View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
22 November 1911

4^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- LAND TAX
QUESTION
- TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
QUESTION
- RAILWAY SURVEY
ELECTORAL BILL

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2908

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Assent reported.

page 2908

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in the Bill.

page 2908

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -

Audit Acts 1901-1906. - Repeal of Regulation 47, and substitution of new Regulation in lieu thereof. - Statutory Rules 1911, No. 180.

Seat of Government. - Ordinance of 1911. - No. 2 - Rates.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - West Maitland, New South Wales : Commonwealth purposes. - Notification of the acquisition of land.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following papers -

Return to order of the Senate of9th November showing -

The number of postal voting papers issued in each State at the general election in April, 1910.

The number of postal voting papers returned to the various Returning Officers and used, in which the franchise was exercised.

The number of postal voting papers not returned to the Returning Officers.

The name of the State, electoral district, and polling place to which postal voting papers were not returned.

The names and ordinary occupations of the Returning and Deputy Returning Officers for such divisions.

The steps taken, or inquiries made, to trace such unretumed voting papers, and the results of such action.

Return to order of the Senate of 20th October showing -

The number of trade unions registered under the State laws in the respective States; (b) the number of individuals coming within the jurisdiction of such legislation ; (c) the occupations or industries in connexion with which such registration is made.

The number of registered industrial organizations (a) of employers, (b) of employes registered under the State Industrial Arbitration and Conciliation Acts, and (c) the industries in connexion with whichsuch registration is made.

The number of organizations (a) of employers, (b) of employes registered in pursuance of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904 and Acts amending same, and (c) the industries in connexion with which such registration is made.

page 2908

QUESTION

LAND TAX

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to again ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is prepared with the information regarding the land tax, which he promised, on the 20th September, to get for me?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been making inquiries, and as soon as possible the paper will be laid upon the table.

Senator Walker:

– Two months ago the Minister said that.

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the Government are yet in possession of statistical information showing the areas of land of less than one acre in the Commonwealth, and the amount of land tax received from areas of 1 acre and under?

Senator McGREGOR:

– If the honorable senator wishes to obtain this information his proper course will be to move for the production of a return.

page 2908

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

– I understand that a series of photographs of the route of the proposed transcontinental line were taken and exhibited lately at the rooms of the Royal Society. Will, the Minister of Defence kindly get copies of the photographs for the informationof honorable senators?

Senatorgivens.-Which transcontinental line ?

Senator McColl:

– The transcontinental line.

Senator Givens:

– There are two proposed.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the photographs are in the possession of the Defence Department, I say, “Yes.” If they are not there I will endeavour to obtain them.

page 2908

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– I read in the Argus of this morning that the Government contemplate the installation of wireless tele- graphy in Melbourne, and I desire to ask the Honorary Minister whether it is their intention to proceed with the establishment of a wireless station in Queensland during this financial year, and, if so, when?

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

– I am not in a position at the present moment to give the information which the honorable senator desires, but it is hoped that within the next three or four days the PostmasterGeneral will be able to make a statement which I trust will be satisfactory, not only to the honorable senator but also to others who have interested themselves in wireless telegraphy.

Senator Sayers:

– Will it be convenient if I give notice of a question on the subject for Thursday or Friday next?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not in a position to say exactly the day on which the honorable senator may get the answer which he desires, but the information is being prepared, and it is believed that not more than three or four days will elapse before it is available.

Senator Sayers:

– I give notice of a question for Wednesday next.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Arising out of the answer, I desire to ask the Honorary Minister whether, during the course of the investigations, any attention will be paid to the claims of the north-west portion of Western Australia? All the weather comes from that particular side, and I should like to know whether or not the Minister will take into serious consideration the advisability of erecting a station on the extreme north-western point of the State?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Mr. Balsillie, the expert, has made extensive inquiries as to the most suitable places in different parts of Australia for the installation of a wireless system. It is believed that when the Postmaster-General makes an announcement in the course of the next few days every State will receive that consideration which is its due.

Senator Givens:

– I hope that the Federal Territory at Jervis Bay will not be overlooked.

page 2909

QUESTION

INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Are the non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff in receipt of rations, quarters, medical attendance, and other allowances?
Will the Minister specify what “ other allowances “ means?
Did the instructors receive an increase in their salary of 15s. per annum in July, 1910?
If so, was that increase retrospective?
If retrospective, what was the period covered ?
How many increments have the noncommissioned officers of the Instructional Staff received since the establishment of the Commonwealth ?
If such increments have been received, what was the length of the officers’ service?
Is the maximum rate for each class of officer being paid at present?
If so, how many are in receipt of it?
What is the actual pay of a noncommissioned officer -
1. Twelve years’ to fifteen years’ service?

Senator PEARCE:

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

They are entitled to medical attendance, and are supplied with outfit of uniform on appointment, but not with rations or quarters, except when in camp or School of Instruction. They also receive travelling, camp, and school allowances.
Uniform, horse, camp, and School of Instruction allowances.
Revised rates of pay came into operation from 1st January, 1910, by which better prospects were afforded all warrant and noncommissioned officers on the Instructional Staff. The then existing three lower classes were amalgamated, and increased rates were paid - from £19 down to as low as 15s. per annum, but the latter amount was not considered to be an increment, being merely the sum required to bring the existing rate of pay in those cases to the rate for the next higher subdivision of the class in which the non-commissioned officer then was.
The increase took effect from 1st January, 1910.
Answered by 3 and 4. 6 and 7. Increments during period specified were granted in all cases as they matured for same under the regulations; and, if individual cases be specified, the number of increments received will be ascertained. The number of warrant and non-commissioned officers on the Instructional Staff is 430, and to state the aggregate number of increments granted would not, it is thought, supply workable information.
No, but any who have matured under regulations for maximum rates are in receipt of same.
Forty-four. 10. (a) £156 per annum. (b)£156per annum, increasing by biennial increments to a maximum, in sixyears, of £183.
1. A further increase of pay depends upon promotion to rank of warrant officer (staff-regimental sergeant-major), the rate of pay being from a maximum of £192, rising by three biennial increments to a maximum of £219; and, on further promotion to garrison sergeant-major, commencing at£229 and increasing by three biennial increments to a maximum of £256.

The following table gives therate of pay for each subdivision and the number of instructors therein : -

page 2910

QUESTION

RAILWAY SURVEY

Senator ST LEDGER:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has the Government taken any steps to make a survey of the proposed railway route connecting Pine Creek with Oodnadatta? If so, what are they?
Does the Government propose to make a survey of a route for the railway within any portion of the State of Queensland?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are - 1.Instructions have been given for survey of a railway route from Pine Creek to theKatherine River. No instructions have yet been given for any survey beyond that point.

No; not yet.

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

-Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I desire to ask whether the instructions issued in connexion with the survey of the country between Pine Creek and the Katherine River are to complete the survey commenced by the South Australian Government, or whether it is proposed to make an entirely new survey ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I cannot say. I will make inquiries, and if the honorable senator will, to-morrow, ask a question, without notice, I hope to be able to give him a reply.

page 2910

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 17th November, vide page 2825) :

Clause 21 -

Section one hundred and fifty of the Principal Act is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead : - “ 150. - (1.) In an election for the Senate, a voter shall mark his voteon his ballot-paper as follows : -

where he votes before a Registrar before polling day - in the manner prescribed by the regulations;

where his ballot-paper is a ballot-paper in accordance with FormO in the Schedule - by making a cross in a square opposite the name of each candidate for whom he votes; and

where he votes in accordance with the regulations relating to absent voting - in the manner prescribed by those regulations. “ 2. In an election for the Senate, a voter must vote for the full number of candidates to be elected.”

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

.-I move-

That all the words after “stead,” line 3, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words - “ 150. - (1.) In elections for the Senate the voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference and by placing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of his preferences for them. “ (2.) Where an elector votes before a Registrar before polling day or where an elector votes in accordance with the regulations relating to absent voting, the manner in which a voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper shall be prescribed by the regulations, but so that the principles contained in the preceding sub-section relating to the marking of first and other preferences shall be observed.”

During the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill I gave reasons why I thought that an amendment of the kind now moved should be made. I am endeavouring to provide for what is known as proportional representation. I think that it will be generally agreed that the system proposed would be a very great improvement upon that which at present prevails, and would secure the true representation of the people in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This question was brought up on Friday, when I decided that Senator Vardon’s amendment was not in order, oh the ground that it is not rele vant to the subject-matter of the Bill. The standing order relating to relevancy is No. 196, which provides -

Any amendment may be made to any part of the Bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

It appears to me that whilst Senator Vardon’s amendment would be relevant to the subject-matter of the principal Act, it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill before the Committee, because it seeks to introduce an entirely new principle - a principle, I may add. of vital importance. The question has been before the Senate on previous occasions, and cognate questions have also been discussed. The amendment would alter the principle upon which voting is now conducted, because it would give a different value to the votes recorded for a certain candidate. It would almost certainly alter the personnel of the Senate. Had such a proposal been submitted in the Bill as read a second time, there is no doubt that it would have taken up a large part of the discussion on the Bill at that stage. The amendment is such as to alter the principles of the Bill as referred to the Committee, and if carried would further require the alteration of section 103 of the principal Act, which deals with the forfeiture of deposits. There would be a considerable difference in the number of votes which it would be necessary for an unsuccessful candidate to obtain before his deposit could be forfeited. I do not think it necessary to say any more. I know that it is a very open question, but in my opinion the proposed amendment is not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, because it would vitally alter the principle of voting provided for in section 150 of the principal Act.

Senator Vardon:

– You were good enough, sir, to inform me that you intended to take this view of my amendment. In the circumstances I move -

That the ruling of the Chairman of Committees be disagreed with on the ground that as the Bill proposes to amend section 150 of the Principal Act, specifying not only how a voter is to record his vote, but also the principle on which it is to be recorded, my amendment is truly relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.

In the Senate:

The Chairman of Committees. - I have to report that in Committee Senator

Vardon moved the following amendment to clause 21 of the Bill: -

That all the words after the words “ stead,” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words - “ 150. - (1.) In elections for the Senate the voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference and by placing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of his preferences for them. “ (2.) Where an. elector votes before a Registrar before polling day or where an elector votes in accordance with the regulations relating to absent voting, the manner in which a voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper shall be prescribed by the regulations, but so that the principles contained in the preceding sub-section relating to the marking of first and other preferences shall be observed.”

I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and Senator Vardon then moved to disagree with my ruling in the following terms -

That the ruling of the Chairman of Committees be disagreed with on the ground that as the Bill proposes to amend section 150 of the principal Act, specifying not only how the voter is to record his vote, but also the principle on which it is to be recorded, my amendment is truly relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.

I submit that according to decisions given more than once, and approved by a vote of the Senate, this amendment is not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, though it is relevant to the subject-matter of the principal Act. It must be patent to every one that if agreed to the amendment would bring about a vital alteration in the principle of the existing Act. The alteration of principle would be so farreaching that it is absolutely certain that if the amendment were carried the constitution of the Senate would be altered, if anything can be certain in politics. The effect of the alteration on political parties is beside the question, as this matter may be considered without party feeling. It will be remembered that at the last Senate election there were practically only two political parties before the country, and in each State the whole of the three candidates representing the victorious party were returned.

Senator Vardon:

– There were more than two parties in some of the States - in Victoria and in Queensland.

The Chairman of Committees. - I say that for all practical purposes the voting strength in the constituencies was possessed by two parties only in each of the States. It must be plain that had this proposal for preferential voting been in force at that election the result would have been in each State the return of two senators representing one party and one representing the other party. That is about the best guide we could have in deciding whether this would not introduce a vital new principle. That being so, we have to decide whether although the amendment may be relevant to the subject-matter of the principal Act it can be introduced, in the way proposed, in this Bill. Some years ago when the Senate was considering an amending Electoral Bill, I submitted an amendment to substitute for the principle of the block vote for the Senate which is contained in the principal Act, and under which an elector must vote for not less than three candidates, the right of each elector to plump for one candidate, or to vote for one, two, or three candidates as he pleased. The then Chairman of Committees of the Senate, who, Ithink, was Senator Higgs, accepted my amendment after discussion, and ruled that it was in order. Senator Gould objected to that ruling, and the matter was thereupon referred to the President, Sir Richard Baker, who gave his decision against the Chairman’s ruling, and consequently against my amendment. I dissented from the decision of the President, and the question was considered at the next sitting of the Senate. After discussion a division was taken upon it, and although the voting was equal, eleven votes being recorded on either side, the fact remains that under the Constitution, the Senate upheld the decision of the President. The question then at issue was not nearly so vital as is the proposal of Senator Vardon, because it is certain that under it, when there are only two political parties before the country, and three members have to be returned, each of those parties will secure one representative, whilst the third seat will go to the stronger party. I think that statement of the position will be accepted without demur. That being so, surely the principle which is involved in the amendment of Senator Vardon is of such vital importance that it is outside the scope of the amending Bill !

Senatorsayers. - The principle is a good one.

The Chairman of Committees. - That is quite another question. I have no doubt that many honorable senators who would oppose Senator Vardon’s amendment in Committee would vote for it if it were submitted in a different way. I contend that a standing order has been expressly framed to meet this particular class of cases with a view to insuring that the rights and privileges of honorable senators shall not be unduly restricted, and that the procedure of the Senate shall hot be unduly hampered..

Senator Vardon:

– What is the number of that standing order?

The Chairman of Committees. - It is standing order 327. That standing order was framed for the express purpose of meeting the particular class of cases that is now under discussion. It provides that certain new matter which is not relevant to an amending Bill, but which is revelant to the principal Act, may be introduced conditionally upon an instruction to the Committee, moved prior to the secondreading stage of the Bill, being passed. But even if Senator Vardon had obtained such an instruction, I am not sure that his amendment would be in order, that is if we are to follow the precedent which has been laid down. Reference to May’s Parliamentary Practice, Vol. X., will show that grave doubt exists as to whether even if the honorable senator had obtained an instruction to the Committee, he would have been in order in submitting his amendment. That question, however, does not arise here, because no such instruction was obtained. The motion which I submitted on the occasion to which I have already referred is set out in Hansard of 1905, vol. 28, page 4027. It reads -

That the following new clause be added : - “ 42a. Section one hundred and fifty of the principal Act is amended by omitting therefrom the words’ the voter shall vote for the full number of candidates to be elected.’ “

Senator Rae:

– Was that ruled out of order for the same reason?

The Chairman of Committees.-Yes. The President’s ruling will be found on pages 4036-7 of the same volume of Hansard. Sir Richard Baker said inter alia -

Therefore we must consider the subject-matter of the Bill, and whether Senator O’Keefe’s amendment is relevant to that subject-matter. The subject-matter of the Act which it is proposed to amend really has nothing to do with the question. It is the subject-matter of the Bill’ which our Standing Orders say shall be the test. As has been admitted in the course of the argument, if a Bill were introduced practically to make some trivial amendment in an Act of great length and importance it would not be open, according to standing order 194, to the Committee to deal with all the subjects dealt with in the principal Act, which it was proposed to amend. As to the question of relevancy, what is meant by “ relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill?” There is always room for difference of opinion as towhat is relevant. It is all a question of degree. What might appear to one man to be relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill might appear to another man not to be so. Forinstance, on this particular question, it might be argued that the subject-matter of the Bill is the electoral law; that it is an amendment of the law effecting electoral questions. Therefore, it might be argued, the proposed amendment is relevant to the subject-matter. It depends upon the way in which you put it. But it seems to me that there is a great principle involved. That is this : On the second reading of a Bill we enunciate the principles contained in the Bill as drawn. Then the Senate goes into Committee to consider the Bill in detail. I do not agree with the proposition that the Committee could not amend this Bill in any particular except the particulars mentioned in it. I never stated that, and I wish it to be clearly understood thatI do not say so. But I do say this - that when this Bill was read a second time, it did not contain the important principle ‘that is now sought to be enunciated in it.

There was no discussion on that principle. Although Senator O’Keefe mentioned the matter, there was not, I say, any discussion on the principle of his proposed amendment at the second-reading stage.

I think that these remarks apply with greater force in the present case because the question of preferential or block voting was not mentioned during the secondreading debate.

Senator Vardon:

– Yes, it was.

The Chairman of Committees. - It was not mentioned to the same extent as was done in 1905. The honorable senator will admit that his proposal was not generally discussed at that stage. Had it been circulated and discussed generally, possibly a great proportion of the debate on the second reading would have been devoted to the question of whether proportional or block voting was the better system to adopt.

Senator Vardon:

– My amendment was put in print and circulated.

The Chairman of Committees. - The amendment was not generally discussed, and I am sure that my honorable friend will agree with me that to that extent it was hardly in the minds of honorable senators during the second-reading debate.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Senator Symon mentioned it also, and spoke at length regarding it.

The PRESIDENT:

– That may be so; but if we adopt the principle which is attempted to he laid down, and allow an amendment like this to be inserted in the Bill in Committee, where are we going to land ourselves? We must not look at this particular Bill by itself. We must lay down a’ practice which is convenient to the Senate, and which will tend to the greatest convenience of the Senate and its mem bers. We must adopt a practice which will enable expression to be given to the views of the Committee, and will permit the introduction of amendments, which, however, must not be foreign to the purpose of the Bill when it was read a second time.

I do not think that any honorable senator can say that the amendment of Senator Vardon is not foreign to the purpose of. this Bill as read a second time - -so foreign that if adopted it would change the system of voting, the system of representation, and the personnel of the Senate.

Otherwise we shall get into confusion. What is the test by which the happy mean can be arrived at? It is - what was contained in the Bill when the Bill was read a second time?

There was nothing about preferential voting contained in this Bill when it was read a second time.

The Bill having been read a second time, can it then be radically altered in Committeeby putting in some great principle of far-reaching importance not contained in the original Act itself?

Surely this is a great principle of farreaching importance which is not contained in the original Act.

It appears to me that we ought not to adopt any such practice. If we did no one would know what was going to happen. No one would know, after a Bill had been read a second time, what novel principle might be introduced into it in Committee. There would also be this great disadvantage - that if it were necessaryto amend an Act of great importance, on which there was great difference of opinion, the Government would shrink from bringing down an amending measure to amend some details. They would say : “ If we bring down a Bill to amend the existing Act, the whole subject-matter of the Act will be open to discussion. It will all be raked in ; and, instead of having a short Bill which can be dealt with in a short time, we shall have a long general discussion, and, possibly, a radical alteration of the principal Act.” I am very anxious that we should adopt a practice which shall be as convenient as possible to honorable senators, and which will restrict them as little as possible in the discussion of Bills. But at the same time, we should adopt a practice which will serve to carry on, the business of the Senate and the business of the country - which is tantamount to the same thing - with as little friction and inconvenience as possible; which will enable honorable senators, when they have passed the second reading, of a Bill, to know practically what that Bill is going to be, and which will prevent honorable senators in Committee from radically altering a Bill by introducing provisions novel to the Bill itself.

I submit again that this amendment is vitally novel to the Bill itself.

I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Chairman of Committees. I agree with what he has said as to general principles. Bui I consider that it is my duty to dissent from his ruling in this particular case.

I dissented from the ruling, and my motion was discussed at the following sitting; and, although the voting was even, under the provision in the Constitution, the Senate upheld the decision of the President. I submit that the decision of the President, until corrected or rescinded, has all the force of a standing order. I think that the amendment deals with a matter which might very well have been considered in the Senate. As it is of such vital importance to honorable senators individually, and to the conduct of business, and opinion seems to be so equally divided, I am very pleased indeed that Senator Vardon has disagreed with my ruling, so that we shall be able to get the decision of the Senate.

Senator Vardon:

– I looked up the cases referred to by the Chairman of Committees. I found that, although Sir Richard Baker gave that ruling, he was opposed by some of the ablest members of the Senate ; and that when it came to a vote, the numbers were equal, eleven voting on each side. Ten senators besides the President voted in favour of his ruling, while eleven voted against him. It may be, perhaps, a very presumptuous thing for me to say, but I still believe that his ruling was wrong, and that Senator 0’ Keefe was quite within his rights when he submitted his amendment. The whole crux of this matter is the question of relevancy. Standing order 196 says -

Any amendment may be made to any part of the Bill provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

In giving his ruling Sir Richard Baker said -

The question to be considered is whether an amendment is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. If so it can be moved whether it contains a new principle or not.

That was admitted, but he qualified it in the previous sentence when he said -

Amendments in Committee must be relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill as read a second time.

I desire, sir, to call your attention to the fact that the standing order contains no such words. It merely says -

Provided the same be relevant to the subnetmatter of the Bill and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

I do not think that v/e need be bound by the words of Sir Richard Baker when he confines the thing to the second reading of

Bill. According to the best and most up-to-date dictionary which we have, the definition of relevancy is “ Bearing upon, connected with, pertinent to the matter in hand.” I claim that on that definition my amendment must be accepted, because it is certainly bearing upon, connected with, and pertinent to, the matter in hand. I do not think there is any getting away from that. I hold, too, that there is no previous decision on this point. There were two other cases, namely, one in which Senator Mulcahy moved a proposition, and, later, one in which Senator 0’ Keefe submitted a proposal j but neither of them was exactly on all-fours with my proposal. This Bill does propose to amend section 150 of the Act, and its title is “A Bill for an Act to amend the Electoral Act.” That title is wide enough in itself to admit anything. It is proposed to amend section 150 of the Act in regard to the way in which votes axe to be recorded. I want to provide for the recording of the votes in a way different from that which the Government propose. I admit that it does alter the principle, but I fall back upon the ruling of Sir Richard Baker, that the amendment is relevant, although it may contain a principle different from that which is in the Bill itself.

Senator Findley:

– The amending Bill makes no provision for an alteration of the principle.

Senator Vardon:

– I have already admitted that. The fact that the Government propose to alter section 150 does make, I submit, my amendment relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill. I do not think there is much in the argument of Senator O’Keefe with regard to the matter of the deposit. I do not consider that my amendment, if carried, would affect that matter. Nor do I think that there is anything in the statement that at the last election there were practically two parties. Under this system of voting it would not matter if there were- twenty parties. But granting that there were only two parties, in Victoria there were three parties, including a lady, who polled 60,000, which was more than all the votes in Tasmania.

Senator Vardon:

– If three or four honorable senators take up a subject and discuss it, some on the one side and some on the other, surely it can be said that a general debate has taken place regarding it.

Senator Pearce:

– Would it affect the question if not a single senator had spoken on the subject?

Senator Vardon:

– I am dealing with a point brought forward by the Chairman of Committees himself .as one of the reasons for declining to accept my amendment. Both Senator Keating and Senator E. J. Russell spoke on the subject during .the second-reading debate. It cannot be said, therefore, that there was no discussion at that stage. With regard <to the point as to obtaining from the Senate an instruction to t he Committee, I point out that in the .course of my second-reading speech I distinctly stated that I intended to move an amendment. I received no indication from the President or from any one else that that course could1 only be taken on an instruction to the Committee. I do not desire to say a word against the ruling of the former President of the Senate, Sir Richard Baker. No doubt he discharged the duties of his office ably and conscientiously. But, after all, he was only human like the rest of us, and may have taken too narrow and restrictive a view. Senator Symon and the present President of the Senate were both opposed to his ruling. Apart from that, however, it is surely open to us to form a precedent of our own. and’ to reverse the former decision. President’s decisions are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. They can be altered. Surely an important question such as I desire to raise ought not to be shut out on a technicality. I contend that a system of proportional representation is a better and a sounder system than the prevailing one. The Committee ought tohave an opportunity of expressing an opinionon that point. It is scarcely fair to myself, or to the electors of the Commonwealth, that so important a subject should not be debated upon its merits. I therefore trust that the ruling of the Chairman will not be upheld.

Senator Rae:

– I consider that the ruling of the Chairman of Committees, if upheld, would unduly restrict the rights of senators. I pay no regard at the present stage to the merits of the question raised by Senator Vardon’s amendment. This is not the proper time for so doing. But I contend that a reasonable reading of the standing order gives scope for a full consideration of the subject in connexion with such a measure as the Electoral Bill. Surely, as the Bill lays down how an elector shall vote, the method of voting is also a relevant matter, and an opening is afforded for Parliament, if it chooses, to alter the existing system. We shall be following precedents too blindly if on account of a decision formerly given, on a matter which may have been somewhat akin to this, but which certainly wasnot the same, we -were to deprive ourselvesof the right of discussing this admittedly important matter. There would scarcely ever be an amendment which could be objected to on the same grounds if Senator. Vardon’s ‘amendment were ruled out of order for the reasons given by the Chairman of Committees.

Senator Sayers:

– The Government have brought down a Bill in which they propose to amend section 150 of the principal Act. Senator Vardon simply proposes a further amendment of that section. The Chairman of Committees has ruled that as President Sir Richard Baker has declined to allow a similar amendment to be discussed Senator Vardon’s amendment is out of order. My contention is that it is fully within the power of the Senate, and within the power of the President, with the consent of the Senate, to rule that the former decision was wrong, and to allow Senator Vardon’s amendment to be debated. There was a strong difference of opinion as to the former decision, and the President’s ruling was upheld simply by his own vote. Only twenty-two senators out of a House of thirty-six voted. There were eleven on each side. I shall read the names from the division list. The ayes were Senators Croft, de Largie, Givens, Guthrie, Henderson, Higgs, Pearce, Stewart, Story, Turley, and O’Keefe (teller). The noes were Senators Baker (the President), Dobson, Drake, Keating, Macfarlane, Playford, Pulsford, Styles, Trenwith, Walker, and Millen (teller). As the decision was so close, that is an additional reason why we should now review it.

Senator Guthrie:

– Pull everything down that has been done !

Senator Sayers:

– If the decision had been arrived at in a full Senate, there might be something to be said from that point of view, but inasmuch as President Baker himself had to vote to uphold his own ruling, we may well take stock of the result. I think that President Baker, with all due respect to him, took rather a high hand in voting against the motion that his ruling be dissented from. The other day, Mr. President, when a motion of dissent was submitted concerning a ruling of yours, you did not vote. Had President Baker adopted the same attitude, the decision upon the records would have been entirely different. But is it to be Weld that because something was done in the first or second Parliament of the Commonwealth, it should stand as a precedent for ever?” Is it not in the interests of the people of this country that we should allow free and full discussion on important points, and not rule them out on technicalities? I was very much surprised - indeed, it has been an education to me - to read what various members of the Senate said during the debate on the previous occasion. I see that you yourself, sir, in reply to Senator Dobson, said -

I do not see the slightest resemblance between the amendment which Senator O’Keefe has proposed and the amendment which Senator Mulcahy desired to submit. If the former were carried, the repeal of half-a-dozen words in section 144 of the Electoral Act would effect no alteration in the machinery for carrying out parliamentary elections. It does not deal with a principle of the Act, but merely enables an elector to exercise his franchise in his own way. The Government think it is necessary to amend sections 143 and 145 of the Act, but, according to this ruling, it is not competent for the Senate to amend section 144.

That case was on all fours with this. The Government are proposing to amend section 150 of the principal Act. Senator Vardon wants to extend the proposed amendment. Surely when an amendment of an existing Act of Parliament is proposed, the whole principle of the section to be amended is brought under review. If it is thought advisable we can alter any provision proposed to be amended by the Bill under consideration. If that is not in accordance with parliamentary practice, I do not know what is. According , to the ruling of the Chairman, we are not entitled to submit an amendment which would alter the original Act, but I direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that the Government have themselves proposed in clause 21 of the Bill an alteration of the same provision of the original Act.

The Chairman of Committees. - The honorable senator will pardon me. My ruling was that the proposal of the Government did not involve an alteration of a vital principle of the original Act, but an alteration merely in small matters of form. ‘

Senator Sayers:

– I maintain that, as the Government have proposed in the Bill an alteration of section 150 of the principal Act, that section is wholly open to review by the Committee. Senator O’Keefe has said that there was not much discussion upon this matter on the second reading, but as a matter of fact it was discussed by three honorable senators, and, as Senator Vardon intimated his intention to move an amendment dealing with it in Committee, it was useless to discuss the question at length on the second reading.

Senator St Ledger:

– No notice was given by the Government that they would oppose the proposed amendment.

Senator Sayers:

– That is so. To show honorable senators further how a similar question was regarded previously, I refer them to. page 41 12 of Hansard for 1905. It will be found that Senator Givens, in reply, I think, to Senator Trenwith, made a long speech on the occasion dissenting from the ruling, to which Senator O’Keefe objected. He said -

The whole matter in dispute now is whether the amendment proposed by Senator O’Keefe is relevant to the Bill before us. Without labouring details, an examination of the Bill from the title onwards goes to show thai it is a Bill to amend the existing Electoral Act. It proposes the amendment or that Act in many and various ways. To my mind, the amendment proposed by Senator O’Keefe, the merits nf which I do not propose to discuss at this stage, is merely a minor amendment which does not deal with any important matter of principle as some honorable senators would have us believe. It deals with the question as to how the elector on whom we have conferred the franchise, shall exercise his vote - the limits within which he shall exercise it.

That is exactly what we say in this case. Senator Vardon’s amendment deals with the manner in which an elector shall exercise his vote, and the limits within which he shall exercise it. We are now arguing just as honorable senators opposite argued when a similar question was before the Senate on the 26th October, 1905. If honorable senators are prevented from moving such an amendment they will be unduly restricted. All that we ask is for a free discussion of the proposals submitted by Senator Vardon, and if the majority of honorable senators believe that it is not good in principle, or would not be in the best interests of the electors, it will be defeated. But it ought not to be defeated by being ruled out of order on a technicality. There are many honorable senators present who were not members of the Senate in 1905, and if they had been it is probable that they would have taken the view which you, sir, and honorable senators opposite, took on that occasion, when the ruling against Senator O’Keefe’s amendment was upheld by an equal vote. I hope that your decision will be that Senator Vardon’s amendment is relevant to the Bill, and let it be accepted or rejected by the Committee. It is your duty to decide whether the Chairman’s ruling was right or wrong, and 1 submit that it was wrong.

Senator St Ledger:

– Senator O’Keefe, on his ruling being dissented from, has referred us to the ruling of a former President, and, consequent amendments made in the Standing Orders, to prevent an undue restriction of debate in Committee. The honorable senator specially referred to standing order 327. The standing orders from No. 323 to 328 deal with the reception of instructions to Committees. Senator O’Keefe has contended that if Senator Vardon desired to have his amendment discussed, the proper course for him to have followed was to have asked the Senate to give an instruction to the Committee, and that, because he did not do that, he is now prevented from introducing his amendment. Senator O’Keefe has based his ruling upon the Standing Orders dealing with instructions to Committees. I respectfully submit that these Standing Orders do not touch the point at issue. Standing order 323” reads -

An instruction empowers a Committee to consider matters not otherwise referred to it.

That is quite clear, and probably Senator O’Keefe is right so far in suggesting that that standing order was framed in order to make clear a decision of a previous President of the Senate. Standing order 324 reads -

No. instruction can be given to a Committee to do that which it is already empowered to do.

That is axiomatic. Standing order 325 says -

An instruction may be given to a Committee to divide a Bill into two or more Bills, or -to consolidate several Bills into one.

That standing order really applies rulings given by Speakers of the House of Commons. It is evident that upon a revision of our Standing Orders, the Standing Orders’ Committee decided in this way to embody the decisions of Speakers of the House of Commons on different occasions, when Committees were called upon to deal with two or more Bills concerning the same subject. Standing order 326 -

An instruction to a Select Committee extends or restricts the order of reference, and may be moved after notice on any day prior to the report of the Committee.

That is to say that an inquiry by a Select Committee may be extended or restricted in accordance with an instruction from the Senate. I now come to standing order 327, on which Senator O’Keefe so much relies. It provides that -

An instruction can be given to a Committee of the Whole on a Bill to amend an existing Act, to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, but are relevant to the subject-matter of the Act it is proposed to amend.

That is not the point at issue now. The point which you, sir, have to consider is whether the amendment submitted by Senator Vardon in Committee is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. We can here leave out of consideration the question of any instruction to the Committee. Finally standing order 328 says -

An instruction to a Committee of the whole requires notice, and can only be moved before going into Committee on any question.

Senator Chataway:

– I agree with the Honorary Minister that this is a matter with which we can deal without party feeling. It would be most unfortunate if the rules and methods of conducting business here were to be regulated by such a consideration. I take up the same attitude in this matter as I did in a matter with which I think Senator Rae was connected not long ago, when I held that honorable senators are entitled to a reasonable amount of latitude in discussing public questions. I do not hold the view which some honorable senators seem to take, namely, that debate ought to be curtailed whenever it appears that some honorable senators are exercising reasonably the rights which are conferred upon them to discuss a public matter. While I am against a good deal of Senator St. Ledger’s argument, I am utterly against the argument of the Honorary Minister. The latter argued, for instance, that the question of using a cross was a matter of principle, and, therefore, the Government did not propose to alter it. We consider that it is a matter of machinery, and not a matter of principle. I claim that honorable senators should be allowed a reasonable amount of latitude. We should uphold the rights of senators to discuss matters which are pertinent to the measures before the Senate. We have no better case than the one in which Senator O’Keefe was bitten, and possibly that has made him twice shy ever since. He went as closely as he possibly could to dealing with the general principles of an amending Bill, and he was ruled out of order. Let us see what the history of the case was. According to the Journals of 25th October, 1905, he moved the insertion of new clause 42 a to follow clause 42. I have been fortunate enough to get a copy of the Bill which was introduced here on the 30th September, and read a first time on the motion of Senator Keating. Clause 42 reads -

Section 149 of the principal Act is amended by omitting the word “ destroy “ and inserting in lieu the words “ cancel and preserve.”

As that did not seem to help me much I looked up section 150. I desire the attention of the Minister, because, after all, it appears that there is something about crosses and squares in these various clauses. Section 150, as it was passed, reads -

In elections for the Senate the voter shall mark his ballot-paper by making a cross in the square opposite the name of each candidate for whom he votes. The voter shall vote for the full number of candidates to be elected.

When the amending Bill was before the Senate in 1905, Senator O’Keefe moved that section 150 be amended by omitting therefrom the words - “ the voter shall vote for the full number of candidates to be elected.” In other words, his contention was that an elector should be allowed to vote for one, two, or three candidates, as he thought fit.

And objection being taken that the proposed new clause was outside the scope and object of the Bill the Chairman ruled that the clause was in order.

And objection being taken, in writing, to the Chairman’s decision to the effect that the clause proposed by Senator O’Keefe was within the scope and object of the Bill - such ruling being opposed to the principles laid down in a recent ruling of the President and to the practice of Parliament - the Chairman left the Chair and the Senate resumed.

And the matter having been laid before the President, and senators having addressed themselves thereto, the President ruled that the proposed clause was not within the scope and ob*ject of the Bill and was not in order.

And Senator O’Keefe, taking objection to the ruling of the President, and motion being made, that the ruling be dissented from on the grounds that such a practice as is therein laid down would unduly restrict the power of the Senate in Committee.

Ordered that the debate be forthwith adjourned till to-morrow.

On the following day, “the Journals report -

Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the question - that the ruling of the President given on the 25th October, 1905, in reference to the Electoral Bill, be dissented from, on the grounds that such a practice as is therein laid down would unduly restrict the powers of the Senate in Committee.

There was debate, after which the Senate divided, and eleven voted on each side. The Ayes were Senators Croft, de Largie, Givens, Guthrie, Henderson, Higgs, Pearce, Stewart, Story, Turley, and O’Keefe. Senator Millen voted to uphold the decision of the President, and I understand that he intends to vote in the same direction to-day, being of opinion, as I gather, that an amendment to be in order must be strictly relevant to the Bill, and that Senator Vardon ought to have moved for an instruction to the Committee. The voting on the occasion to which I have referred was made equal by the fact that President Sir Richard Baker himself voted: to uphold his own ruling. I, am going to ask honorable senators opposite to drop all party considerations.

Senator Rae:

– Is there any Government or Opposition in connexion with points of order ?

Senator Chataway:

– The point is that, in 1905, every honorable senator opposite who was then present voted against the ruling of the President. It would not be a bad idea if they would look up their own records. To be consistent they must vote with Senator Vardon on the present occasion.

Senator Rae:

– Why does the honorable senator lecture us?

Senator Chataway:

– I am not lecturing my honorable friend, who is a new chum. I am referring particularly to Senators de Largie and O’Keefe, who were present in 1905, and voted in the opposite direction from which I understand they intend to vote to-day. Personally, I am of opinion, having gone through a number of decisions in reference to the matter, that Senator Vardon’s amendment is out of order, and that the Chairman’s decision is right.

Senator McColl:

– This is the first time such a matter has cropped up during my experience as a senator, and it is certainly interesting. Arguments on both sides are strong. What we have to consider is whether we ought to limit the power of the Senate to deal with measures that come before it. I do not think that the argument of Senator O’Keefe, that if Senator Vardon’s amendment were carried it would alter the whole party constitution of the Senate, has anything to do with the proposal to change the method of voting. The decision previously given was the result of a very close division, and there is good reason for considering the whole question afresh, with a view of determining whether the same stringency should be maintained on this occasion. The Bill covers the whole of the Electoral Acts passed from 1902 to 1909. If it were merely proposed to amend a section of the Act, one could understand an objection being taken to the amendment. But it is proposed to alter the whole law affecting elections. If the Chairman’s ruling be upheld, it will place too much power in the hands of the Government in reference to amending Bills. It will mean that a private senator who desires to effect an amendment of the law of an important and farreaching character will have to bring in a

Bill of his own. Otherwise, under this decision, the Government will be able to block him. Even if he brings in a Bill of his own the Government can block him by not affording him the necessary time. The Bill is now in the hands of the Senate, which can deal with it as it chooses. It is proposed to strike out entirely section 150 of the existing Act. The provision is put in the melting-pot. It is therefore, I contend, well within the province of the Senate to discuss the whole principle of the section. Of course, it is a question of degree. Does the proposed amendment come within the relevancy line or not? That has to be decided. But we ought to be careful not to limit our power, because by so doing we shall limit the power of those who sent us here.

Where an elector votes before a Registrar before polling day, or where an elector votes in accordance with the regulations applying to absent voting, the manner in which the voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper shall be prescribed by the regulations, but so that the principles contained in the preceding subsection relating to the marking of first and other preferences shall be observed.

Senator Vardon:

– Sir Richard Baker did not object to an alteration of principle provided it was relevant.

The PRESIDENT:

– The principle in this case is not at all relevant to the Bill under discussion. I must, therefore, rule that the Chairman’s decision was perfectly correct, and I consequently uphold it.

In Committee:

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 -

Section one hundred and fifty-eight of the Principal Act is repealed, and the following sections inserted in its stead : - “ 158. A ballot-paper shall (except as otherwise provided by regulations under section one hundred and thirty-nine or the regulations relating to absent voting) be informal if -

it is not authenticated by the initials of the presiding officer, or by an official mark as prescribed ;

it has no vote marked on it or has votes marked on it for a greater or lesser number of candidates than the number required to be elected ;or

it has upon it any mark or writing (not authorized by this Act or the regulations to be put upon it) which would, in the opinion of the Returning Officer, enable the voter to be identified : “ Provided that paragraph (c) shall not apply to any mark or writing placed upon the ballotpaper by an officer, notwithstanding that the placing of the mark or writing upon the ballotpaper is a contravention of this Act. “ 158A. Except as authorized by this Act or the regulations, an officer shall not place upon any ballot-paper any mark or writing which would enable any person to identify the voter by whom it is used.

Penalty : Ten pounds.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I should like to direct the attention of the Committee, and particularly of the Government, to the difference between the proposition contained in these proposed new sections and that contained in the section which is to be struck out. It is proposed practically to legalize marks of identification upon a ballot-paper. We have heard a good deal during the consideration of this Bill about the secrecy of the ballot, but, if ever there was a proposition to enable the secrecy of the ballot to be destroyed, it is that embodied in this provision. The existing section 158 provides that a ballot-paper shall be informal if-

it has upon it any mark or writing not authorized by this Act to be put upon it which, in the opinion of the Returning Officer, will enable any person to identify the voter.

.- The Minister’s only reason for this clause is that it has hitherto been the practice in Victoria to put numbers on ballot-papers. I know of no other State in which that practice has been followed. I have had thousands of ballot-papers through my hands, and I have never seen them marked other than by the initials of the Returning Officer. I protest against the administration of Acts of Parliament by means of departmental regulations. We are all familiar with stories of electors who, it has been discovered, have voted in a certain way and have been punished for so doing. Under an entirely new system of voting the electors at the recent Victorian elections displayed a great deal of intelligence. This was clearly evidenced by the fact that the number of informal votes registered on that occasion was relatively small. Under this clause we are asked to vest Returning

Officers with very great powers. I suppose that the next thing the Department will ask is that it shall be empowered to select the members of this Parliament without the people being consulted at all. I strongly object to giving Returning Officers more power than they at present possess. It cannot be denied that if a Returning Officer be a political partisan he can accomplish a great deal of mischief. Above all things, I wish to maintain the secrecy of the ballot. Under this clause many electors will probably say, “ I will not vote at all, because I cannot vote in the way that I desire without the fact becoming known, and without being punished for so doing.”

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– To what part of the clause does the honorable senator object.?

Senator SAYERS:

– To proposed new section 158A.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the departmental regulations, and the honorable senator is directing his remarks to Returning Officers.

Senator SAYERS:

– The Returning Officers are officials of the Department. From the honorable Minister’s remarks I gather that in Victoria a certain practice has been adopted under which a Returning Officer could ascertain . how any elector voted. That, I contend, is a bad system. In the other States the practice is to hand to an elector a ballot-paper, in one of the squares of which, opposite the name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote, he has merely to put his cross. Under that system there is no possible- way in which the Returning Officer can ascertain how an elector has voted. But if ballot-papers are to be numbered, the secrecy of the ballot, upon which we have hitherto prided ourselves, will be absolutely violated. I hope that the good sense of the Committee will reject the proposal.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– When I was on my feet previously I neglected to move an amendment which I had intended to submit. To remedy my omission, I now move -

That the words “ or the regulations “ in proposed new section 158A be left out.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I should like Senator Millen to go a little further, because this extraordinary provision contemplates allowing a Returning Officer to put a mark upon a ballot- paper which would enable him to determine how an elector has voted. It reads -

Except as authorized by this Act or the regulation, an officer shall not place upon any ballotpaper any mark or writing which would enable any person to identify the voter by whom it is used.

Senator Millen:

– But the Act does not authorize an officer to place any such mark or writing on a ballot-paper.

Senator VARDON:

– Then we do not need the retention of the words “ Except as authorized by this Act or the regulations.” I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should move for the excision of those words, and the proposed new section will then give a mandatory instruction.

Senator Rae:

– The whole of the clause is under consideration, I presume?

Senator VARDON:

– Yes.

Senator Rae:

– Then I have a prior amendment, if the Leader of the Opposition will be good enough to temporarily withdraw his proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Paragraph c of proposed new section 158 provides that a ballot-paper shall be informal if-

it has upon it any mark or writing (not authorized by this Act or the regulations to be put upon it) which would, in the opinion of the returning officer, enable the voter to be identified.

Senator Millen:

– But paragraph a authorizes an official mark.

Senator RAE:

– I do not wish to amend paragraph c of the proposed new section, the proviso to which reads -

Provided that paragraph (e) shall not apply to any mark or writing placed upon the ballotpaper by an officer, notwithstanding that the placing of the mark or writing upon the ballotpaper is a contravention of this Act.

– It might lead to that; but the writing of the name of the voter across the ballot-paper would be of no more consequence than a statement by him as to whom he voted for. If an official omitted to place a mark on a ballot-paper that should not render the vote informal, unless it is proved by the surrounding circumstances that it has led to fraud. A presiding officer could no more render a ballotpaper informal according to this Act by writing my name across it than he could byfailing to initial it. In most cases these Bills, by reason of the stringency of various provisos and regulations, humbug and trash, introduce a thousand and one methods by which a man may be prevented from recording his vote, though pretending to give him. that opportunity. If we allow, as the proviso to paragraph c does, a presiding officer to contravene the Act by writing anything he likes across a ballot-paper, and then, on the other hand, say that the ballot-paper shall not be informal by reason of that officer having violated the Act, but shall be informal if he violates the Act by omitting to attach his initials, we shall give a thing with one hand and take it away with the other. I move -

That after the word “ upon,” line si, the words “ or omitted from “ be inserted.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– There is no necessity to make this amendment. Senator Rae fears that if a presiding officer omits to place his initials on a ballot-paper there will be a possibility of the voter being disfranchised.

Senator Rae:

– Paragraph a says so.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No. Proposed new section 158 says -

A ballot-paper shall (except as otherwise provided by regulations under section 139 or the regulations relating to absent voting) be informal if -

it is not authenticated by the initials of the presiding officer, or by an official mark as prescribed.

– Yes.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Is the watermark known beforehand only to the officers ? Does “ prescribed “ cover that? I am not clear as to what the word means. Will the officers be able to prescribe at the last moment what mark a Returning Officer shall put upon ballot-papers? Otherwise difficulty may occur. It may be advisable under certain circumstances to send a telegram to a Returning Officer, even on the morning of an election, instructing him to put a certain mark on ballot-papers for the purpose of making doubly sure that nothing wrong is dona. Circumstances may arise that may induce the office to believe that it is desirable to do so with the object of observing the purity and secrecy of the ballot. I believe our electoral officers to be absolutely free from the taint of corruption, and think that they should have that power of prescribing the marks to be placed upon ballot-papers. Although practically the whole of the Returning Officers in the past have been appointed by Governments which were not Labour Governments, I have sufficient confidence in them to believe that they can be trusted with this power.

Senator Rae:

– The honorable senator has more faith than I have. There are some of them whom I would not trust any more than I would try to catch a bull by the tail.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I take it that under this provision only the Chief Electoral Officer would have the power to prescribe what marks should be placed on ballot-papers. There was more in what Senator Rae stated than some honorable senators realize. May I give an illustration ? An election took place two or three days ago at Port Fairy, the result of which was that a certain candidate was defeated by 54 votes. But there were 179 informal postal votes. They were informal, not owing to the fault of individual voters, but simply because certain duly-authorized witnesses did not comply with the State law.

Consequently the 179 electors were disfranchised. We have information which goes to show - at all events, the assertion has been made, and I will give it for what it is worth - that sufficient of the 179 postal votes would have gone to the credit of the defeated candidate to insure his return.

Senator Millen:

– I thought the honorable senator held that postal votes always went against his own party ?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am not responsible for what Senator Millen imagines, and take exception to his drawing on his imagination so far as to attribute to me what some fanatics may have said. Let us assume that we do not know how those postal votes would have gone. Nevertheless, here was a candidate who was 54 votes behind, and had reasonable grounds for assuming that a considerable proportion of the disallowed postal votes would have been recorded in his favour. I have no hesitation in saying that the proviso to proposed new section 158 is absolutely necessary. It provides - that paragraph c shall not apply to any mark or writing placed upon the ballot-paper by an officer, notwithstanding that the placing of the mark or writing upon the ballot-paper is a contravention of this Act.

Senator Sayers attacked that proviso vigorously. Why? If a Returning Officer were a partisan - and I believe that the majority of Returning Officers are not - he could, except for this proviso, invalidate the vote of any elector whom he knew to be a political opponent, simply by placing a dot upon the ballot-paper. Suppose Senator Sayers himself happened to be a candidate, and that at a certain place a Labour partisan was presiding over an election. The person in question might have sufficient discretionto conceal his views, but might, nevertheless, be bitterly opposed to Senator Sayers. Except for this proviso he might, by placing a mark, as it were, accidentally, upon the ballotpapers of electors whom he knew to be supporters of Senator Sayers, invalidate a whole lot of them, and cause them to be rejected.

Senator Sayers:

– No possibility.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator McGregor:

– If the honorable senator is opposed to the clause, let him vote against it.

Senator SAYERS:

– I want to -let the country see the rubbishy legislation which the Government are anxious to put upon our statute-book.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator has been denouncing the actions of the Government which he supported.

Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m.

Senator SAYERS:

– I hope that when the Government review the position they will recognise that we should, as far as possible, close the door against fraud. To my mind the Bill is repugnant to all principles of fair play. Its provisions may be manipulated so that they may work in two or three different ways. My contention is that where there is a likelihood of abuse we should endeavour to remedy it. Under the Bill a Returning Officer may, by an act which is not illegal, be able to ascertain how an elector voted.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I. do not intend to follow the bad example of my honorable friends opposite by attempting to retard the passing of this measure. It seems to me that Senator Rae’s amendment involves the question ‘of the initialing or non-initialing of ballotpapers by the presiding officers of polling booths. Now, either the initialing of those papers by these officers is or is not necessary. I can conceive of circumstances in which a very narrow margin of votes would result in a certain candidate being elected, and in which a few of the ballot-papers might not bear the initials of the presiding officer. In such circumstances, if the defeated candidate chose to contest the validity of the election, I think that his claim would be upheld. The proviso in its present form seems to me to penalize the voter for an act of commission on the part of the presiding officer. The necessary complement to such a provision is that a ballot-paper should not be rendered .informal merely because that officer has omitted to place upon it certain marks. Consequently, I contend that the amendment of Senator Rae is a perfectly logical one: Senator Sayers has said that the scrutineers of the respective candidates should see that no such omission occurred. But I would point out to him that there are hours on polling clay when it is impossible for the scrutineers to watch what the presiding officer is doing. We should leave no loophole of escape whatever. We should not trust to regulations, and if we insist that the placing of certain unauthorized marks upon a ballot-paper by the Returning Officer shall not disfranchise an elector, we should also insist that the omission to place authorized marks upon it should not disfranchise him.

Senator Findley:

– It will not.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– According to my reading of the clause, the amendment of Senator Rae is a necessary one, and unless the Honorary Minister can adduce stronger arguments than he has adduced, I shall be found voting for it.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– During the course of this discussion I have given the Committee the assurance two or three times that not the slightest doubt exists in respect of the matter mentioned by Senators Rae and Needham. If an electoral officer or any person intrusted with ballot-papers on an election day neglects to place his initials upon those papers, that circumstance will not render them invalid. I informed the Committee that in 1909 an amendment was submitted by Senator Millen, who was in charge of an Electoral Bill at the time, for the express purpose of making that point perfectly clear. His proposal read -

A ballot-paper shall be informal if- -

it is not authenticated by the initials of the presiding officer (or, in the case of a postal ballot-paper, of the Returning Officer), or by an official mark is prescribed ;

While the late Government was in power regulations were drafted prescribing that the ballot-papers should be printed on a special quality of paper with a special water-mark. Under no circumstances can an elector obtain a ballot-paper unless it is of the prescribed kind. Whether the presiding officer neglects to attach his initials or not, the ballot-paper is valid, and the vote is counted. This clause will tighten up the provision in the Act. If an officer neglects to do his duty, he will be liable to be punished, but his neglect to initial a ballot-paper will not disfranchise the elector.

Senator Rae:

– My amendment will tighten it up in the other direction.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It will do nothing of the kind. The clause will make the officer more careful, and also responsible for any neglect on his part. When Senator Millen was introducing the Electoral Bill, in 1909, he referred to this matter, which has been discussed so long to-day. Alluding to some of the amendments which were then proposed, he said -

A certain class of them is designed to prevent an election being upset on purely technical grounds when there is no doubt as to the ex pressed will of the electors. As an instance of this class of amendments, I would remind honorable senators of what occurred in connexion with a State election in South Australia. There, amongst other complications, certain postal votes were discarded, because the initials of the returning officer did not appear on the ballot-papers, although they had been placed upon the counterfoils. The Court held that as the counterfoils had been detached from the ballot-papers - although the officer who detached them testified to having done so - it was not competent for it to take such votes into account, although the will of the electors was clearly manifested. Some of the amendments embodied in this Bill seek to avoid a technicality of this kind. Under them it is intended that ballotpapers shall be printed upon a special kind of paper. That paper will bear a secret water mark, will be manufactured under the supervision and control of Government officials, and ballot-papers bearing that secret mark - even though the initials of the returning officer may be absent from them - will still be held to be valid, provided that the desire of the electors has been made sufficiently clear. At the same time it is not intended to dispense with the initialing of ballot-papers by returning officers. But should it be found that inadvertently a properly authenticated ballot-paper, clearly evidencing the wish of the elector, does not bear the initials of the returning officer the election cannot be invalidated on that account.

That is exactly the position to-day. A special kind of paper, with a secret mark, is used. It cannot be manufactured, as Senator Vardon imagines, by some evillydisposed person. Before he could send an order he would have to ascertain where the paper was made, its quality, and the watermark. He would have to findout a hundred and one things before he would be in a position to get the paper which is used for voting purposes.

Senator Vardon:

– Will you give me an order to get out some for you?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I think that the honorable senator would be the last person in the Commonwealth to attempt to do a thing of that kind. It would be much easier, much quicker, and much less costly to try to forge the initials of the officer intrusted with the ballot-papers. In addition to the Electoral Branch of the Home Affairs Department, other Departments of the Commonwealth would be interested. The honorable senator might be able to give an order, and get a paper somewhat like the paper which is used, but, as certain paper is dutiable, the shipment would have to pass through the hands of the Customs officials. So that he would have to run great risk and danger if he attempted to do anything of the kind. In these circumstances, I trust that the Committee will not seriously entertain the amendment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Honorary Minister has stated very correctly what was intended should be the practice of the Department in regard to the paper to be used for voting purposes. Although I cannot now, after the lapse of two years, recall exactly the precautions which were taken, I remember that the very great fear which was in my mind when 1 was introducing the Bill was quite set at rest by the precautions which were disclosed to me by the officials of the Department. And 1 feel confident that even Senator Vardon, if he should at any time feel animated by a desire to act in that way, which I do not expect, would find it absolutely impossible to forge the paper. I think that the amendment of Senator Rae is not only unnecessary, but would, if carried, be extremely harmful. Under the Acts Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural. If I read his amendment aright, it would have the effect of dispensing, not merely with the initials of the presiding officer, but also with the water-mark. He does not want that, I am sure. His amendment would be distinctly harmful, unless, of course, he wants votes to be cast on any ordinary piece of paper. I feel satisfied that he does not seek that. The effect of his amendment, if adopted, would be to validate a ballot-paper which contained neither the initials of the presiding officer nor the prescribed watermark.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I cannot say that the speech of either the Honorary Minister or the Leader of the Opposition has convinced me of the uselessness of my amendment. As regards the possible harmfulness of it, I admit that very often an amendment, if inserted in a particular place, may require consequential amendments to be made, so that it shall not do more or less than is intended. If the desire is there, the Government, can always have a clause re-drafted to suit an amendment if they believe in the spirit of it. As regards the intention, I quite agree with the remarks of Senator Millen quoted by the Minister, but my contention is that paragraph a, where it says that the ballotpaper shall be informal if it is not authenticated by the initials of the presiding officer or by an official mark, as prescribed, does not leave it very clear, at any rate to the lay mind, that it may not be imperative to have both marks.

Senator Vardon:

– I think that it leaves it too clear ; that is my difficulty.

Senator RAE:

– I think it leaves it pretty clear that both marks are expected to be on the ballot-paper, should the question ever come before a Court. It would be clearly arguable by lawyers as to” whether a mere water-mark was sufficient. I think it is very doubtful as to which way a Judge would interpret the paragraph. If, however, the clear intention is to admit a ballot-paper which, by inadvertence, has not been initialed by the presiding officer, and not to disfranchise, the elector, there cannot be any possible harm in saying so in words which will be beyond dispute. The fact that various opinions have- been expressed is proof that the paragraph is not clearly worded. My view is that every provision in a measure should be expressed in clear and emphatic language. If the Ministry and the Opposition favour this idea, they ought to have no objection to the use of words which would be unequivocal, and which would be complementary to the proviso in paragraph c, that .the use of unauthorized marks shall not invalidate a ballot-paper. If, on the one hand, it does not free the presiding officer from his legal obligation not to use unauthorized marks, and, on the other hand, it makes it obligatory upon him to initial a ballot-paper, my amendment will not in any way free him from his liability, but will tend to make it absolutely clear that an elector shall not be penalized by an offence committed by the officer. I realize that, while I have had the extreme pleasure of supporting a Labour Government, I have also had the experience, which I did not expect to have, that they are so absolutely perfect that no word, let alone a sentence, no crossing of a “ t,” or dotting of an “ i,” can possibly be wrong in anything which they propose. Therefore I shall not bother my head about attending here or considering any measure in the future, because I know that anything coming from the Opposition is more likely to receive attention than anything coming from this side of the Chamber.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I think it is a matter of regret that Senator Rae should adopt this attitude to the Minister. I am rather inclined to agree with Senator Rae, except that I cannot exactly follow the meaning of his amendment. The clause provides that a ballot-paper shall contain certain marks, and he proposes that it shall be equally valid whether it contains those marks or not.” I feel quite certain that is not what he means.

Senator Rae:

– I mean the initials. This is the only place where I could get in the amendment.

Senator CHATAWAY:

-I should imagine that my honorable friend could get in the amendment at the end of the proviso to paragraph c. What we want to insure, I think, is that where the presiding, officer makes a mistake, by omission or otherwise, the ballot-paper, shall not be regarded as informal. I remember a case which occurred at a general election held in Queensland in 1896. At Mirani, in North Queensland, something like 300 votes were cast. There was no Labour candidate. The majority of the votes were cast in favour of what we might call the Radical candidate, and the balance - a comparative minority - in favour of what we might call the Conservative candidate.

Senator Needham:

– There were no Conservatives then.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– My honorable friend, who continually interjects, reminds me very much of the lines of G. K. Chesterton - “ My mind demands complexity,”

– It would facilitate progress if the honorable senator would adhere strictly to Senator Rae’s amendment.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am endeavouring to show that the amendment would make the clause read in an extremely peculiar fashion. Its wording would be positively ridiculous. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause as it stands.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Rae’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 21

Majority … … 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the words”or the regulations” in proposed new section 158A be left out.

I would like to direct Senator Henderson’s attention to the true meaning of the proposed new section. It reads. -

Except as authorized by this Act or the regulations, an officer shall not place upon any ballot-paper any mark or writing which would enable any person to identify the voter by whom it is used.

Put in another way, this is what the clause means : that when authorized by the regulations, an officer may place on a ballot-paper a mark or writing which will enable any person to identify the voter by whom it is used.

Senator Henderson:

– Yes; but the honorable senator should remember that that must be done in the case of absent voting, or something of that kind.

Senator MILLEN:

– There the honorable senator is wrong, because absent voting is dealt with in another clause, and will be carried out entirely under a fresh set of regulations. We do not know what the regulations are yet. Turn, for instance, to clause 24.

Senator Henderson:

-Does not new section 158 repeal section 139 of the Act, or the regulations relating to absent voting?

Senator MILLEN:

– To show that proposed new section 158 has nothing to do with the matter, I shall quote the words to which the honorable senator refers. It reads -

A ballot-paper shall (except as otherwise provided by regulations under section 139 of the regulations relating to absent voting be informal if, &c.

– There is- voting by ballot in Victoria and Queensland. T shall endeavour to show that in both States the provision for the numbering of the ballotpapers has not a partial, but a general application.

Senator Sayers:

– In Queensland the number is sealed down.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In Victoria, the Constitution Act Amendment Act of ‘1890 contains this provision -

When any person shall have tendered his vote in manner hereinbefore mentioned, and the name in which he shall demand to vote shall appear as well in an ordinary roll in force for the division of the province or district as in the elector’s right produced by him, or shall appear in the roll of ratepaying electors in force for the division of the district, the returning officer or deputy shall, unless such person be prohibited from voting for some of the causes hereinbefore mentioned, forthwith write upon the back of one of the ballot-papers so signed or initialed as aforesaid, and as near as practicable to the lower edge thereof, the number corresponding to the number set opposite such person’s name in such rolls, together with the figures and initial letters of the title of such roll, and so that in folding up such ballotpaper as hereinafter mentioned the voter may easily .conceal from view the said writing.

Senator Sayers:

– Quote the provision in the Queensland Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes. We do not propose to do what has been done in Victoria and Queensland for a considerable period. Section 72 of the Queensland Election Act of 1897 reads -

Upon delivery of the ballot-paper to the elector, the presiding officer or poll clerk shall, upon the copy of the electoral roll in use by him, or, in the case of a presiding officer other than the returning officer, upon the certified copy of the roll supplied to him by the returning officer, make a mark against the name of the elector.

The mark so made on the roll shall be prima facie evidence of the identity of the person to whom the ballot-paper is delivered with the elector whose name is so marked on the roll, and of the fact that such elector voted at the election.

The number marked upon the back of the ballot-paper shall, upon a scrutiny, be conclusive evidence that such ballot-paper was delivered to and used by the person who claimed to vote as the person against whose name such number is set in the electoral roll.

Section 76 says -

Every ballot-paper which -

does not bear the initials of the presid ing officer, or
does not appear to have the elector’s number written upon the back of it by the presiding officer as hereinbefore provided, shall be rejected at the close of the poll.

Senator Findley:

– I wish the honorable senator would not mix things up. T. call a man an absent voter who, on the election day, is away from the division in which he is enrolled.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The Minister, to support his position, has referred us to the Victorian and Queensland Acts, in which a method is adopted by which, under certain conditions, it is possible to identify a voter. It may be admitted that, under a system of absent voting, some provision must be made for identification, in order to prevent personation, or to punish it where it takes place. That is the sole reason why, in Queensland, every ballotpaper is numbered. ‘ We are told by the Minister that it is possible that that will be done under this Bill in some cases, but if that be so, why do not the Government follow the Queensland precedent? The Queensland practice has been clearly explained, and honorable senators must recognise how effective it is for the prevention of personation, whether the voting takes place in a division, outside of it, or by post. Under the Queensland law, when an elector applies for a ballot-paper, he has to state his number on the electoral roll. That number is marked upon the ballot-paper, and is then sealed down. If, subsequently, another elector gives the same number, there is at once a presumption of impersonation, and the Act provides the means for detecting it.

Senator Vardon:

– I do not wish to put too great a strain on honorable senators, but

I think we should have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Senator ST LEDGER:

– To show how careful they have been in Queensland in. dealing with this matter, I may state that they provide in section 72 of the Electoral Act -

Upon delivery of the ballot-paper to the elector the presiding officer or poll clerk shall upon a copy of the electoral roll in use by him or, in the case of a presiding officer other than the Returning Officer, upon a certified copy of the roll supplied to him by the Returning Officer, makea mark against the name of the elector.

Senator Findley:

– What is the object of that? Is it not to enable the voter tobe identified in case the necessity for so doing should arise?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Its object is to guard against impersonation.

Senator Findley:

– That is the object of the provision in this Bill.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Then why not insert it in the Bill? No exception has ever been taken in Queensland to the section upon which that provision is founded. Section 72 of the Queensland ElectionsAct is intended to operate as a deterrent against impersonation, and to provide a ready means of ascertaining who has been guilty of that offence. The provision goes on to say -

The mark so made on the roll shall beprima facie evidence of the identity of the person to whom the ballot-paper is delivered with the elector whose name is so marked on the roll and of the fact that such elector voted at the election.

The number marked upon the back of the ballot-paper shall, upon a scrutiny, be conclusive evidence that such ballot-paper was delivered to and used by the person who claimed to vote as the person against whose name such number is set in the electoral roll.

All these are machinery provisions, but they have not been left to regulations. They are set out in the Act itself. Their object is to prevent impersonation. Section 76 of the same Statute is also clear upon this point. It declares what shall be formalities and informalities upon a ballotpaper. It reads -

Every ballot-paper which -

does not bear the initials of the presid ing officer, or
does not appear to have the elector’s number written upon the back of it by the presiding officer as hereinbefore provided, or
has such number torn off, or
contains a greater number of names of candidates not struck out than the number of members to be elected, or-
has upon it any mark or writing not by this Act authorized to be put thereon which, in the opinion of the Returning Officer, will or may enable any person to . identify the ballotpaper or the elector; shall be rejected at the close of the poll.

– The ballot without secrecy is like the play of Hamlet with the character of Hamlet left out. It is made clear that in the Queensland Act provisions are set forth for the identification of voters under certain circumstances. Where charges of fraud or personation are alleged, the ballotpapers may be scrutinized by a Judge. But the Queensland Act itself provides for that. While the Queensland Act affords facilities for identification where a prima facie case of fraud is made out, it guards the secrecy of the. ballot, which is interfered with only in the case of a disputed election, in order to decide who is the lawfully-elected candidate. We have the statement from the Minister that he intends to use this provision for the purpose of identification, but we are not told what provision is to be made by the regulation to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. The Queensland practice has been quoted as an example, but the Queensland Act provides for both. As the Minister is, in this provision, seeking, to some extent, the same object, why does he not follow the Queensland precedent, and make it clear that the regulations providing for identification shall not violate the secrecy of the ballot? If this proposed new section be agreed to, this will be the first occasion in the history of Australia on which the secrecy of the ballot will be left to regulation. If there is one thing of which we have been proud, it is that in every Act dealing with the franchise passed in this country the principle of the secrecy of fee ballot has been the main object sought to be obtained. If the Minister will not accept the suggestion to postpone this proposed new section for further consideration, the Committee will be in the position, not of being addressed by a hopeless minority, but of being in the hands of an utterly helpless and hopeless majority.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Millen’ s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 16

Majority … …. 10

AYES

– Even a fine of £50 in the case of the Minister of Defence would be something in the nature of a spoil. In order that we may obtain a more definite statement from the Honorary Minister, I move -

That the word “ Ten “ in proposed new section 158A be left out, with a view to insert in. lieu thereof the word “ One.”

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 -

Section one hundred and sixty of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the fol lowing sub-section : - “ (2.) All ballot-papers used for voting in. pursuance of section one hundred and thirtynine or in pursuance of the regulations relating to absent voting shall be dealt with as prescribed by the regulations.”

On polling day, an elector shall be entitled to vote at. the polling place for which he is enrolled or at any prescribed polling place for the subdivisions for which he is enrolled, or he shall be permitted to vote at any other polling place within the Commonwealth under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting.

All that is provided in the Bill is that the absent voter shall be entitled to vote at any polling booth, but everything else is to be left to be dealt with by regulation.

Senator Long:

– Will you now read subsection 2 of new section 139 a?

Senator MILLEN:

– It reads -

The regulations relating to absent voting may prescribe all matters (not inconsistent with this Act)-

The Government can put in any regulation where the Act is silent. The honorable senator’s interjection confirms my statement that the Act ought to set out the directing principles. In regard to absent voting, no principles are laid down in the Bill. All that it says is that an absent voter may vote at any other polling place within the Commonwealth, under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting. In the case of postal voting, the principal Act provided that a man might vote by post, but it went on to provide that his postal voting paper must be obtained and dealt with in a certain way, and that, after he had voted, the scrutiny must be conducted in a certain way, . leaving the gaps to be filled in by regulation. In this case, however, everything relating to absent voting is left to be dealt with by regulation. We are shirking our legislative work. We are throwing on the administrative branch of our Government what ought to be the work of the legislative branch. It is for Parliament itself, and not the officers of the Department, to say how an absent voter shall vote, and what is to be done with his voting paper after it is cast. Senator Pearce said that the Bill clearly sets out what is to be done in regard to absent voting papers, but it clearly does not, because sub-section 2 of new section 139A says -

The regulations relating to absent voting may prescribe all matters (not inconsistent with this Act) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying this section into effect, and in particular may provide for -

the form of absent voters ballot-papers;

the manner in which votes are to be marked on absent voters ballotpapers;

the method of dealing with and the counting of absent voters ballotpapers ; and

the grounds upon which absent voters ballot-papers are 10 be rejected as informal.

– My only reason for again referring to the matter is that this is another attempt to get into the hands of Departments power which rightly belongs to Parliament itself. I venture to say that no man can read the Bill through without feeling astonished that the Electoral Office has become so audacious as to ask for these powers, that the Ministry has become so subservient as to concede them, and that there is in existence a Parliament which will tolerate for five minutes such a provision as we are asked to receive andindorse.

– The regulations to which I now refer provided - (i.) The Divisional Returning Officer for the division for which the voter declares that he is enrolled shall examine the declaration on the envelope containing the absent voter’s ballotpaper, and if it appears to him that the person whose name is signed to the declaration is enrolled for the division, and that the declaration is duly attested, he shall accept the ballotpaper for further scrutiny, but otherwise he shall reject the ballot-paper without opening the envelope. If he accepts the ballot-paper for further scrutiny he shall open the envelope without destroying the declaration and extract the ballot-paper and without unfolding it place the ballot-paper in the ballot-box. (ii.) When all the absent voters’ ballot-papers received have been dealt with as prescribed in paragraph (i.) of this regulation, the ballotbox containing accepted ballot-papers shall be well shaken and the ballot-papers may then be taken out and the scrutiny of them proceeded with : Provided that in cases where a large number of absent voters’ ballot-papers have to be dealt with the procedure prescribed in this paragraph may be taken from time to time when the ballot-box contains one hundred ballotpapers for each election or referendum, but so that the Divisional Returning Officer shall keep enough ballot-papers in the ballot-box uncounted so as to secure as nearly as practicable that all ballot-papers when counted shall be taken from a number not being less than one hundred for each election or referendum. (iii.) At the scrutiny the Divisional Returning Officer shall open the absent voters’ ballotpapers, and shall allow and count those which are formal, and shall disallow and reject those which are informal. (iv.) An absent voter’s ballot-paper shall be informal if -

in an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives or in a Referendum, it is not authenticated by the initials of the Assistant Returning Officer, in accordance with these regulations, or by an official mark as prescribed under the provisions of the’ Commonwealth Electoral Act or the Referendum (Constitution

Alteration) Act (as the case requires) in force for the time being ; (b). in an election for the Senate, it has votes indicated on it for a greater or less number of candidates than the number required to be elected ;

in an election for the House of Representatives, it has more than one vote indicated on it;
in a Referendum, it has more than one vote indicated on it;
in an election or Referendum, it has no vote indicated on it ; and
in an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives or in a Referendum, it has upon it any mark or writing not authorized to be put upon it which, in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer, will enable any person to identify the voter, (v.) Each Divisional Returning Officer shall seal up in separate parcels -
all envelopes from which absent voters’ ballot-papers have been taken;
all unopened envelopes containing absent voters’ ballot-papers ;
all absent voters’ ballot-papers for each election or Referendum allowed or admitted as formal ; and
all absent voters’ ballot-papers for each election or Referendum disallowed or rejected as informal; and shall transmit all sealed parcels of ballotpapers relating to the Referendum to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, and shall preserve the remaining parcels and their contents until authorized by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State to destroy them. The sealed parcels shall only be opened for the purposes of an authorized recount or by direction of the Court of Disputed Returns or the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State.

Senator Millen:

– Under what sections were these regulations framed?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Section 139. I think I have read sufficient to convince fairminded senators that there is a great deal of insincerity and inconsistency on the part of some honorable senators of. the Opposition. Section 139 contains the following proviso -

Provided always that the regulations under this Act may provide facilities for enabling electors to vote at elections for the Senate or for the House of Representatives at other polling places within the State in which the election is held, and may provide for all matters (not inconsistent with this Act) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for the purpose of carrying this part of this section into effect, and in particular for the following matters : -

the form of ballot-paper to be used ;

the method of dealing with the ballotpapers ; and

the allowance or disallowance and counting of the ballot-papers.

Sitting suspended from 12 (midnight) to 12.45a.m.(Thursday).

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The words “ or in pursuance of the regulations” allow to be substituted for new section 139 anything that the Government, or the Department, may choose to prescribe in the form of a regulation. I agree with Senator Millen that we are going too far in giving the Department power to prescribe by regulation something which will probably override what we have already passed. I enter my protest against this practice.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Proposed new section 139 makes provision for voting before polling- day, by electors who will be absent on polling day, and the form of ballot-paper is left to the regulations. There are two forms of ballot-paper, one for the ordinary voter, prescribed by the Act, and another for the absent voter, which is left to the regulations. Why should that be? What has it to do with us if something was left to regulations, as the Minister has pointed out, in section 139 of the Act of 1905? That section, which is now being repealed, dealt practically with Form Q. If anything wrong was done in 1905, the Ministry then in power were responsible. The amending Bill brought in in 1909 simply provided that where the election for the Senate and the House of Representatives was held on the same day, no duplication of Form Q was necessary. It is quite possible that the Government of the day, when introducing that amendment, overlooked the necessity for a special provision in the Act to deal with the ballot-paper in those cases. Possibly, we also overlooked it during the second reading of the Bill, but is the Senate never to learn wisdom, and never to retrace its steps in the light of experience? Because something wrong was done by Noah, and we only find it out in these days of Labour socialistic domination, is it to be allowed to go on for ever? One would think so, to judge from the Minister’s arguments. There is an inconsistency in the Act now, and I do not care two straws whether it existed before or not. The two forms of ballot-papers for what I call present voters and absent voters respectively should be prescribed in the Act, and not by regulation. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the Minister was exhibiting positive tenacity throughout the Bill. I think it is becoming superlative obstinacy. The Minister is trying to drive the Bill clause by clause through what he knows is going to be a cyclone, when, by submitting to common-sense and observing at the same time the highest political principles, he could get rid in a few minutes of the whole of the difficulties which now occupy hours, and even days. He has not attempted to give a semblance of a reasonable answer to our objections to this provision. The Minister could, in five minutes, have a clause drafted prescribing the form of ballot-paper in the case of absent voters ; but if the Government will not submit to reason, they deserve all they get every time they get it. The ballot-paper is almost the essence of the franchise, and the provisions regarding all forms of it should be made as uniform as possible. We are here till the small hours of the morning because the Government are, so to speak, white-ant eaten with obstinacy in this matter. There is not a man with a pretence to reason and independent judgment, and with the power to exercise both, who would not willingly assent to the Government doing that which we propose. When a point like this has been pressed for 50 many- different reasons, it is difficult to understand the almost superlative stupidity of the Minister and his supporters in resisting it.

Senator Needham:

– The use of the word “ stupid “ in such a connexion has been held to be out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not use that expression.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Then I shall say that it is difficult to understand their superlative want of reason and intelligence. I shall have no hesitation in availing myself of all the power conferred upon me by the Standing Orders to have this clause thoroughly discussed, to protest against it, and to emphasize the obstinacy of the Government. In every State Act dealing with the franchise, the form of the ballot-paper to be used is given, and the whole framework upon which the electors are to exercise their franchise is invariably included. Why cannot the Minister yield to our proposal? By doing so he will not sacrifice any principle; but, on the contrary, will help to strengthen the hands of the Parliament. Every amendment coming from this side of the chamber is designed to strengthen the hands of Parliament, and to make our legislation clear. The country might reasonably be asked to congratulate itself on the possession of an Opposition in the Senate which, although small in number, is determined to resist this exhibition of useless obstinacy on the part of the Government. By prolonging this sitting the Government are inviting the electors to look more closely into this clause of a Bill which is being bludgeoned through the Chamber by the force of a large and almost silent majority. I believe that if the Minister were to say to his supporters, “ You are free to vote as you please upon this matter,” we should find them voting with the Opposition. There are some very important and debatable clauses yet to be dealt with, and I regret that, so far as this provision is concerned, the Government appear to have tightened up their supporters - to have induced them to remain silent - and to treat this as a party measure.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 -

Section one hundred and sixty-one A of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the following sub-section : - . “ (3.) If the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State refuses, on the request of a candidate, to direct a re-count of any ballot-papers, the candidate may, in writing, appeal to the

Chief Electoral Officer to direct a recount of those ballot-papers, and the Chief Electoral Officer may, as tic thinks fit, either direct a recount of -the ballot-papers or refuse the appeal.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I must ask the indulgence of the Committee whilst I make something more than an incidental reference to clause 26 in connexion with the clause now tinder consideration. .The two embody a definite proposition, and it is hardly possible to consider the one without making some reference to the other. These clauses deal with the circumstances in which a candidate may claim a recount, and their effect is that the candidate will be absolutely at the mercy of the Chief Electoral Officer. Hitherto we have gone so far as to deprive Parliament of the right to interfere in the matter of a disputed election, and have referred such matters to the High Court. The proposition in this Bill is to take from the High Court some of the power we decided to vest in it, and to vest that power in the administrative officer of the Electoral Branch of the Home Affairs Department. Under the law as it stands at present, a candidate may by lodging the necessary deposit make an application to the High Court for a recount and obtain it. Under this Bill that right is to be denied him, except by the good grace of the Chief Electoral Officer. I am dealing more particularly with a Senate election, although the same principle would apply to an election for another place, because it comes first in the Bill, and next because we are considering this matter in the Senate; and I lay particular stress upon the way in which the clause would operate in connexion with a Senate election.. Clause 25 leaves it in the hands ‘of the Chief Electoral Officer, who does not occupy a judicial position, and would not necessarily act upon evidence submitted to him, of his own volition, to refuse to grant an application for a recount. There is no opportunity afforded a candidate asking for a recount to submit _ evidence at a public inquiry. The ipse dixit of the Chief Electoral Officer is to settle the question as to whether a candidate shall have a recount or not. In order that I may prove that statement, and justify my opposition to this clause, it is necessary that I should go a little further and show what would happen if the Chief Electoral Officer chooses to refuse a recount. I have no doubt that I shall be told that a candidate may still secure a recount by appealing to the High Court. If he could 1 should have very little objection to the clause. I wish to show that if the Chief Electoral Officer refuses a recount there is practically no> human possibility of a candidate obtaining it, because in the very next clause it is provided in the proposed new section 161B that-

At any recount the officer conducting the recount may, and at the request of any scrutineer shall, reserve any ballot-paper for the decision of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State.

I wish the Committee to bear in mind that the only ballot-papers which are reserved for a recount are those which have been objected to by one or other of the scrutineers, and they would represent a very small percentage of the total number. The proposed new section goes on to say -

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State shall decide whether any ballot-paper reserved for his decision in pursuance of this section is to be allowed and admitted or disallowed and rejected.

That carries us a stage further. The papers reserved are those to which the scrutineers have lodged an objection, and the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State then decides whether those reserved papers shall be allowed or rejected. Then we come to the next stage, in connexion with which the proposed new section provides -

In the event of the validity of the electionbeing -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.

– Why not put the clause in this form -

Subject to the approval of the Court, &c. ?

Senator ST. LEDGER (Queensland) (2.1 a.m.]. - The Minister has done right in proposing the amendment. The main ground of dispute is nearly always in regard to informal papers, which are put on one side. If the formal voting is very close, the ‘ validity or invalidity of the ballot-papers which have been set aside becomes a matter of much importance. Should a candidate take a case before the Court of Disputed Returns, and succeed in getting papers which have been declared informal pronounced to be formal, the margin is narrowed down, and it becomes essential to see that a mistake has not been made in the counting of the votes whose validity is unquestioned. I have had experience of a case of the kind. Under the amendment candidates will be fairly treated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 -

After section one hundred and sixty-one A of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : -

” 161B.-……

(3.) In the event of the validity of the election being disputed the Court of Disputed Returns …. 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 some mistake or error in connexion with the counting has been1 made which renders a recount necessary.”

Amendment (by Senator Findley) proposed -

That all the words after the word “ that,” line 10, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ such recount is justified.”

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– It would be of assistance if it were provided that voting-papers not marked in accordance with section 158 should be regarded as absolutely informal. Neither an officer nor a Court should be asked to say what was intended by the person who marked them. My experience is that informal papers of this kind are cast as much for one candidate as for another. But when a case comes before the Court, we find the Judge picking up one paper, and saying, “ There is a smudge here, under which I cannot discern any mark. I accordingly treat the paper as informal.” while, holding another up, he remarks, “ I can distinguish a mark under the smudge on this paper, and, therefore, I declare it to be formal.” It is impossible to say what was in an elector’s mind when he marked” a paper improperly, and it would be much better if the task of trying to ascertain the intention of those responsible for these informal papers was not imposed on any one.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– An additional reason for the amendment is that, under the Act as it stands, the Chief Electoral Officer is made the highest interpreting authority, but under the Bill he may be a party to a case, and it . is, therefore, undesirable that it should be left to him to determine whether a recount should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 29 -

After section one hundred and sixty-four a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part XII. : - “ r64B. - (1.) At an)’ recount the officer conducting the recount may, and at the request of any scrutineer shall, reserve any ballot-paper for the decision of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State. “ (2.) The Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State shall decide whether any ballotpaper reserved for his decision in pursuance of this section is to be allowed and admitted or disallowed and rejected. “ (3.) 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 recount of the whole or any part of the ballot-papers in connexion with the election unless it is satisfied that some mistake or error in connexion with the counting has been made which renders a recount necessary.”

That all the words after “ that,” line 21, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ such recount is justified”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 -

Section one hundred and sixty-five of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the following sub-section : - “ (2.) Where the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State-

has been advised by a Divisional Returning Officer that certain absent. voter’s ballot-papers, . which have been issued at some remote polling place in connexion with the election, cannot reach him for the purpose of the scrutiny in time to permit of the return of the writ within the period originally, fixed therefor, and

is satisfied that the votes recorded on those ballot-papers could not possibly affect the result of the election, he may, subject to the concurrence of the Chief Electoral Officer, declare the result of the election and return the writ without waiting for the receipt of the ballot-papers or counting the votes thereon.”

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

. -We are in danger of getting into a very complicated condition in regard to absent voting. Under these provisionsvotes can be recorded all over Australia, and how is it possible for the writ to be returned, or any one declared elected, until a complete statement is obtained as to the vote’s recorded? There are no provisions in the Act itself regulating how these votes should be taken.If a man goes to a booth and says, “I am an elector in such-and-such a district,” but does not know his number or his division, is he to be allowed to vote on a Q form on that scanty evidence? Where shall we land ourselves if that loose method of doing business is carried out? No one should be declared elected until the whole of the returns have been sent in from the most distant parts where any one could have been able to vote. This matter should be clarified by a statement from the Minister.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– We have had cases since the establishment of the Commonwealth where the return of the writ has been delayed through the breakdown of transport arrangements, although it has been known officially that the votes from outside places could not in any way have affected the result. This provision is intended only to meet exceptional cases. I am informed that something similar occurred in connexion with the election of Senator Vardon. There isno occasion for the Committee to worry, because every precaution will be taken to safeguard the interest of all candidates. There will be, in future elections, a considerable number of absent votes recorded throughout the Commonwealth, but the number of votes so recorded, and the number that each candidate has secured, will be officially known. Something might happen to delay the sending in of the return, and to prevent unnecessary delay in declaring the poll this provision is inserted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– 1 do not know that the clause is objectionable in itself, but the point raised by Senator McColl is full of interest, and, in view of the Ministerial attitude, full of mystery. The clause has been introduced with a particular regard to the proposed system of absent voting. It seems to me that unless the Government know a great deal more than they have told us, we shall be landed in a sea of difficulties. Hitherto it has only been necessary to send these votes to one place in each State, but here we have the possibility of votes being cast, say, in Broome, Western Australia, for a Tasmanian electorate. It will not be sufficient for a mere wire to Come from Broome to Hobart stating that a certain number of votes has been cast there in respect of a certain candidate for a Tasmanian electorate. Surely there must be some check on the votes so cast. In the case of normal voting there is some check in the fact that a man votes in his own electorate. But if a Hobart elector votes in Broome, the presiding officer there is not likely to have the rolls for the whole Commonwealth, and he will have to rely on the declaration of the man that he is entitled to vote. Surely we are not going to say that a mere wire from a returning officer there will be sufficient.

Senator Pearce:

– The Returning Officer would not- even know for what candidate the votes had been cast. The matter was explained in connexion with the previous clause.

Senator MILLEN:

– No. The statement made by Senator Findley was that the secrecy of the ballot would be provided for. Senator Pearce now lifts the curtain a little higher. It is a pity that the Government have not fully disclosed the system which they propose to adopt. Returning to my illustration of the Hobart elector voting at Broome, it is clear that votes so cast must be brought to Hobart, or to some central place, say, Melbourne. to be checked.

Senator Pearce:

– They are to go to the electorate in respect of which the man is enrolled. If only five votes were cast in Broome in respect of a candidate for a Hobart electorate who was leading by 500, the result could not be affected.

Senator MILLEN:

If a member becomes a peer by descent, a writ is usually moved soon after the death of his ancestor is known.

Again, on page 638, he says -

At the end of the session in 1894 two writs were issued on the same day for the borough of Leicester, a constituency returning two members, as the sitting members had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead. The Returning Officer held a single election to fill the vacancies. His action and the validity of the returns made by him were raised as a matter of privilege at the commencement of the next session, and a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. The Committee reported that the course pursued by the Returning Officer was erroneous in point ot procedure, and that the election was not duly held, but recommended that the House should take no action in the matter as the Returning Officer had acted in the exercise of an honest judgment for the convenience, and with the consent, of all parties directly concerned in the election and without any intention of influencing the result.

That case is almost exactly upon all-fours with cases which may arise under this clause. We have Returning Officers who are perfectly honest, but who may certify to results which are false. Then’, on page 639 of the same edition of May, we have recorded a case which relates to errors in returns. The passage in question reads -

If any error should appear in the return to a writ, such as a mistake in the name of the member returned, or in the date of the return, or in the division of the county for which the return is made, evidence is given of the nature of the error, either by a member of the House, or some other person who was present at the election, or is otherwise able to afford information ; and the Clerk of ,the Crown is ordered to attend and amend the return.

In our Australian Parliaments we have no official who is known as the Clerk of the Crown. It is true that at one time we had an officer who occupied a corresponding position, namely, the Clerk of Parliaments. But owing to certain changes which were made consequent upon the death of the late Mr. Blackmore, that office was abolished. The point which I am endeavouring to make is that when a writ has been returned, which is badly indorsed, there is no parliamentary procedure ‘ under which the fault can be remedied. Upon page 640, of the same edition of May, I find the following -

If no return be made of a writ in due course, the Clerk of the Crown is ordered to attend and explain the omission ; when, if it should appear that the Returning Officer, or any other person, has been concerned in the delay, he will be summoned to attend the House ; and such other proceedings will be adopted as the House may think fit.

We must deal with this matter of allowing a writ to be returned before an election is completed. In certain circumstances it may be easy enough to forecast the result of an election in closely-settled districts, but I know that, in the Gregory electorate, in Queensland, there is one polling booth which is distant 500 miles from the .nearest telegraph office. How can any one know what the- voting will be at a place like that? A person may guess at it, but that is not good enough where the election of a representative of the people i:’ concerned. In the absence of Senator Findley, I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and the Minister of Defence, what power there is to re-open a case after a writ, duly indorsed by our own officials, has been returned, should it subsequently transpire that the ballot-boxes from remote centres have altered the anticipated result? . We know very well that newspapers frequently assert, in connexion with elections, that a count of the votes contained in the remaining ballot-boxes cannot possibly alter the result. We know, too, that it often happens that the expected result is upset by the final returns. Yet it is here proposed to place in the hands of an official the power to indorse a writ, and to return it to the Chief Electoral Officer before the whole of the votes polled at an election have been counted. I have no desire to indulge in captious criticism. I believe that the officials who are advising the Government in this matter know very little about the conditions which obtain throughout Australia. If they did, they would recognise that it is absolutely unfair to the people to say, in effect, “ We guess that the result of a particular election will be so-and-so. “ In my opinion, we shall be acting unwisely if we embody in the Bill a provision which permits an election to be decided before the votes registered have actually been counted. I invite the Government to say what method they can resort to if for some reason or other the indorsement on a writ” should be found to be wrong. It is easy enough to say that the matter can be referred to the Disputed Returns Committee. Suppose that Jones in the central district does not get a majority against Brown, that the State Returning Officer indorses the writ with the name of Brown, and that a distant place sends in a further return which changes the result of the election. The writ has been returned, and Brown sworn in. Probably Jones will not find out for a considerable time that the position has been altered. When he makes that discovery he will have to put his case before the Disputed Returns Committee, and then go to the High Court. Is that a fair thing? If the official had been compelled to wait until he actually knew the result of the count Jones would have been declared elected, and it would not havecost him a farthing apart from his ordinary election expenses. I think that the Government should put a limit on the provision. I have some sympathy with the idea that we should allow a candidate to know the result of the election as soon as possible, but this clause gives to an official the right to declare the result when probably it may be very much in doubt. If the Government would only tell us that in such a case they would be prepared to ask Parliament to bear the expenses of Jones there would be a certain amount of reasonableness in the provision.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not propose, sir, to discuss the clause, but to suggest that you might leave the Chair for half an hour in order to allow honorable senators to get a smoke or a cup of coffee.

Senator McGregor:

– At half-past 4 o’clock.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not addressing the Government, but the Chair. I would point out to you, sir, that it is in your province to leave the Chair for a fair and reasonable time.

Senator Pearce:

– At midway between supper-time and breakfast time.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am addressing the Temporary Chairman, who has the whole matter in his hands. I am not addressing the Government, one-half of whose supporters are now outside the chamber with the Minister in charge of the Bill. I may have to ask you, sir, what standing order prevents me from smoking in the chamber ?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · ALP

– I would suggest to you, sir, that half-past 4 o’clock will be a convenient time at which to suspend the sitting. Arrangements are being made for refreshments to be ready at that hour.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

.- There is no precedent for suspending asitting between supper time and breakfast time. Ever since I have been a member of the Senate a sitting which has been suspended at midnight for refreshments has been continued, if need be, till breakfast time at 8 o’clock. I think it will be reasonable to have a break in the sitting at half-past 4 o’clock.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I am somewhat surprised, sir, at Senator Millen making this proposition to you. During the last ten. years he has been present at various late sittings. He has been in charge of the business during a portion of the period, and I am sure that he would not have entertained such a proposition. If he wants to smoke, let him leave the Chamber.

Senator Millen:

– I am not going to leave the Chamber, I shall smoke here when I want to do so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Henderson:

– It is only a matter of continuing the sitting for forty minutes. In my experience we have never had a suspension of a sitting after supper until breakfast time. I think that the arrangement which has been made on this occasion is a very good one, and we will proceed with the consideration of clause 30. Clause agreed to.

Clause 31. (Amendment of. section 166.)

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– This clause applies to the House of Representatives the same rule as is applied in the previous clause to the Senate. I believe that the Government will probably find it necessary, after they have had some experience of this measure, to make an alteration which will not allow a writ to be indorsed by a Returning Officer, and returned before the result of the poll is actually ascertained. I ask the Minister to state what steps will be taken in the event of a writ being returned, and it being subsequently found that a count of votes has altered the votes, and a candidate has been put to a large amount of expense in asserting his right to be a member of the other House.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Such a position cannot arise, because neither the Commonwealth Officer nor the Divisional Returning Officer can act without the concurrence of the Chief Electoral Officer who will be armed with all information. He will know the number of absent votes which have been recorded, where they have been recorded, and for which divisions they are claimed. He will add up the absent votes not yet returned and put them against the candidate who apparently has the right to be returned. If that does not make any difference he will be perfectly safe in declaring that ‘candidate elected, because, if the votes should happen to go to his opponent, the result could not be altered.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– It would have made matters very much simpler and easier if the Minister had made this statement when I spoke about twenty minutes ago. I paused in my remarks, and put a question quite plainly. If the Minister had then given the assurance which he has just given he would probably have been ten minutes further ahead with the Bill than he is.

Clause verbally amended and 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 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 -

on behalf of, or in the interests of,’ any candidate, or

on behalf of, or 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’. “ (2.) Every organization, association, league or body of persons which has, and every person who has, in connexion with any election, expended any money or incurred any expense in printing publishing or issuing electoral advertisements or notices, or procuring the in- ‘ section in any newspaper of any advertisement article or report or matter intended or calculated to affect the result of the election, shall in accordance with this section . make a return of the money so expended or expense so incurred. ; (8.) The Chief Electoral Officer may by notice! in writing in the prescribed form require the President or Chairman and the Secretary of any organization … to make a return. . . . ‘ 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, leagues, bodies of persons or persons authorizing the insertion thereof.

Penalty (on proprietor) : Five hundred pounds

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am disposed to move the insertion of the words “ Friendly society or Masonic order.” Now that the Committee is going out of its way to specifically include trade unions, and compel any, great or small, that may have spent any money upon an election to furnish a return of their expenditure, I can see no reason why we should not specifically include also every other organization that may be likely to spend money upon elections. We know that big financial institutions and chambers of commerce spend thousands of pounds upon elections, and yet it is not proposed to include them. If we do not specifically name all other organizations we should not specially mention trade unions. I shall not press any amendment now, but I hope the Minister will see that every other organization shall be compelled to furnish a return of money spent upon elections as well as industrial organizations such as trade unions.

Senator Findley:

– Senator Millen’s amendment provides only for the inclusion of organizations that were already included under the clause as it stood.

Senator GARDINER:

– I will accept the Minister’s explanation that the amendment does not make any difference, but that may not be generally understood. I have heard honorable senators speaking of the army of organizers sent through the country by the Australian Workers Union. I have no doubt that those who made that reference believed they were telling the truth, but any one who has any connexion with the Australian Workers Union will know that in proportion to their business they do not send as many men through the country organizing as an ordinary warehouse in Melbourne or in Sydney will send out to push the sale of its goods. I am afraid that as trade unions are being specifically included in the provision charges of political expenditure will be made against them, and they will be given infinite trouble.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Millen’s. amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 3

Majority … … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator Gardiner:

– Will not the honorable senator admit that it is true?

Senator MILLEN:

– As far as I am personally concerned - and the remainder of the Opposition can speak for themselves - it is not merely untrue to say that “perjured villainy” is responsible for my presence here to-day, but it is as untrue as Senator Rae knows it to be. It is easy enough for him to come here and indulge in the Domain style of oratary, but if he had the slightest proof that any organization had paid my way to get me here for the purpose of doing its “ dirty lying work “ he would have published the facts long ago, and have allowed the people of this country to judge of them.

The honorable senator not only did himself an injustice, but did a great injustice to members of the Opposition when he absolutely distorted the words which its members had used in regard to the Australian Workers Union. I made the first reference to that organization during the debate upon this Bill, and I challenge any honorable senator to point to any utterance of mine which is recorded in Hansard in condemnation of what that body is doing. I only wish that I had an organization upon my side of politics which was half as keen to carry out its work as is that union. What I said was that, under this Bill, an effort was being made by the Ministry to shield its friends from the obligations which it seeks to impose upon other organizations. I do not blame the Australian Workers Union for that.

Senator Rae:

– The honorable senator’s party has, over and over again, stated that that union dominates the Government. The Age and the Argus have both said so.

Senator MILLEN:

– The point that I wish to make abundantly clear is that, nothing which I have said was in any way a reflection upon that body. I altogether resent the imputation that anything uttered from these benches was in the slightest degree a reflection on what the Australian Workers Union, or any other union, is doing in furtherance of its political aims and its objects of association. What I did w.as to condemn the attempt which is made in this Bill to relieve these unions from an obligation which will be imposed upon other organizations.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator may say that.

Senator MILLEN:

– And my statement may be right or wrong. But it is altogether wrong to say that when we criticise this Bill we criticise the union. Coming more particularly to the clause under consideration, I did urge the Minister, some little time ago, instead of inserting the words which the Committee decided to insert, to strike out all words such as “ association,” or “ league,” and to make the clause read “ Every organization, &c.” Senator Rae, who has since declared that that is what he desired, was asleep at the time, and only woke up when it was too late to accomplish his object. We have had the assurance of the Government that there is no desire on their part to differentiate between one party and another in regard to the treatment which’ is meted out under this Bill. That being so, I wish to make it perfectly clear that no organizationLabour or otherwise - ought to be permitted to avoid the obligations thrown upon it simply by publishing its own return of expenses incurred during an election campaign. May I point out that the clause does not cover the case of a league which publishes its own newspaper, and we know that newspapers of that kind are published. The Vanguard is a case in point. From time to time, too, the Liberal party has published similar journals when a general election was pending. Such organizations ought not to be allowed to escape the provisions of this clause, merely because, instead of subsidizing an existing newspaper, they, foi the time being, run their own journals.

Senator Findley:

– The probability is that the publication of these squibs - they are not newspapers - will be stopped.

Senator MILLEN:

– Whether their publication is prevented or not, their case ought to be covered by the clause. 1 say that this proposal does not apply to organizations which may publish a newspaper for the express purpose of influencing an election. I therefore move -

That in sub-clause 2 of proposed new section 172A after the word “ expense,” where first occurring, the words “ in printing or publishing any newspaper or “ be inserted.

The insertion of these words would cover the class of operations to which I have referred. They would apply to an organization which, instead of spending what it desires’ to spend upon an existing journal, decides to run its own newspaper for the purposes of an election. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment for the reason which I have already given, and thus to put beyond the shadow of doubt the fact that this provision is intended to cover all matter published for the purpose of influencing an election.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I should like to say a few words regarding this amendment, because, at an earlier hour of the sitting, when Senator Findley was absent from the chamber, Senator Millen spent some time in elaborating the point which he has raised, and I took a few notes of his statements. But before doing so I propose to offer a few observations upon the opinion expressed by the honorable senator in regard to the Australian Workers Union, for which he now professes such a high admiration. I have taken the trouble to look up his statements as they are recorded in Hansard, and I find that they do not quite square with his recent professions. While he was speaking Senator Rae interjected -

It is a very cheap union, to which Senator Millen replied -

It may be cheap to those who belong to it, but I think it is certainly a very profitable union to some other people.

That remark, I suppose, had reference to officers of the union. At another stage, while Senator Millen was referring to the contributions of the northern branches of the union to their paid press, Senator Rae interjected -

They contribute less. and the answer of the Leader of the Opposition was -

I do not know how much less, but, at any rate, we will say that 5s. per head is taken from the annual contribution of these members. We may, therefore, calculate that £12,000 a year is being paid to purchase, to subsidize, to bribe, or to hire, a press - whatever term honorable senators opposite like to choose.

Senator Findley:

– What is the use of talking in that way?

Senator MILLEN:

– Because it is the only way of talking that my honorable friend would be able to understand.

This is the way in which the honorable senator speaks of the organization for which he professes such a high admiration. After quoting one of its rules, he proceeded -

When the honorable senator talks of sordid considerations, let us see the position of my honorable friends, opposite, as set out in rule 87 in this interesting book. “ All members’ tickets, receipt books, official reports, and rules shall be printed at offices owned and controlled, or partly owned and controlled, by the union.”

What about sordid considerations now?

Further on he says -

If they can live without the support of a political organization, it is strange that recently they had to pass a resolution threatening legal proceedings against those who would not pay up - proceedings which would open the possibility of men going to gaol without a trial by a jury.

It seems that the honorable senator has a peculiar method of expressing his admiration. In regard to the amendment which he has submitted, I propose to show that it is entirely unnecessary. He has stated that the clause will relieve Labour journals of liability in respect of advertisements and articles which they may publish, but that it will not touch the case of special news papers which are run by the Labour party for the purpose of an election.

Senator Millen:

– Run by any party.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator was not so scrupulous earlier in his remarks. He said that the advertisements and articles published in these journals are not paid for as such. Now, sub-clause 2 of proposed new section 172A reads -

Every organization, association, league, or body of persons which has, and every person who has, in connexion with any election, expended any money or incurred any expense in printing, publishing, or issuing electoral advertisements or notices, or procuring the insertion in any newspaper of any advertisement, article, or report, or matter intended or calculated to affect the result of the election, shall, in accordance with this section, make a return of the money so expended or expense so incurred.

– There appears to be some misunderstanding about this clause. The demand is to be made upon every individual who incurs expense in connexion with an election - there is no limit - to declare the amount of it, a point to which, I think, I drew attention on the second reading. If a citizen, taking just the degree of interest in politics that a member of the Labour party would approve, entertains a candidate, he will have to make a return showing the cost of the entertainment.

Should that not be intended, the Government should make the meaning of the provision clear. Were I candidate for the Tasmanian representation in the Senate, and Senator Long put me up for the night, he would have to make a declaration of the cost of my entertainment, whether he were paid or not.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Millen’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 15

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Findley) proposed -

That proposed new section 172A, sub-section 8, be amended by inserting after the word “Secretary,” the words “ or other officer.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Here again is evidence of imperfect drafting. The effect of the amendment is to give the Chief Electoral Officer power to ask for a return from the president, chairman, secretary, or other officer - from all four or from one only.

Senator Findley:

– We merely wish to make certain that a return will be furnished.

Senator MILLEN:

– Of course, the Chief Electoral Officer is not required to ask for more than one return, and he is not likely to do so, though he will have the power.

Senator Vardon:

– It seems to be thought that some one may escape if the provision is not made as all-embracing as possible.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I ask the Minister what is meant by the word “officer”? I can find no definition of it that will apply as it is proposed to use the word here.

Senator Long:

– The word is defined in this measure.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– According to that definition the word applies to the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Officer for a State, a returning officer, an assistant returning officer, an electoral registrar, a presiding officer, an assistant presiding officer, a doorkeeper, and a poll clerk.

Senator Millen:

– Then the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to demand a return from the doorkeeper of an electoral league.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The Government, or the Department, appears not to know what it wants, and not to understand the effect of its proposals. The Warrego Shearing Association, which I visited the other day, did not have a doorkeeper, and none of the other persons coming under the definition could furnish the statement required. While I support the amendment, I nevertheless think that the Government should seriously consider the question of introducing into the definition clause words to explain the meaning of the word “ officer.” Otherwise, the word may be taken to mean anything or nothing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause further amended verbally and consequentially, and as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 8.30 to 9.45 a.m., (Thursday).

Clause 33 -

Section 174 is amended by omitting paragraph (IV.) therefrom.

Amendment (by Senator Findley) agreed to -

That after the words “ paragraph IV.” the words “ of the principal Act “ be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 33A. Section 176 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the words and the supply of meat or drink at any political meeting held after the issue of the writ and before the close of the poll.”

Senator Millen:

– I rise to order. It is a matter of considerable regret that the Government, with a large majority behind it, should have a. follower who does not desire to push business through. I suggest that Senator Ready’s amendment is outside the order of leave.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must uphold Senator Millen’s point of order. I do not consider that the amendment is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, which contains no proposal to amend section 176 of the principal Act. The amendment is not in order.

Clause 34 (Illegal conveyance of electors to or from the poll).

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– The Government desire to delete this clause, and, therefore, we hope that it will be negatived. Section 180 of the principal Act will remain in operation.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is a matter of keen regret that the Government have not informed the House and the country why they intend to negative this clause, which imposes penalties upon any person who, in behalf of, or in the interests of a candidate, hires or employs any vehicle for the purpose of conveying electors to or from the poll. Before we have had time to consider the clause, we are asked to drop it. I complain, first of all, that the Government have brought down a proposal about which they have told us nothing, and. that they now seek to retreat from it like a parcel of whipped boys, without affording any explanation of their retreat.

Senator Findley:

– We are meeting the wishes of the Opposition.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then I suspect the Government at once. After the persistent and obstinate attitude of the Government all night, when they profess to meet the wishes of the Opposition, they stand, not only suspected, but absolutely condemned. The Minister in charge of the Bill has not even waited to learn the views of the Opposition on this clause. He gave us no opportunity of expressing them before appealing to the Committee to strikeout this very vital proposal which, with all solemnity, the Government had put into the Bill. We were entitled to rather better treatment, seeing that we had just rescued Ministers from the trying ordeal of a conflict with one of their own loyal supporters, Senator Ready. Surely we are entitled to be furnished with some reason for this remarkable change of front. The Government carefully inserted in the Bill a proposal to render illegal the hiring and employment of any vehicle for the purpose of conveying electors to the poll. They have suddenly abandoned that position.

Why? If the Minister is prepared to tell us 1 shall resume my seat at once. Otherwise I am put in the painful position of having to roam over a large area of speculation to find out why a Government that came along with such a valiant front had certainly played the part of political cowards, and run away from their own proposition. It appears fo me, in the first place, that the Government were moved by a large spasm of virtue which caused them to determine that there should be “ no more cakes and ale “ at election time in this country. Therefore, they proposed to render it impossible for any organization - which, of course, meant the organizations of their political enemies - to hire vehicles” on election day. But, perhaps, it has been conveyed to Ministers that a large number of votes are vested in the cab interest, and that the drivers and proprietors of these vehicles would lose a considerable amount of money if the clause were adopted. Consequently the Government have suddenly retreated from their position. If I am doing them an injustice, Ministers should let us know. But they have not furnished us with a single reason for this change. We are entitled to look for some more or less sinister motive, judging them by their past actions.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Senator Millen has made the statement concerning the cab interest on more than one occasion during the discussion on this Bill. He has insinuated that the Government were moved to abandon their desire to have this provision inserted in the Bill because there were numbers of cabmen and cab proprietors whose votes we should lose on account of the proposition.

Senator Sayers:

– There is no doubt about that.

Senator Millen:

– The suggestion was very nearly on the wicket, was it not?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Nothing of the kind. No such view has ever been entertained by the Government. It was intended to tighten up the provisions of the Electoral Act by preventing the wholesale engagement of any kind of vehicle - motor cars, hansom cabs, waggonettes, &c. - by candidates or their friends who might be disposed to spend money in such direction. But, after further consideration, the Government felt that, no matter how closely they might desire to safeguard the provisions with regard to -the employment of vehicles, it would be well-nigh a matter of impossibility to prevent their utilization in connexion with elections. Therefore,’ we desire the provisions of the principal Act in this respect to remain in operation.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– If the Government have been judged unfairly in this matter they have only themselves to blame. Why did they not tell the Committee why they proposed this clause in the first instance, and why they now wish to drop it? But no explanation was furnished until now, when the Minister, stung by the fact that I had pretty well discovered the secret of the change, has furnished an excuse which his most whole-hearted admirer must consider p remarkably thin. Nevertheless, the Minister’s explanation is welcome, because we like to know what the Government, have to say for themselves. I venture to express the opinion that Senator Findley himself will not expect me or any omer honorable senator to accept his statement as entirely reassuring!. He has told us that the Government desired to tighten up the provisions of the principal Act. Do they not desire to tighten up those provisions any longer? Was the clause inserted in a hurry and with out thought? The Government have had something like twelve months in which to consider their measure. After this long period of deliberation they came to the conclusion, to use the Minister’s euphemistic term, that it was desirable to “ tighten up “ the provisions. But no sooner did they bring down their Bill than they abandoned one pf the provisions which they had been twelve months considering. In five minutes they came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to carry out the clause. I suggest that my explanation is, after all, a very much more convincing one - that it has been conveyed to the Government either by their friends in the ranks of the unions or otherwise-

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator is usually fair. Hie should not make unfair statements.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am putting the matter very fairly. I consider that my explanation is far more plausible than that given by the Minister. Here is a Govern- , ment which has had the Bill under consideration for a whole year. It did not insert any clause in a hurry. I have no doubt that the Bill was drafted in the Department long ago.

Senator Findley:

– It was not drafted by the Department.

Senator MILLEN:

– I think that the Minister, for his own credit, had better say that it was, and so escape, at any rate, some of the odium which would otherwise attach to him. The whole Bill must have been before the Cabinet for consideration three or four times. It was introduced into the Senate containing this clause. Now we are asked to believe that, as a result of further consideration, and without any pressure or influence from outside, the Government have decided to abandon the provision. Honorable senators can accept that explanation or mine, as they please.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– We have been told that the Government find that it would be practically impossible to apply this clause effectively. In the early hours of the morning, when we were considering clause 32, the application of which involves enormous difficulties, Ministers had no hesitation in forcing it through. But they drop clause 34 without a moment’s consideration, and after a forced explanation, which no one can accept as genuine. What kind of stuff is that to give us ?

Clause negatived.

Clause 35-

After section one hundred and eighty-one of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 181A. (1.) - The proprietor of every news- paper shall cause the word’ advertisement’ to be printed as a headline in letters not smaller than long primer to each article or paragraph in his newspaper containing electoral matter, the insertion of which is or is to be paid for or for which any reward or compensation or promise of reward or compensation is or is to be made.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds. “ (2.) The words ‘ electoral matter ‘ include all matter intended or calculated to affect the result of the election, and any report of the speech of a candidate if the report is or is to be paid for. “181b. - (1.) A person shall not exhibit or leave in any polling-booth any card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction as to how an elector should vote or as to the method of voting.

Penalty : Twenty pounds. “(a.) This section shall not apply to any official instructions exhibited by proper authority at any polling-booth. “ 181C. - (1.) A candidate, or a person acting on behalf of, or in the interests of a candidate, shall not employ, for reward, any person as canvasser or committeeman or in any capacity in connexion with an election, unless the expense incurred could be lawfully incurred by the candidate under Part XIV. of this Act.

Penalty : One hundred pounds. “(2.) ‘Reward’ in this section includes any payment or promise of payment direct or indirect to the person employed or to the wife or husband or any relative of that person. “ 181D. - (1.) A person shall not make any untrue statement in any electoral paper, or in answer to any question under this Act, or in any information supplied to any officer or canvasser for the purposes of the preparation of new rolls.

Penalty : One hundred pounds. “ (2.) Sub-section (1.) of this section shall not affect the liability of any person to be proceeded against in respect of any other offence, but he shall not be liable to be punished twice in respect of the same offence. “(3.) In this section the words ‘electoral paper ‘ include any prescribed form. “ 181E. Except where expressly authorized by this Act, a person (other than the elector to whom the ballot-paper has been lawfully issued) shall not make any mark or writing on the ballotpaper of any elector.

Penalty : Fifty pounds.”

Senator Findley:

– That is the maximum; the fine might be only £1. In any case, there is a section in the principal Act which provides the punishment of imprisonmentfor making a “ wilfully “ untrue statement.

Senator VARDON:

– That is another question ; and I desire to afford the same protection under each provision.

Amendment (by Senator Findley) proposed -

That after the word “ than,” line 7, the words “ten-point or” be inserted.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I am with the Honorary Minister, but I do not think the proposed amendment really covers the ground. I suggest that, instead of the words proposed, the following be inserted, “or type of similar face calculated on the point system “ after the words “ long primer.” Apparently Senator Findley does not take any interest in the Bill.

Senator Findley:

– I accepted Senator Vardon’s suggestion, and now another member of the Opposition wants something else.

Senator CHATAWAY:

- Senator Vardon’s suggestion was to fix a limit of type of a certain body, but that does not mean type of a certain face. I would urge the Minister to insert after the words “ long primer “ the words “or type of similar face calculated on the point system.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– When the Government decide to accept advice from the Opposition they should accept it in its entirety or leave it alone. By accepting Senator Vardon’s advice partially they will make the Bill as ridiculous as it deserves to be. Either one term or the other would have been right, but to put the two in together is absurd. If the two denominations agreed in size there would be no objection to putting them both in as alternative terms, but what the Minister intends to do is just the same thing as telling some one to purchase a certain thing which was “not to be smaller than 9 inches or 10 inches.” It is obvious that the smaller dimension would suit all purposes. The 10 point is a shade smaller than long primer, and, if it is intended to put that in, it should stand alone as marking the minimum to which the Government agree.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– The Honorary Minister said police were going round leaving cards for people to fill in. Is that in Victoria or in all the States ?

Senator Findley:

– It is being done, andwill be done

Senator SAYERS:

– The honorable senator spoke about Victoria. Apparently he cannot get away from that State. Cannot he give a plain “Yes” or “No” to my question? He will not get his Bill through any the quicker by attempting to browbeat me. New section j8.ib is one of the most ridiculous things which could be put into an Act. An elector, after receiving his’ voting paper, goes into a polling booth, which is strictly private. No one can overlook what he is doing. He may leave in the booth a card or dodger, for which the next man entering the booth may be blamed. This is a provision which cannot be enforced unless the secrecy of the ballot is violated. New section 181c provides - “ (1.) A candidate, or a person acting on behalf of, or in the interests of a candidate, shall not employ, for reward, any person as canvasser or committeeman or in any capacity in connexion with an election, unless the expense incurred could be lawfully incurred by the candidate under Part XIV. of this Act…… “(2.)Reward’ in this section includes any payment or promise of payment direct or indirect to the person employed or to the wife or husband or any relative of that person.”

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That will be very rough on your party.

Senator SAYERS:

– That interjection bears out our contention last night, that the purpose of the Bill was to penalize the Liberal party as much as possible. It is provided in new section181d - “ (1.) A person shall not make any untrue statement in any electoral paper, or in answer to any question under this Act, or in any information supplied to any officer or canvasser for the purposes of the preparation of new rolls………

The only matter regarding which untrue statements are likely to be made is that of age. If a woman put down her age at thirty when she was really thirty-five would that be an offence under the Act?

Senator Pearce:

– Is it an untrue statement ?

Senator SAYERS:

– I should say so.

Senator Pearce:

– Then the honorable senator has answered his own question.

Senator SAYERS:

– But it would be merely a misstatement of fact with no intention to deceive, and not in any way invalidating the paper, the person having in any case readied the voting age. An offence of that sort should certainly not be punish- able with a penalty of £100. A person of eighteen or nineteen stating that he was twenty-one in order to get on the roll would be making an untrue statement for a fraudulent purposes, and should be punished. A number of penalties are provided in this clause. If a person cannot pay a fine of £10 or . £20, is he to be liable to imprisonment? It is provided in new section 1 81e- “ 181E. Except where expressly authorized by this Act, a person (other than the elector to whom the ballot-paper has been lawfully issued) shall not make any mark or writing on the ballot-paper of any elector.

I thoroughly agree with that. We were fighting last night to prevent the Returning Officer making any mark on the ballotpaper other than his initials. The Minister refused to accept our amendment on that point; but I am glad to see that, in this part of the Bill, he makes it a punishable offence for any person other than the elector or Returning Officer to mark a ballotpaper.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– If the proprietor of a newspaper does not cause the word “ advertisement “ to be printed in the form of type which we have yet to determine upon over electoral advertisements, the penalty is to be£500. ls the Minister really in earnest in that proposal ? If he is, I can only say that the spirit of Draco is abroad in this Chamber.

– It would be just as easy to get evidence to prove the intent in one case as in the other. Senator Long has suggested that I should move the insertion of the word “ wilfully “ after the word “ not,” instead of after the word “ any,” and I propose to adopt his suggestion. I move -

That after the word “ not,” line 40, the word “ wilfully “ be inserted.

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– We are asked now to add to our electoral law a provision that is entirely new. I hope that the Committee, however, will insist upon the insertion of the word “ wilfully “ as proposed by Senator Vardon.

Question - That the word proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 16

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Senator Millen called attention to the penalty of £100 proposed by the clause, and I said I was prepared to reduce the maximum penalty to£20. I therefore move -

That the words “ One hundred “ in subsection 1 of proposed new section 181D be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Twenty.”

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– Senator Millen desired to know from the Minister what the proposed card system really is. I have been making inquiries on the subject, and can obtain no satisfactory explanation. If the Minister is unable to explain it, I suggest that he should get the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a. statement in writing showing just what it is proposed to do.

Senator Findley:

– I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the honorable senator is in order in discussing the card system on this clause?

Senator Millen:

– Let me remind yon, sir, that the clause deals with canvassers for the purpose of collecting information for the preparation of the new rolls. We have been told that these rolls are to be prepared for the mysterious card system which has not been explained, and since a penalty of£100 is provided for the offence of giving false information under the clause, we have a perfect right to know what the proposed card system really is.

The CHAIRMAN:

– To my mind the card system is inseparably associated with the question of the preparation of the new rolls, and I therefore rule that Senator Vardon is in order.

Senator VARDON:

– I hope we shall be given some information about the system. I was at first under the impression that it was going to be a comprehensive and complete system, but I fear now that it is not going to be anything of the sort. We should have a statement from the Chief Electoral Officer as to how the system is to be worked, in order that we may be assured that it will lead to a more complete and better-kept roll than we have had in the past.

Senator St LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– It is easy to imagine that inlarge centres of population the card system can be worked with the aid of police and post-office officials, but we should be informed as to how the Government propose to work the system in connexion with the enrolment of the nomadic population of the west and north-west of Queensland, of western New South Wales, and, possibly, also of Western Australia. There must be an essential difference between the method adopted for carrying out the system in towns, and the practice to be followed in its application to a remote and sparsely-settled district. I have made a courteous request for specific information on the subject, and yet the Minister remains silent, and has not the courtesy to give me a reply.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I have no desire to be discourteous to Senator St. Ledger or any member of the Opposition, but it is useless for members of the Government to be continually making statements about the card system in reply to the questions put by honorable senators opposite, if they do not listen to what is said or are. not present when the explanation is given. I say now that every possible precaution will be taken to see that every adult citizen entitled to be enrolled shall be supplied with the necessary card to fill in, and send to the proper authority in order to secure enrolment. This will be done by means of the police and post-office officials, and if the facilities afforded in this way are not sufficient, other provision will be made to give effect to the system.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I notice that in sub-section 3 of the proposed new section i8id it is provided that the words “electoral paper” include any prescribed form. I should like to know whether the Minister has any information to supply to the Committee with regard to what is an “ electoral paper.”

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I should say that the card would be an “electoral paper,” and so would any form necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 -

After section one hundred and eighty-two e of the principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 182F. Any officer who contrary to his dutyfails to initial any ballot-paper, correctly mark any certified list of voters, or properly attest any declaration shall be guilty of an offence.”

Penalty : Ten pounds.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not propose to move any amendment upon this clause, but I suggest to the Minister that the Government have overlooked the necessity of altering section 182c. It is not being revised by this Bill, but I think it should have been. It provides that -

When any person has signed a claim to be enrolled as an elector, any other person who induces the claimant to let him have custody of the claim for transmission to the electoral registrar, and fails without just cause or excuse to transmit the claim to the electoral registrar, shall be guilty of a contravention of this Act.

In view of what I understand is proposed under the card system, I suggest that this section shall apply, not merely to a claim for enrolment, but also to a claim for transfer.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I do not think that is necessary, because the transfer also means enrolment, and section 182c will in no way weaken the Bill or the system about to be introduced.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39 -

After section one hundred and ninety-six of the principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 196A.- The Chief Electoral Officer shall be entitled to enter an appearance in any proceedings in which the validity of any election or return is disputed, and to be represented and -heard thereon, as if he were a party respondent to the petition.”

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– The proposed new section 1 96 a provides for a new departure, and we have not yet heard any reason for it. I wish to know why the Chief Electoral Officer is to be entitled to enter an appearance in any proceedings. If he does so, and a verdict is given against the person making the appeal, that person may be mulcted in the costs of the Chief Electoral Officer. I do not think that is fair, and I hope the Committee will refuse to pass the clause.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I hope the Committee will do nothing of the kind. Honorable senators must know from experience that it would be in the best interests of the Department, of the candidates, and of justice itself, that officers of the Department who are charged with a neglect of duty in any proceedings under the Act should be represented, and an opportunity afforded them to reply to the charges made.

– May I suggest that the purpose of the Honorary Minister would be achieved by the insertion of a provision empowering the Court in all cases to award costs against the Department?

Senator FINDLEY:

– This clause was embodied in the Bill with a view to strengthening what we regarded as a weakness in the principal Act. But I am not going to adhere rigidly to it. Therefore, I move -

That after the word “entitled” in proposed new paragraph I()6A, the words “by leave oE the Court of Disputed Returns “ be inserted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to accept the suggestion of Senator Symon, which will remove one of the objections urged against the clause by members of the Opposition. There is one reason why it is desirable that the change should be made. The Chief Electoral Officer is an administrative officer, who should not be in any sense of the word a partisan, and who should be careful at all times to avoid siding with one of the contesting parties. If he were marked out as an individual who had a right to enter an appearance in every petition relating to a disputed election, he would always be in opposition to the defeated candidate, and there is a possibility that he would come to be regarded as a partisan rather than as an administrative officer - a position that would be absolutely intolerable. I feel sure that before many years have passed he will have cause to be thankful that he has been prevented from being placed in a position of that kind.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Findley) proposed -

That after the word “ thereon,” the words “as if he were “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ and in such case shall be deemed to be.”

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I think that the amendment will probably affect the question of costs. It may be that the costs of an appeal to the Court may be distributed between the respondent and the Chief Electoral Officer, and, in such circumstances, the petitioner may be exposed to the liability to pay a double set of costs. Is that altogether wise?

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Senator St. Ledger’s remarks have raised a technical point, and on the spur of the moment I am not able to say definitely whether there might not be a double set of costs incurred by the petitioner. But if the Department be made a respondent in the case, it will have to bear its share of the expense, just as will any other party who appears before the Court.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [12.33 p.m.]. - I would point out that under the first part of the clause, which empowers a Chief Electoral Officer to enter an appearance, he must become a party to the proceedings. Then, by virtue of a provision in the principal Act, all discretion as to the awarding of costs is vested in the Court. The amendment is necessary if effect is to be given to the first portion of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 -

Section two hundred and six of the principal Act is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead : -

Amendment (by Senator Findley) agreed to-

That after the word “ six “ the letter “ (d) “ be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 -

After section two hundred and seven A of the principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 207B. - (1.) A person (whether an authorized witness or npt) shall not -

sign his name as witness on any blank electoral paper ; or
sign his name as witness on any electoralpaper which has been wholly or partly filled up unless it has been signed by the person intended to sign it; or
sign his name as witness on any electoral paper unless he has seen the person, whose signature he purports to witness, sign it.

– I find that the words to which the honorable senator has called my attention are not necessary. Therefore I move -

That the words “ (whether an authorized witness or not) “ be struck out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 -

After section two hundred and eight of the principal Act the following section is inserted :- “ 208A. Prosecutions for offences against this

Senate adjourned at 12.57p.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 November 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19111122_SENATE_4_62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 November 1911

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

PAPERS

QUESTION

LAND TAX

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Walker:

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Senator McCOLL:VICTORIA

Senator McColl:

Senator Givens:

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator Sayers:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Sayers:

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Givens:

QUESTION

INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

RAILWAY SURVEY

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator McGREGOR:

ELECTORAL BILL

Senator VARDON:South Australia

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Rae:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Vardon:

Senator O’Keefe:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Findley:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Vardon:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Vardon:

Senator Ready:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Vardon:

Senator Rae:

Senator Sayers:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Sayers:

Senator Sayers:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Sayers:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Millen:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Findley:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Findley:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Findley:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Findley:

Senate
22 November 1911

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator RAE:
New South Wales