mr Fenton:

– I did not say so. I told the House what the doctor told me.

Mr RYRIE:

– If the honorable member knew what he said he knew, and had absolute proof of it, his duty was to give information to the police about it. He compounded a felony by saying nothing. The honorable member for Maribyrnong made a great deal of capital out of the alleged boycotting indulged in by Liberals. I suppose we are to assume that no boycotting is ever indulged in by those who favour the Labour party. I have had a little experience of this matter, and can give a definite case of the boycott of a man by the Labour party in a town because he was on my Committee and voted for and supported me.

Mr Cann:

– Was this in North Sydney?

Mr RYRIE:

– No, it was in Queanbeyan. Because a certain stonemason came on my Committee, supported me, and drove me round, he could get absolutely no employment from any one who favoured the

Labour party. I believe boycotting has been indulged in more frequently by that party than by ours. Since reference has been made to unfair tactics, I propose to allude briefly to the tactics which were employed against me when I was contesting the electorate of Werriwa in opposition to the present sitting member. The tactics resorted to against me were such as one would think would hardly be used against a Chinaman. The day before the election the Freeman’s Journal published a cartoon of a sectarian character depicting His Eminence the Cardinal seated upon an ass.

Mr Cann:

– Who issued the cartoon?

Mr RYRIE:

– The Freeman’s Journal in the first instance. I am not upholding the publication of such cartoons, for I do not approve of a high dignitary of any Church being held up to ridicule.

Mr Cann:

– -That cartoon was displayed in the Liberal committee rooms. I can prove that it was.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is not correct.

Mr RYRIE:

– At all events those who were working for the Labour party in Goulburn caused some thousands of copies of this cartoon ta be struck off and distributed broadcast throughout the electorate with the words printed in the corner, “ With Colonel Ryrie’s compliments.”

Mr Charlton:

– The Liberal party did the same thing against me.

Mr RYRIE:

– These copies were sup- . posed to emanate from my committee rooms, and were distributed as I have said, “ With Colonel Ryrie’s compliments.” Their circulation seriously damaged my candidature, and the result was that I was beaten. But for such tactics my position might have been different. Then, again, on the day of the election some of the ladies engaged in organizing for the Labour party stood outside at least three polling booths, and could be heard all day long making such remarks as ‘ ‘ Colonel Ryrie is an Orangeman; I can prove that he is.” What is to be said of the tactics of the organizers for the Liberal party as against methods of this kind. Honorable members opposite should be sure that their hands are clean before they accuse us of questionable tactics. Returning to the Bill itself, I have an objection to it which I do not think has been mentioned during this debate. I refer to the fact that clause 38 provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may seek the leave of the Court to be made a party to any disputed election petition. That is a most objectionable provision. I take it that the Chief Electoral Officer would not of his own volition become a party to any case. His expenses would be borne by the Government, and no matter what Government might be in power, I think it would be highly undesirable for it to have anything to do with a disputed election petition. I could understand the Chief Electoral Officer obtaining permission to put in an appearance in a case involving the administration of his Department, but in no other case should he be represented. Then again, offences against the Act can be kept alive for three years. , Surely that is not the intention of the Government’ so far as minor offences are concerned. I could understand that a man who had been guilty of bribery, corruption, or forgery should be liable to be prosecuted even three years after the commission of the offence ; but surely it would be unreasonable to allow a minor offence to be brought up against a man three years after it had been committed. Unscrupulous persons might avail themselves of this provision to keep a charge hanging over the head of a candidate or any one connected with an election, and practically blackmail him. Another provision to which I object is that which practically abolishes the right of a candidate to ask for a recount. The law as it stands provides that -

At any time before the declaration of the poll the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State may, if he thinks fit, on the request of any candidate or of his own motion, direct a recount of the ballot-papers from any division or portion of a division, or of the ballot-papers contained in any parcel.

No objection can be taken to that. It is further provided that -

The officer conducting the recount shall have the same powers as if the recount were the scrutiny, and may reverse any decision in relation to the scrutiny as to the allowance or admission or disallowance or rejection of any ballot-paper.

It is now proposed to amend that clause by providing that, if the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State refuses to grant a request for a recount an appeal may be made to the Chief Electoral Officer, and if he in turn refuses to sanction a recount, the only course open to the aggrieved party is to appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns against the validity of the election. Let us see what a man would bump up against if he adopted that course. It is now proposed that -

In the event of the validity of the election being disputed the Court of Disputed Returns may consider any ballot-papers which were reserved for the decision of the Commonwealth

Electoral Officer for the State, but shall not order any further recount of the whole or any part of the ballot-papers in connexion with the election unless it is satisfied that such recount is justified’.

Could a more ridiculous provision be imagined? How could the Court determine whether or not a mistake had been made without re-counting the ballotpapers? I do not know whether the members of the Court are to be thought-readers or clairvoyants, but they would have to be something of the sort to be able to determine, without recounting the ballot-papers, whether or not a mistake had been made. These are matters which should receive the serious consideration of the Minister in charge of the Bill. I come now to a provision which I believe was framed with the sole object of harassing the Liberal party. I refer to the clause providing that a return is to be made by any corporation, association, society, or individual, as to any expenditure incurred in organizing or working for any candidate. No limit has been fixed as to the time within which such a return shall be sent in, and there is no provision as to the amount that may properly be expended. Under the existing law candidates may not expend more than £100 in prosecuting a campaign, but hitherto it has been open to the friends of a candidate to spend money in organizing, as long as they are not canvassing for any special candidate. When we remember that this provision will also cover a return as to the cost of advertising, we must recognise that it is designed to harass the Liberal party, whilst it will allow candidates of the Labour party to go practically free. One has to pay for an advertisement in, say, the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Sydney Daily Telegraph. The Liberal party has no hireling or bought press, but the Labour party has. The Worker is the absolute property of the Labour party. This paper is conducted in the interests of the Labour party, and none other, and is subsidized by the subscription of every member, at all events, of the Australian Workers Union, probably the most powerful in Australia.

Mr Cann:

– It is published only once a week !

Mr RYRIE:

– That is quite sufficient, for the members read it through and through ; and, at any rate, I do not think the subscribers could stand two doses a week. There is nothing published in favour of the Liberal party or against the Labour party, to whose interests the pub lication is entirely devoted. The members of the Liberal party, on the other hand, have to pay for every advertisement or matter that they cause to be inserted in the daily newspapers. I have heard it denied by honorable members opposite that any subsidy in the way of a subscription to the Worker is made by the Australian Workers Union; but I have here a portion of a report of a Labour Conference, held, I believe, in Brisbane, from which it appears -

Five shillings from each contribution received by the Southern Branches shall be set apart exclusively for the Southern Worker newspaper, and such sum from each contribution received by the Northern Branches, as they may agree upon, shall be set apart exclusively for the Northern Worker newspaper. Members of the - W.A. Branch shall be entitled to receive eitherthe W.A., the S., or, N. Worker upon forwarding their W. slip to the manager of whichever paper they prefer, and the W.A. Branch shall pay the manager of such paper the sum of 5s. for each Worker slip so received.

Mr Cann:

– That is not from the Brisbane Conference.

Mr RYRIE:

– At any rate, it was a Labour Conference. It will be seen, therefore, that the Worker newspaper is subsidized by the members of the Australian Workers Union. I have no knowledge of what subscriptions or contributions are paid by other trade unions, but it is abundantly clear that the newspaper is subsidized by the Labour party, lt is absolutely unfair to make newspapers on the Liberal side account for every shilling which is expended with them for the insertion of articles or advertisements, while the Worker newspaper is called upon to make no such return. If an honest return were made, I suppose that the value of the advertisements and so forth, published in the *Worker for Labour candidates, would amount to, £10,000 or £12,000.

Mr Atkinson:

– Do the Labour candidates not pay for their advertisements in the Worker?

Mr RYRIE:

– I think the Worker “runsthe whole show “ for them.

Mr Cann:

– There will be a Labour daily newspaper soon !

Mr RYRIE:

– Then the Labour party will have to pay for their advertisements. The Worker is exclusively, as I say, a Labour newspaper - a hireling press, bought and paid for by the Labour party. The Liberal party have no exclusive newspaper, though, of course, such journals as the Daily Telegraph or the Sydney Morning Herald think fit, fh their wisdom, to support the party.

Mr Thomas:

– For the sake of the advertisements !

Mr RYRIE:

– To show that these newspapers are fair and impartial, and are not solely devoted to the furtherance of the Liberal party’s interests, I have only to point to the fact that the Attorney-General of this Government is paid, I believe, three guineas a week for an article under the heading of “ The Case for Labour,” which he contributes to the Daily Telegraph. Do honorable members mean to say that any newspaper subsidized by the Liberal party, or controlling the Liberal party, would publish such articles by the Attorney-General of a Labour Government ?

Mr Fairbairn:

– Would the Worker insert an article on the “ Case for Liberalism “ ?

Mr RYRIE:

– I cannot imagine the Worker allowing a single line in favour of the Liberal party in its columns. There is one curious feature about the Bill to which I should like to call attention. It was evidently intended at the outset to prohibit the use of vehicles for the purpose of carrying people to the poll, except in the case of those residing more than 2 miles away. However, I have some means of obtaining a little inside information, and I knew that that clause would be dropped, as, indeed, it was, owing to the pressure brought to bear on the Government by the cabmen and livery stable employes.

Mr Roberts:

– So the honorable member gets his information from the livery stables ! The cabbies and stablemen are the sources of his political knowledge !

Mr RYRIE:

– I am not above having a talk with men in the livery stables, who are very sensible men, not all of whom are supporters of the Labour party. Another proposed departure is compulsory enrolment. I should have no very serious objection to this clause, if there was the natural corollary of compulsory voting. Are we to have people chivied around the country by an army of policemen, merely in order to get their names on the rolls? What is the good of doing that if the people will not vote, as we know is the case with a great many? As I say, if compulsory voting were proposed, I should consider the advisability of supporting the clause; at all events, there would be some sense in it. People have to be compelled not only to enroll, but to see that their names are transferred when they move from one electorate to another; and I am afraid there will be many cases before the Police Courts, because people will not take the trouble to find out how the business is to be managed. The result will be that this legislation will practically go for nothing. Perhaps the most important proposal of all is that to abolish postal voting. In 1906, when I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament, and an amending Electoral Bill was before the Chamber, Mr. Neilsen, a Labour member, moved the insertion of the following new clause : -

  1. Any qualified elector who is likely to be absent from his electoral district at the time of an election may, upon application to the registrar for his district or polling place, procure a certificate of registration in the prescribed form, showing his qualifications, and on presenting such certificate to the presiding officer at any polling place within the State or to the returning officer for any electorate, and on making the prescribed declaration, he shall have handed to him a ballot-paper for the electoral district to which he belongs, and, on his voting such ballot-paper shall be placed in a box or receptable provided for that purpose, and at the close of the polling, or as soon thereafter as may be convenient, such ballot-paper shall be sent by such presiding or returning officer, together with such particulars as are deemed necessary, to the returning officer of the electoral district of which such absent voter is an elector, and such vote shall be counted and added to the number of votes polled for such electoral district.
  2. For the purposes of this section, any presiding or returning officer shall be empowered to write ballot-papers, if necessary, for any electoral district.

That was practically a proposal for a kind of postal voting. We on the Liberal side were of opinion that there was great danger in the giving of this certificate, because, as pointed out by many speakers, and admitted by Labour members, a man who received it might hand it to a mate, or send it to a distance, while he remained in .the electorate, and voted. Although I have always been in favour of the principle of voting by post, T voted against that amendment. I have often been charged since with having voted against the postal voting system ; but I could show, by reference to the New South Wales Hansard, that, in November, 1907, I stated publicly that I believed in the system; and I have repeated that statement on many platforms when charged with having voted against it. I voted against the amendment because it did not provide safeguards which are necessary, and members on both sides were at the time of the opinion that the proposed system might be abused. This

Mr. Wade. What is there to prevent him giving it to his mate to vote up country, and coming back to the polling booth saying he has lost it and voting himself?

Mr. G. A. Jones said there was nothing to prevent his doing it, but it could be provided that he should not be entitled to record his vote so long as the certificate of registration was inforce.

Senator Gardiner, who recently in the Senate spoke bitterly against the postal voting system, and said that it must be abolished, represented Orange in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in 1906, and, speaking on Mr. Neilsen’s amendment, then said -

The question of giving the right to absent voters to record their votes was a more vital one in the country than in the metropolitan area. It chiefly affected people in the country district who move from one place to another. The men engaged in shearing followed that industry from shed to shed, some going as far as Queensland, and unless an election took place when these men were living at their fixed place of abode, they would be disfranchised. Why should a man who had to move about to earn a living for himself and his family be disfranchised? There were thousands of men in the country districts who were continually moving about from one place to another to obtain employment. In the metropolitan area there were warehouses that employed a great number of men ; and a large number of civil servants were also employed in the metropolitan area. This was not a matter of so much importance to city representatives as it was to country representatives, and it was of sufficient importance for country representatives to enter a protest against the passing of a Bill which must disfranchise thousands of persons.

I am pleased that the honorable member for Hunter is honest in his convictions, and maintains the attitude that he took up in November, 1906, when in the State Legislature. He then said -

There was no force in the objection that if the proposed provision were made serious delay would take place in a declaration of the poll. The utmost delay that could take place would be about seven days, and no serious results need be anticipated, because in a great majority of instances the result of an election would be known before the poll was actually declared. The provision made at the instance of the Minister did not go sufficiently far, and he hoped that he would reconsider the whole matter, andeither accept the proposed new clause or drafton that would meet the case.

He holds practically the same view to-day ; and I hope that in Committee he will vote against the postal voting provisions. There is a sequel to my having voted against Mr. Neilsen’s amendment which is rather amusing. When I was opposing the honorable member for Werriwa, he issued a marvel maids to get them to vote for certain candidates. The Bill provides that the averment of the prosecutor shall be sufficient unless the defendant can prove his innocence. If an officer of the Department, or a. policeman at his instance, charges an individual with an electoral offence, that person will be held to be guilty unless he proves his innocence. That is a departure from British principles of justice. I know that, under the Customs and Commerce Acts, there are offences in regard to which this principle is enforced, because of the difficulty in proving acts like smuggling. According to the Argus Law Reports Mr. Justice Higgins said -

In all Customs Acts such provisions, apparently subversive of the first principles of justice, are to be found, for experience has shown them to be necessary in consequence of the peculiar difficulty of proving offences against the Customs.

But it is not at all necessary that we should include in the Electoral Bill any clause which is subversive of the first principles of British justice. As a matter of fact, it would be a great hardship for a man to be brought up in three years’ time for an offence of this sort. Even at that late date the averment of the officer bringing the charge is to be taken as sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused unless he can prove his innocence. I challenge any member to remember three years after an election what offences he then committed against the Electoral Act, and I believe any number of members on both sides have committed many minor ones. I .will undertake to say that members cannot remember anything about them, even in one year’s time ; but some one may bottle up an offence, keep it as a grudge against a member, and bring it out when it is impossible to produce evidence to disprove it.

We cannot suppose that the Elector d

Officers will not make mistakes in the compulsory enrolment system. I take it that the Minister understands all about his great card system; but I do not know that it will be such a success as he predicts. He is a business man, and I fully appreciate his business methods. I was very much taken with the digest system which he has introduced in his Department. It is conducted on business lines, and I believe he has made an honest attempt on business lines, in this case, to prevent plural voting, but I fear that many people will drive a coach-and-four through the measure, doing as they did against me in Werriwa, where hundreds of people. I believe, cast plural votes for my opponent. I will undertake to say that if I had a Royal Commission I could prove that statement. I could prove that the votes of men. who have been dead for six months werepolled for Dave Hall, and the samething will be done again, even when thisBill is passed. If it could be done under the original Act it can be done tenfold, under this Bill. To say that, when a man. can vote in any part of the Commonwealth, the card system will be a protection against plural voting, is absolutely ridiculous. Thepeople who carry on the plural voting business are not the respectable people. Let us see which side will benefit most by plural votes.

Mr Webster:

– Is not that a strong, argument against postal voting?

Mr RYRIE:

– No. I am referring toabsent voting, a different matter altogether. There were safeguards surrounding postal yoting which do not apply to absent voting. I- predict that plural voting will take place in the Commonwealth under the Bill on a gigantic scale. First let us examine the Liberal side. We are told by honorable members opposite that we represent all the wealthy class - the capitalists, the big bugs, the toffs, the silvertails, and others of that ilk. Will the., wealthy classes, or those whom honorable members opposite like to call toffs, capitalists, and swells, run the risk of being brought up before a Police Court for trivial offences against the Electoral Act? Of course, they will not. Then on the Labour side, will the respectable portion of the community who vote Labour run the risk of being dragged before the Court? They certainly will not. The honest people on neither side will indulge in crooked voting, but there is another class who will. There is a brigade that will run it for all it is worth. They are the toughs, the tugs, the touts, the bottle-oh men, the spielers, the Darling and Mumimbidgeewhalers, the swaggies, the drunks and’ crooks, and the pinkie drinkers of Adelaide and beer chewers generally. Those are the brigade who will go round the country and “ vote plural “ in thousands.

Mr Webster:

– They are always paid! with Liberal money.

Mr RYRIE:

– I am not going to say for which side they will vote. All I say is, “You guess, and I’ll whistle.” I ami afraid the card system will not have the effect that the Minister hopes from it. I think he and the country will be imposed on wholesale. I am afraid that the whole measure, if passed in its present form, will be a menace to the country. It will not tend to the purity o£ our rolls, or to the smooth working of that machinery which we have provided to give effect to the voice of the people. I trust that the Minister will not be unreasonable when the measure reaches Committee, but will accept suggestions and amendments from this side to improve it. I feel sure that he will do so. I have always found him reasonable, and as he is a business man, I believe that if it can be made clear to him that amendments will improve the measure, he will accept them.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- I am sorry the honorable member for North Sydney should assume the role of Cassandra, prophesying evil regarding this Bill. It is a role which scarcely fits a cheerful Hercules like the honorable member. Some of his forecasts are unjust, and I strongly protest against the statement that the nomadic population of Australia are likely to abuse the privileges which will be conferred upon them by this Bill. The men to whom he refers have amongst them some of the most self-sacrificing lovers of their country that it has been my privilege to meet. They certainly do not deserve his wholesale condemnation ; for, as a body, they have by no means abused the privilege of voting. The honorable member must not. imagine that abuses of the electoral law are confined entirely to one side. It is notorious that some years ago votes were recorded in the names of dead men. It was a common remark in Sydney that the Devonshirestreet cemetery rose regularly at every election. What power brought about that resurrection? Was it not that of wealthy men, who were prepared to buy their way into Parliament? They it was who found the funds for the individuals to personate those who were already in their graves. The honorable member wrongly anticipates great evils under the Bill. What he calls the Murrumbidgee whaler and the nomadic population of this country generally have as much regard for the future of their country, and of its people, as have those with a larger material stake in it.

Mr Ryrie:

– It is not fair to say that I referred to the nomadic population. I did not.

Mr MAHON:

– When the honorable member talked of Murrumbidgee whalers, and kindred classes, it is fair to assume that he meant the nomadic population.

Mr Ryrie:

– You know what is meant by a “ Murrumbidgee whaler.”

Mr MAHON:

– Those are the men who go round from station to station looking for work.

Mr Ryrie:

– Not looking for work. We do not call them whalers if they are looking for work.

Mr MAHON:

– The honorable member, perhaps, knows more about a certain class of people than I do.- The men I meet moving about the country are, for the most part, genuine workers, and I protest against any aspersion being cast upon them as a class. The honorable member has objected to the provision for compulsory enrolment on the ground that it should not have been proposed unless we were prepared to provide for its natural corollary, compulsory voting. He must recognise, however, that although we might by law compel a man to go to a polling place, we could not compel him to cast a valid vote. If we carried the principle of compulsion as far as the honorable member would have us do, the elector who was disposed to evade this duty of citizenship would certainly do so, notwithstanding any law that we might pass. It is rather amusing to hear honorable members of the Opposition declaiming loudly against the proposed withdrawal of the privilege of postal voting. The system, as every one knows, is a modern innovation, and I cannot say that its working has proved entirely satisfactory. But our friends opposite are the lineal political descendants of the men who tried to keep the suffrage a close preserve for their own order, and their declamation about the restriction of political rights partakes largely of stage thunder. It amused me to find the right honorable member for Swan coming forward as an advocate of a more liberal franchise.

Sir John Forrest:

– I gave the people of Western Australia manhood and womanhood suffrage.

Mr MAHON:

– If it were relevant to this measure, I should be very pleased to recount the story of the right honorable member’s concession of womanhood suffrage. He was such a staunch advocate of the extension of the franchise in his own State in pre- Federation days that it took me fifteen months to secure enrolment there.

Sir John Forrest:

– I suppose that the honorable member was wandering about the country.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Was the honorable member also an explorer ?

Mr MAHON:

– I did not, at all events, in my peregrinations mark trees to show that that was the “ furthest east “ that I could get. I have no desire, however, to reflect on what the right honorable member has done as an explorer, because I believe that in that regard his name deserves to live in the annals of his country. The right honorable member, however, shows a lack of consistency when he complains of the Labour Government attempting to deprive the people of the privilege of voting by post, since he, as Premier of his own State, under a law framed by an obedient majority, did his utmost to keep the “ t’other-siders,” as people from the eastern States were then known, off the rolls in Western Australia. Although I was one of those who always took care to secure enrolment as quickly as possible wherever I went, it took me fifteen months, under the right honorable member’s rule, to have my name placed on an electoral roll for that State. In the first place I found that the preliminary qualification for enrolment was six months’ residence in the State. A man having so qualified had then to apply to a Court which sat only once a quarter, and he had to comply with other formalities which made it impossible for him, no matter how punctilious he might be, to secure a vote in less than twelve months.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member will admit that the system was much improved later on.

Mr MAHON:

– It was, after the right honorable member had been subjected to a certain degree of pressure.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How long does it take a man entering the Commonwealth to get on a Commonwealth roll?

Mr MAHON:

– I think it is a little over a month.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It takes six months, and yet the honorable member is railing at the Western Australian provision.

Mr MAHON:

– The honorable member for Parramatta is ignoring the very vital distinction between the two positions. Under the Commonwealth law six months must elapse before a new arrival in Australia may be enrolled, but under the Western Australian law of which I complain, it took twelve months for men from other

States - not foreigners - men who had crossed the Great Australian Bight to make their living in Western Australia, to secure enrolment. That was the experience of men who had been living in the eastern States for many years.

Sir Robert Best:

– The law was the same in most of the States.

Mr MAHON:

– That was when each State had what is called a Liberal Government. Even a lawyer will find it difficult to prove that two wrongs make one right. It is time the Opposition ceased declaiming in favour of the extension of the right of voting by post. Let me remind them that, despite clamour in this House, and to fierce incitements by the press, in regard to the abolition of voting by post, not one protest has reached the House from the people of the country in regard to the withdrawal of that privilege.

Mr Fenton:

– The Women’s National League has protested.

Mr MAHON:

– I was not aware of that; but I have not noticed any complaint from dispassionate electors about the withdrawal of this privilege. I should like to say that, after all, the number of people who will be affected by the withdrawal of the privilege of voting by post is a very small one, and when we remember that not more than 50 or 60 per cent. of the people record their votes at a general election, it will be realized that this is a sentimental rather than a real complaint. I should like, also, to point out that, owing to the cumbersome machinery of the postalvoting system, thousands of people in the remoter parts of Australia have been actually disfranchised. Hundreds of my constituents never have a chance of voting, even by post.

Mr McWilliams:

-Let us give them the opportunity.

Mr MAHON:

– They cannot obtain it under the postal-voting system.

Mr McWilliams:

– Then give it to them by some other system.

Mr MAHON:

– We should take a step in that direction by increasing the number of polling places. In that way alone shall we secure a genuine vote of the people. As I have said, many of my constituents are absolutely unable to vote by post. Take, for instance, the position of electors on the north-west coast of Western Australia. When an election is announced they have to send an application to Coolgardie for postal ballot-papers. There may be a fortnightly or three-weekly mail service, and bythe time that their applications have reached the Returning Officer at Coolgardie, and the ballot-papers have been returned to them, the election has been decided. That is the position of a great many people in the more remote parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But surely that fact does not make the postal-voting system valueless ?

Mr MAHON:

– It is valueless so far as they are concerned, since, owing to their distance from the central polling place, and the infrequent mail service, they cannot obtain ballot-papers in time to use them. Another important point is that the existence of these postal voting facilities is made an excuse for depriving electors of the polling places that ought to be established in their districts. No one on this side pretends that this is a perfect measure. I should have preferred a more comprehensive Bill, dealing with the disabilities of our electoral law. Had time permitted this session, I should have also liked the House to consider the question of preferential voting. I regret that I have touched on a matter which, judging by their applause, evokes the enthusiasm of the Opposition ; but my experience of preferential voting in Western Australia recently leads me to believe that it is a system that might well engage the attention of the Government and the House.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Let us provide for it in this Bill.

Mr MAHON:

– I believe that the honorable member has prepared an amendment providing for the adoption of that system, but I do not think it is sufficiently comprehensive to effect the object that he has in view.

Mr McWilliams:

– Let the honorable member add what is wanted, and I shall support him.

Mr MAHON:

– I have not found the honorable member supporting me or my party to any extent in the past in our efforts to bring about reforms, arid, therefore, I am inclined to regard his offer in the light of a Greek gift.

Mr McWilliams:

– It provides for the preferential voting system adopted in Western Australia.

Mr MAHON:

– If it does, then I am prepared to admit at once that it is a good system, and that it makes for enabling the majority of the people to be represented by the men whom they wish to represent them.

There are many aspects of the electoral question that ought to be dealt with under this Bill ; but since it is apparently the best that we can hope for, during the present session, at all events, I intend to support it, and trust that the second reading will be carried by a substantial majority.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I join with the honorable member who has just resumed his seat in regretting that this Bill is not more comprehensive, and in the belief also that it would be greatly improved by the introduction of clauses providing for preferential voting. That principle has been tried in more than one State, and has been fully justified by its operation. Its adoption would certainly give honorable members the satisfaction of knowing that they represented a majority of their constituents rather than, as in many cases, only a minority.

Mr Page:

– Why did not the honorable member’s Government provide for it when they were in power?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– It was part of our policy, and we had prepared a Bill providing for it.

Mr Fenton:

– I suppose the late Government left a memorandum on the subject when they went out of office?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– We did.

Mr Page:

– This was the honorable member’s policy - Joe Cook’s policy of memorandums !

Mr Roberts:

– The Government who were always going to do something.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask honorable members to cease these disorderly interjections, and assist me in maintaining order.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– If we indulge in recriminations, it is quite possible that much could be said as to the electioneering tactics on both sides. Some honorable members opposite have taken a great deal of trouble to present various election squibs, said to have been issued by the Liberal party ; but there would be no difficulty in supplying a considerable number of somewhat disreputable, or, at least, discreditable, publications by the other side. I do not think that anything is to be gained by recrimination; because, according to most approved ideas of electioneering tactics, we may, in the heat of battle, do many things we should refrain from under other circumstances.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - This Bill will put a stop to all that.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– -This Bill will prove a disastrous disappointment to those who are supporting it

Mr Page:

– Then why does the honorable member worry about it?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Because it is doing a gross and wicked injustice to a substantial section of the community ; and it behoves this side to raise a protest. I join with the honorable member for North Sydney, who complains bitterly of the attacks made by one or two honorable members opposite on the women’s Liberal organizations of Australia. These organizations are composed of women prepared to make great sacrifices, and to work without reward, simply actuated by patriotism, and a desire for the welfare of the community.

Mr Spence:

– It is for class purposes.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is not so.

Mr Spence:

– They say so themselves.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I think that if the honorable member looks at the organisations on his own side, he will find that they are essentially for class purposes.

Mr Page:

– It is about up to us when the honorable member and his friends lead the van.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– If such is the case, a very bad example has been followed. The Australian Women’s National League was specially mentioned ; and I repeat -the challenge I made previously to honorable members opposite to show that the members of that league have been guilty of any improper practices or electoral offences - that they have done anything more than they are justified in doing as earnest and zealous workers. It does not become honorable members to cast reproaches on women who are simply doing their duty as citizens, and setting an example that might be followed with advantage by other sections of the community. I am not denying for a moment that the women workers on the Labour side are entitled to equal praise. All the women workers in the political organizations are entitled to encouragement and to credit for the manner in which they have taken up their responsibilities as citizens, and are seeking to advance their particular views. I venture to say that it is because these women’s organizations have made their influence felt that we have these efforts to discredit their work. The honorable member for Maribyrnong quoted reports from the Queensland State Hansard in support of the abolition of postal voting ; but he failed to show the House the very substantial difference there is between the postal voting that prevailed at one time in the northern State and the postal voting under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. According to the law of the State, every woman, without any qualifications whatever, had the right to vote by post, and it was because of the abuse of that privilege that that system was abolished.

Mr Bamford:

– There were so many abuses that Parliament would not attempt to amend the law.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– There is a vast difference between such a system as that, and the Commonwealth system, where women are permitted to use the postal vote only under special circumstances. We have had the system of postal voting in force in the Commonwealth for a considerable number of years, and several elections have been conducted under it. If the honorable member had shown that any abuses have taken place in Queensland under the Federal system, he would have made out a good case; but, as I say, there is no analogy between the Queensland State system and the Federal system, which is surrounded by safeguards - the very safeguards which have for their object the prevention of the abuses complained of in Queensland. If these safeguards are not yet sufficiently effective, then, by all means, strengthen them. It is a fact that the abolition of postal voting will mean the disfranchisement of a section of the community. It should be the aim of our electoral laws to afford every facility for voting; and if it can be shown, as, indeed, it has, that the abolition will, to some extent, mean disfranchisement, that in itself is sufficient reason for rejecting the proposal. At the last election some 29,000 postal votes were recorded, a majority of which, to the extent of about 5,000, were in favour of the Liberal party. There was once a Premier in Victoria who, when he desired to put a very searching question to an opponent, used to say “I will ask my honorable friend to consider himself in the Palace of Truth, where he may speak without reserve or without qualification.” Now, I should like to take a similar course with the Minister of Home Affairs, and ask him whether, if the majority of the postal votes had been recorded in favour of the Labour party, we should have ever seen this proposal to abolish the system.-

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We should.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Is the Minister in the Palace of Truth when he tells me that?

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - The system is destructive of the secrecy of the ballot.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is a brand new reason. I understood originally from the Minister that the proposal was in consequence of alleged illegal practices or corruption, though neither he nor any other honorable member has attempted to cite cases of any substantial character.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We do not like to be naming people.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– If the Minister is aware of anybody who has been guilty of illegal practices his clear duty is to prosecute, and he need not be in the least punctilious. I am sure that honorable members on both sides desire that there should be the utmost purity in the conduct of our elections.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We ought to remove the temptation !

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Is it not because the “ temptation “ has resulted in a greater number of Liberal votes being recorded by post that we have this proposal ?

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - The wicked shall not prosper !

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– On the 13th April they did prosper, but that is a mistake easily rectified. If there is any substantial reason why postal voting should be abolished we have a right to know it. The present laws are sufficiently stringent to adequately punish offenders ; and the present proposal is unworthy of the Government. It is the more extraordinary when we remember that the Bill provides for compulsory enrolment. I am personally disposed to consider that proposal in a friendly way, but, while it is sought to compel the invalid, the infirm, the sick, and others to enroll, it deliberately deprives them of the facilities they now have for voting. This is, indeed, an anomalous state of things which it seems to me has not been fully considered by the Minister. Of course, some of those affected may vote under what has been termed the absentee voting provision, but even if, as has been suggested - though I do not think it is quite the case - there are only 6,000 sick, in hospitals, and so forth, they are entitled to some consideration, especially as they are compelled to enroll. I believe, as I have stated, in compulsory enrolment, but there should be the necessary corollary of compulsory voting ; and the measure in this respect is incomplete. It has been suggested that, although we may bring people to the poll, we cannot compel them to vote. I venture to think, however, that if people are once brought to the polling booth there are very few indeed who will refuse, from motives of resentment, to vote in a proper manner. The Bill is incomplete, because, firstly, it does not propose some system of preferential voting; and, secondly, because it does not provide compulsory voting as a corollary to compulsory enrolment. Another provision in the Bill which provokes the resentment of a considerable section of the community is that fixing Saturday as the polling day. I do not remember an election held in Victoria on a Saturday.

Mr Wise:

– There was one. I remember the inconvenience.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The arrangement must be inconvenient, and involve a great deal of Sunday work.

Mr Roberts:

– That has not been the experience in South Australia, where polling has taken place on Saturdays for many years past.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The Jewish community, and the Seventh Day Adventists complain that the provision will prevent them from exercising the franchise.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - I notice a lot of them at Flemington on Saturdays.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– There are members of the Jewish community who are more conscientious in the matter of religious observance, and they ..,, not vote on Saturdays. Their representations should be listened to.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We have extended the hours of polling to 8 p.m. to meet their convenience.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I do not think that that will meet the case. A provision which is unfair and unreasonable is that which provides that the averment of the prosecutor contained in an information or plaint shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary. There is such a provision in the Customs and AntiTrust Acts. I was a party to its introduction ; but it must be remembered that, in connexion with the offences therein provided against, it is the defendant who has all the evidence in the way of invoices, valuations, and the like; and it would be difficult to obtain a prosecution under any other arrangement. But offences under this Act are very different. Moreover, they may be prosecuted at any time within three years, when the person charged may have completely forgotten all about the occurrences alleged to have taken place. If the provision is allowed to stand, it should at least be provided that the prosecutions must be undertaken within three months. In my opinion, the provision is an unfair one, and subversive of the principles of British justice.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- As it appears to be the general wish to get to a vote, I shall limit my observations to two or three points. In reply to what the honorable member for Kooyong said about limiting the time within which prosecutions must be undertaken, I would remind him that, by what I call an act of injustice, the criminal records of the Butter Commission were destroyed without being made public. Had evidence which was obtained at vast expense been available, many persons who to-day occupy prominent positions would have been punished, perhaps by imprisonment. The Liberals were in power when those records were burned. Although my honorable friend speaks as a good Liberal, he represents perhaps the most Conservative constituency in Victoria, and I cannot remember that, within the last twenty years, he has endeavoured to obtain proportional representation.

Sir Robert Best:

– In 1899, I introduced into the Victorian Assembly a Bill providing for proportional representation, preferential voting, and the limitation of candidates’ expenditures.

Mr Page:

– Why did not the honorable member put it through?

Sir Robert Best:

– It went through the Lower House, but was rejected elsewhere.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I recollect the honorable member, as Minister of Lands, giving away the heirloom of the ages, and wiping out the leasehold principle in the Mallee, where there were 11,000,000 acres coming to our children. Shall we take it as a compliment that his party has no hope at the next election of securing a majority, and, therefore, strives to obtain representation for the minority? I cannot recollect any strong and urgent reasons advanced by the honorable member for proportional representation.

Sir Robert Best:

– I refer the honorable member to my Bill.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I agree with the honorable member in regard to fixing Saturday as the day for polling. I should strongly resent the fixing of Sunday as polling day, because the members of every Christian faith would object to it.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - They vote in France on Sunday.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– They do a lot of other good things in France which I should like to see them do here; but I am sure that my honorable friend would not recommend all that they do in France. I wish that English countries would take as much care of the child as they do in France. The Minister has suggested that many Jewish persons are found at the races on Saturdays, and we have also been told that no objection is urged against Saturday voting in South Australia. There are, however, men of strong religious convictions who would not vote on what they conceive to be the Sabbath. An attempt has been made to meet the position by extending the polling hours to 8 p.m., and it has been pointed out that in April and May the day ends before 6 p.m. But in any case, conscientious men who regard the Saturday as the Sabbath would be prevented from taking an earnest interest in politics on that day. They could not conscientiously do any work with a view to furthering their .political principles. The election day of the Commonwealth of Australia is important enough to be a holiday. I am aware that it is said that the Commonwealth has no power to make any day a holiday ; but I am perfectly certain that if the Government considered it desirable that election day should be a holiday, the people would observe it as such, and the finger of scorn would be pointed against every employer of labour who kept his premises open. I am sorry that the member for Wide-Awake is not here, as I have something to say about voting by post. I say, without fear of contradiction, that had there been no plural voting, there would not have been a second election for Melbourne some time ago ; I should have beaten the late Sir Malcolm McEacharn on the first vote, and Australia would not have been put to the great expense of a second election. On the occasion to which I refer, bribery and corruption were rampant, and proved to the hilt. In the High Court of Australia, 150 sworn declarations affirming it were lodged. I can produce a man who to-day will honestly own that he knew ninety out of every hundred votes that he put into the box were Sir Malcolm McEacharn’s. When a case was being conducted in the Police Court before

Mr. Panton, he asked, not in my interest, but in that of my opponent, when he had some of our unfortunate sisters from Lonsdalestreet before him, “ For whom did you vote ? “ and, to his horror, the reply injured the friend whom he wished to screen. I do not wish to say anything against the dead. I do not accuse Sir Malcolm McEacharn of wilful corruption ; but it was his money which paid those who committed the offences of which I am speaking. One of them was Carey, once secretary .to an insurance company in this city. He went to America. His name is among the criminals who have left this country. Three men were sent to South Africa when the inquiry was known to be coming om In a small division bounded by Victoria* Spring, and Elizabeth streets, where the furthest polling booths are not. one-third of a mile apart, more postal votes were recorded than in the wide area of South Australia including the Northern Territory. Lest any honorable member should think that I am speaking at random, I refer them to- the records. You, sir, I think, were a member of one of the Committees! that inquired into these matters. On the 16th December, 1903, there were 647 postal votes recorded in the electorate of Melbourne. In the wide area of South Australia the number was 167. In one little part of Mel bourne, the Gipps division, only a little over half-a-mile long by one-third of a mile wide, over 200 postal votes were cast. In the following March, when I had the assistance of, perhaps, the finest and most uptodate committee that ever worked for a can-, didate in Australia, there were 247 postal votes cast in that little area. On the 12th December, 1906, only 270 postal votes were cast in Melbourne, when the late Mr. Lormer was my opponent. In the whole of South Australia at that election there were only 331 postal votes recorded. Will any man in his senses say that it was not money that brought about the result in one particular division of the electorate of Melbourne? Directly the election was over, we knew unerringly how those votes had gone. Not even the most Conservative part of my constituency will give a majority of five votes to one against me. The biggest majority is in the East Melbourne district, and there the proportion against me is only two and a-half to one; yet in these postal votes the record against me was five and athird to one. In the general election on the 16th December, 1903, the postal votes were polled as follows: - Maloney, 98; McEacharn, 526. In the by-election on the 30th March, 1904, after my committee had got to work, the numbers were - Maloney, 197 ; McEacharn, 603. I have pointed out the total area, of the Gipps division, where so many postal votes were recorded.

Mr Atkinson:

– Do not condemn all Australia because wrong was done in a small part of a city.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The majority df those votes were bribed, as the declarations show. I can produce the man who gathered most of them. My barrister in the Court said that nothing under Heaven could prevent the seat being mine, but that the cost would be close on -?2,000. In nine cases out of ten any man who wants to know, can ascertain how a postal vote is cast. Every honorable member who has had experience knows that when a paid canvasser goes for a certain purpose, he will try to earn his money. I propose to vote against the voting by post provisions of the Act. I recognise that we should try to help every woman who is about to bring a child into the world, but the postal voting system has been abused in the past. I feel sure that if the House finds that an injustice is really being done to the women of Australia, an effort will be made to evolve a plan whereby their case can be met.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- I regard this measure as very one-sided. There are glaring examples in it from beginning to end of contemplated changes which have no justification in themselves. The more they are studied the more it appears that the object of the Government is to benefit their own side. We have in this country adult suffrage, and are supposed to have the freest form of electoral franchise in the world. We have received this benefit without a struggle. I do not think the people of Australia thoroughly realize the value of the franchise yet, because they have obtained it so easily. Our object, now that every one over the age of twentyone years is entitled to a vote, should be to make the task of voting as easy to perform as possible. The object of this House should be to give facilities for voting, and not to curtail them. In the forefront of this Bill we find a proposal to abolish postal voting. I do not think that is a democratic move. It is a fine way to give facilities to people who happen to be sick.’ or are prospecting for minerals far away from a polling place on the day of an election ! It is a provision calculated to do great injustice to those who happen to be disabled. We have heard attempted proofs of abuses of postal voting, and the Minister said that his reason for doing away with the system was that it was abused. As a matter of fact, 29,000 people exercised the privilege at the last election, and the numbers have continually increased ever since the system was introduced. The honorable member for Melbourne found that the postal votes cast for himself increased at every election, and that the State of South Australia, which had such a poor record in that regard at first, showed a great increase of postal votes at every election. This so-called democratic and humanitarian Government is going . to rob people who cannot help themselves of this privilege, because one or two have abused it. There has been no evidence of wholesale abuse. In the case of a provision of this sort, which affects so many people, and of which more people are taking advantage at each election, we ought to have very substantial proof before we attempt to do away with it. We have had nothing like adequate proof to justify this retrograde movement.

Mr Chanter:

– Why did the magistrates fine the justice of the peace at Coleraine the other day, if there was no proof ?

Mr ATKINSON:

– The man who abused his privileges under the Act at Coleraine was prosecuted. If the electoral authorities, led by the Minister of Home Affairs, will do their duty, and bring to book those who commit abuses, the little evil that has already occurred will easily be stamped out. The Department can easily keep the system pure if they like to be vigilant. In the place of these facilities we are to have, forsooth, an extension of the absent voting principle. The argument is that postal voting must be abolished because there has been abuse, and yet the Government are bringing in an absent voters’ clause which will allow any man to vote practically at any place he likes, thus throwing the door wide open to fraud and corruption in every conceivable direction. There will be nothing to prevent a man going into a booth in Queensland, and saying, “ I am John Smith, of Kalgoorlie,” and then, if he likes to sign a certificate, he can vote. On account of a little abuse in connexion with postal voting, the great Democrats opposite become absoluely pure for the moment, but at the next breath they throw the door wide open to far worse abuses. That is what is called democratic legislation by the party who are now posing as humanitarian legislators. An absent voters’ provision allowing a man to vote anywhere in Australia will be of no use to the person who canhot leave his home, or who is more than 5 miles away from a polling place. These political purists opposite are throwing the door wide open to corruption at the other extreme. Only the other day in South Australia, a Royal Commission discovered that roll -stuffing had been going on, and recommended the Government to dismiss justices of the peace, and other people in all directions. I understand, however, that the Labour Government have taken no notice of the report. What will be the effect of proposed new section 139A? It provides -

On polling day an elector shall be entitled to vote at the polling place for which he is enrolled-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member not to read the clause. He can do so in Committee.

Mr ATKINSON:

– I wish to read only a small part to prove my contention.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not read the clause.

Mr ATKINSON:

– Under this Bill it is proposed that in any prosecution in respect of an electoral offence, .the averments of the prosecutor shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Usually, when a man is prosecuted for an offence, it rests with the prosecution to prove his guilt. Under this Bill, however, the person charged will have to prove his innocence. I find no trace of any humanitarian tendency in such legislation. The highly-trained officers of the Electoral Department when they charge a man with an offence ought surely to be required to prove their case. I am also of opinion that the provision for taking the poll on a Saturday is without justification. It is all very well for honorable members on the Government side of the House to say that people of a certain faith will be able to go to the poll after their Sabbath has ended; but we know that they can do so only by visiting the polling booths at what . is really the busiest time of the day. The Jews are among the most law-abiding sections of the community ; they are good citizens, and should enjoy the same opportunity as have the rest of the citizens of the Commonwealth to record their votes. Under this Bill, however, many Jews will, be unable to exercise the franchise, and many of them who are actively engaged in organizing work, and doing their best to enlighten the public on political questions, will be unable to take any part in the contest on the day of polling. Again, the Seventh Day Adventists constitute a body whose numbers are gradually increasing.

Mr Chanter:

– They do not vote at all.

Mr ATKINSON:

– I know that some people have conscientious objections to voting, but I was not aware before that the Seventh Day Adventists were amongst the number. I shall, however, . accept the honorable member’s assurance. I should like the Minister to explain the provisions of this Bill in regard to the right of a candidate to demand a recount.It is provided that; -

The Court of Disputed Returns may consider any ballot-papers which were reserved for the decision of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, but shall not order any further recount of the whole or any part of the ballotpapers in connexion with the election, unless it is satisfied that such recount is justified.

How can the Court be satisfied that a recount is necessary until it has carefully scrutinized the ballot-papers ; and if it is to scrutinize them it might as well recount them. The clause perhaps has some meaning which I have not been able to detect. I come now to a part of the Bill which, from the point of view of a candidate, is fraught with very serious consequences. I refer to that part which relates to the question of electoral expenses. In the original Act, it is declared that a candidate is a person who offers himself within three months of an election, whilst in section 170 it is provided that no “electoral expenses” shall be incurred except in respect of certain items which are set out. Again, in section 171 of the original Act, “electoral expense “ is defined as including all expenses incurred by or on behalf of or in the interests of any candidate at or in connexion with any election. That, in view of the definition of “ candidate “ to which I have already referred, would seem to contemplate expenditure covering a period of three months ; and no candidate is allowed to expend more than £100 in the prosecution of his campaign. Under clause 32 of this Bill, however, it is further provided that - (1.) Everytrades union registered or unregistered, organization, association, league, or body of persons which has, or person who has, in connexion with any election, expended any money or incurred any expense -

  1. on behalf of, or in the interests of, any candidate, or
  2. on behalf of, of in the interests of, any political party, shall in accordance with this section make a return of the money so expended or expense so incurred.
Mr SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honorable member that the proper place to deal with the various clauses of the Bill is in Committee.

Mr ATKINSON:

– I am dealing, sir, only with the general principle underlying the question of “ electoral expense,” and am merely referring to this clause to illustrate my argument. Are we to understand that if any of these organizations incurs any expense in the interests of a candidate that expenditure will be added to the expenditure incurred by the candidate himself, so that he may find in the end that the amount for which the Act provides has been exceeded? The clause is certainly open to that construction. Then, again, what is to prevent any organization filing a return setting out that all the expenditure incurred by it was on behalf of a political party, although a large proportion of it might really have been incurred in support of the interests of a particular candidate? The provision is most unfair, since it may also expose a candidate to an attempt on the part of a malicious person to show that he has been spending money on his behalf.

Mr King O’Malley:

– H - He will have to prove that the candidate had authorized that expenditure.

Mr ATKINSON:

– That is not provided for in this Bill.

Mr West:

– It is provided for in the original Act.

Mr ATKINSON:

– The honorable member is in error. The clause must lead to a great deal of trouble, and it certainly give? one the impression of having been framed with a view of aiming a blow at the Liberal organizations. The Labour party have organizers travelling all over the country for months before a general election, and these men are paid £4 or£5 a week. As a matter of fact, instead of being organizers, they are really prospective candidates in the interests of the Labour party. This provision will not affect them, but it will seriously affect any honest man who may not be aware that some organization or person is incurring expenditure on his behalf or in his interests. The clause may lead to absolute fraud.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– - -The honest man has no cause for alarm.

Mr ATKINSON:

– The trouble is that, from the point of view of my honorable friends opposite, there are no honest men save those who belong to their own party. I desire to draw attention to the word “ campaign “ used lower down in the same clause. It is time that the Minister of Home Affairs, by interjection, or some other way, gave us an idea of what that word means. Are we to take it that it means three months prior to the election ? So far as we can see from the clause itself it may mean twelve months. This is very important, both to candidates and organizations, neither of which desire, after fighting an election as fairly as possible, to be put to endless expense, and held up to opprobrium. Another provision which seems to me an unnecessary, unfair, and vindictive innovation, is that relating to newspapers. I do not know enough of the press of Australia as a whole to speak in regard to it, but I know that in Tasmania the newspapers, as a rule, give fair reports to the candidates on both sides.

Mr Brennan:

– Does that apply to the Mercury ?

Mr ATKINSON:

– I do not read the Mercury very much, because I have enough newspapers to engage my attention at the other end of the Island. I think, however, that the Mercury does report both sides; at all events, I am not aware that it does not. We have heard much reviling of the press from honorable members opposite - about its being on the side of the “ boodleiers,” and( all that sort of thing - but we have not to be long in this House before we know where the money is.

Mr Thomas:

– Where is it?

Mr ATKINSON:

– Over there.

Mr Thomas:

– I wish it were 1

Mr ATKINSON:

– And it does not seem to get away from over there. There is a Labour organ, The Daily Post, in Tasmania, and I am quite satisfied that the press of the Island, generally speaking, is quite as fair to candidates as is that newspaper. This Bill - this piece of political imbecility - which is supposed to make such great reforms, has a delightful provision, under which a candidate, for three years after an election, is liable to be prosecuted for any offence he may be alleged to have committed. Under the present system I believe the limit is six months, but under the Bill a prosecution will hang over a candidate’s head from election to election. I do not know what the intention is, but if the Department of Home Affairs proves no more expert in detecting electoral offences in the future than it has in the past, what will be the use of the clause? If the vigilance of the Department cannot last through six months now, how can we hope it to last for three years? The provision might as -well be struck out, because I am satisfied from experience that the Department will never take the trouble to act upon it. The Bill reforms nothing, while it takes away privileges which have been appreciated by the people in increasing numbers. The Bill does a lot of destruction, and imposes vindictive conditions on candidates,’ organizations, and newspapers. Why do the Democrats opposite not do something in the way of reform? Why is there no proposition to give the electors a chance to send men here who truly represent majorities’?

Mr Wise:

– There are six honorable members on the Opposition side elected on a minority vote, while there is not a representative on this side who has not a majority behind him.

Mr ATKINSON:

– That is the accident of elections, and is not due to the electoral machinery. Why should a majority of a few thousand electors return eighteen senators, while the substantial minority are left without any representation at all in another place? The electoral law should insure that the men returned to Parliament represent a majority of, at least, those who take the trouble to vote. In all other countries there is some means for attaining that end ; and the system now practised in Tasmania would meet the case.

Mr Sampson:

– This Parliament should lead the nations in Democracy.

Mr ATKINSON:

– But honorable members opposite are afraid to face the people under such a system of election. They have won so many elections through the split vote that they do not care to afford an opportunity for the people to be really represented. There will be no satisfaction until- the electoral machinery is remodelled from the foundation ; and the first step_ is to have contingent or preferential voting lor this Chamber, and proportional voting for another place. Under this preferential system what do the electors get? They secure the widest range of choice in the matter of candidates. They are not restricted to one man who has become fossilized. They are not prevented from running another candidate lest the seat should be lost to the party. The young men of a party are given a chance to get into Parliament if the people should so desire. Preferential voting does away with the antiquated, crude, pre-election system under which two or three hundred electors choose the candidate who is to carry the banner for 20,000 or 30,000 electors. How can the electors know that he represents a majority of them? Yet they have to accept his ‘ candidature, or their principles may have no chance of being represented in Parliament.

Mr Scullin:

– We would take any one before a Fusionist

Mr ATKINSON:

– My honorable friend need not talk about the Fusion. It went down at the last election ; but let him wait until the next election is held. A good many honorable members on the other side will then bite the dust, and they will not like the taste of it, either. If my suggestion were adopted, the barbarous system ot pre-election would be done away with. We know that it is an unwritten rule with our honorable friends opposite that a sitting member, if he has done anything like his duty to the cause or by the platform, is given practically pre-election, no matter how many better men than himself may be ready to till the position. He gets a chance of being re-elected. It is very clear that this system cannot last. When the by-election for Batman was about to be held, there -were no less than thirty candidates out for pre-election, and our friend opposite happened to get the selection. In that, case, the pre-election committee may have chosen the best man. At any rate, my honorable friend obtained the selection, and as it was a Labour constituency, he won the seat without the slightest effort; This thing cannot go on. Do my honorable friends think that the other twenty-nine candidates for the seat are going to stand even the honorable member who was selected, or that any other honorable member can go back to a constituency time after time simply because he keeps to the platform which the Caucus will not let him depart from? Do my honorable friends think that the electors are going to select a man every time simply because he has been p re-elected ? They know that the system will break down of its own weight. They realize that a split is” coming on this point alone. They know that they are not going to be allowed to get the pre-election, simply because they are the sitting members. Why should they, if there are better men in the Labour ranks to take their places ? We are not sent here’ in our own interests, but to promote the interests of the community, and the people have a right to get the best men to represent them. How can they do that under the present wooden system? The thing is a farce. Our honorable friends come here and clip this privilege and that privilege out of the Act, and say that they are acting in the cause of purity and because certain privileges have been abused, when, at the same time, they bring down a clause for absent voting which will allow any amount of fraud from one end of Australia to the other? Under the provision it will be the simplest thing in the world to commit a fraud. The Bill proposes no reform. It contains plenty of provisions in the interests of the Labour party, but none in the interests of the community. It is about time that the rights of the people were considered. If honorable members opposite wish to give the people a chance to speak they should introduce some basic reform such as contingent or preferential voting coupled with a form of proportional voting for the other Chamber. As there are other honorable members who wish to speak, sir, I do not think that there is any need for me to continue my remarks. Perhaps when we get into Committee we shall have a chance of going more closely into some provisions of the Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- Since I have been a member of the House I have never heard a debate in which so many assertions have been made without facts to back them up. I think that if any honorable member knows of abuses such as have been mentioned from both sides of the House, the proper thing to do is to bring the offenders to justice, and to prosecute them for violating or abusing electoral privileges. When I read its provisions first I was rather surprised that a Bill of this nature should have run the gauntlet of another deliberative body and come before the House in this form. The first thing which strikes one as peculiar is the fact that the Bill is to begin to operate on a date to be fixed by proclamation. I should like to know if the Minister of Home Affairs can give us a reason why it should not come into force immediately it has been assented to by the GovernorGeneral. The Government in their wisdom, or otherwise, want to bring it into force by proclamation, but I have not heard a reason why that should be done. Then we have a clause deleting from the Act certain provisions, and so depriving 30,000 electors of the privilege of voting. One has to look round to discover a reason for the proposal. So far the only reason which has been given by the Government, or by their supporters, is that the majority of the postal votes cast at the last election were cast in favour of the Liberals. When a measure containing a similar provision was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, a very prominent member of the Labour party was a little more straightforward in his remarks. He did say straight out why he was supporting the proposal to take away this great privilege from a number of electors. On a similar proposal Mr. Lesina, the honorable member for Clermont, said -

My experience is that it is not what a radical democracy would like it to be. In my district only thirty-four postal votes were recorded altogether, but thirty of them were against me. Any system of voting by which my opponent gets thirty out of thirty-four votes is hopelessly bad and wrong. I approach it from that point of view; itmay be a selfish or bigoted point of view, but that is the view that I take.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Who said this?

Mr SINCLAIR:

Mr. Lesina, a member of the Labour party in Queensland.

Mr Mathews:

– No.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– He was a member of the State Labour party when he made this speech?

Mr Tudor:

– He is a Liberal now.

Mr Mathews:

– He is a rat.

Mr Brennan:

– He was put out for making that statement.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr. Lesina continued -

If that vote had gone for me possibly I should not have condemned it, and I might have been so hopelessly selfish and sordid as to come here and “barrack” for the postal vote; but as the vote wentagainst me it is only human nature that I should do my utmost to prevent any future opponent having a chance of getting thirty out of thirty-four votes. I do not know whether the same sentiment animates my fellow members, but I think, it is a very healthy Democratic sentiment. If a system of voting goes against you, knock it out.”

It appears to me that postal voting is being done away with by the present Government, so that it may not be used against their party on future occasions. I should like to refer also to some remarks made on a previous occasion by a prominent member of the Labour party, when this method of voting was first introduced in the Queensland Parliament. Some capital has been made out of the working of the postal votein Queensland. But there every female had the right to vote by post, irrespective of her condition, and many females availed themselves of the privilege rather than goto the poll.

Mr.Mathews. - Many of them were made to.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is not a fair assertion to make. It is only reasonable to suppose that many preferred to avail themselves of the privilege. Mr. Airey, inintroducing the Bill to give the right to vote by post to women and sick folk, made the following remarks : -

I now come to a very important clause in the Bill - that referring to the operation of the postal ballot. The postal ballot is a system, with regard to State elections, which is entirely new to Queensland. It is a system beset with many dangers, but one which, I am afraid, we cannot avoid, so long as women have a vote. It is rendered, indispensable, one may say, by the existence of female suffrage. The provisions under this Bill differ from those in the Federal Act in certain vital particulars. Under provision (b) of section 109 of that Act a woman has to make a declaration with regard to her state of health, and there is no doubt a great many women have a strong dislike to making that declaration. (Mr. Paget : Quite right too.) I think myself it is too much to expect a woman to make that declaration, and it is certainly very wrong that because of a woman’s feelings of natural delicacy she should be disfranchised. Then, again, in the country districts, it is oftenimpossible for a man and his wife both to leave their farm or homestead at the same time to go to the polling place and record their votes by the ordinary ballot. Women, in those cases will have the right ‘to record their votes by the postal ballot. It has also been said, both here and outside, that many women do not care to go to the ballot at the polling booth, and there is, no doubt, something in that. By the provisions we introduce here we avoid that difficulty, and we are in this respect more generous than the powers of the Commonwealth Act. Under that Act, a vote may be witnessed by a member of Parliament, a police magistrate, a special magistrate, the head teacher of a State school, a policeman, or any other member of the Public Service who maybe appointed for the purpose. The report of the Select Committee appointed by the FederaV House of Representatives shows that that bodyrecommends some verv serious alterations, especially with regard to section109.

He went on to read the recommendations made by a Select Committee appointed by the House of Representatives. Mr.

Macartney, a Liberal member of the Queensland Parliament, in referring to the same matter, said -

I am prepared to admit that there were many abuses in connexion with the use of the postal ballot, but I do not propose to go through the details of them; but I think it would be a wiser thing and fairer to the women of Queensland to remove the causes of the abuses instead of restricting the right of women to exercise the franchise. We ought to render it easy for women to vote at all times; we ought to aim at getting a full expression of opinion from the electors. I do not think any election is so satisfactory as the one at which the large majority of electors use their voles, thereby returning a member as the result of the voice of the majority. It seems to me the action of the Government is in the direction of reducing the aggregate number of votes, and for that reason I certainly will oppose the wiping out of the postal ballot.

The postal vote was not wiped out by a Liberal Government, but by the Kidston Government, when it was fused with the Labour party. Finding that the Act operated against them, the first thing they did was to introduce a Bill, even before the Address-in-Reply debate had been concluded, wiping out this liberal provision which had been passed a few years before.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr. Philp himself condemned the system.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– He did ho such thing. He merely condemned certain provisions of the Act. Mr.. Macartney went on to say -

When the late Home Secretary introduced that measure he gave various reasons for proposing the postal vote. Those reasons may be summed up as follows : - He stated that there were many women suffering from illness who could not possibly go to the poll, and it was a fair thin - that some provision should be made by which they could cast their votes ; he also said it was impossible for a woman and her husband in the country to leave their farm or homestead at the same time, that they had long distances to travel to get to a polling booth, and that it was necessary that some provision should be made to enable them to cast their votes ; and he further pointed out that there were a large number of women, who did not care to go to the poll, who objected to doing so. I ask honorable members opposite how have the conditions changed since the present Government introduced that Bill, and gave reasons for the postal vote ? Somehow or other it seems that it has not worked quite as they expected it would work. It looks as if the votes of the women did not turn out as our Labour friends expected when they advocated adult suffrage, and because the women did not vote as they were expected to they are to be partially deprived of the franchise.

Mr. Airey, a member of the Labour party, who introduced the Bill of 1905, was defeated at the election in 1907 by a good Liberal ; and that was one of the reasons for the indignation aroused by the result of the postal voting. It led to the defeat of the Labour-£»;»-Kidston Fusion. The Minister of Home Affairs has said that the postal voting provisions destroyed the secrecy of the ballot. I am prepared to admit that there is some danger that the witness to a postal vote may know how the elector has voted. But it should not be forgotten that no elector need vote by post who is able to vote in the ordinary way ; and it is better to give electors the right to exercise a vote, even at the risk of the way which they vote becoming known, than to make it impossible for them, under certain circumstances, to vote at all.

Mr Page:

– Surely the honorable member does not uphold the postal voting system adopted in Queensland. He must know that it was a scandal.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Under the Queensland system, the postal vote might have been used by any woman elector ; and there is no doubt that when we find that 13,000 persons took advantage of that system the postal voting provisions of the State were abused. What do the Government propose to substitute for the existing postal voting provisions of the Commonwealth Act? Tha proposed new section 139 may be assumed to meet the difficulty in some respects ; but it makes no tetter provision for secrecy than does the postal vote. It is proposed that an elector who is absent from his division, but within the Commonwealth, on election day, may record a voLe on making a certain declaration before a Registrar or “Returning Officer, when it may be just as easy to discover how he voted as if he voted under the postal voting provisions of the existing Act. I should like to say, further, that this provision swings the door wide open to corruption in the form of personation. I am very much afraid that quite a number of dead men will vote if this Bill becomes law. It is surprising what is done at election time. I myself have known people whose votes were recorded in the names of men who were dead. This Bill further enables the Government to gerrymander the redistribution of a State into electoral divisions. Under the existing Act, maps are prepared by Commissioners appointed for the purpose, and they must be exhibited. The electors are given an opportunity to enter objections” to the proposed distribution, or to make suggestions. That is all done away with under this Bill. In clause 7, we have proposed a new departure which I think is uncalled for. Provision is here made for compulsory enrolment, which, without compulsory voting, will be an absolute farce. At the last Federal elections, only about 50 per cent, of the persons qualified to vote exercised their right. If only 50 ner cent, of those who were enrolled under the existing system thought it worth their while to go to the polls, are we likely to increase the percentage of votes polled by insisting upon every qualified person having his name placed on a roll under a penalty for neglect to do so. I think that this will result in hardship to many people in the back-blocks who are not as well informed as the residents of large centres of population, and who may be absolutely ignorant of laws of this kind. I am afraid that numbers of them will neglect to enroll themselves, and will be brought to account for their neglect under this Bill. In this clause, as throughout the Bill, there is far too much left to regulations. In some respects, the Bill is a mere skeleton. Many of the clauses refer to something which is to be done under a regulation. It is provided, for instance, that regulations shall prescribe “ anything necessary or convenient “ to give effect to the system of compulsory enrolment. I should like to know whose convenience is to be considered. Is it that of the Electoral Office, or is it the convenience of the elector ? The Government may frame such regulations as they please, and may say that they have been framed to meet the convenience of the Department, and to save expense. In clause 10, the Government propose to take power to alter the rolls. A man may have his name removed from a roll after the issue of a writ of election, but there is no opportunity afforded him to lie enrolled after the issue of the writ. So that, if any elector neglects his duty in regard to compulsory enrolment, and endeavours to remedy his neglect after the issue of the writ, he will be unable to do so. If the Government intend to press the provisions relating to compulsory enrolment, they might with advantage copy the example of Queensland, which publishes a list of additions to the roll every two months of persons who are entitled to be enrolled, but who have not been. Electors have a right to know whether or not their names are on the roll.

Mr King O’Malley:

– U - Under this Bill they will get a card.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I quite understand the card system which has been introduced by the Department of Home Affairs, and

I .regret that those cards were not distributed with the census papers. I think that the Minister might very easily have arranged for their .distribution then, so that every person would have been reminded that he had a duty to perform - the duty of seeing that his name was upon the electoral roll. The most childish feature of the Bill is clause 32, which provides that political organizations shall furnish returns of the money expended by them. It is purely an inquisitorial provision, which seeks to pry into the affairs of these organizations. Industrial organizations may work for a candidate with impunity, but political organizations, which have a right to work for their party so long as they do so upon honest lines, will be compelled to furnish returns for no other purpose than that of showing what has been done with the money which they have expended. I suppose that, as a member of any political organization may be regarded as a canvasser at election times, there is a danger of these organizations being entirely wiped out. The clause of the Bill relating to newspaper reports is equally childish. It provides that newspapers shall not only make a return of the amounts which they have received tor assisting candidates in their campaign, but that they shall also measure up the inches of space which have been occupied - by advertisements and articles for which they were paid. What good it will do to ascertain the number of inches of space which a newspaper has devoted to claims of a particular candidate I do not know. A number of journals which are conducted by the Labour party are subsidized by the party, and as they are controlled by that party, they must advocate the claims of its nominees, irrespective of whether they are paid for doing so or not. The candidates contesting” seats under the Liberal party’s banner will not be likely to receive any consideration from them. There is just one evidence of sanity in the Bill, and it is contained in clause 36, which seeks to add nne word to the principal Act- the word “ otherwise.” But clause 39 entirely nullifies any benefit which might otherwise be derived from that clause. Under the principal Act the expenses which may be awarded against a party for contesting a disputed return are limited to .£100. But, under this clause, the amount will be practically unlimited, and the Court may award any sum. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill. I do not say that I would oppose any preferential system of voting which commended itself to me as being a practicable system, But up to the present no system of preferential voting which. I have seen has seemed likely to bring about the results desired by . its advocates. I need only refer to the election which took place a few days ago: for the division of East Melbourne. On that occasion the nominee of the Liberal party led by 1,000 votes, but on the second count was defeated. But had Mr. Opitz polled another 150 votes, the return of Sir Henry Weedon ‘would have been assured. A system which makes the return of a candidate dependent upon the number of votes polled for an opponent is not a good one. I am in favour of any system which will make Parliament the true expression of the will of the people. That is not obtained by the preferential voting system. Although the member representing East Melbourne in the Victorian Legislature was elected on the second vote, he does not represent a majority of the electors, and had he to contest the seat only with the man he displaced, he would not win. If Mr. Farthing’s secondary votes had been added to Sir Henry Weedon’s primary votes, the latter would have had a majority of something like 1,000, whereas, the former was actually returned by a majority of about too. However, I shall retain a perfectly open mind, and shall be prepared to discuss any proposal on its merits. The contingent voting system has acted well in Queensland in some instances. Electors there are not compelled to exercise a second choice, but are allowed to do so if there are three or more candidates. I am sorry that the Government intend to fix Saturday as the polling day, because it is better to avoid hurting religious susceptibilities, and we know that the members of the Jewish faith and the Seventh Day Adventists regard Saturday as the Sabbath. It has been said that the Seventh Day Adventists do not vote, but I know that they do. There is a section that does not vote, but it is u very small one. Of course, with the extension ot the polling hours to 8 p.m., there would be opportunities for voting after sundown, but, similarly, workmen who usually finish their day at 5 or halfpast 5, could vote after leaving work. At the last general election, the Queensland Government allowed the men at their railway workshops at Ipswich - there, are between 1,100 and 1,200 - to cease work at 4 o’clock, and they recorded their votes on [Mt] their way home, the whole business being over in less than an hour. Certainly the extension of the time until 9 p.m. would meet every objection. I hope that the” Bill will not become law.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We should have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Some few of the considerations provoked by the introduction of this measure ought to be discussed on a motion for the second reading, though generally it is one to be dealt with in Committee. Probably the same reflections occur to all, when a measure relating to’ the electoral law is introduced. Experience seems to confirm more and more the advisability of intrusting the preparation of electoral legislation to a small body of officials, independent of the Government. Their recommendations would, of course, pass through the hands of Ministers, who would be under no obligation to accept them. But to place Parliament in touch with independent counsel which, without regard to considerations of party advantage, would propose the best means to obtain the sense of the country on political questions, would get rid of much of the suspicion and illfeeling that is now caused by the discussion of electoral reforms. Parliament would have presented to it the matured views of men of experience with no political purposes to serve, and that, I believe, would awaken in the public a more real and general interest in the propositions submitted. I am afraid that electors on both sides usually regard a Bill of this description too much from their stand-point as members of a particular party. If in the contest we could be guided by those general considerations which would appeal to us in calmer moments, and pronounce in favour of the best method, without regard to its immediate effects upon the fortunes of the politicians with whom we are associated, it would add to the calmness and thoroughness with which these propositions would be discussed when submitted to ‘Parliament. It would give a far finer result.

In this Bill, as in its predecessors, it is evident throughout that the shaping hand has been that of the Government of.the day and of its supporters rather than of such an independent body. The officers concerned with electoral affairs are obviously no more independent of their chiefs for the time being than are the officers of other branches of the Service. It will be said, of course, that this is a counsel of perfection, but counsels of perfection should not be ignored. Even if they are not absolutely followed, a reversion to them should help to bring us more into that position of relative independence and open-mindedness which is specially required in discussing electoral affairs. The foundations of our electoral system, so far as they lie in our Public Service, would be enormously strengthened by a distinction being drawn between the obligations of the officers to the Government of the day and their obligations to Parliament and the people as a whole. The latter should be more emphasized. They should be required to make their suggestions directly to Parliament apart from the Ministry. Of course, propositions submitted for legislation must first have approved themselves to the Cabinet and its following. But under a system of independent advice, the first aim of officials would be to consider the means of increasing voting facilities. The questions which they would bear most constantly in mind would be how to prepare rolls with a minimum of difficulty, how to make them available for criticism in every part of the country in the shortest time possible, and how to enable objections to be taken and difficulties or omissions to be met. Their duty would be to revise from time to time the conditions of voting, as well as the rolls, so that no physical infirmity or mischance should prevent the exercise of the privilege of the franchise by every adult in the community, except those serving the sentence of tribunals of justice, or those confined in institutions because of infirmity of mind.

That it is the right of every man and woman in the community who has leached majority to have his or her name placed on some roll within the country in which they live is a proposition which cannot be disputed. That being the case, special provision would be made by such an independent electoral body for those who, from temporary causes, were unable to be present at the actual polling booth. The object would be to enable all those who could not visit the ballot-box to get their votes recorded in a manner as thoroughly safeguarded as possible. In the result the votes would be at least as well safeguarded as those cast personally in the booths. Further obligations arise out of our method of voting, calling for the introduction of special machinery to overcome difficulties of our own creation, brought about when more than two candidates stand for a single seat. This leads sometimes to the return of one who, although receiving a majority over his rivals, yet represents only a minority of those who actually go to the poll. The system that has commended itself in many parts of the world, and will commend itself more the better it is understood, is some form of preferential voting. If the honorable member for Moreton had been present I should have invited him to reconsider .the judgment he based upon an election which, however much he may dislike the result, really represented the return of a member who received “more votes than either of the other two competitors. There can be no question but that, in this instance, as in every other, when it is fairly handled, that method produces the result sought for. Consequently, if the preferential method were added to a perfect roll, and a complete exercise of the suffrage by all entitled to it, we should have a system not only theoretically, but practically, perfect.

We are entitled to measure any and every proposal submitted to us by that perfect system. When we take up this measure we notice, with regret, that it contains many proposals in respect of which a retrograde, instead of a forward, step is being taken. This, as we know, is not a principal electoral measure, but an amendment of a lengthy Act that has already been several times amended, lt is of necessity a thing of shreds and patches. We shall probably come to closer grips, so far as time allows, if we take these really separate propositions in Committee, and deal with the Bill as far as we can on its merits. Bearing in mind these large general considerations, which should be prominent as a basis of any modern electoral system claiming to represent the best experience and the prolonged thought of the day, we obtain, at all events, a satisfactory starting point. I do not feel it necessary to invite honorable members to spend much time on the. consideration of details, but will proceed to place the more important, to which I propose to refer, against the background created by this general presentation of the case.

Naturally more attention has been directed to the proposal to abolish postal voting than to any other provision of the Bill. At the last general election some 29,000 postal votes were recorded, some 4,000 or 5,000 more votes being cast for one side than for the other. There are qualifications to be made, but if we commence by assuming that those £9,000 votes would not have beencast had that method not been available, the refusal to continue the system means the disfranchisement of an entire constituency of the Commonwealth. That number of voters in any part of Australia would be entitled to a representative in this Chamber.

Mr Bamford:

– It does not follow that they could not have voted.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am coming to that point. At the outset I put the question in such a way as to imply that I would further consider it in that regard. Mr. Archibald. - Three- fourths of that number would still vote, even if the postal voting system were abolished.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That assertion is easy to make, but no one can prove it.

Mr Archibald:

– The honorable member, as a public man, must know that what I say is correct.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do not, and would hesitate to make any such averment. But here we have in the beginning, if honorable members so please, a risk of disfranchising practically a whole constituency. With that fact before us we shall begin, I think, to realize the seriousness of the action we are now taking. Even if honorable members opposite feel obliged to take this step they must recognise that in so doing they place upon themselves the burden of providing some alternative measure that shall bring that number of people, if not more, to the poll. Upon them is placed the burden of providing facilities of some kind that will enable these votes to be recorded freely. Any challenges against the system made in this House have been supported by a very small modicum of evidence. In point of fact, any one who fairly takes into account what the objections to postal voting are, especially the allegations of abuses that really can be accepted, or proved, will realize that more than that number of the votes cast in the ballot-box by our ordinary method of voting would, If we . could inquire into them searchingly, be disallowed. No one who has any experience of our system but is aware that there is a certain percentage of fraud and a certain percentage of what . I might term unintentional fraud. We must prepare ourselves to accept the conclusion that if we could scrutinize every vote, with the Act in hand and its circumstances known, we should find that at every election the proportion of votes cast by the ordinary method that are open to serious challenge exceeds the whole of the postal votes now recorded.

Mentioning simply these elementary considerations, and passing them by, I am free to admit that in its present stage postal voting represents no doubt a certain proportion of men and women who could, at some sacrifice, have voted had there been no such system in force.

Mr West:

– A certain percentage on both sides. There is no doubtabout that.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Statementsas to the particular proportions are merely speculative, and if we look at the question in its true light, this is no ground for repealing the postal vote.

Mr Sampson:

– Unless it be a ground for abolishing voting altogether.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Without being a plea for the abolition of voting altogether this is no ground for the abolition of postal voting. If all the allegations made anything like specifically were proved to be true, they would point only to the need of our taking further precautions, and of making quite sure that those who exercise the postal vote do so legitimately. This is our problem. To get rid, by drastic means, of a system which I am sure, in the great bulk of cases, is fairly and properly exercised, is an unreasonable and childish course for this Legislature to take; whilst we have still unexhausted methods and remedies which can provide efficient guarantees that the proportion of votes misused shall be reduced to a negligible quantity. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the proportion is a negligible quantity now ; but I indorse the claim that it should be reduced - that we should surround the system with all safeguards, and satisfy ourselves that it will not be abused.

We all know of individual cases,’ and there must be a great many in the Commonwealth, in which the vote will not be, and cannot be, exercised. In a democratic community such as we claim to be it must always be a reproach if a single qualified citizen, who desires to exercise the suffrage, is deprived of the opportunity by our impatience, or by our neglect to provide means. I am perfectly aware of the discouraging and disquieting fact that a very large section of men and women have so far lost sight of their obligations as citizens as to have never yet exercised the franchise. I have hopes that our legislation will mean an advance in the number of those who go to the poll ; for it is a great reflection on a country which is democratic in principle and in aim,, that the very foundations of Democracy - first the vote, then the equal vote, and then the obligation to vote for, national aims and in a national spirit - are ignored by so large a section of our people. The development of any particular nation may be largely assessed by the number of people who never fail to exercise the franchise, and thus express their opinions, especially if they are independent opinions, on public affairs. When Australia is assessed, as it will be by the historian of the future, we shall find those long rows of figures which show the imports and exports, and the wealth and prosperity of the country, allotted their proper place. Theirs is a subordinate place compared with the tests which will be applied to the character and ability of our people, and to the intelligence of the policy pursued by their direction. Among those tests will be the numbers who record their votes, as well as the wisdom and judgment with which those votes are cast.

However, this is an unintentional digression in support ofthe argument which I was venturing to submit, that we ought to find ourselves, in every electoral measure, face to face with some new development. It is somewhat baffling to approach this measure in this frame of mind, and with these reflections, only to discover that it is distinguished more by the restrictions which it is imposing than by the additional facilities it is providing for voting. The clause which permits those outside the boundaries of an electoral division, and those who are at sea, to record their votes, is one which is heartily welcomed by men of all ways of thinking, because it facilitates the exercise of the suffrage, which is, and should be, one of the main objects of every electoral measure. But I regret to say that this proposal excellent as it is, stands alone.

It should certainly have been accompanied by propositions of a similar character relating to other classes of the community, particularly those who have been deprived of the postal votes, and are not likely to find an opportunity of using the franchise in future contests. One must not fail, therefore, to take all the more notice of this one particular proposal, which will receive universal indorsement as in accord with those main principles to which I ventured to refer in my opening remarks. But this is coupled withthe abolition of the postal vote when the utmost that circumstances could have called for - even accepting at their face value all the apprehensions expressed - was a reform ofthe methods of postal voting. The reform, ought to be such as to encourage many more than the 29,000 who voted through the post at the last elections’ to do soat the coming election. We shall sadly neglect our obligations to our constituents, and impair our fidelity to Liberal principles unless, before this measure leaves the Committee, we find a substitute, or reinstate postal voting under safeguards which will satisfy the House as reasonable and applicable.

The new requirement - that of compulsory registration - is one to which, personally, I take no exception, except that it appears to me to be almost ridiculously incomplete, since it is not accompanied by any attempt at compulsory voting.

Mr West:

– Would the honorable member support compulsory voting if it were proposed ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes; I am saying so.

Mr West:

– Then have the courageto move it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Would the honorable member for East Sydney support such a proposal ?

Mr West:

– Find out when the time comes.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The honorable member wanted to find out from me, and he found out at once what I proposed in this relation.

It seems to me that, except theoretically, there is no gain from compulsory enrolment unless it is accompanied by the obligation of compulsory voting. I can understand compulsory enrolment as a necessary means towards compulsory voting; but without that it is a foundation without a superstructure. I can seeno particular grounds of objection to the compulsory enrolment of every voter. It is part of the statistical requirements of this country that our people should be numbered, and, in addition to that, there are sundry advantages that follow from the existence of a roll as complete and perfect as possible which, to my mind, outweigh any of the minor disadvantages occasionally alleged in this regard. It appears to me, therefore, that, so far as it goes, the compulsory registration can hardly be complained of, although the method is rather harsh, and the time given for notice is too short. It should be, at all events at its inception, introduced in a somewhat more considerate fashion.

Mr West:

– That is a mere detail.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Exactly. I am endeavouring to point that out. I want to be quite fair, because it is. not impossible that, with such critics as one has to encounter now, I might afterwards be faced in Committee with the statement, “ You approved of it on the second reading.” I approve of the principle, but think that it can be better embodied. That is one of many practical points to which our consideration ought to be given at greater length, and with freer minds than we are likely to be able to possess after an all-night sitting.

This compulsory registration as it stands is rather ridiculous when it is not coupled with any propositions which promise of themselves to give us a greater vote than we have hitherto had. Surely the expense of preparing a complete roll - and that is the goal of this (particular proposal - can only be justified when we are ableto make a real use of the information which would then be placed at our disposal ! The compulsory enrolment presents us with, one of the factors which we might be able to usefully employ in connexion with our postal vote. My own impression is that the system of voting by post, even if surrounded by all the safeguards which we can devise- and I have no objection to additional safeguards - would probably lead to an accession to the number of those compulsorily enrolled, who would then exercise the franchise. That, I take it, is one of our main aims. One of the features which makes the charges most suspected has been the absence of specific evidences of fraud, or the misuse of the postal vote by actual citation.

Still, the possession of a complete and up-to-date roll is one of the first and most essential means towards a proper examination of the voting at any particular election, or series of elections. For instance, in this Bill, we issue a mandate to the whole of the people compelling, under penalises, their compulsory enrolment. There is a class of the community always relatively a small class, but including in a country of this size many thousands whom we are now compelling to enroll. These are the permanent invalids, so to speak, who will be deprived at every election of the exercise of a franchise. They are compelled to register themselves while they are unpro vided with any means of using the vote which their registration carries with it. This is an extraordinary political anomaly of our own creation - the confirmed invalid obliged toregister ; the confirmed invalid deprived of the only means of recording a vote. But in addition to what we call the confirmed invalid who will be permanently excluded from the vote, although registered every year, is that small army of the temporarily ailing who are confined to their homes by illnesses of one kind and another, and a certain proportion of the wives and mothers of the community who are necessarily unable at times to take advantage of electoral opportunities if the postal vote is repealed and no substitute provided for it. Add together those who are always invalids, always registered, and always deprived of any opportunity of voting, and the many thousands who, in one way or other, are physically disqualified from going to the poll at the particular season when an election occurs, and we find ourselves in the rather strange position of placing on the roll some tens of thousands of electors who will have no opportunity of recording a vote, or who are to be deprived of the one means of voting which is at present within their reach. This inconsistency will I trust be kept in mind when we approach in Committee the practical question of how to provide for cases of temporary or permanent disqualification in these classes.

We are then confronted with another position. There are several days of the week which are, so far as my knowledge goes, free from challenge of any section of the. community on religious grounds. But’ there are three days of the week which are, as is well known, days recognised as specially religious, and their observance a matter of high importance to people of certain beliefs, namely. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It is, therefore, unfortunate from this aspect that the Ministers should have allowed their choice to fall on a day which, while undoubtedly convenient to a large section of the community, is very repugnant to thousands of our citizens whose sentiments on this matter are worthy of consideration.

Mr West:

– As the polling hour is extended from 6 to 8 o’clock there will be no impediment.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am by no means sure of that.

Mr West:

– I am.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Very good.

Mr West:

– I know that they will go after 6 o’clock.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Here, again, we take an important step. It is one that we are entitled to take. We can fix on a day of the week which seems best to use for the exercise of the franchise. We have chosen to fix a day when some tens of thousands of our fellow citizens will be disfranchised by their religious scruples.

Mr Page:

– They go to the races, anyway. The honorable member can go and see them there any Saturday.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That objection is met by what I am about to state. Having chosen a day which is repugnant to the sentiments of a large number of our fellow citizens, we have taken no steps to meet their special case by enabling them to record their votes the day before, or in some other way. Surely the responsibility is upon us. We choose a day of this character, and having done so we must adopt some means by which to meet the particular obligations of those people. When we have our complete and compulsory roll, it might be required that people having religious scruples in regard to voting on the chosen day should be distinguished by a mark ; and being distinguished in that way it is surely not beyond the capacity of our electoral officers to suggest, and of Parliament to shape, some proposal which would enable them to exercise their electoral rights We are creating the difficulty, and we therefore must accept the responsibility of meeting the difficulty that we create. Our main aim and object is, first to enroll all the adults of the community, and next to secure the votes of all of them. That is not being done, and it is one of the obvious omissions in this measure which we are called upon to repair.

When we come to consider the checks to be imposed, we shall require to give attention to proposed new section 6ie in clause 8, dealing with certain legal averments which are deemed to be proof in any prosecution launched under the compulsory enrolment provisions. These provisions, which throw the responsibility of proof upon the defendant, have been considerably modified by sub-clauses. But the objection to them is hardly met in its entirety. There is no course more repugnant to British law than that an accusedperson should have to prove his innocence, instead of the rule being followed that his prosecutor must prove his guilt. This is one of the provisions of the measure placed in it by electoral officers zealous for the fulfilment of their duties, but fairly indifferent to principles of law or equity. I think that the Government would have done well to allow greater freedom in this matter. Wherever this dangerous practice is introduced, it should be surrounded by every possible precaution against abuse : abuses in this respect are always tyrannical, and as such are resented in Courts of Justice. Criticisms of this Bill dealing with pointsof this character, which require consideration before one discovers their full force and effect, is hardly of a nature to detail us in a second-reading debate.

As a matter of fact, while we know in outline what this Bill will be if accepted, its outlines are very rough, and in; a great many places not even distinct. That is in a sense intentional, because the intention is to supply the defects by regulations. I suppose there are a score of places in this Bill in which the final line of responsibility are left to be drawn by regulations. These regulations will be submitted in the ordinary way to Parliament. But we know what the submission of regulations means. We know the amount of attention that they will get from this House. Many of them, or at all events some of them, will be framed during recess, and will probably escape observation altogether unless a very good: scent is afforded to attract us to the hunt. This’ Bill in itself, without regulations, is “ a thing of shreds and patches.” It is connected by regulations, it is coloured by regulations, it is surrounded by regulations, it is maintained by regulations. The great mass of these regulations we have not seen. They require to be taken into grave account and to be read with the substantive proposals of the measure in order to see whether they are within the authority conferred, and whether they really meet the difficulties which have been raised or left unsolved by the Bill. To these regulations our attention will require to be devoted hereafter.

I also leave aside all those questions which for their determination will require to be judged by the measure as a. whole. They must be considered in the light, not only of the amendments which we are now making, trot of the regulations, and probably amended regulations, which may be the result of the passage of this Bill.

I mentioned at an earlier stage one or two of the many reasons why electoral officers should exercise their functions in a judicial manner, urging that they should “be officers of Parliament rather than officers of Ministers. Ministers can make what proposals they think fit, and Parliament should debate them. But Parliament should do so in the light of a series of independent judicial recommendations- in this connexion from electoral officers who are not responsible to the Ministry, but to Parliament, for any suggestions they may make for an amendment of the electoral law. Under existing conditions, they are officers of a Department in close relation with the Minister in charge of that Department. They take their instructions from him, and act in accordance with his wishes and the intentions of the Government. In dealing with this matter before, I did not mention one illustration to which I might have referred in support of my contention. It arises under the provision made in this Bill in connexion with a recount. It is proposed that an application for a recount shall _be first of all dealt with by an ordinary Electoral Officer, and then, for the first time, it is proposed that his decision shall be further subject to appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer. It is presumably felt that an ordinary electoral officer cannot be expected to possess the legal or other training which might in some cases be necessary for the proper disposal of an important question of this kind. This is merely another illustration of the desirability of having before us independent memoranda from officials, so that we might then shape our measure-in such a way. as to protect the public, or, in this particular instance, candidates, from a possible miscarriage of justice.

I call attention in this relation also to a proposal in sub-section 2 of the proposed new section 135A, under which authority is given to a scrutineer to enter or leave a polling booth during the polling at his will and pleasure, and without any necessity. I quite admit that there are certain necessities which render it desirable that a scrutineer should be able to leave a booth, per- haps two or three times during the day ; “but the absolute privilege of entrance and exit here proposed is capable of being exercised for very partisan purposes, and in -such a fashion as to place scrutineers in an objectionable relation to candidates or those representing them, as well as to the officer presiding at the booth. It appears to me that the extension of liberty here is wider than the necessities of the case -demand. It is not ‘ desirable that the ingoing and outgoing of scrutineers should exceed their actual necessities during the time they are exercising their responsible functions.

I shall make but a very brief reference to the extraordinary clause providing for the return of expenses of political organizations. This needs a great deal of consideration. I do not know that there need be very much harm in it ; but certainly, as it stands, it is framed in such a manner as to provide a most fruitful field for various interpretations. For instance, we may gu’ess in a general way whether money has or has not been expended on behalf or in the interests of a candidate. But when we come to deal with expenditure “on behalf of, or in the interests of, any political party,” I think that we are embarking upon the uncharted ocean. What is a party, and into how many sub-parties is each party divided? How many of my honorable friends opposite belong, for instance, to the party that would close the bar upstairs, and how many to the party desiring that it should, be kept open ? How many of them are strong on the Sunday question, and how many are adverse to racing and different forms of gambling? The parties in this community are numerous, and most of us can be classified as members of quite a number of different parties. As somebody else has remarked, driving a coach-and-four through this Bill is the simplest of all operations, and may be performed in a great variety of directions. I am quite sure that this clause offers opportunities in that regard which are not elsewhere excelled in the measure, and that is saying a good deal. In Committee weshall have an opportunity of considering the question which has already been raised in regard to sectional newspapers - that is, newspapers published in the interests of a particular party, such as the anti-liquor party, or of the industrial party, which stand apart from ordinary journals expressing the views of all sections of the community and covering a much wider area. The object of this proposal is, of course, a political one. It is to swell the amount which may be debited to one political party, and to diminish the amount which can be debited to another political party, with a view to making a contrast which may have some value from an electioneering stand-point. (Beyond that it can scarcely go. If the intention were to deal more strictly with what are properly termed “corrupt” practices, I am sure that everybody would welcome the proposal. Every community contains a certain percentage of unscrupulous persons who refuse to obey the law, and who pay little regard to the rights of their fellows. They can, and ought to be, dealt with severely. This proposition is put forward to provide political ammunition, most of it in the form of blank cartridge, although as blank cartridge it may be useful in that it will attract attention. Yet the wisdom of putting this long, loosely-drawn proposal before a Chamber of this -kind at a time when our attention is called to the many serious matters involved, is exceedingly questionable.

Mr J H Catts:

– Does not the honorable member think that it will help us to determine whether candidates are keeping within the prescribed limit in the matter of their election expenses?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I hardly think that, because the clause provides that “ every organization, association, league, or body bf persons, which has, in connexion with any election, expended any money, or incurred any expense,” shall furnish a return. I do not see how their expenditure can throw much reflected light upon the expenditure of a particular candidate. But every political organization must show the expenditure which it has incurred on behalf of, or in the interests of, any candidate, or on behalf of, or in the interests of, any political “ party.” That will raise more questions than any Court will determine in a day. After all, it will be largely a matter of speculation as to what expenditure is “on behalf of, or in the interests of, a candidate. ‘ ‘ I have known expenditure intended to be in the interests of a candidate, but which certainly was not. The difficulties in regard to the second portion of the clause are innumerable.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– This clause had its genesis in the recent referenda.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It is not one of the successes of that referenda. This is a freak. How is anybody to discriminate between expenditure “ on behalf of, or in the interests of, a candidate,” and expenditure “ on behalf of, or in the interests of, a. political party “ ? Is this clause to be used as a. weapon to prevent the dissemination of political information - to stop the discussion of principles, the unfolding of policies, or the statement and re-statement of conflicting views in respect of those policies? Where is the limit to be drawn ? One general effect of the clause, which I must assume to be wholly unintentional, is that under these two headings, it will include all educational publications, if they are of a political character. Although they may be directed to die whole community, they may also be, for the benefit of more than one candidate and more than one party. Yet no discrimination can be exercised in respect to them. One could take the columns of a newspaper and say that the leading article, as a whole, favoured the Ministry in power, that a cross-headed article on another page must be credited to the opposing party, that a paragraph in one portion of the paper assisted a particular candidate, whilst a statement in another portion favoured a rival candidate. The whole clause presents a net-work of complications which can never be unravelled, arid from which conclusions will be most difficult to draw. If the object be to separate any expenditure solely devoted to political ends, one can find plenty of cases of that sort. But taking it as a whole, or as separate propositions, this particular clause is an attempt to lassoo shadows. It would be possible to continue this kind of criticism indefinitely, dealing with the measure clause by clause. But the proper place for such a discussion is in Committee, and I do not think that I have overstepped the limitations imposed by a second-reading debate. The Minister of Home Affairs is to be congratulated upon having circulated amongst honorable members copies of the principal Act with the amendments which this Bill seeks to make in that Act.

Mr Ryrie:

– All amending Bills should be printed in the same way.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes. It is most helpful to any one wishing to study the effect of amendments, which, taken by themselves, are apt to be puzzling, but, printed in their context, enable one to understand the relation of the various propositions ‘to each other, and to obtain a grip of the whole. I hope that the practice will be followed in regard to future amending Bills. The circumstances under which this measure will pass its second reading are ominous. I doubt whether it will receive in Committee the full and searching investigation which it requires.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– It will. ‘ >:

Mr DEAKIN:

– Honorable members opposite, jaded by an all-night sitting of their own choice, have not the receptive minds necessary to enable our proposals to bear fruit. This is a measure which should be dealt with in daylight, because it needs light to be thrown on it in every part, and under ordinary circumstances useful and practical amendments might be proposed. But that is out of the question at this stage. If, in regard to one measure more than another, Liberal principles must be kept constantly in mind and in free play, it is in regard to Bills dealing with the fundamental electoral rights of the people, which constitute the basis of our democratic system of government.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– At this period of the session, and this hour of the night, it is not desirable to occupy more time than is unavoidable ; but the Bill makes such important amendments in our electoral law that I cannot allow the second-reading stage to pass without expressing my opinions on one or two vital matters. The Leader of the Opposition referred to certain ideal arrangements to which he would like effect to be given, but when at the head of the Government he had the opportunity to propose reforms, and he did nothing.

Mr Tudor:

– Did he not write a memorandum on the subject? Mr. J. H. CATTS.- He has written so many memoranda that he has probably dealt with this subject among the many that he has touched. When at the head of a Government with thirteen supporters, hie made no proposal for the introduction of preferential voting. At the time, his being the third eleven in the field, most of his supporters represented minorities.

The first Electoral Act was passed in 1902, and it was amended by Acts passed in 1903, 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1909. Now, in 1911, we are considering a sixth amending Bill. Every Parliament, and nearly every session, has an electoral measure to consider, and probably this state of things will continue. The reason is that electoral systems are largely in the experimental stage, and the contests which they control are conducted so fiercely that their weaknesses are quickly exposed, and amendments become necessary after nearly every election. Probably this measure will be the subject of an amending Bill next Parliament.

The provision for compulsory enrolment is. quite new. My experience in Connexion with a metropolitan constituency is that thousands of namesare left off the rolls. In my division, 2,000 or more names have been added to the rolls as the result of a canvass by my supporters ; but; when polling day comes, there will be large numbers complaining that they are disfranchised. Compulsory enrolment may cause friction at first, but in the end it will bring about a complete enrolment of the electors of the Commonwealth, and the true expression of the opinions of the community, whenever public interest in politics is sufficiently stirred. It should be remembered that already our citizens are compelled to register marriages, births, and deaths. Those who keep dogs have to register them, and within certain areas pigs must be registered. Trading companies have to register their business names, and when the census is taken, each householder registers those who are residing in hishouse, giving their ages and other particulars about them. No more important duty can be put on a citizen than that of enrolling, so that he may be able to take a part in the conduct of national affairs . If compulsory enrolment-is. justified in regard to births, deaths, and marriages, and other matters, it can, be justified in this sphere.

I am glad to see. that Saturday is to be polling day, and that the hours of polling are to be extended. Whatever day is fixed, some difficulty is sure to arise with sections of the community ; but Ihonestly believe that Saturday will be the most convenient for the largest number of people. The Leader of the Opposition offered a suggestion which may lead to a practical solution of the difficulty, by providing that persons such as he referred to should be allowed to record their votes as absent voters, . probably the day before.. That might be a means of getting over a difficulty which I am very anxious to find some means of meeting. I will go so far as to say that I shallbe prepared to vote for an amendment which will enable those people to vote as absent voters the day before polling day.

I am not going to vote for the abolition of postal voting. I have seen the operation of the system.

Mr Ryrie:

– I call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am reminded by an honorable member that I voted for. the abolition of postal voting in 1909. At that time, we were in Opposition against a majority; and I have no doubt that I responded to an appeal for the party to be solid, and that probably there was very little chance of the proposal being carried. Whatever honorable members argue from the vote given on that occasion, I shall not vote for the provisions of this Bill repealing the postal vote. I believe the candidate who is most energetic and effective in organizing his electorate will’ get the majority of postal votes; and if my opponent can organize my electorate better than I can, he can have them, because he will have won the seat. I have had the majority of postal votes in my electorate, so far.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– A self-confessed manipulator.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I made no reference to the manipulation of postal votes. All those I obtained were honestly obtained, so far as I am aware; and I believe the same applies to my opponent. Probably there have been abuses of the system; but so there have been with regard to practically every provision in the Act. He would be a bold man who would stand up in the House and say that the provisions of the Act regarding election expenses had not been evaded at practically -every election. The provisions of this Bill with regard to absent voting are so liberal that if postal voting were abolished altogether, only persons who were actually invalids, and who could not go to a polling booth for weeks before an election, would be prevented from voting. My difficulty with regard to the proposed abolition of postal voting is, however, that I know that women at certain times feel the greatest diffidence in going to’ vote at a place around which crowds of men are standing.

Mr Page:

– No woman ought to be ashamed about that.

Mr J H CATTS:

– There is no question of shame involved.

Mr Page:

– It is mock modesty.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It is all very well to cast about for reasons to satisfy ourselves upon the point, but we all know that it is very embarrassing for women in an interesting condition to have to go where a crowd of young unmarried men are standing about and passing remarks as they approach. I should not ask my wife, in such circumstances, to go to a polling booth.

Mr Fenton:

– I should ask my wife, and, as a matter of fact, she would go without being asked. She loves her country too well to neglect the right to vote.. ‘ , . . . . ‘

Mr J H CATTS:

– Very well. I ana casting no reflection on such women. I. only say that I do not feel disposed toplace others who think differently in a position in which they would either have togo to a polling booth in such circumstances,, or be refused the right to vote. I admit, the difficulties that have occurred with regard to postal voting. Instances of manipulation have been brought under my notice, and I remember the Queensland episode, which brought about the abolition of postal voting there. At the same time,. I do not feel that I should be justified invoting to practically disfranchise women in. a delicate state of health, who feel that they should not be called upon to run the gantlet of a gaping crowd of young men. Women in such a condition, and who probably take a keen interest in party politics,, should not be deprived of their right te* vote.

I come now to the question of electoral expenses. The employing classes of’ Australia have apparently made up their minds that it is much against their intereststhat a Labour party should be occupying the Treasury bench. They are opposed! to the legislation of this party. They regard it as inimical to their monetary interests, and if it is a matter of saving them hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands, of pounds in respect of wages - if it is a question of this party placing some limitation) upon exorbitant profits made by speculators, which have the effect of depriving; the great masses of the workers of the product of their labour - they regard as a mere bagatelle the putting up of large sums: of money in electioneering contests in order to defeat the party which they consider isopposed to their pecuniary interests. Inorder to safeguard the purity of our elections - in order to prevent this debauching, of the constituencies with pounds, shillings,, and pence - it is the duty of this Parliament, and particularly of this party, te* see that the provisions with respect to electoral expenses are of the most stringentcharacter. We have heard of the numeroussums of money that were expended in connexion with the recent referenda, and instances in which the money power i* operating in electoral interests come to my mind. Large sums of money are spent with the various newspapers. Informationhas come to me in a confidential manner, so that I am unable to give my authority ‘ for it, but at the same timeI am absolutely convinced of its accuracy. As a matter of fact, there has :’been no exaggeration on this side of the House ; if anything, there has been an underestimate of the tremendous power that the money-bags of Australia wield in the elections, and which they wielded at the recent referenda. At the next election, we shall see an attack made upon the con.stituencies by the monopolies, and the great moneyed interests of Australia. We should therefore take time by the forelock, and prevent this debauching of the constituencies not for national ends - not to secure national progress - but so that the exploiters of the general public may have freedom from the legislative restrictions which the majority would impose upon them if they could be properly represented in the Commonwealth Parliament.

We come next to the position of newspapers. The Bill provides that any newspaper article which is paid for shall be so headed as to indicate that it is an advertisement. As a matter of fact, a great many of what people believe to be news items in the press to- day are neither more nor less than advertisements, paid for at so much an inch. When a. State Governor delivered an address at a certain institution, a reporter from a newspaper told the secretary of that in stitution .that’ the proprietors were prepared to report His Excellency’s speech if it were paid for at so much per inch, but that they were not prepared to report it unless it were paid for.

Mr Tudor:

– Perhaps it was worth paying for.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Probably it was. Many of the reports of addresses delivered !by chairmen of banks at their annual meetings, and of annual meetings of insurance companies, that appear in the newspapers as news items are really paid for as advertisements. During the last election -campaign, the proprietor of a small newspaper in my electorate told me that he was -going to support the Labour party in politics. Three weeks afterwards a stinging article appeared misrepresenting my position in the previous Parliament, and the paper containing it was distributed throughout my electorate. When I saw the editor again, I said to him, “ I do not object to your printing what you like in your paper, but it is remarkable that, after telling me a week ago that you were going to give an enthusiastic support to the party to which ; I belong, and after I have given you an advertisement, arid paid .for it at so much &.n inch, you should turn round and print an article, giving me a particularly un. happy time.” To this he replied, “The secretary of the Liberal Reform Association came and offered me four times the ordinary rate for this criticism to appear in the leading column as editorial matter;, and I cannot afford to quarrel with my bread and butter.”

Mr Mcwilliams:

– He must have been a very poor type of journalist.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The great majority of the newspapers printed to-day are conducted by men of the same type; if you pay so much an inch you can get what matter you like printed. I remind honorable members that Senator Fraser has made the statement that the columns of the Age are open to purchasers at so much an inch in the same way.

Mr Tudor:

– The advertising columns dictate the policy of the paper.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes; newspapers are not philanthropic institutions. The proprietors are not so much concerned with the welfare of the country as with the dividends of the shareholders, and whatever policy suits the financial side is the policy pursued. It would be of great advantage if articles which are neither more nor less than advertisements are set forth in their true light, for they will then not be taken by the public as independent criticism by a journal operating purely and simply in the interests of the people. This provision relating to newspapers will also be of value in helping to determine the election expenditure by various candidates, because a check will be provided on the sums spent in advertising.

The Bill places a veto on the employment of paid canvassers ; and of this I quite approve. We have the Employers Federation, of Australia overrunning the electorates with hired canvassers, many of whom do not believe in the policy of the federation,, but, from necessity, accept such employment.

Mr Groom:

– How will the provision affect trade union organizers?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am prepared to place trade union organizers in the same position as other paid organizers if they engage in political canvassing. I desire no party advantage in this connexion ; and if, when we are in Committee, it is shown that any party colouring or bias attaches to the clause, I shall be with those who desire to amend it as to make it apply fairly all round. The balance-sheets of al)- tirade unions are presented year by year to the registrars in the various States, and they are accessible to anybody in the community who is prepared to pay, in some instances, perhaps, asmall fee of 2s. 6d., or who will take the trouble, as in New South Wales, to merely apply for them, when they will be supplied gratuitously. The huge funds of the Employers Federation are being used for the purpose of swamping the electorate in an effort to defeat candidates whose object is to pass laws toplace a limit on grasping greed. We ought to know exactly where this money comes from, and how it is spent, so that there may be a means of checking the returns in regard to election expenses.

Mr Fenton:

– The Employers Federation sent out candidates during the Victorian State election, saying, “It is all right, we will pay the expenses.”

Mr J H CATTS:

– We all know what is being done; the Opposition if they were in our place would be taking similar steps to those now proposed to purify elections. At present, however, it suits the Opposition to leave things as they are. The money of the Employers. Federation is spent on the party to which they belong, and helps them to retain their seats ; and, of course, they make a most vigorous protest against any limit being placed on the expenditure. I should have liked to deal at greater length with this Bill, which introduces a number of novel principles ; but time will not permit. I thought it advisable to refer to one or two of the principal provisions, because the Bill may proceed in Committee with such lightning rapidity as to prevent my placing my views on record. We have had some little experience of legislation at this period of the session, and this hour of the morning, especially when the honorable member tor Darling Downs was on the Ministerial side.

Mr Groom:

– We gave the Opposition every opportunity to express their views.

Mr J H CATTS:

– We were not treated with the fairness that is extended to the present Opposition, seeing that we were repeatedly pulled up with the proposal “ That the question be now put.” The Labour party believe in fair play, and in giving every honorable member an opportunity to express his views. I have no doubt that when the Bill emerges from Committee it. will go a long way towards purifying our elections, and enable the will of the great majority of the people to be represented in both Housesof Parliament.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I ask the Minister in charge whether he will, at this late hour, consent to an adjournment?

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We shall go on for an hour or two yet.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It would be much better to resume the session in January than to deal with an important Bill in this way. I ask any honorable member to say whether, up to the ordinary hour of adjournment to-night, there was the slightest-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member confine himself to the Bill ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I was merely going to say that I do not think the Government are treating the subject of electoral reform-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

-Am I not in order in saying that I do not think a measure of this kind is being dealt with in a way its importance demands by keeping honorable members sitting the whole clock round.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I am sorry I am not allowed to ventilate my opinion on procedure, because-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have three times called the honorable member to order, and now he is trying to evade my ruling. The honorable member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I can assure you, sir, that I am not trying to evade your ruling. During the debate, I have been sorry to hear the attacks made on organizations and on canvassers. I have the privilege of knowing, in my own State, some of the most ardent canvassers on both sides.; and, so far as I have been able to judge, they have always fought elections as fairly as we have any right to expect. At the lastelections our side was beaten; and I think the contest was fairly and squarely conducted by both parties. What is the reason for a good deal of the condemnation of organization we have heard, especially from the honorable member for Maribyrnong and the honorablemember for Melbourne Ports? Last session, and the session before, those honorable members held up the women’s organization to all kinds of ridicule as associations of “ tabbies.” It was a common interjection that certainhonorable members were away “ addressing the tabbies.” During the last three months, however, it has been discovered that the “tabbies” have claws, and the ridicule has turned into unfair abuse. I would appeal to these honorable members to give exactly the same amount of credit to their opponents as they claim for themselves. In all’ future contests the organizations will be the bedrock and the keystone of our electoral system. Unless the proposed compulsory enrolment is taken in hand by the organizations, I think that a very small percentage of the persons entitled to vote will enroll. We know that at, election after election the organizations on both sides are becoming more and more complete. Australia is following in the footsteps of the Old Country and the United States, where elections are run, and to a very large extent governed, by great party organizations. In Australia there is much need for electoral reform. What we really need is the introduction of a compulsory preferential system of voting. In most of the States we find that system or a second ballot in use. In New South Wales the second ballot has not met with the support of either side, and I believe that in the very near future it will give way to the preferential system. It is generally admitted, I think, that in Western Australia the preferential system is a success. It is now conceded that at the recent general election in Victoria it was a success.

Mr Roberts:

– Ask Sir Henry Weedon.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

-His case shows the absolute fairness of the preferential system. He did not have a majority of the votes cast, and therefore he had no right to the seat. The majority of the Labour voters, finding that they could not secure the return of Mr. Opitz, preferred Mr. Farthing to Sir Henry Weedon. The two sections combined were in a majority, and had a right to get their candidate elected.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– It was not a case of option; they had tovote whether they liked to do so or not.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Without compulsion the preferential voting system is a farce. It was tried in Queensland, and I think that there is no representative in that Slate who will not say that it was used to any great extent.

Mr Page:

– At first it was.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

-It was used until the party organizations got to work, and then, to a very large extent, the system was reduced to plumping, and in the majority of cases the electors voted for only one candidate.

Mr Page:

– Why should I be compelled to vote for a Liberal candidate ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I do not desire to go fully into that matter now, because I intend to explain the whole system as it obtains in many of the States, when I move the insertion of a clause of which I Have given notice. I believe that the candidate who gains a majority of the votes should come to Parliament.

Mr Page:

– Yes; but that does not answermy question.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I believe that without the preferential vote there is always the risk of a split vote. We had some figures given by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports in connexion with the last Senate election; but his analysis of the voting, does not go deep’ enough. In Queensland and Victoria the candidates who were elected had not a majority of the votes cast. In Queensland there were eight candidates; in Victoria there were nine candidates; while in New South Wales there were nine candidates,’ though the last three did not poll a sufficient number to interfere with the result, and the three successful candidates would have been returned under any system which could have been adopted, exclusive of the proportional voting.

Mr Riley:

– There were ten candidates. Mr. John Norton was a candidate.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The number of the candidates did not interfere with the result of the election, because the three who were returned had a majority over all the others. In Victoria, however, exactly the reverse obtained. The three candidates who were elected polled 648,889 votes, while 692,474 Votes were cast for the other candidates. Although the latter were in a majority of nearly 50,000, yet the former were elected. In Queensland the numbers were not quite so strong, but I think that the figures show conclusively that, if only six candidates had stood, the result would have been different, because the third of the successful candidates polled 80,339 votes, while the first of the defeated candidates polled 77,895, and a seventh candidate polled 6,055.As the votes of the latter would almost certainly have been given to one of the defeated candidates, the result would have been entirely different. I do not think that there is any honorable member who is prepared to say that any man ought to come here to voice the opinions of his constituents unless he has a majority of the electors at his back. What are the alterations proposed in this Bill ? The absent vote is extended, and the postal vote is abolished. For fifty years in Australia there has been a steady advance in the direction of enfranchising electors and granting them voting facilities.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member must forget the act of the honorable member for Flinders, when he was Premier of Victoria, in taking votes away from public servants.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– -Nobody would have howled more loudly against it than would the honorable member.

Mr Fenton:

– I certainly did.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– The gist of the honorable member’s speech was “ to ‘ those who you think will vote for me give the vote, but from those who you think will vote against me take away the vote.” Then he quoted Queensland, where he knew, or ought to have known, that the circumstances were entirely different. What was the provision in the Queensland Act? It was this : that any female voter who desired to vote through the Post Office might do so. It abolished the ballot-box, so far as one-half of the electors of that State were concerned.

Mr Fenton:

– How did the men avail themselves of it?

Mr Mcwilliams:

Any male elector who on polling day will be absent from the district for which he is enrolled and who desires to vote through the post-office may not later than the second day preceding polling day apply to the returning officer for a postal certificate.

That is exactly what the Government propose to do under their absent voting system. It is precisely the same as that which has been abolished in Queensland.

Mr Roberts:

– That is wrong.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I have quoted the provision of the Act. It has been the proud boast of Australia that the ballot-box was open to every man and woman except criminals and lunatics, and it has remained for the Labour Government and their supporters to add another bar to the enfranchisement of people. In future the three classes barred will be “criminals, lunatics, and sick persons, especially women.” We have had repeated here the usual tittle-tattle of defeated candidates. Some of them are always complaining that they have been unfairly treated. My opponent polled more postal votes, than I did, and I feel quite confident that every one of them was obtained honorably and legitimately.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I think that we ought to have a quorum, sir. [Quorum formed.]

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– It has been said by honorable members opposite that it was amusing during this debate to notice how those who formerly opposed the extension of the franchise ardently advocated postal voting. That does not apply to me, because in my own State I had the honour of carrying adult suffrage through the House of Assembly for the first time. But is it not amusing to find honorable members who are always talking about their democratic principles, and about the wisdom of extending the franchise in connexion with Legislative Councils, municipal councils, and all other bodies, standing forward to reduce the franchise and take away the right to vote from a large portion of the electors? All over the world there has been steady progress in the direction of the enfranchisement of the people, and yet it remains for the Labour party of Australia to turn back the hands of the clock and endeavour to deprive thousands of people of the right to vote. Why ? Because it is suspected that a large number of these people voted against the Labour party at the last election. If there have been the grave irregularities of which we hear so much, why was not action taken? Not half-a-dozen cases of abuse of the postal voting provisions have been brought before the Courts. Why deprive thousands of people of voting facilities because some other persons are alleged by street corner gossip, or the tittle-tattle of defeated candidates smarting under defeat, to have abused the system? Possibly it has been abused. Every section of the Electoral Act has been abused. There is no member of this House who has not had injudicious friends who have occasionally done that of which he disapproved. But iS that any reason why the Government should come along with a broadsword and say, “ Because certain persons have committed offences against the electoral law, we are going to deprive sick people who are unable to leave home on polling day of the right to vote?” If a man has a broken arm he can vote. If he has a broken, leg he cannot. What greater absurdity could be perpetrated? If any runaway sailors who have deserted their ship remain in Australia and get on the roll, they will have the privilege of voting as absent voters, even if they have left Australia for ever. But a person born and bred in this country, who meets with an accident prior to election day is disfranchised. Why? Because Ministers and their supporters have discovered that a greater proportion’ of postal votes was recorded for their opponents than for themselves. It is a curious thing that some of the most ardent supporters of the postal vote when it was instituted are now sitting on the Ministerial side and advocating the abolition of the system. Let honorable members turn up Hansard, and they will find that that is so. lt was a splendid game to play when there was organization only on one side ; but now that there .is organization on both sides, and honorable members opposite have been beaten at their own game, instead of taking their defeat as all politicians ought to do, there is a perpetual whine going up about the unfairness of their opponents. Such has been the case in Victoria during the last three weeks. We hear on all hands from defeated Labour men of the wickedness of their opponents. Do honorable members opposite think they are going to save their political lives merely by abolishing postal voting? They are like drowning men catching at straws. One would think, to hear them talk, that the great bulk of the postal voting took place in cities and suburbs. But that is not so. The greater number of postal votes was cast in country electorates.

Mr King O’Malley:

– F - Forty-eight per cent, in the country, and 51 per cent, in the towns.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I believe that Laanecoorie headed the list in Victoria.

Mr King O’Malley:

– N - No; I will hand the honorable member the official figures.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– According to the figures which the Minister has kindly handed to me, Bendigo headed the list with 1,489 postal votes, Laanecoorie Comes next with 1,050, Corangamite 765, Kooyong 849, Balaclava 485, Ballarat 918. The bulk of the postal votes was not obtained in the cities and suburbs at all.

Mr King O’Malley:

– A - Are not Ballarat and Bendigo cities?

Mr Tudor:

– Ballarat is nearly as big as all Tasmania, in the matter of population.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I refer to the metropolitan areas, and they do not include Bendigo and Ballarat. In Laanecoorie, and other country electorates, the postal voting was heavier than in the metropolitan areas. There is no electorate in the Commonwealth in which hundreds of voters will not be disfranchised by this Bill. I have no sympathy with those who used the postal vote improperly; but I say that if Ministers were informed, on the advice of their officials, that the system was abused, it was their bounden duty to take action in the matter. Is the abuse of the postal voting provisions the only breach of our electoral law that has taken place? The Minister of Home Affairs was successful in securing the insertion of a very important section in the existing Act, rendering any person creating a disturbance at a public meeting liable to prosecution. We had howling mobs of lunatics attending many public meetings in the various cities of Australia during the referenda campaign. As a result, many speakers were refused a hearing, but not a single person was prosecuted for disturbing meetings held during that campaign.

Mr Hall:

– Because the section referred to is specifically limited to meetings held in connexion with contests between candidates for election to this Parliament.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I know that the Minister of Home Affairs, in connexion with the referenda campaign, held that it was to be conducted under the Electoral Act, and under precisely the same conditions as applied to an election for this Parliament. There is another very important clause, which 1 feel sure must, have been included in this Bill without due consideration. I had the honour to present a petition to this House signed by certain members of a religious body known as the Seventh Day Adventists. They made a courteous request to Parliament not to decide to hold elections on the Saturday, which is their Sabbath, as they would be disfranchised if that were done. We should pay great respect to a conscientious objection of this kind. It is true that the Seventh Day Adventists are not numerically a strong body, but from a personal knowledge of many of them I am prepared to say that there are no more law-abiding citizens in the Commonwealth. Have we any right to disfranchise these people? Do not honorable members know that if they were a numerous sect, and could ‘count their votes by hundreds of thousands, their request would be acceded to immediately? If any of the larger sects came to this Par*liament and asked that elections should not be held upon a certain day because they had religious scruples against recording their votes on that day this Parliament would, as it ought, accede to their request.

Mr Mathews:

– There are hundreds of thousands of working men in the Commonwealth who cannot record a vote until after 6 p.m. at any election.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If it can be shown that the hours of polling should be extended to enable electors to record their votes I shall be prepared to agree to any extension that may be shown to be necessary. I am not prepared, however, to debar one qualified elector in Australia from the right to record his vote. It would have been very much better if this Bill had been referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. We might then, with the advantage of information upon the electoral systems adopted elsewhere, be in a position to frame an electoral law which would give the greatest possible facilities to electors to exercise their right to vote. Let it not be said that the great National Parliament of Australia has set the example to British communities of taking away from the people already enfranchised their right to vote. I am sure that this Bill is introduced for party purposes. Not a single legitimate reason has been given for the’ proposed abolition of postal voting or for the proposal to hold all elections on a Saturday. If I am told that the Saturday is a half-holiday, my reply is that that is not universal. In many places the compulsory half-holiday is observed on the Wednesday. In my opinion, it would be better to proclaim a general half -holiday on election day than to decide to hold all elections on a Saturday. Personally, I should be prepared to compel every employer to give his employes whatever time off might be necessary to record their votes. I remember hearing the Minister of Home Affairs, many years ago, speaking of the blessings of extending the franchise to all our brethren and sisters; but it has fallen to his lot to be the first Minister in Australia to rob certain electors of the privilege of the franchise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has used that phrase several times, and I remind him that it is not parliamentary.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If I am not permitted to say that this Bill proposes to rob electors of their right to vote, 1 shall say that it takes their votes from electors without their consent.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - That is a mistake, because we are here by a majority vote.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– My honorable friend will not be where he is very long. He should take from the people all he can during the next eighteen months, for after that time he will not have the opportunity to do so for a very long time. The results of the election for Boothby and of the recent Victorian State elections are the writing on the wall which our honorable friends opposite can read.

Mr Scullin:

– And the results of the Western Australian State elections.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– They were a splendid victory for the Labour party; but,

On the figures, the Labour party will just as certainly fail in Victoria. At the last Federal elections they received a majority of 28,000 votes, but were in a minority of over 88,000 at the polling the other day. Honorable members can realize what that means. It shows that the pendulum has swung. The Minister of Home Affairs is so well versed in Scripture that I am sure he will remember the story of the unjust steward. The enfranchisement of the people is important, but their disenfranchisement is of still more vital importance, and I say that it is not. treating Parliament or the people, and especially those from whom it is proposed to take the right to vote, as they should be treated when a Bill of this kind is rushed through at an all-night sitting in such a House as this. After a ninemonths’ holiday - the longest recess ever taken-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to confine himself to the question.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I am endeavouring to show that this Bill should have been before Parliament months ago, when it might have been fairly discussed, and it would have been ifMinisters and so many members of this House had not proceeded across the seas for their own enjoyment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I submit that it has a great deal to do with the fact that this Bill was not introduced months ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The question is not whether the Bill should have been introducedmonths ago. We have to consider the Bill before the House, and what is contained in it.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Shall I be in order, sir, in pointing out that we have not sufficient time at our disposal to give the important clauses of this Bill the consideration which they merit ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The discussion of the clauses of the measure will take place in Committee.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We have not the time at our disposal to bestow proper consideration upon its provisions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The; honorable member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Rather than attempt to enact such important legislation in the brief period which is at pur disposal before Christmas, it would be better for us to adjourn and reassemble after the New Year.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must deal with the Bill, or I shall direct him to discontinue his speech.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order. Is it not possible for an honorable member to protest against this Bill being brought forward when we have not time to adequately discuss it? From time immemorial that practice has been followed. What is an Opposition to do, if it may not do that?

Mr SPEAKER:

– When a Bill is before the House, my duty is to see that honorable members discuss it. So. long as the honorable member for Franklin debated the Bill, I did not call him to order. But I am the sole judge of what is relevant to the question before the Chair.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is quite true, sir, that you are the sole judge of what is relevant to the question before the Chair, so long as the House permits you to be. But is an honorable member not discussing the Bill when he proteststhat it is impossible in the limited time at our disposal to properly consider it? Surely that is relevant to the debate on this occasion ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Franklin will be distinctly outof order if he adopts that line of argument.

Mr Groom:

– Upon a point of order, I would point out that the motion before the Chair is, “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I submit that an honorable member is in order in assigning reasons why it should not be read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall wait till those reasons are forthcoming.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We all know that, nowadays, organizations play an exceedingly important part in connexion with elections. There are certain clauses in this Bill which deal with the way in which organizations shall conduct their business.

As the honorable member for Cook has pointed out, it would be very easy to drive a coach-and-four through this portion of the measure. Certain organizations employ agents, who, if they are not paid for their services, certainly deserve to be paid. Take the Australian Workers Union as an illustration. It appoints certain organizers to go through particular districts to do its work. They do that work occasionally, but the greater portion of their time is devoted to political campaigning.

Mr Roberts:

– The Australian Workers Union appoints special political organizers apart from industrial organizers.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable Minister is quite wrong. In my own State, the paid organizers of that union spend the greater portion of their time in political campaigning.

Mr Spence:

– They all have to do political as well as industrial work.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Quite so. Suppose that a man is paid£6 a week by the Australian Workers Union, and that he spends one-third of his time in political organization ; under this Bill, will one-third of his salary be credited to expenditure incurred “ on behalf of, or in the interests of a party?” The same question may be asked in connexion with the Liberal organizations. To my mind, we ought not to import party politics into our electoral laws. There has never been a Bill submitted to this Parliament which has been so saturated from cover to cover with party politics as is this measure. We know that as the years go by, political organizations are extending throughout Australia. These organizations have done more to arouse electors to a sense of their responsibilities than has any other agency. We know, too, that in many electorates under 50 per cent. of the electors who are enrolled exercise the franchise. Were it not for these organizations, the proportion of those who vote would probably fall to 30 per cent. Instead of penalizing such organizations, so long as they play the game fairly and conduct their campaigns upon legitimate lines, we ought to encourage them. I do not like to hear men who owe their positions in this House to political organizations abusing organizations which have been formed in the interests of the opposite political camp. Let us play the game fairly, and do not let us indulge in the whining which was a, special feature of the speeches of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports and the honorable member for Maribyrnong. If men are not prepared to accept political defeat they should not enter the political arena. I do not believe that the postal voting system has been abused to any material extent. I admit that it may have been abused, but far greater abuse exists in personification, because men who have been dead for months have been resurrected on polling day, and have recorded their votes. I should like to see adopted the system which obtains in connexion with the Tasmanian State elections, in which every voter is compelled to sign his or her name on the margin of the roll. Where a hundred persons could be got to personate under the Commonwealth system, not one would do so if compelled, before voting, to sign on the roll the name of the person, absent or dead, whom he represents himself to be. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the suggestion that the Tasmanian practice should be embodied in the Commonwealth legislation. This Parliament, and the Parliaments of most of the States, have abolished, in the interests of honorable members rather than of the public, the practice of compelling those taking office to submit themselves to their constituencies for re-election.

Mr Groom:

– The English practice.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– A very good practice, too. Nothing has done more to keep politics pure.

Mr Roberts:

– What a havoc that practice would have made of the Fusion Administration !

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– A constituency, as a rule, is only too proud to discover that the man of its choice has been honoured by the offer of a portfolio, and the member who has done nothing dishonorable or improper to secure promotion will have nothing to fear in facing his constituents; but the system gives the electors an opportunity to express disapproval of anything that is not straight and aboveboard. The Minister knows that insistence upon the practice in Federal politics would not affect him for many years, and I urge him to considerthe advisability of adopting it in this measure. For some totally unexplained reason, the Government propose to take the nominationform out of the schedule of the Act, and provide for it by regulation approved bythe Governor-General in Council. Surely this is a matter which we cannot afford to “monkey” about. Every intending candidate should know what form he must fill in and sign to make a valid nomination in accordance with law. It may happen that a man, having to leave Australia on business a short time before the holding of an election, may wish to leave a properly-signed nomination-paper behind ; but under the system which the Minister wishes to provide for, there would be no guarantee that a change would not be made in the form before the nomination could take effect, and the paper left behind might prove informal.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We shall not take the form out of the Act. The proposal to deal with the matter by regulation was made to meet the case of a referendum.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– As it is to the interest of all political parties to have our electoral law as perfect as possible, I trust that the Bill will not be treated as a party measure. As to the compulsory enrolment provision, I understand that those whose names are now on the roll will not be disfranchised, even if they fail to send in their cards.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - That is so.

Mr Groom:

– But every elector is asked to send in a card.

Mr King O’Malley:

– C - Certainly; but those whom we miss may still vote if their names are on the roll.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The elector whose name was on the roll, but who had not sent in a card, or whose card had been mislaid or lost, might, on presenting himself at the polling booth, find himself charged with a breach of the compulsory enrolment provision ; and the onus of proving his innocence would be thrown upon him.” He would be compelled to prove that, perhaps, twelve months previously, he had done something which it would be difficult to remember had been done, and almost impossible to prove. I think that only in prosecutions under the Customs Act is the onus of proving innocence thrown upon the person charged with an offence. This provision may operate hardly upon persons living in remote places - prospectors, for example, in the wilder parts of the Darwin division. How could such men prove that a year previously they had complied with this requirement of the law ? A prosecution would mean the loss of two or three days’ work. In connexion with abuses of the postal voting system, personation and other serious offences, the well-known principle of British justice, that a man shall be considered innocent until proved to be guilty, applies; but when charged’ with the comparatively trifling offence of neglecting to enroll, the defendant has thrown on him the onus of proving his innocence. Compulsory enrolment does not affect the exercise of the franchise by those whose names are already on the roll.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - There are about 2,400,000 names on the roll.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– -Its value will be in securing the enrolment of what have been termed “ flappers “-the young persons who are a little over eighteen at the time of one election, and have reached the age of twenty-one before the next is held - and of new comers to the Commonwealth. Were the existing roll to be abolished, probably not 33 per cent, of the electors would be on the new roll, because all who have had experience of electoral matters know how even the best arrangements for bringing about enrolment are apt to break down.

Mr King O’Malley:

– We We started the card system on the 9th June, and it is a great success ; the best system we have had in Australia.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I am a supporter of compulsory enrolment, and I shall vote for it in Committee if a division is called for. I hope there will be no Ministerial interference in the appointment of the assistant electoral officers.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - If the Minister finds that they are partisans they will go.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member should not put out one partisan to put in another on the other side. Will the Minister make provision in this, Bill to place the Chief Electoral Officer, like the Auditor-General, and the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, in a position of absolute freedom from political influence? Under the Act as it will read if this unfortunate Bill becomes law, enormous responsibilities and power will be placed in the hands of the officers intrusted with the carrying out of the elections. They must have that power, and it is not right that there should be Ministerial interference with them. No one should welcome such a reform more than the Minister himself. In the interests of the purity of elections and of a fair deal between candidate and candidate, the Chief Electoral Officer ought to be removed altogether from political influence and patronage. With him should rest the appointments of those who carry out the elections, and he should be held absolutely responsible for the whole business.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - If a member wants a polling booth, and he refuses, will the member blame the Minister? If he takes one power he must take all.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It might, perhaps, not be a bad thing if he were to have absolute control of the provision of polling booths. I am prepared to agree to that rather than see the present conditions remain. This Bill is a complete patchwork. In fact, ever since I have been in the Federal Parliament we have spent about one-fifth of our time in passing laws, and four-fifths in amending them. This Bill does not deal effectively with anything. The question of preferential voting will have to be considered, because wherever it has been applied it has been admittedly a success. In Tasmania, the Hare system is applied to general elections, and the preferential system to byelections. Opinion is divided on the virtues of the Hare system, but two leading members of the Labour party in the Tasmanian Parliament assured me that they did not think there was one member in their party who would vote to abolish the preferential voting system.. It gets over the pre-election system, which is one of the worst features of our present methods. It is not right that any organization or party should come between a candidate and the electors, saying to him, “ Unless you get a majority of a comparatively small number of people to support you, you shall not stand.” Under our present system, to accept pre-election, a candidate in those circumstances has to retire, or face the danger of a split vote. Our Labour friends have just gone through a pre-election in Tasmania, because they have not yet learnt the game. The Liberal party are not such fools, because the more candidates a party puts up, the better for its chance of getting one returned under the preferential voting system. If preferential voting only secured the abolition of pre-election, it would be worth striving after. I am not here to fight organizations. I recognise their splendid work, but there should be a limit to their privileges and prerogatives.

Mr Fenton:

– An organization cannot stop a man from being a candidate.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– No candidate has achance of election unless supported by one or other of the great organizations which now rule our elections. The preferential vote renders pre-election not only unnecessary, but a great mistake, because every candidate who stands brings a certain number of personal votes with him, and those personal votes will go “ party “ every time. We have had experience of it in Tasmania for some years, and both parties there favour its continuance. I could show honorable members of this House how they themselves are actually in favour of it, because every pre-election carried out by either the. Liberal or the Labour party is conducted by its means.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– This speech deserves an audience.[Quorum formed.] Mr. McWILLIAMS.- These organizations are the very keystone of the political arch, and surely they know the best system by which to select their candidates. The only objection which could possibly be raised to the preferential system is that of party advantage, which is at the bottom of the objections to postal voting. No man should be allowed to be returned to this Parliament and help to make laws unless he has obtained a majority of the votes cast in his electorate. I am very pleased to hear an extension of polling places urged. The system of absent voting will not touch even the fringe of the work that is now being done under the postal voting system, and unless the House deliberately intends to disfranchise many thousands of electors there will have to be a considerable increase in the number of polling places, especially in the country districts.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is no quorum present.[Quorum formed.]

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Residents of cities and large towns who have placed at their disposal motor cars and other vehicles to convey them to and from the polling places cannot appreciate the difficulties under which many of the electors in country districts have to contend in recording their votes. In my own electorate, many people have to travel several miles to exercise the franchise. Even in my own State, which would scarcely occupy a corner of some of the larger electorates of the Commonwealth, such as that which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have the honour to represent, and the electorate of Maranoa, this difficulty in regard to the want of polling places is felt, and it must be still more serious in the really large electorates of Australia. Is if fair to give the right to vote- with one. hand and totake it away with the other? Is it not a farce to compel people to enroll, and yet to deny them the privilege of voting? We are not dealing with the electoral law as seriously as we ought to do in a Bill such, as this.

Mr Spence:

– The honorable member is doing nothing but making a noise.

Mr West:

– He is only making a fool of himself.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Nature forestalled me in the honorable member. It is easy for honorable members to sneer when they know that their own electors are not being prejudiced by this proposal ; it is easy for representatives of small constituencies, which may be covered in a few hours, to sneer at those who are trying to obtain reasonable facilities for electors who, to my mind, are more worthy of consideration in this regard than are some who can ride on a tram-car to a polling booth. No representative of a rural constituency would be doing his duty if he did not bring before the Parliament the necessity for giving those whom we compel toenroll reasonable facilities to vote. By the abolition of postal voting and by determining that the poll shall be taken on a Saturday, we shall deprive from 40,000 to 50,000 electors of the right to determine who shall make the laws under which they are to be governed. The Labour party, elected as they claim to be, in the cause of humanity, and representative of the masses, as they say they are, are taking away from thousands of people the right to exercise the franchise.

Mr Jensen:

– The people to whom the honorable member refers will be able to go to a polling place and record their votes.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member knows as well as I do that some of our very best citizens will be physically incapable of going to the poll to record their votes on polling day, and that if we deprive them of the right to vote by post, they will be unable to exercise the franchise; The Government cannot escape from the charge that they are proposing to rob tens of thousands of people of this right. Will the Honorary Minister agree to my obtaining leave to continue my remarks at a later hour?

Mr Roberts:

– No.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We have been here since 10.30 yesterday morning.

Mr Mathews:

– Consider what we have had to. suffer.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

-I make this appeal to the Honorary Minister out of consideration really for my honorable friendarid others, who, I know, are remaining here much against their will. This sledgehammer system of politics has never been a success, and never will be. When this House rises about midnight on Saturday

Mr Thomas:

– Why should it rise at midnight on Saturday?

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Because some of us refuse to sit on Sunday. Ministers will find that the procedure they are adopting is not the best to facilitate business.

Mr Roberts:

– It was forced upon us by honorable members of the Opposition.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Another absolutely incorrect statement.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

-We made a very reasonable offer to pass this Bill through all its stages, and also the resolution relating to the Commonwealth office site in London, by. dinner-time on Tuesday. That offer, however, was not accepted, although it meant . that only a day and a half - since the House was not to sit on . Saturday and Monday - would be devoted to the Consideration of those important measures.

Mr Page:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member in order in discussing a matter that does not relate to the Bill before the Chair?

Mr.DEPUTY SPEAKER.- The honorable member is not in order in referring to some arrangement which, according to him, was endeavoured to be made.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If the Minister in charge of the Bill will not consent to leave being granted to me to continue my remarks at a later hour, I shall have to reserve for a future date any further observations I may desire to offer.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– I cannot allow this debate to close without entering my. emphatic protest against the attempt to rush a Bill of this magnitude through the House in the closing days of the session without giving honorable members an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the vital principles with which it deals. It is remarkable that a Government that claims to belong to a truly democratic and humanitarian party should be thefirst to propose to disfigure the statute-book of the Commonwealth with a measure that will mean the wholesaledisfranchisement of a class of people who are unable in the ordinary way to vote at a polling place. This Bill strikes at the very root of consti tutional government, and should not be dealt with from a party stand-point. It is to be regretted that this great National Parliament should have descended from the high pedestal that it has, or ought to have, occupied to emasculate a fundamental principle upon which this Parliament is elected. The Bill contains defects which, even if we discussed it for a month, we could not fully reveal to the people, and it must work serious injustice. This provision is chiefly remarkable for largely destroying the evolutionary work in electoral reform which is the result of experience and of the best brain power in Parliament. It is proposed to eliminate from the Act some of the most vital and useful principles of an electoral system which, with the addition of preferential and proportional voting, would make it the superior of any, not only in the British Dominions, but throughout the civilized world. By the abolition of postal voting, at the instance of a Government which calls itself democratic, a great injustice will be inflicted on a large section of voters; arid this fact should be emphasized over and over again, as far as the rules of the House will permit, so that public attention may be aroused to its importance. The speaker who preceded me said that these proposals will mean the disfranchisement of some 50,000 or 60,000 people, and the experience of the last election shows that the 29,000 electors, who then used the postal voting system, do not by any means represent the total number that will be placed under a most unfair disability. The returns show that, as the people discover the advantages of the system they more largely avail themselves of it, and this has the advantage of considerably raising the percentage of electors who go to the poll. Of the 29,000 electors referred to, something like 14,000, or nearly one-half, voted in Victoria; and the fact that the general voting average in that State at the last two elections was the highest in the whole of the States is due to the large use made of the postal voting system. The States of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania failed to take advantage of the postal voting system to anything like the same extent, and, therefore, their total voting average was lower than it otherwise might have been.

Mr Page:

– It shows that there was a lot more corruption in Victoria than elsewhere.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is strange that during the whole of this debate we have been waiting in vain for evidence of corruption under the postal voting system.

Mr Page:

– Dozens of cases have been cited.

Mr SAMPSON:

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong told us of a medical practitioner who witnessed a large number of votes in a certain district, and who afterwards told him that he knew how everybody had voted.

Mr Fenton:

– He said that he saw that they voted rightly.

Mr SAMPSON:

– If the medical practitioner saw the names written on the various papers, it was the duty of the honorable member for Maribyrnong to have reported him with a view to a prosecution.

Mr Fenton:

– If the honorable member is prepared to play the part of an informer, I am not !

Mr SAMPSON:

– When an honorable member makes statements of the kind in the House, he should be prepared to endeavour to purify elections. Of course, if the electors voluntarily communicated to the medical man how they had voted, it was a matter entirely for themselves, and there is nothing to complain about.

Mr Fenton:

– He influenced their votes, and he said so.

Mr SAMPSON:

– We know that in- fluence is brought to bear in connexion with elections. Organizations on both sides attempt to secure as many votes as possible ; and if we prevent free speech, communication one with another, and the discussion of political questions, we might as well abolish Parliamentary Government.

Mr Ozanne:

– There is any amount of trickery 1

Mr SAMPSON:

– It seems to me that people who suffer from a sort of nightmare of constant and widespread dishonesty in their fellows, have a very oblique ethical view of life. From my personal experience, I do not think there is any serious amount of fraud or imposition of the kind practised. On more than one occasion in my district the constables have been pressed into service as witnesses, and charges have been made against them by supporters of my own that they were biased in favour of my opponent; but I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that the constables did any more or less than their duty.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Trie honorable member must be tired,’ and I think there ought to be a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– I have a few figures here which show that the postal voting system is of greater advantage to the women than to the men of the Commonwealth. In Victoria the system was availed of at the 1910 election by 7,708 females and 6,314 males ; in New South Wales, by 3,325 females and 2,894 males; in Queensland, by 2,382 females and 1,638 males; in South Australia, by 791 females and 960 males ; in Western Australia, by 850 females and 1,127 males; and in Tasmania, by 703 females and 530 males; giving a total of 17,756 females and 13,490 males. These figures are a vindication of the postal voting system, showing that it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was instituted. The postal voting by males was, of course, greater in the country electorates than in the cities. The percentage of votes to the total number of electors on the roll at the 1903 election was: in New South Wales, 48.8; in Victoria, 53.83 ; in Queensland, 57.3 ; in South Australia, 40.5 ; in Western Australia, 30.41 ; in Tasmania, 44.99 ; the percentage for the whole Commonwealth being 50.27. In 1906 the percentage was, in New South Wales, 52.67 ; Victoria, 56.73; Queensland, 45.92 ; South Australia, 40.32; Western. Australia, 36.24; Tasmania, 55.35; or, for the whole Commonwealth, 51.48. At the 1910 election the percentage was, in New South .Wales, 61.84; Victoria, 66.58; Queensland, 61.15; South Australia, 55.33; Western Australia, 62.15; Tasmania, 58.51; or a’n average for the whole Commonwealth of 62.80. These figures show a substantial increase in the percentage of votes polled as between 1903 and 19 10. With the exception of Queensland, in 1903, Victoria heads the list by just about the percentage of the postal votes recorded in the latter State; and this is proof that, but for the free use made of the postal votes, the Victorian figures would have been just about the same as those relating to the other States.

Mr Riley:

– There must be more sick people in Victoria than elsewhere.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I do not think that is the inference to be drawn. The other great objection I have to the Bill is that it compels every organization to send in a return of its expenditure. In this connexion, the honorable and learned member for Bendigo raised a very serious point, which requires an explanation from the Minister of Home Affairs, who, apparently, is not able to meet the destructive criticism from this side, and has taken refuge on a bench. It has been pointed out that under the wording of clause 32, it will be possible to make a candidate, on one side or the other, responsible for every shilling of expenditure which is incurred by an organization. An irresponsible association, whose support has not been asked for, may go into a district and voluntarily spend a certain sum in support of a candidate ; and, according to the honorable member for Bendigo, he can be held responsible for that expenditure. I cannot understand why this provision appears in the Bill, except it is due to a continuance of that policy of Conservatism which is so rapidly developing itself on the Ministerial side. The Labour party are, in structure and in essence, a close corporation, but we hold that they are perpetrating a gross injustice to the people when they endeavour by these means to prevent constituencies from entering into a propaganda of political education which can best be done by the circulation of literature and the delivery of addresses at public meetings. This legislation is inconsistent with the policy of the Ministerialists themselves. What they claim for themselves in regard to industrial matters they deny to political agencies which are performing valuable educational work throughout the Commonwealth. We on this side are entitled to know, before the Bill is passed, whether trade unions are to be included, in the organizations which, under clause 32, will have to furnish returns of expenditure. In another place no light was forthcomingas to whether trade unions can carry on their system of organization as a sort of quasi-political organization, and send out their organizers, who are in reality political canvassers, to prepare the Way for the bombardment of constituencies by Labour men.

Mr Roberts:

– The honorable member is most unfair, because the first words of clause 32 are, “ Every trades union.”

Mr SAMPSON:

– We require further light on this point. The clause does not deal with organizers who come from trade unions. It has been frequently stated that at general elections, and also at the referendum, when, again, the vote went against the Labour party, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been showered broadcast over Australia, and that by that means the battle was won. We have been told, on the other side, that the vast army of workers have not been responsible for the expenditure of very large sums in their political campaigns. In a book which he published, the honorable member for Darling gives a balance-sheet showing the receipts and expenditure of the Australian Workers Union up to, I understand, about two years ago. He puts down the entrance fees and contributions at £273,327, levies .£19,700, fines £1,826, donations £16,7351 various other items £5,721, making a total of £317,312. He gives the expenditure as follows: - Salaries, £61,320 ; organizers’ wages and expenses, £39,913 ; strike expenses, £54,5.33; law expenses and legal charges, £12,823; printing and advertising, £20,922 ; postage and telegrams, £13,946; committee expenses, £4,703 > donations to other unions and various objects, £26,537 ; co-operation, Worker, £44,491 ; political and parliamentary, £6,465 ; refunds, fines, forfeited wages, &c-> £5,453; various other items, £15,128; making a, total of £306,329, and leaving a balance in hand of £10,982.

Mr Scullin:

– For how long?

Mr SAMPSON:

– The number of years is not stated in the book ; but I believe that the information given is up to 1908.

Mr Fenton:

– It is for twenty-five years.

Mr SAMPSON:

– No term is stated in the book. The totals are given. Take the following items : - Worker, £44,491 ; salaries, £61,320; organization, £39,913; printing and advertising, £20,922 ; political and parliamentary, £6,465 ; and variousother items, £15,128, making a total of £188,239. I claim that more than onehalf of that sum could be reasonably claimed to have been expended by the Australian Workers Union in the interests of a political party. There is no certainty that under clause 32 this sum of over £400,000 could not be expended in connexion with propaganda work in the interests of the Ministerial party, without the union being called upon to furnish a return to the Department. We want to know whether organizers cannot be sent out from trade unions and act as political agents, without being called upon to furnish returns. We are told that the Bill specially provides against that, but -we have had no light on the subject. In one place clause 32 refers to “ every trades union,” and in another place to ‘ ‘ every organization, ‘ ‘ but it says nothing about “an organizer.’5

But a canvasser is at once a political agent, and what he spends will have to be included in a return. We can see the possibility of large sums being expended by trade unions in the interests of the Ministerial party, but the other party will have to show every penny of their expenditure, and will be liable to have that expenditure associated with the candidature pf every member of the party. These are two serious aspects of the Bill which, combined with the abolition of postal voting, will warrant us in fighting its passage until we receive from the Minister an explanation as to the meaning of the clauses, and a promise to insert such amendments as will satisfy us there will not be any one-sided treatment. 1 believe that if compulsory enrolment will enable a larger number of persons to vote, it should be adopted. But it is in itself an anomaly without a better system of enabling persons to record their votes. In my opinion, the percentages which are credited to the electors in the departmental returns do not represent the true per centages .of the votes polled. I think that the rolls are not sufficiently purified. It is not possible to bring the Department of Home Affairs up to such a state of efficiency as to enable the electoral rolls to be purged in a proper manner. If there were a proper system the rolls ought to be perfected up to within two or three months of an election. In New Zealand the rolls are so purified that it is’ possible to poll from 87 per cent, of the electors on the roll. If the compulsory enrolling system will give us a complete and purified roll I shall be glad, but I seriously doubt whether it will. It is said that the card system is going to act as a check on absent voters. In my opinion, the enlarged provision made for recording absent votes will add enormously to the already large percentage of votes of that character recorded in different parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I think we ought to have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– I feel sure that the card system will not work .out satisfactorily. Already I have strong suspicions that some of the constables who are collecting names have found it necessary in certain cases to fill in the cards for voters. When it comes to be a matter of comparing signatures, if the bona fides of an absent voter is to depend on a comparison of his signature at the polling booth with his signature on the card, I am convinced that we shall disfranchise hundreds of voters. Instead of this being a means of conveniencing electors, it will be a means of wholesale disfranchisement. Why have we not received information from the Electoral Office with respect to the working of the postal voting provisions of the existing Act? In my opinion the Government have purposely refrained from calling for an independent report from the officers, fearing that if they got such a document the last thing that the officers would recommend would be the abolition of postal voting. If there is any evidence of violation of the Electoral Act that evidence ought to be found in the Department, and the officers in charge should be cognisant of it. They should be able to furnish us with a report pointing out the weaknesses of the Act, and indicating why it is impossible to carry on elections in the proper manner under it. But .the only bit of information with which we have been furnished from the Electoral Office is in the form of’ a paper which was laid on the table of the Senate on 6th October. Even this document has not been circulated amongst honorable members in this House. This House is not supposed to be worthy to be informed. Surely honorable, members must consider that they have been treated very cavalierly when it is discovered that the Government have not even paid them the courtesy of circulating a piece of information which was supplied to members of the Senate. I myself had to obtain a copy of this paper from an honorable senator this evening. As honorable members, therefore, have not been able to read it for themselves, I shall read it for them. It states -

In consequence of the abolition of postal voting provision has been made for the extension of absent voting-

It is clear that that is a matter upon which the officer was not called upon to advise. He states that “ provision has been made.” His opinion was not asked, apparently. - so that subject to the regulations electors who are within the Commonwealth on polling day will be enabled to vote at any po.ling place, and that those electors who will not be within a Commonwealth division, but will be (say), at sea, or in New Zealand, or in a Commonwealth territory, on polling day, will be enabled, prior to leaving their States, to vote before an electoral registrar at any time after the date of the issue of the writ and before polling day.

That is to say, that people who may be at sea, or in New Zealand, and who may never intend to return to the Commonwealth, will possess privileges in respect of voting that are not extended to bond fide electors within the Commonwealth, who are too ill to go to a pollingplace. As to compulsory enrolment, this memorandum says -

The Act at present permits of a proclamation to be issued requiring thepreparation of a new roll under a system of compulsory enrolment, but does not permit of the adoption of a continuous system of compulsory enrolment.

I see that the Minister of Home Affairs is now awake. Let me ask him why the House was treated so cavalierly that copies of this memorandum were not circulated amongst honorable members?

Mr King O’Malley:

– I l I left copies on the table of the House for the perusal of honorable members.

Mr SAMPSON:

– That is not so. I obtained my copy from a senator. The memorandum goes on -

The provision in the amending Bill places an obligation upon every qualified person to secure enrolment, and thereafter to transfer, or change his enrolment whenever such a course is rendered necessaryby reason of his having changed his place of living-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I call attention to the lack of a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– The document continues - and is designed, with the aid of the card index system now being established, to secure a clean and continuously effective roll, which will, at all times, be free from duplications.

Note. - The new rolls now in course of preparation in the several States are being prepared under a proclamation, and regulations which impose an obligation on every householder to furnish information and render assistance; and on every qualified person to fill in, sign, and return to the proper officer a properly witnessed claim card, if the card has been delivered to him or left at his habitation.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is no quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– The second half of this paper consists of an elaborate explanation of the advantages of the system of compulsory enrolment, and is under the heading “ Memorandum for the Minister’s information in compliance with his verbal request.” It reads -

The adoption of a scheme of compulsory enrolment on the lines of the accompanying memorandum is both practicable and desirable.

  1. It should be the duty of the Electoral Administration -

    1. to furnish the fullest information, provide every, facility for enrolment, and generally to assist qualified applicants whenever required through the agencies at its command ;
Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is no quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– The memorandum continues -

  1. to utilize available agencies to the fullest extent in insuring compliance with the law, and in the prevention of duplication of enrolment through error or fraud.
  2. It should be the duty of all qualified persons to enrol within a (reasonable) prescribed period, and to transfer or change their enrolment when they remove from place to place.

The existing system of voluntary enrolment during the currency of a roll, supplemented by official action to remedy errors and omissions due to public neglect, carelessness, and apathy, while the most effective that can be devised in the present state of the law is inherently weak, in that it creates something in the nature of a divided responsibility, and leads very many people to believe that it is the duty of the Electoral Administration to follow them from place to place and relieve them of the obligation of taking action in the preservation of their electoral rights.

A system of compulsory enrolment would prove to be specially valuable in insuring thecorrect enrolment of the very large body of persons whose avocations cause them to move frequently from place to place, and who, under present conditions, lose their votes through neglect to comply with the law in relation to enrolment, or (if their names have not been removed from the rolls under the processes of the law) claim to vote for divisions in which they have ceased to live.

Note. - The migratory population of Australia is exceptionally large throughout the country, whilst in the cities at least 20 per cent. of electors change their places of living annually.

The use of the same roll for the purposes of both a Senate and House of Representatives election forms a very strong argument in favour of compulsory and correct enrolment on the basis of residence; thus, if an elector continues an enrolment under the voluntary system for a division in which he has ceased to live, and the law disqualifies him from voting for that division, he is disfranchised as a Senate as well as a House of Representatives elector; or, on the other hand, if the law permits an elector to vote for the division for which he is enrolled, and in which he is no longer living, he may be enabled, as a consequence of his neglect to transfer his name when he changed his place of living, to improperly influence the result of the House of Representatives election for a division in which he does not live.

Note. - This difficult position arises from the fact that any attempt to differentiate between Senate and House of Representatives elections on one roll in regard to the voting rights of electors would fail in practice.

The provisions of the law relating to the removal of names from the roll by objection in cases where electors cease to be entitled to en. rolment, by reason of non-residence within the division, when put into practice (as they must be in order to preserve a proper roll for the House of Representatives election) result in the disfranchisement of the electors for the Senate (unless they have again enrolled for another division) although they may not have left the State.

It may be taken that where a single roll is required to serve for elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the constituencies are respectively -

  1. the State; and
  2. divisions of the State, a thoroughly efficient roll can only be continuously preserved under a system of compulsory enrolment, or by the employment of an army of Electoral Inspectors to continuously watch the movements of the people throughout the Commonwealth.

A scheme of compulsory enrolment associated with a card index system for the prevention of duplication of enrolment and fraud would not only be of enormous advantage from an electoral point of view, both inrelation to representation and administration, but would be of considerable value for purposes of public administration generally, and in particular might be expected to greatly assist the postal, defence, statistical, police, and other public systems having direct relations with the public.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does he say that he favours the abolition of postal voting?

Mr SAMPSON:

– No, his memorandum is confined to the question of compulsory enrolment. He is the officer who could give us the most authoritative statement as to whether the existing Act has broken down and as to whether the postal voting provisions have been productive of fraud, but he has not been asked to furnish his opinion on those points. This affords another reason why the Chief Electoral Officer should occupy a judicial position removed altogether from the influence of the Minister. If he occupied such a position this House could claim from him, as it should from the Commonwealth Statistician, an independent report giving the result of his experience as a responsible official on questions of administration. When the Minister of Home Affairs was asked whether the head of the Electoral Office had been requested to make any recommendation, . he repliedthat the officer was not asked to advise on questions of policy. We know that the Minister has always tried to impress us with the fact that he is not a rubber-stamp. We have here a memorandum which this officer was asked to supply on a question of policy, but it is somewhat singular that he was not at the same time asked to give his opinion with respect to the operation of vital provisions of the existing Act, which the Government propose to repeal by this Bill. I have already alluded to the extent to which regulations are to be relied upon in giving effect to this measure. I hope that we shall hear more on the subject from the eminent legal members of the House when the Bill is being considered in Committee. I wish to direct attention now to the provision enabling any person to prosecute an appeal against the election of an honorable member at any time within three years after he has been declared elected. In this connexion I may be allowed to say that I agree with the statement of the honorable member for Riverina that the ballot-papers and other records of every election should be preserved within the Department for three years, or longer, if that can be shown to be necessary. I think, however, that a limit should be placed upon the time within which any person may be allowed to appeal against the declared result of an election. I do not think that any man should be given the opportunity at any time within three years of appealing against the return of an honorable member to this House. A time. should be fixed for such appeals, but it should be a reasonable time. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the introduction of this Bill to bring about the subdivision of the Senate constituencies. The best way in which to secure the proper representation in this Parliament of the varied interests of the country is to so divide up the electoral districts that each may be adequately represented.. The only reason for the subdivision of. constituencies for the Houseof Representatives is to secure the adequate representation in this House of every important interest. It may be said that every member of this House is the representative particularly of some dominant interest in the constituency for which he has been returned, and upon which he is qualified to speak as an authority. The system which has been adopted for the division of electorates for this House makes it truly reflective of the national as well as of the local interests of Australia. If this is a good system for the House of Representatives, why is it not a good system for the Senate? I believe that there is no State in Australia in which the subdivision of the Senate constituencies would operate more beneficially than in the State of Western Australia. There are interests in that State of the greatest magnitude and importance. Agricultural products of all kinds can be grown in Western Australia as well as in any country in the world, and that vast interest is rapidly expanding. It may be said, also, that the mining interests of Western Australia compare favorably with those of any other country in the world. But we find that under the existing system it is possible for one interest in Western Australia to dominate the whole State. The Senate cannot, under existing conditions, be truly representative of the varied interests of that great State. The same thing may be said of Victoria, New South Wales, and, indeed, of all the other States. The large metropolitan centres have in each State a commanding and undue influence in the selection of the representatives of the State in the Senate. This I believe is not in the best interests of any political party. It is certainly not in the best interests of the people, as it restricts their choice of candidates. This would have been a favorable opportunity for taking this important question into consideration. Perhaps it is because the idea is progressive, and would lead to better government, that no attempt has been made to give it effect in this measure. I hope that is not the reason why it has been left out of this Bill.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member is not correct when he says that an unsuccessful candidate has an option of presenting a petition against a successful candidate for all time.

Mr SAMPSON:

– What is the limit imposed ?

Mr Frazer:

– Forty days.

Mr SAMPSON:

– He has to appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer within forty days. There is one very important provision in the Bill which has been touched upon by previous speakers at some length - I refer to the setting apart of Saturday as polling day. As the representative of the largest agricultural constituency in Victoria, I confess that Saturday would be the most suitable day for my constituents. But we have a duty to discharge to the country. If we fix Saturday as polling day, we shall offend the religious susceptibilities of a large percentage of the electors. I am prepared to waive the advantage which the selection of that day would confer upon my constituents, because of the blow which the provision in question would strike at the religious convictions of the Hebrews and Seventh Day Adventists. I understand that a petition has been presented to this House on behalf of the Jewish portion of the community, which numbers from 16,000 to 25,000. It is scarcely to the point to urgethat they do not observe their Sabbath. If a proposal were made to trench upon our Sunday, I venture to say that there would

Be a great outcry.. In this Parliament we are supposed to set an example to the whole community, and to deal out evenhanded justice to every section of it. Consequently, we ought to consider the religious beliefs of every class in our midst.

Mr Frazer:

– In Queensland and SouthAustralia elections have been held on Saturday foryears, and there has been no vigorous protest against the practice.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am aware that that is so. The Seventh Day Adventists number about 4,000, and the Jewish section of the community is variously estimated at from 16,000 to 25,000. If we consider: these two sects and add to their number , the electors who vote by post, this Bill will disfranchise 100,000 persons.

Mr Fenton:

– Has the honorable member taken into account the time which wilt elapse between sunset and the closing of the poll ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I can understand that the conscientious scruples of the Jewish portion of the community might be overcome by postponing the hour for closing the poll if the elections were always held in winter. But we cannot guarantee that. I do not suggest that strong reasons cannot be advanced both for and against setting apart Saturday as polling day.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I beg to call atten-. tion to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.].

Mr SAMPSON:

– I have no desire to occupy the time of honorable members at any greater length. It was my duty to present my objections to the Bill upon the motion for its second reading. Nobody will deny that a great electoral scheme, which concerns millions of voters, cannot be given effect to without some defects in it being disclosed. But, in my opinion, flagrant outrages of the electoral law throughout Australia are few and far between. I do not think that there has been any considerable violation of the important provisions of the principal Act. I do not believe that a large section of our electors are prepared to risk the dangers attendant upon impersonation. I believe that it is the duty of both’ parties in this House to vigilantly search for any defects in the existing electoral system, with a view to remedying them. It might be possible for us to learn from the Chief Electoral Officer whether the principal Act requires to be strengthened. But, unfortunately, that officer has not been asked to give us the benefit of his experience. Under these circumstances, I cannot see any reason for the wholesale denial of electoral privileges to a large section of our people.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is no quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SAMPSON:

– In conclusion, I say that this Government stand condemned in the name of Democracy and , of humanitarianism, of disfranchising tens of thousands of the most helpless persons in the community - the sick, the infirm, and the old - who are to be denied what should be their inalienable right as free citizens. I would rather forfeit my seat in this Parliament than become a party to this cruel disfranchising of a deserving class of the community.

Mr Watkins:

– Nobody will believe the honorable member.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order. The Government Whip has said that nobody will believe the honorable member, and another honorable member has interjected that the honorable member for Wimmera is talking hypocrisy. I think that these expressions ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Watkins:

– If the honorable member regards the expression which I used as offensive, I withdraw it.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Upon the one hand, the Government are insisting in this Bill upon the enrolment of electors”, and on the other, they are denying them the right to exercise the franchise. That right is to be denied to the most helpless portion of the community - our women and the sick and infirm. I am convinced that ere long the Government will be sorry that they ever inflicted such an injustice upon these electors.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– It is fitting, that we should proceed with the consideration of an Electoral Bill which deals with the fundamental rights of citizenship in a spirit of just deliberation and impartiality. I desire to approach this subject without any warmth or bitterness such as has hitherto characterized the debate. Honorable members upon this side of the Chamber have exhibited a truly patriotic spirit. We have ungrudgingly spent the whole night in keeping a quorum for the Government, and we are assisting them to pass this Bill. It has been made the subject of temperate criticism, calm judgment, and helpful suggestion. Indeed, we have done everything possible to assist to make it a perfect measure. When we. approach the consideration of an

Electoral Bill”, we must, of necessity, keep..in view the principles of popular govern- : ment. The theory upon which our Federal Constitution has been framed is that we should have a fair franchise, and that every person upon whom it is bestowed should have the right to exercise it. We desire that the laws of Australia shall be a true expression of the will of the people. Do honorable members opposite desire that the laws of Australia shall represent the views of only a section of the people? Let us take a retrospective glance at this legislation. The provisions governing postal voting were incorporated in the first Electoral Bill introduced in the Senate by the Barton Government and passed in 1902, and among those *who then supported them was the late Senator Dawson, who said -

The provision in the Bill is quite different from that in the Queensland Act, and had the voting paper now before us been circulated sooner, I am certain not a member of the Labour parly would have raised any objection to it. This provision will be a great convenience to people who live in comparatively inaccessible places, or who may be on board ship. We want to make sure of the secrecy of the ballot, and that the vote shall represent the opinion of the voter, and not the opinion of any one else.

Why should not those who live in almost inaccessible places be given an opportunity to exercise the franchise? The present Vice-President of the Executive Council also supported postal voting. He said -

I have always been in favour of giving every facility to the voter, but I am very jealous of the. secrecy of the .ballot. This provision is the most effective attempt at postal voting of which I have any knowledge. It is supposed to have, been copied from the South Australian Act, which, with the honest support of the Labour party, was passed for the purpose of giving the privilege to what were called absent voters.. The limit was fixed at 15 miles, and the voter be-, fore going away had, under the original Act, to make a declaration that , he would be more than that distance from the polling booth on the day of election.

Senator McGregor supported the postalvoting system because of his South Australian experience of it. Mr. Watson was opposed to its adoption, but the honorable member for Grey declared that -

The mere fact of giving an elector the right to vote at any polling booth does not by anymeans ensure to every elector an opportunity of voting. The system of voting by post, however, will, if properly administered, confer that opportunity upon every elector. Many years ago I advocated the adoption of that system ia1 connexion with- the shearers in the back-blocks. Even if they had the right to vote at any polling booth in the State many would be unable to do so, because they might be scores of miles distant upon polling day.

Why should’ the shearers be disfranchised by their calling and occupation? He continued -

Under the system of voting by post there may be abuses, but I venture to say that for every one that occurs facilities will be given to twenty electors to exercise the franchise.

If one man abuses this privilege, is that a reason for depriving a whole electorate of it?

In the district which I represented in the South Australian Parliament there were no less than thirty-eight polling places, and yet there, are scores of men there who have never had an opportunity of voting.

That sentence would apply to electorates like Kennedy, Maranoa, Coolgardie, Grey, Darling Downs, and many others.

Mr Mahon:

– I want more polling places in my electorate.

Mr GROOM:

– To continue my quotation -

Unless some more valid reason be given for expunging the clause I shall certainly vote for its retention. I have heard that abuses occur in South Australia, but I certainly have heard no proof of those abuses.

Has not that been the complaint during this debate? Honorable member-. have made wild statements, but no actual cases of abuse have been mentioned. The Bill became law with provisions for postal voting embodied in it. A little later a Select Committee of this House, consisting of Mr. Batchelor, Mr. Cameron, the honorable member for Perth,- myself, the honorable member for Wentworth, the honorable member for Hume, Mr. Mauger, Mr. McCay, Mr. Speaker, Mr. McLean, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sydney Smith, Mr. Storrer, and the honorable member for Calare, was appointed to inquire into the working of the electoral law, and afterhearing -evidence it reported that -

Your committee are of opinion that the sections allowing voting by post should be amended. No objection was taken to sub-sections b and c of. section 109.

Those are the provisions which allow women in ill-health, and any elector prevented by serious illness and infirmity from attending a polling booth, to vote by post.

Even if the evidence of serious abuse of subsection a, testified to by witnesses, does not establish the facts alleged, yet it is clear that this sub-section is open to serious abuse. Without concluding that undue influence was used in connexion with the postal vote, the evidence adduced shows that under the present sub-section advantage may be taken to destroy the free and secret exercise of the franchise. The application forms ‘may be witnessed in blank, and these forms may be taken in numbers by agents for candidates’ when canvassing, and pressure brought to bear upon persons whose names are on the roll. The evidence justifies your Committee in finding that many persons who voted by post had no reason to believe they would be more than 5 miles from their polling place on the day of election, and were on that day within that limit. It would appear that the voting facilities provided have been used contrary to the intention of the Act. The provisions of this section were freely availed of. At the general election held on the 16th December,1903, postal votes were recorded to the number of 10,143,’ out of a total number of 887,312, equivalent to the proportion of1.14 per cent. While admitting the public advantage of these sections, yet it is apparent that there must be further safeguards to preserve the purity of elections, without which the repeal of sub-section a becomes necessary.

In 1905 an amending Bill was introduced to provide safeguards against the abuses referred to by the Committee, and speaking upon it the present Prime Minister said -

I am sorry to hear so many of my friends attacking the postal vote provisions of the Electoral Act. I regard those provisions as the necessary corollary to a universal franchise.

No doubt they are. If every person of the age of twenty-one and upwards is to have the right to vote, the opportunity must be given to exercise that right. He continued -

I have a very lively recollection of the time when you, sir, and I spent a great deal of our time in endeavouring to educate the people of Queensland up to an appreciation of the justice of universal suffrage, and of the wisdom of offering special facilities to those engaged in nomadic pursuits to record their votes. Nothing has since occurred to cause me to alter my opinions in that connexion., Because certain persons may have misused the privileges conferred by an Act of Parliament, we ought not to deprive even oneeligible voter of the opportunity to exercise the franchise.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I think we should have a quorum to hear what the Prime Minister said. [Quorum formed.]

Mr GROOM:

– To-day members of the Labour party, because there may have been one or two isolated instances of abuse, seek to deprive at least 29,000 electors of the opportunity of exercising the franchise. The Prime Minister continued -

One would imagine, from the statements of some honorable members, that these postal votes are open to the public. As a matter of fact, they are, and ought to be, as secret as if they were placed in the ballot-box. The honorable member is merely referring to instances in which the law has been violated. Does he say that we cannot reach such offenders?

Mr Batchelor:

– I am certain that we cannot.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I say that we can. When such offences are proved, the Government which failed to reach their authors would not continue in office very long.

The honorable member for Riverina said “ I can give the information.” Other honorable members have said they have the information, and, according to the Prime Minister, any Government which has that information and will not take action ought not to remain in office.. He said further -

Upon the proposal to require an elector who wishes to avail himself of the postal provisions of the Act to go before a postmaster, I am opposed to the honorable member for Boothby, for the reason that there are many cripples who are maritally sound, but whom it would be absolutely impossible to take to a post-office. Why should they be deprived of the right to exercise the franchise?

I ask the same question.

Mr Frazer:

-We give them an invalid pension.

Mr GROOM:

– Is that a reason for depriving them of the franchise?

Mr Frazer:

– No, we give them an invalid pension and provide a polling booth near their residence.

Mr GROOM:

– If the cripples were entitled to vote in 1905, they should still be entitled to vote in 1911.

Mr Frazer:

– And they will get it.

Mr GROOM:

– They will not, because they cannot go to the polling booths. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie, who has been very silent during the debate, delivered on that occasion a very thoughtful speech. He does not rush impetuously into a debate, but thinks his proposals out carefully before committing himself to an opinion in cold print. Let us see what his reasons were, because although his judgment may change his reasons may remain good. On11th December, 1905, Hansard, page 6637, he said -

I sincerely hope that the proposal of the honorable member for Darwin will not be approved by the Committee. Indeed, his proposal would not achieve his object. If we omitted the clause under consideration, we should simply leave the Act as it stands. With the idea of abolishing voting by post I have not the slightest sympathy.

We see where the idea possibly originated from. It was not from some hidebound Conservative trying to bolster himself up in a privileged position.

If the idea originally emanated from the Labour party, I take credit for its authors for their foresightedness. The next best thing to giving every adult person a right to be on the roll is to give those who are on an opportunity of expressing their opinions on election day.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– This is so staggering that we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr GROOM:

– We absolutely agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie in the statement I have just quoted.

Mr Frazer:

– I was very young once.

Mr GROOM:

– Sometimes out of the mouths of babes and sucklings cometh forth wisdom; but the honorable member was no political babe. The honorable member said further -

If in this community a number of people are so unfortunate as not to be located in a great city, or at a convenient point for recording a vote at the ballot-box, it is only reasonable that special facilities should be provided for them.

The honorable member was quite right. Why should people living in luxury in the great cities have all the opportunities of exercising their franchise, while the unfortunate prospectors, who are hunting in outlying places for gold, trying to open up fresh stores of wealth for the people, are deprived of their rights of citizenship?

People in the back-blocks who do not enjoy the conveniences afforded to those living in the centres of population deserve special consideration from Parliament. The honorable member for Hindmarsh represents a constituency which embraces a port, and as it is very likely that a number of seamen on the roll for that constituency may be out of the district on the day of an election, I am surprised that the honorable member should be willing to accept the provision made for a complete elimination of this proposal.

This Bill does not leave out the seamen. The only persons deprived by it of the franchise are the back-blockers, the pastoralists, the shearers, the rouseabouts, the prospectors, and the pioneers.

Mr Watkins:

– Every one of the shearers can vote under this amendment.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Darling Downs has great sympathy with the shearers !

Mr GROOM:

– Indeed I have. When I stood for election in 1901, a number of shearers who were out on the Downs complained that they could not vote unless they sacrificed a day’s work, and they asked for facilities which would enable them to do their work and still vote.

Mr Page:

– Why did you not have polling booths appointed?

Mr GROOM:

– I got all I could, but they would not meet the requirements. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie said further -

In my own constituency, it is quite possible that in the interval between the holding of the Revision Courts and the day of election arush might break out which would have the effect of removing hundreds of men to a distance from a polling booth. If the proposal submitted by the honorable member for Darwin were agreed to, those men would be disfranchised, whilst if the provision for postal voting were retained, they would be able to express their political opinions.

Surely that is fair, just, and equitable.

I am opposed to no precaution which may be considered necessary to secure that the opinion of an elector shall be expressed once only, and without undue influence.

On that point again we are with the honorable member.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Unfortunately he is not with us.

Mr GROOM:

– I believe that, in his heart, he is. Considering the views expressed by the Prime Minister, the PostmasterGeneral, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council, it is quite possible that this is an open question in the Cabinet, and we may find it so in Committee.

Where postal voting provisions are surrounded with safeguards to prevent the intention of the Legislature being defeated, they form one of the best systems for the convenience., of electors that has yet been devised.

Those remarks had reference to the postal voting scheme that was in operation in 3905, and that has remained the law until to-day. It has not been shown to have broken down in the slightest. He said -

It may be urged that some political parties can secure the services of justices of the peace, or the support of a teacher of a State school, but I frankly say that up to the present time I have seen no instances of corruption of that kind in my constituency.

I guarantee that if the honorable member spoke to-day he would say that he has seen no instances of it in his constituency. I could not find better reasons for opposing this measure than those which were given by my honorable friend opposite. To try to improve on his eloquence when he expresses my thoughts would be like trying to re-write Shakspeare.

If other honorable members have had experience which they think justifies them in making certain alterations in the law, I hope they will be such as will safeguard the intentions of the Legislature, and will not inflict hardship upon those who may not happen to Be within reach of a polling booth on the day of; an election,

I come now to another Minister - the Minister of Trade and Customs - who also expressed his opinion on the subject. That makes the fourth Minister of the Cabinet.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I think we should have a quorum to vary the proceedings a little.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is a quorum present.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There are only twenty-three in the chamber. There is no quorum.

Mr Watkins:

– There is a quorum present.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member proceed?

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Parramatta has deliberately sent his men out of the chamber.

Mr Roberts:

– Sending men out of the chamber !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is a deliberate untruth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I withdraw it, sir, but may I require the withdrawal of the statement made by the Honorary Minister that I deliberately sent men out of the chamber ?

Mr Ozanne:

– There is not the slightest doubt that the honorable member for Parramatta did.

Mr Roberts:

– I did not say that the honorable member for Parramatta ordered men out of the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Then what did the honorable member say?

Mr Roberts:

– It is for the honorable member who objects to say what I did say.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member did make that statement, and he must withdraw it.

Mr Roberts:

– I did not say that the honorable member for Parramatta ordered men out of the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member made a remark to that effect, and he must withdraw it, without qualification.

Mr Roberts:

– I withdraw, without qualification or reservation, mental or otherwise, whatever you direct me to withdraw.

Mr Page:

– I desire to say now that I made the remark objected to.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And you only repeated it after the Honorary Minister had made the statement.

Mr Page:

– He did not make it.

Mr GROOM:

– When interrupted I was pointing out-

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Parramatta is very unchristianlike this morning. He seems to be filled with the devil.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– 1 require that statement to be withdrawn, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr Page:

– I withdraw the devil.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the remark in a respectful manner.

Mr Page:

– I go on my knees and withdraw the remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the remark in a respectful manner.

Mr Page:

– I cannot do more than go on my knees, as I am doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will apologize to the Chair for the insult offered.

Mr Page:

– Then I shall not; I have done nothing to apologize for.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member refuse to apologize to the Chair?

Mr Page:

– I will not apologize. I have done nothing to apologize for.

Mr Frazer:

– May I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to indicate to the honorable member for Maranoa in what respect you consider that he was personally offensive to the Chair? If you do so, 1 am sure that the honorable member will make whatever reparation you consider necessary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member, when I asked him to respectfully withdraw the remark complained of, forthwith went down on his knees.

Mr Page:

– What do you want me to do?

Mr Frazer:

– If Mr. Deputy Speaker takes the view that the honorable member, in going down on his knees, was disrespectful to the Chair, I am sure that the honorable member will apologize.

Mr Page:

– I did not go down on my knees to Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr Frazer:

– If the honorable member will make that statement to the Chair we shall get over the difficulty.

Mr Page:

– I did not mean to be insulting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to any one else. You called upon me to apologize for what I said to the honorable member for Parramatta, and as he was not satisfied with my withdrawal, I said, “ Well, I will go down on my knees to you.” It was to the honorable member for Paramatta and not to you that I went down on my knees. If you think that I was insulting to you, I apologize to you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that the honorable member puts it that he did not intend his action to be insulting to me or to any honorable member.

Mr Page:

– Hear, hear.

Mr GROOM:

– I have already pointed out that several members of the present Government have at various times expressed themselves in favour of postal voting, and I wish now to refer to an opinion expressed in this House by the present Minister of Trade and Customs on nth December, 1905. The honorable member said -

I think- some provision should be made to prevent the improper use of the postal vote, by providing for the inspection of applications prior to polling day. . . . We should not extend the facilities for voting by post, but, on the other hand, should surround the privilege with such restrictions as would prevent abuses. I trust that- the Minister will consider the advisability of framing regulations that will put a stop to the improper practices that have been resorted to in the past.

We did frame new regulations, and since the amendment of the law we have had a good many elections and two referendum campaigns, yet no one has been able to point to any abuse of the system.

Mr Mathews:

– Does the honorable’ member think that any of his constituents have ever voted corruptly ?

Mr GROOM:

– I believe that my constituents are like the rest of the electors of Australia, honest men and women.

Mr Mathews:

– As honest as they can be.

Mr GROOM:

– We find exceptions, but on the whole Australian elections have been pure and honest.

Mr Fenton:

– And honest people will be pleased with this reform.

Mr GROOM:

– This is not a reform. Before there can be a reform there must be an abuse, and I ask the honorable member to prove that ‘any abuse exists in regard to the Commonwealth.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong talked for an hour yesterday about various abuses.

Mr GROOM:

– He did, and in the course of his speech he alluded to a Queensland election.

Mr Fenton:

– Why does not Queensland re-enact the postal voting system?

Mr GROOM:

– That is a. State matter.

Mr Fenton:

– The very name of the system stinks in the nostrils of the people of Queensland.

Mr GROOM:

– The honorable member is quite wrong.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Darling Downs knows what took place at Warwick.

Mr GROOM:

– Even if one or two abuses of the system have occurred, is that a good reason for knocking out the whole system.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is 110 quorum present. (Quorum formed).

Mr GROOM:

– Even if a few abuses have occurred, is that a reason why the Government should propose to deprive thousands and thousands of their votes? At the last general election 28,658 persons voted by post.

Mr Archibald:

– And they will vote at the next election if they get the chance.

Mr GROOM:

– But that part of the Act is being repealed. Supposing that 500 of that number abused the privilege, is that a reason why the system should be abolished ?

Mr Archibald:

– Supposing two-thirds of them abuse the privilege !

Mr GROOM:

– We know that rolls are stuffed from time to time, and that people sometimes send in false claims, but should we be justified because of those abuses in refusing to allow any one to be enrolled? Suppose a. case of impersonation occurs at a polling booth? Suppose that under the new system in regard to absent voting cases of double voting occurred, would the Government be justified in abolishing the whole system of absent voting for that reason? Yet that is really the position that is being taken up by the Government in regard to postal voting, because they think that a few men have abused the system of voting by post.

Mr Fenton:

– There has been organized corruption.

Mr GROOM:

– How easy it is to make these wild statements. Why not give a few specific crises? The electors outside have characters to preserve.

Mr Fenton:

– Some of them have no character.

Mr GROOM:

– The honorable member says that the electors have no character.

Mr Fenton:

– I did not say anything of the kind. Do not put a lying statement into my mouth.

Mir. GROOM. - If the honorable member says that he did not make that statement, I apologize to him. The position I put is that it is easy to prefer charges of wholesale corruption without making the slightest effort to prove them, and it is not fair to the people that such aspersions on their character should be made. At some future time we might have a literary man coming here to write up Australia and making the statement, “ All Australians are corrupt,” taking as his authority the assertion made by an honorable member a few moments ago that there is wholesale corruption in connexion with postal voting.

Mr Archibald:

– No man from England with any sense would believe that the postal voting system could be kept clean. The honorable member knows that.

Mr GROOM:

– We have the statement of representatives of the honorable member’s own State that the system was kept clean in South Australia.

Mr Roberts:

– We have not postal voting there.

Mr GROOM:

– I quoted a statement made by Senator McGregor, to the effect that the system of voting by post adopted by the Commonwealth was copied from the South Australian Act.

Mr Roberts:

– He must have been misrepresented, because we have not yet got postal voting in connexion with the State Parliament.

Mr GROOM:

– He spoke of the absent voting system there as a postal voting system.

Mr Roberts:

– But that system is entirely different.

Mr GROOM:

– It was in effect a postal voting system.

Mr Roberts:

– It is not.

Mr GROOM:

– The honorable member will find that the late Mr. C. C. Kingston, in reply to an interjection, said-

Mr Archibald:

– He said that it would work out just as it has done.

Mr GROOM:

– I have not seen any quotation such as the honorable member suggests.

Mr Page:

– He made the same statement in this House.

Mr GROOM:

– I would point out that Mr. Kingston was a member of the Government that introduced in this House a Bill providing for voting by post. If he thought it would work out in the way in which, according to honorable members opposite, it has worked out-

Mr Archibald:

– I am talking of the starting of the system as applied to seamen in South Australia. That was anterior to the adoption of postal voting in connexion with Commonwealth elections.

Mr GROOM:

– But Mr. Kingston, who was then the representative of Adelaide in this House, was a member of a Government that introduced these very provisions in regard to voting by post.

Mr Page:

– That does not prove that he was in favour of such a system.

Mr Archibald:

– Has the honorable member always been in favour of every proposal made by a Ministry of which he was a member.

Mr GROOM:

– If I am a member of a Government I have either to accept the corporate responsibility of that Cabinet or-

Mr Page:

– Get out; and Kingston got out !

Mr GROOM:

– But not for that reason. The honorable member for Maranoa knows that Mr. Kingston resigned on another ground altogether.

Mr Page:

– In connexion with the Conciliation Bill.

Mr GROOM:

– Quite so. In those days Cabinet responsibility, in the British sense, existed. Every member of the Cabinet was responsible, each bound by the corporate vote of the Cabinet; unless the matter was left an open question, the Ministers had to stand or fall together. On that ground, I say that Mr. Kingston was a party to this policy. Whatever Mr. Kingston may have predicted in South Australia, I cannot believe he thought that this system could be used as an instrument of corruption, and, thinking that, allowed it to be passed.

Mr Archibald:

– No sane or honest man could imagine that it could work in any other way !

Mr GROOM:

– It was practically unanimously adopted by this Parliament, the members of which, I think, were sane and honest. Under the circumstances, what, after all, is it that is being taken away ? Honorable members heard the quoted statement of the Prime Minister that he regarded postal voting as a corollary of universal franchise, with the safeguards which experience showed to be necessary. We have conferred the suffrage on every adult throughout Australia, and there is nothing in the Act or in this Bill disqualifying a man because he is maimed, injured, or sick. At that time it was realized that women, for maternity or other reasons, might not be able to visit a polling booth ; and the case made out for them is as true to-day as it was then. We have the figures supplied by one of the Ministers, who shows that the number of women in such a position was - in New South Wales, 3,649 ; in Victoria, 2,628 ; in Queensland, 1,296; in South Australia, 841 ; in Tasmania, 458 ; and in Western Australia, 633 ; or a total of 9,505.

Mr Page:

– If postal voting were left at that point it would be all right”!

Mr GROOM:

– Then why is no provision made for these women in the Bill? What crime have they committed that they should be disfranchised? If there is any section of the community interested in industrial laws and other legislation for the well-being of the nation, surely it is these 9,505 women, who are doing the highest service for the country. Then it is proposed to deprive of the franchise all people who, by reason of serious illness or infirmity, cannot record their votes personally. In any public hospital we can find stockmen who have been injured in their work of providing our food, artisans who have suffered accident in building our houses, and woollen mill employes who have met with injury in providing our clothing.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - There can be polling booths at the hospitals.

Mr GROOM:

– We have our health and strength, and, therefore, this Bill does not a’dversely affect us, but it. will–

Mr Archibald:

– Clap-trap !

Mr GROOM:

– It may be clap-trap to the honorable member, but I know that, if he met with an accident, and found himself in a hospital on polling-day and unable to vote for his party, he would take a different view. It is all very well for honorable members to sit here on comfortable benches and stigmatise as clap-trap, appeals made on behalf of those who are to be disfranchised. I should like honorable members opposite who are jeering to visit some of the hospitals in order to show-

Mr Fenton:

– To show that the honorable member is a humbug.

Mr GROOM:

– I am glad to know that, in all Australia, there is one man, in the person of the honorable member for Maribyrnong, who is not a humbug. However, let us put party feeling aside for a moment and regard this matter calmly. Do honorable members know of any case or cases of abuse of the postal voting system in any of the public hospitals in Australia?

Mr Mathews:

– Yes.

Mr GROOM:

– Can the honorable member furnish any particulars?

Mr Mathews:

– Oh, it is all right ! The honorable member is a lawyer, while I am a layman.

Mr GROOM:

– We are both members of Parliament under an obligation to speak the truth.

Mr Fenton:

– Who is the honorable member that we should tell him?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member for Maribyrnong not to continue these interjections, and I make a similar appeal to other honorable members.

Mr GROOM:

– I am not asking the honorable member to tell me anything, but simply to give some reasons for the proposed change. Honorable members opposite may or may not reply - it is a matter for their discretion. If they take offence at a mere request of the kind, I can only put that down to the fact that it is now halfpast six o’clock in the morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member address himself to the Chair.

Mr GROOM:

– The third section of the people who will suffer are those who live in the back-blocks. The honorable member for Coolgardie has laid before us a case in point ; and we know that, when people live from ten to twenty miles away from a pollingbooth, it is not always convenient or desirable for all the adults to leave the house or farm, and such people ought to be given facilities to vote. If gross abuses took place in Queensland, as alleged,. I have no sympathy with the offenders, and .1 should punish severely any breach of the electoral law. The problem, however, is how we can, with a huge continent like this, of varying conditions and presenting great difficulties to our pioneers, attain the true ideal of Australian Democracy without giving every man and woman the utmost facility for exercising the franchise. Why should we be afraid of a pronouncement by the Democracy? One party is in power to-day, and another party is in power tomorrow ; and our duty is to strive to produce an ideal system. When we are in Committee, I should like the Minister of Home Affairs to tell us what safeguards are to be introduced in regard to absent voting. I understand that precautions are to be taken to prevent any abuse; and, seeing that it is provided that a man in Maranoa may vote for a constituency in Coolgardie, I should like the Minister to explain the position thoroughly. It is peculiar that in reference to postal voting the Prime Minister has no official recommendation to submit - that there is no report from the Elec toral Office showing that the system has been abused, and that, from the point of view of electoral administration, it should be repealed. As regards the advertisement clauses, they are the most extraordinary, I suppose, ever introduced into a Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not deal with the Bill clause by clause in the House - that is for Committee.

Mr GROOM:

– I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not misunderstand me, but I submit that I am dealing with a principle. .

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is distinctly dealing with a minor clause. There are clauses which I have allowed to be discussed as embodying principles ; but when the honorable member deals with three clauses in a minute and a half, I can come to no other conclusion than that he is discussing details.

Mr GROOM:

– I bow to your ruling. There are a number of clauses the principle of which is that persons, who have advertised in newspapers, are required to furnish returns as to the cost. This has nothing whatever to do with the actual election, and there is nothing consequential on the presentation of the returns, which are to lie filed in an office, and can be of no use except to gratify idle curiosity. The returns are not to be used for the purpose of voiding any election, and, “ I presume, there is no proposal to limit the amount of money that may be expended. What, then, is the purpose? Is it only a class purpose, so that, after an election, it may be possible to point to the successful candidate and exclaim, “ No wonder he was returned after the money he spent?”

Mr Mathews:

– Oh, it is just for fun !

Mr Archibald:

– The clause shows how corrupt the opposite party is.

Mr GROOM:

– Is spending money on newspaper articles corruption ?

Mr Archibald:

– It is part of the game !

Mr GROOM:

– I do not regard it as corruption. If the Labour party had a newspaper of their own, as is the case in Adelaide, would it not support Labour candidates? Is there any corruption in that? In these days, when we have universal education, and every man can reason and think, public opinion must be created in the clash of ideas. Are we so puny and’ incapable of judgment that it is necessary to enter on a policy of a suppression of literature which deals with vital issues relating to the welfare of the community ? Surely we live in a broader age ; but I can see no motive behind this proposal except that of suppression. I am exceedingly sorry that there has been no advance towards a uniform electoral system in Commonwealth and States.

Mr King O’Malley:

– -We -We have it in Tasmania.

Mr GROOM:

– And there ought to be a uniform system all through Australia.

Mr Watkins:

– That is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr GROOM:

– But it can be provided for ; and it would have been better, before launching this Bill, to have had another conference with the State electoral officials. If we pass this experimental legislation we shall only create divergencies and difficulties, and make it harder rather than easier to come into any relation with the States. Before the Minister of Home Affairs framed the Bill he should have invited a conference of Commonwealth officers and got a report showing exactly the administrative view as to the working of the electoral system. I know that I found the report of a conference at which I was present very helpful indeed. We do not know how much of this measure represents the policy of the Ministry and how much is recommended by the administrative officers. It would be a good thing if the Minister would point out in Committee each clause which they recommended and their reasons for making the recommendation. If he does that he will find the passage of the Bill made much easier than it otherwise would be. In order to facilitate its passage, I shall have to leave several important matters to the Committee stage.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
Cowper

– No more important Bill could be submitted to the House than a measure to amend the Electoral Act, and to provide voting facilities for the people. In the matter of the franchise, Australia has always set an example to the world. Every amendment of the electoral law which has ever been submitted to an Australian Parliament has had for its object the widening of the franchise. In our early history the franchise was granted to only a few persons, and the ambition of the people of every State in the Commonwealth has always been in a broadening direction. We can boast to-day that we have the fullest franchise of any people in the world. In New South Wales, as well as in the other States, it has been broadened to the greatest possible extent, and now any person of the. age of 21 years, irrespective of property or education, has the franchise so long as he is a natural born or naturalized British subject. In every amending Bill which has been passed in the States increased voting facilities have been provided. The principal Electoral Act of the Commonwealth was based on the report of a Select Committee, which has been quoted to show that prior to its enactment there was general dissatisfaction at the state of the law. This measure repeals two very important provisions which allow people to vote. It is the opinion of a democratic people that every person should be afforded the fullest opportunity to record his vote. In Australia the system of postal voting has been appreciated very highly indeed. So satisfactory has it proved in New South Wales and other States that it has been adopted for other than parliamentary elections. Although a good deal has been said here as to the abuse of the system under the Federal Act, I am inclined to think that the cases are much exaggerated. No doubt the voting facilities which are afforded to the people are abused in some cases - even the privileges which the members of the House have are occasionally abused, - but we do not, think it is necessary to punish the whole community because certain persons may have acted in a. manner which is not desirable. I have no sympathy with an Electoral Bill which is shaped purely on party lines or for political purposes. I appreciate the remarks which were made yesterday by the honorable member for Hunter. I, in common with him, want some better proof that postal voting has been abused before the facility it affords is taken away from the people in the back country. There seems to me to be a deliberate attempt made to interfere with the opportunities which are given to country people to record their votes, and also to make themselves acquainted .with the state of public affairs. Surely organizers, whether they go round in the interest of the Liberal or the Labour party, carry out a good work if they . induce the electors to take a deeper interest in political life. I deplore the attempt which is made in this Bill to interfere with the conduct and the management of newspapers. The proprietors of these business concerns have received certain privileges to enable them to carry out the responsibility of educating their readers in public affairs. If a newspaper devotes a portion of its space to this purpose, whether the matter is paid for or not, so long as’ it does not contain misrepresentations, we have no right, I think, to find fault or to curtail privileges which have been extended to its proprietor. If it were not for the efforts of the newspapers to circulate political news throughout the community, people in the country districts would be in a bad way indeed as to knowing what is done in this Parliament. If the electoral law prevents the circulation of news, we cannot expect the electors to vote intelligently in the absence of reliable information. We must assume that organizers are likely to educate their audiences according to their conception of political matters. I am afraid that there are honorable members on the other side who, merely through a lack of knowledge of country conditions, are prepared to take away privileges which should always be available to country people. It has been stated from time to time by the Minister that, as a substitute for postal voting, it is intended to establish polling booths throughout the Commonwealth. That seems to me to be almost a mockery. What is the use of talking . about establishing a polling booth to a selector who is T5 or 20 miles from his nearest neighbour? I protest against this attempt of the Minister, who professes to be a. Democrat, to take away from the electors facilities for recording their votes and showing their interest in all matters concerning the political welfare of the country. It is positively ridiculous for him to talk about establishing polling booths here, there, and everywhere, because that cannot be done except at very considerable cost. There are many votes which cost the Treasury £10 or £15 each. If we put a polling booth at every man’s front door, together with a poll clerk and a returning officer, and pay men to carry the ballot-boxes to the nearest counting centres, the elections will cost no end of money. I shall always be found prepared to bring polling booths as near as possible to the doors of the people. In my district, as well as in others, there has been some difficulty in convincing the Department that there are not enough polling booths. There are nearly 200 polling booths in my electorate. The Department has held that there must be sixty electors on a roll before a polling booth, can be established. If polling booths are provided as freely as has been hinted at, the time required for collecting the ballotpapers and the return of the ballot-boxes will protract an election almost interminably and entail a large additional expenditure. This Bill is only tinkering with the matter of electoral reform. I have not heard of any proposal to provide increased facilities, except the one to extend the privilege of absent voting. So long as it is well guarded I have no objection to the proposal. I recognise that on polling day there is a large number of men and women, particularly men, who for a variety of reasons are away from their homes, or cannot say exactly where they will be during an election. Not only seamen, but a number of commercial men are scarcely ever at home. They may only return to their homes three or four times during the year. Anything to afford these people additional facilities for voting has my sympathy every time. No sufficient reason has been given as to why those who have previously had opportunities for voting should be deprived of them. No man in this Commonwealth can fairly say that the privileges conferred by the provisions which apply to women should not be continued. I might also go so far as to say that the women of this country have been insulted by being told that if they cannot vote at their own polling booths they will be permitted to vote at others. If a woman, the wife of a selector, cannot attend a polling booth .10 miles away, what is the use of telling her that she can vote at one 50 miles away ? If there are any people who should receive consideration in a special degree it is surely those who are doing the pioneer work of our country. Surely the country party should take up their interests and champion them. It is all humbug to talk to the people about the ambitions of this young nation, about internal development, and inducing people to go into the country districts, when we say to those who are bearing the heat and burden of the day that we will not extend to them the facilities for voting which they require. In many cases if a polling booth were within even a couple of miles settlers would be unable to vote.. These people have appreciated the facilities which they have enjoyed under the postal system. I deny that the people in the country districts who have been using the postal vote have done so in a corrupt manner. As far as I have been able to ascertain,, they have used it in a proper and honest way. Another section of the community who have been practically disfranchised by this Bill are those prevented by serious illness from going to a polling booth. I wish to speak, not so much in the interests of those who are temporarily ill, but of those who are infirm. Any man who has lived in the country districts ‘ must know that it is the infirm aged who, in the days of their strength’, have brought this country to the position that it occupies to-day. They came here in early times, and have helped to raise this country from a condition of wilderness to being one where men and women can live in the best possible conditions. The reward we promise them is to say, “ We have worked you until you can no longer stand, and now we have no further use for you. We will even take away your vote.” But if there is any class that ought to have a say in the politics of the country it is this one. Yet the Minister has taken it upon himself, without any recommendation from his officers, to say that the aged infirm shall not vote. Men who claim to be democratic, and to be anxious to do their best for all sections of the community, irrespective of wealth and position, are surely taking up a curious position and attitude in this respect. A system of compulsory enrolment is being introduced by means of this Bill. No one is to be exempt from registration. Is it no. an insult to men who live 15 or 20 miles from a polling booth to compel them under a penalty of £2 to enrol, and then decline to grant them facilities for voting? Instead of shearing away these facilities we ought to increase them. In my opinion the compulsory enrolment system is going to be an endless cause of irritation- and confusion. . Electors have been in the habit of having their names collected by the police. A policeman calls at a settler’s house, and is furnished with the names of all persons 21 years of age and over living within. He does not explain whether he is collecting the rolls for the Commonwealth or for the State. A great number of people think that the one visit of the policeman is sufficient for both. I have no fault to find with the work of the police, but I know, as a matter of fact, that quite a number of the police do not visit every house. From what they consider to be sufficient personal knowledge they include names in the rolls they are compiling. The result is, however, that a number of persons’ find that their names have-not been included. I am afraid that if the system of police collection is continued by a State whilst the Commonwealth adopts the compulsory card system there will be much confusion. The States and the Commonwealth ought to work together in this matter.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– In Tasmania one roll does for both purposes.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– I have watched the Tasmanian experience, and know that it has been very satisfactory. It will be a great source of economy to have one roll for Commonwealth and Statesthroughout Australia. ;

Mr Fenton:

– We could save ^30,006- a year.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– If we did that we should do good work. :

Mr Fenton:

– The Commonwealth isquite willing, but the States will not agree.;

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– I again say that the compulsory enrolment system isfraught with difficulties and dangers.. I feel sure that compulsory enrolment will not be a success, especially in the country districts. As presented in this Bill, the pro,posal reminds one of a pig with one ear,, because to make the system complete it should certainly be accompanied by a pro’posal for compulsory voting. Under ‘our system of compulsory education we are not satisfied merely with the enrolment of children, but require that they shall attend school. Under- our system of compulsory training we would not expect efficiency if we were satisfied with the mere enrolment of cadets and did not compel them to undergo training. In the same way if we compel people to enroll themselves as electors, it is in order that they may - record their votes, and we should go further and compel them to vote. I believe that if the Government had the courage of their convictions, they would have proposed compulsory voting. The people have been promised an amendment of the electoral law, but under this measure privileges which they now enjoy will be taken away from them, and we shall not have a’ purer or a more complete electoral roll. I should have been very glad if provisions had been included in this Bill to give effect to -the principle of preferential voting. I hold that no man should occupy a seat in this House except by virtue of an absolute majority vote of the qualified electors of the district he re. presents. I have on every occasion advocated preferential voting. I- ‘ understand that it has been, said that there are some honorable members on this side who do not represent a majority of the electors of their districts, and though, on a previous occasion, I was myself in that position, I do not now represent a minority vote, as the two candidates who were opposed to me at the last election did not secure between them anything like the number of votes I polled. That, however, has not altered my view as to the desirability of adopting the preferential voting system. I should like to raise an objection to the practice which is followed in these days under which cliques, unions, and organizations take it upon themselves to tell ah intending candidate for election that he must stand down and give way to somebody else. No organization should have any such right.

Mr Thomas:

– What organization has that right?

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– The honorable gentleman must be aware that selections by organizations are now going on for the next Senate election.

Mr Thomas:

– Any person is at liberty to stand for election as a citizen, but he cannot stand under the auspices of a political league unless he has been selected by the league.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

– Candidates know very well that if they cannot secure nomination by these organizations they will have very little chance of success. At the last election there was no Liberal League in my electorate, and I had not the assistance of a committee or of a secretary. Every elector in the district might vote for me or not, as he pleased, and no one was asked by the Liberal party to stand down in my favour. I notice that in connexion with the provision for compulsory enrolment a penalty of £2 is attached to neglect to enroll. I contend that the provisions submitted to carry out the system of compulsory enrolment will be found to be quite impracticable. Who is to say that 500 people in my electorate have neglected to enroll their names on the electoral roll ? Who is to say that a number of people who have reached the age of twenty-one years since the last roll was compiled, and who are now qualified to vote, have not made application to be enrolled?- Some one must lay informations, in these cases, for neglect to enroll, and I should like to know who is to do it.- I presume that they will be laid “by officers of the Elec tora 1 Branch-, and as very often happens in the case of prosecutions in our Courts by the. police, the evidence of other persons may be depended upon to secure conviction, and people who do not appear to answer the charge will have a verdict recorded against them. .We all know that, with all respect to the management of the Postal Department, many letters committed to its charge never reach their destination. People who have never posted an application for enrolment may claim that they have done so, and who is to say that they have hot? On the other hand, people who have posted applications for enrolment may be fined £2 because their names are” not on the roll. I go further in this matter and ask how it is proposed to collect fines imposed under these provisions? We shall need an army of police to serve summonses upon people who have failed to become enrolled, and to collect fines imposed upon them. There are many people in the Commonwealth who, because they take no interest whatever in, politics, do not consider themselves competent to vote, and yet it is proposed to compel these people to enroll under a penalty of £2. As we claim that we are a democratic people, we should give the people of this Commonwealth the right to say whether they will vote or not. The provisions with respect to absent voters, are deserving of a good deal of criticism. I take no exception to the facilities proposed to enable qualified electors to record their votes if they could be safeguarded in such a way as to prevent corruption, but I say that if it has been found impossible to prevent corruption under the postal voting provisions of the existing Act, it will be found still more impossible to prevent corruption under the absent voters provisions of this Bill. I should like, before concluding, to express my opinion that the Minister of Home Affairs in his speech on the second reading of this Bill did not treat this House or the electors fairly. - He has not given proper consideration to. the measure, or- to the administration of the existing Act. The quotations made by . the honorable member for Darling Downs from the remarks, of the Prime Minister and three or four other members of the Ministry, including the Postmaster-General, in favour of postal. voting, and commending it as a proper facility for the -benefit. of the people, have .not been, answered. The honorable members in question have not . given., the

House any reason for departing from the position they previously took up on this question. They have not stated that the reasons which induced them to support that system of voting do not exist now. They have not told us why they are now supporting the repeal of those provisions which they previously considered would be of advantage to the people. In all the circumstances I claim, that we are justified in remaining here during this sitting of eighteen hours, in order to call attention to the proposals of the Government in this Bill, and to let the public know that those who claim to be the friends of the people are proposing to take from them privileges which they at present enjoy. I wish to be able to assure my constituents when I visit them during the recess that honorable members on this side did all they could under the Standing Orders to maintain their privileges. I wish to be able to say, also, that we have been prepared to assist the Government to extend the facilities afforded the electors to record their votes ; but we are not here to help them to shear away the privileges they now have. I hope to be able, from the division on the second reading of this Bill, to show who are the people’s true representatives. The only reason we have heard for the proposal to abolish postal voting is that the system has been made use of by the electors to vote in a certain direction. We have no right to say that, because a small majority of those who exercised the right to vote by post recorded their votes for Liberal candidates, they should be deprived of the privilege of voting in that way in future. As we have been given no other reason for the proposed abolition of the system, I am reluctantly compelled to believe that the reason to which I have referred animates honorable members opposite in supporting this measure. We should not punish people for exercising their rights under the law to give effect to their own political views, and I have no doubt that those who are responsible for this measure will receive the reward to which they are entitled when they go to the people again.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am sorry that I should be called upon at this hour of the morning to ask honorable members opposite to listen to me. That is not my fault, or the fault of any honorable member on this side. It is entirely due to the fact that honorable members opposite refused to accept what was considered a fair thing.

Mr Archibald:

– What does the honorable member consider a fair thing?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– We thought, and I understand that the Prime Minister also, thought, that it was a fair proposal to suggest that the motion for the acquisition of the site for Commonwealth offices in London should be passed, and that this Bill should go through all its stages by 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday.

An Electoral Bill concerns one of the most important subjects with which this Parliament has the constitutional power to deal. After all, the representation of the people in Parliament, and the expression of their will through Parliament, are matters which none of us can afford to treat lightly. I should not be discharging, my duty to my constituents if I allowed the motion for the second reading of thisBill to pass without offering a few remarks upon it. This is the first Conservativeelectoral measure that we have’ had in Australia for many a day. So far as my reading goes, the tendency has been toliberalize more and more our electoral laws. In the first place, the desire has been to extend to every man and woman in the community the privilege of having a voice in the government of the country. That inestimable boon was conferred upon every man and woman throughout the Commonwealth by a Liberal Government. Before my honorable’ friends opposite, as a party, had assumed their present dimensions, thosewho, like myself, hold Liberal views, had’ accorded to every man and woman in Australia the right to vote for the election of representatives to this Parliament.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member believe in voting early and often?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I shall have a good’ deal to say about that aspect of the matter at a later stage. But I wish, first of all, to deal with the question of postal voting. I have already stated that it is one of our greatest privileges that every man and woman in the community are at liberty toexercise his or her vote at a secret ballot. The next point we have to consider is the best way in which that vote may be recorded. Anybody who is acquainted with Australian conditions, who recognises thepaucity of population in many parts of the country, must realize that when we come todeal with that question, we are face to face with a problem which it is difficult to solve, but which, nevertheless, must be solved, and which demands from this Parliament1 its fullest attention and supremest effort.t

The postal vote was introduced to allow three classes of individuals who would otherwise be disfranchised an opportunity to exercise the franchise. Those classes include electors who would ‘be more than 5 miles distant from a polling booth on the day of election; female electors, who, on account of ill-health, would be unable to attend a polling booth ; and electors, either male or female, who from illness or infirmity would be unable to attend a polling booth on polling day. My honorable friends opposite propose to take away this privilege from these three classes - first, because they allege the system has been abused ; and, secondly, because it is being used more and more at each election. I propose to deal first with the alleged abuse of the postal vote. Early in this debate honorable members opposite were challenged to cite specific instances of that abuse. But for a long time they maintained a complete conspiracy of silence. Eventually, however, two honorable members endeavoured to cite specific cases of abuse - the honorable member for Riverina arid the honorable member for Maribyrnong. I intend to traverse those cases, and I think I shall be able to show that their assumption that the postal vote was abused is utterly unwarranted. But even if it had been abused in one or two instances, that fact would not constitute a reason for its abolition. The honorable member for Riverina said that a station manager who was a justice of the peace had consulted man after man on his station, and had endeavoured to get them to sign postal ballotpapers in a particular way. Now, in the first place, the station manager could not have obtained postal ballotpapers unless the men themselves had first signed the necessary application forms. So that if these individuals used the postal vote they must have obtained the ballotpapers of their own free will. The honoraable member also declared that the manager endeavoured to get each individual to vote in a particular way. Now everybody who has used a postal ballot-paper knows that it is necessary for the elector to write the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote upon that paper. In other words, these men themselves must have written the candidate’s name upon their postal ballotpapers. Yet the honorable member for Riverina would have us believe that they did so because they feared that if they re- fused they would be invested with the order of the “ sack.” I think we may say that in a case of that description the average working man is possessed of sufficient manhood to do exactly what he pleased. I fail to see, therefore, that the honorable member has proved that the postal voting system was abused in the case in question. He also attempted to show that there has been an abuse of the ordinary methods of voting. Now, if the alleged abuse of the postal voting system is a reason why it should be abolished, the abuse of the ordinary methods of voting is a reason why they should be abolished. Then, the honorable member for Maribyrnong stated that a certain organization in this city sent out a number of application forms for postal votes to medical practitioners with a request that they should be filled in by their patients. When the postal ballot-papers came to hand he declared that the medical men duly witnessed the signatures of the voters and saw the way in which their votes had been cast. He affirmed that one medical man had told him that he saw that his patients voted all right. That sentence is open to two constructions. It may merely mean that each postal ballot-paper which was sent out was duly returned. But from the emphasis which the honorable member placed upon the words “all right,” he implied that the medical man saw each vote and the way in which the elector had voted. If the doctor did this in opposition to the desire of the elector, he certainly broke the law. But if a. patient desired his medical attendant to see the way in which he voted there was no abuse of the postal voting system. Then I would ask, “ Was it an abuse of that system for the organization to send application forms for postal ballot-papers to medical men?” Surely not. It is perfectly open to anybody to send out such forms to persons whom they may think will use them. It rests entirely with the recipients of those forms to say whether or not they will use them. There is nothing corrupt about that practice. All that the organization did was to see that the postal vote was used as much as possible. These were the only cases which were cited as evidence of corrupt practice. Clearly the assumption is as much against the existence of corrupt practice as it is in favour of it. I come now to the class of people whom the postal voting system is designed to benefit. In the first place it is intended to confer a benefit upon the residents of the back-blocks. My honorable friends opposite say that it is possible to compensate for the abolition of postal voting by creating more polling booths, and by enabling the electors to vote at any polling booth in the Commonwealth. The arrangements which the Government proposes to substitute for postal voting will not appreciably benefit those in the backblocks, on whom the present system confers so great a privilege.

Mr Thomas:

– Very few in the backblocks vote by post.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I know of my own knowledge that a considerable number do..

Mr Thomas:

– In many places the nearest post-office is 20 miles away.

Sitting suspended from 8.3 to9.15 a.m., (Friday).

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I admit that the postal voting system is difficult and somewhat cumbrous, but it is practically impossible to find an adequate substitute for it, and if it is abolished a large and increasing number of electors will be disfranchised. In my electorate many persons live on the mountains, or in deep gorges, where they are doing splendid pioneering work. The country is heavily timbered, and the only means of getting about is on foot or on horseback, along the roughest and narrowest tracks. These people, however, highly prize the right to exercise the franchise, and go to an extraordinary amount of trouble to do so. If they were compelled to vote at’ the polling booths, either husband or wife would, in many cases, have to forego the right to vote, it being impossible for both to leave home together. But under the postal voting system the husband rides in and posts an application for postal ballotpapers, and between their receipt and the date of the election, if there is no justice of the peace near by, or no travelling trooper collecting statistics, or doing work of that kind, to act as a witness, each separately journeys to the nearest township, and having formally made the vote, posts it to the Divisional Returning Officer. It often happens that by reason of the flooding of creeks after heavy rainfall settlers cannot get away from their homes, or if they are away cannot get back. I have been in that position several times. Consequently, under any circumstances many of these people might find themselves unable to visit a polling booth on some particular day. The use of the postal vote makes the exercise of the franchise much more pleasant. Some honorable members seem to think that the difficulty will be met by the provision of more polling booths, but to meet it at all adequately the number of polling booths would have to be increased sixfold or sevenfold, which would mean so enormous an expense that the Government would not consent to it. In my electorate polling places have been refused.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not go into details of administration.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I merely wish to showthat, although we are told that the difficulty can be met by providing more polling places, those now asked for are not given; even where there is a considerable population.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I asked the honorable member not to refer to the matter further, but he is deliberately doing so. If he persists, I must take another course.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If I have disobeyed your ruling, it is unintentionally. I merely wished to point out that, while the intentions of the Government may be excellent, they are not equalled by its performances-. It is practically impossible to give these people the facilities they now enjoy in any other way than by the retention of the postal vote. Ifhonorable members opposite persist in disfranchising them by hook or by crook, many of those representing country constituencies will be surprised at the way in which they will exercise the franchise. One thing the country people prize very dearly is the exercise of their franchise, and if the people concerned are put to an enormous trouble in recording their votes they will take one great opportunity to do so, and. there will be many vacant places in the ranks of the party opposite.

Mr Thomas:

– Then you have nothing to worry over.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have every reason to be cheerful ; but it is my duty to my constituents to fight for the privileges which they at present enjoy.

Mr Cann:

– A minority man.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– That is perfectly true, but I polled four times as many votes as did the pledged and authorized candidate of the Labour party. I shall be able to show later, from the speeches of honorable members opposite, including the Minister of Trade and Customs, that they have on the floor of this House advocated preferential voting to prevent minority representation, and yet are not game to put it in the Bill. It has been urged in the debate that the postal vote destroys the secrecy of the ballot. How does it? Those who vote by post can do so, if they so desire, with complete and absolute secrecy. To talk about a postal ballot-paper being less sacred than the ordinary ballot-paper is the purest moonshine. The proposal to provide more polling places will not meet the difficulty with regard to the people out back. Another class affected are women who expect to be confined. Every consideration should be given to them. I know of more than one instance where women in the most delicate state of health have exercised the franchise on my behalf. It is unfair, unmanly, and unjust to deprive them of their votes at that time. Others concerned are the maimed, the sick, and the afflicted.

Mr Cann:

– Do you think they ought to be bothered with voting?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If those who are too infirm to move from their beds desire to exercise the inalienable right which the Liberal party has given them, they ought to be as free to do so as is the nian who can walk along the street.

Mr King O’Malley:

– O - On one occasion I saw two canvassers around a man who was dying in the hospital.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If the dying desire to exercise the franchise, would the Minister deny it to them? All these interjections, which are no credit to honorable members opposite, show the utter weakness of their case. It has been left to the Labour party, which prides itself on being democratic and humanitarian, to do the only conservative thing with regard to electoral matters that has been done in Australia during the last fifty years. They are taking away their votes from the men who are pioneering Australia, from the mothers of Australia, and from the sick, afflicted, and maimed. A day of reckoning is coming, and if there is one thing more than another that will settle the hash of honorable members opposite it is the removal of the postal vote. Honorable members opposite propose as a substitute for it the extension of absentee voting facilities to every polling booth in the Commonwealth. They first object that, postal voting is abused, and then they substitute for it a system which is open to ten times as much abuse. Side by side yith the disfranchisement of a large number of people they propose compulsory enrolment. With compulsory enrolment -per se if it can be hedged round with sufficient precautions I have no quarrel, but I will show the House how compulsory enrolment and the card index system, upon which the Government rely to keep the rolls pure, are far more likely to lead to abuses, and to that “ voting early and often “ of which the Minister of External Affairs spoke, than anything else in our electoral law. Every elector has to make a claim for enrolment. Then I presume a card will be sent him to fill up, sign, and return. There are in Australia a great number of nomads. I know of more than one case where a man is not known by the same name in any two towns. Let us take the case of a man whose name we will assume is John Jones. When he gets to Murwillumbah he makes a claim for enrolment as “ John Jones,” and signs his card, which is duly sent to head-quarters, with the result that he is enrolled. He then goes on to the next town, Mullumbimby, where he is known as “ John Smith.” There he applies in the name of “ John Smith” for enrolment, and, having been duly enrolled, he proceeds to Byron Bay, where he is known as “ Ebenezer Snooks,” makes an application for a card in that name, and in due course is once more enrolled. He proceeds to yet another town, where he follows the same procedure, and under yet another name is placed on the rolls. I am simply showing what could be done by a man moving from one small town to another, and all within a radius of a few miles.-

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 think that the honorable member has now gone into sufficient detail.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– My sole desire is to show that this system is open to abuse, and that the card index affords no check whatever. I do not think that honorable members have given sufficient consideration to the proposal that polling shall take place on a Saturday. By adopting that proposed new section honorable members will be offending the conscience of a great many people. In my electorate - and the same conditions apply to every other part of the Commonwealth where the principal industry carried on is that of dairying - Saturday is most unsuitable for the taking of the poll. Practically all the markets are held on that day, and all the men who ca-n get away from their farms attend to the selling and purchasing of cattle and so forth. The farms are, therefore, left short-handed, with the result-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will recognise that he is now going too much into detail. I ask him to confine his attention to the general question.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am dealing only with matters such as other honorable members have discussed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There has been a great deal of latitude allowed, but the honorable member must keep somewhere near [he mark.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– We ought to consider what will be the result of fixing Saturday as a polling-day from the stand-point of the religious convictions of certain sections of the community, who are entitled to the fullest consideration, Nothing touches a man more closely than does that which trespasses in any way upon his religious convictions.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the honorable member referring now to the Seventh Day Adventists ?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– And also to the Jews. I shall not discuss the matter further, but will direct the attention of honorable members to the provisions of the Bill relating to the conduct of organizations generally, the press and everything connected with it. These are certainly remarkable, and such, [ think, as have never been enacted in any other part of the world. Why do the provisions in regard to organizations apply only to organizations of a particular kind ? The greater part do not apply to trade unions, for some extraordinary, and, to my mind, inexplicable reason which is best known, of course, to my honorable friends opposite. The Labour party is in a position which it is impossible for any other party to occupy in regard to organization work. As was fully shown in another debate during the session in regard to preference to unionists-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not refer to another debate in the same session.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I was simply pointing out that the trade unions of Australia-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is now distinctly trying to evade my ruling.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I can assure you, sir, that what I am going to say is entirely in order. I am endeavouring to deal with organizations generally, and taking a particular class in order to show how it compares with other classes. I am not referring to any other Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– While I am prepared to allow the honorable member to deal with the general principles of the Bill, I must point out that he is now going into matters of detail, and that, if this be permitted, there will be no finality to the debate. I must confine the honorable member to the general principles of the Bill.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am endeavouring, as far as possible, to apply myself to the general principle. A very large number of clauses deal with organizations, and a new principle is being introduced into legislation. I think I am in order in referring to the organization affected.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member would not be in order in going into details as to the merits of particular organizations.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have no desire to do that for one moment. There are two distinct kinds of organizations in Australia; and for some peculiar reason the Bill differentiates and discriminates. One class of organization is put in an infinitely better position, in relation to the Bill, than are other classes of organizations; and I wish to know the reason. We might surely expect that this new principle would apply with absolutely equal effect to all organizations; and I hope that when the Bill is iri Committee the Minister of Home Affairs will tell us clearly why there is this differentiation. One set of organizations has, practically, to make no return, while others have to make a great number, thus placing a candidate in a very awkward position. He may be absolutely ignorant of what some particular organization is doing, and yet, when the returns are sent in, the Electoral Officer may take up the attitude that the expenditure was made on his behalf. The candidate will thus be put in the position of having, quite unwittingly, overstepped the expenditure allowed by law, and he may be mulcted in an action, and put to great trouble and expense although in no way to blame. The whole subject has not been sufficiently considered; and, as I say, I hope we shall have an explanation.

I desire now to deal with another aspect of our electoral law. Honorable members have been kind enough to remind me that I am here representing a minority of my electors; and there are, I believe, three or four other honorable members in a similar position. This proves clearly that our electoral system is not what it should be ; I ask the Government what they propose to do by way of remedy ? We desire majority representation; and in this connexion I should like to read a few quotations from Electoral Reform, by Joseph King. The author says -

What does Parliament represent? Does it represent the nation? Is it a fair reflection of the people who elects it? If not, why not? If its representative character is doubted, can it be made more representative? And, further, if it is possible to make Parliament more representative of the nation, would not its authority be increased and its usefulness enlarged?

I think we may practically answer yes to every one of those questions. Parliament does, or should1, represent the nation, and is, or should be, the fair reflection of the people who elect it. Inasmuch as it is possible for members to be elected by a minority of votes, the law clearly needs reform. This Parliament, as at present constituted, is not a fair reflection of the people. It is not truly representative in character, so far as individual members are concerned. When we come to analyze the figures relating to the late general election on the famous 13th April, 1910, we find further field for investigation and improvement in the system. Whilst New South Wales returned seventeen Labour members, only ten Liberals and Independents were elected. The Labour party polled only 14,799more votes than did the Liberals and Independent candidates, and with that majority elected seven more members. This, of course, shows something radically wrong in our system. By obtaining a majority of 14,799they returned seven more members than did their opponents. In Victoria the position is reversed, because there we find that Labour having ten members, and the Liberals having twelve members, the latter polled 40,412 votes more than did the former. Whilst in New South Wales a majority of 14,799votes enabled the Labour party to get seven additional members, in Victoria 40,412 votes enabled the Liberals to get only two members more than did Labour. In Queensland Labour returned six candidates, and the Liberals three, but Labour polled only 4,831 votes more than did the Liberals. At the Senate election Labour polled 2,021,090 votes, whilst the Liberal and all other candidates got 1,997,029 votes, or a majority of 24,o6r votes for the Labour candidates. As each elector has three votes for the Senate election, that means that 8,020 more electors voted for the Labour party than for the Liberal party. The average which it re quired to elect each senator was 112,000 votes, but the gaining of a majority of only 8,020 votes enabled the Labour party to return the whole of the eighteen senators required. That clearly shows that the basis of our electoral system needs reorganizing. We might fairly claim that the Government should do their best to rectify the existing anomaly. It is not very long since honorable members opposite were in favour of ‘ preferential voting. When an amendment by Mr. Wilks to the Preferential Ballot Bill was under discussion in 1906 the Minister of Trade and Customs is reported on page 3771 of Hansard, vol. xxxiii., to have said -

I am anxious that a vote shall be taken on this Bill, so that we may see who are in favour of the principle which it embodies, and who are opposed to it. Every honorable member has at some time expressed himself as desirous of procuring majority rule.

I wonder if the Minister is to-day in favour of majority rule. I wonder whether he is to-day in favour of, not the measure of preferential voting which I should like to see as the first instalment of electoral reform, but a preferential system under which it would be optional with the elector to exercise his preferential vote. The Minister of Trade and Customs went on to say -

It has been suggested by some honorable gentlemen that, instead of providing for the preferential ballot, we should adopt the second ballot; but I cannot see that we should obtain from the second ballot a result differing from that which would be obtained from the preferential ballot.

Again the honorable member said -

The honorable member for Dalley has moved an amendment which, while it declares in favour of the principle of the measure, raises the objection that the time is inopportune for embodying it in legislation. That is always the cry of the Opposition when proposals for legislation are brought forward.

I wonder if the honorable gentleman is as anxious to-day as he was then to see a preferential system introduced. It has taken the present Government eighteen months to produce this measure of what they are pleased to call electoral reform. Surely they have had ample time in which to put into practice the avowed principles of a number of their members and to bring down a preferential system which would secure that every member of this House should be elected by a majority. On the occasion to which I have referred, the honorable member for Melbourne said -

In the dying hours of the Parliament, the supporters’ of the Government can best assist them by speaking as briefly as possible to the questions submitted to the ‘House. That has been my rule during the session, and I do not intend to depart from it to-day. I have for many years supported the preferential yoting system, believing that that which prevails in Victoria is incomplete. It has always been my desire that majority Tule should prevail, and I have no sympathy with the suggestion that it is now too late in the session to deal with a Bill of this kind.

Although the Bill in question was introduced later in the session than the period at which we have arrived, yet Labour members were so anxious to see on which side members generally would range themselves that they voted for this principle. When we turn to the division- list we find that Mr. Fisher, Mr. Mahon, Dr. Maloney, Mr. Spence, Mr. Tudor, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Chanter voted for the Bill. There are one or two members of the Labour party who did not.

Mr Page:

– How did the rest of them vote ?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Some of them voted against the Bill, while some apparently did not vote at all.

Mr Thomas:

– Who voted against it?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The Minister of External Affairs and the honorable member for Maranoa were amongst the Conservative crowd on that occasion.

Mr Page:

– I knew that it was always crook..

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It was left to Conservative members like the honorable member for Calare and one or two others to express an opinion against the principle of the Bill. It is time for honorable members opposite to put their principles into practice and to introduce this very much needed system of electoral reform^ I have no desire to “ stonewall “ this measure. I think that every honorable member who was present during the night must admit that every speech from this side was strictly relevant to the question, and that there was no attempt by any honorable member to do more than to clearly and emphatically place before the country his position in regard to these proposals. Owing to the attitude of the Government, it has been impossible for us to avoid having to sit all night. I wish to summarize my objections to the Bill. ‘ First of all, it does not give us that measure of electoral reform which is needed, and in , which honorable members opposite have already expressed their belief. It does not in any way liberalize the Electoral Act of this country. Rather it does the reverse. It withdraws from a set of most deserving people the right to exercise the franchise. It deprives those who are out back, those who are sick, and those who are infirm, of the right to vote, because the taking away of the postal vote from them practically amounts to that. It sets up a new system of enrolment without any of the safeguards which are necessary to prevent plural voting. I shall await with a good deal of interest an explanation from those who are behind this measure as to . how they propose to prevent plural voting under the card index system. As: I have said, I am not opposed to compulsory enrolment per se, but I have the strongest objection to the form in which the Government have brought it forward. It is open to abuse in more ways than one. In bringing this proposal forward as a substitute for the postal vote, the Government are simply aggravating a hundredfold any little abuses that may be possible under the postal voting system. They are compelling electors to vote on a day that is objectionable to a great number of very worthy citizens. Regarding it as a whole, instead of its being what we hoped for when we heard that an Electoral Bill was to be introduced - a measure reforming our electoral system and liberalizing the franchise by extending it in every possible way, as we had a right to expect from honorable members opposite - it is in no sense a measure of liberal reform, and its defects are aggravated by the fact that it deprives A number of citizens of their votes.

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

.As this is essentially a Bill for consideration, in Committee, I did not intend to speak on the second reading; but as t do not expect to be present when a good number of the clauses are dealt with, I desire to take advantage of the present opportunity to refer’ to one or two of them. The principal part of the debate at this stage has centred around the question of postal voting. I was never enamoured of the postal vote, and when it was originally introduced, as far as one outside Parliament could be, I was strongly opposed to it. I felt that it was an interference with the secrecy of the ballot. At first it does not appear to have been much used in Victoria, and when it was proposed to abolish the system about, two years ago, I voted for its retention.. But I am’ now satisfied that if we are going to prevent great scandals in the future, we shall have to do as the Queensland Parlia merit was compelled to do - abolish, it altogether. We in Australia boast of our Democratic Constitution and of our liberal franchise. But, to my mind, an even greater boast which we are entitled to make is on account of the fact that the Parliament of Victoria created what is universally known as the Australian ballot. The franchise is of no value whatever unless the people are able to exercise it absolutely, independently, and without any fear of consequences to themselves. I am not old enough to remember the days of open voting, but any one who has read of what took place before the institution of the ballot can imagine what an enormous relief it was to the people of that time when this reform was inaugurated. I should like to occupy a little of the time of the House in order that I may put on record in Hansard the history of the introduction of the ballot. The credit for it has been claimed by several people, but there can be no doubt that it was instituted in this State. In 1893, Mr. Vincent Pyke, who was a member of the Victorian Parliament which created the ballot, wrote an article in the Otago Witness, which was copied into the Argus of that period, giving an account of the introduction of the ballot. Amongst other things, he stated -

The Australian (Victorian) ballot is largely due to the Ballarat revolt in 1854. As thus : To conciliate the miners, representation was accorded to them. Eight gold-fields members were consequently returned to the old Legislative Council, and the ballot was carried by a majority of exactly eight. I had the honour to be one of these, and took my seat as representative of the Castlemaine (Mount Alexander) gold-field. Mr. William Nicholson told me he was going to propose a resolution for the adoption of the ballot, and asked how the gold-field members would vote. “ For the ballot to a man,” I replied. “Then,” said he, “we shall carry it.” And carried it was, on December 19, 1855.

The motion was also supported by such wellknown men as the veteran John Pascoe Fawkner, Henry Miller (familiarity known as “Money Miller”), H. S. Chapman, and others. . . ‘.

Mr. Nicholson’s motion carried, an unexpected difficulty arose. The legal members of the Government - Attorney-General Stawell, afterwards Chief Justice, and Solicitor-General Molesworth, afterwards Judge of the Supreme Court- absolutely refused to prepare clauses incorporating the ballot in the new Electoral Bill then before the Council, and threatened to resign rather than do so. Now the new constitution had not yet come into operation, and the Ministers were nominees of the Crown. A meeting of Mr. Nicholson’s supporters was held at the old Council Club, when it was agreed that the Government should not be allowed to retire at that juncture. Mr. H. S. Chapman- afterwards

Judge of the Supreme Court in New Zealand - offered to draft, and did draft, the necessary clauses, which were carried by way of amendments when the Electoral Bill was brought down. Mr. Chapman had been in Canada, and had had opportunities of studying the working of the American ballot. He knew all its defects, and was able to avoid them in devising the Victorian, or - as it is now designated - the “ Australian ballot.” To Mr. Chapman, therefore, is due whatever credit may attach to this form of ballot voting since adopted by the other Australian colonies, by England, and by the United States, and to Mr. William Nicholson is due the credit of initiating the movement. . . .

The following lines attributed, I know not how correctly, to Butler Cole Aspinall (the celebrated barrister who defended the Ballarat prisoners at the State trials), were published in Melbourne at the time of the first election under the ballot : -

Not a drum was heard, not a ribbon worn,

As our votes at the polls we recorded ;

For music and banners illegal are deemed -

The Electoral Act is thus worded.

We entered the polling booth one by one,

Our steps to the left-hand turning,

Our beating hearts with a tropical glow

Of amourpatrie burning.

No useless hustings obstruct the street,

No clamorous shouts confound us ;

But we quietly carry the list of names

To a spot where no eyes surround us.

Clear and sharp are the scratches we make,

Without an emotion of sorrow,

And we steadfastly gaze on the names we erase,

And cheerfully think of the morrow.

Briskly and gaily we wandered home

From the scene of our present story.

Topay this tribute and pen these lines

To Nicholson’s honour and glory.

One can understand the feelings that induced the penning of words like that, and can sympathize with the emotions that arose in the breasts of the people who had previously had experience of open voting. Theoretically, voting by post may not destroy the secrecy of the ballot, but we know that in practice it does. When postal voting was adopted in Victoria by a majority of one, those who favoured it had in view the ultimate doing away with ordinary voting. Mr. J. A. Isaacs, quoting from a speech of the honorable member for Flinders, who was then the Victorian Attorney-General, said -

There are certain principles running through this scheme which we have endeavoured to adhere to as closely as possible. One is that this system of voting is entirely optional. The idea naturally suggests itself that we might make voting by post of general application, in substitution for the existing system. Of course, the advantages of that are apparent. You would be able to do away with almost all the polling booths and a great deal of the expense in connexion with elections, and so forth.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– Hear, hear !

It has surprised me to hear Opposition members protest against the abolition of postal voting on the ground that it will disfranchise some women, when they strenuously fought against the granting of the franchise to women.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I was’ always opposed to womanhood suffrage, but now that the franchise has been given, surely all women should be afforded the opportunity to use it.

Sir John Forrest:

– I introduced in Western Australia the Bill that provides there for female suffrage.

Mr WISE:

– I know that the right honorable member and some others supported womanhood suffrage. Those who are allowed to use the postal vote are persons who have reason to believe that on pollingday they will not be within 5 miles of the polling place for which they are enrolled, or, being women, will , not be able by reason of ill-health to vote at a polling place,, and persons who by reason of serious illness or infirmity cannot attend a polling place to vote. The honorable member for Richmond said that the abolition of postal voting would deprive persons in the backblocks of the ability to vote, but such persons do not take advantage of these provisions, because it is impossible for them to do so. To vote by post it is necessary first to make application, and then to get an authorized witness, and authorized witnesses are not easily found in .remote places.

Mr Ryrie:

– Schoolmasters can be obtained everywhere.

Mr WISE:

– There are districts in my constituency where the people are miles from schoolmasters. In some places they get a mail only once a week, and in others only once a fortnight, and by the time they could apply for a postal vote and use it, the election would be over. In some places the country is so rough that it is as difficult to go a mile as it is to go 20 miles near Melbourne. More polling places are required, which means expense. But money spent in giving the people opportunities for taking part in the government of the country is proper expenditure. Statistics show that the postal vote has been used chiefly in the closely-settled areas. Of the 29,000 postal votes cast in the whole Commonwealth, over 14,000 were cast in Victoria, while in New South Wales, which covers a much larger area, only 6,219 were cast> m

Queensland only 4,020, in South Australia only 1,751, and in Western Australia only 1,977.

Mr Ryrie:

– The comparison should be of populations, not of areas.

Mr WISE:

– The population of New South Wales is larger than that of Victoria, and the State two or three times as big, yet not half as many postal votes were cast there. Was the postal voting system used in Victoria because of the extraordinary prevalence of sickness here, or because more than the ordinary number of women were in a certain condition? The thing is absurd.

Mr King O’Malley:

– F - Fifty-two per cent, of the postal votes were cast in the cities.

Mr WISE:

– Unscrupulousness by one party generally provokes its opponents to retaliation in kind, and we are, therefore, likely to have a scandalous state of things in connexion wit.1 postal voting if it is in existence at the next elections. The abolition of the system will prevent sick people from voting, but in many cases they have no wish to be bothered. We cannot meet the case of every elector. What we have to consider is whether the law is so framed that as little wrong as possible is done under it. It might- be possible to get returning officers or electoral registrars to visit the hospitals, to enable patients who wish to do so to record their votes, but we should be careful not to continue a system which is likely to create a crying scandal. What is really needed is an increase in the number of polling booths. It is asked, “ Why are not those who have abused the law prosecuted?” But, as the right honorable member for Swan has pointed out, the law is broken by many persons on both sides in politics without evil consequences to them. It is the duty of the Government of the day to prosecute every offender; I do not think that the candidates are called upon to do that. Very often a man feels that it is not worth the trouble.

Mr Thomas:

– The beaten candidate is so disgusted that he will not bother.

Mr WISE:

– Yes. We cannot do too much to purify our electoral system, so that the people may express their opinions fearlessly and plainly. I have no personal interest in abolishing postal voting, because I have not suffered by the system, but I certainly think that it leaves the door open to great abuse. I am opposed to compulsory enrolment just as I am opposed to com- pulsory voting. If a man will not take the trouble to enroll, he is not worth bothering about. Still less is it desirable if he will not vote that he should be compelled to do so. The man who will not trouble to enroll himself has no opinion on politics, and we should do more harm than good by compelling him to enroll or to vote. I am not enamoured of the Saturday polling proposal. In the big cities where the Saturday half-holiday prevails it would be a convenience, but it would be of no benefit in the country districts, especially in Victoria, where we have half-holidays on various days of the week. I remember one election held on a Saturday in Victoria some years ago, and as an enthusiastic worker outside Parliament for one of the parties I know how intensely inconvenient it was to have the returns coming in on Sunday, and the excitement kept up all that day. We are told that the scrutiny is to be shut down at 11.30 on Saturday night and not re-opened until 8 or 9 o’clock on Monday morning. I do not know that the suspense will not be worse than letting the people worry through the Sunday with the returns. Polling booths are kept open till a late hour, and employers are prohibited from preventing their employe’s attending the polling booth, so that it is not of so much moment to have the polling on a half -holiday as it used to be a few years ago. I am and always have been in favour of preferential voting, and am prepared to support the honorable member for Franklin’s amendment in that respect. Preferential voting was part of the Fusion policy. When the honorable member for Richmond was complaining about its absence from the present Bill I felt inclined to ask, “ Why did not your Government put it in their Bill in 1909?” On three occasions during that session I asked members of the then Government if they intended to introduce and go on with it. Twice I asked the honorable member for Illawarra, then Minister of Home Affairs, and he said, “ Yes,” and finally I asked the honorable member for Ballarat, then Prime Minister, and he said, “Yes,” but it was never gone on with. My own belief was that in this, as in other things, there was a difference of opinion in the parties composing the Fusion. It is an absolute scandal that any member should be returned representing a minority of those who vote. I do not care which party wins, it is a direct misrepresentation of the electors.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - There are no minority men on this side.

Mr WISE:

– That is true, but there are six on the other side who represent minorities. There is one glaring case in which a man who sits in this House represents in round numbers only 7,000 votes while 10,000 votes were polled against him. That is absolutely wrong. The only way it can be prevented is by the preferential system. They have that system in Western Australia, and one of the Western Australian members of this House who has had experience of its working there told me he had no hesitation in saying it was the correct form of voting, and that very few mistakes were made. We have had it introduced at last in Victoria, and found it successful. That is the system of which I have always been enamoured, and which I am prepared to adopt.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– According to a ruling . which you, Mr. Speaker, gave last evening, I understand we are not entitled even to question the motives which have actuated Ministers in introducing this Bill, or any part of it. I do not propose to question their motives, but am going to point out to them that there are some things in the Bill which might lead ignorant people outside to do so, and to place a misconstruction upon the views of the immaculate party who have introduced it. Personally, why should I or any of us question their motives ? We know the lofty views which prompt everything they do.

Mr Thomas:

– Hear, hear.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We know that the mind of the Minister of External Affairs actually dwells in the higher realms of moral ethics on pleasant Sunday afternoons and at other times. Nobody would imagine that the Prime Minister or the honorable member for Kalgoorlie would ever be guilty of an act of political chicanery. We have their repeated protests to the contrary, and they ought to know their own minds. As for myhonorable friend the Minister of Home Affairs, who is responsible for bringing in this Bill, he does not need to protest his own innocence, nor does he ‘do so. We never hear him boasting of his political purity. He has passed through the furnace. He passed his earlier life among the ward bosses and Yankee politicians in another part of the world. What a tough chastity he must possess ! His political purity has never been affected by his surroundings. He is virgo intacta. Yet this

Bill will suggest to some people - not in, but outside, this House - suspicions of motives which, of course, we who know Ministers and know the party that supports them cannot for a moment entertain. When we see that the main object of the Bill is to abolish postal voting, when we see the reasons, or want of reasons, that have been put forward for that step, we cannot but be convinced of the earnest desire which has actuated Ministers to do away with corruption. If any evidence had been wanted of that, we have only to consider the character of the evidence that has been brought forward in support of the measure. One honorable member brought forward what I think was their strongest case. It was that somebody told him that somebody else had told him that at some election in some constituency, which he would not mention, that gentleman held in his hand 300 postal ballot-papers. We do not know what the circumstances were, and I should like to know in what part of Australia such a thing could possibly happen.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– You could not have heard the other cases when you were not here.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I can deal only with the cases that I heard brought forward. The honorable member for Maribyrnong brought’ forward another case last night. He said he had been personally informed by a medical man, name not mentioned, that this medical man had gone to a number of people who were ill, or supposed to be ill, and had taken and witnessed their votes as a medical man under the’ Act ; that he held those votes in his possession ; that he knew how they voted ; and that he had seen that they voted in the right way. If you omit the last sentence, which, of course, is the sting of the whole thing, there is nothing whatever in the story that is not absolutely justified. As for the sting of it, if the man had seen how they voted he was guilty of a flagrant violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, and ought to have been punished. It was the duty of the honorable member to bring that case under the notice of the law authorities, or the Minister of Home Affairs. If there is a scintilla of truth in that statement brought forward as part of the evidence on which the Government are going to deprive numbers of people of their votes, it ought to have been investigated by the Minister, whose duty it was, to deal with it, and it was the duty of the honorable member to bring it before him.

Mr Page:

– Do you think it was right, for him to-be an informer?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Absolutely hisduty in those circumstances. Every citizen, to whom a man said he was guilty of such a flagrant violation of public duty under aru Act of Parliament passed for the protection, of purity of voting ought at once to have reported the case to the Minister. If a. citizen ought to do it, infinitely more ought a member of this House to do it. We have heard a good deal about the secrecy of theballot, which is as important to one side of , the House as to the other. I am not at all sure that it has not become a good deal . more important to our side than to the other. But is it part of the principle of the secrecy of the ballot that a man is not to inform anybody he chooses how he is going to vote, or how he has voted? If it is, then you ought to abolish the ballot altogether, and try to find some system which will not deprive people of the ordinary liberty of telling how they have exercised their political franchise. The secrecy of the ballot, as I have always understood it, and as I think all other honorable members haveunderstood it, is the protection which is thrown by law around the man who does not desire to let it be known how he votes, but without impugning in the slightest hiscomplete liberty to tell anybody he likes how he votes, and to induce everybody tovote in the same way as he does. I have, quoted some evidence advanced for the step the Government are taking. I have not heard it all, nor do I suppose that any member present has sat through the whole of this weary debate; but has any. tittle of evidence stronger than those two. cases been brought forward in the debate?” If so, I should like to know what it was. The whole case rests upon the very feeble foundation of political conjecture.

Sir William Lyne:

– If the honorable member had heard the honorable member for. Riverina, he would have been convinced that there was a good deal in what he said.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A good many who heard that speech were not convinced by it. I do not know of any evidence that the honorable member brought forward. Under this law some 29,000- citizens of the Commonwealth exercised at the ‘ last election the liberty of expressing ‘ by postal vote their opinion as to who should be members of this Parliament: It is not too much to say that it is a prima facie presumption that all those 29,000 persons were entitled to exercise the franchise. It is for the party opposite to show that they were not. This Parliament, after deliberation, passed machinery surrounded by far more safeguards than have been inserted in any Bill passed in any State of Australia, in order to give to those very people who voted the right to vote. Prima facie’, those people have not abused the right of franchise. If the Government intend to deprive those 29,000 people, or similar numbers, in the future of the right to vote, surely it is not too much to say that such a drastic, injurious alteration of the law should not be made unless warranted by necessity, and that necessity proved. At all events, there should be some tittle of evidence in favour of it, instead of the wild, whirling words based on nothing but political partisanship which have come from speakers on the other side of the House.

Mr Fenton:

– It reminds one of the vote of the railway and public servants being taken away.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is not going to draw me into a side path by an inaccurate statement, which, I venture to think, he knows to be inaccurate.

Mr Fenton:

– The Act deprived 25,000 to 30,000 people of their votes. It was one of the most contemptible things ever done in Victoria.

Mr Page:

– That is pretty hot !

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member for Maranoa think that it affects me?

Mr Page:

– It would affect me if it were true.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And it is because it is not correct that it does not affect me. We are told that the Queensland experience warrants, without further inquiry, the abolition of postal voting in the Commonwealth. We have to remember, however, that the Queensland Parliament did not decide to do away with postal voting without having a thorough inquiry, and having for its guidance reports made by responsible and independent officers.

Mr Sampson:

– We have had none.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We have had no such reports.

Mr Chanter:

– A Select Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the electoral system after the general election of 1903.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Did it report that the postal voting system was a failure?

Mr Thomas Brown:

– It reported that it was dangerous.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Did it show that there had been corruption?

Mr Chanter:

– Evidence was given before the Committee in some cases to that effect.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But did the report express the opinion that there had been corruption ?

Mr Chanter:

– I do not remember.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Have we any report by any Committee authorized to inquire into this matter, or by any officer pointing out that this privilege has been abused? Not one.

Mr Chanter:

– What about the magistrate at Coleraine who was recently fined. That is the latest case.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable member says that one instance of an officer having failed to do his duty is sufficient to condemn the whole system, he is making a rather dangerous admission, which would seem to show that the roll-stuffing that recently took place in Adelaide ought to condemn the whole system of open voting.

Mr Roberts:

– There has been no rollstuffing in Adelaide.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A Commission has found that there was roll-stuffing.

Mr Roberts:

– The Crown Law authorities of South Australia have expressed the opinion that there has been no offence against the law.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Crown Law authorities of the Government, supported by a party against whom these allegations were made, have declined to act without evidence upon a report of a Select Committee or Commission which was based uponevidence.

Mr Roberts:

– They have not; they have said that there is no offence against the law.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then the South Australian law must be a very curious one, and I should think that upon such a report the State Government would have taken immediate steps to amend it. We are asked, without evidence or inquiry, todeprive a very considerable section of the people, who must be assumed to be in every way qualified to exercise the franchise, of the right to do so. We are asked to take action of this kind on the sort of statements we have, heard during this debate. At the last general election some 29.000 electors voted by post, 14,000 so recording their votes in Victoria. The reason why the proportion in Victoria was so large is that the system of voting by post was thoroughly well-known and appreciated here before it was applied to Commonwealth elections.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Fifty-two per cent, of the postal votes were recorded in respect of the city of Melbourne.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Melbourne and its suburbs comprise nearly one-half the population of Victoria. Turning to the Queensland experience on which we are asked to abolish postal voting, we find that the system which had been in existence there was totally different from that in operation under the Common wealth law. The safeguards there were1 not comparable to the safeguards under the ‘ Commonwealth law, and the dangers were proportionately greater because the system in .Queensland applied to all women. Every method of voting is liable to some risks, and the risks in that case were immensely increased by the fact that the system applied to all women. The fact that 29,000 voted by post at the last general election, and our general experience of the system, show that if it were continued we should probably find it being more largely used in future. I am glad to hear honorable members opposite cheering that statement. The cheers of these impeccable gentlemen clearly show their real object. Their object is not to do away with a vote which told largely against them at the last election, and might tell largely against them in the future ! Their object is to preserve the purity of the electoral law !

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - The honorable member has struck it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That will be for the public outside to judge. They will form a very shrewd opinion about the immaculate gentlemen opposite, whose political chastity is above the least suspicion. They sit there like a row of political nuns. No one would venture to suggest that any one of them would ever be guilty of a little bit of political trickery.

Mr Page:

– That is pretty rough on a team one of whose leaders has been described by the honorable member as a virgo intacta.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is not one whit better.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Nothing that the honorable member may say will carry any weight at all events with the public servants of Victoria.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If anything that I have deemed it my duty to do during my public career has alienated from me the sympathy of any section of the community I must stand it, and am prepared to stand it. Here we have these pure-minded gentlemen - these exponents of the loftiest ideals of political morality - bringing in a Bill to destroy the rights of 29,000 voters, and they admit that that number would probably be doubled later on if the system of voting by post were continued. Without any evidence that the 29,000 voters did not exercise the franchise purely and honestly the right which this Parliament gave them, they propose now to take away that right. We have nothing but wild and whirling statements, made without responsibility, to support the action proposed to be taken by them. We have nothing but the irresponsible statements made to honorable members by others who have not even mentioned names. No steps have been taken to bring forward these cases of alleged irregularity, nor have any reasons been suggested why the offenders have not been prosecuted. It is upon such statements that this House, as a deliberative assembly, is asked to wipe out a privilege which it deliberately gave to the infirm and the sick, as well as to women in that condition in which it should be the duty of every man in Parliament to protect them. We are asked on these statements to wipe out the right of these people to exercise their undoubted privilege as citizens of the Commonwealth. Although the Standing Orders may require us to abstain from any criticism of the motives of honorable members opposite, the public outside will not be so restrained. They will know how to appraise at their true value the protests and statements of honorable members op’posite. I do not intend to discuss this Bill at length. I quite agree that many of its provisions relate to electoral machinery, some good and some bad, that may be dealt with in Committee. There are however, a few provisions which suggest something unpleasant when we come to look into them, and which the Minister of Home Affairs, if, as I have said, his political purity and chastity were not above suspicion, might regard as likely to lead to some misapprehension.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We must prevent the wicked from destroying the palladium of liberty.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is a very fair sample of the kind of argument that has been put forward in support of this Bill. We shall have an opportunity later on to deal with the details of this measure in Committee, but there are one or two provisions to which I desire now to refer. I approach the consideration of one of them with a little shade of suspicion which might not exist were it not for other provisions in the Bill. I find, for instance, that it is provided that -

Rolls may be altered by the divisional returning officer by adding the names of any persons who he is satisfied are entitled to be enrolled.

We are not fold when it may be altered.

Mr King O’Malley:

– U - Up to the issue of the writs.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Where does that appear ?

Mr Tudor:

– -It is in the original Act.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If that is so, it constitutes a reply to a good deal of my criticism concerning this provision. Then, again, in section 182D it is provided that any person at any public meeting-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not go into the details of the different clauses.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I can assure you, sir, that I rose not to make anything in the nature of a “ stone-walling “ speech, but to enter a protest against the main political outrage embodied in this Bill : the abolition of a right which was recognised in this House to exist in regard to all persons - including women in the condition to which I have referred - who happen to be temporarily ill. We are now asked, without a shred or tittle of evidence, to abolish this right ; and it will be for the country to judge whether the motives that induce honorable members opposite to press this proposal are motives of political purity or motives of political revenge and chicanery.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I i.have listened to the satirical speech of the honorable member for Flinders with some degree of interest, but I must say that I think his arguments amount to nil. When I first saw this Bill. I was under the impression that the Government had gone too far in abolishing the postal vote. It is a system which I fancied was going to do much good, in giving’ a great number of people the opportunity to exer cise the franchise; but when I heard speeches, such as were delivered when the honorable member for Flinders was not present, I must say that I altogether altered my opinion.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Give us some facts, then.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I shall not give facts, but simply refer to the speeches which have been delivered in this debate. The honorable member for Riverina astonished me very much when he gave definite cases, and challenged the House to appoint a Royal Commission before which he could prove his allegations.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We are to have the Royal Commission first?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– In view of the speech of the honorable member for Riverina, the honorable member for Flinders was not quite fair when he said that no facts had been submitted. I had not made myself acquainted with the number of postal votes recorded at the last general election; and I must say that I am astonished at the number in Victoria, where, in spite of what the honorable member for Flinders said, fewer should have been cast than anywhere in the Commonwealth. If the orignal intention of postal voting had been honestly carried out in Victoria, there would have been a smaller number of such votes than in any other of the States. We find, however, that in the city divisions of Melbourne alone there were 7,198 such votes recorded, or 52 per cent, of the total number in. the State. This means that, in constituencies where every elector has a polling booth next door, as it were, or, at any rate, is never called upon to go more than a mile or a mile and a half, this vast number of postal votes were cast; and the fact suggests very forcibly that there was an improper use of the system.

Mr Harper:

– A great many electors were at Home last year.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I suppose there were just as many, if not more, in proportion to the population, who went Home from New South Wales as from Victoria.

Mr Fenton:

– And the Home visits were at the referendum time, and not at the time of the general election.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I cannot see that the observation of the honorable member for Mernda applies. We have the fact that postal votes have been used in a manner never contemplated.

Sir Robert Best:

– That is largely accounted for by the fact that the people in

Victoria have been accustomed to the postal vote for a great number of years.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– 1 do not think that that accounts for the position, because we may take it that the people of New South Wales are just as much alive to the advantages of the use - though not the abuse, I am glad to say - of the postal vote as were the people of Victoria. I must say that in my electorate I heard of no abuse of the system, which appeared to work very well.

Mr Atkinson:

– Then why abolish it?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– 1 am now considering Australia as a whole. There were not very many postal votes used in the Hume district in comparison with the number of electors. As to the Riverina electorate, however, I feel quite sure, after hearing the speech of the representative of that district, that the abuse, to his injury, was enormous. I certainly have a strong feeling that those who are sick or are otherwise legitimately incapacitated should have some provision made for them. I know it is difficult to frame a clause that does not leave room for abuse; but I suggest that one way of getting over the difficulty to acertain extent, if not altogether, would be to double or quadruple the polling places. In country districts, owing to the desire for economy, the number of polling places has been altogether too sparse. We ought not to consider the cost of making more provision, because the real question is whether or not the people are to have the representation to which they are entitled. I further suggest that if the general postal voting be abolished, provision should be made for the sick and incapacitated with most stringent safeguards. There is a clause in the Bill which provides that an offender may be charged with an alleged breach of the law any time within three years. But a period equal to the life of a Parliament is altogether too long, for the reason, amongst others, that it opens the door to blackmail and other objectionable practices. To revert to postal voting, I may say that I was a member of the Government who. introduced it ; and, as I say, I thought it would be of great use ; but in view of what I have heard now I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be allowed to remain. Hitherto the postal voting has been surrounded with much difficulty and delay, especially in the case of people who reside a long way from a post town. First, the authority to vote has to be obtained and sent to the voter to be signed before wit nesses, and then it has to be returned to the electoral officer before the election. All this, I feel sure, has prevented a good many persons availing themselves of the privilege. In my own electorate - and I mention this case, for I clare say there were others - there were fifty-two miners located at an out-of-the-way place at the top of a high mountain. Three days would have been spent in going to vote and return ; and the men of their own accord, most of them, induced the magistrate to go from a distance and take their votes. The system was instituted to meet such cases; but the abuse has been so great that it would be much better to disfranchise those miners than permit over 7,000 people in city electorates - many of them without just cause - to record their votes in this way.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– The honorable member for Flinders has come to the relief of his party, and, as a trained lawyer, he, of course, knew how to make the most of his brief. What are the points on which he relies to make good his case? He said that there had been no definite statements made in the House as to cases in which the system of postal voting has been abused. As a matter of fact, the honorable member does not know what cases have been cited, for he certainly was not present when the honorable member for Riverina addressed the House. It is unfortunate that an honorable member, who thinks he has good reason for coming to the assistance of his party, should not have heard the most important portions of the debate. Another point upon which he relies is that there is no evidence of the abuse of the postal voting system other than that laid before us in connexion with the Queensland State elections ; but those Queensland cases are as strong as any that could be cited. Whatever may have been the political colouring of Mr. Kidston in times gone by, or later, the fact that a gentleman in his high position condemned the system root and branch is the strongest argument that we could have against it. Of course, it is pointed out that these abuses were under the Queensland law ; but honorable members opposite must see that this is only a matter of degree. My contention is that, fence the system round as we may, it is impossible that it should be of any other but a- corrupt character. It is corrupt in its origin and in detail ; and it must be so in the very nature of things.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What does the honorable member mean by “ corrupt in its origin”?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– What was the object of the introduction of the bailot? I remember my boyhood days when a voter, under the open system, was in danger of having his head cracked as he entered the polling booth ; and to escape from that state of things secret voting was instituted. Although there may be hundreds of men who do not care who knows how they vote, there are thousands who prefer the secrecy of the ballot ; and the principle I am advocating this morning is the purity of elections. So far as my argument is concerned, it does not matter which way the fortune of war goes in politics - whether it places those with whom I act, or honorable members opposite in power. The important matter is that we should have purity of elections - that the people of the Commonwealth, men and women, should have an opportunity to register their votes at the ballot-box with that secrecy which guarantees an accurate representation from time to time of the fluctuating opinions of the Australian people. With regard to what may be called experimental legislation, it is necessary to think straight and to see clear. We should pay attention to our bearings, and make sure that we have not departed from principles laid down by our fathers which were sound and true. Any attempt to remove the secrecy of the ballot must bring corrupt practices in its train. I believe that the postal voting system originated in South Australia, where there was an agitation for giving seamen an opportunity to vote. The late Mr. Kingston did not oppose the measure, but he said to others and to me, “ You are undertaking a dangerous experiment, and although your object is, a good one, you will not be able to draw the line at seamen.” History shows that it was impossible to draw the line anywhere, and so the provision was extended, even by the Conservative party, for the obvious reason that postal voting is so easy to manipulate. I am surprised that the honorable member for Flinders could not see that. His arguments are always based upon the probabilities of human action. If I am asked for proof, I say that it is a matter of common sense. Any one of experience knows that in getting away from the ballot-box you open the door to corrupt practices, as in Queensland, and in Victoria also to some extent. Our object is to secure the purity of elections. Therefore, we wish to get back to the old system. There was more money spent at the last election by the Opposition and its supporters than at any previous election, but there will be twice as much spent at the next election. While the Labour party seemed to have no chance of getting into power, not much heed was taken of it, but when it was found that it was intended not to cant, nor to make wild speeches, but to pass measures like the progressive land tax, and to legislate against combines and trusts, the vested interests affected sought means to protect themselves, and, as a kind of insurance policy, found money to support our opponents. That is as plain as it is that two and two make four. Where did the money come from to fight against us on the referenda ? Where will the money come from at the next election ? This party must, in its own interests, secure the purity of elections. The Bill provides that those who spend money in connexion with elections shall make returns of their expenditure, no matter what side they support. As for the press, you will sometimes find a whole sheet taken up by the report of a candidate’s speech. You know him not to be an able man, and that the report had been written for him, and published at advertising rates. The cost of such advertising should be returned as part of his election expenditure, and the speech should be labelled “advertisement,” just as much as if it were an advertisement for Pink Pills for Pale People. Of course, the ordinary public is misled. The newspapers are not prevented from taking advertisements, but a return must be made of the expenditure on advertising. There are many things that cannot be proved. I cannot prove that honorable members opposite have “ stone-walled “ all night, but there is not a member here, nor a newspaper representative, who does not know that that is so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is that statement in order ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does thehonorable member take exception to it?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Then the honorable member for Hindmarsh must withdraw it.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I withdraw it. Let me deal now with the allegations of roll-stuffing in connexion with the Boothby election. The Fusion, Conservative, or reactionary party, having a majority in the South Australian Legislative Council, got a Select Committee appointed for the purpose of killing the Labour party at two elections.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Just as the honorable member says that the Bill is intended to kill this party at the next election.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I have not said that. The Committees set to work; the first report rushed through was brought forward a week before the election for the Upper House, and the other side won a seat. They were idle for a time, and then the final report was brought out a week before the Boothby election, of which honorable members know the result. The man that engineered this business is without doubt one of the greatest political scoundrels on the Australian continent.

Sir John Forrest:

– Who is he?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– A man named Moulden. He has a great record. He was an eminent and shining light of the Conservative party. He left the Conservative party to be Attorney-General to Dr. Cockburn when the progressive land tax was introduced, and he was kicked out for it. Of course, like all renegades, he has had to prove his repentance by doing all the dirty work to make sure that he will get back into the fold again. Honorable members know what some renegades have to do. Thank God I never was one, and know nothing about it. But I object to this honorable House dealing with a matter with which it has absolutely no concern - a partisan report got up for a political purpose. When the report was brought in, the debate was adjourned for a week to shut the mouths of Labour men upon it. That shows what the party with which honorable members opposite are associated will do when it suits them.

Mr Atkinson:

– Is the evidence taken by the Committee available?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Yes, and the Government of South Australia told the Select Committee to take their report back again, and inquire into the other side, which they never did. You would not expect that crew to do it. I object to having to rake this matter up at all, and would not have done so had it not been referred to over and over again in connexion with the Boothby election.-

Mr Ryrie:

– It is a cowardly thing to call a reputable man the biggest scoundrel in Australia. You can do it here, but you could not do it outside.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I know the kind of man I am talking about, and he knows me. I have referred to this matter in order to defend certain persons in Adelaide, and because I thought the House had a right to hear the other side. All that was in the charge against them was that they were possibly too enthusiastic in getting people on the roll, but no cases were referred to in which the people whom they caused to be placed on the roll were not entitled to be there, although I do not want to defend their action from a legal point of view. I come to the matter of the alleged great injustice that is proposed to be done by abolishing postal voting. I hope we shall do so. I always had misgivings about the matter, and was doubtful of my ground when, years ago, I moved to extend the vote in this fashion to seamen. I was convinced I had made a mistake, and whatever view this side of the House may take I shall do all I can to bring about voting at the ballot-box and the polling booth, and nowhere else.

Mr Atkinson:

– Then you would cut out the clause allowing people about to leave the Commonwealth to vote as absent voters ?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The provision enabling an elector to record his vote wherever he may be in the Commonwealth covers the cases of seamen, commercial travellers, and others. There may possibly be a leakage, but where personation or double voting can be sheeted home to any one, the House ought to see to it that substantial punishment is meted out, in order to deter others from breaking the law. People, as a rule, will not risk the loss of their liberty for the purpose of plural voting. We are told that we shall do a great injury to the aged and the sick. Whatever walk in life we are in, and whatever our ages, there are certain disabilities attached to our condition. There is not an old Radical in Australia that would ask for a voting-paper when’ he knew that the granting of it would endanger the purity of elections. These men have too much principle in them, and remember the long and bitter fight that had by their fathers to be waged to secure voting by ballot. With regard to the sick, the medical men and nurses in the hospitals do not want electioneering people coming about the wards and disturbing their patients. I will admit, if honorable members like, that our side are as anxious to disturb the patients for this purpose as are the other side. It is a great injustice, and even a calamity, that the sick man or woman should not be able to vote, but certain misfortunes always attach to sickness. Is it not a great misfortune for a man to have to lie on a sick bed and be unable to work for’ his wife and children? Is not that disability enough ? We give those men our sympathy and encourage them by insurance and so forth to get well, but certain misfortunes must always attach to sickness, as e veryintelligent man and woman knows. Do honorable members think that anything would induce the daughter of an old Radical, trained from childhood to take an interest in the serious things of life, to get a voting-paper for him if it would endanger the secrecy of the ballot? No. All the talk on this matter is party clap-trap brought forward for political purposes. It is all humbug from beginning to end, uttered to enable the party opposite to raise a scare in the community and pose as the friends, of those people, while making us out to be their enemies. We are content to take the risk of that as part of the price we are prepared to pay to secure purity of elections. I .could say a great deal more, but I think the debate has already gone on too long. This is one of those reforms that ought to be seriously considered, and then put into effect. A reasonable time should be given to discuss it, but Parliament is a place for making laws, and we cannot make laws properly after sitting for from eighteen to twenty hours at a stretch. The forms of this House ought to be of such a character that, after a reasonable time has been occupied in debate, the debate should be closed, in order that the country’s work may be done.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta) £11.40 a.m.]. - I have never during my ten years in this House heard a more outrageous speech than the one just delivered. Coming from an honorable member who puts on an unctious face, and poses as the one righteous, honest, straightforward man in the House, it is pretty rich. Adelaide has been distinguishing itself to-night through its members. Its language has been most elegant, polite, and gentlemanly, and there it must remain so far as I am concerned. I will say this however - that the man who attacks an absent reputable man in a place where he is not permitted to defend himself, and calls him the biggest scoundrel in Australia, is guilty of something akin to scoundrelism himself. I know nothing about what this gentleman in Adelaide has been doing. I do know that the facts to which the honorable mem ber alludes have not been controverted by the Labour investigators appointed in a responsible way to go into them. There is nothing in their report, so far as I have seen it, to modify the facts. All they claim is that a little more moderate language might have been used, and that the facts might have been stated in, perhaps, a little different colour, but even Labour members attest the damning facts themselves after full, free, and fair inquiry. Why did not the honorable member, if he wants to be fair, place this House in possession of all the facts? Why did he not tell us that these men had been condemned, not alone on the ipse dixit of Mr. Moulden, but on the statements made by Messrs. Wallis and Styles? He has been posing as the one fair man in the House, and yet he keeps back the material facts of the case. The honorable member may be left to enjoy his language of scoundrelism for what it is worth. Honorable members ought to know now how to appraise what he says. The Labour investigators say -

We are of opinion that the report, as agreed to by the majority of the Committee, fails in some respects to convey an accurate impression of the facts brought out in the evidence, and that a modification in the language employed would have rendered it more in keeping with the mode of expression usually adopted in the drawing up of a document of its nature.

That is all these men’s own colleagues could say for them. They do not and cannot impugn the facts, because the facts stand out. As related by those two Labour investigators, they are as follows: -

Of the claims for registration on the Legislative Council roll for the Central District received by the Electoral Department on 8th July, there were twenty-seven regarding which the Deputy Returning Officer was not satisfied that they were properly signed and attested. These claims were put into the hands of the police for investigation, with the following result in respect to them : - In eleven cases the persons whose names were attached to the claims stated that they did not give any one authority to sign their names. In two of these cases the persons concerned did not possess the necessary qualification ; in five cases the claimants admitted having attached their signatures to blank forms; in three cases the signatures were not those of the claimants, but Mr. F. F.- Ward had been asked by the claimants to put their names on the Legislative Council roll ; in two cases Mr. Ward had been directly authorized by the claimants to sign for them ; in two cases the signatures were not the claimants’, but they had been told by Mr. Ward that he >»as going to put them on the Legislative Council roll ; in one case the applicant stated that the claim was signed by her husband for her ; in one case the applicant stated that he did not give any one authority to sign his name, but he admitted that the claim was filled, up in his presence by Mr. P. E. Bibby, who said that he was going to put his name on the roll (in evidence this claimant stated that he gave his consent to his name being placed on the roll - Q. 7”?8j ; in two cases the Returning Officer for the State was not satisfied as to the signatures and refused registration - in one of these the police were unable to ascertain “ whether the claimant was existent or non-existent.” None of the applicants had appeared before the justices of the peace whose signatures were attached to the claims as attesting witnesses.

I do not want to place in Hansard the names here mentioned. I am concerned only with the one-sided statement of facts brought out by the honorable member for Hindmarsh on the strength of which he described a highly reputable man as “ the biggest scoundrel ever seen in Australia.” I have never heard more outrageous language used in Parliament. These men were summarily dealt with.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The Government have refused to deal with them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Have not their names been removed from the Commission of the Peace?

Mr Mcwilliams:

– No, the Government have refused to punish them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I was not aware of that. It was not fair to lead this House to believe that these men had been indicted by Mr. Moulden alone. Their own colleagues and confreres have had, after a full investigation, to admit all the facts. I have never listened to a debate on an Electoral Bill in which there were more charges made by one side against the other than have been made during the discussion of the measure now before us. Charges of corruption and scoundrelism have been made, and the language all night has been of the most lurid character. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has confessed that his one object in supporting many of the main proposals of this measure is that he desires that it shall be made the means of dragging out the way in which this party and those behind it are trying to corrupt the constituencies of Australia ! How does he know ? He says that he knows nothing, but that he is quite sure of what the result of the investigation will be. That very statement shows, that his mind is not open to argument. I am not going to say much against any inquiry of the kind, or against the provision in regard to the making of returns. Those matters will not affect me to any extent. None of these kind gentlemen ever come along in connexion with my election campaigns. I do not know that I should object if some of my constituents were prepared to foot my bill for me just as my honorable friends opposite have their bills footed by others.

Mr Tudor:

– My opponent had plenty of motor cars at the last election, and I am inclined to believe that some of my supporters used them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have no doubt that both sides did that. I should like to know from the Minister of Trade and Customs why, if all these enormities have taken place in connexion with the use of cabs and motor cars, the Government have withdrawn the clause in the Bill as introduced in another place prohibiting a candidate from hiring such vehicles to convey electors to the poll. Are they conniving at corruption by means of the use of motor cars and cabs? Let me adopt the attitude of mind of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, and say that they know well that they would have Jost a means of corrupting the public if they had not withdrawn that provision. Let me say again, adopting his attitude of mind, and his language, that if it had been left in the Bill we’ should have scored over the other ‘ side, because we should have been bound to reveal all the corruption that takes place by means of the use of cabs and motor cars by the Labour party. That is the attitude which the honorable member for Hindmarsh has been taking up in regard to certain other matters. I will not say that it would be fair to make such an assertion, but I do think there has been some influence of, let us say, a legitimate character.

Mr J H Catts:

– Under this Bill.it will not be possible for a candidate to employ motor cars and cabs at elections?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It will. The Government have withdrawn a clause which would have tended to strengthen the principal Act.

Mr J H Catts:

– It was useless, however. The Employers Federation did not take any notice of it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am told that one reason why the Labour party in New South Wales were successful at the recent elections was because they showed smart tactics, particularly at Mudgee, in using motors. Mr. Carmichael obtained all the motor cars in the district, and swamped the electors on the other side, so to speak, with them.

Mr J H Catts:

– At the general election the honorable member’s friends have all the motor cars.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not know that that is so. I do know, however, that motor cars were sent from Sydney to Parramatta to help the Labour candidate, who had one of his own to assist him throughout the election campaign, whilst I was chasing him with a pony and sulky. One of the main qualifications leading to his selection to contest the seat was, I understand, that he possessed a motor. I believe that both sides avail themselves to the fullest extent of all these facilities. I am not going to say, however, that all the so-called corruption is on the other side, and that we of the Opposition are the real “ Simon Pures.” It was alleged again and again last night that the corruption was all on this side of the House, but when honorable members opposite make such statements they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks. They know better. So do we. Both sides do this kind .of thing, and will continue to do it, in spite of Acts of Parliament. It is our bounden duty, however, to try to make our elections as pure as possible. We owe it to the democratic spirit of the time ; we owe it to the influence which, we hope, will mould Australia and shape her destinies ; and I owe it to the fact that I have always believed in the fullest possible franchise for the people. For twenty years it was my privilege to work on every occa’sion for adult suffrage. I have seen no cause to regret that work, and when honorable members taunt us with a new-found zeal in favour of the woman voter, my reply is that mine is at least twenty years old. Charges of corruption and manipulation have been made during the debate on this Bill in this House, as well as in another place. What ought to be said of them? I attach a good deal of importance to some of the statements made by the honorable member for Riverina. I know that he speaks feelingly, and that he has occasion to do so, and I am sure every honorable member of the Opposition sympathizes with him and others in the experience he has undergone. Every man who believes in fair play must sympathize with a man on either side of the House who is subjected to tactics that are not straightforward and fair. At least, we stand on common ground in relation to such matters. What happens to you today may happen to me to-morrow, and, we ought to be careful how we hurl personal charges at each other across the chamber. Such charges, indeed, ought to be left out of a debate of this kind, and when honorable members have to rely on mere allegations of corruption, chicanery, and trickery, it dod not say much for their case. During this debate accusations have been made as to various abuses . of the postal voting system. On what evidence have those accusations been made? Take, for instance, the case of the dor tor to whom the honorable member for Maribyrnong referred. The honorable member did not prove his case; his evidence in a Court of law would not be worth a snap of the finger. In the absence of any further testimony, it shows merely that the doctor said what every active politician says at every election - how he managed to get this vote and the other, and how he saw that he got such-and-such a vote and got it all right. Is there anything wrong with such a statement? There is not one honorable member opposite who has not said the same thing, and who will not say it again. It is the current language of an electoral campaign, and need not necessarily mean anything in the nature of corruption. Everything depends upon what the doctor did in the hospital. If he did wrong, then there is a remedy under the Act, and a verydrastic one. But because one or two cases of wrong-doing have come to light, the Government are going to disfranchise many thousands of the aged and infirm and many women voters. There is a law to punish murder, and when men continue to commit murder why do we not say, “Let us abolish the ‘Statute “ ? That is the analogy, and it is a perfect one. There are laws against felony; and are we h> abolish the law because felonies are committed ? If this system has been abused, why cannot we have a full and thorough investigation ; and on this point I challenge the Government. What has the expert of the Department to say in regard to the postal voting? That gentleman is a man of wider experience and knowledge, and greater ability in this respect, than are the members of the Government. Does he say that the system has been abused and ought to be abolished? He does not say so in his report. Singular to say, his language regarding postal voting and the extension of absent voting is guarded in the extreme. He is as careful about this aspect of the matter as he is careless - I do not mean that - but as he is generous in his. expressions in pointing out the advantages of other reforms proposed. In his opinion compulsory voting is an excellent idea. He says -

The provision … is designed . . . . to secure a clean and continuously effective roll . . . The adoption of a scheme of compulsory enrolment on the lines of the accompanying memorandum is both practicable and desirable.

He goes on to say that the ‘ 1 existing system “ is “inherently weak,” and that a system of compulsory enrolment would prove to be “specially valuable in insuring the correct enrolment “ of large bodies of people. He has no hesitation in recommending that portion of the Bill, but for the abolition of postal voting there is not a word of commendation. All he says is -

In consequence of the abolition of postal voting, provision has been made for the extension of absent voting……

Not a word is there, good, bad, or indifferent, but a simple relation of fact ; and this speaks volumes. The inference is inescapable that the officer who is supposed to know the most about these matters believes in the usefulness of the postal vote, and does not approve of its abolition. I ask the Minister - Kas the Chief Electoral Officer condemned postal voting and urged its abolition?

Mr King O’Malley:

– H - He does not settle the policy of the Minister.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– More’s the pity, in electoral machinery matters. We are nowtold that a partisan Minister settles the electoral policy. The one man who is away from machinery, and is supposed to dwell in an impartial and serene atmosphere, is not allowed to have “a finger in the pie.” This Bill is only a piece of machinery after all’, and if the expert may not have a say in regard to the arrangements for giving effect to the electoral law, God help Australia ! In die country to which the Minister is proud to belong, and of which he never tires of telling us-

Mr J H Catts:

– Does the honorable member think that he is making a fair inference ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– What other inference could there be from a statement that the expert is not allowed to have a say as regards the electoral machinery?

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member’s inference is that American methods are being introduced.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– No; only that he has had experience.

Mr King O’Malley:

– O - One would think that the 90,000,000 American people were thieves.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I hope not. I simply suggest that the Minister misconceives his position entirely, as the Minister responsible for the working of the electoral machinery. In discussing a proposal with such consequences to the people we have a right to a report from the Department as to how the existing machinery has worked.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - There is a report.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– But it tells me nothing about postal voting, and the Minister says that the expert is not allowed to have anything to do with the policy.

Mr King O’Malley:

– H - He does not run the Minister.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I again ask the Minister whether he will allow the expert to give his opinion, for the benefit and guidance of honorable members, in regard to this piece of machinery, and its results over Australia generally. In the absence of any report, we must draw our own inferences, which can only be that the Minister controls the machinery, and the expert must do as he is told.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - The expert sent that report to the Senate, and I did not see it before it was sent.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in the report, except in regard to its omissions.

Mr Jensen:

– The honorable member desires Ministers and Parliament to control the Commonwealth Bank?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– No, I do notI desire political influence kept away from the bank, and also away from this’ electoral machinery.

Mr Jensen:

– The Government have a right to have a policy, and this is a portion of their policy.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Of course, the Government had that right ; and we, as the humble representatives of the’ people, claim to know what the experts, whom the people pay to give advice, think about the working of that machinery.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - They are paid tocarry out instructions !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Is that it? I desire to know what part the electoral experts play in shaping the electoral machinery, and the Minister tells us that they are paid to do what he tells them to do. Let the public of Australia understand that the Minister is dictating this machinery policy, and will not allow the experts to pronounce judgment on this question of the 1 postal vote. If I were in the Minister’s place, ; I should have fortified myself with the ; opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer on a matter so important. This Bill, small as it is, presents aspects which, I candidly 1 confess, I do not like. I remember . that, : immediately after the referenda, the AttorneyGeneral told us in an interview, when summing up the results, how money had played its part, and he said very significantly, “We intend to do something in this matter.” I do not follow, perhaps, his exact phraseology, but he told us distinctly that something would have to be done in regard to the way in which money was being spent in the manipulation of political machinery. Is this Bill the result?

Mr J H Catts:

– Part of it is, surely.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I quite believe that to be the case. Indeed, we have been told frankly by the honorable member for Hindmarsh that that is the motive behind the Bill - that it is intended to bring up with a round turn certain organizations which are said to be corrupting the electorates, and show the people how the corruption takes place. Well, it cannot hurt those who act fairly. But I ask honorable members opposite whether they have ever thought that some of the greatest reforms they enjoy to-day have been won by means of money as well as by effort? Some of the greatest reforms have had many thousands of pounds spent on them by wealthy devotees.

Mr J H Catts:

– Would the honorable member let money-bags loose on the constituencies ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not recognise the honorable member as having any right to shape my language for me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member confine himself to the Bill ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I think I am doing so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is replying to a disorderly interjection.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Still that interjection bore on the question of the purity of election, and the fundamental question is how to secure a fair vote of the people of Australia - how to secure an accurate and fearless decision of the Democracy of Australia. Anything to forward that object we should cheerfully, cordially, and wholeheartedly do. But it will not help to that end to have charges hurled around the chamber without any tittle of justification.

If there is wrong-doing, let the wrong-doer be punished severely, but do not inflict penalties on innocent people. The Government, however, are not doing this; but, because there is one wrong-doer in a hundred persons, they propose to punish the whole hundred. A more outrageous idea I cannot conceive. This Bill, in the first place, takes privileges from the people who exercised them at the recent election to the extent of 29,000 - privileges that they valued and had a right to. Further, privileges are taken away from the Jewish section of the community, the Seventh Day Adventists, and others; and, altogether, it is safe to say that the Bill puts the greatest possible difficulties in the way of at least 50,000 electors recording their votes. There are three classes of persons who will be disfranchised as the Bill stands : the aged and infirm, who cannot get to a polling booth, the women who are sick, and cannot leave home, and those living at long distances from a polling booth.

Mr Hedges:

– It will disfranchise such men as lighthouse-keepers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes, and fencers, boundary riders, and the like. I suppose my honorable friends opposite are confident that they get the votes of most of those people. They have the same right to the exercise of the franchise as we have, but a man is not on the same footing as I am on if I can record my vote by walking across the street, while he has to travel 20 or 30 miles. Honorable members opposite say that this disfranchisement is necessary to put an end to abuses. I esteem it a great privilege to have heard the speeches made during the night. I should like a verbatim report of them to be printed in the type and form of the Bill, and circulated at the next election, a copy being put into the hands of every elector. No better arguments could be made public, and I defy honorable members opposite to answer them. It has been shown that by the Bill at least 50,000 persons will be inconvenienced, and many deprived of their right to vote, whereas our aim should be equal opportunity at the ballot-box. Compulsory registration, standing alone as it does, is merely a penalizing provision, not the enforcement of a duty of any reasonable kind. You should first give the people equal opportunities to vote, and then compel them to do their duty. You have no right to compel a man to enroll, when you are taking privileges away from him. I am willing to go as far as possible to obtain the full expression of the opinions of the people. But what is the use of compulsory enrolment if it is not to end in voting ? It should be a means to securing a larger vote. But the Bill says to the people, “ You must enroll, although we are taking from you to a great extent- the opportunity to exercise the franchise.” If there is to be compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting, there should be a multiplication of the facilities for voting. If honorable members believe in Democracy, as they say they do, let them run over the whole gamut of reform. Let them give equal opportunities to every man. Do not let one man have to spend three or four days in recording a vote when another man can do the same thing in ten minutes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is the man who has only to cross the street who has been using the postal vote.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not dealing with that point just now. Make the people enroll, and make them vote, only when you have taken care that it is made easy to vote. Honorable members of this party have dwelt upon the anti-British character of the provision which makes men guilty of electoral offences with which they are charged until they have proved their innocence. After all, the wrong recording of an odd vote is not of vital consequence to Australia. The country would survive the wrongful recording of a good many votes. To apply the provision to the offences with which it is connected is to penalize matters too much. Then an elector is allowed to record his vote for a man who has not, and may not, become a candidate, although all sorts of restrictions are imposed. For instance, if the surname of the man for whom the vote is cast is wrongly spelt, the vote will be informal. While the provision is loose in principle, trivialities are made as severe- as possible. Again there is the absentee voting provision, enabling an elector to vote at any polling booth throughout the Commonwealth. This is in no sense a substitute for the abolition of the postal vote. It is good so far as it goes, but there is a great deal of danger in its application. It is more liable to abuse than the postal vote. “You will have men voting thousands of miles from the place for which they are enrolled, a’nd manipulation of votes is likely to take place. I have not imputed motives to Ministers. 1 have simply analyzed the Bill. Its main purpose seems to be to attack the money power of Australia, and to prevent money from being used for propaganda work. I have yet to learn that that is not a proper use of money, and that a man spending <Sd. to assure the return of a candidate is bound to make the expenditure public. If there are abuses, root them out and punish their authors; but why make this assault upon liberty in order to do it? The Labour party are all the while taking liberties from the people in order to rectify paltry and particular abuses.,, That characteristic of theirs underlies this Bill, as it underlies nearly all the legislation introduced by them. They seem incapable of searching out the abuses of which they complain, and which in many instances we admit as readily as they do. If a member of the body is not operating properly, the surgeon does not cut the man’s head off. He tries to cure the defective part. Reform, amelioration, remedy, are required, but the party opposite substitute an assault upon liberty upon every possible occasion. This can only recoil upon their own heads. However much they may be trying in this Bill to hit somebody else, my candid and firm conviction is that they are going to hit themselves a little harder.

Mr Jensen:

– Well, why worry?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why should I not worry ? I am worrying because the honorable member is hitting innocent people, while trying to hit guilty people. I, therefore, have a right to worry. The abolition of the postal vote will cost them much dearer than it will cost us. I believe the absentee vote will be no better for them than for us. The compelling of Saturday as a polling day will not help them any more than it will help us, but it will penalize some of our dairymen away in the interior, although it will “ let out “ thousands of little farmers who find it extremely difficult to come into town on any day but Saturday.

Mr J H Catts:

– It will suit all the farmers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I believe we stand to gain just as much from that point of view as do honorable members opposite, but something higher than all that has to be considered. No little question of convenience or inconvenience ought to stand alongside the religious convictions of a large number of our fellow citizens. Our supreme concern should be to place no man under a religious disability, and the party opposite cannot deny that the provisions of the Bill will place these religionists, if I may so call them, under grave disabilities. They will be shut out from active participation in the polling, as compared with their fellows, who are more fortunately placed in this respect in the matter of religion. It is a fundamental principle of the Constitution that every man’s religion shall be respected. It is no answer to gibe, as the Minister did, by saying that these man can be found on the race-course on Saturday, although it is their Sunday. Plenty of people of every other religion will be found there also, but is that any reason why we should ignore their religions and place them under difficulties? 1 hope these matters, will be remedied in Committee. It will, be our bounden duty to attempt to remedy them, and if that leads to discussion, it cannot be helped. For the Government to bludgeon through a Bill of this kind is not fair to the citizenship of Australia. Everything that will tend to purify the rolls, to give us effective voting, and eliminate abuses, should be common ground for us all to , meet on. No one should cavil at that. There should be no politics as to that part of the machinery, but surely we ought to know what the experts of the Department have to say regarding postal voting. I should like to inform the Prime Minister that all we have been able to get from the Minister of Home Affairs is that he will not allow us to know the opinion of the electoral expert upon the working of the postal vote. He says the expert has to do what the Minister directs him to do.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister said it was for that officer to obey his instructions. We all admit it ; but is that the end of it all ? Once more I ask the Minister if he will allow the electoral expert, who has worked the system arid knows all about it, to tell the House frankly his opinion of its operation.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We will give him a seat on the floor of this Chamber.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not asking for any such thing. Let him do in relation to that matter as he has done in relation to compulsory enrolment, of which the Minister has allowed him to point out all the advantages in a paper printed and circulated at great expense. On the matter of postal voting, the Minister has shut his: mouth.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - I never said one word to him about it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is how the abolition of postal voting has been brought before this Chamber - the responsible Minister has not consulted his expert about it. I wonder to whom he has been talking about it, for he has evidently been talking to somebody. He admits that he has never consulted the one man in the whole Department who could give him an authoritative opinion as to how the system has worked. I advise the Minister not to take up that absolutely autocratic attitude with regard to the control of his Department. It is not wise, lt will bring him no good results. It is unfair to the country that experts, to whom we pay large salaries, should not be permitted to advise us with regard to the machinery which they are specially set to supervise. This man has been shaping, controlling, and steering this machinery for years. Now he is to be only the engine-driver; opposite us sits the engineer. He is the man that knows all its parts and can fit them together, but now he must work only at the direction of the Minister. The Minister will give me credit for having tried to treat him fairly ever since he has been in office. He has had no ‘ adverse criticism from me up to date, and I tell him now that he is making a huge mistake. He is not treating the country fairly, for the country has a right to know what the expert of the Department has to say regarding a piece of machinery which he has been operating, and which is now sought to be set aside.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DarwinMinister of Home Affairs · ALP

– In closing the debate, I wish to say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes a great mistake in thinking that I interfere in any way with the Chief Electoral Officer. That gentleman was asked for a statement, in the Senate, and he supplied it. I have not interfered with him, and never will do so, but so long as I am Minister of Home Affairs I intend quietly to guide matters. I am going to be the boss there, and I am going to let no one else boss the Department.

Question - That the Bill be now read a. second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 21

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses i and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section two of the Principal Act is amended toy omitting therefrom the words “ Part X- Voting by post,”

Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2.30 p.m., (Friday).

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Clause 3 authorizes the omission from the principal

Act of the heading “ Voting by Post.” In this way, at the very threshold of the measure, we are brought face to face with one of the most important and significant of all the proposed changes. We have, during the previous discussion, placed our view of this proposed repeal clearly before honorable members and the public; under the circumstances, I do not propose to repeat arguments already used. The substantive proposals relating to voting by post, of course, come at a later stage, but, at the very outset, we have this first authorization of the changes which are to be given effect to in subsequent clauses. Up till now the history of our electoral legislation might be very well summed up in the generalization that it made for increased opportunities for voting and increasing numbers of voters. But this proposal represents an absolutely retrograde step ; it means fewer opportunities for voting, and a smaller number of votes recorded. It appears to us, therefore, that this principle should be challenged, and challenged at once ; we propose, therefore, to give our voices with the “ noes “ when the clause is submitted.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 13

Majority … …11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

After section thirty-two of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 32a. - (1.) The Governor-General shall, by any proclamation directing the preparation of new Rolls, declare that the new Rolls shall be prepared under a system of compulsory enrolment……. “ “ (2.) The regulations shall prescribe anything necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying a system of compulsory enrolment into effect and may prescribe penalties not exceeding Two pounds for any contravention of any regulation made in pursuance of this power.”

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

– Has the Attorney-General noticed that the mandatory word “ shall “ is directed to the GovernorGeneral? If the clause remains as it is the Governor- General will have no choice or voice. Surely the GovernorGeneral ought to be omitted. I do not think the Attorney-General will find any precedent for this phrase addressed to the representative of His Majesty.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the word “shall,” line 3, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof, the word “ may.”

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- If registration is to be compulsory the whole clause ought to be mandatory ; and, instead of adopting the amendment of the AttorneyGeneral, it would be better to change the word “may,” where it occurs, into the word “shall.” If the word “may” be substituted as proposed, the registration will cease to be compulsory because it will depend entirely on the regulations issued by the Minister of the day.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We do not desire to deal harshly with the people; this is a new thing.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Parliament ought to say whether or not this clause is com pulsory, and not throw this undue responsibility on the Government.

Mr Groom:

– We cannot direct the Governor-General.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– All the same, I think that the word “ shall “ should be used throughout.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I hope the Government will adhere to the original drafting. I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition has too exalted a view of the position of the officials of the Commonwealth. I see no reason why we should not set forth in the Bill that the GovernorGeneral “ shall “ do certain things. Is there any particular divinity about this. position which makes it necessary that, when this Parliament orders a certain thing to be done, to approach the Governor-General-

Mr Ryrie:

– Who is the representative of His Majesty !

Mr HIGGS:

– I was not aware of the fact, and I am much obliged to the honorable member for his information ! The Committee evidently desire to have a system of compulsory enrolment ; and there is a great deal in what the honorable member for Fawkner said. It should not be in the power of any Ministry to alter the decisions of Parliament. A good deal of consideration has been given to this proposal, and we are prepared to adopt it. “Why should we allow honorable members opposite, when they take their positions on the Treasury bench, as they hope to do after the next election, to advise the Governor-General not to prescribe the system of compulsory enrolment? If they desire enrolment to be permissive let them so provide in a Bill in the usual way.

Mr HUGHES:
West SydneyAttorney General · ALP

– I think that the word “ may “ is quite sufficient. There is nothing to compel the GovernorGeneral to issue a proclamation. If he does not the rest does not follow, as you cannot compel a Government to issue a proclamation except in the same way as you can compel it to do anything else. “ May “ is the same as “ shall,” because if you have the power to compel a Government to do a thing - that is, if you have a majority - you can compel it to issue a proclamation. The proclamation is the first step, and as I have said, unless the Government can be compelled to issue a proclamation nothing follows. Consequently “ may “ and “ shall “ are synonymous.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– I do not intend to vote either for the amendment or for the clause for reasons which I gave in my second-reading speech. I do not approve of compulsory enrolment, but whilst we are providing for it we are providing to abolish voting by post, which should be the corollary of compulsory enrolment. We are depriving people of the right to vote in that way, and therefore compulsory enrolment is made particularly objectionable. I want to make clear the reason why I shall vote against the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- I do not think that the Attorney-General’s reading applies to the word “ may “ as applied to prescribing penalties. The clause says that the Governor- General “ may prescribe “ penalties not exceeding £2. Unless we make the clause mandatory the Government may prescribe no penalties whatever.

Mr Fisher:

– Exactly; they may.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Then this is not a compulsory enrolment measure at all. If there is no penalty there is no compulsion.

Mr Fisher:

– “ May “ is quite right.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I should like to have the Attorney-General’s official assurance on the point. It seems to me that some penalty will have to be prescribed, but as I read the clause the Government might prescribe no penalty whatever. In that case there certainly would not be compulsory enrolment. I am opposed to the principle of compulsory registration, but inasmuch as after a very long debate we are going to pass this measure we ought to understand what it involves. I want to make it as hot as possible. Let us have a proper penalty, and insist on the Government taking up one position or the other. I move -

That the word “may,” line 11, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ shall.”

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

– I have previously endeavoured to show that, though in favour of compulsory voting, I am. not in favour of this proposal as it stands. If the provision for compulsory enrolment were associated with compulsory voting it would be supported byme.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 18

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 -

After section sixty-one b of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - 61c. - (Compulsory enrolment and transfer.) 61e. - (Averments deemed moved in prosecution under compulsory enrolment provision.)

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– This clause provides, in proposed new section 61c, sub-section 2, that -

Every elector who has ceased to live in the subdivision in which he’ is enrolled for a period of more than one month and has changed his place of living to another subdivision shall fill in and sign - a form of claim for transfer. An elector may change his place of residence to another division altogether in another part of a State. I think the provision ought to read “ his place of living to another division or sub-division.”

Mr Fisher:

– He would be bound to be in a sub-division if he were anywhere at all in the State.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The same subclause also provides that the elector - shall fill in and sign, in accordance with the Act and the regulations, a form of claim for transfer or change as the case requires, and shall forthwith send or deliver it to the proper officer.

The penalty for an offence is £2. Suppose a man changes his abode into another subdivision, but does not apply for transfer. Suppose he takes no action whatever. Then he is liable to a fine of £2, if caught, for not obeying the law. My point is that if an election takes place, and a man is at a distance from the subdivision in which his name is on the roll, there is nothing to prevent him from voting. If he can go to a polling place, he will be able to vote as an absentee voter. Can that be prevented?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DarwinMinister of Home Affairs · ALP

– To give effect to the preceding clauses after new rolls have been prepared, and to keep the new rolls in a clean and complete state with the aid of a card index, the fullest advantage will be taken of all available agencies to assist electors, and to enable them to obtain the necessary forms anywhere.

Sir John Forrest:

– Would a man be able to vote after he had been away for six months?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes Yes, if in the meantime we had not caught him and put his name on some other roll. The Department must follow the elector all the time.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I move -

That proposed new section 61e be left out.

This is a provision which, in cases of prosecution for the contraventon of regulations relating to compulsory enrolment, puts the onus of proving his innocence on the person accused, which I think is not right. It should lie with the prosecutor to prove that the person prosecuted is guilty.

Mr Ryrie:

– The provision is a. menace to the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr Fisher:

– The Government is willing to agree to its omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Amendment of section 62).

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– It not infrequently occurs in the. case of fathers and sons of the same name that one of the names is left off the roll because it is thought that it is a case of duplication. An elector has assured me that, although his name was sent in for enrolment, he was disfranchised at three consecutive general elcctons, because it had not been put on the roll, as it was the same as his father’s, and he knew nothing of the omission until he went to vote. It should be provided that when a name is left off a roll the person to whom it belongs shall be notified of the fact.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member wishes notification to be sent by the Electoral Department?

Mr GROOM:

– Yes.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We agree to that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Polling to be on a Saturday).

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Those of us who are opposed to making Saturday the day for polling have already given our reasons very clearly and fully. Hitherto, the day for the polling has always been fixed by the Government as the occasion required, and the effect of this proposal is not so much to fix Saturday as to exclude every other day. At present the Ministers have their choice of all the days in the week, but if the clause be agreed to, all but Saturday will be excluded. Moreover, to fix Saturday will be an offence to a considerable section of the community, to meet whose scruples no attempt has been made.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

, - This question has already been fully debated, so that , I shall not say more than a word or two. Petitions have been presented to the House against the fixing of Saturday, and it has been pointed out that the choice of that day will debar certain sections of the community from exercising their franchise. The Government have not made any provision for those persons, under a conscience clause or an absentee voting arrangement. I think the clause should be struck out.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Form of nomination) negatived.

Clause 14 (Repeal of Part X.. Voting by Post).

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 21

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 -

After section one hundred and thirty-five of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ I35a.-(1.)- “ (2.) A scrutineer shall not be prevented from entering or leaving a polling booth during the polling, and, during his absence, a relieving scrutineer may act in his place, but only one scrutineer for each candidate shall be entitled to be present in the polling booth or subdivision of the polling booth at any one time. “ (3.) A scrutineer who commits any breach of this section, or who misconducts himself, or who fails to obey the lawful directions of the Presiding Officer, may be removed from the polling booth by any constable or person authorized by the Presiding Officer to remove him.”

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– As I understand the proposed new section it permits of the appointment of an unlimited number of scrutineers for any polling-place. The only condition is that there shall be only one scrutineer in the booth at the time. There will be nothing to prevent an army of fifty scrutineers passing in and out of the booth throughout the day. I feel sure that this can only lead to hopeless confusion. I remind the Minister that under the existing Act there is a limit put upon the number of scrutineers that can be employed at any polling- booth.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I do not wish to cut out any debate on the proposed new section, but I desire to submit an amendment, which I trust will receive favorable consideration from honorable members on both sides, as it does not involve a party matter. I move -

That the following sub-clause be added to the clause : - “ (4.) One scrutineer at each polling booth or subdivision of a polling booth may be appointed, for the purposes of the polling, on behalf of the party in power, and one scrutineer at each polling booth may be appointed for that purpose on behalf of the party in direct opposition.

Every appointment of a scrutineer under this section shall be made in writing and shall be signed by a person or candidate authorized in writing by the parliamentary leader of the party on behalf of which it is made to make the appointment.

Every appointment of a scrutineer and every authority for the appointment of a scrutineer under this section shall be lodged with the prescribed officer before the scrutineer takes up his duties.

Each scrutineer appointed under this section and serving in that capacity during the polling shall, out of moneys provided by the Parliament, be paid the sum of Fifteen shillings for his services by the Commonwealth.”

This proposal has received the approval of honorable members on both sides to whom I have submitted it.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Does the honorable member propose that the scrutineers should be nominated by the candidates?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes. I venture to say that a great many of the evils that have been complained of in connexion with elections would be removed if there were scrutineers at the polling-places whose duty it would be to watch the interests . of the political parties concerned in the election. Honorable members will agree that it would be impossible for a candidate to comply with the statutory limitation as to expenses if he were called upon to pay for the services of these scrutineers out of his own pocket. In the interests of the purity of elections, the appointment of these scrutineers should be part and parcel of our electoral machinery, and their expenses should be paid for from the Consolidated Revenue.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Suppose there were three candidates at an election?

Mr CHANTER:

– I have given that grave consideration, and I have doubts as to whether in such a case it would be right to permit each candidate to appoint scrutineers intrusted with this duty. I have preferred to be guided by our Constitution and the Constitution of the British Parliament, which recognises only two political parties - His Majesty’s Ministers and their supporters, and His Majesty’s Opposition. There may be a number of parties in Parliament, but it will generally be found that they may be ranged on the side of one or other of the two main political parties in the country.

Mr Groom:

– Does the honorable member propose that these scrutineers should act for candidates for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives?

Mr CHANTER:

– Yes. I will not take up more time in discussing the matter. I submit the amendment with confidence to the Committee.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I wish to ask the Minister of Home Affairs a question with reference to the relieving scrutineers. Under section 135 of the existing Act it is necessary to secure the appointment of scrutineers that a notice signed by the candidate, and supplying certain details, shall be given to the Returning Officer. What I desire to know is whether the conditions of appointment which apply to scrutineers under the law as it stands will also apply to the relieving scrutineers provided for in the proposed new section 135A?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

It is being provided that the poll shall remain open for twelve hours, from 8 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock at night. Many young men who have acted as scrutineers have complained that they have been unable to get out of the polling booth throughout the day. It was thought that we should do something to relieve them. This is purely a humanitarian proposal. The relieving scrutineers will come under the same provisions with regard to appointment as do the regular scrutineers.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- I think that what I desire to ask the Minister of Home Affairs has been referred to by the honorable member for Darling Downs. Under the law at present a scrutineer must have an appointment from a candidate, and I wish to know who is to appoint the proposed relieving scrutineers.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I wish to say with regard to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Riverina, that it does not seem to me quite fair since it shuts out candidates who do not represent either of the two main political parties -from being represented in the polling booths by scrutineers appointed by the Commonwealth. For that reason I am not able to vote for it.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- The amendment proposes an innovation so far as the conduct of elections is concerned. I recognise that it is one which will tend to the purity of elections, and provide a check against corrupt practices or practices discreditable to the candidates or their supporters. On the point as to whether there should be scrutineers appointed to perform these duties on behalf of candidates representing parties other than the two main political parties, I consider that, as there are not likely to be more than two parties in the Commonwealth for some time to come, the provision suggested by the honorable member for Riverina will be sufficient for the present, and I intend therefore to support it. There is no better safeguard for the proper conduct of elections than is the appointment of effective scrutineers. In some cases elections have been lost for want of proper scrutineers. I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I shall oppose the amendment. It would add considerably to the cost of elections, and it is unfair, because it provides only for two parties. Other parties ought to have consideration.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– The question is, are scrutineers necessary at elections ? If they are, should the candidate or the people of the Commonwealth be at the expense of them, in order to insure purity of elections? The people of the Commonwealth would be quite willing to pay for scrutineers with that object. I, therefore, support the amendment.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Crown now appoints two men, supposed to be the most honorable available, to every polling booth as presiding officer and poll clerk respectively. The amendment practically asks the Crown ‘to appoint two other men on the recommendation of political parties. It will be a bad day for the Commonwealth if political influence is allowed to run elections.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– - The question that appeals to me is this : Have I a right thus to relieve my (pocket at the expense of the Treasury? I submit that I ought, in the circumstances, to consult my electors first.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.- At the first glance I thought the amendment was a good one. I had not taken into consideration the fact that there might be a number of candidates. It is not fair that some should be left to pay their own expenses, while the Commonwealth pays the expenses of others. If preferential voting were introduced, a number of candidates might run, and I cannot support the amendment unless provision is made for all candidates to have their scrutineers’ expenses paid.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- I should be glad if the honorable member for Riverina withdrew his amendment, to allow me to move a prior one. I desire to move -

That after the word “ absence,” line 3, the words “ may appoint “ be inserted, and that the word “ may,” line 4, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ to.”

The effect of this would be to allow the scrutineer to appoint some one to relieve him. No provision is made in the Act for the appointment of a substitute.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - It is in the principal Act.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The principal Act’ simply provides that candidates may appoint scrutineers. However, as the Minister will not accept the amendment, I shall not press it.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I shall support the amendment, as I wish to see election expenses limited as much as possible. In England, before a man is allowed to nominate for a seat, he must deposit any sum from £300 to £450.

Mr Fisher:

– The objection to the amendment is that it brings party politics into the polling booth.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– That can be remedied if the honorable member for Riverina will accept an amendment allowing a scrutineer to be appointed for each candidate. Both sides want purity of politics, and our aim should be to enable the poorest man in the community, if he has the confidence of his fellow-citizens, to contest any seat. In England the cost to a candidate for any ordinary election is from ,£1,500 to £2,000; while in the case of Labour members, even with, volunteers backing them financially, the cost is at least £1,100.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

.- I desire to reply shortly to a few of the objections which have been urged against my proposal.

Mr Page:

– Vote and reply afterwards.

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not wish honorable members to vote blindly. I entirely disagree with the statement of the Prime Minister that my amendment, if adopted, will introduce party politics into the polling booth, because it will have quite the reverse effect. I also disagree with the honorable member for Parramatta, who considers that it will load individual candidates.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No, it will relieve their pockets at the public expense.

Mr CHANTER:

– It comes to the same thing. The honorable member says that it is a proposal with which he does not feel inclined to deal until it has been submitted to the electors. Is there one honorable member who will say that, as a candidate, he can put a scrutineer in a polling booth? That is prevented by the law, and it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the candidates that scrutineers shall be there. After all, how much will the cost amount to? It will entail an expenditure of £10,000 or £12,000 for the whole Commonwealth. Candidates will not be relieved, because they cannot incur this expense at the present time. Their money has to be expended in other directions, such as the renting of halls. I regret that the Government cannot see their way to accept the amendment. To my mind it does not mean a loading up of officials either, because the Government find it necessary now, as the Prime Minister has admitted, to place two high officials in the persons of a presiding officer and a poll clerk in every booth in the Commonwealth. I contend that if scrutineers are allowed to be appointed there will be no necessity to employ poll clerks. These persons can be withdrawn, and the presiding officer can do his duty quietly and properly. The amendment means the addition of only one person, so that from that point of view there will be no loading up. I have proposed a limit to the expense. Some honorable members may think that the limit is too little or too high. An amount had to be placed before the Committee, and therefore it was proposed at 15s. In regard to the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne, I have a keen recollection, as no doubt other honorable members have, of past proceedings. It has been stated that the interests of other parties ought to be protected, and that scrutineers should be provided for them. There is no reason why, if a third or a fourth party choose to put a candidate into the field, they should not provide a scrutineer.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– They have equal rights of citizenship.

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not wish to see the Commonwealth holding out inducements for fifty issues to be submitted to the electors when there ought to be only One. I. know that there will always be a number of outsiders, but this question has to be regarded from the strict constitutional standpoint.It does not matter if there are a dozen parties in the House, constitutionally speaking there are only two parties, namely His Majesty’s Ministers and His Majesty’s Opposition. I regret, for the reasons I have given, that I cannot accept the suggested amendment of the honorable member for Melbourne. I am satisfied that my amendment is one which the Government ought to accept, and one which, if adopted, will be cordially approved of by the people. I feel sure that, if it be inserted in the Bill, we shall hear considerably less about the impurity of elections in the future than we have heard in the past.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added (Mr. Chanter’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 37

Majority … … 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - (4.) One scrutineer at each polling booth or subdivision of a polling booth may be appointed, for the purposes of the polling, on behalf of each candidate, and one scrutineer at each polling booth may be appointed for that purpose on behalf of the party in direct opposition.

Every appointment of a scrutineer under this section shall be made in writing and shall be signed by a person or candidate authorized in writing by the parliamentary leader of the party on behalf of which it is made to make the appointment.

Every appointment as a scrutineer and every authority for the appointment of a scrutineer under this section shall be lodged with the prescribed officer before the scrutineer takes up his duties.

Each scrutineer appointed under this section and serving in that capacity during the polling shall, out of moneys provided by the Parliament, be paid the sum of Fifteen shillings for his services by the Commonwealth.

That amendment, if made, will remove all question of party bias. It will also relieve the Commonwealth of a slur, because no candidate can keep within the limits of the allowance for expenses and at the same time pay for scrutineers. Every honorable member must recognise that, if a scrutineer is in a polling booth, and he is not an independent man, he earns a good day’s wage by being there. If a candidate accepts the services of a man who cannot afford to give a day for the purpose, surely there should be a recognition of his services. I have often regretted that I have not been able to remunerate a scrutineer, because my costs could not go beyond the limit of £100. Other candidates are not so fortunate as I am in their expenses. I feel sure that if the Government can see their way to allow the amendment to pass, it will make our Electoral Act still more splendid than it is. In Switzerland they conduct their elections at much less expense than we do. The English system of elections, however, is a degradation to and a stigma upon British civilization. We ought to be able to give them the example of our life, and make theirs higher. Once and for all, let us remove this absurdity that we are supposed to pay our scrutineers, when there is not a single candidate who can afford to do so if he has also to pay for halls for holding meetings in.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I merely desire to justify the vote that I gave on the amendment just dealt with, and which 1 intend to give on the amendment now before the Chair. I think it well that the country should know that the division just taken shows that we have in this House an overwhelming majority in favour of working men for twelve hours a day without paying them for their services. I am one of those who think that scrutineers should receive something like reasonable payment for the twelve hours’ work that they have to put in on polling day, but as the law stands we cannot honestly keep within the limit of £100, which a candidate is allowed to expend, if we pay them for their services.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

. -I supported the previous amendment, but cannot vote for that now before the Chair. The previous amendment meant only the employment of two men, but in this instance provision would be made for the employment of six in the case of a Senate election, and at least two in the case of an election for this House, plus any number of candidates that might come along. We should not be justified in loading up the people with these charges.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 37

Majority …. … 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I desire to move the insertion of a new sub-clause providing that Returning Officers shall supply scrutineers with meals on polling day. My reason for making this proposal is that scrutineers have to work long hours, and it is often very difficult in many places to make arrangements for refreshments to be supplied them.. Arrangements must be made for the meals of the Returning Officers, and such arrangements could cover also the provision of meals for scrutineers.

Mr Fisher:

– I undertake to carry out the honorable member’s proposal by regulation.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am satisfied with that assurance.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The proposal made by the honorable member is a good one. Candidates are not allowed to treat any one, and I have often found a difficulty in making arrangements for the supply of meals to scrutineers. I think there ought to be a regulation providing that the Government shall see that reasonable refreshments and meals are supplied to all persons legitimately working within a polling place.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

.- I recognise that there is a difficulty in the way of a candidate paying his scrutineers, and at the same time keeping within the maximum expenditure of £100, which he is allowed to incur. I think that the object which many honorable members have in view in regard to the payment of scrutineers would be attained, however, if we provided that such payments should be over and above the amount of£100, which a candidate may expend under the Act.

Mr Fisher:

– We shall consider the difficulty.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- A candidate has. no hope of paying his scrutineers, and keeping within the limit of expenditure which he is allowed to incur under the Act. If, however, We provided that the payment of scrutineers should not be included in the electoral expenditure up to£100 which a candidate may incur, we should increase rather than keep down that expenditure. I have no personal interest in this matter, because, save in one case when a substitute had to be employed, I never had to pay for a scrutineer. The amendment suggested by the honorable member for Hume would be an incentive to a man to increase his payments.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– I am inclined in this case to agree with the honorable member for Hume, and would call his attention to certain amendments of which I have given notice with reference to the omission of certain items from the list of electoral expenses.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that he would provide by regulation for the proposal made by the honorable member for Hume.

Mr Fisher:

– No, I only said that I would think over it.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I should like to know what that means. Does it mean Acquiescence ?

Mr Fisher:

– No.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Then we may consider the matter dead.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Voting before polling day by electors who willbe absent on polling day).

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.I desire to know what provision will be made to safeguard this clause. Under it an elector has merely to say that he has reason to believe that he will be out of the electoral division to be permitted to vote at any time after the issue of the writ, and before polling day. But under the postal voting system an elector had to satisfy an officer that he had valid reasons for believing that he would be unable to attend the nearest polling booth on polling day.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I - In this case he will. have to make a declaration.

Mr GROOM:

– Yes; but no inquiry is made. There are no penalties provided.

Mr Fisher:

– We will provide a substantial penalty.

Mr GROOM:

– If the Prime Minister will give me an assurance that the clause will be properly safeguarded, 1 shall be satisfied. Is it proposed to prescribe a penalty ?

Mr Fisher:

– Yes.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- When the Leader of the Opposition was debating the question of the disfranchisement of persons who entertain conscientious scruples against voting on Saturday, the suggestion was made that their objections might be overcome by allowing them to avail themselves of the absent voting provisions of this Bill. But I find that the scruples of the members of the particular religious body referred to terminate with sunset, and, as the polling booths will be open till8 p.m., they will thus have nearly three hours in which to record their votes.

Mr Ryrie:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that, as we have already dealt with the proposal to set apart Saturday as polling day, the honorable member’s remarks are not in order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Fowler:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable member for Cook is certainly out of order.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– This is a very important matter. The Committee have decided that elections shall be held on Saturday, and, as a result, we shall deprive a large number of citizens of their right to exercise the franchise because of their conscientious objections to vote upon that day. In these circumstances, it is our bounden duty to devise some means by which they may register their votes.

Mr J H Catts:

– They may vote after sunset.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That depends entirely upon how far distant they are from a polling booth, and also upon the period of the year when the election is held. We are simply rushing this Bill through Committee without giving it adequate consideration. Why should we not provide in this clause that any person who has conscientious scruples to voting on Saturday shall be at liberty to vote at any time after the issue of the writ, and before polling day? We give this privilege to any sailor who may be leaving Australia, perhaps never to return. Why, then, should we prevent thousands of people who have conscientious objections to voting on Saturday from exercising their franchise? Why should they not be afforded the same privilege that is afforded to absent voters?

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I should not have risen but for the fact that one of the principal guides of the important religious body to which reference has been made told me that he has no complaint regarding Saturday being set apart as polling day, save that the members of his denomination will not be able to work for their particular candidates - that they will have ample time to vote during the hours that the polling booths will remain open.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (Amendment of section 165).

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

– I take it that the return of the writ, without the receipt of all the ballot-papers, may, under the circumstances, be permitted to pass. But what power is there to correct the writ after it has been duly indorsed ?

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - This clause is to meet exceptional cases.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Possibly; but my object is to call attention to the point which has not been met.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– As the Minister says, this clause is to meet exceptional cases. In my own election I had to wait for six weeks for one ballot-paper before the result could be declared. I had a majority of about 7,500, so that there was no doubt as to the result ; but a single elector justly exercising the franchise out west caused the delay, and, I understand, the clause is to meet such cases.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 -

After section one hundred and seventy-two of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted in Part XIV. : - “ 172a. - (1.) Every trades union registered or unregistered, organization, association, league, or body of persons which has, or person who has, in connexion with any election, expended any money or incurred any expense - …. shall in accordance with this section make a return of the money so expended or expense so incurred. “ (2.) Every organization . . . which has . . expended any money … in printing publishing or issuing electoral advertisements or notices . . . shall . . . make a return of the money so expended “ (3.) The return shall be in accordance with the prescribed form, and shall be signed and declared to before a Justice of the Peace by the President or Chairman and the Secretary or other officer of the organization. . . “ (4.) If any organization, association, league, or body of persons satisfies the Chief Electoral Office r that it has in connexion with any political campaign expended money or incurred expense on behalf of or in the interests of a political party in all the States or in more than one State, he may permit it to file with him in lieu of any other return under this section a return of the whole of the money expended or expense incurred by it in the campaign. “ (5.) If any organization, association, league, or body of persons fails to comply with this section, every person who was an officer thereof at the time the money was expended or expense incurred shall be liable to a penalty of Fifty pounds. . . . “ (8.) The Chief Electoral Officer may by notice in writing in the prescribed form require the President or Chairman and the Secretary or other officer of any organization … to make a return in accordance with this section. “ 172b. - (1.) The proprietor or publisher of a newspaper published in the Commonwealth shall, in accordance with this section, make or cause to be made a return setting out the amount of electoral matter in connexion with the election inserted in his newspaper in respect of which payment was or is to be made, the space occupied by such electoral matter, the amount of money paid or owing to him in respect of such electoral matter and the names and addresses of the organizations, associations, leagues, bodies of persons, or persons authorizing the insertion thereof.

Penalty (on proprietor) : Five hundred pounds.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– Consequential alterations are, I think, necessary in this clause. In proposed new section 172 a there are the words “ Every trades union registered or unreregistered,” but in sub-clause 2 they do not appear. The insertion of the words in the first sub-clause may be regarded as excluding them from the second ; and, as

I understand that is not the intention, we ought to insert throughout the words “ Every trades union registered or unregistered.”

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I think this position arises from an amendment being inserted in another place to meet the desires of some members of the Opposition who thought that the words, “ organization, association, league, or body of persons “ did not include trades unions. I do not agree with that view, and my own opinion is that it would be better to strike out the words “ Every trades union registered or unregistered.”

Mr Deakin:

– - That suggestion meets the case, except that as the words were inserted in another place it might be less objectional to make the consequential amendments referred to by the honorable member for Darling Downs:

Amendments (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the words “ trades union registered or unregistered “ be inserted before the word “organization” in sub-clauses (2.), (3.), (4.), (5.), and (8.), of proposed new section 172a and the words “ trades unions registered or unregistered “ be inserted before the word “ organizations “ in sub-clause (1.) of proposed new section 172b.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– This clause provides that every trade union or other organization which has, “ in connexion with any election “ expended money must make returns ; and the words I have quoted are likely to lead to endless confusion. All these organizations and bodies send representatives throughout the country, and are expending money without check; and there should be some definition or limitation of time. Does this mean three years before an election and thus the keeping of accounts showing every item of expense incurred in that period? The wording of this clause is only in keeping with many of the slipshod phrases used throughout the Bill, which seems to have been thrown together without any mature consideration. I am afraid that when this clause is put into operation it will be found inoperative, or will, as I said, result in confusion. We ought to either provide that every shilling spent between elections must be accounted for, or we must fix a limit of one, two, or three months. Is it the idea that the operation of this clause must be confined to a month before the election? We know the farce that has been going on for years in conoexion with the Australian Workers Union, who send out men, nominally to look after the organization, but really to act as political agents. In some cases these agents themselves receive nominations, and may spend months or years in politically organizing a district.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Organizations on the other side do the same thing.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Then let both be treated alike.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– It is obvious that expenditure under this clause will not be limited, as it is under the principal Act, to after the day of nomination, and it would be farcical to attempt to so limit it. Without expressing any dogmatic opinion, I venture to say that, if we limit this expenditure to one month, we shall practically prevent all the benefits expected to flow from this clause, and make it possible for enormous sums of money to be spent, and public opinion to be influenced without having any redress. It appears to me that there ought to be furnished a return of money expended at least for the period of three months before an election. If no money is expended, the matter will be very simple. If some is spent, we want to know how much.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- The conditions under which we are working at the present moment do not permit of anything like a fair examination of any of the many proposals with which we are dealing in the greatest haste. But surely the AttorneyGeneral realizes that the crux of the complaint made by the honorable member for Franklin is that the unlimited application of these penalties is something which no Court could authorize under such circumstances. The Court would be forced on some particular occasion to decide the precise point of time at which the election could have been foreseen. I presume chat that would be within the Christian era ! If one month is too short, certainly three months is too long. Split the difference and make it two months.

Amendments agreed to.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

.’ - I - I should like to ask the AttorneyGeneral whether it is intended that the expenditure on behalf of, or in the interest of, any candidate, would include expenses on account of hospitality by a private person ?

Mr Hughes:

– This would not apply to private hospitality in the ordinary sense. But bribery sheltering itself under the- cloak of private hospitality would be included.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- Sub-clause 5 refers to “every person who was an officer thereof at the time the money was expended.” Is not that rather vague? What is meant by “who was an officer?” A person may have been an officer only on the day of the polling. He may have earned a guinea or a couple of guineas for his services on that day.

Mr Fisher:

– What is meant is the date on which the money was expended ; the legal authorities say that the provision is quite right.

Mr HEDGES:

– I do not care what any one says. The provision is vague, and certainly ought to be altered.

Mr Hughes:

– The wording is quite right.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 (Amendment of section 174).

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Section 174 of the principal Act requires the signature of an elector to be placed on the counterfoil. Is that no longer required? If not, why not?

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - The necessity for it has gone with the abolition of postal voting.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34 (Untrue statement in forms).

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Proposed new section 181d provides that a person shall not “ make any untrue statement in an electoral paper.” I presume that this means an untrue statement made with intent to deceive. A statement may be untrue, but nevertheless not untrue within the knowledge of the person who makes it.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– Proposed new section181d means that a person shall not make a wilfully untrue statement. If he makes a statement which is true to the best of his knowledge and belief, he has taken all reasonable precautions, and does not commit an offence.

Mr Deakin:

– Does the AttorneyGeneral think it is clear that that is the meaning?

Mr HUGHES:

– No Court would hold that the words bore any other interpretation. What is meant is that a person must take those reasonable precautions which, for instance, a newspaper editor takes to protect himself from publishing libellous statements. In a case of simple misadventure the provision would not apply.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (Right of electoral officer to be represented).

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I desire to move an amendment, the object of which is to provide that disputed returns shall be determined, not by the High Court, but by a Committee of this Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I rule that a new clause will be necessary to carry out the honorable member’s object.

Mr CHANTER:

– I must obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman ; but I wish it to be understood that if this clause is now allowed to pass, I ought not to be debarred from moving a new clause hereafter, on the ground that the Committee has already accepted the principle of determining electoral petitions by the High Court.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will have the opportunity that he desires.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- The Court of Disputed Returns is the High Court, and if we provide that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be entitled by leave to enter an appearance before it, we emphasize that fact. Consequently, when, later, the honorable member moves to insert a new clause to change the constitution of the Court of Disputed Returns, the Chairman may rule it out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If I find that the new clause cannot be accepted, the Bill can be recommitted to allow this clause to be reconsidered.

Mr Fisher:

– I promise to see that an opportunity is given for that.

Mr WEBSTER:

– A recommittal can be obtained only by consent of the House, and we have no guarantee that that will be given.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have ruled that the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina cannot be accepted.

Mr WEBSTER:

– There is no likelihood of obtaining a dissent from your ruling, or I would move that it be disagreed with. I think it is absolutely wrong.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– It seems to me that the words “ providing the administration of the Electoral Department is involved,” should be added to the clause, because it is not right that the Chief Electoral Officer should be represented in any proceedings unless the administration of his Department is involved.

In that case, he should be allowed to apply to the Court for leave to appear.

Mr King O’Malley:

– U - Unless his administration is in question, he willnot appear.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 -

After section two hundred and eight of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 208a. Prosecutions for offences against this

Act . . . may … be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence.”

Mr Hedges:

– I understood the Minister to say that he would amend this clause.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

The honorable member for Richmond pointed out that a man might register in one division and in another sign a number of cards, but if he did so he would commit forgery, and we should be able to prosecute him whenever and wherever his crime was discovered.

Mr Fowler:

– A prosecution for forgery can be commenced at any time.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Government is willing to reduce the term to one year. I move -

That the words “three years” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ one year.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 similarly amended and agreed to.

Clause 44 -

The schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Forms I, J, and Q.

Amendment (by Mr. King O’Malley) agreed to -

That the following words be added, “ and inserting Forms I and J in the schedule to this Act in the stead of Forms I and J omitted.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule containing new forms I and J inserted.

Amendment (by Mr. King O’Malley) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 10a. Section sixty-six of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection : - (2.) The Registrar-General of Marriages in each State shall in the months of January, April, July, and October in each year forward to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State particulars of all marriages registered during the preceding three months and in respect of which the bride is of the age of twenty-one years and upwards.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

., - I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 5a. Section sixteen of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following words : - “ In making such distribution of States into divisions it shall not be obligatory that the whole of any division shall be conjoined and in one block.”

At the present time a division must consist of one block or area. It very often happens that an electorate is so marked out as to destroy the principle of our electoral law, providing for the association of a community of interests. In England it is a common thing to have a number of boroughs included in one electorate, and the intervening spaces not included in that electorate at all. I have a case in mind that occurred in Western Australia. It was desired to give representation to mining interests in a large agricultural district. There were three mining centres - one at Collie, a coalmining centre; another at Donnybrook, within a small gold-fields district; and 20 miles further on the Greenbushes tinfield. These three mining centres were made up into one electorate, called the South- West Mining District, and- a member was given to it. The plan worked very well, as both miners and agriculturists were pleased with the course that was taken. There is really no reason at all why every part of an electorate should be conjoined. A small strip of road 2 chains wide might conjoin two electorates. The really important consideration is that community of interests should be served.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I am amused at the right honorable gentleman’s ingenuity. If ever there was a provision to facilitate wholesale gerrymandering, it is this proposed new clause. The right honorable member for Swan knows much better than I do what gerrymandering an electorate means. I remember that in the last session of the last Parliament, when the Commissioners for Western Australia submitted their plan of redistribution, it was discovered that a certain seat would be placed in a certain position if the boundaries proposed were adopted, and the Government, of which the right honorable member for Swan was a member, at once set that plan of redistribution aside. A case of the kind occurred in New South Wales a few years ago. A certain gentleman, who represented an electorate which was largely rural, desired to get rid of a number of miners who were settled on the fringe of his electorate. He manipulated it in the way known only to politicians, and succeeded in getting the miners cut off his electorate and joined to another, making it run out at one end like a fish’s tail. One of the difficulties of the situation was that the mining centre referred to was not taken in with another mining centre to secure community of interest, but was added to another rural electorate. If the proposed new clause were adopted, the honorable member for Broken Hill might find that he would be asked, in order to secure community of interests, to take up the representation also of Cobar. This would enable the honorable member, no doubt, to understand something of the difficulty of working elections. Under the suggestion put forward by the right honorable member for Swan, Toorak might be joined to East Melbourne to. secure community of interest, and we should have the . district of Yarra in between. I have already an electorate extending over 19,000 square miles to travel over, but under this proposal a piece might be cut out of it to be added to the electorate represented by another honorable member, and Heaven only knows what area I should have to travel over then. I do not think that the right honorable member for Swan can be in earnest in submitting this proposal.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– This proposed new clause appears to me to be a piece of political highway robbery. It is about the toughest proposition that was ever put before this House.

Sir John Forrest:

– The Commissioners will have to operate the clause, and not the honorable member or myself.

Mr PAGE:

– I represent an electorate which is almost purely pastoral. There are a few mining centres in it, and it might, under this proposal, be suggested that they should be added to Mount Morgan, in the electorate of Capricornia, to secure community of interest. My electorate is now about as large as the State of New South Wales, and it might be made twice the size under this proposal, in order to secure community of interest. The honorable member for Gwydir has suggested that community of interest might be attained by joining Toorak with East Melbourne, and we might have a number of other interests in between. I am very pleased that I did : not submit this proposal, as I might be ac cused of a desire to cut into some other honorable member’s electorate.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- It is only fair to the right honorable member for Swan to state that the proposal he has made is one which is practically given effect in the electorate which he at present represents. For instance, there is a large area of the Swan electorate to the north and also to the south of Perth and Fremantle. In the circumstances, the proposed new clause is not open to the ridicule attempted to be cast upon it. The matter should be properly explained. The right honorable gentleman has, I think, in mind the position of affairs in Western Australia, which is a. new and rapidly-progressing country. The constituency of Swan must be cut up in any case before the next election, owing to the great increase of population. I apprehend that the right honorable member will lose that part of his present electorate which is north of Perth and Fremantle. The cardinal error into which the right hon;orable gentleman appears to have fallen is that he is attempting to introduce a new principle into the electoral law of this country.

Sir John Forrest:

– It is not clear that under the present law each electorate should be in one block.

Mr MAHON:

– I understand that our present law takes into account community of interest, but it does not make provision for identity of interest in the sense proposed by the right honorable gentleman. There is, in my opinion, no justification in Western Australia, or in any other State, for cutting small centres of population out of particular electorate’s and erecting them into a separate constituency. That is not necessary even with the present division of the population of Australia. I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment for the reasons I have given, and also because to very many people it conveys the idea that an attempt is being made to gerrymander electorates in order to suit certain candidates. That idea obtained a hold in the popular mind in Western Australia recently through the extraordinary manner in which electorates were divided by the State Government.

Sir John Forrest:

– This would be a better plan than the one they adopted.

Mr MAHON:

– I admit that it would,, because, in the case of one of the electorates they fashioned, the boundaries described something like a flash of chain-lightning. On the whole it will be safer not to adopt the proposal, because it would introduce a principle which we ought not to recognise in our electoral law - the segregation of people, and the representation of identical interests. There is not so much conflict of interest between the people in any one part, and the people in any other part, as to justify these unnatural separations. Even if some men follow the occupation of mining, and others that of agriculture, they have still a common citizenship, and a common duty to their country. It would be a great mistake to ignore that common tie, and accentuate divisions which ought never to have existed.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– As the Committee is apparently not with me, I ask leave to withdraw the new clause. It is much less “gerrymandering” than the principle of trying to get community of interests by dodging, twisting, and turning the boundaries all round the place. I did not expect the proposal to find much favour here. Probably, it will be more applicable to State divisions than to our larger ones. The difficulty certainly is that where you get a definite division in the community of interests, you get the two classes fighting against one another to the detriment of both.

Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– As I understand the Commonwealth has no power under the Constitution- which I regret - to declare a public holiday, I shall not move the new clause of which I have given notice, requiring polling day to be proclaimed a Commonwealth public holiday. Surely the Commonwealth Parliament ought to be able to proclaim one holiday in three years on which the election of the members of this Parliament shall take place. I hope the Government will consider whether it would be possible for them to give public expression to their desire for a holiday on polling day, and then let the employers of labour scout it if they liked.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 12a. Section ninety-six of the Principal Act is repealed.

Section 96 disqualifies members of State Parliaments from standing for the Federal Parliament without first resigning their State seats. In the second-reading debate, honorable members pointed out the necessity of giving the electors every facility to vote, and it is equally necessary to give them every facility to select the candidate whom they think can best represent them. The present law often prevents desirable candidates from standing, because they cannot run the risk of defeat. The honorable member for North Sydney, at the last election, resigned his seat in the State House to contest the Werriwa electorate. He was defeated, and consequently was out of Parliament for some time. It is not fair to place State members in that position, nor is it fair to the electors to restrict their choice of candidates.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I have always been in favour of the repeal of section 96 of the principal Act. When the first Commonwealth Parliament was considering the Electoral Bill, I was one of those in the New South Wales Legislature who urged Sir John See to appeal to the Federal Parliament not to make this provision. He did so on several occasions, but the Federal Parliament did not accede to his requests. I am one of those who resigned a State seat to contest a seat in this Parliament, and, unlike the honorable member for North Sydney, I was returned. That shows that I am not speaking from a selfish point ofview. It is nonsensical to talk about one vote one value, and the giving of equal opportunities, if we refuse to the electors of the Commonwealth every opportunity to select the men whom they deem best qualified to represent them. The Commonwealth Parliament stands to lose, through the existing law, the services of men who have graduated in the State Parliaments, which should be training grounds for the Federal arena. They were so at one time, because most of the older members of this House came from the State Parliaments. The State Parliaments said this Parliament would denude them of their able men, but if it is to be the premier and National Parliament of Australia, it should be constituted of the ablest men available. When the amending Electoral Act was before the House on a previous occasion, I moved in this direction, and I again support the amendment in the interests of fair play and full representation.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- The honorable member for Hunter desires to enable any State member to contest a Federal election without first resigning his seat in the State Parliament. I point out that that may not rest altogether with our Electoral Act. Any. State may have a law preventing a State member from contesting a Federal seat while remaining a State member. In Tasmania, the electoral law has been so altered that it is now possible for a State member to resign his seat, contest a Federal election, and, if defeated, contest his old seat again.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DarwinMinister of Home Affairs · ALP

– The Government regret that they cannot accept the amendment.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 25

Majority … … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 12b. Section ninety-seven of the principal Act is amended by omitting therefrom paragraph c.”

The paragraph in question reads -

No nomination shall be valid unless -

The person nominated or some person on his behalf deposits with the Commonwealth Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper the sum of twenty-five pounds in money in bank notes or in a banker’s cheque.

I am opposed to the requirement of a deposit, because, in my opinion, it is really a property tax. In the past we had property qualifications in regard to the franchise. 1 believe that in every State these restrictions have been removed in connexion with parliamentary elections, certainly elections for the lower House. Yet, in the case of candidates for election to this Parliament, we impose a property qualification. Every candidate should have the freest opportunity to place his views before the public without being subjected to a penalty. This requirement may not affect any honorable member of this House, but other persons think that they are entitled to stand as candidates, and when they are not in a position to find £25, they are placed at a great disadvantage. At every Senate election in New South Wales the Socialist party run three candidates, and, of course, have to deposit£75 for the privilege. These persons have exactly the same right as we have to place their political views before the people, and to submit themselves for approval or disapproval without being subjected to a penalty of £25 in each case.

Sir John Forrest:

– They put the country to a great deal of expense, too.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I do not think that the remark applies, because at every Senate election there are two parties opposing one another, and if a third party enters the field it does not cause additional expense to the country, except for printing. But even if it did, is that a reason why another party should be shut out from competition? I submit that no argument can be adduced in favour of the retention of this property qualification.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- If I remember rightly, the provision for the lodging of a deposit by a parliamentary candidate arose out of the fact that, at one time, when no deposit was required, some people in New South Wales put up a blackfellow against Sir Henry Parkes. I think that if any person has a reasonable chance of being elected, but has no money, those who support him ought to be willing to find the necessary amount.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I support this amendment, because I believe that we cannot have full representation unless liberty is given to every person, whether rich or poor, to become a candidate for parliamentary honours. No barrier should be placed in the way of the poorest man in the community. I remember that in New South Wales it took me all my time to scratch up every penny I was worth to put down the deposit of £40, and, of course, to take the risk of losing it, if I did not poll the necessary number of votes. Fortunately, I did poll that number; but I felt very keenly that 1 was risking every penny I had for the purpose of trying to convince the electors that I was entitled to some consideration at their hands as an aspirant to parliamentary honours. It should be remembered that we in this House are not the only pebbles on the beach. In the ranks to which we belong there is any number of poor men who have more highly-developed intellects than many honorable members possess, but who are shut out because of their poverty. I am acquainted with brilliant men, who do not seek to make wealth, but spend their lives in trying to educate the people in that which they think will be useful to them. I know many a man who possesses every qualification to be a member of this House, but this provision in our law is a barrier in his way. The honorable member for Capricornia has talked about an abuse of the privilege of freedom. We are not now living in the days when the “old order “ used to cause an election, so that the publicans might reap a harvest. In the Inverell electorate from which I come, some persons nominated a candidate who was a myth, and carried the farce right through- to the polling day, although he never appeared. This was done by the publicans to force an election, and compel the man who had held the seat to spend money, so that they could reap a harvest. I have never known this course to be taken, except where publicans’ wanted to reap a harvest by forcing a wealthy man to spend his money. But that does not hold good to-day. Is it right for this Parliament to retain an anti-democratic provision which shuts out a man because he is poor, although he may be endowed more highly with the gifts of God than we are, and may be more honest in his intention to serve the country ? Every man should have the freedom to appeal to an electorate without having to put down a deposit or to place himself under an obligation. It is a degradation to a man of independent spirit to have to ask other persons to put up money for him. Under this provision we put a poor, but gifted, man under an obligation to poor men, and we put poor men under an obligation to collect money to enable him to contest a seat. I can remember the time when some honorable members used to talk very strongly about the deposit of £40 in New South Wales being an obstacle in their path. I am afraid that they have forgotten the time when ^40 meant a great deal to them - when even £2$ would have been an obstacle. I ask them to think again of the days when the provision for a deposit was a serious and an unjust obstacle placed in their way.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– Like the last speaker, I have had a lively experience in New South Wales. In my opinion, the crowd who did those acts in former times are still there, and would repeat them to-morrow if this provision for a deposit were removed from the law. It is really a safeguard. No qualified man who commands the respect of a body of electors, even if he does not possess is., will experience any difficulty in getting £25 if they desire him to be a candidate. The object of the provision is to prevent abuses such as have been pointed out. I can cite a case from my own experience. Almost within half-an-hour of closing the nomination for one election, and after the newspapers had notified that I was to have a walk-over, a dummy was put up. Nobody really wanted him to stand, because he received only five votes. After the country had been put to some expense, and I had spent some hundreds of pounds in travelling through the electorate, I was treated in that way. I found out how it originated. A supposed friend, who was the proprietor of a journal, candidly admitted to me that he was going to have a “ cut “ out of the thing. Such persons would not like to put UP £25 to run a dummy. The requirement of a deposit of £25 does, not, and never will, hurt a bond fide candidate.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

We all admit that poverty is no crime. Many a man has served time on account of his poverty. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- As some honorable members seem to think that there is no justification for the position I have taken up, I should like to point out that in 1901 I went from Sydney to the electorate of Gwydir, an absolute stranger, and with only a florin in my pocket. Had it been necessary for a candidate for a seat in the first Federal Parliament to lodge a deposit of £25, I could not then have contested that Federal election. I was first returned to the State Parliament, and subsequently stood for election to this House. I hold that no obstacle should be placed in the way of a man reaching the highest position in the land.

Question - That the proposed new clause (12b) be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 24

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 31a. Section one hundred and seventy of the

Principal Act is amended by omitting - (I.) “ Purchasing electoral rolls.” (II.) the words “and notices of meetings.” (v.) the words “and halls therefor.”

I do not think any one can argue that the cost of electoral rolls should be included in the electoral expenses. It would be a good thing if a Commonwealth roll were placed in the hands of every voter, and as a matter of fact rolls are widely distributed by various organizations. The sum of £100 which a candidate is allowed to expend is small enough to meet necessary expenses, without having to cover such items as these, more especially when a man represents an electorate 600 miles long by 200 miles wide, and embracing. 300 polling places. We have no right to pass laws that will not be efficient, and it is useless to limit the expenditure of a candidate to £100, if he has to visit 300 polling places and engage halls at every one of them.

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We are prepared to agree to the amendment so far as the purchasing of electoral rolls is concerned.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I think that the cost of halls should not be included in the £100, nor should the cost of advertising notices of meetings.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– The cost of rolls is now infinitesimal, although the item was certainly an important one when we had to pay 5s. each for them, and a fairly high price for every section of a roll in respect of a subdivision. Now, however, the price isnominal, a roll in respect of a subdivision costing only 3d. I do not think that that particular item is worth bothering about.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– We are prepared to accept the right honorable member’s amendment so far as the proposal to omit from section 170 of the principal Act the words “ purchasing electoral rolls “ is concerned. The greater the number of rolls distributed amongst the electors the better, and it is because I hold that view that I have always beenin favour of reducing their cost.

Sir John Forrest:

– What is the right honorable member’s objection to the proposal in regard to the non-inclusion of the cost of use of halls?

Mr FISHER:

– If the right honorable member’s proposal in that regard were agreed to, halls might be engaged to such an extent as to give rise to an abuse. Then again, notices of public meetings, if their cost were not included in the sum of £100, which a candidate is allowed to expend, might be posted all over the country.

Sir John Forrest:

– Then the right honorable member will move to amend the proposed new clause.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes. I move-

That the proposed new clause be amended by omitting paragraphsII. and v.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I regret that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept the new clause as proposed to be amended, since it will only mean the thin end of the wedge to an increase in the expenditure allowed to be incurred by a candidate. However, it will not involve an additional expenditure of more than £5 on the part of a candidate, so that we may take it that every candidate will henceforth be able to expend £105 in connexion with a Federal election campaign.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir John Forrest) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 31b. Section one hundred and seventy-one of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “ the “ in the third line “ purchasing of electoral rolls, and the “

Amendment (by Dr. Maloney) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 32A. Every leading article, each special poli tical article, and political paragraphs shall be signed by the full name of the writer for three months prior to the ending of a Parliament by effluxion of time, and in the event of a. dissolution prior to such effluxion, from the date of such dissolution up to the election day.

Penalty : Fifty pounds.

Amendment (by Mr. Chanter) put-

That all the words after “ 32A “ be left out, with a view to insert the following in lieu thereof : - “ On and after the date of issue of any writ for the election of a member of the House of Representatives or for the Senate or for the taking of any referendum vote, any article, report, letter, or other matter commenting upon any candidate or the issues then being submitted to the electors, printed and published in any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or dodger shall be signed by the writer, giving his true name and address.

Penalty : Fifty pounds.”

The Committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 11

Majority … …10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative;

Amendment agreed to.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- I wish to enter my protest once again against the preposterous proposition which the Committee have thought fit to indorse, and also against the introduction of new matter at this stage, when the understanding was that the debate should close in time for every honorable member to catch the 5 o’clock train. If proposals of this kind are to be sprung upon us in a thin Committe-

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– My proposal was in print for some time.

Mr DEAKIN:

– But it was withdrawn.

Mr Webster:

– The amendment of the honorable member for Riverina was prac tically the same proposal, only in a better form.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If this sort of thing is to proceed indefinitely, I do not know whether we shall be able to deal with any other stage of the Bill this evening. The result will be such a tangle that we shall have to wait until the measure is in print to see exactly where we stand.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I admit the importance of the matter upon which we have just voted, but I would point out that it was practically the proposal of which notice had been given by the honorable member for Melbourne.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I think that we might have had some intimation of the attitude of the Government towards the proposal which has just been carried. We did not have from the Minister in charge of the Bill a single word in explanation of his attitude towards it As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that he intended to oppose it. I admit that I was under a misapprehension, because, at the last moment, he allowed it to go by default.

Mr Hughes:

– Is the honorable member taking exception to the new clause which was submitted by the honorable member for Melbourne, or to the substituted provision which was moved by the honorable member for Riverina?

Mr GROOM:

– I am dealing with the whole question.

Mr Deakin:

– I suggest that it would be more convenient if we did not adjourn for dinner,but sat on and endeavoured to finish in another half-hour.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition will admit that I have been accepting amendments impartially from both sides. So far as I can see, there are no other serious proposals to be introduced.

Mr Groom:

– Except that of the honorable member for Riverina as to the Court of Disputed Returns.

Mr FISHER:

– The Government cannot accept that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Do I understand that it is the pleasure of the Committee that we do not adjourn for dinner, but proceed with the business?

Mr Mahon:

– I object. No cause sufficiently serious has been shown for the departure suggested.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understood that it was the wish of the Committee to go

Straight on with the business, but as an honorable member has raised an objection, T shall resume the chair at 7-45 p.m.

Mr Roberts:

– On what rule or standing order is the honorable member for Coolgardie entitled to object to the course which nas been suggested?

Mr Mahon:

– Is the Honorary Minister in order in disputing your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already given my ruling, I asked for the leave of the House to proceed straight ahead with the business, and the objection of the honorable member for Coolgardie was fatal.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4.5 p.m.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– - I understand that the Minister proposes to explain why the Government accepted the amendment in regard to signed newspaper articles.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin · ALP

– - This proposal was down for some time as part of the policy.

Mr Groom:

– The Ministerial policy?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Cer Certainly.

Mr Groom:

– Then why was it not embodied in the Bill?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– -It -It was an oversight that it was not put in the Bill.

Mr Groom:

– What is the reason for adopting it ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The The reason is that if a candidate is slandered after he has been nominated, he ought to be able to know who has slandered him.

Mr Groom:

– Supposing there is no slander, but that he is being fairly criticised ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The Then the critic can have no objection to having his name published.

Mr Sampson:

– If the criticism be a fair one, why is it desired to know the name of the writer of the article, except from a motive of pure inquisitiveness ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– If If it is inquisitiveness that hurts nobody, where is the objection?

Mr Sampson:

– Where is the advantage ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Som Some one will be held responsible.

Mr Sampson:

– The newspaper proprietors are already responsible.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Are Are they?

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- The Minister is, I think, very much misled if he regards this amendment as injuring no one. The clause deals with any article, report, letter, or other matter commenting on “ any candidate or issue then being submitted to the electors,” and published in. any “ newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or dodger.”

Mr Fisher:

– Does the honorable member think it goes too far, or does he think the provision fundamentally wrong?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I shall tell the Prime Minister in a moment. The clause goes on to provide that any such article shall be signed by the writer, who must give his true name and address.

Mr Fisher:

– That is after the issue of the writ.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I know. A newspaper in this country is usually conducted by a proprietor, who engages the best literary ability he can obtain; that is, qualified reporters, critics, and general writers. These men place their talents at the service of the newspaper and of its policy, although that policy may not happen to be one which they personally would adopt. As members of a newspaper staff, they are in loyalty Bound to accept, recommend, defend, and preach die policy of their paper. The Government, in accepting this amendment, are ignoring all these liabilities and necessary conditions of a journalist’s engagement, and are striking at men while they are merely fulfilling the duties for which they are engaged. They are earning their bread. It is sought to make those writers personally responsible for expressing, to the best of their ability, the views of their particular journals, whether they are or are not their own views.

Mr Webster:

– For misleading the public 1

Mr DEAKIN:

– It is not misleading, the public, because it is universally understood that a journalist has some responsibilities and a freedom of speech such as are possessed by an advocate at the Bar. A barrister speaks for his client, and not for himself. Whatever his personal opinion may be, he is bound, as far as facts will permit, to put the best case for his side. When the barrister leaves the Court, he lays aside the garb and duties of his profession, returning to himself and his obligations to express opinions for which he is personally responsible. We might as well try to declare opinions professionally expressed in Court to be the barrister’s own personal opinions, as seek to nail down a modern journalist employed on a newspaper to the articles he writes. This amendment puts every journalist in an entirely false position, because it seeks to make him personally responsible for the work he does as an advocate for others. It forces him to father the opinions of his newspaper as if they were his own.

Mr King O’Malley:

– T - This clause operates only while an election is on.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If this be accepted, what will be the position of a journalist, who, after being connected with a paper with a marked policy of its own, is retained by another journal advocating an opposite policy, which he is expected to support under the same signature as before? I can perfectly understand, though I do not agree as to the necessity of, requiring that anonymous newspaper writing shall be authorized by some responsible person. That should not affect an individual writer engaged to advocate a particular set of opinions.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Does the legal advocate ever sail under false colours, or use an alias?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No; but it may be that he does not personally indorse anything in the action he is professionally defending. This provision seeks to identify a journalist with a set of doctrines which he may not be willing to accept wholly or in part, and thus strikes at the very foundation of modern journalism.

Mr Page:

– Let the articles be signed by the name of the people who employ the journalist.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Exactly; that would do no one an injury.

Mr Fenton:

– How would it do if it were provided that space must be allowed in a newspaper to refute any statements made by the journalist?

Mr DEAKIN:

– There could be a fixed protection of that sort; but, so far as I understand, practically every journal nowadays opens its columns in that way.

Mr Fenton:

– They do not, though in France there is a law to that effect.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Of course, honorable members opposite may refuse to be convinced, but I am certain that, when they quietly consider its consequences to the journalists and men of letters, they will see the untenable position they are creating. These men earn their living’ by writing at the dictation, or under the direction of others, and in defending, to the best of their ability, any particular line of policy adopted by their paper. The path of the journalist is by no means an easy one : and here it is sought to multiply his difficulties. His is one of the most trying lives, making great demands on his strength and ability, especially when we take into account the entirely inadequate remuneration very often paid for his excellent work. The profession of journalism attracts such great numbers that there is always some one ready to oust the man in employment. Taking into account the great strain of a journalist’s life, honorable members will with reluctance put greater difficulties in the way of such men winning and holding the professional freedom to which they are entitled. . In this commumunity we do not wish tobe all of one political colour or on one side.

Mr Fisher:

– I hope we never shall.

Mr DEAKIN:

– These journalists may be men who throw themselves into the fray as others do into sport. Though they may not adopt the particular views they advocate they, to use an old phrase, . “play the game” according to wellestablished rules. Under the circumstances, it seems perfectly unnecessary to call on them to assume a responsibility for the rest of their natural lives for all they may write over their signatures to meet the particular circumstances and conditions of their callings.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I do not wish in any way to minimize the importance of the amendment that has just been carried. I gather from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he regards it as altogether too momentous an expression of legislative opinion to have been expressed under the present circumstances. Weight ought, I think, to be given to this view of the matter, if the Leader of the Opposition regards it so seriously as he indicates. I understand, however, from the honorable member’s speech that, in his opinion, there are some parts of the new provision which he regards as entirely unnecessary if we are to move in this direction, but-

Mr Deakin:

– The thing itself is entirely unnecessary, apart from fixing on some person to accept the responsibility of a particular article or set of articles.

Mr FISHER:

– I gather that while the honorable memberwould not initiate a proposal of this kind, he thinks that something can be said for a definite and distinct provision compelling some persons to take the responsibility. I say, quite frankly, that in regard to small paragraphs it would be a little anomalous, and, in my opinion, unnecessary, to insist that they should all be signed - that every little squib, paragraph, or condensed report written during an election contest should come within the scope of this provision. Of course, my honorable friends know that, speaking generally, I have often thought and said that the press has rendered our party a very great service by the excessive zeal that has been shown in antipathy to us - a zeal that could not be defended on its merits, either on account of the language in which the ideas were conveyed or the suggestions which were made.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Would this proposal cover reports of meetings as well as articles ?

Mr FISHER:

– I think so. The honorable member for Ballarat wonders why a proposal of this kind should be made at all. Naturally he does. But I will give a reason. There is no other country in the world where a large party has been in existence for a quarter of a century, and where, during that time, political strength has been built up to such a degree that the Governments of three States, as well as the Central Government, are representative of that party, whilst at the same time it is practically without a press to defend itself.

Mr Deakin:

– What?

Mr FISHER:

– I say practically without a press to put its views before the public.

Mr Deakin:

– The Ministerial partyhave a press that does nothing else.

Mr FISHER:

– There are rare and splendid exceptions. We have in this country a daily press that is applauded by travellers who are able to compare it with the press of other countries, whilst at the same time the party in power has practically no medium through which to convey its political views to the people of Australia. Consequently, there is no other country whose circumstances are like ours. That, no doubt, is one reason why a proposal of this kind is brought forward.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Labour party have a daily press in some centres, have they not?

Mr FISHER:

– There is a daily Labour paper in Adelaide, a daily has been in existence in Hobart for a year or more, we have a weekly in Brisbane-

Mr Groom:

– Is there not a daily in Rockhampton ?

Mr FISHER:

– Which one?

Mr Groom:

– The Daily Record, which supports the right honorable gentleman’s party.

Mr FISHER:

– I admit that there has been a change in some quarters. That is a sign of the times. I am giving a reason why a proposal of this kind should have been submitted. But I must say, turning to my colleagues on this side of the House, that, as the honorable member for Ballarat has raised the question of the time when this matter has been brought forward, that is a point of view that must give me pause, as the representative of the Government. The honorable member for Gwydir seems to dissent from that view.

Mr Webster:

– Yes, I do dissent, and the Prime Minister knows why.

Mr Deakin:

– Does not the honorable member make a business of dissenting?

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member and the other members of our party know as well as I do the arrangement that was made for proceeding with this Bill this evening.

Mr Webster:

– I know that this amendment was on the business-paper, and that, as moved, it has not been materially altered.

Mr FISHER:

– I have previously stated that this was on the list of amendments.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– It has been there for a week.

Mr Groom:

– Only amongst private members’ amendments.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member for Melbourne also had a notice of motion on the business-paper, practically to the same effect. I must say to my honorable friends that this proposal goes very far.

Mr Page:

– Oh, no ! The newspapers have gone quite far enough with us.

Mr FISHER:

– It goes very far. It changes the whole system of journalism, as compared with the system that has prevailed in this country, and in every other British community that I know of. That in itself is not a complete argument against the proposal. I admit that. My impression is, however, that the amendment goes even farther than the mover intended. It means that every paragraph and every printed suggestion must be undersigned by the writer, or supposed writer.

Mr Mathews:

– The proposal will only operate just before an election.

Mr FISHER:

– At any rate, what I wish to say to my honorable friends who support the amendment is this. It would, I think, be advisable to take a vote on this matter in a full House. That would be a fair thing to do. It will be agreed that a big principle is involved, and ohe can commit this House to a proposition, it is certainly a matter that should receive full consideration.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

,- The request of the Prime Minister that this proposal should be considered in a full House is one that I hope will be listened to attentively. It is quite true that the amendment introduces a new principle into journalism. I attribute the submission of such a proposal to the abuse of the freedom of the press by a certain class of Australian publications. To some extent it is justified, and might be adopted were it possible to differentiate between certain classes of writers. The mistake which the honorable member for Riverina makes is in confounding these two classes of journalists.’ It would be quite right tq apply the principle of this amendment to certain contributors to the press - that is to say, to men who, under the cover of anonymity, are prepared to strike a blow at political or private enemies. If we could reach those individuals by any provision of law, I would vote not only for this amendment, but for an even more stringent one. But my opinion is that we cannot reach such persons by any legal weapon without leaving open to prosecution innocent persons. I will show why I think it impossible to do so. This proposal groups together two classes of writers, the men who are free lances and regular journalists, including the mere salaried reporters of the daily newspapers. Let us see how this proposal would operate. Let us assume that the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition went into the country to deliver an important speech after the issue of the election writs, and that the newspapers decided to publish a four or five column report of the address.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– There would have to be at least four reporters.

Mr MAHON:

– There might be even five or six, because such a deliverance is often prolonged towards midnight, and must be in type and on the machines by 2 o’clock. What would happen? The reporter who did the first “ turn “ would, under this amendment, have to sign his name and address - we will say - “ John

Jones, Murphy-street, South Yarra, Melbourne.” That would have to be put at the bottom of the reporter’s first “ turn “ in the printed report. The other “ turns “ would have to be signed in exactly the same way.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The same name would appear two or three times.

Mr MAHON:

– Possibly. The reports would be ridiculous if such interpolations were insisted on. That alone renders this amendment in its present form impracticable. I am in sympathy with the amendment in so far as it is designed to punish persons who abuse the freedom of the press. I wish we could reach by law the hirelings who write for such publications as Melbourne Punch, men who have their owns axes to grind, or who, for a consideration,, will grind the axes of their friends.

Mr Chanter:

– The men who defamethe members of this House.

Mr MAHON:

– Yes. But you cannot in this way reach men of that type. That has been the experience in America, in France, and in every other country where legislation of this character has been adopted. Let me show the Committee what would happen if the amendment became law. A certain person, let us say, is conducting a newspaper, and has on his staff half-a-dozen men who are not regularly employed as writers. They might include barristers, school-teachers, medical men ; but each one was a specialist in some subject. These men would say, “ If we have to sign our names, we cannot speak so freely as we should otherwise wish to do.”

Mr Webster:

– No more they should.

Mr MAHON:

– But restriction might destroy half the value of their work. The newspaper owner might resort to the device - and I may add that it is what I should do if I were the editor of such a newspaper - of hiring a man who would take the responsibility for every one of those articles, and would sign his own name to them.

Mr Deakin:

– That is the system on theContinent of Europe.

Mr MAHON:

– Exactly. Under this amendment, that is exactly what such an editor would do. The amendment provides that political matter shall be signed by the writer’s name. The “ writer “ might be the man who typed the article before it was printed.

Mr Webster:

– Oh, no.

Mr MAHON:

– Oh, yes. If the amendment said “ the author,” that would be rather a different matter. But, even then, how are you going to get at the author ?

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Are not many articles dictated ?

Mr MAHON:

– They are. And under this amendment the articles would be signed by the typist.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– That is better than merely holding the publisher responsible.

Mr MAHON:

– Suppose that this amendment were amended by putting in “author” instead of “writer.” You would not be able to find out the man who is really responsible for an article unless there were an informer in the camp. Obviously, the author would not be anxious to disclose himself. Equally obviously, the publisher of the newspaper would be anxious to conceal the identity of the author. Suppose that a prosecution were instituted, and the publisher of the newspaper said, “ There is the signature to the article of which you complain; John Jones is the author as far as you are entitled to inquire.” You could not go any further, unless you adopted the methods of the Inquisition - which they had in Spain a few hundred years ago - and subjected the publisher to the rack and the thumbscrew. You could not get at the individual who was really responsible for the libel, if it wen; a libel, of which complaint was made. I am in perfect sympathy with what is desired to be done, if we could do it. But there is another consideration. As the honorable member for Ballarat has very fairly pointed out, the path of journalism is not strewn with rose-leaves, either as regards the nature of the work which has to be done, or the remuneration paid for it. Though in sympathy with the object of the honorable member for Riverina, I certainly do not like to make more onerous the lives of men who have to work exceedingly hard now, and are very poorly remunerated considering the. nature of the work they do. This proposal is unfortunately impracticable, although if the words “report or other matter” were omitted, it would be partially workable. The Prime Minister seemed to think that small paragraphs might be exempted, but it is of them that the candidate has cause to be most afraid.

Mr Groom:

– It is often in the small paragraph that the bitterest thing is said.

Mr MAHON:

– Yes; it is the epigram that stings, and is remembered.

Mr Fisher:

– It is these things that have helped us.

Mr MAHON:

– If press attacks upon the Labour party have been of assistance to it, why kick away the ladder? Let me add that, in my opinion, a boomerang is concealed in this proposal. It will strike the leader-writers of Labour journals as well as those of other newspapers. It will affect our friends and sympathizers, the journalists who believe in and are serving the Labour movement. I had occasion recently to conduct a newspaper in connexion’ with the Western Australian elections, and know that at times a newspaper must not be afraid to speak out plainly. It may have certain information which would not satisfy a jury, yet the exigencies of the case may demand that publication shall be risked.

Mr Sampson:

– The publication of that information might be wholly in the public interest.

Mr Webster:

– It is mostly the other way.

Mr MAHON:

– The Labour party hopes to have other papers of its own which will exercise the influence now exercised by the big metropolitan journals. Why should we hobble those whom we employ to advocate our cause? I agree with the Prime Minister that the matter should be considered in a full House, and should be dealt with soberly before any radical alteration is made. My fear is that the proposal is utterly impracticable, that the heavy penalty provided for could not be enforced, that it would injure comparatively innocent persons, while those whom it is desired to strike would escape by the help of disguises which any ingenious journalist could easily invent.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I recognise the far-reaching effect of the amendment in exposing the machinations of the press. The honorable member for Coolgardie has put the case from his standpoint as a journalist, and tells us that we may injure our friends. He says that even in striking at our enemies we are likely to injure only men of straw. If the newspaper proprietors put up men of straw, the public will take no notice of the articles which are attributed to them ; but under such an arrangement two men would be concerned, and the truth would be bound to leak out. The Leader of the Opposition was very unhappy in the analogy which he manufactured so hurriedly. He tried to show that a journalist’s business is similar to that of the barrister who appears in Court for ohe side or another. As the honorable member for Melbourne said, the legal practitioner is known to the public, and, if he does not handle his cases well, soon ceases to get any. But the press writers are sheltered under the cloak of anonymity, and strike with impunity. This is a big question.

Mr Deakin:

– Then the honorable member should be willing to have it dealt with in a full House.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The Opposition was willing to have all these matters dealt with in this Committee.

Mr Groom:

– The compact was to finish at 4 o’clock.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is a quibble. It was arranged that the Bill would be put through to-day, and honorable members knew what that involved. They knew that this motion was on the notice-paper.

Mr Deakin:

– I did not.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is not; an excuse. A criminal is not pardoned on the plea of ignorance. So long as the Government agreed with the Opposition, the consideration of the Bill was permitted to proceed.

Mr Deakin:

– On many points there has not been agreement.

Mr WEBSTER:

– We did not complain when the voting went against us. We did not ask that the proposals on which we were defeated should be kept back for a bigger attendance; we took our beating. Now it is desired to break a compact on the plea that this was a big question which should be referred to a fuller Committee. The Prime Minister can provide for that by moving the recommittal with a view to making this amendment later. Therefore, there is no need to break any compact. The Labour party has benefited by the attacks of the press. The newspapers have overreached themselves, and often in striking at an enemy have hurt a friend. I have to thank the press for being in Parliament to-day. But the position of an Opposition and that of a party in power differs as much as night from day. The press cannot injure a party that is fighting to win a position, but it can by its misinterpretation of words and actions injure the reputation of a party in power. That is what is being done now by anonymous writers. I do not blame the men in the gallery. They have to earn their living. But, undoubtedly, certain men who are aggressive or determined are marked out by those who control the newspapers antagonistic to labour, and, if possible, hounded out of political life. What one says is twisted or misconstrued. I would not complain of not being reported.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Nothing kills a politician sooner than not to be reported.

Mr WEBSTER:

– A man who cannot keep himself alive without the press ought to be dead.

Mr Page:

– We are not all Billy Websters.

Mr WEBSTER:

– There is only one Page. If I thought it possible to go fur-‘ ther with this proposal, I would try to do so. I would like the amendment to apply to reports of speeches delivered in this House. If we were to say outside what the journalists write of us, we should be called to account in the Courts of the country. But those who control the newspapers are too wealthy, and can command too much legal talent, for it to be possible to attack them with success. The honorable member for Coolgardie says that there is a boomerang in the proposal. If the Labour party is going to employ journalists of the type employed on the newspapers that attack it, if it is going to follow the methods of the commercial press which seeks only the profit for the proprietors, I pray to God that no Labour newspaper may come into existence. I have no doubt that our people will be able to find writers of reputation, who will have the respect of the public. It must be borne in mind that this is not a matter merely affecting elections, and we should not hesitate to do what we can now, because we cannot do all that we would like to do.

Mr Fisher:

– We might meet this difficulty in another way ; by refusing to send certain newspapers through the post.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Then there has been something at work during the dinner hour.

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member does me an injustice. I spoke of this expedient more than two years ago.

Mr WEBSTER:

– What has led to this meditation since the last vote was taken?

Mr Fisher:

– What I have suggested was not the result of any recent meditation. It was considered two or threeyears ago.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Why was it not put forward before if it has been under consideration so long ? I hope that the Leader of the Government will not attempt to induce honorable members to reverse the last vote given by the Committee.

Mr Fisher:

– Not now ; certainly not.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I hope, also, that there will be no attempt made, by our party at any rate, to in any way weaken this provision to meet a very serious evil.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The suggestion I made was not put forward as the result of any proposal made to myself, or to any other member of the Government, during the tea hour. I agree that this is a very important provision, and I think that an opportunity should be given in a full House for honorable members to declare their views on it. I suggest that the matter should be allowed to pass now, with the understanding that I promise to afford a reasonable opportunity for its consideration later on.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– As the honorable member for Gippsland had to leave to catch his train, he asked me to submit the amendments of which he has given notice. The first proposes the addition of a new sub-section to section 177 of the existing Act, dealing with undue influence. I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 33A. Section one hundred and seventy-seven of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following paragraph : - (iii.) prints or publishes or distributes any electoral advertisment card handbill or pamphlet or electoral notice purporting to be a copy of the ballot-paper and calculated to mislead prevent or otherwise interfere with any voter in the free exercise of the franchise.

During elections political parties are sometimes inclined to overstep the bounds, and to issue cards instructing electors how to vote. I quoted last night one of these cards, which, in my opinion, represented a deliberate infringement of the law. It is in order that people who violate the law in this way in future may be punished as they deserve that this amendment is moved.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– The Committee will be at a great disadvantage in attempting to deal with this matter in the absence of the honorable member for Gippsland. The wording of the proposed new sub-section is peculiar. With varying systems for the marking of ballot- * papers - with a cross and by striking names out - it is clear that some latitude must be given for the circulation of cards instructing electors how to record their votes.- I refer honorable members to the expression “ calculated to mislead.” Who is to determine that any of these circulars are calculated to mislead ? A person may issue one of these cards in perfect good faith, in the belief that it could not possibly mislead.

Mr Fenton:

– There are cases of deliberate intention to mislead.

Mr GROOM:

– No one would justify that, but those are not the words used in the proposed new sub-section. There is a great, number of decisions in the Courts dealing, with the definition of the words “calculated to mislead.” They are generally used in connexion with objections to trade marks. I have not had time to look into their application to this clause. We have to be careful that, in making provision for the punishment of some one who deliberately attempts to mislead, we shall not injure a perfectly innocent person. I make the suggestion that, for the present, the proposed new clause should be withdrawn, and an opportunity afforded later to the honorable member for Gippsland in a full House, and perhaps on the recommittal of the Bill, to submit the proposal for further consideration.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– As the honorable member for Gippsland is not present, there is room for a difference of opinion as to what precisely he wishes to include in the proposed new clause. A suggestion has been made that we should agree to the clause now, and when the honorable member for Gippsland is present afford him an opportunity to revive it. That seems to me a perfectly fair proposal, and with the concurrence of the Committee I am prepared to accept it.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Will the Attorney-General give me an assurance that both the proposed new clauses circulated by the honorable member for Gippsland will be accepted now on the understanding that they may be recommitted for further consideration when other matters which have already been referred to are dealt with ‘r

Mr Hughes:

– Yes. They will be accepted, and the Bill will be recommitted to allow the honorable member for Gippsland to explain them.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- I have only to say that this is obviously the most practical and direct course, but it is to be understood that, while we assent to it in order that the honorable member for Gippsland may be given an opportunity later toexplain his views, that does not imply. on our part any acceptance of any of the proposals.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Fenton) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 33b. Section one hundred and eighty is amended by adding the following paragraphs : -

  1. Printing or publishing any electoral ad vertisement card handbill or pamphlet falsely purporting to be or to contain a copy of Form O or Form P in the schedule or of the directions in such forms.
  2. Any publication of any electoral advertisement card handbill or pamphlet or any issue of any electoral notice containing statements calculated to mislead prevent or otherwise interfere with any voter in the free exercise of the franchise.
Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- At the request of the honorable member for Calare, I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 39A. Before section two hundred and six A the following section is inserted : - “206. - (1.) It shall be the duty of the Minister charged with the administration of this Act to institute legal proceedings in every case in which the Crown law authorities advise that any contravention of this Act has taken place.”

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– The Government will be prepared to accept the amendment if it is put in the following form -

The Chief Electoral Officer shall in every case where the Crown law authorities so advise institute legal proceedings against any person committing any offence under this Act.

The effect is the same, except that trivial contraventions of the Act need not necessarily be the subject of legal proceedings. In all other cases where the Crown law authorities advise that legal proceedings ought to be taken, it is mandatory on the Chief Electoral Officer to take them; We make it the Chief Electoral Officer rather than the Minister, because this is a matter which ought to be beyond the suspicion of partisanship.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- Is it the intention of the Government to raise the status of the Chief Electoral Officer to that of an entirely independent judicial, or quasi- judicial position?

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– Without offering any opinion on the general position of the Chief Electoral Officer, I point out that this casts upon him a statutory duty, in the performance of which he is to be absolutely independent.

Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 39a. Before section two hundred and six the following section is inserted : - 206. The Chief Electoral Officer shall in every case where the Crown law authorities so advise institute legal proceedings against any person committing any offence under this Act.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

. -I move -

That the following new clauses be added : -

– (1.) When at any election for the House of Representatives a person receives a ballotpaper instead of placing a cross in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom the elector desires to vote he shall mark his vote on the ballot-paper by placing the numeral1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference and shall give contingent votes for all the remaining candidates by placing numerals 2, 3, 4 (and so on As the case requires) in the squares opposite their names so as to indicate by such numerical sequence the order of his preference. (2.) The candidate opposite whose name the numeral 1 is so placed shall ‘be deemed to be the candidate to whom the elector gives his vote within the meaning of the Principal Act.

A ballot-paper shall under this Act be rejected at the close of the poll if it does not indicate the elector’s first preference for one candidate, and in case where there are more than two candidates his contingent votes for all the remaining candidates.

This is one of the most important propositions put forward in the Committee. The National Parliament is lagging behind the Parliaments of the majority of the States in providing a scientific system of election to insure actual majority representation. Under the present system men have often been returned to Parliament on a split vote without securing a majority of the total votes cast. In New South Wales and New Zealand, the second ballot is in operation. In Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania, the preferential voting system, such asI have outlined, is in force. The general verdict is that the second ballot system is less successful, and much more costly, than the preferential voting system. Not one solid argument has been adduced for the retention of the existing system. The only reason why it has been retained is that one party or the other has thought that the split vote might be more advantageous from a party stand-point. That is the very last consideration which should weigh with the Committee. We owe it as an absolute duty to the electors to adopt preferential voting, in order to insure that those who make the laws shall represent majorities. This method has been eminently successful in Tasmania, Western Australia, and Victoria.

Mr Fisher:

– It is quite sound in regard to single electorates, but it would be absolutely unsound for Senate elections.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Many say that I should have made the new clause include Senate elections, but I am speaking for this House. It is quite possible and practicable to apply preferential voting to the Senate. A Bill was prepared in the last Parliament with that object; but whatever objection may be raised to its application to the Senate, there can be none to its application to this House.

Mr Fisher:

– It would be ridiculous to have two different systems.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We have two different systems now in the States for Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly elections, and two entirely different systems in the Commonwealth for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Why should I be compelled to vote for a Liberal, when we are running only one candidate?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– A perfect example of what the honorable member refers to took place in East Melbourne recently. One Labour candidate, one Liberal candidate, and one independent Liberal candidate stood.

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member make it compulsory or optional?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Compulsory.

Mr Thomas:

– Why should I be compelled to vote for a Liberal, or make my vote informal?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member is compelled now to vote for three candidates for the Senate.

Mr Thomas:

– But we nominate the full ticket.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– One of the great advantages of this system is that the electors will not be tied down to the choice of candidates selected for them by organizations or leagues under a method of preelection. In the case of the East Melbourne seat, the Labour candidate was defeated on the first count, and the Labour electors, by their second votes, returned, not the Liberal, but the independent candidate, whom they chose in preference to him.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They were compelled to.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– They had not enough Labour votes to return their own candidate, and, after his defeat, they were able to put in the man they wanted.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The trouble is that the honorable member cannot successfully run a pre-election.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member knows that I could if I liked. The honorable member’s argument, in effect, is that no candidate should be allowed to stand unless he has first submitted himself to pre-election. The present system makes a seat a close borough for the man who places his resignation in the hands of an organization and signs an undertaking that if he is not pre-elected he will stand down and assist his successful rival. I am not complaining of that, but the electors ought to have the widest possible choice in the selection of a member, and that can be obtained only under the system I advocate. Honorable, members may try to stop this reform for the present, but just as it has spread over a majority of the States, so will this House be compelled to give the same fair deal and afford the same opportunity as the more intelligent Legislatures of the States have done in their electoral laws.

Question - That the proposed new clauses be inserted (Mr. McWilliams’ amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 24

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- On. behalf of the honorable member for Swan, I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : -

For elections for senators each State shall be divided into three electorates, each electorate returning two senators in case of a general election, at which the whole six senators are to be elected, and one senator each in the case of the periodical elections for the Senate. In cases where there are .more than three senators to be elected for a State owing to an extraordinary vacancy having occurred, the electorate where the vacancy occurred shall be entitled to elect to fill the vacancy.

The right honorable gentleman who has intrusted me with the duty of submitting this amendment in his absence, has advocated this reform for a considerable time. The object is to divide each Senate electorate into three constituencies, on similar lines to those for the House of Representatives. It is contended, and, I think, correctly contended, by the right honorable member, that this alteration would bring the community of interests more nearly to that of the House of Representatives ; would give a better balance of representation in the Senate, and would obtain a better expression of the national will. I believe that these reasons are sound, and have been advanced here from time to time. There will be a later opportunity, perhaps, of discussing the proposal ; but I think it is one which deserves more consideration than has been given to it by the House up to the present time. I do not intend to address the Committee at any length, but I think it is due to an important proposal of this kind that at least a few words should be said in its favour. I believe that if the proposed alteration is not accepted now, in the course of time it will be found necessary, in the interests of the Senate and good government. Not one of us can blink the fact that at present the Senate elections are largely controlled by the ticket system, and the influence of the metropolitan centres has been largely responsible for the election of senators. The amendment will, if adopted, carry out the principle of distribution, local control, truer representation of the varied interests in each State, tend to strengthen the States House and secure a better representation of the people’s interests therein.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 37A- Part XVI. of the Principal Act is hereby repealed and the following new section inserted in place thereof : - “ The validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or President of the Senate, as the case may require j who shall refer the same to the Elections and Qualifications Committee, who shall have full power to enquire into the allegations made therein, and report to Parliament.

That such Committee shall be constituted of members chosen in equal proportions from the Ministerial supporters and members of the Opposition.”

If this* amendment is carried it will do away with the Court of Disputed Returns.

Mr Roberts:

– Suppose that there are only ten Oppositionists returned next time?

Mr CHANTER:

– I am following precedent there. Those who have had experience of the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns have suffered financially and otherwise. They want to save others from going to that Court, and to provide for them a tribunal such as that which has been tried in New South Wales. . I know of no abuse of the tribunal there. It has given satisfaction in every way without allowing the power of the purse to break down the financial stability of the weaker individual.

Mr Higgs:

– Who would give the casting vote?

Mr CHANTER:

– In each House an Elections and Qualifications Committee would be chosen from both sides, and when a petition was presented to the Speaker or to the President, as the case might be, it would be referred to the Committee for inquiry and report. The House concerned would deal with the petition, and either declare the election void or confirm it, or deal with any other matter which might be raised in the petition. The House would deal with the offence, or the alleged offence, as the case might be, and deal with it expeditiously, satisfactorily, and from an equitable point of view far and away better than can the Court of Disputed Returns. The honorable member for Darling Downs will remember that a Select Committee gave a very large amount of consideration to this subject, and drafted a provision which was afterwards incorporated in the Act, and which was intended to make the High Court, sitting in this jurisdiction, a Court of equity and justice, doing away with legal technicalities and other matters of that kind. It was provided that, in dealing with every case of a disputed return, the Court should have regard only to the evidence and the good conscience of the case without reference to legal technicalities. If honorable members have made up their minds not to deal with the proposal, I shall not further detain them. It is one ‘ which affects every honorable member, and those who will succeed us. I am actuated by no personal motive. It is only because I have been to the Court of Disputed Returns and suffered severely that I wish to prevent if possible, that suffering befalling others. I thought that Parliament intended that the Court should be so equitized that any individual could go there in his own simple way without regard to legal technicalities and state his case, but I, in common with the honorable member for Melbourne, the honorable member for Corio, and others, found that, not only had I to lodge a certain sum with the petition, but the Court, unknown to itself, was so bound down by precedents and special training that I found myself legally hobbled. I could not move a step. My case, which should have been settled at one sitting of the Court, occupied its attention for two or three weeks, and had to be mentioned to the Chief Justice during the sittings of the Court in several different States. The Chief Justice calculated that the count of the ballot-papers would occupy a certain number of days, and said that as he would be sitting in Sydney on the following Monday, the matter could then be mentioned to him. When Monday came round, it was found that the count had not been completed, and it was necessary to appoint a solicitor to instruct counsel to make the simple statement to His Honour, “ I have to report : that the count in this case has not been completed.’’ That formality had to be gone through on three different occasions, and the mere mentioning of the fact on these several occasions that the count had not been completed cost me no less than £45. Had the matter been dealt with by a committee of members of this House, it would not have cost me forty pence. I ask honorable members are they so distrustful of each other that they are not prepared to rely on the good conscience of a committee of members of this Chamber to deal justly with any petition submitted to them? No bias has been shown in connexion with such a system in New South Wales, and I am sure that it would not be displayed by a committee of members of this House. I trust that my proposal will be accepted.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- Under section 202b of the principal Act it is provided that -

The Court may award costs against an unsuccessful party to the petition.

Provided that the amount of costs to be paid by any party shall in no case exceed the sum of One hundred pounds.

That proviso has proved as false as Hades. I would not try a dog in the High Court - if such an animal could be connected with a contested election case. I had three afternoons before that Court, and although my counsel was able to tell the presiding Justice that nothing under Heaven cou Idprevent my securing the seat, the case cost me nearly £200. I remember Mr. Norman Cameron, who then represented Wilmot in this House, stating in the course of a debate in this chamber some years ago that in a case in which he alleged that bribery and perjury had taken place, and in support of which he brought evidence as to one instance of the kind, he was told by the Court that more than one such case was necessary to prove his allegation. On a former occasion I succeeded in inducing this House, in Committee, to omit the provision in the Act providing for the High Court acting as a Court of Disputed Returns. That provision, however, was restored to the Bill in the Senate, and upon the return of the Bill to this House in the early hours of the morning, the Senate’s amendment was accepted during my temporary absence. I can understand the difficulty of the Government in accepting a wide amendment of this kind, but I hope they will give it their consideration.

Question - That the proposed new clause be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 22

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - ” 22 A. After section one hundred and fifty-six of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 156a. - (1.) One scrutineer for the purposes of the scrutiny may be appointed for each place at which a scrutiny is held on behalf of the party in power, and one such scrutineer may be appointed on behalf of the party in direct opposition. “ (2.) Every appointment of a scrutineer under this section shall be made in writing, and shall be signed by a person authorized in writing by the Parliamentary leader of the party on behalf of which it is made to make the appointment. “ (3.) Every appointment of a scrutineer and every authority for the appointment under this section of a scrutineer shall be lodged with the prescribed officer. “ (4.) Each scrutineer acting under this section in connexion with a scrutiny shall, out of moneys provided by the Parliament, be paid a sum not exceeding Fifteen shillings for his services by the Commonwealth.”

This will be my last contribution to the debate, and I trust that honorable members will show their gratitude by accepting the proposed new clause. Earlier in the day I moved to amend a clause so as to provide that the Department should authorize the contesting parties to place two scrutineers at each polling booth. That position was rejected, and all that I now ask is that these scrutineers shall be placed, not in every polling booth, but in the counting centres, which are comparatively few in number.

Mr Groom:

– How many such counting centres are there?

Mr CHANTER:

– They represent about 15 or 20 per cent. of the total number of polling places. For instance, in the electorate of Riverina there are 130 polling places, and about twenty counting centres. The percentage would be about the same in other electorates. If this new clause be inserted in the Bill, I am sure that it will cause every candidate to feel absolutely assured that his interests are protected.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I am very sorry that the Government cannot accede to the wish of the honorable member. But he may rest assured that scrutineers at the central polling places will be well treated so far as their entertainment is concerned.

Mr Chanter:

– That is a small matter.

Question - That the proposed new clauses proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 22

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

-I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “13A. Section one hundred and seven, is amended by striking outall the words in the section after the word ‘ elected ‘ and inserting in place thereof - ‘the Returning Officer will inform the Speaker who shall postpone the date of election to allow sufficient time for further nominations.’ “

Section 107 of the principal Act provides that, in the event of two candidates being nominated for a constituency, and one dying prior to polling day, the other candidate shall be declared elected. My amendment provides that, in such circumstances, the election shall be postponed to allow sufficient time for the receipt of further nominations, so that a contest may take place.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The proposal of the honorable member means that if, after the writ has been issued, and nominations have been closed, one or more of the candidates for an electoral division should die, instead of the remaining candidate being declared elected, the Speaker shall postpone the election to permit of further nominations being received. It is a very ingenious proposal. But the Government donot intend to disturb the existing arrangement.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I think that the honorable member for Moreton is on the right track. The law at present provides that an election shall be held where more than one nomination is received. I maintain that an election cannot be held if there be no contest. In the circumstances, which have been outlined by the honorable member, why should the remaining candidate be declared elected? Take the case of a Liberal and a Labour candidate, who have been nominated for a constituency, and let us assume that the Labour candidate dies before polling day. Ought we to allow the Liberal candidate to carry the seat without a contest? No man has a right to be elected to Parliament by reason of the accident of another candidate dying.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I can see nothing to laugh at in the amendment which has been submitted. Let me remind honorable members that if the late Mr. Skene had lived another twenty-four hours, Mr. McCay would not have been a candidate for the Senate last year, and Miss Goldstein would thus have been the third candidate of the Fusion Government. The whole aspect of the election would have been changed if such a provision as that which we are now discussing had been the law of the land. Itis evidently not the intention that any candidate should gain a seat by a fluke of this character ; and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Moreton.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, and recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 9.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 9 -

Section sixty-two of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection : - “ (3.) A Roll may be altered by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State by striking out the name of any person, if he has proof that the person has ceased to be qualified for enrolment on that Roll and has secured enrolment on another Roll.”

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That the following words be added : - “ and the Registrar shall send by post to any person whose name is so struck out notice of the fact.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

page 4060

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Fisher) read a first time.

page 4060

DEFENCE BILL

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Roberts) read a first time.

page 4060

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with an amendment.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration in Committee forthwith.

In Committee:

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That the Senate’s Amendment, leaving out “ primary “ and insetting “ secondary,” in clause 9, be agreed to.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

page 4060

TRUST FUND (TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES) BILL

Mr. SPEAKER announced the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of this Bill.

page 4060

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1, 1912-13)

Mr. SPEAKER announced the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of this Bill.

page 4060

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Australian Notes - Correspondence relating to the Gold Reserve in respect of the issue of.

Ordered to be printed.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at Newnes, New South Wales - As a site for a Post Office.

Public Service Act - New Regulation No. 158A (Provisional) - Statutory Rules 191 1, No. 202.

Defence Act - Military Forces - Regulations Amended (Provisional) -

Nos. 153,157 - Statutory Rules 1911, No. 198.

No. 5 - Statutory Rules 1911, No. 199.

No. 78a, 78b, 78c - Statutory Rules1911, No. 200.

Financial and Allowance - No. 36 (b), Statutory Rules 1911, No. 201.

page 4060

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I move -

That theHouse at its rising adjourn until Tuesday next.

I have to thank honorable members for the good temper they have displayed throughout the tedious and trying sitting, and in consideration of their efforts it is not proposed to sit on Monday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4061

ADJOURNMENT

SUGAR Commission - Wireless Telegraphy.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That the House do sow adjourn.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– - In justice to Mr. R. M. Shannon, one of the members of the Sugar Commission, I desire to offer an explanation. When Mr. Tudor was speaking on this subject, on the 2nd November last, I made a statement by interjection. The following is an extract from the report in Hansard’ -

I am given to understand that Mr. Shannon - I have heard this since, strange to say, from honorable members opposite - was about fifteen or sixteen years ago a Labour candidate. As to what he has been since i am not aware, but the honorable member for Darling Downs may know.

Mr Groom:

– i cannot say whether Mr. Shannon was a Labour candidate, but i think he was secretary of a workers’ organization in Mackay in 190a or 1903. I really do not know sufficient to say, but I think he is still a member of a workers’ organization.

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– Of that I am not aware.

My interjection arose purely from the remark made to myself by .the Minister. Mr. Shannon has written me -

I have never at any time been secretary of the Workers Political Association at Mackay or anywhere else, nor have I ever held office of any kind in such association that I can recollect.

I willingly withdraw the statement I made in perfect good faith, and sincerely regret if the inaccuracy in any way has hurt the. feelings of the Commissioner.

Mr FRAZER:
PostmasterGeneral · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– I had hoped to make a full statement on Australia’s position in regard to wireless telegraphy; but at this hour all I desire to say is that after protracted negotiations with the Marconi and the Telefunken Companies, the Government have been unable to arrive at a position that would warrant them in accepting the responsibility of buying the patent rights of either of these companies. The negotiations have extended over a considerable period, and the Government have now decided that the urgency of wireless telegraphy does not justify any longer delay ; and we intend to proceed with the erection of stations round the coast of Aus-, tralia. We shall begin with a Melbourne station, and then proceed to

Hobart; and we intend, as early as possible, to connect Port Moresby with either Cooktown or Thursday Island. We are following the advice of the expert that was engaged by the Prime Minister when he was in London, as to the system we are about to adopt. In view of the trouble that has arisen between the Marconi and Telefunken Companies, we may, at some future time, as a Commonwealth, have to defend parts of the apparatus comprising the system which, after careful consideration, will be registered in the name of the Commonwealth. I cannot guarantee that we shall be clear, but if we infringe rights in any way the Government will accept the responsibility of paying reasonable compensation for the infringement.

Mr Webster:

– Are we clear under the present arrangement with the Telefunken Company ?

Mr FRAZER:

– If my honorable friend will tell me what the exact position is, in view of the conflicting statements made by the Telefunken and the Marconi people respectively, I shall be delighted. I have tried for some months to understand the position, and have not succeeded.

Mr Webster:

– We were assured by the Postmaster- General twelve months ago that everything was “ all right “ from the Commonwealth point of view.

Mr FRAZER:

– If my honorable friend means that the Telefunken Company have given us a guarantee in connexion with the Pennant Hills and Fremantle stations that they accept the responsibility of defending any action that may be commenced for infringement, I say that we. are covered. Whether the Telefunken Company are infringing the Marconi patents, or vice versâ, I am not in a position to state. There does not appear to be any one in Australia who is able to express a definiteopinion on that point, nor do I think that such an opinion can be expressed, by any one until such time as the question is settled by the Courts. Pur position is this. We take the view that the establishment of wireless stations around the coast of Australia is a matter of urgency. Our expert has given us a system. That system will be registered in the name of the Commonwealth by the expert. We have Commonwealth rights ; if he chooses, as the expert who is responsible for the system, to use those rights, outside Australia, he is at liberty to .’do so. I intend to proceed with the completion of the four stations that I have mentioned, namely, those at Melbourne, Hobart, Thursday Island, or Cooktown, and Port Moresby. We shall also link up with Brisbane, Adelaide, and a low power station at Fremantle, as early as possible. All the works have been put in hand, and I hope that the first two stations will be completed by the end of January, and the other two shortly after.

Mr Hedges:

– Does the Minister intend to complete the Fremantle station ?

Mr FRAZER:

– Yes. I merely wish to add this. As to the material to be used for erecting the stations which will ultimately link up the coast of Australia, it is the intention of the Government to utilize Australian workshops. We shall call, as far as possible, upon Australia for the supply of the material that will be neces- sary-

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 December 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19111207_reps_4_63/>.