Senate
3 August 1922

8th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon.T. Gi vens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1042

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Willis Island Meteorological Station - Report by Captain J.K. Davis.

Ordered to be printed.

Public Service Act - Promotion of W. C. Street, Postmaster-General’s Department.

Territory for the Seat of Government - OrdinanceNo. 5 of 1922 - Interpretation.

page 1042

DEATH OF HON. F. G. TUDOR

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

-I have to inform the Senate that I have received the following reply from Mrs. Tudor to the resolution of condolence passed by the Senate : - 263 Stawell-street, Burnley, 28th July, 1922.

Dear Mr. President,

I desire to thank you for the bound and other copies of resolutions passed appreciative of my late husband’s public services, also speeches made in the Senate. They will be treasured by me, as they, in no small degree, comfort me in my great loss.

Yours verysincerely, fannyj.tudor.

page 1042

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE

Generals Engaged at Head-Quarters, Melbourne.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many generals were engaged atheadquarters, Melbourne, before the recent retrenchment scheme was given effect to?
  2. How many officers holding the rank of general are at present engaged at headquarters, Melbourne?
  3. What are the respective salaries of the generals at present engaged at head-quarters, Melbourne?
  4. How many are in receipt of pensions owing to incapacity brought about by the recent war?
  5. How many are receiving a salary as high as or higher than that which they received prior to the war?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers : -

  1. There were four substantive generals - including the Director-General, Medical Services - and one temporary general, who were paid as generals.In addition, there were five honorary generals who, by reason of the ranks gained by them on active service with the Australian Imperial Force, were allowed to retain their ranks, but who were paid at the rate for their substantive rank (colonel).
  2. Four substantive generals (including the Director-General of Medical Services) paid as generals, and four honorary generals paid as colonels - the latter number will shortly be further reduced by one.
  3. Three at £1,500, and one at £1,050. The honorary generals receive £890.
  4. None.
  5. All.

page 1042

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Agreement with South Australian Government - Homes Built in South Australia.

Senator ROWELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Minister has refused to pay the final £62,500 to be provided for War Service Homes, on the plea that the agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments has not been signed?
  2. Is the agreement in conformity with the agreement made between the Commonwealth Minister then dealing with the question and the State Minister?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answer is : - 1 and 2. The memorandum signed by the then Assistant Minister and the State Minister lor Repatriation provided for a loan of only £800,000 during last financial year. When the formal agreement, in accordance with this memorandum, was prepared and submitted to the South Australian Government for approval, they contended that an error had been made in the memorandum, and that the contemplated . loan should be for £1,000,000. The Commonwealth agreed to increase the loan as requested, and continued tu advance moneys to the South Australian Government in good faith; but when the agreement was engrossed and submitted for signature, the South Australian Government held it. up for weeks, and subsequently submitted an entirely new agreement. In view of this action, it is not thought unreasonable to require the completion of the agreement before further advances are made. The new agreement submitted by the South Australian Government has been referred to the Commonwealth. Crown Law authorities.

Senator ROWELL:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. How many houses were built in South Australia under the War Service Homes Act prior to the agreement between the State and Commonwealth Governments ?
  2. What was the average cost?
  3. What was the total expenditure incurred?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answers are -

  1. The Commonwealth Bank, under the arrangement with War Service Homes Commission, constructed 110 houses in South Australia prior to the arrangement with the State Government for building by the State Savings Bank.
  2. The average cost of these 110 houses was -

Without land, £721 as.

With land, £774 6s. 9d.

Attention is directed topage 4 of the sixth progress report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, where reference is made to this matter.

  1. The total expenditure incurred under the War Service Homes Act in South Australia,in connexion with building, purchasing existing houses, and lifting mortgages, exclusive of the expenditure by the State Bank of advances by the Commonwealth Government, was £223,483.

page 1043

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Revenue and Expenditure

Senator DUNCAN:
for Senator Thomas

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. What is the total expenditure out of revenue and loan respectively with regard to the Federal Capital Territory for the years 1919-1920, 1920-1921, and 1921-1922?
  2. What were the total receipts in respect of the Federal Capital Territory for the same years respectively?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

  1. The total expenditure out of revenue and loan with regard to the Federal Capital Territory for the years 1919-1920, 1920-1921, and 1921-1922 is as follows:-

page 1043

CASE OF CAPTAIN J. STRASBURG

Appointment of Select Committee

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That a Select Committee be appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, to inquire into the claims of Captain J. Strasburg for a war gratuity; the Committee to consist of Senators Glasgow, Drake-Brockman, Foster, Cox, Henderson, Wilson, and the mover.

The Government have very kindly gone out of their way to give me an opportunity of moving this motion. It is not my intention to discuss it. As I understand that it will not be opposed, I content myself with submitting it.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I wish to add but one word to what has been said on this motion. There is no intention on the part of the Government to oppose it, but I declared it informal in order that the mover and the Senate might understand that, in agreeing to the appointment of the Select Committee, the action of the Government must not be interpreted as in the slightest degree admitting that there is any merit in the claims put forward on behalf of the gentleman concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered -

That the Committee report to the Senate on Thursday next.

page 1043

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 2nd August, vide page 995) :

Clause 2 -

Section 39 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (3.) the following provisos: - “ Provided that an elector whose place of . living is not bond fide in the division in respect ‘ of which he is enrolled shall not be entitled to vote as an elector of that division if, since he secured that enrolment, he has at any time before the commencement of the period of twenty-one days before the issue of the writ for the election, become entitled to be enrolled in respect of another division:

Provided further that nothing in this subsection shall disentitle an elector from voting in respect of the division for which he is enrolled if he is temporarily absent from his place of living therein with a fixed intention of returning thereto for the purpose of continuing to live therein.”.

Section proposed to be amended - .

All persons whose names are on the roll for any electoral division shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to vote at elections of members of the Senate for the State of which the division forms part, and at elections of members of the Bouse of Representatives for the division, but no person shall be entitled to vote more than once at any. Senate election or any House of Representatives election, or at more than one election for the Senate or for the House of Representativesheld on the same day.. .

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– Before the clause is passed, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to sub-section 5 of section 41, of the principal Act, which is as follows -

The validity of any enrolment shall not in any case be questioned on the ground that the person enrolled has Lot, in fact, lived in the subdivision for a period of one month.

It appears to me that this sub- section will conflict with sub-section 3 of section. 39 if the proviso is passed in its present form.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– At first glance, the paint raised by the honorable senator appears to have something in it, but I have not had sufficient time to examine it, and to say definitely. Before the Bill leaves our possession, I will ascertain whether it will be necessary to amend the sub-section referred to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the words “ bona fide,” line 5, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ actually.”

I am submitting this amendment because the English word is less ambiguous, and is perfectly understood by all persons speaking the English language. The words bond fide may mean “ good faith,” which is the sense in which it is more commonly used, also “ really,” or “ actually.” As we are legislating for English speaking people, it is desirable that, while there may be no objection to the incorporation into our language of foreign words to express more clearly the’ meanings of our Acts, the use of easily understood English words should be encouraged.

Senator Pearce:

– As an admirer of the English, language, I accept the honorable senator’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I listened carefully to the reply by the Minister (Senator Pearoe) to the second -reading debate, and I am sorry to say that he said so little that he was unable to remove my fear that this clause will work an injustice to country workers who, by reason of their avocation, may have to travel considerable distances while earning their living. I object in toto to the two provisos. The Minister hinted that there were some reasons why they should be inserted, but the only suspicion of anything I heard in the rally that took place between him and Senator Gardiner was that something had happened at Ballarat. We have heard a good deal about double voting, impersonation, and electoral corruption at the 1913 election, but. after a Royal Commission, which had been appointed, had travelled tens of thousandsofmiles making inquiries into the allegations, the verdict was that not a single Australian had been found guilty of impersonation.

Senator Garling:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask if, in Committee, the honorable senator may refer to what was said during the second-reading debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

– I think it would be a too literal interpretation of our Standing Orders if I were to adopt the view suggested. So long as the honorable senator’s remarks are relevant to the clause under review, . and to the Bill, it is not desirable for the Chair to intervene.

Senator MacDONALD:

– It is my intention to keep as closely as possible to the clause.

Senator Earle:

– But you have not touched it yet.

Senator MacDONALD:

– My trouble is that the Minister has not helped to remove my doubts, and I am still, to some extent, in the dark, as I was duringthe second-reading debate. Really the Minister has said nothing upon the point I raised, and I still see a danger to itinerant country workers through the operations of these provisos. There is no doubt that the simpler we make the approaches to the polling booth the better it will be if we wish to apply the principles of a pure Democracy.

Senator Payne:

– Does not the second proviso protect the worker?

Senator MacDONALD:

– To me it makes confusion worse confounded; it appears to remove the need for the firstproviso, and to take away from the returning officer the power given to him. I have not heard from the Minister any sound reasons for the proposal. In the conduct of a Federal election, especially for the House of Representatives, where 40,000 electors are concerned, a case of impersonation in Melbourne, or four or five at Cairns, would not have the slightest effect on the result. No- Australian is so anxious to fulfil his duty to his country as to invite the penalties imposed by the principal Act. Such irregularities do not take place in any numbed, and I cannot see the need for such proposals, which will confuse the elector, and give the returning officer too much power.

Senator Crawford:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the way of the transgressor should be hard ?

Senator MacDONALD:

– I do; but if every little offence is to be made a crime the gaols may become full. I rose to express my opinion that the Minister did not give theinformation I asked for in his second -reading speech, and to repeat my opinion that these two provisos will make the path of the country elector, who has to travel long distances to earn his living, harder than it isunder the principal Act.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I do not understand why I should be lectured by Senator MacDonald because he was absent when I made my remarks on this clause. The honorable senator seems to be under a delusion about it. The clause has nothing to do with impersonation, nor has the section of the Act that this clause amends. What the amendment is intended to do is to prevent persons from voting who have ceased to live in the division for which they are enrolled and have before the commencement of a period of twenty-one days before the issue of the writ for the election, become entitled to enrolment for some other division. The reason for fixing the period of twenty-one days is to make it clear that the change of enrolment cannot take place after the issue of the writs. An elector who secured enrolment, more than twentyone days before the issue of the writs would not be guilty of a violation of the Act. It is to prevent a number of electors concentrating on one election and influencing the result. It will not apply to a person who is temporarily absent from a division, and who intends to return to his place of residence. It will not affect an elector who is absent from a State or a division for three months for the purpose of transacting business in another State or another division. It represents an attempt to keep our rolls pure, and to prevent the chance winning of an election by the transference for that purpose of electors who have no bond fide intention of living there.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After section seventy-two of the principal Act the following section is inserted : - 72a. - (1.) Candidates nominated for election to the Senate may claim to have their names grouped in the ballot-papers in the manner prescribed in this Act. (2.) A group of candidates shall not be formed unless each of the members of the proposed group notifies the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after he has been nominated, and not later than twelve o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that he desires to have his name included in that group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I object to the proposed new section on two grounds. I do notobject to the spirit of it, for I can gather the intention from its wording ; but I suggest that it is not sufficiently clear. Sub-clause 2 is prohibitory in its nature, and the operative words are that “ a group of candidates shall not be formed unless each of the members of the proposed group notifies the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the Statein the prescribed manner . . . “ According to my interpretation of it, the result of it in its present form might easily be different from what is intended. Three men, having already decided to form a group, a fourth man, not with the object of getting into the group, but to prevent the proposed group being formed, might demand to join it. We must then have regard to the mandatory words, “ a group of candidates shall not be formed.” The result of the fourth man proposing to go into the group of three might be that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State would not be able to form a group, because the proposing parties would not have the consent of all the propossd parties to the group. There is nothing in the sub-clause to relieve its prohibitory nature. It says that under these circumstances “ a group of candidates shall not be formed.” While the fourth man could not get into the group, he might make it incapable of being formed.

Senator Payne:

– That might depend upon the regulations.

Senator GARLING:

– The regulations will have to be made with due regard to the wording of the Act. The Act is the commanding situation, and the regulations cannot be made to conflict with it. If the words used are literally clear they will have to be accepted, notwithstanding that they may not carry out the intention of Parliament. I suggest an amendment which is designed to make the sub-clause clearer without departing from the spirit of it. With a view to securing this I move -

That sub-clause 2 be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : -

A group shall include the names of those candidates only who notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after they have been nominated, and not later than 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination that they desire to have their names included in that group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I propose to accept the amendment. I think it is an advantage to have the proposition stated in the affirmative rather than in the negative. . It is practically on all fours with what is already ip the Bill, but the intention is more clearly expressed inthe amendment

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This ready acceptance of the amendment by the Minister (Senator Pearce) proves that the measure, as brought in, has not been too well considered. We have a very important and radical proposal put forward by Senator Garling, and it is accepted by the Minister , in a. hasty fashion. Sufficient has been said on the second reading to indicate the far-reaching importance of this innovation in our electoral system. There are. several features of the clause as it stands, and in the clause as new proposed to be amended, that should not commend themselves to us. In the first place, the object is to reduce to simplicity the method of electing candidates to this Chamber; in other words, to diminish the number of informal votes. I have a return before me. It shows that under the old system, as practised in 1917 - that is, simple majority rule, the average number of informal votes for the whole of the States was 3 per cent. In the case of the House of Representatives, when the simple majority was still in force, the average was 1.6, or practically 1½ per cent. Preferential voting has since then bsen introduced for both Chambers, and the result has been that while there has been a very substantial increase in the informal votes in the case of the Senate, there has also been a relative increase in the case of the House of Representatives. Although we are not endeavouring to remedy the defect in regard to the House of Representatives, we are certainly trying to patch up the case in the Senate. South Australia stood at the top of the list under the old system, while New South Wales was at the bottom of the list, having the lowest percentage of informal votes. The law was altered before the last election, and I find that, although New South Wales was the most enlightened State from the point of view of correct voting when it had a small problem to deal with, it showed itself to be the most ignorant State in the Commonwealth when it had to deal with the abstruse problem, of choosing three candidates. When we changed the law in order to give the people a more effective means of expressing their will in the choice of Senate candidates - in other words, to wipe out the minority candidate - the informal votes increased from 3 to 8 per cent, in the case of this Chamber. In the other House, in 1917, with the simple majority device, the average number of informal votes for the Commonwealth represented 1½ per cent. Preferential voting was introduced for the other Chamber, but the informal voting increased to 3.6 per cent., sustaining me in my contention that when we introduced preferential voting for both Chambers, the same degree of ignorance - or, to water it down, let me say the same want of enlightenment - was virtually as manifest in the case of one Chamber as in the other. It is now proposed, however, to leave the other Chamber alone. While we are engaged in trying to create a simple and effective means for the electors to express themselves at the ballot-box in regard to the Senate, why is something not done in the case of the other Chamber? For the simple reason, that we cannot group the candidates for the other Chamber, because in that case it will not help in the least. The deduction from this reasoning is that when we introduced this system for the purpose of giving the electors a more perfect means of expressing their will at the ballot-box, we naturally complicated the system in a manner that the device now proposed will not cure. The amendment submitted by Senator Garling bristles with difficulties. The sub-clause, in itd present form, stipulates that a group of candidates shall not be formed unless certain things are done; but the amendment moved by the honorable senator provides that a group shall include the names of those candidates only who comply with certain provisions, which proposal the Minister has accepted. The position now is that a group shall only include those candidates who have submitted their names to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, and the question has been asked as to what is to keep some other candidate from claiming his right as a citizen.

Senator Garling:

-What right?

Senator LYNCH:

– The right to nominate as a candidate for the Senate.

Senator Garling:

– What is to prevent him from coming forward?

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Gairling’s proposal will prevent him.

Senator Garling:

– Not at all.

Senator LYNCH:

– If, for instance, the executive of the Labour party in New South Wales decides that three Labour candidates shall stand for the Senate, and a fourth candidate informs the executive that he also proposes to stand as a Labour representative, under Senator Garling’s proposal will that fourth candidate be deprived of his right to be included in thegroup?

Senator Wilson:

– He will not be able bo be included in the group.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then where is this innovation leading us, and who is to decide whether a particular candidate shall, or shall not, be included in a group ?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The other candidates.

Senator LYNCH:

– As I understand the position, every citizen who is qualified has a right to contest an election for this Chamber or the other branch of the Legislature. Can he be included in a particular group?

Senator Wilson:

– He cannot get the privileged position in a group.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is a crucial point; and according to the interjections hurled at me from all points of the chamber, I am answered both in the affirmative and in the negative. We are seeking to super-impose this discarded Yankee system, which is really the ticket system, into our electoral laws and are finding ourselves in trouble, and before we proceed any further we should be careful to ascertain what the game is. If we are seeking to reduce the number of informal votes by the introduction of this proposal, we shall find ourselves in trouble.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator expects to be included in the Nationalist ticket.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Duncan always avoids the main issue by introducing the personal element. I hope that he will show as much independence towards his electors as I have done towards mine. In the words of the negro, I can say, “ I am as I am, and you can make me no ammer.” I have been returned as a representative of Western Australia notwithstanding my independence, and I have told electors in that State that they should be damned glad to get me to represent them.

This is merely a dignified way of adopting the ticket system, and an endeavour has been made to create the impression that we are introducing something quite new. We had sufficient brains, originality, and initiative to discover the ballot system, which was copied by the United States of America, and we are now borrowing from that country one of their political discards. This Chamber consists of broadminded, independent men, representatives of the States, and at our own instigation we are lowering its dignity by advocating such a system. Let us imagine the humiliating position which will arise when the candidates have to be rounded up into a branding yard, and informed that they will be in A, B, or C pen, as the case may be.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– During the second-reading debate, I made it quite clear that I would. need a great deal of convincing before I would alter my opinion in regard to the grouping of candidates on the ballot-paper. Since that time I have given the matter the consideration which I think it deserves, and I am more convinced than ever that the system is one which the Senate should not adopt in any circumstances. Under the Constitution, the States were given equal representation in the Senate, and the most suitable men have been selected to effectively carry on the work of this Chamber.

Senator Bolton:

– Which they have done.

Senator WILSON:

– On some occasions. In reading the debates I have been astonished to find that when the grouping system was last before this Chamber, the majority opposed to the proposal was so great that at the eleventh hour the Government withdrew it. Honorable senators, who in the past have done everything possible to prevent its introduction, have now turned right around and are supporting it. “With Senator Lynch, I am compelled to ask what is behind it all ? Have some honorable senators had a little more information or enlightenment? Or is it that there is some political move behind this Bill, and that that is what accounts for a proposal to complicate the ballot-paper and make it more difficult to understand ?

Senator Garling:

– Why “ more “ difficult ?

Senator WILSON:

– Because I think it is sufficiently difficult at present.

Senator Garling:

– This will mean simplification.

Senator WILSON:

– The honorable senator may think so, but my experience is that the unfortunate, unthinking individual has always to pay for what lawyers regard as simplification. Those who have a right to express an opinion claim that 50 per cent. of the electors of the Commonwealth are not attached to any party ; and I contend that the choice of the electors in elections for the Senate should be wide enough to enable them to select the best men available in the different States. When the electors are called upon to choose one candidate from group “ A,” another from group “ B,” a third from group “ C,” and perhaps also an independent candidate, will any honorable senator contend that this proposal is not an incentive to the electors to cast a block party vote?

Senator Garling:

– It is an incentive.

Senator WILSON:

– That is right, and I wish that every other member of the Committee were as honest in his criticism of this Bill as Senator Garling is, because, so, far as I can see, many of them desire that the candidates shall be branded “ Nationalists,” “ Liberals,” “ Labour,” “ Farmers’ party,” and so on.

Senator Bolton:

– Of course.

Senator WILSON:

– Then I go further, and say that if that is necessary, it is necessary also to make provision for factions and sections of parties. We know that in the Labour party there are three or four sections. There are the Industrial Workers of the World, the Australian Workers Union, the Bolsheviks, and so on ; and these are sections to whose ideals even Senator Gardiner will not subscribe. I regard this proposal as one of the most dangerous interferences with the ballot-box that has been submitted for our consideration. I am free to admit that, in view of- the present position of politics, a man should have the indorsement of aparty.

Senator Garling:

– Hear, hear!

Senator WILSON:

– The honorable senator is the only member of the Senate supporting this proposal who has so far been honest enough to admit that he wants a brand put on the candidate himself. He will not induce the Government to admit that.

Senator Bolton:

– The people have the right to know the brand of a candidate.

Senator WILSON:

– Of course they should know.

Senator Bolton:

– Why not let them know ?

Senator WILSON:

– I should not like to say that there is anybody in Victoria who does not know that Senator Bolton is a Nationalist. To say that he did not know that would be to argue himself unknown.. Everybody in Victoria knows that the honorable senator is a Nationalist, just as every one in New South Wales knows that Senator Gardiner is a Labour man.

Senator Gardiner:

– And yet other honorable senators are always branding me as a “ Bolshevik.”

Senator WILSON:

– Only a moment ago I refused to connect Senator Gardiner with the Bolsheviks in any circumstances whatever. I have too high an opinion of the very great services which the honorable senator has rendered the Commonwealth in this Senate to do anything of the kind.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is all right four years before an election, but if I had to go before the electors within four months, I might be called a Bolshevik or a pro-German.

Senator WILSON:

– The honorable senator would not find me saying that.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am speaking in a party sense.

Senator WILSON:

– I take responsibility only for what I say myself. This proposal is the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of party politics into the ballot-box. During the week-end I have discussed the Bill with some of the finest men in this country. I sought their advice and, without exception, they take the strongest objection to the measure.

Senator Garling:

– My trouble is that I do not know how to brand the honorable senator.

Senator WILSON:

– The honorable senator can brand me as he pleases, but if possible, I shall prevent any Returning Officer putting a brand on me.

Senator Bolton:

– What is the honorable senator’s brand?

Senator WILSON:

- Senator Bolton knows my brand. I have already said that I am privileged to represent the intelligent electors in my State, who will have an opportunity later on of deciding whether their choice was a wise one or not. At the moment I am here as a representative of South Australia’; .and, while I am not to be dictated to by any party, I am prepared to give effect to the ideals of the party of which I am a member. One of these ideals is that the Senate, being the States House, should be above all parties. That is the attitude which the Country party has always adopted. I hope that the Senate will take up a similar attitude.

Senator Lynch:

– The proposal in the Bill is to make the Senate a House of party -wranglers.

Senator WILSON:

– That is so. Looking through the debate on a similar proposal previously submitted I found, Speaking from memory, that Senator Earle, by interjection that was most clear, complained that this was a proposal to bring party politics into the electoral system. Later on in this debate I may find it necessary to quote extracts from speeches made by honorable senators in the previous debate to which I refer.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator say that he quoted a. statement by Senator Earle?

Senator WILSON:

– Yes; and Senator Earle was not alone in expressing that view, I take the stand that, wherever possible, we should prevent party politics being introduced into our electoral machinery. The Minister (Senator Pearce) quoted a case in which party politics were recognised by the Crown; but the King knows no party, and never should know any party. And to use the machinery that belongs to the King for party purposes is, in my opinion, wrong.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I quite fail to understand the fulminations of Senators Lynch and Wilson. One would imagine, to hear them speak, that they came to the Senate as a result of the last elections entirely independent and without any brand on them whatever.

Senator Wilson:

– Why take so small a view of the matter; why not take a bigger view?

Senator DUNCAN:

– One would think that they came here without the indorsement of any political party, that they are here not so much because of the grace of God, the intelligence of the electors, or the fact that they were members, of a political party, but because of some virtue inherent in themselves. I remember the last elections very well. I remember that Mr. Wilson,- as the honorable senator was then, ran as a candidate in South Australia with the brand upon him of the National party, and the brand also of the Farmers party, and the honorable senator claimed that although he was not actually a member of it, he was still such a good chap that he might also have the brand of the Labour party. He was exceedingly well branded, and carried more brands about him than any other senator who was elected to this Chamber.

Senator Wilson:

– The honorable senator makes out a good case to show the extent to which 1 enjoy the confidence of the electors.

Senator DUNCAN:

– When the next election comes along at which Senator Wilson is a candidate, I do not think they will be asked to vote for “ Wilson, the free and independent candidate, who stands hurling defiance a£. all parties.” They will very possibly be asked to vote for ‘ ‘ Wilson, the indorsed candidate of the Farmers party and . the National party,” and any other party that the honorable senator can induce to brand him. I always listen to Senator Lynch with pleasure, but an honorable senator who is always railing so much against parties and against the attaching of party names to candidates should be consistent. We are all very glad to know that Senator Lynch has been returned again and again to this Chamber, not because he is Patrick Lynch, but because he has been the indorsed candidate of the party that has been able to secure the greatest measure of support in Western Australia.

Senator Wilson:

– The honorable senator does not think that personality counts for anything.

Senator DUNCAN:

– It does.

Senator Wilson:

– It is because of personality that “ Paddy “ Lynch is here.

Senator DUNCAN:

– It is because Senator Lynch possesses a remarkable personality that he has been able to secure the indorsement of his party.

Senator Gardiner:

– Or because he possesses the capacity to skip from a party that is not very popular to one that is.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I will not say that.

Senator Gardiner:

– I have said it.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The fact remains that practically all honorable senators who nave spoken against this measure, and have told us what anevil thing party is, are staunch party men when they want a party to vote for them.

Senator Russell:

– Suppose there are three Nationalist candidates selected, and a fourth candidate desires to come out as a Nationalist, under this Bill it is proposed that he shall be put down as an “Independent Nationalist.”

Senator DUNCAN:

– And very properly so.

Senator Russell:

– That is tyranny.

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Russell was selected as a Nationalist candidate at the last election, and he would not have been satisfied if some one else wished to join the Nationalist group. He would have insisted that he and the other two candidates were the only selected Nationalist candidates. There were independent candidates in Victoria and also in New South Wales.

Senator Wilson:

– Some honorable senators have not enough independence to blow their hats off.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Some boast of their independence in a way that does not cut any ice.

Senator Russell:

– If a candidate cannot run for election under any name he pleases, that is tyranny.

Senator DUNCAN:

– We hear a great deal about the harm which will follow from the adoption of this proposal, but we know that every member of the Senate who seeks re-election will try to secure the indorsement of some political party, and that party will issue instructions to its supporters throughout the State.

Senator Bolton:

– Advice, not instructions.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The parties will ask the electors to vote for their three selected candidates. “How-to-vote” cards will be issued to electors, and will be taken into the polling booth by them. Senators Lynch and Wilson have no objection to that. The elector will mark his ballot-paper in accordance with the “ how -to- vote “ card. Senator Lynch has always indorsed that. Everything is right up to that point, but the moment it is proposed that the names of candidates should be grouped together on the ballot-paper in the way provided in the Bill we are told that evil must follow.

Senator Russell:

– To put names on a ballot-paper in that way atpresent would lead to a prosecution.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I know that. The proposed grouping will be of great assistance to the elector, and” it should insure an intelligent vote. That is what we want. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that parties exist. Where, then, is the harm in grouping candidates according to the parties under which they are nominated,and having their names placed in order under the group system? This principle will not remove the right of any elector to vote as he pleases, nor will it operate as an instruction that an elector must vote for the nominee of any organization. He will be entitled to vote just as he pleases, and to exercise the rights he enjoys to-day. At present, if an elector wishes to vote for all the candidates of his party he has, practically, to jump from top to bottom of the ballotpaper. The first man of his choice, as the nominee of his party, may be at the top of the ballot-paper, the second may be eighth or tenth on the list, and the third may be number twenty in .alphabetical order; and as some electors suffer from extreme nervousness in the ballot-box, it is probable that they find it difficult to remember and pick out the names of all candidates for whom they wish to vote. This proposed group system is the only solution of that difficulty, and if it violates any principle of electoral justice, it certainly is news to me. I cannot see that any harm will be done by its adoption. On the contrary, I think that it will be of very great assistance to electors, and if we adopt it, I believe we shall get a truer reflex of the desires of the majority of the electors than is possible under the present system.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

, - Technically, the debate may be pertinent to the issue; but actually it appears to me to be very wide of the mark. I have no desire to reflect too severely upon some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon ; but I am afraid that the debate has not carried us very far towards the elucidation of the point at issue. The question is: Will the proposed alteration in the law assist or hinder the electors? All this talk about the indorsement of candidates and control by outside bodies is quite beside the mark. If I thought for a moment that any of the existing rights of an elector were to be taken away, interfered with, or destroyed, by this proposal, I would be as hot against it as any honorable senator in this chamber. But I cannot find in it anything that will interfere with the existing electoral privileges. The proposal to group candidates aims at giving information to electors which will enable them, more easily, perhaps, to give effect to their desires, and thus to determine more definitely who shall represent them in this chamber.

Senator Lynch gave us some interesting information yesterday. He pointed out that the number of informal votes cast at the last Senate election was in the vicinity of 180,000. This is very important, because only a few years ago a difference of 4,000 votes one way or the other throughout Australia would have altered very materially the complexion of representation in this chamber. I- refer to the election ‘ when the Labour party carried all before them, and monopolized the seats in this House, on a majority, I think, of about 8,000 votes over nominees of the Liberal party. Because there is such a large percentage of informal votes under the existing law, surely it is the duty of the Senate to try and simplify matters ?

Senator Lynch:

– There were relative increases in number and percentages of informalities in the case of the other Chamber, for which the group system offers no cure.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– At the last election the number of informal votes cast for candidates for the House of Representatives was about 70,000, and for -this Chamber about 180,000, in the former case the invalid votes representing - about 3 per cent, of the total number of votes cast, and in the case of the Senate election about 8 per cent. Therefore it is the duty of this Parliament to simplify the system of voting as much a3 possible, in the interests, not only of the electors, but of the Commonwealth, in order that this Parliament may be truly representative of the people. Anything we can do in that direction should be done. The mistakes at the ballot-box are made, not only by illiterate electors, but also by the educated section of the community, because, in many cases, they are not close students of political problems, and so it is desirable to do what is possible to simplify the working of our electoral machinery.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I cannot understand why some honorable senators work themselves up into such a terrible state of indignation over such a simple proposition as the proposed grouping of candidates on the ballot-papers. There is nothing very serious about the proposal, but it will help to make our voting system clearer, and in that sense it will do a very great service. As Senator Drake-Brockman has remarked, mistakes are made ‘by educated as well as by illiterate persons. I have in mind a case in point. At the first Federal election the candidate for the House of Representatives was Mr. Kirwan, the editor of the Kalgoorlie Miner, while I, also a resident of Kalgoorlie, was a candidate for the Senate. On one occasion the acting mayor of Kalgoorlie, a professional gentleman, and one who presided at political meetings, asked me what I thought of my chances. When I replied that I thought thatI had a very good chance, he said, “ Look here, you are building upon false hopes. You cannot expect to beat Kirwan for ‘the House of Representatives.” This incident, I think, demonstrates that errors or mistakes are not confined to the illiterate, and as for bringing in the party machine, as has been suggested by Senator Wilson, I defy that honorable senator or Senator Lynch to point out in what way the proposal will aggravate party politics.

Senator Wilson:

– What were your objections to the proposal a fortnight ago?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not understand what the honorable senator means.

Senator Wilson:

– What were your objections only quite recently?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I was not aware that the Bill was before us a fortnight ago.

Senator Wilson:

– But you remember whether you had objections or not.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do. I have not changed my attitude. Senator Wilson, by interjection yesterday, insinuated that, when we had the measure before us in 1919, I was instrumental in defeating it. At the time I was not able to say definitely just what happened, but since then I have consulted Hamsard, and I find that I did not even speak in support of the proposal then, and certainly did not vote for or against it, because the Minister withdrew the Bill. It did not go to a vote. Senator Wilson, by his insinuations is hardly playing the game.

Senator Wilson:

– All right, I will deal with the matter a little later.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It is an easy matter, when an honorable senator is. on his feet, for another honorable senator to put a difficult question about something that may have happened years ago, because itmay be impossible for the honorable senator speaking to recollect exactly what happened, thus he may be placed in a false position.

Senator Wilson:

– Do you say that I was anxious to put you in a false position yesterday ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not say that the honorable senator was anxious to do that, but the honorable senator’s interjection certainly did put me in a false position, because I could not give a direct yes or no to his question.

Senator Wilson:

– Did you not vote against the Bill last time, in order to get it thrown out?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That was impossible; the grouping clause did not go to a vote.

Senator Wilson:

– I say it did.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– According to Hansard, which I have consulted, it did not. The Minister withdrew it. In any case, the point is immaterial, and the proposal now before the Committee is not so fundamentally important that its rejection would be a terribly serious matter. I have said that I am in favour of the group system, because I think it will help to simplify the working of our electoral machinery. Of course, if there is a general desire not to clarify the operations of the electorail law, we can retain ‘ the ballot-paper in its present form. I cannot see- that there can be very much objection to the amendment. We know what the fate of inderpendent candidates has been. It has become a byword in Australia that the “independent” cannot be depended upon. That statement fits very well some of the so-called independent members that I have known.

Senator Senior:

– The late Senator Thomas Playford and ex-Senator Josiah Symon contested elections for the Senate as independent candidates.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– And they went down. They could not be depended upon. Even Senator Wilson is one of the most branded men in the Senate. Whether the provision is included in this measure or not will not matter very much : but I think there is a majority of the Senate in favour of it.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I do not wish to monopolize the time of other honorable senators who wish to speak, but I rise for the purpose of again pointing out to Senator DrakeBrockman that when he referred to my figures one could gather no other lesson than that the preferential system had increased the number of informal votes. That is a necessary corollary, and a necessary inherent element in the system. The necessary increase in the numbers and percentages was practically the same for both Houses of Parliament. While we profess to apply a cure for this Chamber, we cannot even profess to do so for the other House, which is composed of members representing single-member constituencies.

Suppose there were five candidates belonging to five different parties in the Balaclava electorate. Would it help the electors in the least if they were labelled or branded?

Senator Garling:

– Most materially.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Garling’s imagination must be particularly acute if he can hope to dispel the ignorance of the electors by saying that Brown is a Socialist, Smith a Nationalist, and So-and-So a Country party candidate. We are crediting the average elector with an amount of ignorance that I am sure he does not possess. It is quite plain that in singlemember electorates the grouping system will not help the candidates, and proof of that contention is found in the fact that the Government (have failed to introduce it. The preferential system must of necessity involve the casting of informal votes. It is a natural element of the system by reason of its complications. If Senator Drake-Brockman could guarantee that the 180,000 odd informal votes would be appreciably reduced,: I would vote for the grouping system. I have to consider what is happening side by side with the necessity for reducing that vast number of informal votes. I have to consider what is going to happen to the independent candidates of this country.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Ah ! What is going to happen?

Senator LYNCH:

– I am sure that Senator Thomas, who has taken upon himself the worthy role of expressing an independent opinion in this Senate, will have some sympathy still with a man of independent mind. He is one of the political chain gang that is going to vote for a proposition to reduce the chance of an independent candidate in this country to a nullity. Senator Senior has mentioned the names of men who- found their way to this Chamber because they were publicly recognised as independent. All honour to them. Surely we have not arrived at a time when we are’ going to so specially construct our legislation as to make it harder for the man of independent mind than for the branded man to get here. A man will be penalized for his independence. I challenge any honorable senator to deny that that will be the effect of the proposal. The Senate will not agree to it with my voice, or on my advice. Ex-Senator Trenwith arrived here as an independent senator. Was the Senate any the worse for his presence?

Taking it all in all, the circumstances that surrounded .his arrival were’ in the nature of a tribute to our electoral system, and to the spirit abroad that was responsible for his return. Senator de Largie has spoken about “heat.” I do not know whether he is referring to Senator Wilson or to me ; but I would direct his attention to what Bacon said, “ You cannot contend coldly for what you believe earnestly.”

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Hear, hear!’

Senator LYNCH:

– “ Hear, hear,” says Senator Thomas, who is going to put a leg-rope around the independent candidate. Senator Thomas has travelled abroad since he has been a member of this Parliament. If he met men in the market-place or the public haunts of men where high politics is talked, what answer would he give to the question, “ What are you ? “ He would say, “ I am a member of the Federal Senate.” He would be asked, “ Whom do you represent ? “ Would it occur to his mind to say, “ I .am a member of the National party, or a branded party”? Not at all. I venture to say that his first thought would be, “ I represent New South Wales in the Federal Senate.” Every man- jack of us would say the same. We would say that we represent the particular State from which we come. The proposal before the Senate is to put the State beneath the party status of the individual. Ought we not to be ashamed of ourselves for introducing this for the first time into our electoral legislation ?

Senator Wilson:

– This is the second time.

Senator LYNCH:

– It was beaten in a most humiliating way last time. Are we to stain the pages of our electoral law by recognising the party system? I realize that the party system is an indispensable evil in our political life; but, while we cannot abolish it, that is no reason why we should encourage it. We shall be encouraging it if we put upon it the imprimatur, not only of Parliament, but also of the Government and the people of the Commonwealth. Consider the ballot-paper, for instance. The letters A. B. C. would be only camouflage. The system should be called by its proper name. It is the Yankee ticket system, which, as I have already said, on the authority of Viscount

Bryce, has been scrapped in the United States of America. If not scrapped, it is regarded with such odium that no decent minded man will associate with it.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The Bill does not propose to introduce the American system.

Senator LYNCH:

– The “ t’s “ may not be crossed or the “i’s” dotted, but it is really the same system. If Senator Thomas, in reply to questions abroad, said he did not represent New South Wales, but represented the National party, he would be asked, “Who is the National party?” “Where do they come from?” He is intending now to affix his name to a proposition that will lower the status of this Chamber. That is what I am so anxious to guard against. I do not want this Chamber to be made the brawling cockpit of political advocates or votaries. I want this Chamber to be retained true 10 name and type - a States’ House, composed of States’ representatives, without any distinctive qualifications, political or otherwise. As for independent candidates, I am afraid that we are allowing the proposal to go through too hurriedly. I asked what would become of a citizen of this country who wanted to include himself in a group, and I had the answer “Yes, he could” from one quarter and “ No “ from the Ministerial side of the chamber. Let us suppose that a political party selects three men, and that an attache of that party says, “I wish to stand also.” Suppose the fourth man wants to be included in the party, who is to be the arbitrator in his case ?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The other candidates.

Senator LYNCH:

– We are getting enlightenment now. The political freedom of the fourth man will depend upon the whim or choice of the other three, who naturally want to shut out all competition with themselves. The Ministerial bench is silent; it does not answer my question; it will not speak for love nor money.I am getting advice from all round the chamber, but not frrm that quarter. Honorable senators should not be led into experimental by-paths, and be induced to adopt a rejected Yankee notion. Are we to say that in future no man of independent opinions will ever arise on the political horizon? When an independent candidate does come forward in the future, as he has done in the past, where will he find himself?

Senator Garling:

– On the ballotpaper.

Senator LYNCH:

– And at the bottom of the paper, too.

Senator Wilson:

-Ifthis proposal is carried,the independent candidate will have no hope of being returned.

Senator LYNCH:

– Quite so. There is a proposal somewhere in the Bill that the names of candidates in groups are to take precedence. If, for instance, my friend Senator Wilson stands as an independent candidate, his name will be somewhere near the bottom of the list, because the initial letter of his surname is one of the last letters of the alphabet. But another candidate, who happens to be one of a group, may have the same initial letter, and yet find himself in the top group.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I was rather surprised at the figures quoted by Senator Lynch. He suggested that the voters of Western Australia showed superior intelligence because they recorded fewer informal votes than were cast in other States. Western Australia has only a few voters, and the ballot-paper there would probably have not more than half-a-dozen names. How many candidates were there at the last Senate election?

Senator Lynch:

– Eight.

Senator GARDINER:

– Contrast that with the position in New South Wales, where the voter would have to choose between, perhaps, eighteen candidates. Obviously, the ballot-paper containing the larger number of names would be more confusing to the elector. There were a number of groups among the candidates in New South Wales at the last election.

Senator Vardon:

– Did you have to number all the candidates?

Senator GARDINER:

– No. But it was necessary to number at least seven of them correctly. The elector had the right to vote the full ticket, and even if he had had seven correct, but had made a mistake with the fourteenth, his vote would have been informal. No comparison between Western Australia and New South Wales can be used as a reasonable argument that the proposed system would bring about more informal votes than the existing one. I am surprised at the contemptuous manner of Senator Lynch in referring to “Yankee Land.” It is not altogether what one would expect from a man with ‘the dignity and intelligence of the honorable senator. I think the mighty American Republic should be referred to in language worthy of that nation and worthy of the honorable senator.

Senator Lynch:

– Of course, you have never heard of “ Yankee Doodle “ I

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator must recognise that his reference to that great Republic was out of place. The party ticket in vogue in the United States of America is not similar to our ballot system, so why compare things that are different?

Senator Lynch:

– Will you explain the distinction between this so-called group system and the American ticket system?

Senator GARDINER:

– There is no similarity. Senator Lynch has pointed out the inequality in the numbers of informal votes in connexion -with the elections for the Senate and House of Representatives respectively. I would remind him that in numbers of contests for the House of Representatives there are only two candidates, and the electors have only two votes to cast. I favour the grouping system, and if we accept the present proposal there will be nothing on the ballot-paper to indicate the name of any party.

Senator Lynch:

– Where would you put the independent candidates?

Senator GARDINER:

– After his attack on the party system, I must assume that Senator Lynch will run as an independent candidate at the next election. Owing to his intellectual qualities, this high-minded man, who is too big for parties, will be afraid . that he may be placed at the bottom of the ballot-paper. I give him this advice : He should run with another independent candidate in Western Australia, equal in intelligence and capacity to himself, but he should choose a man with the name;, preferably, of “ Aaron.” Then I think the initial letters of “Aaron “ would place that gentleman and Senator Lynch near the top of the list. The proposed ballot-paper would simply have the letters “A,” “ B,” “ C,” “ D,” &c., for as many parties as were in the field. Certainly it would mean an alteration of the ballot-paper. Senator Vardon, of course, owing to his initial being near the end of the alphabet, would find himself near the bottom of the list, but the proposal would da no more injury to candidates than is done under the present system.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I do not know of any proposed legislation that needs closer scrutiny than suggested alterations of the Electoral Act, which controls entirely the representation of the people in the two Houses. Therefore, any proposal to drastically amend the provisions of this Statute should be considered with the utmost care. Unfortunately, through no fault of my own, I was absent from the chamber during the debate on the second reading of this Bill, but since my return to Melbourne I have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with the arguments put forward by the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce), who introduced the measure. The more alterations we effect in the system of voting the more difficult we. make it for the electors to record an intelligent vote at the ballot-box. Whenever ah alteration has been made, we have found that the people have been confronted with difficulties not previously experienced.- During the last election a new method was adopted in relation to the Senate elections, and people are looking forward to its continuance. It is now proposed that a ballot-paper shall contain the names of the candidates grouped in parties, although , there will be no indication on the paper as to which parties the groups represent. The explanation given by the Minister is that the grouping system will insure a more intelligent vote being recorded, but with that contention I do not agree. A great majority of electors know exactly how they intend to vote when they reach the’ polling booth ; but there are others who do not, and consequently they will have to rely on the daily newspapers for their guidance. The newspapers have never been behind in indicating the parties to which the different candidates belong, and the political organizations also see that every elector is furnished with a list of the candidates representing a particular organization. Consequently, everything is done to see that the elector has every opportunity of ascertaining to which party each candidate is attached, and the proposal submitted and accepted by the Minister will not make the ballot-paper any easier to understand. But the greatest objection to the proposal is the exclusion from the groups of some candidates capable of serving their country with equal ability, and who would in all probability have gained the confidence of the people in ordinary circumstances. If they are excluded by an organization which holds a’ pre-selection ballot, we are not giving the electors that reasonable choice that is due to them.

Senator Crawford:

– An organization never indorses the candidature of four when there are only three vacancies.

Senator PAYNE:

– I know that in one State there were a dozen ardent, earnest Nationalists whose names were accepted, and indorsed by the organization.

Senator de Largie:

– For the Senate?

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes.

Senator de Largie:

– There were four vacancies in that instance.

Senator PAYNE:

– Under the present system .of voting, provided the electors vote the party ticket, it does not matter how many candidates are in the field. I have carefully perused the amendment submitted, from which it would appear possible for any - candidate to have his name, included in a group if he notifies the Returning Officer of his desire to bc included, but on comparing the amendment with a later portion of the Bill I find that that would be practically impossible.

Senator Senior:

– To what portion is the honorable senator referring?

Senator PAYNE:

– Those provisions which set out the position in which the various groups will appear upon the ballot-paper. Let us suppose that Jones, Brown, and Robertson had formed a group in the Nationalist interests, and I also desired to stand as a Nationalist candidate. How could I secure the information from the Returning Officer that Brown, Jones, and Robertson had formed a group?

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator could not unless he was in it.

Senator PAYNE:

– Of course not, and it means that a candidate belonging to the same organization who feels that he has as much ability to represent a State as any of the other candidates will not have the opportunity of being included in a group. In such circumstances, a candidate would not be able to secure the same support from the electors as one who is in the group, because his name being on another portion of the ballotpaper will suggest that he has not been approved by the organization to which he belongs. That is not giving candidates a fair deal. The electors should be given a free choice in regard to the selection of candidates to represent them in this Chamber, and if their rights are curtailed it will not be in the interests of good government. After all, we must recognise that the electors are the masters of the situation, and we have to abide by their decisions. There is quite a number of illiterate electors, so far as political ideals are concerned, and there is also a number of educated men, business men particularly, whose political ideas are confined entirely to their own personal interests. During the last election campaign, I heard a prominent business man openly admit- that he had taken a ballot-paper and marked all the names from top to bottom, because he was heartily tired of elections. With men of that type voting, the group system will not insure the recording of intelligent votes.

Senator Vardon:

– Fortunately there are not many like that.

Senator PAYNE:

– There are a good many, and I believe it would be prejudicial to the interests of this Chamber to adopt the grouping system. The last elections proved very satisfactory from the stand-point of the party to which I belong, and as a majority of the people decided that the Nationalist party should govern, why should .there be any necessity, to alter the system?

Senator Vardon:

– There were 179,000 informal votes. .

Senator PAYNE:

– If I could be convinced that any effort that is being made would result in decreasing the number of informal votes, I would not oppose the system; but I believe that this proposal, if adopted, will not be the means of decreasing the number. By adopting the method suggested in the amendment we will not be simplifying the position, and’ in the interests of the Government and of the Commonwealth I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Garling.

Senator FAIRBAIRN (Victoria) fact that political party machinery plays an important part in oar elections. The Labour party has one of the finest political machines in the world, and it would be absurd to suggest that that party could be fought without the assistance of a wellorganized political machine. The Labour party has pre-selection ballots, Caucus meetings, and its selected members have to sign a pledge.

Senator Gardiner:

– And the organization of which the honorable senator is a member copies and improves everything we adopt.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
VICTORIA

– Wejiave been driven into it, because the Labour party is organized and armed to the teeth. During my political career I have found that if I had not a strong political organization behind me I would not have been elected, particularly to the Senate. The voting for this Chamber is to a great extent on the ticket system, and to suggest that the electors know every candidate would be perfectly absurd. During’ my experience I have found that the electors have to be informed right up to the election day of the names of the candidates for whom they are to vote, and the womenfolk even carry the names into the booths on a slip of paper concealed in their gloves. I fought one election and was beaten, although I had splendid meetings. There were 46,000 electors in the electorate, and when the contest was over I said to my secretary, who was a particularly able man, that I must have addressed at least 20,000 of that number. He informed me, however, that he had kept a very careful note of the attendances, and that I had not addressed more than 2,000. It was somewhat depressing to realize that such a small number had taken the trouble to leave their work and amusement to hear what I had to say. Great credit is due to those who sacrifice their personal interests to serve on party committees, and who devote a good deal of time in attending meetings, studying the possibilities of candidates, and listening to dreary speeches. The grouping system which is incorporated in this measure is an excellent one, and will provide electors who do not wish to go into details with the information which they require. The organizers for the Labour party are, I think, more enthusiastic than any others.

Senator Gardiner:

– And you have more money to pay yours for their enthusiasm.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– That is not so, and if the secret history of the Labour party were disclosed it would be found that that party has at its disposal ten times more money than we have. The supporters of Labour have always said that we have large sums of money at our command for political purposes, but those who were once in the Labour ranks and who are now on our side have changed their opinion. On one occasion I was assisted by Mr. Agar Wynne and the late Sir Simon Fraser in collecting funds for a Victorian campaign, and we raised only £5,000, which is a very small amount when compared with the millions raised by the Labour party. Naturally the Labour party won that election. But I do not. say that money had much to do with it. I do not believe that there is direct bribery on either side. Some money must be spent in the conduct of elections, and, in my view, it is the duty of a man to contribute a certain amount of money to the political organization to which he belongs in order that it may be in a position to put the political situation before the electors in such a way as to enable them to form an intelligent opinion. I do not regard the spending of money in that way as bribery and corruption. I hope that the grouping system will be adopted because it is what the electors desire, and will make matters much more simple for them on election day.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I have already said that I intend to vote for the grouping system as indicated in this clause. The percentages of informal votes cast at the last two elections are certainly instructive. In 1917 the percentage was 3, and in the election of 1919 it had increased to 8.8 per cent., or nearly three times. The lower percentage in 1917 is probably accounted for by the fact that at that election the ballot-papers had to be marked with a cross in front of the name of the candidate for whom the elector intended to vote, in accordance with the practice which had been in force for a very long time. The election in 1919 was conducted on a new system of marking the ballot-papers, and probablythe great number of names that were placed in front of the electors was responsible for a great many of the informal votes. Senator Lynch has said that in this clause we are doing something to assist the Senate elector, and not the elector for the House of Representatives. That is so; but the elector for the House of Representatives does not require to be assisted in this way. That is proved by the figures of informal votes for elections for the two Houses. At the last election the percentage of informal votes for the House of Representatives was only 3.6, whilst the percentage for the Senate was 8.8. The system of grouping will not do an injustice to any candidate or any party, but it will help the elector in making his choice.

A great deal has been said about placing the names of independents at the bottom of the ballot-paper. As Senator Gardiner has pointed out, I have, throughno fault of my own, had my name appearing at the bottom of the ballot-paper at practically every election. It has seemed to me that that is hardly fair, and that if our system were not being altered as now proposed, it would have been wise to provide that candidates should ballot for the order in which’ their names shall appear on the ballotpaper. I hope the clause will be carried. I intend to vote for it.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– There isone reason for the increase in the number of informal votes which so far has not been mentioned. It is possible for an elector, under the existing system, to mark a ballot-paper in such a way as to record votes for three candidates and yet’ record an informal vote. The elector is at present required to vote for a sufficient number of candidates to fill the vacancies to be filled, plus one. He may vote for two candidates who are subsequently returned, and give his third vote for a candidate who has no chance, and his ballot-paper is rejected as informal. I contend that the wish of the elector, as indicated by his vote, should be given effect. There are practically three separate elections in the case of an election for the Senate provided for on one ballot-paper, and the elector’s votes for the candidates for whom he has voted should be regarded as formal. Ballot-papers have been rejected because of a technical informality which was not, in my opinion, a real informality. In filling the first vacancy and counting and distributing votes, it is often found that for the first two candidates there is a distinct indication of the wish of the elector. Under the old practice, if an elector distinctly marked his intention on the ballot-paper it was given effect to, and if it had been possible under the existing system to give effect in every instance to the wish indicated by the elector, a number of ballot-papers that were rejected as informal would not have been rejected, because they were perfectly valid for, perhaps, twoout of three candidates.I do not yet see how the difficulty is to be overcome, but possibly the officers of the Department may be able to guide us in the matter, and in the multitude of statutory rules may suggest one that will meet the difficulty.

Senator Duncan:

– It is very dangerous. It opens the way to plumping.

Senator SENIOR:

– No, it does not. Suppose an elector indicates his first two preferences for candidates who are subsequently returned, and his third for one who is not in the running.

Senator Pearce:

– That will not affect the validity of his vote. The test is, does he give the right number of votes? He must vote for candidates sufficient to fill double the number of vacancies, plus one.

Senator SENIOR:

– I think we should meet this difficulty in some way or another, because, when the electors have indicated their preference for three candidates, they believe they have voted for three persons to fill the three vacancies, and that they have therefore done their duty. I have gone carefully through lists in South Australia, and have found that the percentage of informal votes varies in different divisions and subdivisions. It will be found that it is not ignorance nor education that determines the matter, but. where electors are most easily organized there are fewer informal votes. In my opinion it is not right that, where two men out of three receive a vote that would be valid if the election for the Senate were regarded as an election for a single electorate of the House of Representatives, they should be deprived of the votes recorded for them because of a technical informality in the indication of the voter’s preference for other candidates.

Senator WILSON (South Australia) (5.14]. - I would not have spoken again on the clause, but I wish to reply to some remarks that have fallen from other honorable senators. Senator Drake-Brockman has said that the effect of this clause will be to simplify the ballot. ‘ I think that it will complicate the ballot very seriously. An honorable senator has only to put fourteen or fifteen names on a list, and group them, and he will have to admit that this proposal must complicate voting very seriously, except for those who intend to give an absolute block party vote.

Senator Gardiner:

– And they represent nine-tenths of the community.

Senator WILSON:

– I have already said that 50 per cent, of the electors are not party electors.

Senator Fairbairn:

– Fifteen per cent.

Senator WILSON:

– The official figures show that over 50 per cent, of the electors are not directly connected with any party organization.

Senator Duncan:

– I do not think there was one independent candidate at the last election who received anywhere near 50 per cent, of the votes polled for successful candidates.

Senator WILSON:

– Because a man records a block vote on occasion, that is not to say that he is a party man. When I speak of party electors, I refer to members of political associations or parties, and a very great many of the electors are not members of any political organization.

In speaking previously, I said mo3t emphatically that Senator de Largie did assist to defeat a proposal similar to this three years ago. Many other honorable senators have held a similar view until quite recently. Yesterday Senator de Largie accused me of everlastingly introducing the personal note in this Chamber. I say the honorable senator’s statement was inaccurate and entirely uncalled for.. I may have, unfortunately, a forcible way of putting my arguments, but I have refrained as much as any hon.orable senator can from being personal. If, to quote what an honorable senator may have said or done on a previous occasion is to be regarded as introducing a personal matter, the limits of debate in this Chamber will be very seriously confined. An Electoral Bill was introduced in the Senate in 1919, and honorable sena tors will find the following at page 13443 of Hansard for 16th October of that year : -

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President ot the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria

– I move - *’

That the schedule be further amended by leaving out the letters “ A,” “ B,” [and “ C “ before the names of the candidates, and tha footnote.

The object is to do away with tho grouping S)stem. The Bill is not a party measure, and I regret that we have to do this. However, 1 recognise that it is the wish of the Senate, and I yield as gracefully as possible to the majority. lt is true that Senator de Largie did not speak on that motion, but I find that he was a teller in the division that took place upon it. The motion was carried by fifteen Ayes to eight Noes.

Senator Pearce:

– That division was not on the grouping principle.

Senator WILSON:

– It was on the question that the group system be withdrawn, and I find that the only members supporting it, outside of ex-Senator Shannon, were Labour men and exLabour men.

Senator Pearce:

– The division was on quite a different question.

Senator Russell:

– I had discretion, because the numbers were against me.

Senator WILSON:

– If a Minister exercises discretion when the numbers are against him, it ceases to be discretion. The Minister had no chance of carrying the proposal then, and I repeat that the vote was as to whether the letters “A,” “B,” and “ C,” that is, the group system, should be deleted.

Senator de Largie:

– What were the circumstances of that debate? Can the honorable senator, say ?

Senator WILSON:

– The division was on the question whether the group system should stand or not.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is wrong.

Senator WILSON:

– The Hansard record is as clear- as it is possible to be. What may have been unforeseen and what did not take place in this Chamber finds no record in Hansard, and, therefore, I am not concerned about that.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator has arrived at that conclusion, all I can say is that he has not read tha debate, and I advise him to do so.

Senator WILSON:

– I have read it. Is it necessary to go through the whole of Senator Russell’s statement?

Senator Pearce:

– You want to go back to what took place prior to that division.

Senator WILSON:

– I should not be called upon to go delving into prior records for this information. Senator Russell is here, and can speak for himself. If I have misled the Committee, I leave it to Senator Russell. The vote was taken on the question of the group system, and it was rejected.

Senator Gardiner:

– The Government changed their minds because their party was leading them.

Senator Plain:

– I think there was some misunderstanding about that division.

Senator WILSON:

– Probably there was, and that is one reason why I have not stressed the significance of the names in the division list. I have no desire to be unfair. I contend that Senator de Largie was against the group system then, and until recently was of the same mind; with him his advocacy now is in the nature of a death-bed repentance.

Senator de Largie:

– Nothing of the kind. I defy you to quote a single utterance of mine to show that I was against the group system in 1919.

Senator WILSON:

– I think I will leave that for other honorable senators.

Senator de Largie:

– But you should do your own work. You are making the accusation.

Senator WILSON:

– I am quite capable of doing by own work, and I repeat that until recently Senator de Largie was against the group system.

Senator de Largie:

– And I say that you are absolutely incorrect.

Senator WILSON:

– I shall allow other honorable senators to be the judges in this matter. I have no intention of delaying the Senate. I think I have made myself quite clear. I am opposed to the proposal, because it is a very serious step for the Senate to take. The objections raised on the former occasion stand to-day. Surely Senator Earle has not changed his position. This proposal will introduce party politics into the ballot-box, and attempt to force people, per medium of legislation, into one or other of two parties. Senator Lynch quite properly drew attention to the position in which a fourth man might be placed if, without the indorsement of his party, he attempted to get into a team for the Senate elections, and I want to put the issue in a personal way in order to make it effective. Let us suppose, for instance, that my friends Senators Newland and Benny are candidates for the next election, and agree that they will not have me as a third man in the team. What will be my position? Are we going to allow two candidates to determine a question like that?

Senator Lynch:

– The group system will absolutely limit the choice of the electors.

Senator WILSON:

– It will limitit to such an extent that unless a man is in one or other of the groups he will not have a dog’s chance of election. Senator Duncan, in his forcible manner, suggested that I will be a party man at the next election. It is notfor him or any one else to say what I shall be when next I face the electors, but I can say that since I have been in this Chamber I have endeavoured always to do what I believe to be the right thing.

Senator Duncan:

– And you have done it very well.

Senator WILSON:

– I have tried to, at all events. I am opposing the group system” because I believe that an important principle is at stake. The electors themselves, and not some party outside, should have a right to determine whether a man shall represent them or not. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the proposal.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I find it hard to believe that Senator Wilson has read the debate on this question when the Bill was before the Committee in 1919. If he has done so, I am at a loss to understand why he should attempt to mislead the Committee.

Senator de Largie:

– He has done it deliberately.

Senator Wilson:

-I have not done so.

Senator PEARCE:

– I must assume, then, that the honorable senator has not intentionally done so, but the debate in Hansard of 16th October, 1919, page 13444, is quite clear. Senator Russell had introduced the group system in a Bill which he advocated, and the matter not being treated as a party question, opinions were divided. Senator de Largie did not speak to the Bill. A number of members supporting the Minister spoke in favour of the measure, and some, including. Senators Bakhap and Lynch, against it. Senator

Newland spoke strongly in its favour. Senator Russell obtained leave to withdraw the proposal, and subsequently he moved -

That all tho words after “ Candidates “ be left out with a. view to inserting the following :-

Then appear the names of candidates on a. ballot-paper in alphabetical order, the Minister explaining that,, since submitting his previous amendment, he had discovered that the specimen ballot-paper had not been arranged in. alphabetical order. The division took place on Senator Russell’s amendment for a rearrangement of the ballot-paper to correct the mistake referred to.

Senator Wilson:

– The division was on whether the grouping of candidates in “ A,” “ B,” and “ C “ should be left out.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator is quite wrong. The division may be found on page 13448. No motion intervened, and, therefore, the vote was on Senator Russell’s amendment for a rearrangement of. the ballot-paper to correct & mistake which appeared in the first specimen ballot-paper submitted.

Senator Gardiner:

– The ballot-paper was not in alphabetical order because it provided for the group system.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Russell had already withdrawn the proposal and had, of course, to submit something in its place. Senator Newland said that he was entirely at a loss to understand what had persuaded the Minister to depart from, the grouping system, of which he (Senator Newland) cordially approved, and of course he was found voting against the Minister. If honorable senators peruse the debate they will find that the division was not ou the question of the group system at all.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But it is correct to say that the group system was not adopted by the Senate.

Senator PEARCE:

– It was withdrawn.

Senator Lynch:

– Because that was the sense of the Senate at the time.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Minister in charge of the Bill thought it waa. He believed there was a majority against him, but Hansard contains no record of that majority.

I turn now to remarks made by Senators Lynch and Wilson. They both seem to attach undue importance to the probable effect of the group system, and

Senator Lynch in particular appears to have some regard for a man who, not being a nominee of a party, may find himself in what he terms- the- “ dust bin,” that is to say, at the bottom of the ballotpaper. I do not remember receiving Senator Lynch’s sympathy when I was in the “ dust bin,” as he terms it, at tho last general election.

Senator Lynch:

– I advised everybody to put you first, in front of myself.

Senator PEARCE:

– I have here a specimen of the Senate ballot-paper for the last Federal elections in Western Australia. The names appeared in the following order: -

Drake-Brockman,

Gorman,

Graham,

Lynch,

Needham,

Pearce.

According to Senator Lynch, I was under some terrible disability because I was at the bottom of’ the list. If there is any grouping on that ballotpaper, it is the grouping of DrakeBrockman, Gorman, and Graham. Senator Lynch has- no> objection to such grouping. It is proposed, in the Bill that the ballotpaper shall read Drake-Brockman, Lynch, Pearce, Gorman, Graham, Needham. Some of them would have the letter “A” in front of their names. Where is the terrible trap for the unwary elector in that arrangement ? Where is .the serious! injury? Suppose Senator Wilson were there as an independent candidate. What terrible fate would befall him? His fate would be that which has befallen him ‘ at practically every election. His name would be placed below all the other names. That, however, has been going on for years, and no one has shed tears for Senator Vardon, Senator Wilson, or myself. A proposal is now put forward to get away from this accidental placing of the position of the names on the list. The accident of the first letter of his name determines the position of a candidate on the ballot-paper, but that is considered to be no injustice. Why should we humbug ourselves? We know very well that the great majority of the electors of this country want to vote for a party. It is not that they put a party above the State, but that they believe that their party is going to serve the interests of the State best. That is why it is not logical to say that because one believes in a party one is therefore against the State. If we did not consider that our party was for the advantage of the State, we would not support it.

Senator Lynch:

– What did party influence count for in the war?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– I will explain to the honorable senator what party influence counted for in the war’ Party influence stood in the way of what certain honorable senators conceived to be their duty, and they left their party; but they had no sooner left it than they saw at once that if the cause for which they stood was to survive, they must have a party to advocate and uphold it. Soon after their departure from the party which stood between them and their duty to their country, they associated themselves will’ a party which enabled them to express themselves with force and power in this country. It is certain that if Senator Lynch, myself, and others who left our party at that time, conscientiously believing that to be the right course to follow, had not taken subsequent action to associate ourselves with another party, the party we had left would have had control of this country during and after the war. We cannot fight unity with disunity, nor organization with disorganization. Therefore we are only humbugging ourselves when we shut our eyes to the fact that the great bulk of the electors of this country want to express themselves through party organizations.

Senator Lynch:

– I was dealing with the independent, or unbranded, candidate who finds himself at the tail end of the list.

Senator PEARCE:

– The independent candidate will be in no worse, and no better, position than those of us who, by an accident, have at the beginning of our names a letter which is near the end of the alphabet. Senator Vardon, Senator Wilson, and myself have managed, notwithstanding that disability, to win seats in the Senate, and to remain here over a period of years. Our presence is an indication that the new system of placing names on the ballot-paper will not he a disadvantage to a man who, because of personal qualifications, and notwithstanding the fact that he has no party at his back, is able to earn the confidence, good-will, and votes of the electors of this country.

Senator Lynch:

– If the Minister’s argument is sound, why is an ingenious device resorted to for arriving at the order or sequence in which the parties shall appear on the ballot-paper ?

Senator PEARCE:

– My reply is the Western Australian ballot-paper. There is more reason why the names of DrakeBrockman, Lynch, and Pearce should follow each other than that Gorman and Graham should follow Drake-Brockman. They follow each other now because they happen to be accidentally the next in alphabetical sequence. In the electors’ eyes and the electors’ opinion, there is more association between DrakeBrockman, Lynch, and myself than there is between Drake-Brockman, Gorman, and Graham. Therefore, the proposal will meet the convenience of the electors, and will assist them to arrive at the judgment they desire. The arguments that have been used against the group system can be. employed with equal effect against the alphabetical system. If those arguments are sound, we ought not to continue the alphabetical system, but should ballot for positions on the ballot-paper.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– My attitude towards this part of the Bill is that of a man who sees the necessity for clarifying the issues before the electors. This “tinkering,” as it has been called, with the electoral law is only a process of experimentation. ‘ We have not reached such a perfect stage that we can say we have no need for experiment. I do not agree with those honorable senators who have criticised members because they have departed to-day from the attitude they took up three years ago. They have changed their views because experience has shown that it is necessary to clarify the issues before the electors.

Senator Wilson:

– Did not I admit that most freely when I was speaking?

Senator GARLING:

– Perhaps the honorable senator did. I was not referring particularly to him, for more than he have referred to the attitude of others. I think I may fairly state what my experience was during the last election to indicate how essential it is that the candidates representing a certain policy should, as far as possible, be collected together, so thatthe electors may not make a mistake. My statement may be contradicted. I ran fourth in the final result, and was defeated. When the elections were over, the party to which I belonged had a scrutiny made of many thousands of the bal lot-papers to see whether they could find anything to indicate why Senators Cox and Duncan, who were numbered 1 and 2, and Garling, who was numbered 3, were not all elected together. They found thousands of instances in which electors voted 1 for Cox, 2 for Duncan, and 3 for Gardiner. I would not think much of that had I followed somewhere near j but the examination further disclosed that after the name of Gardiner appeared a number of names of candidates who werewhat we might term the “ also-rans.” My name was finally bracketed at the bottom of the list with ex-Senators Grant and’ McDougall, who were the other candidates in the Labour interest. Had a few only made that mistake one would not have thought much of it, but when it is found - and I am able to support this statement by the testimony of the men who made the scrutiny - that thousands voted in that fashion, one can only come to the conclusion that the electors were not sufficiently educated regarding the personality of the candidates, and that they mistook the name of Gardiner for Garling. In instances like this we ought to do all we can to enable the electors to cast their votes as they intend to cast them. The system of grouping will in my opinion assist them. Who can say that it will give any violent twist to our electoral system, or that any attempt is being made to bring in anything pernicious? I would not vote for the proposal if I did not ‘believe that it would be a step in the direction of clarifying the issues before the people. If it were merely a matter of party, of seeking to get a party stranglehold on the politics of this country, I would not favour it; but anything that we can do we should do to clear the issues before the electors, to make plain to them the duty before them, and to acquaint them with the personnel of the men who have been nominated to support different issues and policies that the electors believe in.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I would not have spoken again but for the fact that an honorable senator placed in a false position must continue to correct statements that are incorrect until he has made his position quite clear. When speaking yesterday on the second reading of the Bill, and when referring to the grouping system, I was challenged by ‘Senator Wilson as to whether I was not responsible for the de-‘ feat of the proposition when it was before the Senate on a previous occasion. Being challenged when I was on my feet, I could not give a definite denial, but I said I did not. think so. I could not remember whether a division had been taken, but I knew my general attitude on the question. I knew that I was in favour of grouping. I gave a qualified denial. I think most honorable senators, if not all, with the exception of Senator Wilson, would have accepted my denial, but he would not accept it. Apparently be pored over it all night, and carried it about with him until he spoke again today. When he was speaking to-day I again denied the incorrect statement. That, however, did not satisfy him. He said he had read it in Hansard, and was going to make a great exposure of me. When an honorable senator conducts himself in that manner, and will not accept the statement of another honorable senator when he is wrong, it is necessary to repeat the denial. Undoubtedly he was wrong in saying that I was responsible for the defeat of the proposal. There was no division upon it. Constant repetition of a statement that is inaccurate will not” raise any honorable senator in the estimation of the members of this Chamber. He refused to accept my statement that I did not vote or speak against it, or do anything to defeat it., When’ a public man keeps repeating an inaccurate statement, and tries to ram it down one’s throat, he fails to command respect, and in future I do not intend taking notice of anything he may say.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator Wilson cannot be accused of unfairly quoting what Hansard records.

Senator Wilson:

– If Senator Russell speaks, he. will be “potted.”

Senator GARDINER:

– According to the Minister’s speech, the reason for the withdrawal of the grouping system previously was the objection of the Government following to it. Senator Garling has made the extraordinary statement that his party, after the election, had access to the ballot-papers, examined them, and worked out how the votes had been oast.

Senator Russell:

– And found thousands of votes for “ Gardiner.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not troubled as to how the voting went Despite all the “ millions “ the Labour party possessed, it never had enough money to get access to ballot-papers.

Senator Pearce:

Senator Garling referred to the information given to him by the scrutineers, who saw the count.

Senator GARDINER:

– No. He said that they were permitted to examine the ballot-papers. Of course, it shocks the Minister. It would shock anybody to hear such a thing.

Senator Pearce:

– He cannot have meant that.

Senator GARDINER:

– Not only did he mean it, but I know that it is a fact.

Senator Pearce:

– I would like to hear Senator Garling on that.

Senator GARDINER:

– When it was notified that there was to be a vacancy, I asked the Minister in charge of the administration of the Electoral Act to conduct a scrutiny.

Senator Pearce.~I think Senator Garling should reply to that.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I got my information, of course, from the Association, that there had been a scrutiny of the ballot-papers. How it was made, I do not know. I assame that it was done during the counting after the election. The counting took some weeks.

Senator de Largie:

– It must be made immediately after the election, in accordance with the Act.

Senator GARLING:

– It was made by the men who were scrutineering at the election.

Senator Lynch:

– That takes place at every election.

Senator Pearce:

– That is a different thing altogether.

Senator GARLING:

– It is three years since this happened, but that was the information furnished to the Association.

Senator Pearce:

– By whom?

Senator GARLING:

– By the scrutineers.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I can quite understand that, when a statement is made publicly that even a Minister cannot defend, it comes as a shock to know that the Nationalist organization in New South Wales, after the election was over, and after the scrutiny had been made, had access to the ballot-papers in that State, with a view to seeing how the votes had been cast. That is exactly what took place.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator GARDINER:

– Let the Minister read the proof to-morrow of Senator Garling ‘s speech, and then he will know, as the Nationalist members from New South Wales already know,- that their, party did make, a scrutiny of the ballotpapers.

Senator Pearce:

– After the election?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

Senator Garling:

– I said that, after the election,-, there was a scrutiny; but I do not know just at what period it took place.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I cannot allow a discussion on a question of a problematical nature. While I wish to afford to honorable senators fair latitude, I cannot permit this discussion to be enlarged into a general debate as to what was done at a scrutiny in New South Wales.

Senator GARDINER:

– If we have this grouping system brought into operation, it will afford great facilities to the Nationalist party, that has such an influence in New South Wales. When they want to send their officers to examine the ballot-papers, they will not have so much difficulty under the proposed system. * The simple fact is that, after the election, this political organization in New South Wales had the opportunity to examine the ballot-papers. This is not the first occasion on which I have heard of the matter from an authoritative source.

Senator Lynch:

– Why did you not move for a Royal Commission?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not prepared to move in that direction upon everything I hear. I know that the Minister (Senator Pearce) is as much surprised as I was when I first heard it, and I am glad that the information has been made public. All the explanations that can possibly be offeredwill not nullify what has been admitted on the part of the Nationalist party.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

. - It will be well for honorable senators to hear the’ amendment read again, loudly and slowly. It is proposed to substitute the following for the sub-clause we have just negatived: -

A group shall include the names of those candidates only who notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after they have been nominated, and not later than 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that they desire to have their names included in that group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.

Apparently, there are to be two sets of candidates in a group. The position now is that one set of candidates must notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State that they wish their names to be included in a particular group with the names of others, and I shall want some light thrown upon this proposal before I shall vote for it.

Senator Wilson:

– Ministers have the numbers, and are going right on.

Senator LYNCH:

– Probably they have; but I am anxious to know where we stand. It is a most extraordinary piece of draftsmanship, but I cannot blame the mover, because I know the dangers associated with drafting an amendment in a hurried “manner within the chamber. I ask honorable senators to study the verbiage of this provision, and endeavour to ascertain what it means. Does it mean that there are to be two classes in each group, one of which shall be obliged to notify the Electoral Officer, while the other will be informed by some mysterious means, and not called upon to notify the Electoral Officer in any way? A sub-clause drafted as this is is not creditable to the Government now fathering it or to this Chamber.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I wish to allay the fears expressed by Senator Lynch that this sub-clause has been hurriedly drafted. It was submitted yesterday by Senator Garling, when I took the opportunity of passing it on to the Crown Law officers for consideration and approval. The drafting is, therefore, in order, and is, I believe, in accordance with the views of the majority of the Commitee.

Senator SENIOR (South Australia) (6.8]. -This provision appears to give officials the right to protect certain individuals when that should be done only by law. In the first place, who is to approach the Commonwealth Electoral Officer of the State and stipulate that certain names only shall be included ?

Senator Cox:

– The three candidates.

Senator SENIOR:

– By what means are they to comprise a group?

Senator Pearce:

– By joint and several agreement.

Senator Lynch:

– Between whom?

Senator Pearce:

– Between the three candidates.

Senator SENIOR:

– How is the joint and several agreement to be brought about?

Senator Pearce:

– By mutual agreement amongst themselves.

Senator SENIOR:

– Three men are to mutually agree to the detriment of the fourth?

Senator Pearce:

– They can include a fourth if they, desire.

Senator Wilson:

– And they can bury him, too, if they wish.

Senator SENIOR:

– It is not by choice or selection that three men comprise a group.

Senator Pearce:

– There may be four, or even six. Would the honorable senator give one man the power to force himself on a group against the wishes of the other three?

Senator SENIOR:

– Three men in a group could exclude a fourth.

Senator Pearce:

– Who is to have the right - the one man or the three?

Senator Garling:

– Those who agree.

Senator SENIOR:

– One has as much right as the others. The provision as it stood was that any candidates who notified the officer could be included in the group; but it now means that a trinity can combine to exclude every one else, thus making a very close corporation of it.

Senator Lynch:

– It is another disqualification of a candidate.

Senator SENIOR:

– Yes, although he may be selected outside.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I agree with all Senator Senior has said, and I, too, am anxious to know who is to form a group. During the last elections I received the indorsement of three parties, but at the next election which I contest, if this preposterous proposal is adopted, I shall be compelled to desert two of those parties which have supported me.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– No. It will merely require the honorable senator to state his position.

Senator WILSON:

– The Liberal party in. South Australia, for instance, will nominate three candidates, the Nationalist party three candidates, and the Country party will do the same in order to protect their interests.

Senatorcox. - Not necessarily.

Senator WILSON:

– These are the facts which must be faced now, and not several years hence, when I have to contest an election. This provision, if adopted, will’ force me into the position of severing my connexion with two parties which assisted me during the last election. The parties outside will naturally seize the opportunity and nominate three candidates.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– They may do so.

Senator WILSON:

– The odds are decidedly against me, as the parties at the next election will utilize the machinery we are providing for them. Honorable senators have no right to treat this matter lightly, because it is very important, particularly in connexion with the forthcoming Senate elections. To me it is vital, and every honorable senator should realize before he votes that he is assisting to increase the strength of two great parties at the expense of candidates representing other organizations. Senator Gar ling admits that he favours branding candidates.

Senator Garling:

– Why does not the honorable senator toe the line?

Senator WILSON:

– What brand is to be placed on me? Senator Row ell and others know the decision arrived at in South Australia, which resulted in my election to the Senate. I came out as an anti-Socialist candidate, and after two years of service I am asked to which party I belong. Let honorable senators ask the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) if I belong to his party. Since I have been here I have been a candid critic of the Government because it is my duty as a public man to investigate the legislation introduced; but notwithstanding my criticism, I do not think it can be said that I have failed to support their policy. Since this Bill has passed the second-reading stage, I have given its provisions very careful consideration, and have sought the advice of very reliable authorities. I ask honorable senators to consider the position under the grouping system of a candidate who has received the support of three parties. Can three parties indorse his candidature?

Senator Crawford:

– Of course they can.

Senator WILSON:

– Then the honorable senator does not understand the system.

Senator Crawford:

– Cannot the honorable senator’s name appear in each group ?

Senator WILSON:

– A candidate cannot have his name in three groups.

Senator Crawford:

– But three could be in the one group.

Senator WILSON:

– But a candidate cannot be in more than one group. I put this to the Government in all seriousness : A man comes into the Senate to make good, andhe does make good, and yet, under this provision, the Government will deprive different sections of the right to give that man their indorsement. That is anti-British, unfair, and unworthy of a Chamber such as this.

Question - That thewords proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I do not intend to speak at length at this stage. I believe that the clause, as amended, will be carried. If it is, the people of Australia will have occasion to say, not “Thank God for the Senate,” but “ Thank God for the House of Representatives.’’

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The carrying of this clause on the authority of the statement which came from the Ministerial bench will impose another disability on candidates, as well as on the electors. Itwill place the fate of any man who intends to be a candidate for the Senate in the hands of three or four people. I positively object, on the part of potential candidates, as well as on the part of the electors, to such a limitation of their freedom. I am not responsible for it. The responsibility rests on the Government and the majority who vote for it. It represents another disqualification for intending candidates, and limits the choice of the electors to the selection of those who, under this provision, will have the fate of candidates in their hands.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I should like to know by what method the alphabetical order of groups will be arranged where one contains three candidates and another contains two?

Senator Pearce:

– That is provided for in clause 10 of the Bill.

Question - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m..

Clause 4 -

Section 76 of the principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (a), and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -

if the total number of votes polled inhis favour as first preferences is more than one-tenth of the average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election; or

where the name of the candidate is included in a group in pursuance of section 72a of this Act, if the average number of votes polled in favour of the candidates included in the group as first preferences is more than one-tenth of the average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election; or”.

Section proposed to be amended -

The deposit made by or on behalf of a candidate at a Senate election or at a House of Representatives election shall the election’ shall be returned to the candidate or to some person authorized by him in writing to receive it if he is elected; or

in the case of a Senate election, if the total number of votes polled in his favour as first preferences is more than one-tenth of the average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election; or

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This clause appears to make some attempt to regulate the procedure with regard to the lodging and forfeiture of deposits by candidates, and, therefore, it is very important, particularly to a candidate who may be in danger of forfeiting his deposit. Paragraph i. reproduces word for word the verbiage of the Act as it stands; but paragraph ii. deals with the position of group candidates, who, as I shall point out, are to be placed in a specially privileged position. We are providing that if a candidate other than a group candidate polls less than onetenth of the average votes recorded for the successful candidates, he shall forfeit his deposit. But not so in the case of a group . candidate, because the lowest nominee of a group will be. assisted by the number of votes polled by the highest candidate in that group, and the number of votes credited to him will be lifted up to the average of the group. All candidates should be placed on the same level. Why this attempt to penalize the independent man? I object to the proposal, which is only additional evidence of the pernicious system which is sought to be ingrafted upon our electoral machinery. I am opposed to it from A to Z. Why should any differentiation be made between any of the candidates? The Government, having taken one false step by carrying a proposal for the group system, must now take another step by extending special privileges to candidates of a group.

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear!

Senator LYNCH:

– I am glad that, at last, Senator Gardiner sees the light: The second paragraph of the clause under notice is the second false step, and I want some enlightenment upon it; otherwise I shall move to have it struck out. What has the independent candidate done that he should be penalized in this way.? We have it on the best of authority, that of Senator Gardiner himself, that he is in the Senate by virtue of the fact that, in the alphabetical arrangement of candidates’ names at the last election, he was placed before Sena-tor Garling; the suggestion, of course, being that the electors of New South Wales, being jaded and tired, or perhaps too full of politics, “ dropped their bundle,” so to speak, and said, “Oh, here is Gardiner. We will have him; he will do.” But, of course, there is another side to that argument. and it supports what I am contending, namely, that an intelligent community will always find their man when they want him, even if he has a Hebrew character for. the first letter of his name. Unless I get some satisfactory explanation for the insertion of paragraph ii., I shall oppose it entirely, for the simple reason that if a man goes through the ordeal and becomes a candidate - and by the action of Senator Gardiner in supporting the group scheme it will be much more difficult in the future than it has been in the past - he should not be further penalized.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator Lynch is arguing against any forfeiture of deposits at elections. If he is in favour of that course^ he will not object if ballot-papers are loaded almost to any extent, and naturally he will not only vote against the clause, but should go. further, and vote the original section out of the Act, thus doing away altogether with the necessity for any deposit. We have to face the fact that political parties exist, and if there are three or four vacancies to bc filled, the respective parties will nominate candidates to fill them. It is obvious that, under , the preferential system, the electors voting the party ticket will do so in the order of their individual choice, with the result that one candidate of a group or party may get very few first preference votes, but a great many number two and number three preferences. I think Senator Garling could recite a very interesting experience of the operation of the Act as it stands, for I understand that, although he was runnerup at the last election, he forfeited his deposit. The intention is to deter candidates who have no earthly chance of election from putting the country to unnecessary expenditure merely for the sake of advertisement. I have heard of a man who did not address a solitary meeting, but, nevertheless, he submitted himself as a candidate, and got his name placed on. the ballot-paper. He did not expect to win, and, indeed, did not want to. When he was asked why he nominated, he replied that he was a barber, and that it was a good advertisement for him, as it brought him a good deal pf extra business. Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, according to the view taken, has decided that in certain circumstances a candidate shall forfeit his deposit. This provision was inserted in the Act to deter people who have no earthly chance of election from nominating and putting the country to useless expenditure. The amendment does not put a person who is a member of a group at any advantage over the person who is running independently; but as the party man’s vote is divided by three or four, according to the number of names on the ticket, and as he suffers by that division, it insures that the actual vote he gets shall be dealt with in precisely the same way as the actual vote of the independent candidate. The proposal made in the Bill is the only way in which we can accomplish that. It puts the group man on an equality with the independent man, but it does not give him an advantage. Surely Senator Lynch, much as he might dislike the group or the party system, would not penalize a man because he runs on a party ticket and is included in a group.

Senator Rowell:

– The present system might penalize a man who is eventually elected.

Senator PEARCE:

– It might. For those reasons I ask the Committee to vote for the proposal.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator Lynch had no occasion to angle for my support in this matter. If he will throw his mind back to the last occasion when this matter was before the Senate he will find that it was I who pointed out that a candidate might come within a few votes of winning a seat and yet forfeit his deposit. I was laughed at by members of this Chamber. I made myself acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. An instance in support of what I say was furnished by the elections in New South Wales. Senator Garling, who got 300,000 votes, did actually forfeit his deposit. I understand that the deposit was refunded by the Government, and I have several times thought of inquiring whether the unfortunate independents had their deposits returned.

Senator Pearce:

– All the forfeited deposits were returned after the last election.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to hear that. I thought it possible that only the powerful machines would be able to get the money back. No members of our party lost their deposits, because we knew too much about the Act. We saw the danger, and gave each candidate enough first preferences to save him. Mr. Conroy, who ran as an independent, did not lose his deposit, but, as we all know, candidates who got hundreds of thousands of votes did. I favour the abolition of the deposit. I quite realize the inconvenience that is caused by a very large number of candidates coming forward, and that the reckless, careless man, the one who is out to advertise his business, or to make a fool of himself generally, is a very great source of annoyance. At the same time, why should an independent candidate who wants the people of this country to have an independent representative, who sees evil in the party system, and who starts out to convert half-a-million electors to his view, lose his deposit because he does not convert them, at the first attempt ? He has two powerful party machines arrayed against him. Why make him pay a penalty of £25? He is honest, straightforward, everything desirable in a political contest, but because he lost, through no fault of his own, but through the lack of intelligence on the part of the electors, he is penalized. If we were to penalize the electors for nob voting for him there might be some sense in it. The system of requiring a deposit creates a property qualification. What is £25 to a wealthy man who, perhaps, has no more’ ability than the man who is out only to advertise hi3 business? What is £25 to a man with thousands of pounds a year income? He gets more than £25 worth of satisfaction out of the fact that he is a candidate for Parliament. He gets all the interest that one gets when, in the real fight, and while the penalty is nothing to him, it bears heavily upon a man who has not £25 to spare. If we are a free people, and if wc so frame our Electoral Acts that every electorhas a right to sit in the Senate by the fact of being an elector, I can see no good reason for putting a penalty on a man whom the electors do not estimate at the same value as he estimates himself. We say that the humblest, the most uneducated, the most unfitted to exercise the franchise, may exercise it without let or hindrance. I agree with that principle; but when we come to the question of electing members of Parliament, if one does not get a sufficient number of votes, he has to pay a penalty. Could not we discover a more acceptable way of doing it even under the present Act? I think that a better system than saying that a man must get one-tenth of the winning first preferences would be to strike out all reference to first preferences, and require him to get a percentage of the votes, whether in the first, second, or third count. Inthe last election in New South Wales, a candidate who had 6,000 votes on the first count, and hundreds of thousands on the other counts, lost his deposit. That might occur again. It cannot occur with group candidates, but it can with others. I realize that this Bill will not get the consideration that it ought to get from the Committee, because we are acting in accordance with fixed principles that do not provide much scope for altering the Act. What is the position in regard to how members will be elected? What will be the position six months hence, when we go to the country? We shall then find the National party deep in their dugouts, well entrenched, and well supported. We shall find attacking them from the open country two organized parties, and a lot of independents. If we want to get them out, and this Bill is passed, there will be a simple way of doing it. The Country party and the Labour party will have to say, “ We have only to combine our votes. We have no need to ask the Labour man to vote for the Country man, or the Country man to vote for the Labour man, but we have only to say that, after giving our first preferences to our own men, we will give the second preferences of the Country party to the Labour party, and of the Labour party to the Country party.” As a Labour man I say that we are prepared to do it.

Senator Wilson:

– If that is done, it willbe good-bye to every National candidate in Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– It will.

Senator Pearce:

– It has been tried, and has failed.

Senator GARDINER:

– It has never been tried, but it will be tried. There are some States in which it would mean good-bye to the Countryparty, and some in which it would mean good-bye to the Labour party, but it is an absolute certainty that it would be good-bye everywhere to the National party. We are not wise in passing an Electoral Bill which, by the method of counting, leaves it to outside organizations to so affect the will of the people. Reverting to the question of the loss of the deposit, I say that as there are three vacancies the first, second, and third votes should all count to the candidates when it comes to a question of deciding whether they have had sufficient support to save them from forfeiting their deposits. The system of taking the three ballots as if they were separate and distinct is wrong. When this proposal was before the Chamber on a previous occasion, I opposed it. I opposed the principle of forfeiting a deposit because the electors do not sufficiently appreciate a good man. Whether he is a Nationalist, Socialist, Labour man, Independent, or anything else, it is not his fault if the electors do not vote for him, and why should he be penalized for it? I know that, particularly in an election like that for the Senate, where the constituencies are very large, and the printing bill very heavy, an unlimited number of candidates would be a serious matter; but while £25 penalizes the poor man, it is no restriction on the rich man. It penalizes those without cash, and does not interfere in the slightest degree with those who have money to burn. That is not the way we should deal with people who want seats in this Chamber. Instead of shutting out competition the Senate should invite it. We want some of those splendid men of whom Senator Lynch spoke - those independentminded men who are on pedestals, and will not come down to the level of party organizations. We get them here only when they are astute enough to be shining models of independence, after they are safely in their seats. Before they get here, they are very docile party men, who submit to party discipline, inarch in the party ranks, and keep right iu step with the party. When they are here, they will have no dictation from outside organizations. I believe that the logical thing to do is to wipe out the deposit. Its absurdity is proved by its effect at the last’ election. Some of the candidates who forfeited their deposits went very near winning. Having had such shocking examples of the evil of a clause of this kind, it would be better for us to wipe it out.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- The Minister (Senator Pearce) did not apparently quite realize the intention of Senator Lynch in his opposition to this clause. I do not think the honorable senator gave any indication of a desire to dispense with the deposit.

Senator Lynch:

– I never suggested it.

Senator PAYNE:

– I agree to a very great extent with the view pub forward by Senator Lynch, especially in regard to the differentiation that he made as to the penalty to be imposed. Under the previous clause, which provides for the group system, it would be possible for three Nationalist candidates to combine and form, a group, while another candidate who failed to get in that group would be penalized more severely, even though he might be a Nationalist also, in the event of his not receiving onetenth of the average number of first preference votes of the successful candidates. The Minister referred to the possibility of a candidate in a group obtaining a very small percentage of the average number of first preference votes. That might be so, but the same thing would apply equally to any other candidate outside the group. No organization has ever urged the electors that No. 1 votes should be given to Brown, No. 2 to Jones, and No. 3 to Robinson. The organizations simply ask the electors to vote solidly for their particular parties.

Senator Pearce:

Senator Gardiner told us that that was done in each division in New South Wales.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have never known the Nationalist party to urge the electors to give the first preference to a particular candidate.

Senator Gardiner:

– They did in New South Wales. Senator Cox got the first preference..

Senator Earle:

– The unsuccessful candidate has only to get one-tenth of the average number of first preference votes of the successful men. 0

Senator PAYNE:

– I quite agree that, if a candidate does not secure that proportion of the votes, he should forfeit his deposit; but the candidate who is in ai group, and the man who is not in a group, if both get the same number of first preference votes, should be on an equality in regard to the forfeiture of the deposit. Why should the man outside of the group be penalized? If it can be shown that the two candidates are on exactly the same basis, my objection to the clause disappears.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– The ground for the objection raised by Senator Lynch exists only in his own mind. Take the first paragraph of the clause, which provides for a case where the total number of votes polled in a candidate’s favour as first preferences is more than one-tenth of the average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election. Suppose that I had been elected, together with Senators Cox and Duncan, at the last election. For convenience sake I shall refer to the candidates as A, B, and C. Approximately the following would have been the number of votes polled:- A, 200,000; B, 10,000 ; 0, 6,000- a total of 216,000.” On dividing by three, the result is 72,000, and the unsuccessful candidate who wishes to save his deposit must poll one-tenth of that number, or 7,200 votes. Then take the second case, where the name of the candidate is included in a group. Assuming that No. 1 candidate receives 200,000 votes; No. 2, 10,000; and No. 3, 6,000, we have exactly the same total, and the unsuccessful candidate will lose his deposit only if he fails to get 7,200 votes. We really have the same position in each case. I suggest, however, that one-tenth is rather too high a proportion for the unsuccessful candidate to be required to poll, and I would prefer making it one-fifteenth. I have used figures which approximate the number of votes polled by Senators Cox and Duncan and myself in the first preference. I secured just under 6,000 first preference votes, and if a similar result were experienced at the next election and I were unsuccessful I would have to get 7,200 votes in order to save my deposit. That is a fairly large number, bub, if we made the proportion one-fifteenth, it would mean that the unsuccessful candidate would have to secure 5,000 first preference votes, or lose his deposit.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The example citedby the Minister (Senator Pearce) when Senator Girling was within an ace of being elected is not apropos of the position under this clause. I flatly dispute the statement that a group candidate would be placed on an equality with an independent candidate. I can show from returns from Queensland and other States that the group member is raised by thousands above the actual number of first preference votes by reason of the averaging system. While Senator Garling’s argument may be right in the case of New South Wales, owing to the electors not being able to distinguish between “Gardiner” and “ Garling,” if the electors had voted as they should have done, and as they did vote in the other States, Senator Garling would have been here instead of Senator Gardiner in the first instance.I have before me a Queensland return showing that the candidates in a group were not placed on an equality with those not attached to a group, and otherwise known as independent candidates. There were six candidates in the field. The late Senator Adamson polled 144,000 first preference votes, Senator Givens 3,500, and Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow 16,000. Adding those votes together we get a total of about 164,000, and that number, divided by three, gives us a sum of over 50,000. According to the records Senator Givens received only 3,531 first preference votes; but under this proposal the figure on which the forfeiture of his deposit would be considered would be 50,000. If he had been an independent candidate, the matter would have been decided upon the actual first preference votes polled, but because he happened to be a member of the group his total number was increased to 50,000 by dividing the total number of the first three elected candidates.

Senator Garling:

– But then it has to be divided by ten.

Senator LYNCH:

– According to the proposal under consideration we have to decide on what basis a candidate shall or shall not forfeit his deposit. We do not take into consideration the actual number of first preference votes polled, because Senator Givens was credited with. 50,000 votes, although his first preference votes were only 3,531.

Senator Pearce:

– But he was a successful candidate.

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course he was.

Senator Pearce:

– The clause refers only to successful candidates.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then take the case of men who were unsuccessful. It does not, however, alter my argument.

Senator Pearce:

– It does not bear on the clause.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is not the number of first preference votes polled which is considered.

Senator Garling:

– No; the aggregate has to be divided by three.

Senator LYNCH:

– If it is contended that members of a group are placed on terms of equality with independent candidates, the provision must have been misread, because it is not the number of first preference votes at all which is considered in dealing with the forfeiture of a deposit.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is going astray by taking the results before an election is completed. It is not completed until three vacancies have been filled.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then let us take the case of the defeated candidates in Queensland, and it will be found that the position is the same. In the case of a group member his effective number of first preference votes is not determined by the actual number he polled, but by the average number polled in a group. In other words, the figure is reached by taking the highest, lowest, and intermediate, and dividing the result by the number of candidates in the group.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator’s argument is correct, Senator Givens should have forfeited his deposit.

Senator LYNCH:

– Buthe was elected. Let us consider the figures of ex-Senator Ferricks, ex-Senator Turley, and exSenator Maughan, apart altogether from the Nationalist group. In round figures ex-Senator Turley received 4,000 first preference votes, ex-Senator Maughan 4,000, and ex-Senator Ferricks 129,000, making a total of 137.,000, which, divided by three, gives an average of over 45,000 votes for the three candidates. According to the proposed system ex-Senator Turley would receive, not 4,000, but 45,000 votes.

Senator Pearce:

– That is not so.

Senator LYNCH:

– If ex-Senator Turley had been an independent candidate, and had polled, say, 14,000 votes, he would have been called upon to forfeit his deposit.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is wrong.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then I shall read paragraph (i) -

If the total number of votes polled inhis favouras first preferenceis more than onetenth of the average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election; or . . .

That deals with the candidates under the present law, and paragraph (ii) reads -

Where the name of the candidate is included in a group in pursuance ofsection 72a of this Act, if the average number of votes polled in favour of the candidates included in the group as first preferences is more than one-tenth of the. average number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidates in the election; or . . .

When it is a question involving the forfeiture of the deposit of a candidate in a group, the actual number of votes polled is not considered, but the average number polled. In the case of ex-Senator Turley, ex-Senator Maughan, and ex-Senator Ferricks, the . average number is 45,000, whereas if ex-Senator Turley had been an independent candidate, and had polled 4,000, his total would have been taken at 4,000, because he would not derive any benefit from the averaging of the total of the votes polled by him and his two colleagues. There is, therefore, an unreasonable discrimination between a candidate in a group and one who is standing as an independent.

Senator Garling:

– Does the honorable senator say that he has to get the average?

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes.

Senator Garling:

– Is it not one-tenth of the average?

Senator LYNCH:

– It is the average of the first preferences of the three successful candidates that determines his figure, and the essential point is that a candidate in a group, unlike a candidate outside a group, does not have the question of the forfeiture of hisdeposit tested according to the actual number of first preference votes recorded, but on the average number in the group of which be is a member, and that is where it is decidedly unfair.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I am indebted to Senator Garling for endeavouring to enlighten me on this matter, but he did not succeed in what he set out to do. He claimed that there was no differentiation between a candidate outside a group and one included in a group in the forfeiture of deposits. He quoted certain figures which I shall use to show that he was quite wrong inhis contention. I shall make his figures apply to Group “ A,” which we will say represents the Labour group.

Senator Garling:

– But I was referring to candidates.

Senator PAYNE:

– And I shall quote the figures submitted by the honorable senator.

Senator Garling:

– I did not quote them as representing, say, Groups “ A;” “ B,” or “ C.”

Senator PAYNE:

– But Ishall do so to enable the honorable senator to follow me more readily. Let us assume that Group “ A” on the ballot-paper represents three candidates nominated by the Labour party. The first candidate, who will be termed “A,” receives 200,000 first preference votes; candidate” B “ receives 10,000 ; and candidate.”C” 6,000, making a total of 216,000 votes. The average is therefore 72,000. The next group, “ B,” is nominated by the Nationalist party, andthe first candidateD receives 150,000 first preference votes; the next candidate E 46,000; and the third candidate F 5,000, making a total of 201,000 votes. The average in that case would be 67,000.

Senatorgarling. - But we cannot have two sets of candidates.

Senator PAYNE:

– But you must have them. Candidate F in Group “B” receives 5,000 votes; but when the question of forfeiture of deposit arises, candidate F would be credited with 67,000 votes, which is the average of ‘the group. Lower down on the ballot-paper, there may be two candidates G and H, probably representing the Nationalist party, who were not in the group; and although G gets 7,000 votes and H,say, 500 less, these two independent candidates would forfeit their deposit, while candidate F, with 5,000 votes, would not forfeithis, because he would receivethe benefit of the average figures. In view of this, how can Senator Garling contend that a man outside a group is in as favorable a position as one within a group? I have quoted the honorable senator’s figures.

Senator Garling:

– Those are not my figures.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have quoted the honorable senator’s figures in Group “ A.”

Senator Garling:

– The honorable senator didnot understand my figures.

Senator PAYNE:

– I followed them sufficiently to understand that if this provision is adopted, candidate F., who was ina group, with 5,000 first preference votes, would not forfeit his deposit; while candidates G and H, who were independents, and who received 7,000 and 6,500 respectively, would forfeit theirs, because the average of the successful candidates in Group “A” was 72,400. For the reasons given, I oppose the clause.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like the clause to be put in paragraphs. I am in favour of the first paragraph, though, as. I have already said, I think it might be amended with advantage. Whilst retaining that paragraph, I should like to have the second paragraph rejected altogether, because I do not think it right to differentiate in the matter of liability to forfeiture of deposit between candidates in groups and independent candidates.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– It is competent for the honorable senator if he pleases to move the omission of any paragraph of the clause.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then, in order to put all the candidates on the same footing in this matter, I move -

That sub-paragraph (ii) be left out.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

After section one hundred and five of the

Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “ 105a. In printing the ballot-papers to be used in a Senate election -

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia) f9.5]. - In this clause we come to another gem of this exotic that ia proposed to be implanted in our legislation. The clause defines the way in which groups and the names of independent candidates shall appear on the ballot-paper. I should like to know whether it makes any provision for a possible attempt by one political party to secure the inside running as against other parties. It occurs to me that a political party may try to turn this clause to1 its own advantage at the expense of the other parties. As men who have gone through the rough and tumble of politics we can say, without being mealy-mouthed about it, that occasionally advantage is taken by political parties, but we are here to see fair play between candidates. It occurs to me that candidates whose surnames begin with the letters, A, B, or C, may be described as men of high alphabetical potentiality, and they will have a splendid chance under this Yankee innovation, which has been discarded by America, not only as individual candidates, but also, as members of a group. We have had the Gardiner and Garling Example of a community that cannot vote intelligently, notwithstanding all the money spent on education in New South Wales. That State is suggested as the exemplar for the other States of the

Commonwealth, and yet the. introduction’ of this Bill is itself a confession that the people of New South Wales ore unable to understand the difference between Gardiner and Garling, The theory of this clause .is that those whose .surnames begin with the first letters of the alphabet, ha ve the best chance because of the position in which their names will appear on the ballot-paper. Of course, . Senator Pearce is an exception to this theory,’ because the electors of Western Australia/ went down the alphabet, and picked his name out from the bottom. But in these matters Western Australian candidates deserve, of course, to be placed in a class by themselves. The theory that underlies this innovation in our electoral law is that it is a big thing for a candidate to be -first in alphabetical ‘ order on a ballot-paper: The electors of this country are so tired and jaded that in tobogganing down the alphabet from A to Z they find themselves unable to stand the strain, and can seldom get down as low as the Vb and the W’s amongst the Vardons and Wilsons. It is possible that a political party mav have amongst its candidates persons named Anderson and Absolom, and others named Vardon and Wilson, and the party will give serious consideration to the high alphabetical potentiality of those whose surnames begin with the- -letter A, in view of the way in which, under this clause,, the position of a group on the ballot-paper has to be decided: If the surname of a candidate begins with a letter far down in the alphabet, his name will be represented by a high number. If it begins with A, B, or C it will be represented by the numbers 1, 2, or 3. The numbers represented by the names of all the candidates in a group are added together, and the sum is “divided by the total number of candidates. It will be seen that if there is a small dividend and a big divisor, the result will be a small quotient, and a political party by a selection of a sufficient number of candidates whose surnames begin with the’ letters A or B, may thus manoeuvre their group into the first position. I hope that I am as clear as one can expect to be in. an effort to explain this complex .and cryptic proposal.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is because of tie possibility of that kind of thing being done that I am asking the Government what Uley propose to do if the political party includes in its group of candidates a number of dummies of high alphabetical power in order to - secure a first position on the ballot-paper.

Senator Earle:

– Does the honorable senator think that it makes any practical difference where a candidate’s name appears on the ballot-paper?

Senator LYNCH:

– If I think it does make a difference it is because I am guided by the reasoning, of the men who induced the Government to put forward this proposal. As I have said, the theory is that Voters become brain weary before they can go down the full list of candidates, and, as they did in New South Wales, they vote for Gardiner when they desire to vote for Garling, because the voting power of New South Wales was shown to be in favour of Garling rather than of Gardiner. In none of the other States would such a thing occur, because the electors oast their votes intelligently,, with tie result that for the time being all the Nationalist candidates in those States were returned. As both Senators Gardiner and Garling are here now, probably neither will dispute the truth of what I have said. I have drawn attention to the possibilities, and I do not know whether the Government have in mind any proposal to meet the situation.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to vote for the whole of. the- clause as it stands. Subparagraph i of paragraph c provides that a number shall be placed against the name of each candidate in each group. If honorable senators will look at the specimen ballot-paper in the schedule to the Bill, they will find that it contains only alpha’betical letters ungrouped. The wording of the clause is not quite happy in this respect.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator apparently has missed the introductory words of the paragraph, which state that the order of the several groups in the ballot-paper shall be determined in the manner provided’ in paragraphs i to v.

Senator GARLING:

– I think it ought to be quite clear. I now direct attention to sub-paragraph iii, which, provides - (Hi) The first group in the ballot-papers shall be the group having the smallest quotient, and the second shall be the group having the next largest quotient, and bo on, until the order of each group is determined.

I am supporting the group system simply for the purposes of making clear to the electors the position of tho various candidates, and in order to clarify the position I move -

That the following words be added to subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (c) :- “ and the names in each group shall be bracketed together.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– First of all, if such an amendment is to be inserted. at all, it should not be inserted in paragraph c, but in paragraph b; which is’ a direction as to the printing of the .ballot-papers. But I want to give a reason why the amendment should not be inserted at all. If honorable senators will turn to the schedule, they will see a specimen ballot-paper prepared in accordance with the- proposed group system. It is intended to designate tho groups by a letter, pf the alphabet . If, as suggested by Senator Garling,, the candidates of the group are bracketed together, an elector might be misled into, believing that a vote given for one would be sufficient for the whole of a bracketed group. This would be highly dangerous. I appeal to the honorable senator not to press his amendment.’

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- ;In this clause of thirteen parts - an ominous number - there is direction as to . the grouping of candidates’ names on the ballot-paper, and I find that when the unfortunate Electoral Officer has worried himself down to paragraph e, he will be in a dilemma if two or more candidates bear the same surname and Christian name; but the clause offers a brilliant solution ‘of the difficult question as to their, position on the ballot-paper by providing that it must be settled by the alphabetical order of their residences. What does that mean? Will the order be determined- by the nature of a candidate’s dwelling - whether -a brick or stone house, a hessian or calico tent ?

Senator Pearce:

– It means the residence of a candidate as shown on the roll; the name of his town.

Senator LYNCH:

– The whole clause bristles with so many difficulties that I feel it my duty to protest once more against its acceptance.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I direct attention now to paragraph d, which provides -

Before the surname of each candidate in the first group in the ballot-paper there shall be printed the letter “(A)”; before the surname of each candidate in the second group there shall be printed the letter “(B)”; and so on, as the case requires;

It is my intention to submit an amendment, which, to some extent, . strikes at theprincipleof the group system. I have already stated that I only support the system if it is going to clarify the policies of parties and personnel of candiates in the eyes of the electors. I cannot see how clarification will be achieved by simply placing an alphabetical ‘letter against the name of a candidate. Frankly, the group system is going to be a group of parties or organizations, and it should be our duty to make it clear that we go before the electors as candidates of particular parties or organizations. I fail to see how this will be achieved by designating the groups with the letters “ A,” “ B,” “ C,” and so on. The marking of ballot-papers in this way was, I believe, designed to meet possible, criticism against the introduction of the party system,’ but as criticism has already been directed at . the Bill on the ground that it will exalt the party system, why not be frank, and provide for candidates’ names to appear on the ballot-paper as the nominees of the National party, Progressive party, the Labour party, or any other party which can exist as a political organization? The use of the letters of the alphabet is simply a lame way of hiding the fact that candidates are seeking election as party men. Having stated my attitude, I move -

That paragraph (d) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - (d): If a candidate so desires and if be shall have intimated such desire in the prescribed manner on his nomination paper at the time of nomination there shall be printed in brackets before the surname of such candidate’ on the ballot-paper such word or words or abbreviation thereof as shall serve to indicate the party or organization of which he claims to be asupporter :

Provided always that-

before any such distinguishing prefix is so printed the name of such party or organization shall not later than one month before the date ofnomination have been duly registered in the prescribed manner with the Commonwealth’ Electoral Officer; and

the written consent of such party or organization to the use of such prefix shall have been notified in writing by the registered secretary of such party or organization to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer not later than tw elve -o’clock noon on the day of nomination.

The Minister (Senator Pearce) will, no doubt, point out in whatrespect it is wrong to endeavour to put the party nomenclature on the ballotpaper. At present I fail to see any objection. I have already heard an argument against it to-day, but I cannot see the force of it, having regard to the fact that what I am aiming at, and what the Bill intends to provide for, is to make clear to the electors what the various groups in the field are there for.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 9.37 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 August 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220803_senate_8_99/>.