View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
7 March 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

DEATH OF ME. PIESSE, M.H.R
IMPORTS.- WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ELECTORAL BILL

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 10736

DEATH OF ME. PIESSE, M.H.R

Senator O’CONNOR:
President of the Executive Council · New South Wales Vice · Protectionist

– With concurrence I beg to move -

That the Senate records its sense of the loss which the Parliament of the Commonwealth has sustained by the death of Mr. Frederick W. Piesse, member of the House of Representatives, and its deep sympathy with his family.
That the President be requested to convey the above resolution to tho widow of the late honorable member.

I think I am but expressing what is in the mind of every member of the Senate when I say that we feel the deepest regret at the loss which the Parliament of the Commonwealth has sustained. Mr. Piesse brought to the service of the Commonwealth a record of earnest public-spirited work in the service of Tasmania. He devoted himself to his duties here with ‘singular earnestness, attention, and public spirit. Men of that kind are needed in the service of the Commonwealth, and his death is to be deplored. ‘ We must all bow to the inevitable. All we can do is to place on record our sense of the loss which the Parliament has sustained. Our sympathy with the late honorable member’s family can only be mentioned here; but lam sure that it is the wish of the Senate that it should be conveyed to them.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– In the absence of the leader of the Opposition, I rise to second the motion, and to say a few words as an old friend of Mr. Piesse. I remember him 30 years ago, when I came to Tasmania, as a young conveyancer. He struck me then as being a man of singular brightness of character, conscientiousness, and determination to do right. ‘ I have always had that in my mind ever since I met him. During his public career I have noticed particularly that that characteristic has always kept him to the front, and earned for him the respect of all who knew him. Those of his colleagues who knew him best are those who appreciated him most. In Senator Dobson we have one who assisted Mr. Piesse in his first step in life, and I am sure that he will bear testimony to his high character. “We all condole with hiswidow and his relatives, and we must feel that not only the Commonwealth, but Tasmania also, has suffered a great loss.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I have seldom had a sadder duty to perform than to support this motion. I knew the late Mr. Piesse for 35 or 40 years, and, as he reminded me a year ago, he commenced his career as a junior clerk to the firm of Giblin and Dobson, of which I was a member. He was in every way a self-made man. I think the great cause of his success was his sterling character. He was a man of true honour and fair-mindedness in everything he did. He seemed to grasp immediately the principles underlying conveyancing, and when he was managing clerk for Messrs. Roberts and Allport he was of the greatest use to that firm.’ The training which he got there, and which he gave himself, was of the utmost value to him in his career in the State Parliament, and in his short career in the Federal Parliament. There was no man to whom one went more readily to be helped out with an intricate subject. He had a great grasp of mathematics ; he was a good financier; he had a knowledge of detail, and an accuracy of fact about every subject with which he dealt, and it was a very great pleasure indeed to be associated with him in any public affair; He was president of our Federal League in Hobart, and did most excellent work in the cause of Australian unity. In many ways he was associated with the philanthropic and social life of Tasmania, and his death will bo an immense loss to Hobart and the people generally. I had the pleasure of joining Mr. Piesse in part of my federal campaign, and I marvelled at the goodness and unselfishness of my comrade. With reference to his widow and children, words fail me to say what their sorrow must be. He was a splendid type of manhood, and the loss they have sustained is irreparable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 10737

IMPORTS.- WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Ordered (on motion of Senator Pearce) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing -

The imports, in detail, into the State of Western Australia during the period from 9th October, 1901, to 31st January, 1902, inclusive.

The country of origin of such imports.

The revenue collected thereon under the Federal Tariff, in detail.

The revenue collected thereon, in detail, tinder the State Tariff of Western Australia.

page 10737

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 7th March, vide page 10716).

Clause 13 -

Each State shall be distributed into electoral divisions equal in number to the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen therein.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– I shall state in a few words the opinion which I have formed since the adjournment, and after having an opportunity to more carefully consider this clause which, I think, was rushed on us last night. I object to any arbitrary enactment that the State shall be divided into as many districts as there are members to be returned to the other House. I do not object to a commission being appointed, to inquire and report to both Houses, as to whether it is expedient to treat each State as one electorate, or as to what districts it is expedient to divide the State into. We are not in a position to judge about the clause. Even if we think we are in a good enough position to decide that there shall be some districts, we are in no position to say that they shall be single districts, or what they shall be. From that point of view, I intend to oppose the clause, and, when we come to the next clause, to move an amendment, to provide for the appointment of a commission to inquire and report as to the expediency or otherwise of dividing the States into districts, and if expedient what districts they should be divided into. If we assent to the clause in its present form, we decide that the States shall be divided into single-member districts for the purpose of the House of Representatives. I think there is an overwhelming public feeling, throughout the greater portion of the Commonwealth, that the States should not be so divided. If my amendment is carried, the report of the commissioners to both Houses will afford us an opportunity of deciding whether or not we should alter the existing law.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– It appears to me that my colleague Senator Downer has got himself into a hole on this matter. He tells us that he does not believe in delegating our powers, so far as concerns deciding upon the electoral divisions, to the House of Representatives, but that he is quite willing to delegate them to commissioners. Honorable senators who have had any experience of commissions will ‘know very well that if we have six commissions representing six different States to tell us how. we are to divide the Commonwealth into constituencies, the chances are that we shall have six different opinions. At all events we shall have more than one, and thus we shall make “confusion worse confounded.” I contend that it is the duty of Parliament to decide whether the divisions for the House of Representatives shall be single, double, or triple electorates. It is not for us to delegate to commissions the duty which devolves upon us. After the commissioners had brought up their report we should be in no better position for deciding whether the House of Representatives should be divided into single electorates or not, than we are now. I suppose 1 there is not an honorable senator who has not come to a conclusion as to the best mode of division. My reading, study, and experience lead me to say that we cannot do better than have single electorates. All kinds of systems have been tried in all parts of the world where there is representative government, and I hardly know of a case where single electorates have not been returned to. In France, after repeated trials, it was found that single electorates were fairer in the interests of the minority as well as ‘of the majority. At one time the whole city of Paris was taken as one electoral division. The result was that the socialists swept the polls from end to end and got practically the whole of the seats. But after Paris returned to single electorates the result was different. Some parts of Paris returned socialistic members, other parts returned members holding different views.

Senator De LARGIE:

– A majority of socialists is still returned from the Parisian constituencies.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Undoubtedly the socialists have a majority, but the minority never got a show until Paris was divided into single electorates. Then we have the experience of the mother country. For some years they tried the system of three-member electorates, each voter having two votes. But they have practically returned to the system of single member electorates. The same has happened in “Victoria and New South “Wales. We also have the experience of Belgium, Germany,, and other parts of the world, in which various systems have been tried. They have universally returned to the adoption of single electorates. I believe that single electorates will be best for the House o£ Representatives.

Senator Charleston:

– Has not Belgium, adopted the Hare system 1

Senator PLAYFORD:

– We can argue the question as to the method of election by-and-by. We now have to decide the method of division. I shall support the proposal of the Government.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I understood that the principle of single electorates meant one member for each electorate. That is why I interjected that Belgium has adopted the proportional system. Of course, the country must be divided into electorates for that system, but there are several members for each district. Since I spoke last evening, I have come to the conclusion that the best method we can adopt, seeing that there is a desire amongst honorable senators to apply the Hare system to both Houses, should the Government succeed in applying it to the Senate, would be to strike out of clause 13 all the words after the word “divisions.” The effect of that would be to leave a blank. We could then proceed with the Bill as we did with the Immigration Restriction Bill, after which, if we altered the principle of the measure, we could come back and fill up the blank according to the decision of the committee. I am extremely anxious that the- Hare system should be applied to both Houses, and not merely to one. I have already endeavoured to show how detrimental the single-electorate system -would be to the interests of all those who are desirous of introducing reforms in the Commonwealth. I am justified in saying, from opinions expressed in the South Australian Houses of Legislature, that single electorates are condemned in that State.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That all the words after the word “ State,” line1. be omitted.

If there is any merit in the proposal for treating the Senate elections in the method proposed by the Bill, there must be equally good grounds for applying the same principle to elections for the House of Representatives. Surely the principle for which the Vice-President of the Executive Council fought last evening with so much zeal and ability is worthy of being applied to both Chambers. Why should there be any differentiation between the two Houses in regard to the method of election ? While I feel that it is extremely inconvenient to move an amendment at this stage - and I make no secret of the fact that I move it because I fear that the proportional voting system may be applied to the Senate, to which I am opposed - yet; if we are to have the system rammed down our throats, I propose to do a little bit of ramming on my own account in regard to the House of Representatives. We should not be selfish in this matter. If proportional representation is such a very splendid thing, we should not monopolize it for the Senate. The House of Representatives should be permitted to enjoy the same benefits and privileges as are to be given to us. There is no excuse for introducing, the proportional representation system, except that which is afforded by the unfortunate example of Tasmania. There the principle has been applied to both Houses. As we have to go to Tasmania for our example, and that example shows that the principle is applicable to both Houses, let us accept the proposition in its entirety, and not nibble at so splendid a reform. I cannot see how the VicePresident of the Executive Council can contend that the Senate should be elected under a totally different set of circumstances or by a totally different method from the House of Representatives. I join issue to some extent with my honorable friend, Senator Playford, as to the eminent desirability of single-seat electorates. I have sat for a constituency returning three members which subsequently returned four, and when it was divided into single electorates, I represented one of the divisions for many years until I entered the Federal Parliament. I have tried both methods, and am not enamoured altogether of either one or the other. But if some opportunity for the representation of a minority is insisted upon, we must, at least, have constituencies returning two members each. I have had the experience of three, four, and singlemember constituencies ; I should like to try the experiment of a double electorate. I should prefer double to single electorates, provided that we are to have sections of the people represented in our Parliament rather than districts of some geographical area. The inconvenience caused by the failure of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to give Senator Millen an assurance sufficiently satisfactory to enable this clause to be taken as read–

Senator Millen:

– I accepted Senator O’Connor’s assurance on the point.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I understood Senator O’Connor’s assurance to amount to this - “If by-and-by the proportional representation scheme is knocked out, I shall be willing, provided you can get a majority to recommit this clause.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– Will the honorable senator pardon me? I simply acceded to the request made by Senator Millen. I said that if proportional representation were carried I should give him an opportunity of reconsidering this clause for the purpose of introducing proportional representation generally. It is not a question of whether or not he can carry such a proposal. I undertake to allow him an opportunity of dealing with the matter.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I accept implicitly that definite assurance and in view of it I shall not move any amendment. I shall be prepared to go straight on with the Bill. Nothing could be more satisfactory than my honorable and learned friend’s assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I move -

That the words “ equal in number to the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen therein “ be omitted.

I feel so strongly on the question of single electoratesthat I am compelled to move the omission of these words with a view of inserting others should I be successful. I move the amendment at this early stage in order that I may put myself right with the committee at the first opportunity.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I am glad that the honorable senator has put the matter in the form of a definite issue. The honorable senator stated that he wished to introduce a system of proportional representation in elections for the House of Representatives. I presume that he proposes to follow up this amendment, if it is successful, by a motion for the division of the States into such electorates as would return three or four members each ?

Senator Charleston:

– Exactly.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– That really involves the question of whether or not we should apply proportional representation to the House of Representatives. I do not think there can be any doubt as to what will be the opinion of the committee upon it. Something has been said about the opinion of Australia on the question. The opinion of the Commonwealth may be gathered from the fact that in all the States, save Tasmania and South Australia, the local Parliaments adopted single electorates for the House of Representatives.

Senator Glassey:

– There are a few double electorates in Queensland so far as the State Parliament is concerned.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I am speaking of the latest expression of opinion in all the States, and it is undoubted that single electorates afford a method by which the best representation can be secured in the House of Representatives. That has been determined by New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and I think, to a large extent, by Queensland. In the case of South Australia and Tasmania, each State was polled as one electorate for the House of Representatives. During last session the Government of South Australia made a proposal in the local Parliament to divide the State into single electorates. That proposal was not proceeded with, at the request of the Federal Government, on the ground that we were undertaking the duty. At the request of this Government, and with a view to this legislation, the Government of South Australia held its hand. Therefore I may take it that practically throughout Australia there has been a general expression of opinion in favour of single electorates. First of all, as the opinion of Australia has been appealed to, I point out that it is all the one way. The next question is whether the decision is founded upon reason. I admit that if in some moment of temporary insanity all these States had decided to adopt a system which ought not to be applied, we should not adopt it here. But is it not altogether in accordance with the best interests of the different States that there should be single electorates for the House of Representatives? Undoubtedly there should be a division of electorates if we desire to obtain the best representation of the people. In the course of an interesting speech, Senator Playford gave us an illustration of the adoption of the principle in other countries. He put the matter in a true light when he showed that by the division of a country into single electorates, we get such a diversity of opinion expressed in the electorates, that in the result a very fair representation of the general opinion of the country is obtained. I will not say that in this way we secure the representation of a minority, because notwithstanding what my honorable friends opposite have said we have never contended that there should be representation of a minority as a minority. There is one reason in support of the division of the States into electorates that seems to stand out pre-eminently, namely, that we ought to have regard to local conditions - in the larger sense- in the representation in the House of Representatives. We cannot have it, I think, in accordance with the principles of the Constitution, in the Senate, but we ought to have it where the people are represented as a people in the House of Representatives. The reason for it is this : We have different interests dealt with in the Commonwealth Parliament which must in many instances have a local application. Take, for example, the incidence of customs duty. We may have a question as to whether our policy should be a revenue-producing or a protective one. The policy might have the effect of protecting the produce or trade of some particular portion of the Commonwealth, and it might affect one portion of the Commonwealth in a way altogether different from what would be its effect in another portion. I have given the illustration of Queensland, but illustrations may be derived from other States. There ought to be some means by which localities in the Commonwealth should be able to be represented when the interests of those localities come before the Commonwealth Parliament for discussion. I say that the division ofthe States into electorates is principally to secure adequate and true representation of the people of the Commonwealth in the House of Representatives, and that, in the second place, Australia has spoken in no uncertain voice in affirmation of the principle of single electorates. The Senate ought to adopt that view, and carry the clause as it is. Here the simple question is - “ Single electorates or not.” There can be only one opinion on the point, and I hope that the committee will come to a decision as soon as possible.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I cannot help regretting that Senator Charleston has seen fit to submit his amendment at this stage. The suggestion I threw out to the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and which he very promptly acceded to, was that we should postpone any debatable point raised by the amendment until we found out what honorable senators proposed to do in the matter of the application of proportional representation to the Senate. I point out the position in which Senator Charleston places those who take the view of the subject that I take. It is evident that he proposes to apply the Hare principle to the House of Representatives, and to have the States divided into subdivisions for that House. If the system of proportional representation is applied to the House of Representatives, each State for the purposes of that House, must remain as one division, because there must be uniformity. It would be absurd to divide the little State of Tasmania into five divisions for the House ofRepresentatives, and to have it polled as one electorate for six senators, and yet if that were not done the larger States must also be polled as one electorate for the House of Representatives. For that reason it will be impossible for me, even with every desire to make the practice with regard to both Houses uniform, to support the amendment. I suggest to the honorable senator that he should withdraw his amendment, and let usproceed with Part 3, when, having had our fight over the application of the principle of proportional representation to the Senate, we shall have an assurance, if we are successful in carrying our views, that there will be a further opportunity of reviewing Part 3.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think Senator Charleston has been well advised to withdraw his amendment. The reason for the amendment is that the honorable senator is possibly more in love with proportional representation than are the Government. If it is his object to apply that system all round I must confess that the Vice-President of the Executive Council seems to have met the honorable senator with great fairness. Senator O’Connor has said that if Senator Charleston wishes to apply proportional representation to the House of Representatives an opportunity will be afforded him to do so if that principle is adopted for the Senate. I point out that there are one or two reasons why this clause should not be hastily dismissed. It is a very debatable question whether this Federal Parliament should divide the States into electoral districts. It might, I think, be strongly contended that that is a duty which should be left to the States themselves. I remind honorable senators of the provision of the Constitution with regard to the division of States for the House of Representatives. It is distinctly different from the provision made with regard to the Senate. The Constitution, I admit, seems to imply that the desire of the framers of it was that for the Senate the States should vote as one electorate. But it also seems to imply that it was not so certain that another plan might not be adopted with regard to the House of Representatives. Section 29, dealing with the House of Representatives, provides -

Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen.

In spite of that I think it is really a serious question whether we should at once decide to take it out of the power of every State to make its own divisions for the House of Representatives. When I asked Senator O’Connor last night if, in the event of our agreeing to the application of the Hare-Clark system to the Senate, any attempt would be made by the other House to interfere with what might be called the prerogatives of the Senate, he distinctly said “ No.” He gave the Senate to understand that if proportional representation was adopted by honorable senators for the Senate, the House of Representatives, from motives of courtesy, or whatever it might be called, would not interfere with what we have decided for ourselves. If that is so, I remind the honorable senator that we are not returning equal favour to the other House, because we are now distinctly attempting to legislate for the House of Representatives.

Senator O’Connor:

– If the honorable and learned senator is right, we could never introduce a Bill.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The question is not whether I am right, but whether theVicePresident of the Executive Council is right. He is asking us to do what he says the members of the House of Reprentatives would not attempt to do.We cannot well consider the divisions into single electorates without considering the method. Senator O’Connor has already indicated certain considerations which will weigh with him in dividing the States into single electorates for the purposes of the House of Representatives. Amongst other considerations he. urges what seems to me a most extraordinary argument. He says that if we are to split up the States into divisions we must have some consideration for local conditions. Local conditions are defined in clause 19, which says -

In the distribution of States into divisions consideration shall be given to (a) community or diversity of interests, (b) means of communication, (c) physical features.

The chief reason Senator O’Connor gave us for saying we should pay attention to local interests is that such a consideration would necessarily arise out of the Customs.

Senator O’Connor:

– And the Post-office ; and I might multiply illustrations.

Senator CLEMONS:

– They passed the Act for the division of the State into districts for the House of Representatives.

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator KEATING:

– I- found when I put the principle forward that it was received by the people with apparent approval. As to the suggestion made by Senator Clemons, that the division or non-division of the States for the House of Representatives should be left to the States themselves, I should like to say that I consider such would be a very vicious system to adopt. Apart from the want of uniformity which would follow, I would-draw attention to the circumstances at present operating om the minds of the Government of one State. Let us take Queensland for example. We see day by day that, rightly or wrongly, the Government of that State feel aggrieved at the action of the Commonwealth Government and Parliament, and are indulging in many little pin pricks at the expense df the Federal Government. Could we reasonably expect that at the present time that Government, backed up as it might be by a majority in the local Parliament, would approach the task of dividing Queensland into electorates for the House of Representatives with the calmness and judicial deliberation that ought to characterize the discharge of duties of that kind? We might take the case of any other State which feels aggrieved. When the State Parliaments divided the States into electorates for the House of Representatives, it was openly asserted in many public organs that the divisions in some cases were . marked out on lines to suit particular members of the State Legislature.

Senator Clemons:

– I have never heard of such an assertion.

Sena tor KEATING.- That does not show that my assertion is incorrect. There are other honorable senators here who can bear out what I am saying in regard to the dissatisfaction expressed in their States.

To adopt Senator Clemons1 suggestion would be to practically allow a State Government, if it thought that certain men were returned by that State to the House of Representatives who were not in sympathy with that Government upon matters of Federal or State concern, to alter, to a certain extent, the character of that representation at each election. I think that we can determine far better than could the State Parliaments what should be the electoral divisions. We can approach the task free and untrammelled, and complete it in the interests of the people of the whole of the Commonwealth, and not purely and solely in the interests of any State itself. I shall oppose, as strongly as I can, any attempt which may be made to leave the mapping out of electoral divisions for the House of Representatives with any of the State Parliaments.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I think it would be a little premature to pass this clause, and thus affirm the principle contained in it. I should like to say, also, that I have never heard in Tasmania any insinuation that the federal electorates were mapped out in that State in order to suit individual members of the State Parliament. Certainly such an opinion has never been publicly expressed.

Senator Keating:

– I did not make the statement in regard to Tasmania.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia). - I wish to deprecate any impatience on. the part of honorable senators in dealing with a question of vital importance such as we have before us at the present time. Senator Clemons’ speech, so far from requiring any adverse comment, struck me as being a very valuable contribution to the debate. If there is one thing which was made clear when we framed the Constitution it was that we should be economical in interfering with the rights of the States. In every case in which we used the words “ until the Parliament otherwise provides,” we said, in effect, that the existing law was a good law ; but that we were legislating for the present, and we could not tell what might crop up in the future to make it necessary to alter that law. That fact, I am satisfied^ is not realized sufficiently by sections of this committee. If there was one view more strongly urged than another in the Conventions and submitted to the people, it was that there should be an economy of interference with the States, and that we should never interfere unless interference became very necessary. I absolutely deny Senator Playford’s statement that the feeling in South Australia is in favour of single electorates. The honorable senator has always been in favour of that principle, but he has never been able to carry’ it in South Australia. We had one little district in that State, the Northern Territory, which at one time only returned one member ; but insignificant as that district is compared with all the rest, so strong was the feeling there against single electorates that two members were given to the Northern Territory, and that district has them still.

Senator O’Connor:

– That law was passed ten or twelve years ago, and there has been a growth of public opinion on this question for a great many years.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– The growth of public opinion in South Australia has been entirely different to that developed in the larger populations. I do not desire to go too much into the reasons for it, but we know that parties have advocated single electorates because they thought they would get more men in for their side by doing so. That was altogether the game in England, but it never represented any great principle. The great principle has always been better represented by the view that there should not be single electorates ; that there should be at least double electorates, so as not to disfranchise too many - the very thing which is always being complained about. We have gone a little better than the principle in South Australia, and Senator Playford has already referred to the fact that we have one district returning as many as five members. But there is no district there returning only one member, and that is the whole point. We passed this Constitution intending to be economical of interference with the States. The other day we interfered with Tasmania in a way which would probably have prevented that State coming into the Federation if we had told her that we were going to adopt any such course. Ever since we have been here, it appears to me we have been trying, not to legislate for the purpose of filling up the Constitution so as to make it complete, but always to see how far we can go under the Constitution to gratify the fad of this man or that man. I am utterly against single electorates, ‘but I do not desire to make any reflection upon others. In New South Wales they like the system, and for goodness sake let them keep it and elect their members in that way. In Victoria the system is liked, though not so much ; but in South Australia we do not like it, and why should we be interfered with? The object of all is to adopt. that method which will return members who will best represent the opinion of the States. Should we not let them judge for themselves what that method ought to be 1 Are we as competent to decide as they are ? I would never dream of interfering with New South Wales on the subject I would say - “ You know best the physical environments and circumstances which require something to be done in your State different from what is done in other States. Deal with those circumstances accordingly. Adopt the best method you can conceive amongst yourselves for returning the men you want to represent you ; but leave us the same privilege. Because you happen to be a big State and we are only a small State, do not insist that we shall return members according to your method, when we have adopted a method which we think is better, and which has resulted in the return of the admirable representatives we see before us.” Look at the history of America, Canada, Switzerland, and every other country that has given up its State government to some extent for federation, and we shall always find great unpopularity in the first instance. Do not let us unnecessarily accentuate it. Let us deal with matters that have to be dealt with in the interests of the whole people, and interfere with the States just as little as ever Ave can, instead of doing what I venture to think we are doing now - interfering on every opportunity, treading upon their corns, and making the term “federation “ a reproach.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– While I am in favour of single electorates, and think that they have acted better in this State than double electorates, I am entirely in accord with the view that we should not unnecessarily tread upon the corns of the States. We should endeavour to create as little strife as we can during the first few years of the Federation. That is our bounden duty, and I am sorry to confess that we have not adhered to that very wise policy. If this were merely a machinery Bill, about which the States would” not contend, there could be no objection to it. There are vital principles in it to which I object very much indeed. So far as I can judge this clause 13 is all right, but the Constitution does not invite us to pass such clauses. It is plain enough, from section 29 of the Constitution, that, until the Federal Parliament otherwise provides, the State laws are to prevail, and we have not found fault with the State laws dealing with matters of this kind. Why, then, should we force a principle like this upon the States? I think we are making the States angry by our action, and while I have been, and will continue to be, in favour of federation, and while I think that the existing cloud of objections to it will pass away, I tell honorable senators plainly that, if a vote upon the Constitution were to be taken next week, it is certain that it would not be accepted, so strong is the feeling upon the subject. I urge the Government not to press unduly upon any State.

Senator Glassey:

– The honorable senator must admit the need for uniformity in the conduct of elections.

Senator FRASER:

– No. Why should there be uniformity? Uniformity may create havoc and ruin in many instances. There is no uniformity in this Senate ; we are as divided as division can make us.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Then there should hot be uniformity in the franchise either ?

Senator FRASER:

He “ got there”

Senator Millen:

– Was it a general argument, or was it intended to apply to a particular individual ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It was taken to apply to a particular individual. So keen was the feeling, that I believe I am right in saying that the decision of the Tasmanian Parliament to have the whole country polled as one electorate, was arrived at in the fear that, as had been mentioned by the leader of the Opposition, that stranger might be able to capture one of the seats

Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in -each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division.

That section shows clearly that the framers of the Constitution thought at the time that it was quite possible that some of the States might prefer to have electorates returning four or five members each, so that the Have system or some similar method of voting might be applied; because the section clearly refers to the “ number of members “ to be chosen for each division. It has been shown that if we pass the clause as it stands, we shall force some of the States to conduct their elections for the House of Representatives in a very different form from that which they have- chosen for electing members to their own popular Houses. That is not desirable. How many methods -of voting are we to have ? In South Australia we have five, four, and three member electorates for the House of Assembly, and four-member districts for the Legislative Council, while, if this proposal is carried, we shall have that State divided into single electorates for the House of Representatives, and possibly a method of voting introduced which is entirely new to the people there. The desirability of uniformity has been urged, and surely we ought not to impose upon the States methods that will destroy the uniformity of their own systems. The whole of the arguments in support of uniformity are in favour of allowing the States to deal with this matter as they think best. Are not the members of the popular branches of the State Legislatures elected by the people who return us 1 Surely, therefore, the members ought to know what is most conducive to the political and social good of the people 1 If, having passed this clause, we attempt to alter it subsequently, we shall be confronted with the fact that we have agreed upon this principle, and we shall not be allowed to refer to it again in this committee. If the Hare system of voting is to be applied to the Senate, those who favour single electorates will surely see the necessity for uniformity in the method of voting, instead of having one system for the House of Representatives and another for the Senate. All these are powerful reasons why honorable senators should not pledge themselves at this juncture to the principle of one man one district, and why they should deal first with other parts of the Bill. If it is found necessary to make any change, they will then be able to come back and deal with this clause.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I have not spoken hitherto upon this measure, first because it appears to me to be a well thought out and carefully drafted Bill, and secondly, because the speeches on the second reading were so admirable that they left little to be said. I am very much in favour of proportional representation, and I am satisfied that any defects which can be alleged . against it are not half as great as are the blots on the block system. Whether we should apply this system of proportional voting to a State Chamber like the Senate is a matter which raises very grave considerations. However, that is not before the Chair. The clause under discussion appears to take away for all time the opportunity of applying proportional representation to the House of Representatives.

Senator O’Connor:

– No. This Bill might be repealed or altered if carried into law.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am so persuaded of the benefits to be derived from proportional voting that that to some extent is a criticism which I feel bound to offer to the clause as it stands. At the same time, Senator O’Connor’s argument that in dealing with the question of the representation of the citizens, as such, in the House of Representatives we must take local conditions into consideration, is a very strong one. That raises another point - whether the States themselves are not the best judges of how to apply any Act to their local conditions. A great deal more will have to be heard on that question, but believing this Bill to be a good one, ‘ and desiring to push on with the business, I propose to vote for the clause as it stands, because it appears to me to be the lesser of two evils. I think Tasmania will be in accord with the vote I am about to give. It is true that the Parliament of Tasmania took steps to map out that State into five electorates for the House of Representatives, and as Tasmania is in favour of single electorates for the one House, I do not think my vote can be- very much called into question. It appears to me that as that State must be polled as one electorate for the Senate - and it is desirable that it should be - it is well to consider local conditions and to have single electorates for the House of Representatives! I can quite understand that some of the more populous States may object to this : that as the popularity of proportional representation grows - as I am sure it will - some will desire to apply the system to the House of Representatives, to which it is far more applicable than it is to the Senate. If they do, this clause will stand in the way, and will have to be repealed. One very important point has not yet been referred to, namely : What is the economic and financial aspect Of this Bill ? In other words, what is it going to cost us ? If we were to allow matters to stand for the present the whole cost of preparing the rolls would fall upon the States, and although I do not desire to delay the progress of the Bill I think that is a matter which we ought to consider. I shall be glad if Senator O’Connor will have a return prepared showing what the cost of this Bill will be. I intend on Tuesday next to give notice of motion for the preparation of such a return. The financial aspect of the question ought to be prominently before us. I am told that the preparation of the rolls will cost a very large sum. As Tasmania has gone back on proportional representation, and as I believe it is in favour of single electorates, I see no harm in voting for the clause as it stands.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– I have said nothing upon this Bill so far, but I have listened to the debate attentively, and I have been amazed at the parochial sentiments given utterance to by some honorable senators. We are told that we should not pass this clause because the States should be the best judges as to how these affairs should be regulated. We should not pass something else because it may create in the minds of a number of persons some feeling of hostility to federation generally. Senators Dobson and Clemons are ardent federalists, but their whole plea has not been for federation, but for the isolation of the different States as they were before the accomplishment of federation. Senator Clemons, admits that we should have a uniform franchise, but he does not desire a uniform mehtod of exercising the franchise. He says we should leave that to the States. Where are we drifting % Are we to drift back to the old condition of things existing before the accomplishment of federation 1 I have always been an ardent federalist, and I deny that anything has been done by the Federal Parliament to create hostility to federation. I think I know something of my own State, and a great deal more than some honorable senators who assume to know a great de.il about it. I know the public sentiment existing in that State, and the highly beneficial effect which the legislation passed by the Federal Parliament will have upon it. Notwithstanding the platitudes we haveheard concerning the hostility created by federal legislation, if aplebiscite on federation were taken in Queensland to-morrow an overwhelming majority would be found in favour of the action taken by the Federal Parliament. We want uniformity of franchise, uniformity in the method of conducting elections ; in legislation reserving this Commonwealth for people of the white race ; in defence ; in banking ; and in the establishment of an Inter-State Commission for directing the trade and commerce of the Commonwealth. Yet some strong federalists tell us that if a vote were taken to-morrow federation would not be carried in consequence of the action of the Federal Parliament. I have great respect for the opinions of Senator Eraser, but I do not defer, to his opinion when he says that we must go slow. When in the name of heaven are we to move? We are told that we should not move now or next year. “ Don’t move at all “ is the cry of the old conservative everywhere and every time. We are told that it is unwise to make a start now with this Bill. When are we to make a start ? The Vice-President of the Executive Council has explained that there must shortly be a federal election for the Senate, and is it not wise that we should take time by the forelock, and adopt measures which will secure the best results, not in the interests of one State alone, but in the interests of the whole of the Commonwealth ? I never was an enthusiastic admirer of the system of single electorates, but under all the circumstances I think it is the best system to adopt. In Queensland we adopted a temporary measure for the purposes of the last federal election, waiting the time when the Federal Parliament, as was intended by the Constitution, would deal with this subject, as well as with the subject of a uniform franchise. The very basis upon which the Federation rests is uniformity, so far as it can be carried out. In some States it is suggested that there should be no division for the House of Representatives, and that the members of that House should be elected in- the same way as members of the Senate.

Senator Clemons:

– That would be a calamity.

Senator GLASSEY:

– It would be no calamity, but it would certainly be a lopsided arrangement so far as Parliament itself is concerned. In other States it may be that large divisions will be adopted. In New South Wales they have had sufficient experience of the single-electorate system to convince them of the necessity of continuing that system. In Victoria no desire has been shown to abandon that system. So far as Queensland is concerned, we have already passed legislation dividing that State into nine divisions, with a single representative for each, for the House of Representatives ; and one of the planks in the platform of the present Queensland Government in the elections which are now being conducted in that State is the abolition of the double electorates which exist there to a limited extent. Following up the argument used by Senator O’Connor, I say that the whole trend of public opinion in Australia is in the direction of single electorates, and that being so, how can honorable senators say that if we pass this clause it is likely to arouse hostility to federation which should not exist ? I am more than astonished at the parochialism displayed during the discussion on this Bill. I hope we shall be true federalists, and as far as we can carry measures which will establish uniformity.

Senator O’Connor:

– I may remind the honorable senator that the cost of the election which has unfortunately been rendered necessary in Tasmania will probably be £1,200, while the cost of the whole of the elections for that State was only £1,700, so that, in the absence of a division of electorates, it will cost nearly as much to elect one member for that State as it cost to elect the whole of the members -at the general election.

Senator GLASSEY:

– I cannot vote for the amendment proposed by Senator Charleston. I do not believe it is a wise or proper policy to adopt so far as the House of Representatives is concerned, though I think it would be highly prudent and politic to adopt it for the Senate.

Senator Siu FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– There cannot be verymuch doubt in the minds of honorable senators that the Constitution provides absolutely for carrying out what is proposed in this Bill - uniformity of procedure in connexion with elections. The provisions on the subject in the Constitution were not inserted without its being intended that at some time or other they should be given effect to. The first thing to decide is whether it is advisable to exercise now the power provided in the Constitution. I have listened attentively to the debate ; but I have not been able to arrive at a conclusion that there is any special advantage in delay. I am inclined to think that there is very little, if anything, to be gained by delay, and there is a good deal to be said in favour of dealing with this question while it is well before the public. It was discussed during the time of the Commonwealth elections, as it has been since ; the public mind is, I think, fairly made up upon the subject, and there is a general expectation that within a reasonable time the Commonwealth Parliament will deal with it. . So far as I can see, from my experience of Victoria, there is undoubtedly a strong opinion in favour of uniformity in this State. I am not personally a great believer in the wonderfully beneficial effects claimed for uniformity. I do not think its advantages will appear so very great if contrasted with its many disadvantages. Still, I think public opinion in the Commonwealth is in favour of this matter being dealt with promptly by the Federal Parliament, and on lines of uniformity. In clause 13 we come to deal for the first time with the method by which it is proposed that this shall be done, and the clause lays down the principle of single electorates for the House of Representatives. While I recognise that that is in accordance with the opinion held by the vast majority of the electors of Victoria for many years past, I am npt a particularly firm believer in the advantages of single electorates. I believe there is a great deal to be said in favour of double and treble electorates, and that probably the people would be better represented by double than by single electorates. At the same time, I frankly acknowledge that single electorates do secure to a large extent the representation of a number of divergent views. Ry cutting up the States into so many districts, we shall undoubtedly secure the return of men differing widely in their political views. So that while I think it is not by any means the most perfect system, and is not perhaps as good a system as double electorates, and certainly not by any means as good as the proportional system, I admit that great advantages may follow from the adoption of the system, and especially when the contingent vote is applied to it. Under these circumstances I feel that it is my duty to support the clause as it stands, with, of course, the distinct understanding given by Senator O’Connor, that in the event of proportional voting being recognised later on, the clause will be recommitted with the view of determining whether the principle should also be applied to the House of Representatives.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Of course, that is only to suit” the convenience of those who wish to raise the question. I do not mean to say for a moment that my opinion can be altered in any way.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia). - I ask the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat whether, on consideration, he will not come to the conclusion that his remarks are utterly illogical ? He has said that he is in favour of proportional representation. He likes three-member districts better than one-member districts. Why? Because he thinks that the nearer you get to proportional representation the further you get from single electorates with members returned by absolute majorities. Although I agree with him that in that way members may be returned with very divergent views, still he says that he is for proportional representation, and he likes twomember districts better than one, and, probably, would like three-member districts better than two-member districts. Seeing that he is fo.r proportional representation, I ask him how he can support single electorates 1

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales.) - I cut my remarks short this morning in consequence of the assurance which was given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and I did so in the belief that we were going to’ proceed with the clause without further discussion. So many speeches have been made, so many side-lights have been thrown on the question, that I find myself placed in an awkward position ; and I have to express my regret-though I still regard the assurance of Senator O’Connor as absolutely binding - that I withdrew my amendment. I am now compelled to give a vote on the amendment- of Senator Charleston, which is indicative plainly of multi-seat electorates - probably two he has in his mind - as against the proposition which I had advanced earlier in the day of placing the elections for the House of Representatives on precisely the same basis as those of the Senate. I am still in favour of that contention, if the system of sectional representation, which is aimed at in the Bill, is to be the method governing elections to the Senate. If the rule is to affect one House it should affect both Houses. I hold that view on the strength of Senator O’Connor’s own expression of opinion here. He has been .an enthusiastic supporter of uniformity ; and many other senators have entertained his view. If uniformity is admirable in one direction, surely it is admirable in more than the one direction which immediately appeals to the mind of the speaker. If there is such a merit in uniformity it certainly should apply to the method of election to both Houses. In con-, tradistinction to the proposition of Senator

Charleston, we have the Ministerial proposal for single electorates. Believing in one proposition I am called upon to vote for or against two others. By withdrawing my amendment I am placed in an awkward position, and I scarcely know what vote is the more appropriate for me to give. I hope that the clause, assuming that it is passed to-day, will not come before us again, because I trust that the idea of the Bill for governing senatorial elections will not be given effect to. Senator Downer made some remarks which implied that the senators for New South Wales are opposed to the amendment of Senator Charleston, because that State has decided in favour of single electorates. I do not think there is any such feeling on the part of any senator from New South Wales. There is no such thought in my mind, and I am not aware of its existence in the mind of any colleague. I imagine that every member of the Senate is actuated by a desire to do his public duty in accordance with ‘the pledges he gave to his constituents. It has never occurred to me that there is any one in the Senate who is seeking to follow up any particular line of action for any benefit which may accrue to himself. This subject has been discussed with very great fairness and very considerable ability. It is one to which 1 have not devoted so much time as many others have done, and my contribution to the discussion has been of an unimportant character. In New South Wales the question of proportional representation has not got beyond the nursery ground of politics. If there is so much merit in the idea of singleseat electorates for one House, I cannot possibly see the utility or the propriety of the later provisions in the Bill for a totally opposite state of affairs as applied to the Senate. For these reasons I am in a little doubt as to the vote I ought to give on this amendment. But as the matter is confused by the manner in which these diverse propositions have necessarily crossed one another in the course of the discussion, I hope that Senator O’Connor will not think that if I sb.ould vote, as I probably shall, for the amendment, I cast the smallest shadow of doubt on the validity of the. pledge which he has given, and which I am sure he will stand by whatever may be the result of the division on the amendment.

Senator Millen:

– I rise, sir, to ask you a m question as to tho effect of a vote at this stage. Senator Gould has pointed out that if we should vote now against this amendment we shall have affirmed a certain principle, and that therefore it will not be competent at a later stage to introduce any amendment contradicting that principle. I desire to know, sir, whether, if we affirm the principle of single electorates by passing clause 13, it will be open for us later on to propose amendments challenging that principle.

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Pearce:

– What has that to do with the clause ?

SenatorSir JOHN DOWNER.- I cannot conceive of anything that has more to do with the whole question before us, than when one of the most respected members of the committee, even after listening to the discussion that has taken place to-day, tells us that he has come to the conclusion that he does not see that there is any particular hurry about it.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 21

Noes … … … 7

Majority … … 14

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The clause proposes to divide the States into electoral divisions. In the course of the second-reading debate Senator Symon raised a point about which I should like some information. He pointed out that under the scheme of the Bill the electoral divisions would be based on the quota, which could only be ascertained after the rolls had been prepared, and that could only be after the divisions had been created. Before we vote on the clause an explanation should be given as to how that difficulty is to be overcome.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– Properly speaking my answer to Senator Millen’s question should be given upon clause 17, but I may as well answer it now. When I came to look into Senator Symon’s criticism, it appeared to me that there was something in it, and that the clause was unworkable in the form in which it stood. I have had an amendment prepared and circulated to put the matter beyond question, that in getting the basis of the quota under clause 17 you are to take the number who have the right to vote upon existing rolls, or to obtain your information in any other way. So that as far as concerns the machinery for carrying out this clause there will be no difficulty.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The wording of the clause seems to me to be unfortunate. I do not like the phrase “ Each shall be distributed into electoral divisions.” As a rule you do not distribute a thing until you have divided it. Here we are to distribute before we have divided. Would it not be better to say - “ Each State shall be divided into electoral districts,” or something of the sort.

Senator O’Connor:

– I think the. words in the clause are satisfactory.

– Clause 15 provides that the commissioners shall hold office during thepleasure of the Governor-General.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is what I do not like.

SenatorFraser. - It would be better to say that their appointment shall cease as soon as their work is completed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not think that that Act would be applicable. I have ascertained from the Chief Electoral Officer of the Commonwealth, who was formerly the Chief Electoral Officer of New South Wales,, that the cost in fees to the commissioners for re-distributing, for the first time, the 125 seats in New South Wales was £200. Considering what the work was, the enormous amount of labour involved in the inquiry, and the qualities which the commissioners had to exercise, I do not think it can be said that the cost was excessive. The commission was appointed for a term of five years, and the terms of appointment were as follow : -

The office of a commissioner shall be tenable for the period named in such commission, and if necessary for such extended period to be named in a further commission, as the Governor may deem proper, for the completion of the distribution in respect whereof such first-mentioned commission shall have been issued.

I do not see very much difference between the appointment of a commission for five years and the appointment of a commission during the pleasure of a Government, which means either that you retain them while the work is being done, and then let them go about their business, or retain them for a considerable period, and in the carrying out of any subsequent distribution they have all the knowledge and advantage of the experience they have already gained. I now come to the question to which Senator Millen has drawn my particular attention, and that is the automatic way in which the Commission works in New South Wales. Section 13 of the Act says -

It shall be the duty of the commissioners, and they are hereby directed to distribute New South Wales into electoral districts for the purposes of this Act, within three months after the passing of this Act, and thereafter, within three months after the results of every census of the population of New South Wales shall have been ascertained and reported to the Colonial Secretary, which the Government Statistician is hereby required to do as early as possible after such census shall have been taken, and such distribution shall take effect when approved by resolution of the Legislative Assembly with or without amendment, and upon proclamation of the names and boundaries of the electoral districts in the Gazette.

That provision is not applicable here.

Senator Millen:

– There is an intermediate adjustment.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– There is another Act which gives other power, but I do not think that it operates automatically. A period of ten years between one distribution and another is not adequate. This is not a matter in which I have any particular feeling for one method more than another. I quite recognise the difficulties of the position. Above all things the object you have to aim at is to see that the distribution is kept as fairly representative as possible. Considering the nature of the different electorates in Australia, the liability to change in population, you must have some elastic system, and it appears to me that the best form of elastic system you can have is one which will enable the commissioners to be put into operation at any time, when the Parliament or the public, or the Government, on its own motion, may think it should be done. I quite appreciate the difficulty which Senator Millen has put, but I do not see a better way of getting over it than that provided in the Bill. If I did, I should be very glad to consider it.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I am under the impression, and shall remain under that impression until it is disproved, that in the electoral law of New South Wales there is some provision for a supplementary adjustment, that whenever an electorate obtains a number of electors over and above the quota the commissioners are empowered to adjust it, reporting to Parliament the adjustment, and the not taking place until Parliament approves. Whether that is so or not, I think we can draw from the New South Wales experience sufficient support for my contention that it is not safe to leave this power in the hands of the Government of the day. Senator O’Connor has pointed out that he simply looks upon the exercise of the power as an executive Act, and that if the Executive fails in its duty, the power of punishing it lies in the. hands of Parliament. That is true ; but the Government may fail to do something, and for party reasons Parliament may not be prepared to take the responsibility of punishing it. Some time ago, in New South Wales, the commissioners, in the exercise of the duty, imposed upon them by the Act in question, prepared a redistribution scheme and forwarded it to the Government. The Government neglected its duty, and took no action whatever upon it. The whole purpose of the Act was nullified. I can conceive that for many reasons a Government wishing to please certain supporters might lay aside the report of the commissioners, or might refrain from taking action upon it. Take the case mentioned by Senator Glassey, of a new mining township springing up. A Government holding a certain set of opinions might come to the conclusion that the voters in that township would send into Parliament a representative of the party opposed to itself. Consequently, they might not desire to have a redistribution. I appreciate all that is implied in theterm” Ministerial responsibility,” but it is dangerous to leave in the hands of any Government the power to fix electorates, or to refrain from having them fixed. For these reasons it will be desirable to direct in the Bill that action shall be taken quite apart from Ministerial control. I have not prepared an amendment such as would be necessary to carry out. my view, but in order to have the matter discussed I move -

That all the words after “office,” line 1, be omitted.

The effect of the amendment would be to create a blank, which I would ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to fill up or to leave the matter over till next week, when a more suitable amendment might be prepared.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– The point raised by Senator Millen is one of great importance. Whatever our party views may be, we all recognise that if we want to insure the proper representation of the people in both Houses we must be very careful that the redistribution is properly attended to. The action of the commissioners should be automatic, quite apart from any instigation by the Government. They should keep their eye upon the statistics of the Commonwealth, and upon the changes of population from time to time, and should make reports to Parliament as they became necessary. I should prefer that the commissioners should communicate directly with Parliament and not with the Government. Whatever we do we should be perfectly clear that it is not possible for the Government on any occasion to intervene between the report of the commissioners and Parliament itself. I am sure that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is fully seized of what Senator Millen desires. His sense of fairness and justice should induce him to see his way to support an amendment of this character.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I shall consider the matter between now and Tuesday. Up to the present I have not been able to see any better way of dealing with the question than that we have proposed. But if, on reconsideration, I can see how the clause can be improved, I shall have have no hesitation in moving an amendment.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) proposed -

That the committee have leave to sit again on Tuesday next.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Do I understand that we are to meet on Tuesday?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I have no intention of delaying the Senate, butI think the Government are perfectly justified in the action they have taken, and I am only sorry that they did not take it. before. There are more than New South. Wales and South Australian senators in this Chamber, and every hour the conclusion of’ public business is delayed, out of the 36 senators, eighteen, from the other States are kept away from their homes. We are entitled to receive some consideration, and the best consideration that can be given usisto sit upon extra days, and get through with the public business. I also rise because I wish to correct a false impression which, might be created by a statement made by Senator Downer, that on a previous, occasion he could not get a pair. The honorable and learned senator has never made a demand for a pair from the labour party. I am myself personally indebted to Senator Downer, and I should in gratitude be prepared to pair with him at any time, because he was good enough to pair with me during the time of my illness. I am sorry the time has been cut so short, as I. should like to say agood deal more upon this question to show the proper justification which the Government have for proposing an extra sitting day. I think: they might also have included Monday and -Saturday.

Senator O’CONNOR (lft reply). - I desire only to say that I must adhere to the position I have taken up,, and -I am sure the Senate will support mei-

Question. resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.19 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 March 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020307_senate_1_8/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 7 March 1902

DEATH OF ME. PIESSE, M.H.R

Senator O’CONNOR:President of the Executive Council · New South Wales Vice · Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

IMPORTS.- WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ELECTORAL BILL

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator De LARGIE:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Charleston:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator Millen:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Charleston:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Glassey:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Major GOULD:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Clemons:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Clemons:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Keating:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator FRASER:Victoria

Senator Glassey:

Senator FRASER:

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator FRASER:

Senator Keating:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senate
7 March 1902

Senator O’CONNOR:
President of the Executive Council · New South Wales Vice · Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator Siu FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales