View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
12 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER
REPORTS OF CAPTAIN CRESWELL
QUESTION
- COLONEL LYSTER
QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCES
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL BILL
PRICE AND BAYLY COMPENSATION BILL
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL (No. 3)
- Second Reading
ELECTORAL BILL
PACIFIC CABLE
PAPER
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

page 6706

QUESTION

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER

The Clerk informed the House that Mr. Speaker was unavoidably absent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker took the chair at 10.32 a.m., and readprayers.

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Why should a difference be made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between the procedure adopted when Mr. Speaker enters the Chamber and takes the chair and that adopted when you act in his stead ? At his entry there is always a great parade and flourishing of the mace by the Sergeant-at-Arms, while you are permitted to sneak into the chair, the mace, instead of being borne before you by the Sergeant- at-Arms on his shoulder, being carried in before-hand, in quite another manner; Are these differences in accordance with the Standing Orders?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that the proceedings which have taken place were strictly in order, and in accordance with the practice elsewhere.

page 6706

REPORTS OF CAPTAIN CRESWELL

Motion (by Mr. Ewing) agreed to -

That the reports of Captain Creswell, laid on the tableon Thursday last, be printed.

page 6706

QUESTION

COLONEL LYSTER

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council inform the House whether Colonel Lyster has been permanently appointed Commandant of the Queensland Forces, or whether that appointment is temporary only, until approved after the determination of Colonel Plomer’s engagement?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I shall see the Minister of Defence to-day on the subject, and shall endeavour to answer the honorable member’s question to-morrow.

page 6706

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Mr WILKINSON:

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

What was the total strength in the Commonwealth of the Permanent, Militia, Volunteers, and Rifle Club members for the year 1904; and what is the total strength of these respective branches of the Defence Force at present?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows; -

page 6706

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring ina Bill for an Act for the preservation of Australian industries and for the repression of commercial trusts.

Ordered -

That Mr. Deakin and Sir William Lyne do prepare and bring in a Bill.

Bill presented by Sir Williamlyne, and read a first time.

page 6706

QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL BILL

In Committee:

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That it is expedientthat an appropriation of revenue be made forthe purposes of a Bill for anActto grant andapplyoutofthe Consolidated Revenue Fund the sum of £25,000 for the purposes of the erection of a Memorial in honour of the late Queen Victoria.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Deakin do prepare and bring in a Bill.

Bill presented by Mr. Deakin, read a first time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 6706

PRICE AND BAYLY COMPENSATION BILL

In Committee:

Motion (by Mr. Ewing) agreed to-

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for compensation to be paid to Colonel Price, C.B., and Lieut.-Col. Bayly.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Deakin and Mr: Ewing do prepare and bring in a Bill.

Bill presented by Mr. Ewing, and read a first time.

page 6707

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL (No. 3)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from11th December (vide page 6596), upon motion by Sir William Lyne -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– In view of the statement of the Minister yesterday, and the provisions of this Bill, I think that I shall best be consulting the convenience of the House if I decline to waste any of its time in taking part in an utterly farcical proceeding.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The heading to Division VIa. Metals and Machinery in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1902 is amended by omitting all words from and including the words “ To come into operation “ to and including the words “ sufficiently established,” and by inserting the following words in lieu thereof : - “ The operation of this division is suspended as to the articles of manufacture specified therein, which (except Iron Galvanized, Plate, and Sheet) are exempt from duty until this Division is brought into operation. “This Division may, by Proclamation, be brought into operation as to any such article from a date specified in the Proclamation. “ Provided, however, that no Proclamation bringing this Division into operation as to any article shall be made until the Governor-General is satisfied that the manufacture of the articleor, in the case of a Proclamation bringing this Division into operation as to Scrap Iron or Scrap Steel, is satisfied that the manufacture ofIron or Steel) from Australian ore or material is sufficiently established in the Commonwealth.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That the words “ the Governor-General is satisfied,” lines 20 and 2r, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words” the Minister for Trade and Customs certifies.”

The object of this amendment is to bring the clause into accord with what I stated last night.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That the words “ is satisfied,” line 25, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ certifies.”

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the following words be added : - “ and the certificate has been affirmed by joint addresses passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament.”

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I was not present when the second reading of the Bill was moved, and I desire to ask what is the meaning of passing an Act which Parliament may afterwards bring into operation. I understand that ‘both Houses of Parliament have, at some future time, . to consent to this thing being done. What is the value of passing a Bill of this sort when we shall have to pass a resolution afterwards for the same purpose?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE (Hume- Minister of Trade and Customs). - If the honorable and learned member had looked at the wording of division VI. a of the Customs Tariff, he would have seen a provision to bring certain . articles under duty by proclamation, but not until an Act had been passed. It says -

No proclamation to issue except in pursuance of a joint address passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament statingthat such manufacture is sufficiently established.

Precisely the course which was taken in that case is being taken now.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– I should like the Minister to explain how this measure will help the encouragement of manufactures. At Penguin, in Tasmania, Mr. Ellis, formerly a member of the New South Wales Parliament, has been producing raw iron for many years. He is the first producer of raw iron in this country. What I wish to know is how the Bill will help him.

Mr Watson:

– It will not come into operation until both Houses have passed a resolution.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member would have been one of the first to protest if I had adopted the course he suggests.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We have been merely playing at legislation for the past fortnight.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The Minister has made some extraordinary statements concerning this measure. He really must have been affected bv the article which appears in the Age this morning, because language similar to that employed by the writer of the article has tripped lightly from his tongue. He says this is not a protective measure - it is merely a “make-believe.”

Sir William Lyne:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

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

– Every one knows that it is a “make-believe,” and the Minister need not have told us that. It has “make-believe” stamped all over its features. This little bantling of the Minister pretends to makes some concession, whereas he knows that it confers absolutely no advantage. I wonder what that bodyguard which escorts the Minister to the Sydney station every weekwill think of this proposal when they see it. Last week we could scarcely get from the trainbecause of the number of gentlemen who were congratulating the Minister. Now, this measure is all that he is offering them. They must be very credulous, notwithstanding that their trust has been so absolutely betrayed by the Minister for many years past. He has pretended to help them in their industrial occupations for the past fourteen years, and here is the help that he is giving them.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE (Hume- Minister of Trade arid Customs). - I can well understand a number of political frauds seeking to shelter themselves behind the article which appeared in this morning’s Age, and which was written by a man who had no knowledge of the facts. It has afforded honorable members who were bitterly opposed to the Bill, in the form in which I desired to pass it, an opportunity to pretend that they are acting in the interests of the iron-workers. Honorable members know of the action that I have taken for the last fourteen years, to protect the great iron industry, in the teeth of the opposition of honorable members opposite, who have never ceased in their efforts to injure the working classes. I was told by the deputy leader of the Opposition last week that he would fight the Bill in the form in which it was introduced until after Christmas.

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

– I give that statement an absolute denial. The Minister is stating what is absolutely incorrect, and he knows it.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Now that the Bill has been altered, the honorable member shrinks and sneaks behind the Age article, and makes an attack on me. He is too great a coward to state the case plainly.

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

– I rise to a point- of order. Not only is the Minister telling downright lies, but he is also insulting.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. Both the Minister and the honorable member for Parramatta must withdraw the expressions used by them.

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

– I withdraw my remarks.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If my remark was out of order, I withdraw it. I like a little straightforwardnessin matters of this kind, and I want to make it clear that honorable members opposite are shrinking and sneaking behind the Age article. They intended to oppose the Bill to the fullest extent of their power. It was not with any pleasure that I consented to amend the Bill, but one must be actuated by considerations of common sense when dealing with matters of this kind. I found that I had no possiblechance of passing the Bill as originally framed, becausehonorable members objected to the proposal to place in the hands of the Executive the power reserved to Parliament by Division VI. a of the Tariff. I was not stupid enough to drop the Bill because I could not get everything I wanted, and, therefore, I consented to amend it.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (bySir William Lyne) agreed to-

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to be. passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).- I congratulate the Minister upon setting aside the Standing Orders in order to enable a Bill of this farcical description to be passed without delay.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Motion(by Sir William Lyne) proposed

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).- I rise, at the earliest possible moment, to give the lie direct to the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. I cannot allow the honorable member to use expressions of that kind.

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

– The Minister has made a statement concerning me which has not a tittle of foundation.

Sir William Lyne:

– Itis absolutely true.

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

– At no time did I discuss the Bill with the Minister until yesterday, when he told me. whilst I was sitting on the Opposition benches, that his proposal was precisely on the same lines as the provision in Division VIa. of the Tariff. Until then I had never opened my mouth to the Minister.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member is absolutely mistaken.

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

– The statement of the Minister that I told him that I would oppose the Bill until after Christmas is absolutely incorrect.

Sir William Lyne:

– It is absolutely correct.

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

– I never in. my life made such a statement to the Minister.

Mr Webster:

– Is not the honorable member’s memory at fault?

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

– The honorable member is prepared to stand by the Minister in anything.

Mr Webster:

– I stand by a man who I know speaks the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member is notin order in making an insinuation of that kind.

Mr Webster:

-I withdraw the remark.

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

– I am not concerned about the statements of the honorable member for Gwydir - I do not care what he says or thinks - but I am concerned about the statements of a responsible Minister, who puts language into my mouth that I never even thought of If the Minister goes on like this, he will make it impossible for a decent man to have anything to do with him. I may say frankly that had not the Bill been amended, I should certainly have opposed it.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is what the honorable member told me.

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

– I did nothing of the kind. The Bill, on the face of it, is a fraud from start to finish. It means nothing so far as any practical assistance to the iron industry is concerned. I have letters in my pocket now from ironworkers at Lithgow, asking me to do nothing to hinder this Bill from going through. These people actually think that this Bill imposes duties for their benefit; and the sooner they know that it is simply another of the many deceits, that this Minister has practised upon them during his Ministerial career, the better for them and the better for all concerned. We all know that last week, when we arrived in Sydney, the representatives of the iron industry were there, running after the Minister as a great benefactor; and here is the result of it all. This Bill does absolutely nothing over and above what has been done before.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is not correct.

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

– All that this Bill does is to remove the preamble in Division VI.a of the Customs Tariff Act relating to the bounty.

Mr Fisher:

– It does away with the necessity for passing an Act for that purpose.

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

– May I remind my honorable friend, in answer to his statement, that the same resolution which would bring these duties into operation would remove that language from Division VI.a?

Sir William Lyne:

– No, certainly not.

Mr Watson:

– That is not correct; it is ridiculous. Let the honorable member ask Mr. Speaker, who will tell him that he ls wrong.

Mr Deakin:

– It takes an Act to alter an Act.

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

– What, is the difference? The same majority that will pass a resolution will put a formal Act through. Putting an Act of this kind through means the work of about five minutes.

Mr Watson:

– Would it? I do not think so.

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

– Does the honorable member suggest that we on this side should oppose it?

Mr Watson:

– I do. most decidedly.

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

– Taking out that language from section VI.a? That is the only point. The honorable member need not quibble like that, as he always does.

Mr Watson:

– The honorable member never made a straight statement in his life. He is not capable of a straight statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Higgins:

– I rise to a point of order. I have been listening to the speech of the honorable member for Parramatta for twenty minutes. The like of it I have never heard in any civilized assembly, before. I understand that the honorable member has accused the honorable member for Bland of “ quibbling, as he always does.” I think that is going to extremes. The House is not used to such accusations, and I will ask you to insist upon the honorable member withdrawing that language.

Mr Watson:

– He is the most insulting man I have ever struck !

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! There are too many remarks in speeches, and too many interjections of an unnecessarily personal character. No good result canpossibly come from them, and they tend only to promote angry feelings,. I will ask honorable members on both sides, when speaking to questions, and when interjecting, to refrain from the use of such language. As the honorable member for Northern Melbourne has called attention to a remark made by the honorable member for Parramatta, I will ask him to withdraw it.

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

– If you rule that my statement as to quibbling is out of order. I will certainly withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member had simply said that the honorable member for Bland was quibbling. I should certainly have not taken any notice of the remark. I should even have passed by the remark, “ He is quibbling, as he always, does,” as there was some little excitement in the Chamber, if attention had not been drawn to it. But now that attention has been called to the language. I will ask the honorable member to withdraw it.

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

– Certainly. May I, in passing, call attention to a statement made by the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, who has thought it necessary to take a point of order? He is a gentleman who professes to be very accurate in his statements. But he has declared that he has been listening to me for twenty minutes, whereas in fact I have been speaking for only five. This is a specimen of the accuracy we get from this gentleman, who isso punctilious and so critical of other people. As to the honorable and learned member’s description of my speech as one, the like of which he had never heard before, I reply that I do not value his opinion upon that point.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. Will the honorable member discuss the Bill?

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

– I am going to discuss it. Now, what does this Bill do? Let us get back to the measure itself, and see what it is going to do for the iron industry of Australia. After it is passed, it can do nothing for the industry until iron is actually on the market to meet the requirements of Australia produced from Australian ore. That cannot be, under the most favorable circumstances, until the year 1907. Does the Minister deny that? I repeat that there can be no iron produced from Australian ore before the year 1907. Therefore, we are passing a Bill to say that in the year 1907 the Minister may come down to Parliament and ask it to impose a duty to benefit an Australian industry, and Parliament may pass it or refuse to do so. Is not that, on the face of it, a frivolous waste of the time of this House, to say nothing more? Is there any ironmaster in the world who, on a mere contingency of that kind, would invest his hard earnings in this industry. I say that the Minister is making the people outside believe that this measure makes a substantial concession to the iron industry of Australia, when it does nothing that has not already been done in Division VI. a of the Customs Tariff Act. And now he has accepted an amendment - suggested, of course, bythe Labour members. He would not have looked at this amendment if they had been solid behind him. If it had been proposed from this side of the House, he would have ridiculed and danced on it. But because it has been suggested by a Labour member, he clutches at it anxiously, and is glad to take it, and to urge the House to put the Bill through, although, on its face, the whole procedure is a frivolous waste of time and effort - a farce and a fraud, so far as those outside are concerned. The honorable gentleman’s statement as to his having imposed a duty in New South Wales is quite true. He was instrumental in imposing a duty of 10s. per ton on pig iron, which was to take effect in the succeeding January. That duty, if I remember rightly, remained on the statute-book for two years; but it had not, so far as we are aware, the slightest effect in stimulating the pig-iron producing industry of New South Wales.

Mr Watson:

– We had not Inter-State free-trade at that time, it must be remembered.

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

– But I come back to the point, and the only point I wish to make ; that the Minister has been making the people engaged in the iron industry believe, for many months past, that by means of this Bill, we are going to establish the iron industry in New South Wales. This Bill will do nothing of the kind. It merely solemnly enacts that in the year 1907, when we may hope that pig iron may be produced from Australian ores, this same Minister of Trade and Customs may come down to Parliament, and ask itto impose a duty which he now has not the pluck to propose, but which he is making the people believe that he will impose at some time in the distant future. It is a safe proposal, but again I say that it is a sorry farce.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The position in regard to this measure is very simple. The Government is convinced that the development of the iron industry, and the manufacture of Australian iron from Australian ore, is a great national object worthy of considerable national sacrifices. We were prepared, and should to-day be prepared, if there were any possibility of success, once more to ask this House to vote the necessary sum by way of bounty in order to encourage and develop the industry, in the confidence that any expenditure of that kind would be repaid over and over again by the development both of one of our great natural resources and of the many industries depending upon it. Knowing that to be politically and practically impossible, the Government would have been content to allow the measure to be removed from the notice-paper, had it not been for the strong representations which have been made to us by those who are associated, and desire to be associated, with the development of the iron industry.

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

– They did not know what this Bill means.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I beg to differ from the honorable member. I believe his constituents to be better informed with regard to the measure than he gives them credit for being, when he admits that he has letters in his pocket asking him not to do anything to impede the passage of the Bill.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Not this Bill.

Mr DEAKIN:

– This Bill.

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

– They think it means duties.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am satisfied that they perfectly well understand that this Bill means duties when the making of what may be called raw material - although the first stage of manufacture has been gone through - has been sufficiently developed, when Australian iron from Australian ore has been manufactured sufficiently to enable the duties to be imposed without a serious disturbance of the iron market of the Commonwealth. They know that very well. I am in a position to say, also, that those who employ the ironworkers, whose capital is invested in the Lithgow ironworks, and those who propose to invest capital in other works, are perfectly well aware that this measure involves no immediate imposition of duties.

Mr Bamford:

– Then what will be the use of it? It will not help them.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The point is this : our object in bringing in this Bill, at this particular moment, is not due to any political motive; it has not been done of our own motion ; but in consequence of strong representations, both from those interested in the development of the iron industry, and from other channels. We are assured that this particular proposal will be of material assistance and encouragement to them. They believe, and I think rightly, that the tide of opinion in Australia is setting strongly in favour of the development of the iron industry. They believe that the encouragement will be given by higher duties hereafter. They believe that such duties will be given; but in the meantime they require some assurance that Parliament has not altered its mind, and that when a certain state of development has beenreached, this small but encouraging duty in VI. a will be imposed upon the articles which they manufacture. It is from those whose money is at stake today that we have had representations that the passage of this Bill will be of great advantage to them.

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

– Is this Bill a guarantee that the duty will be imposed?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I have said that they rely upon the opinion of Australia hardening in the direction of the encouragement of the iron industry.

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

– Will the honorable gentleman answer my question? Is this a guarantee that the duty will be imposed ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– It is, so far as this Parliament can give a guarantee affecting next session or the next Parliament. Of course, we cannot give a definite guarantee in regard . to any political proposal in the future. The course taken will depend upon the assent of representatives, who are responsible only to their constituents, or, if an election transpires, it depends upon the constituents themselves. Personally, I think that their confidence is well founded. That, however, is not the point. Having been asked to effect this small alteration in Division VI.a of the Tariff - an alteration whichthese people believe would confer a great advantage on them - what would have been the position of the Government had we refused to accede to their request? Should we not have been traitors, not only to the pledges which we have given, but to the great industry, the development of which we are so anxious to assist? In this Bill we are expressing what is practically the unanimous intention of this Parliament. I repeat that we should have been false alike to our pledges and our duty if we had not submitted this measure, even though we did not believe that it would prove as useful to those who desire it as they themselves believe. Personally, I am of opinion that their anticipations of higher duties are well warranted.

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

– Were they aware of the nature of the alteration which the Minister has now made in the Bill ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do not know. They were not consulted as to the details of the measure. They merely asked for an assurance that, though a Bill authorizing the payment of a bounty upon the production of iron from native ores is not passed, and though neither the Commonwealth nor the State were prepared to undertake the nationalization of the iron industry, these duties in VI.a would be imposed if private enterprise developed the industry to such an extent as would justify Parliament in adopting that course. Having complied with their request, we have done our part. In taking another step to re-affirm the decision of a previous Parliament - as embodied in Division VIa. of the Tariff - that the iron industry is one of the most important in Australia and should be developed without delay, we have discharged our duty politically, as well as to those who are engaged in that industry.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I am not surprised that the Minister of Trade and Customs should support this Bill in its present form, but I am certainly surprised that the Prime Minister should do so. He declares that the iron industry is worthy of a great national sacrifice. That is his opinion today, when he is ruling the destinies of Australia. Why does he not evidence his faith in that opinion ? Why is he not prepared, at the risk, if need be, of sacrificing his position - although I do not admit that he would incurany such risk - to give effect to his conviction that the iron industry cannot prosper without the imposition of protective duties?

Mr Deakin:

– I am not in favour of imposing any duties until production is sufficiently advanced to allow of that course being adopted without unduly affecting the Australian market.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Duties could be imposed, to come into operation two years hence, if the Prime Minister so desired. That would allow time forthe development of the industry, and. if at the end of that period Parliament did not consider that it had been sufficiently established, the duties could be removed.

Mr Deakin:

– That method would be no better than the one which we are adopting.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– It would be considerably better.

Sir William Lyne:

Mr SPEAKER:

– It may be well for honorable members generally to know that interjections not replied to are not published in Hansard.

Sir William Lyne:

– But they are published in the newspaper press.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In any case, I shall not allow irrelevant or improper interjections to be held to justify any departure in debate from thesubject-matter of the question.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I ask for no concession ; but it is very difficult to refrain from replying to interjections. The honorable member for Parramatta, and others, declare that this Bill does nothing - that it is a sham, a farce, and a fraud. But the Bill does, practically, as much as can be done by Parliament at this time. We simply give the right, in some other session, or to some otherParliament, when it is proved that iron has been made from native ores, according to the terms specified, to apply the provision of the Tariff to the industry. The present proposal is made in the belief that it will save time; and the only criticism advanced against it amounts to an assertion that a resolution will prove as difficult to pass as an Act of Parliament. Every honorable member who has considered the question must know that that assertion is not correct. Honorable members can speak only once to a motion, but there are endless opportunities to discuss a Bill. That being so, the objection can only be regarded as being most insincere. I hold that something tangible will result from the passing of this measure. We do not propose to allow the Minister of his own motionto bring

– I am nothing of the sort, but I know that only a little time ago Mr. Franki, who occasionally advocates protection, was highly eulogized by the Minister of Trade and Customs. I have not the pleasure of numbering amongst my acquaintances either wealthy merchants or affluent manufacturers. My walk iri life is in a more humble sphere. I am satisfied that manufacturers and importers alike will do what they can to induce Parliament to pass legislation in their interests. I am very pleased to think that the House has practically destroyed this measure. It is not likely that very much capital will be invested as the result of a promise that something may happen two years hence. I .am sure that you, s.ir, as a business man, would not put £10,000 into any venture on the strength of such a promise. It is too much to ask honorable members to believe that manufacturers and ironmasters in Australia, and capitalists like the honorable member for Kooyong, will put £500,000 into the establishment of works and the erection of smelting furnaces, in the hope that in two years’ time certain resolutions will be passed by Parliament. I must say that if the article in the Age this morning is not an attack upon the Minister it is one of the most brilliant examples of unconscious irony that I have yet had an opportunity to read.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).I should not have risen to speak on the third reading of this Bill were it not that the Minister of Trade and Customs accused certain members of compelling him to make alterations in the Manufactures Encouragement Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The questionbefore the House is the third reading of the Bill. As the Minister of Trade and Customs has not spoken on that question, any reference to the honorable gentleman’s remarks must be a reference to a previous debate which the honorable member for Macquarie must know cannot be made now.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– We have arrived at a very extraordinary position. We are all satisfied that the measure means nothing, so that, apparently, the Opposition is now devoting itself to help the Government to do nothing, which, it seems to me, is an unconstitutional position for an Opposition to occupy. I have read the principal Act and the amending Bill, to see how we stand, and it appears to me that the only difference between the two indicates a back-down on the part of the Government. Division VI.a of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act provides that the duties therein mentioned are -

To come into operation on dates to be fixed by Proclamation, and exempt from duty in the meantime, except as to iron, galvanized, plate and sheet.

The Bill omits these words, and provides in lieu thereof, that -

The operation of this Division is suspended as to the articles of manufacture specified therein, which (except iron galvanized, plate, and sheet) are exempt from duty until this Division ils brought into operation.

This Division may, by Proclamation, be brought into operation as to any such article from a date specified in the Proclamation.

It seems to me that those statements are practically identical, although that in the principal Acf is briefer and more concise than that contained in the Bill. The principal Act continues -

Proclamation to issue so soon as it is certified, by the Minister that the manufacture to which the Proclamation refers, has been sufficiently established in the Commonwealth, according to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures, or to the establishment of manufactures under the direct control of the Commonwealth or State Governments; but no Proclamation to issue except in pursuance of a joint address passed on the motion of Ministers, by both Houses of Parliament, stating that such manufacture is sufficiently established.

In lieu of that provision, it is now proposed to adopt the following: -

Provided,, however, that no Proclamation bringing this Division into operation as to any article shall be made until the Minister for Trade and Customs certifies that the manufacture of the article (or, in the case of a Proclamation bringing this Division into operation as to scrap iron or scrap steel, certifies that the manufacture of iron or steel) from Australian ore or material is sufficientlyestablished in the Commonwealth, and the certificate has been affirmed by joint addresses, passed, on the motion of Ministers, by both Houses of Parliament.

Now there we have the two propositions complete. Is there any difference between the two ? There is, however, a slight change which is rather significant. In the original

Act the following words appear: -

According to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures, or to the establishment of manufactures under the direct control of the Commonwealth or State Governments.

– Exactly ! Yet I have seen a letter from the great iron district of New South Wales, in which it is stated that the Government contract will not keep the iron industry alive unless it gets some assistance of this kind ! The Prime Minister has told us that he believes that the establishment of the iron industry is anxiously looked forward to throughout the Commonwealth, but that this sham is all he can get from Parliament. He is in a position to advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House and go to the country, in order to prove the bona fides of his election pledges in this regard. We have a right to expect that a Prime Minister should not tamely sit down under the criticism of an Opposition if he thinks that his attitude will meet with the support of the country at large. It is significant of the bargain which has been contracted in the House between two of the three cricket elevens about which the Prime Minister was once so eloquent, that the nominal captain of both is afraid to face alone the club that supports him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 6722

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from nth December, vide page 6643):

Clauses 33 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 -

Section one hundred and thirty-seven of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from paragraph (i) all words after the word “ fasten,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ its cover “ ;

by omitting from paragraph (iii)the words “and seal the outer cover.”

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

– Section 137 deals with the fastening of a ballot-box after an election has taken place. But, if the clause were passed in its present form, it would mean that the returning officer would have to fasten the ballot-box, and not to seal it. It is desirable that the seal should be affixed, and, therefore, I move -

That the words “and seal” be left out.

Hitherto, the difficulty has been that the ballot-box really consisted of an outer box and an inner box, and, necessarily, the Commonwealth has been put to very heavy expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 -

Section one hundred and thirty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following sub-section : -

In an election, an elector may vote only -
1. at the polling-place for which he is enrolled, or a prescribed pollingplace for the subdivision for which he is enrolled ; or
2. at any other polling-place for the same Division, if he makes and signs before the presiding officer a declaration in the Form Q in the Schedule.

– The particular subsection which the honorable member for North Sydney wishes to excise reads : -

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

The method of dealing with the ballot- paper ; and
The allowance or disallowance and counting of the ballot-papers.

Mr. BATCHELOR (Boothby).- The honorable member for New England appeared to question my veracity, and though it is hardly worth while to take notice of what he said, I wish to inform the Committee that I made no imputation of unfairness against the employer referred to. The last election was held on the 16th December, when there was a great press of work, and hands were, therefore, compelled to work overtime. Most of the workers in the large city factories live in the suburbs, and are unable to return to their electorates to vote duringthe dinner hour. That was the case in the instance to which I referred. But while those electors were legitimately kept at work, men may, on other occasions, be prevented from voting for sinister reasons. I am not inconsistent in this matter. I have said that I am prepared to strike out the provision for voting under form Q, and for postal voting, but it is ridiculous to make a fuss about the few persons who would be unable to vote if we abolished postal voting, and, at the same time, to object so strongly to a provision which is of advantage to an infinitely larger number of voters, and does not open the door to fraud to anything like the same extent.

Question - That the word and figure proposed to be inserted, be so inserted - put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 37

Majority … … 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 -

After section one hundred and sixty-one of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 161a. At any timebefore the declaration of the poll, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State may, if he thinks fit, on the request of any candidate or of his own motion, direct a recount of the ballot-papers from any Division or portion of a Division or of the ballot-papers contained in any parcel.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I move-

That the words “may, if he thinks fit,” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ shall on good substantial reasonsbeing given.”

My object is to provide that in the event of a mistake being discovered during the time which elapses between election day and the declaration of the poll, the returning officer shall order the votes to be recounted. At the last general election two returning officers construed the law in different ways. In Tasmania one returning officer, upon being applied to for a recount, ordered that it should be made. I think that he construed the law properly, because he, and he alone, was responsible for the correctness of the writ, and should satisfy himself that everything was in order before signing it. In that case a recount was made, with the result that every one was satisfied that justice had been done. The returning officer for the Riverina electorate, however, adopted a different course. As honorable members know, the election took place on the 16th December, 1903, and the poll was not declared until the 26th December. There were five assistant returning officers in the division, each one of whom counted the votes, and sent the ballot-papers in a sealed parcel, together with bis certificate, to the returning officer. Within two days after the poll had been taken, my committee discovered that a serious mistake had been made in the count. I immediately directed the attention of the returning officer to the matter. I afterwards wrote to the assistant returning officers and ascertained that there was a discrepancy in the figures sent in by them. One of the assistant returning officers, who was satisfied that a mistake had been made, was prevailed upon’ by me to officially report the matter to the divisional returning officer, who was stationed at Hay ; but, notwithstanding this, my request for a recount was absolutely refused. The Department were so dissatisfied with the action of the returning officer, that they took very good care not to permit him to conduct the next election. The only reply that I could obtain from him was that he had no power to recount the votes; that that could be done only by the High Court.

Mr Crouch:

– He was quite right.

Mr CHANTER:

– He was quite wrong. The returning officer its alone responsible to the Department and to the public for the accuracy of the writ which he returns. The assistant officers have no power to order a recount. If they had had such authority it would have been exercised in this case. The returning officer, although he knew that a mistake had occurred, declined 10 comply with my request, and he thus involved the candidates and all others concerned in serious delay and considerable expense. As honorable members know, the High Court was appealed to, and it was represented,, not by myself but by mv opponent, that a recount was necessary. That was made, with the result that my statements and those of the assistant returning officer to whom I have specially referred were fully borne out. Surely we should not ‘allow a divisional returning officer to refuse a request for a recount under such circumstances. We ought to provide that he shall be absolutely responsible for the accuracy of the returns.

Mr Bamford:

– Why provide that substantial reasons shall be forthcoming?

Mr CHANTER:

– So as to obviate the possibility of the returning officer being subject to all the worry that would be involved in a recount of the votes being made for frivolous reasons,.

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

Mr Watson:

– Was he firm?

Mr MALONEY:

– He was ‘firm in wrong-doing, and I am glad that the Government of the day deprived him of his power to do ill, and put in his place a man who will carry out His work well. I have two instances which, I think, support the amendment. These are affidavits of gentlemen who acted as scrutineers -

Whilst acting as scrutineer (voluntary) at the table N to R, at Hotham polling place, after the ballot-papers for the House of Representatives were counted and tied up, and the numbers declared and signed for - after some considerable time, when counting the Senate ballot-papers - it was discovered that a ballot-paper for the House of Representatives was mixed with the Senate ballot-papers, and such ballot-paper was a vote for Dr. Maloney. This vote was not included in the number handed in as total from such table.

During the progress of the tallying of the votes after the ballot boxes had been opened by the Returning Officer’s deputy, I found about twenty ballot-papers (red ones) on the Moor under the table where I was then standing near. I picked them up, and handed them to the Poll Clerk, and he accepted same, and they were counted wilh the others. They had apparently fallen off the table on to the floor. That as soon as I gave them to him, he put them on the form, and sat on them, and when the counting took place, he included them in the tally. I had previous to this pointed out to Constable Fallon that the said papers were on the floor, and he saw me hand them to the Poll Clerk’.

I could quote many similar statements. In addition to these irregularities, two, if not three, ballot-boxes were missing for a period of twelve hours, and one of the returns from a polling booth was altered so as to give my opponent an advantage, instead of allowing me a small surplus. That was a case in which a recount would have been justified. I agree with the honorable member for Corio that the amendment should be made mandatory, though I have no objection to requiring a small deposit to prevent frivolous requests. At the same time. I do net think any candidate would ask for a recount unless he thought he had a fair chance of benefiting by it.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– In the Darwin division at the last election my opponent demanded a recount, and the returning officer gave it to him, and I gained nine votes by it. Still, I agree that the provision should be mandatory. If a candidate desires a recount at a closelycontested election, he should be given it. If the returning officer for Riverina had given the honorable member for that division a recount, the Commonwealth would have been saved an expenditure of between £5,000 ard .^6,000, and the honorable member would not have had to waste hundreds of pounds in appealing to the High Court. No doubt the returning officers are honest and just, according to their lights, but they are unconsciously influenced by their environment, and lean towards those who are the opponents of the progress of the human race. Therefore, it might easily happen that, if there were a difference of only a few votes between a wealthy candidate and a working man’s candidate, the returning officer might say to the poor man - “ I see no reason for giving you a recount,” and the latter would have to perhaps ruin himself if he wished to test the matter before the High Court. At the same time, I have no objection to the requirement of a penalty of, say, £5 to prevent frivolous requests. I had no objection to allowing a recount, although I was within 130 votes of ray opponent, and the position looked doubtful for me. I sha.ll always be in favour of a recount, because I do not wish to sit here, unless as the representative of a majority. I believe that other honorable members think with me in this matter. There will be none of the blood of Brian Bom in my veins if I ever consent to be returned on a “faked” count.

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).I think we all desire to do full justice to every candidate, but I am afraid that the amendment will not accomplish the object of the honorable member for Riverina. If it is left to the returning officer to judge as to what are good and substantial reasons for a recount, he will still have full discretion to deal as he may think fit with any request, preferred to him. It would be better to strike out the words “ may if he thinks fit “ and substitute the word “shall.” Then every candidate would have a right to ask for a recount.

Mr. GROOM. (Darling Downs - Minister of Home Affairs). - I would ask the honorable member for Riverina to consent to the retention of the words “ may if he thinks fit,” and to insert after the word “ fit “ the words “ and shall on good and substantial reasons being given.” That would leave discretionary power in the hands of a returning officer, and at the same time make it clear to him that on good and substantial reasons being given he should order a recount.

Mr. CHANTER (Riverina). - I prefer to strike out the words “ may if he thinks fit,” and substitute the word “ shall.” It has been urged that no candidate would without good reason apply for a recount, and I agree with that view. I have no objection to requiring a small deposit from the candidate asking for a recount of the votes.

Mr. GROOM (Darling Downs - Minister of Home Affairs). - If my suggestion were adopted, the returning officer would still have some discretionary power, and, at the same time, could not refuse to order a recount if good and reasonable grounds were shown.

Mr Watson:

– Would not the case be met if a deposit were insisted upon ?

Mr GROOM:

– That would be some safeguard ; but I do not think that is sufficient. We are all agreed that mere frivolous requests should not be entertained. We must give the Commonwealth Electoral Officer some discretion.

Mr. LONSDALE (New England).I quite agree with the Minister. At the first Federal election, at which I was defeated, I received telegrams from a number of my supporters who urged me to ask for a recount of the votes, because they felt certain that the returns were not correct. I satisfied myself, however, that there was nothing wrong. If I had acted upon the representations first made to me, and a recount had been made, considerable expense would have been incurred to no good purpose. It seldom occurs that a returning officer is unreasonable; whereas we know that defeated candidates might be disposed to ask for a recount on the off-chance that a mistake had been made. In view of the fact that it is intended to refer election disputes to a Committee of this House instead of to the High Court, I think we should give the returning officers full discretion.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I think it is highly desirable that the returning officer should have a certain amount of discretion, and also that a deposit should be provided to cover the expense of the recount. I quite admit that there are cases in which it might be desirable to have a recount; but in other instances an angry candidate might, without sufficient cause, cause the result of an election to remain in uncertainty, and put the Commonwealth to considerable expense.

Mr. GROOM (Darling Downs - Minister of Home Affairs). - I am willing to consider an amendment providing that at any time before the declaration of the poll, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall, for good and substantial reasons, at the request of any candidate who lodges a deposit of£5, to be returned to him unless his application is frivolous, or may of his own motion, direct a recount.

Mr Chanter:

– I shall be prepared to accept an amendment in that form.

Mr GROOM:

– I do not care to make a definite proposal at present, because the matter is one which affects the whole of the Senate elections, and requires very careful consideration. I think that it would be preferable to postpone the clause, in order that I may look fully into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That clauses 43 and 44 be postponed.

Clause 45 -

Section 172 of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following sub-section : - “(111). The return and the receipted bills of particulars shall be retained by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, and shall be open to public inspection during ordinary office hours, on payment ofthe prescribed fee.”

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I move-

That the following words be added : - “ and shall be published in the Commonwealth Gazette.”

– I think that it is. In the case of a contest between an extremely wealthy man and one in poor circumstances, there is always a temptation for the man of means to buy his way into Parliament, not, perhaps, by directly giving away money, but by paying extravagantly for services rendered him.

Mr Henry Willis:

– How would the amendment improve the position?

Mr MAHON:

Mr MAHON:

– If a piece of land is needed for a post-office, about 12 in. of space is taken to describe it, and about £3 is spent on advertising, when the land itself is not worth more, perhaps, than 30s. The expense of the course proposed by the honorable member for Riverina could be saved a thousand times over by adopting rational methods in connexion with Government advertising. I cannot understand the opposition to it, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

– The reason for publishing the statements of candidates’ expenditure is to prevent omissions. At the present time there is no sufficient check. A candidate has to depend on the returns sent in to him from those who are acting for him, and a wealthy man’s friends may easilyspend hundreds of pounds on his behalf without his knowing anything of the expenditure. Similarly, an organization like the Political Labour League might spend money on behalf of a candidate, and furnish him with an account which would make his expenses less than£100 ;whereas if the money spent by some of its branches were added, the total would be much greater than that. The only check against these omissions is to secure the publication of the accounts. They will then be circulated in the various districts, and some one who reads them will be sure to tell tales. In past elections, more than£100 has often been spent by candidates ; but there is no possibility of proving the fact. If the accounts were published in the Government Gazette, I think it would prove a check against such practices. It is very difficult for any candidate to keep his expenditure down to£100, and thus comply strictly with the law.In large divisions, where it is necessary to hire halls in a large number of places, even at a rent of only £1 per night, the outlay is heavy, and there are many other expenses. Some candidates pay for the services of scrutineers ; but I could not afford to do so, since there are about 100 polling places in my division. But, although it is difficult to keep within the limit, I think that the provision in the law is a good one. I should like to see the electors themselves take more interest in political matters, and assist more willingly in the conduct of elections. The only way, however, to test the correctness of the accounts of candidates is to publish them. I do not know why any one should be ashamed of having his accounts published. The honorable and learned member for Werriwa spoke of the need for a pure

Parliament. The adoption of the course proposed would help to keep Parliament pure, because it would prevent the people from trying to buy their way into Parliament.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– Honorable members seem to think that the accounts sent in to the Chief Electoral Officer are not examined ; but, when I filed my accounts, one or two receipts had not come to hand, although the money had been paid, and I was written to for them more than once. It is, however, sufficient to allow the inspection of candidates’ accounts by any member of the public who desires to inspectthem during ordinary office hours, and is willing to pay the prescribed fee. That arrangement permits any newspaper proprietor to publish in his journal any information on the subject which he thinks his subscribers would like to read. It is, however, altogether unnecessary to publish the accounts of candidates in the Government Gazette. Not only the accounts, but the receipted bills also, are to be published. It may be, however, that a candidate is not able to pay at the time of his return all the debts contracted during his election. Ihave heard of very excellent legislators being in that position. But although members may want a little time in which to pay, they are a most upright and’ just body of men, and I do not think would either evade paying, or would tell a lie about their accounts. The honorable member for Darling spoke about a league spending money on behalf of a candidate, but a man’s enemies could do that in order to secure his defeat. My greatest anxiety during the last election was to keep within the limits imposed by the Act.

Mr King O’Malley:

– One cannot do so.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I did so. It was a great relief to find that I was within the £100 limit. I hope that the amendment will not be carried.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I do not know why the Committee should be averse to following the good old rules which business men adopt. No one objects to the publishing of bills of sale, although that bears hardly on persons in poor circumstances who are forced to borrow money.

Mr Frazer:

– What is the need for the amendment if the information is already available to whoever cares to searchfor it ?

Mr MALONEY:

– What is the reason for not making these accounts public ? Our actions in this Chamber are published widely by the press, notwithstanding that we maintain a Hansard staff to report our proceedings. In my opinion, the Gazette in which these accounts are published will sell well. More than 100 copies would have been sold in my division after the last election had the amendment been in force then; and more than 100 persons would have tried to find out who paid for the motor cars which were used. I do not blame my opponent for what was done, but when agents of the calibre of Carey are employed - a man who does not dare to return to this State - their actions must be closely scrutinized. The publishing of the accounts of candidates would help to carry out the intention of Parliament that any man of moderate means shall not be prevented from securing his return by the expenditure of wealthy opponents. I see no reason why the public should not be given this information. They are our creators, and have a right to know whatis spent during elections. I have paired, so that I cannot vote for the amendment, but I trust that it will be carried. The Commonwealth Gazette will be more valuedby the people if information like this can be obtained from its columns.

Mr LONSDALE:
New. England

– I have no personal objection to the publishing of election accounts. I have a strong suspicion “that my opponent at the last election spent much more than £100 on his expenses. If he did, it was so much the greater honour for me to defeat him. But why should these details be published?

Mr King O’Malley:

– The actual amount expended is not shown in the candidate’s accounts.

Mr LONSDALE:

– It should be shown there. It sometimes happens, . however, that those who are elected to Parliament are not able at the time of their return to pay all the accounts submitted to them. I know of some candidates who have had to give a promissory note for the amount of their election expenses, and I ask honorable members whether such a fact should be made known throughout the Commonwealth ? The whole question is too small to justify honorable members in expending time over its discussion.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- It is within my knowledge that one honorable member’s election cost him under £2. Why should that fact be made known to his disadvantage?

Mr Maloney:

– All the more honour to him.

Mr CONROY:

– The matter is capable of being viewed from another aspect. In some cases, candidates are not required to bear the whole of the cost of contesting an election. If it were shown that a candidate’s expenses amounted to only £2 or £3, he might be required on the next occasion to spend a great deal more. Then, again, let us consider the case of a candidate who has a great deal of travelling to do. At the first election I spent £52 10s. upon the hire of vehicles alone, but such an amount would not be included among the particulars of my expenditure. A candidate in a city constituency might not be called upon to spend more than £1 upon travelling expenses, and the total cost of his election might not represent more than £90. My election account might show only £90, whereas my actual expenditure, including travelling expenses, would amount to a great deal more. Therefore, the particulars proposed to be published would not indicate the actual amount expended by a candidate. If a candidate is to be required to furnish particulars of his expenses all items should be included. The matter seems to me to be trivial in the extreme, and I am astonished that honorable members should advocate the adoption of a course which can have no other effect than to mislead the public. In reply to the honorable member for Melbourne, I would point out that I lost some of the receipts connected with my election accounts, and not the whole of them, as the honorable member appeared to assume.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– I shall support the clause as it stands, because it seems to me that if the receipted bills of particulars are open for public inspection, the necessities of the case will be met. Very few persons will wish to see the accounts. Each account would probably occupy a column of the Gazette, and when we consider that probably 200 candidates would furnish particulars of their expenses, the cost of advertising would be very considerable. No good purposecould be served by adopting the proposal of the honorable member for Riverina.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 46 -

Section one hundred and seventy-four of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting in paragraph (ii.), after the words “acquired by any officer” the words “ or scrutineer “ ;
by omitting, in paragraph (iv.), the words “ twenty-two,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ eighteen A.”

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

– I move -

That paragraph b be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - ” (b) by omitting all the words after the word witnesses ‘ in paragraph 4 down to the end of paragraph 5.”

My reason for moving the amendment is that the matter dealt with in the paragraph is provided for in clause 32.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 -

After section one hundred and eighty-two of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 182a. The following acts are, on polling-day, and on all days to which the pollingis adjourned, prohibited within eachpolling-booth, namely : -

Inducing any elector not to vote for any particular candidate; or
Inducing any elector not to vote at the election.

Penalty : Twenty-five pounds. 182b. The person witnessing any claim or application to transfer or application for a postal vote certificate under this Act shall, if he is not personally acquainted with the facts, satisfy himself, by inquiring from the claimant or applicant that the statements contained in the claim or application are true.

Penalty : Fifty pounds.

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

– This clause makes provision for a new offence in that it prohibits canvassing near polling booths. The Bill, as introduced, provided that canvassing should not be carried on within a certain distance of the polling booth, but I move -

That after the word “ prohibited,” line 6, the words “at the entrance of or” be inserted.

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

– Why not provide that canvassing shall not be carried on “ within or about “ the entrance of a polling booth?

Mr GROOM:

– There is only one entrance, as a rule, and once a person has voted he is not likely to be interfered with in any way by canvassers.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– I do not think that the amendment will serve any good purpose. . I presume that the actual door of the polling booth would be regarded as the entrance, and canvassers might carry on their operations on the footpath in front of the booth up to within a yard or two of the doorway. They would merely be prevented from blocking up the entrance. It seems to me that if the amendment were adopted some trouble might be experienced in defining the word “ entrance.” I should like to. see some provision made for preventing canvassers from hanging about the entrances of polling booths, but I do not think that the amendment would accomplish that object.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I think also, that the amendment would fail in its object. It is very undesirable that a crowd of canvassers should be permitted to congregate about the entrances to polling booths, and I think that it would be preferable to prevent such persons from approaching within a certain distance. Electors should be able to record their votes without being pestered by canvassers.

Mr Groom:

– The difficulty is to fix a proper limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That the word “ each,” line 6, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ a “ ; that after the word “ transfer,” line 15, the words “or change” be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 -

Section one hundred and ninety-four of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of paragraph e the words “ or (if the facts relied on in support of the petition are breaches by a candidate of the provisions of Part XIV. of this Act) within forty days after the filing by the candidate of the return of his electoral expenses.”

Mr Henry Willis:

– The honorable member’s opponent thought that he had a just case.

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not propose to discuss that point. It is well known that in all branches of the law litigants who have little money can obtain but little justice. A man of means is able to utilize all the machinery available to protract litigation, until he eventually breaks down the opposition of the man whohas nothing.

When the existing Act was under consideration in this House, it was considered that the Court of Disputed Returns, for which provision was then made, would be divested of all legal technicalities and forms of procedure. But I call upon any honorable member who witnessed the proceedings in which the honorable member for Melbourne and I were interested, or who read the reports of those proceedings, to say whether they differed in any respect from those associated with an ordinary lawsuit. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not seeking to reflect in the slightest degree upon the members of that Court. I believe that they did everything which honorable and just men could “have done; but the fact remains that lawyers, by reason of their training, have an unconscious bias, and cannot get away from the ordinary forms of legal procedure to which they have become accustomed. On the other hand, an Elections and Qualifications Committee, appointed by this Parliament, would act in equity and good conscience-

Mr Henry Willis:

– Does the honorable member believe that he would have won his case before such a Committee?

Mr CHANTER:

– I am certain that I should have done so. I invite honorable members, who have held seats in the States Parliaments, to put their experience before the Committee. When the Act was under consideration in this House, the honorable member for North Sydney, who had read of the costliness of the proceedings in connexion with disputed elections to the British House of Commons, specially warned honorable members against constituting the High Court a Court of Disputed Returns. He pointed out that it would be a very costly tribunal, whereas an Elections and Qualifications Committee would provide a homely, but just and economical, means of dealing with disputed returns. The deputy leader of the Opposition uttered a similar warning, and as those warnings were disregarded’, it remains for the honorable member for’ Melbourne and myself to give the Committee another one, based on our own experience. The honorable member for Melbourne and myself have had to pay for the interpretation of the law which this Parliament passed to regulate the conduct of elections. Notwithstanding that the Act says that legal technicalities are not to be observed, the Court put a legal interpretation upon the homely ‘phrase “officers of the police force.” Parliament meant by that phrase the members of the police force, just as the employes of the Customs Department are meant by the term “ officers of the Customs Department.” The Court, however, held that a police constable is not an officer, and on that point *he elections of both myself and the honorable member for Melbourne were invalidated. Would such a point have been considered for five minutes by any Committee of Parliament? I might give other instances to prove that the Court is unconsciously guided in its decisions by legal technicalities and the laws of evidence, and that this makes its expenditure too costly to allow an ordinary person to avail himself of it. I therefore intend to move the omission of clause 48, with a view to insert in its place the following clauses-

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not competent for the honorable member to move the omission of a clause, but he may vote against it, and, if it be negatived, may, at a later stage, propose the insertion of new clauses. He cannot, however, either propose or discuss such clauses now.

Mr CHANTER:

– I do not intend, to move them now,, but I wish to read them to show honorable members what I propose to substitute for the present arrangement.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member might move the omission of the words’ “ Section 194,” as a test question. If that amendment were carried, the Government would, no doubt, consent to the clause being negatived, and the honorable member could,, later on, at the proper stage, move the insertion of his proposed nev? clauses.

Mr Frazer:

– Will . not the honorable member be in order, in urging the Committee to negative the clause, in reading the proposals which he wishes to substitute for it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– He may indicate what they are, but he may not discuss them in detail. May is very specific on this point. In that authority it is stated, at page 459,, th.it-

Neither may an amendment be proposed to leave out from the word “ That “ to the end of the clause, in order to substitute other words, such an amendment being in the nature of a new clause.

Mr Frazer:

– If the honorable member reads his proposed new clauses, will he be held to be discussing them in detail ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Certainly not.

Mr CHANTER:

– I accept your suggestion, sir, and therefore move -

That the words “ Section one hundred and ninety-four,” in line 1, be left out.

I wish to create another tribunal in place of that provided for in the Bill. The nature of that tribunal may be gathered from the following provisions, which, if the clause is negatived, I shall later on move to insert -

The validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Honorable the Speaker of. the House of Representatives in the case of an election for that House, and to the Honorable the President in the case of an election for the Senate, and not otherwise. The Speaker and President shall immediately on receipt refer all such petitions to the Committee appointed by either House as the case may require.

The Committee shall consist of not less than nine members nominated by the Speaker in the case of a disputed return or election for the House of Representatives, and the President in the case of a disputed return or election for the Senate. If such nominations are not objected to within six days of their being so nominated, then such persons as are nominated shall constitute the Committee. If objected to within the prescribed period, a ballot shall be taken and the members chosen thereat shall constitute the Committee.

The Committee so chosen shall be the Court of Disputed Returns, and shall have jurisdiction to compel the attendance of witnesses, take evidence upon oath, and sit in any part of the Commonwealth it may deem necessary, and shall lay its report before Parliament upon all -matters deter, mined by it.

– That was the cost to one side only.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

That a Select Committee be appointed, with powerto send for persons, papers, and records, to inquire into -

All matters in connexion with the hearing of the Denison Election Petition on the 18th April, 1904.

The advisability of amending the law so that all future Election Petitions should be judged by a Committee of the House.

I thoroughly agree with the position taken up by the honorable member for Riverina, who stated that he would be prepared to trust his case to the decision of honorable members opposite rather than appeal to the High Court. I would point out that all the Justices of the High Court are old politicians. One loomed very largely in the affairs of the Commonwealth in its first days, and another represented His Majesty’s Government in another place. The Chief Justice was for many years a leading politician of Queensland. Is it to be suggested that those gentlemen are more honorable because they have become horse-haired divinities? I had been accustomed to look upon the Justices of the High Court in the dispensation of justice as next to the Almighty, and I entered the portals of that Court with a certain amount of confidence. I knew that there was a provision in the Electoral Act that its decision should rest upon equity and good conscience rather than upon legal technicalities. I was, however, rudely disillusionized. What was the first infamous demand that was made upon me? My lawyer told me that the petition which he had drawn up - rather a long one, I admit - would have to be advertised in one of the daily papers and in the Commonwealth Gazette. At a rate of 3s. per inch in one case, and 6s. per inch in the other, the cost of advertising that petition would have amounted to £90.

Mr Groom:

– But some arrangement was arrived at - a fresh rule was made?

Mr MALONEY:

– Yes ; that was because I took the bull by the horns. I was required by the Act to deposit £50, and if the Court had refused to accept my petition, I should have appealed to the Federal Parliament. I represented that I was unable to pay for advertising the petition, and, further, that I would not pay it if I were able, because I considered that the demand made upon me amounted to robbery. My case proceeded, and occupied the attention of the Court for something like ten hours, some two mornings and afternoons, and, although I had summoned no witnesses, the costs amounted to the sum of £200. To this day I have not obtained a decision from the Court. I found that justice was soiled with the filth of lucre. I do not for one moment make ‘any imputation against the character of the Justices of the High Court. I do not suggest that they are any less honorable to-day than when they moved in political circles. On the contrary, I believe that they are thoroughly honorable men. But I contend that it is a disgrace to our democracy that litigants should have to pay toll at every step they take in our Courts of Justice. My legal adviser informed me that as sure as the day followed night, I should win my suit, but that it would costme £1,500 to carry the case to a successful issue.

Mr Groom:

– Did they so inform the honorable member before the case was entered upon?

Mr MALONEY:

– No. That was after our first experience. The Chief Justice announced from the Bench that months must elapse before he could give a decision, and my legal adviser asked me whether I thought I could win another election. I said I could do so if it were a fair fight. I was advised that it would be much cheaper to adopt that course than to carry on my suit. It really seems absurd that the costs involved in a trumpery case of that kind should amount to more than the total ex penses incurred in connexion with the last general election in Tasmania. In. 1901, those expenses amounted to £1,649,butin1903, owing to the splendid management of the electoral officers, the outlay did not exceed £1,358. We have heard of the large sum which had to be spent by the honorable member for Riverina, and possibly we shall be told of the expenses which his opponent had to incur. I should be willing to accept the High Court as a tribunal for the trial of disputed election returns, if the, parties concerned were not robbed at the very portals of the Court. The suggestion made by the honorable member for Barrier is not a new one. In Gronlund’s Co-operative Commonwealth, I find the following passage: -

Just as little Switzerland will furnish us a model of really popular democratic administration in the “ referendum,” so it is possible that little Denmark will furnish us a model of popular administration of justice in her so-called “ Courts of Conciliation,” which have been in existence in that country since 1828, and during that period have given immense satisfaction, so much so, indeed, that similar Courts have to a certain extent been adopted by other countries in Europe. The distinguishing feature of those Courts is that no lawyers are allowed there. All suits whatsoever; without regard to the amounts involved, must, in the first place, be brought before these Courts. The judge takes down the oral complaint of the plaintiff, and the oral defence of the defendant, and renders judgment accordingly. If, however, either of the parties is dissatisfied with the judgment, the judge refers the case to the regular Courts, in which Courts, however, no other evidence is allowed to be introduced, but that which was laid before the judge’ sitting in the Court of Conciliation.

The cases brought before the Court cost litigants, on the average, only 2s. 6d. each. I should be willing to give the High Court a trial as a tribunal for the settlement of disputed returns, provided that petitioners were not required to deposit more than ^20, and could not be mulct in any further expense. Lawyers should be debarred from appearing before the Court in election cases. Surely the Justices of the Court can do without the assistance of barristers, and can deal out justice without loo much regard for legal technicalities. Of course, no one need be prevented from obtaining legal advice outside the ‘Court. Any person should be in a position to stand up and speak for himself before this tribunal, which, in these’ matters, is paid to dispense justice and not law. I shall vote for the amendment, and I sincerely hope that it will be carried. I understand that the Government are willing to introduce a short measure which will” have the effect of considerably curtailing the expenses ordinarily involved in a reference of these cases to the High Court. If we fail to carry this amendment, I trust that such a measure will be introduced early next session. Personally I am very desirous of seeing something done in that direction before the next general election takes place. I would not care, to again cross the portals of the High Court, not because I do not believe that its members are as honorable men as any who have occupied the judgment seat in any Court in Australia, but because, as the result of the’ abominable system of procedure adopted, litigants have law administered to them in lieu of justice.

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

– It is rather trying to be called upon to follow the honorable member in his oratorical flight by a prosaic commentary upon two or three practical speeches. The honorable member possesses an advantage over me in that he has quoted from some work upon a modern Utopia, with which I am not acquainted - a Utopia in which I understand the cost of counsel is 2s. 66., and that of an attorney is. 3d. I have no desire to deal with any imaginary community of that sort. We are living in the Australian Commonwealth, and the question under consideration is whether or not some alteration should be made in the law in regard to inquiries connected with disputed elections. I listened with great attention and curiosity to the speech of the honorable member for Riverina, and to that of the Minister who undertook to answer him. I am bound to say that the Minister’s reply was very disappointing. He seemed entirely to lose sight of the principal points mentioned by the ‘ honorable member for Riverina. First of all, the latter took exception to the High Court as a tribunal for inquiring into disputed elections, and, secondly, he objected to the expenses which litigants were compelled to incur in appearing before it. He also gave the Committee some information in regard to his own costs. I confess that I was somewhat astonished when I heard his statement as to the costs to which he had been subjected. Fortunately, I have had information placed in my hands which satisfies me that that statement was very much exaggerated. For my own part, I think we should be acting very unwisely if we attempted to substitute another tribunal for that which has been appointed’ by this. Parliament, for the purpose of inquiring into disputed elections. At the same time, although I belong to the profession for which the honorable member for Melbourne exhibits so much pity and contempt, I am perfectly prepared to assist trie honorable member for Riverina to dispense with the costs of appearing before that tribunal in connexion with matters of this sort. I object to the substitution of any Elections and Qualifications Committee for the High Court for several reasons. In the first place, I think that honorable members ought to be relieved as much as possible of the obligation to .inquire into matters which are outside their legislative duties. They certainly ought to be relieved of the obligation and unpleasantness of inquiring into matters which touch upon the interests of their fellow members. One does not need to be long in politics to have seen many cases in which it is abundantly clear that, although the members of parliamentary Committees may have had every desire to act in an impartial way, party feeling has played a very important part in their decisions.

Mr Webster:

– Can the honorable and learned member give an instance in point ?

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

– I can give many such instances. The honorable member is too fond of asking other honorabe members to supply particulars, in order that he may carp at them. Another reason why I object to the substitution of a parliamentary Committee for the present Court of Disputed Returns is that we have quite enough to do as legislators without being called on to adjudicate upon matters in which the interests of our fellow members are involved. Further, I submit that an Elections and Qualifications Committee is not as competent a body to deal with questions involving an interpretation of Statutes as are trained lawyers. So far as the employment of counsel is concerned, I can only say that the High Court has demonstrated to the people of Australia that far from being influenced by the weight of eminent counsel, the veriest fledgeling in the profession has as much chance before that tribunal as has the most eminent counsel at the Bar in any State, provided he has, facts and is able to marshal them. I am perfectly prepared to vote for an amendment which will have the effect of completely disqualifying the High Court from awarding costs to the successful party. The moment that is done, litigants appearing before it in connexion with questions of this kind will stand upon precisely the same footing as they do when they appear before an Elections and Qualifications Committee. I have heard honorable members urge that if we abolish the right to charge the unsuccessful suitor with costs, we shall allow the rich man to engage an array of counsel on one side, whilst the poor candidate will be unable to emulate his example. But I would point out that that power already exists in respect of any Elections and Qualifications Committee. There is no restriction upon the right of any suitor to engage the whole Bar of a State if he chooses to do so. We know very well that whilst a formidable array of counsel might exercise a very powerful influence upon the average Member of Parliament sitting upon such a body, it would not be likely to weigh very heavily with trained legal minds, such as, those which constitute the High Court. Therefore, apart from all other considerations, I maintain that that tribunal is more qualified in every conceivable way than is a Parliamentary Committee to deal with matters of this sort. It has been urged by the honorable member for Riverina that the High Court is influenced by the rules of evidence. I have yet to learn that those rules are anything more than common sense applied to the elucidation of truth. For instance, one of the rules is that hearsay testimony is not admissible. Very often a tribunal which is composed of laymen would allow A to relate something which he had heard some other person say. The rules of evidence provide that A can only swear to facts within his own knowledge. The laws of evidence, which have been spoken of as “ technicalities,” are the embodiment of common sense and worldly knowledge, as applied to the elucidation of truth, and must be adopted by any tribunal which professes to properly investigate any question remitted to it. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that of the two tribunals, the High Court is eminently superior, because its members are paid for exercising their judicial ability, and because the appointment of an Elections and Qualifications Committee would necessitate honorable members doing work outside their legislative functions, with the further objectionthat they would be adjudicating upon matters in which their fellow members are interested. The strong point of the speech of the honorable member for Riverina was his own personal experience - a bit of autobiography. I think that I am fairly paraphrasing that speech when I say that he led the Committee to believe that the proceedings before the High Court had cost him £400, and that he believed the expenses of his opponent aggregated some thousands. As a matter of fact, although the whole of the costs which were incurred on behalf of the honorable member amounted to £400, when they were submitted to an officer of the Court for taxation - and it is only fair that the taxing officer should have his due - they were reduced to£251. The Committee ought also to know that the whole of that amount was paid by Mr. Blackwood. If the honorable member for Riverina had only contracted with his lawyer not to charge more than the taxed costs-

Mr McWilliams:

– That is pretty rough on Mr. Blackwood.

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

– I will deal with that matter presently. The honorable member for Riverina led us to believe that the proceedings before the High Court had involved him in an expenditure of £400. It is true that the bill rendered by his lawyer did total that amount. But it is also true that an officer of the much-abused High Court reduced that sum to £251. and that the whole of it was included in the bill which was paid by Mr. Blackwood.

Mr Henry Willis:

– What would have occurred if the unsuccessful suitor had had no means ?

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

– I will come to that in a moment. Further, we were led to believe that Mr. Blackwood’s costs amounted to some thousands of pounds ; but the honorable member for Melbourne, adopting language in keeping with his other nights of oratory, declared that they amounted to ,£5,000 or £6,000.

Mr Webster:

– He said £1,500.

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

– Then the statement to which I refer must have been made by the honorable member for Darwin. I do not know whether the spread-eagleism of the United States, as represented by the honorable member for Darwin, is more exaggerated than is the oratory of the honorable member for Melbourne ; but, at all events, we were told by the latter that the costs amounted to some thousands of pounds, whilst the amount was swollen to £5,000 or £6,000 by the honorable member for Darwin. As a matter of fact, the costs incurred by Mr. Blackwood, who was said to have had an array of counsel, amounted fo £441, or £41 more than those of the honorable member for Riverina

Mr King O’Malley:

– Those are only the costs of which we know.

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

– I have Mr. Blackwood’s bill of costs in my pocket. To the sum of £441 we have to add £251, the taxed costs of the honorable member for Riverina.

Mr Watson:

– Would not there be any additional charges for witnesses?

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

– They are included in the bill to which I refer, and which I am prepared to show the honorable member. It is hardly desirable that the Committee should be tempted by exaggerated statements to accept- this amendment. When the original Bill was under consideration, the Prime Minister told us that an Elections and Qualifications Committee in this State had at one time involved one of the parties to a dispute in costs amounting to £2,000. It was said that that was an exceptional case, but the same remark might fie applied to Mr. Blackwood’s case ; it might be said that, having regard to the scope of Mr. Blackwood’s case, and the multiplicity of complications involved, that the one was as large as the other.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Why should Mr. Blackwood have had to pay for a blunder committed bv one of our own officials ?

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

– That is another matter which is not in issue. The question is whether the law shall be so altered as to substitute for the High Court, as a Court of Disputed Returns, an Elections and Qualifications Committee; and whether the High Court shall be allowed to throw the cost of the successful party upon the unsuccessful one. I suggested to the Minister, and I suggest again, that if he desires to retain the High Court as the tribunal which is to settle complicated electoral disputes, and relieve honorable members of that unpleasant task, he ought to provide that it shall not have power to throw the costs of the successful party upon the unsuccessful one. I agree with the Minister, and I believe that most thinking men share with him the belief that it is well to retain the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns. Speaking as a lawyer, I have no hesitation in asserting that if my suggestion be adopted the result will be that as long as one party sees that there is no chance of getting his costs from the other side it will be to the interests of both to keep their expenses as low as possible.

Mr Watkins:

– That is an admission.

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

– It is a jibe that is often used by Members of Parliament - and I shall not say by which class it is most frequently put forward - that the legal profession is that which is to be most pitied. I can only say that it is singular that every member of a certain party, at the first opportunity, enters that profession.

Mr Watson:

– It is good business.

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

– Very good business. I am satisfied that unless the Minister is prepared to adopt the course which I suggest he will not save the tribunal which he favours. It is a matter of common knowledge that the High Court is not likely to be affected in any way by an array of counsel. Any man who is aware of the practice of that Court will bear out my statement that the merest fledgling at the Bar has just as much influence with it as has an array of .King’s Counsel appearing before any tribunal in Australia. As long as a suitor is satisfied that he has a case, he may rest assured that if he retains some one who is competent to put it before the Court, the extent of his expenses will be less, certainly not more, than if he had’ gone before an Elections and Qualifications Committee.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– It is rarely that the honorable and learned member for Parkes favours us with his attendance, and he is therefore entitled, when he speaks, to claim the attention of the Committee. The honorable and learned member seems to hold a brief for the legal profession. He has sought to show that if the Minister will agree to render it impossible for the Court to throw the costs of the successful candidate upon the unsuccessful one, the difficulty will be solved. His manner would lead one to believe that as soon, as he has spoken, the matter should be taken as settled ; but the figures quoted by the honorable member for Melbourne and the honorable member for Riverina are startling, and are of themselves sufficient to warrant the acceptance of the amendment. The honorable and learned member for Parkes commenced by seeking to discredit the quotation made by the honorable member for Melbourne with regard to the procedure followed in Denmark; but he had to make the admission, for the first time within my knowledge, that he had not read something appertaining to the social progress of the world. I am satisfied that the quotation and the arguments used by the honorable member for Melbourne strongly supported the position which he set up, and that whatever may have been the costs incurred by the honorable member for Riverina, his experience must have been a bitter one. I believe that all electoral disputes should be settled by an Elections and Qualifications Committee. The honorable and learned member for Parkes objects to such a tribunal, because he holds that Members of this ‘Parliament should be called upon to perform no other duty than that of legislating for the Commonwealth ; but the fairest tribunal that could be constituted to deal with matters of this kind is one consisting of Members of Parliament, who are familiar with the intricacies of an electioneering campaign, and can bring to bear a knowledge which is not possessed by anr legal luminary who has no political experience. So far as I am aware, there has been little room for complaint as to the decisions of the Elections and Qualifications Committee of the State Parliament of New South Wales, or as to the cost of conducting proceedings before it. That Committee has dealt with dozens of disputes, but I know of only one case in which an aspersion has been cast upon it - and cast, upon it, I believe, with some justification. I have known the Committee to declare void the election of a supporter of the dominant party in the State Legislature, and we must not lose sight of the fact that we have an additional safeguard in the power of Parliament to override the decision of the Committee. The members of the legal profession are fighting for their own hand. In every matter relating to the High Court which has been dealt with by this Parliament, a solid phalanx of the legal members of the House has supported the point of view of the lawyers, and. when they have not been able to get their own way, they have sought to build a bridge to carry them over the objections, of the other side. The proposal that the Court shall not have power to mulct the unsuccessful man in the costs of the successful party would not grant any relief. The honorable and learned member for Parkes said that Mr. Blackwood was called upon to pay costs amounting to £692, and he spoke of the amount as if it were a mere bagatelle. Although a candidate may have contested an election fairly and honorably, and be returned1, his opponent, if a rich man, can practically drive him out of Parliament by entering an action against him before the Court of Disputed Returns. Is that justice? If the honorable member for Melbourne had not had the courage to -fight a second contest, rather than be mulcted in the costs involved in an appeal to the Court,, the people of Melbourne would not have had the man of their choice to represent them. Not many men would have done what he, did on that occasion. I am surprised that the Minister of Home Affairs is opposing the amendment. He must unwittingly be influenced by his environment. I do hot agree with the suggestion that the difficulty would be met by limiting the expenses of litigants appearing before the Court of Disputed Returns, because I know that, however one may get into a Court, he will not leave it until he has lost pretty well all that he possessed, unless he is a very rich man indeed. “ Walk into my parlour,” said the spider to the fly; but once a litigant gets into Court, he has to pay for his experience there. What is taking place in connexion with the Arbitration Court of New South Wales, shows the abuses which arise from the employment of lawyers. Had the Labour Party of New

– I would prevent counsel from appearing, before the Court, and would strictly limit the expense of proceedings there. If that were done, we might possibly retain the present procedure. No doubt if we abolished the lawyers the Judges would decide matters on their merits. I trust that the Committee will see that members are protected from having to pay heavy law expenses in connexion with disputed elections, and will indorse the principle of referring election disputes to a Committee of Elections and Qualifications. Who will say that such a Committee would not do justice to those appearing before it? Even the most unpopular man in the House need have no fear that he would not get justice from such a Committee. I ask the Committee not to be led away by the speech of the honorable and learned member for

Parkes, who thought that it would be a great thing merely to relieve the unsuccessful litigant of the costs of the successful litigant. Unless we get a clear and substantial promise that a change will be made in the present procedure, which will be a distinct gain, it will be our duty to substitute for the Court of Disputed Returns a Committee of Elections and Qualifications.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I have had the greatest difficulty in making, up my mind how to vote on this situation, because I have the highest confidence in the Court of Disputed Returns as at present constituted. I do not, however, agree with the honorable and learned member for Parkes, that the only question to consider now is whether we shall substitute a Committee of this House for that Court. The real question is - What should it cost candidates to contest a disputed election? Sad to say, there is very little justice for the man who cannot afford to buy it. When you have to buy justice it always pays you to employ not the fledgling barrister, but the very best counsel that can be obtained. That means that the poor man is practically placed out of Court. The expenses of the honorable member for Riverina and the honorable member for Melbourne in connexion with their cases before the High Court amounted to a great deal more than the cost of returning the whole of the representatives of South Australia at the last election. No poor man can afford to incur expense of that kind. If the Minister could show me that there was any way in which election disputes could be referred to the High Court without involving the litigants in undue expense. I should prefer to allow the law to remain as if is. But I recognise that whilst the High Court can grant costs against the petitioner-

Mr Groom:

– Even before an Elections and Qualifications Committee, the successful party might incur considerable loss if the Court had no power to reimburse him.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I consider that where ai candidate is rejected through no fault of his own, he should! not be called upon to incur any expense in connexion with the adjudication upon his case. After listening to the discussion, I have come to the conclusion that if counsel are allowed to appear before the Court of Disputed Returns the expenses will be enormous. If lawyers .-we permitted to appear before an

Elections and Qualifications Committee hundreds of technicalities will be raised and many days will be occupied in explaining matters to the lay members of the Committee. Therefore, it would be far better to retain the High’ Court as a Court of Disputed Returns, if lawyers are to be permitted to take part in the proceedings. I see no better way of meeting the necessities of the case than by supporting the amendment of the honorable member for Riverina. If the Minister can show me that it will cost a poor man nothing to go before the High Court-

Mr Higgins:

– The poor man suffers in everything.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I recognise that it will be a long time before we can realize the anticipation of Lord Brougham, who spoke about finding law dear, and leaving it cheap - finding it the patrimony of the rich, and making it the inheritance of the poor. But I think that we should do everything that lies in our power to simplify legal procedure, and to reduce the cost to litigants. I do not propose to show, any consideration to the lawyers. If I had to appeal to the Court, I should engage the very best counsel ; but if I lost my suit I should probably not be able to pay them. I have had a somewhat extended and verysad experience of the law during the last fifteen years, and I have always enlisted the services of the best men I could secure. I have obtained justice, but I have had to buy it. If the honorable member for Riverina, or the honorable member for Melbourne had to fight another case before the High Court they would probably not be able to afford to employ counsel, and would find themselves at a disadvantage, for the reason that barristers would, in all likelihood be engaged by the other side. The best thing that we can do under all the circumstances is -to provide for a Court constituted of members of this House, to limit the expenses to £50, and to provide that counsel shall not appear before the Court.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).The wheel appears to have made another revolution. My thoughts go1 back to the time when it was thought to be a great reform to do (away with Elections and Qualifications Committees. It was then held that expense would thus be decreased and justice insured. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has approached this matter with a perfectly fair mind1, and with a desire to deal justly with even ‘the lawyers. He, at least, has not accused the honorable and learned member for Parkes of speaking from a self-interested point of view. The honorable and learned gentleman tells me that he had appeared in only two parliamentary election cases in his life. I have not been engaged in even one. I hope that members of the muchhated legal profession will receive credit for communicating the results of their experience without regard to self-interest. Election disputes occur so infrequently that one could scarcely be influenced in his view of such a matter as that now before us by the hope that he would be called upon to conduct an election suit. I have looked up the debates which took place in the House of Commons when Mr. Disraeli, then Chancellor of the Exchequer,, brought forward his proposal for the establishment of a Court of Disputed Returns. Until Walpole’s time the whole House voted upon election disputes, and there was a precious party scrimmage in every case. Under Greville’s Act an Elections Committee was chosen by lot. Afterwards, in 1848, a Committee of six was appointed under the Speaker’s warrant. A similar proposal is now being made by the honorable member for Riverina. Great precautions were adopted, and a tribunal was formed of an odd number of members, chosen from the six appointed by the Speaker, to decide upon each election dispute. Now, what was the result of the experience gained from 1848 to 1868? I shall quote the words of Mr. Disraeli, whose Bill was supported by his great opponent, Mr. Gladstone. At page 695, vol. 190 of Hansard, Mr. Disraeli gives the result of the experience gained in the previous twenty years. The members of the Committee to which I have referred were solemnly sworn to execute justice and maintain the truth. They were empowered to call witnesses, and every care was taken to arrive at a just decision. Yet Mr. Disraeli says: -

Yet that tribunal has not proved satisfactory, and at no time perhaps have there been, more than recently, greater complaints and charges against the inefficiency and unsatisfactory character of that tribunal. Every one will admit that, notwithstanding all the precautions we have availed ourselves of, as exemplified in the existing Act, the expenditure -

I hope honorable members will bear this in mind - upon these election petitions has not diminished, but I believe I may say it has been considerably increased ; that the decisions of the Committees have been uncertain, and, therefore, un satisfactory, and that they have offered no obstacle whatever to the growing practice of corrupt compromise, by which, in the process of withdrawing petitions, a veil is often thrown over more flagrant transactions than any which are submitted to scrutiny and investigation.

He refers there to the practice that was followed at one time in England. If a petition were presented charging A, a Conservative, with bribery and, another petition was presented charging B, a Liberal, with bribery, the party managers would set to work and bring about the withdrawal of both charges. The result was that the most scandalous cases of bribery were never proceeded with. Of course, pressure was brought to bear to prevent such petitions from being prosecuted. It was found that members who were still hot with the excitement arising from a recent election were the most unfit persons in the world to decide whether or not the electoral law had been complied with. Mr. Disraeli continues: -

I think, then, that after the experience we have had of the existing law, the opinion of the House has been gradually, but surely, formed, that there is something in the principle upon which the jurisdiction of the House in regard to controverted elections rests, which is essentially vicious, and which has hitherto prevented, and will prevent, any satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and injurious consequences which all recognise, and which many have felt. And what is that principle? It is that the House has hitherto insisted1 - and I grant that it is natural, and that in a certain sense it has been wise and salutary that they should have insisted - on retaining the privilege of deciding on those questions which are so interesting to every member of the House, as forming in fact the elements of which it is to consist. But public opinion and the opinion of this House have in a- great degree of late years come to the conviction that it is only by the transfer of this, jurisdiction with respect to controverted elections from the House to some other and competent tribunal, that we can arrive at more satisfactoryresults than we have hitherto experienced.

Mr CARPENTER:

-Yes, but the Judge was not responsible for the decision of the Committee. As soon as it was known that the Committee was to be appointed, an honorable and learned member of the State Legislature, who was engaged as counsel by one of the parties to the action, suggested to the members of the Committee, directly or indirectly, what verdict they should give. No one was surprised, although many were shocked, when the Committee decided as he had indicated. A bench of three Judges could not very well be got at in that way. The candidate who was elected had promised the electors that if he were returned he would distribute his parliamentary honorarium among them, and for that reason - for that act of bribery - he was unseated. Although the Committee unseated him, they refused to assign any reason for their decision, because if they had done so the candidate would havebeendisqualifiedfrom sitting as a member or contesting an election for two years. Yet the honorable member says : “ Let us substitute a Parliamentary Committee for the High Court.” I would point out to him that a Judge would not rule the Committee; it is more likely that the Committee would overrule the Judge. If members wish to insure that the parties to a disputed election shall receive a “ fair deal,” and if we can secure a reference of all such cases to the High Court, for the same outlay as would be involved in an appeal to an Elections and Qualifications Committee, by all means let us provide for that. But do not let us abolish the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns, upon the ground that the appeals to it are too costly.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause - put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 17

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I think that the Minister might indicate what amendment he is prepared to suggest, with a view to reducing the cost of these references to the High Court. So far I have refrained from speaking, because I desired the matter to be put to a vote as soon as possible. We all recognise that the costs incurred by the honorable member for Riverina and the honorable member for Melbourne, in bringing their cases before the High Court were excessive, and we are anxious to see such expenses reduced.

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

– Will the Minister state what is the general direction in which he proposes to amend it?

Mr Groom:

– I propose to limit the costs.

Mr. MALONEY (Melbourne).- I should like to know whether, in the event of the recommittal of the clause, the honorable member for Herbert will be at liberty to move the amendment which he has suggested ?

Mr Groom:

– If the clause be recommitted that amendment may be moved.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause53 agreed to.

Clause 54 negatived.

Postponed clause 43 (Recount at Senate E lections) -

Mr. GROOM (Darling Downs- Minister of Home Affairs). - The honorable member for Riverina desires to move an amendment in this clause, but as he is not present I shall be preparedto agree to its recommittal.

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

– I think that the honorable and learned gentleman might well consent at this stage to progress being reported.

Mr Groom:

– Let us pass this clause.

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

-It is because I understand that the honorable member for Riverina is very much interested in this clause that I suggest that progress be reported.

Mr Groom:

– I am prepared to agree to its recommittal if the honorable member for Riverina desires that course to be adopted.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 44 agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 12a. Section twenty-two of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following sub-section : - “ (2) The Commissioner shall thereupon propose a fresh distribution in the manner hereinbefore provided.”

Amendment (by Mr. Dugald Thomson) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 9a. Section sixteen of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after “ existing boundaries of divisions “ “ (e) Boundaries of State Electorates.”

Amendment (by Mr. Groom, for Mr. Lonsdale) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 9b. Section seventeen of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “ map “ in the second line, the words “with a description of the boundaries.”

Amendment (by Mr. King O’Malley) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 25a. After section sixty-six of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - 66a. Any Member of the Parliament or any candidate or any authorized representative of a political league consisting of not less than fifty financial members who are electors may at any time, when any employes employed thereon are not at work, such as dinner time, crib time, “ smoke oh,” or changing of shifts, enter any mine mine working mine building factory workshop or any place where any work or undertaking is carried on, and may interview any employes for the purpose of obtaining the enrolment or assisting in obtaining the enrolment of such employés or any of them as electors, or for the purpose of assisting such employes or any of them.

Mr. GROOM (Darling Downs- Minister of Home Affairs). - I do not see how I could accept the clause, even if it were in order. The honorable member proposes to give the right to any Member of Parliament,, or candidate, or any authorized representative of a political league of fifty members to go into any mine, building, factory, or workshop at dinner time, crib time, “ smoke-oh,” or the changing of shifts, with a view to obtaining the enrolment of the employés. I think that the law already provides every facility for enrolment. The intention is to take away this duty as much as possible from political parties, and intrust it to authorized officials, and we employ the police to go round and make a thorough collection of names. I ask the honorable member not to press the amendment.

Mr. KING O’MALLEY (Darwin).- At the last elections we counted 600 names of persons living at Gormanstown, Queenstown, and Linda Valley which were not on the roll after the police had made their collection, though many of them had been living in those places for seven, eight, or ten years, while other names on the roll were all mixed up. I intended, after the election, to move a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but my respect for the Prime Minister prevented me from doing so. Everything was arranged to defeat me. No honest man and good boss will refuse to allow any one to enter his works when his men are doing nothing, for the purpose of securing their enrolment. All that would be done would be to get their names, to be forwarded later on to the returningofficer, if they were not already on the roll. An employer who in this democratic country would not allow that to be done would be a dishonest man.

Mr Storrer:

– No. Why should an employer allow any one to go on his premises ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The honorable member seems to think that employers would be justified in shutting their men up altogether. The country rests upon the votes of an intelligent people, and no one should be prevented from inducing men to place their names upon the roll.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– The honorable member could visit the men in their homes.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The honorable member speaks as if miners had ordinary homes. Many of them live in little tents scattered about the hills, and it is very hard to get at them, because immediately after they leave their work they hurry away home. I shall press my amendment, even though I stand alone.

Mr. MALONEY (Melbourne).- Many good employers permit candidates to interview their employés during working hours ; but othersare not so accommodating. Personally, I have rot experienced very much trouble, butI think it is desirable that every facility should be offered for inducing men to enrol themselves. I shall support the amendment.

Question - That the proposed new clause be read a second time - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 24

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr. KING O’MALLEY (Darwin).- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 42a. - (1) Every person who is entitled to vote at any election (hereinafter called the elector), and who by reason of being engaged in the employment of another person would be otherwise prevented from voting, shall be entitled to absent himself from his employment for a period of two hours while the polls of such election are open and for the purpose of voting.

Penalty : Five pounds.

The object of the clause is to afford electors an opportunity of leaving their work in order to record their votes. The provision is copied from the New York Act.

Mr. GROOM (Darling Downs - Minister of Home Affairs). - I move -

That the word “of,” line 7, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ not exceeding.”

The idea underlying the amendment is that leave of absence to employes to enable them to record their votes shall be limited to the necessities of each case.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That after the word “ himself,” line 15, and after the word “ purpose,” line 19, the words “ for a reasonable period “ be inserted.

Mr. WATSON (Bland).- I do not think that we should ask employers to pay men for the time which they lose in discharging a duty which every citizen is expected to perform. It should always be our object to indicate that theduties of citizenship come before all other considerations - that a man should be prepared to make some sacrifice in fulfilling the duty that he owes to himself and his family. That being so, I fail to see why employers should be asked to remunerate their employés in respect of the time which they lose in recording their votes. All that we should do is to provide against a disproportionate deduction from wages. That is to say, if a man is absent from his work, say, for one hour or two hours, the employer should not be at liberty to make more than a proportionate deduction from his wages.

That sub-clause 3 be left out.

Mr CONROY (Werriwa). - I am in favour of the amendment, because I think that the sub-clause as it stands might have a prejudicial effect upon the workers. We cannot prevent an employer from closing his establishment on polling day. I know of one institution which gave its employés a half-holiday on election day and the men complained that they received only half a day’s wages. If we pass this sub-clause it may lead to many men losing a whole day’s work.

Mr. WATSON (Bland).- I desire to withdraw my amendment for the omission of subclause 3, and to move one more upon the lines of my original proposal, the phraseology of which has been suggested by the honorable and learned member for Parkes. I propose that the words ‘ ‘ penalty either by way of “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ disproportionate,” and to insert before the word “required,” in line 22,the word “penalty.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Watson) agreed to -

That the words “ penalty either by way of,” line 21, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ disproportionate “ ; and that after the word “ or,” line 22, the word “ penalty “ be inserted.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted : -

This section shall not apply to an elector whose absence might cause danger or substantial loss in respect of the employment in which he and others are engaged.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes). - I think that this clause is bothunwise and unfair. It has not been shown that it is necessary

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– I voted against the second reading of this clause, and, although it has been amended, it seems to me to be a verv unwise provision from the point of view of the workers. I have not heard of any case in Tasmania where an employe has been refused an opportunity to record his. vote. In many cases, workers are driven to the polling places by their employers or others, and I think that this proposal goes a little too far. Employers in Tasmania, at all events, are not so despotic as to deprive those serving them of ari opportunity to record their vote. Many of these proposals are altogether too extreme. There are a good many mines and factories in my division, but I have not had the complaint from employes that they have been prevented from voting. It may be objected that the Federal elections take place only once in every three years, but honorable members forget that there are sometimes, by -elections, and, moreover, omexample is likely to be followed in regard to State elections, municipal elections,, and elections for Road Trusts., and similar boards.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– I am surprised that the Government have accepted the amendment. I have never heard of a man or woman being refused by his employer the right to vote, and, in the past, as an employe, I have always been willingly afforded every facility to record my vote. It seems to me that every facility is given to townspeople to vote, and every obstacle placed in the way of the voting of country people. The limit for postal voting has been extended from five to ten miles,, thus depriving thousands of country persons of the opportunity to vote, and unreasonably extending a privilege to persons in towns and in closely settled districts. I should like to know who is to be the judge as to whether inconvenience or danger will result from the absence of an employ^? I suppose the employer must determine that, though nothing is said on the subject.

Mr. CHANTER (Riverina).- The honorable member for Echuca sees great danger in the proposed new clause; but all it provides is that an employe” may take two hours off to record his vote. Notwithstanding what the honorable member has said about his experience, I know that on many large stations in my division, although men are not told that they cannot go to the poll, they are sent to distant parts of the runs to work there, and it is thus made impossible for them to vote.

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

– They should not let it be known how they, are going to vote.

Mr CHANTER:

– Honest men do not hide their intentions. Surely the provision is a just one;, because an employe cannot be absent from his duties for more than two hours, and provision is made to meet the cases of those in positions of responsibility. Although I have given only one instance of the manner in which men are prevented from voting, I could give scores of other instances.

Mr. HUTCHISON (Hindmarsh).- Apparently the honorable member for Echuca was not present when an honorable member mentioned the fact that hundreds of smelters at Port Pirie were unable to vote, because they could go to the poll only at the time of the changing of ths shifts, and the returning officer could not then supply all who presented themselves with ballot papers. I also know of a case in which a publican refused to allow a female servant to go to the poll, because he thought that she would vote for a Labour candidate, and I am glad to say that she left his employment the same day. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the polling booths are not opened until 8 o’clock in the morning^., when hundreds of men and women have to be at work, and these people do not leave their employment until after polling hours, or at a time when the polling booths are inconveniently crowded, especially for women. Those facts should convince honorable members that the proposal is a fair one.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes).- I am satisfied that there are cases in connexion with which a provision of this kind may Le necessary, but the Minister should have more respect for his Bill than to allow such a badly-drafted provision to be inserted in it. I am sure that, in view of the complications, no discreet employe” would take the risk of absenting himself from work under- its protection ; and it is certainly a provision which will give occupation to the lawyers.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 6771

PACIFIC CABLE

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from the Senate, requesting concurrence in the following resolution : -

That the Government should do everything in its power to make the State-owned Pacific Cable a financial success and an up-to-date business enterprise.

page 6771

PAPER

Mr. EWING laid upon the table the following paper: -

Finance and Allowance Regulations Defence Acts 1903-4. Statutory Rules, 1905, No. jj.

page 6771

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.

House adjourned at n jo p. in

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19051212_reps_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives12 December 1905

QUESTION

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

REPORTS OF CAPTAIN CRESWELL

QUESTION

COLONEL LYSTER

Mr WILKINSON:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Mr WILKINSON:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL BILL

PRICE AND BAYLY COMPENSATION BILL

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL (No. 3)

Second Reading

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Darwin

Mr Watson:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Page:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Hutchison:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr King O’Malley:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr McWILLIAMS:Franklin

Sir William Lyne:

Mr McWILLIAMS:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr McWILLIAMS:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr McWILLIAMS:

Sir William Lyne:

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

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Mr Webster:

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

Mr Webster:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Webster:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

House of Representatives
12 December 1905

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

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

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

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

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

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

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

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906