House of Representatives
3 May 1961
23rd Parliament · 3rd Session
- CANBERRA RENTALS
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES, PARKVILLE, VICTORIA
- WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL 1961
- COAL EXCISE BILL 1961
- STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1961
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961
- COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1961
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961
- CUSTOMS TARIFF (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL 1961
- COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1961
- QUESTION
- VOTING RIGHTS OF ABORIGINES
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1363
CANBERRA RENTALS
Petition
Mr. J. R. FRASER presented a petition from certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the Government will take immediate action to defer the rental increases on government-owned dwellings in Canberra and immediately promote an inquiry into rentals in relation to costs of living in Canberra and the need for the establishment of a Canberra basic wage.
Petition received and read.
page 1363
QUESTION
WOOL
Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Has the Minister for Trade seen a statement attributed to the chairman of the wool inquiry committee, Sir Roslyn Philp, that he was not at all sure that the Commonwealth Government would finance a floor price scheme for wool? Because of this uncertainty which appears to be hindering the work of the inquiry, will the Minister say to what extent the Australian Government will go in financing a reserve price plan if this form of marketing is found to be in the best interest of the wool-growers and the nation?
Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP
-I think that this is a matter more in the province of the Minister for Primary Industry. Sir Roslyn Philp is completely right in saying that he is not sure whether the Government would finance a plan - for who on earth could, with prudence, say that he would finance a plan as yet unformed? The attitude of the Commonwealth would obviously be determined in relation to a proposal and not in relation to a notion.
page 1363
QUESTION
LENIN PEACE PRIZE
Award to ex-Senator.
Mr PEARCE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND
– I ask the Prime Minister:
Has the Government been informed officially of a Communist award made by the Russians to ex-Senator Morrow? If so, are there any details that the House could have on this matter?
Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP
– I have no official information on the matter, but I have, of course, read of it with great interest and with a feeling of deep sympathy for some of the unsuccessful competitors who are here. When I read about it, and saw that this vast sum of money had been given to a former Labour senator, obviously for services to the Soviet Union–
Mr Ward:
– Did you get any monetary award with your Iron Cross?
Mr MENZIES:
– You are one of those I was thinking of when I mentioned earlier my sympathy for the unsuccessful competitors here. I repeat that when I read about this matter I thought, remembering something of history, that after all this was all of a piece; that this was the latest example of the success of a unity ticket.
page 1363
QUESTION
PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I ask the Minister for
Territories: Have the Australian authorities in Papua and New Guinea accepted the decision of the Eighth World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization in 1955, at Mexico City, to aim at the total eradication of malaria? Have they caused to be studied in Papua and New Guinea any development of the tendency feared by the World Health Organization - namely, that certain mosquitoes carrying malaria have become resistant to residual insecticides such as D.D.T.? Do the Australian authorities in the Territories ask for assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization in the elimination, respectively, of malnutrition and endemic diseases such as malaria and hookworm, as do the Dutch in West New Guinea? Is it still true to say, as Dr. Gunther informed the Political Science Conference in 1957, that because of a curtain of disease, notably hook-worm and malaria, we have never seen the Papuan people at 100 per cent. health and efficiency?
Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
– I am not in a position to answer the technical questions that the honorable member has asked, and I suggest that at least that portion of his question be put on the notice-paper. So far as our relationship with the World Health Organization is concerned we have the closest possible relationship with that organization. In the matter of malaria eradication we have had a visit from an expert of the World Health Organization to the Territory who furnished us with a report, and our own officers have, under fellowships provided by the World Health Organization, attended several seminars and courses to help them in their work. Generally speaking - and I speak subject to possible error on the technical points - there are considerable differences of opinion among persons of good standing about the best method of eradicating malaria. Our own Department of Health in the Territory, following the best judgment available to it, has recommended a course which varies in some respects from the course that has been recommended by the World Health Organization. That is a matter of judgment. I have confidence that my own officers have made a proposal which is soundly based and suited to the needs of the Territory.
Mr Beazley:
– Eradication is their objective?
Mr HASLUCK:
– That is among the technical points on which differences occur. There is a difference of judgment between experts whether eradication or control is the best method of tackling this problem. The matter is not a question of the intensity or the earnestness of the effort. The question is solely one of choosing the method most likely to achieve quickly the best results. If the honorable member will put the remaining part of his question on the notice-paper, I shall supply a detailed answer.
page 1364
QUESTION
EXPORTS
Mr HOWSON:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA
– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. Has he seen a report that a large Australian organization of management consultants intends to establish schools for export executives in Sydney and Melbourne? Does the Minister regard such a step as being of great benefit to the Government’s intensified export drive?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– I have seen a reported statement on behalf of the organization concerned, and I welcome the decision taken. It seems to me to be evidence of the growing awareness of the scope for partnership between private enterprise and governments to the mutual advantage of both governments and the nation, as well as awareness of the profitability to private enterprise of knowledge and development of the specialized techniques of exporting. Those techniques are quite specialized, and I am sure that, in addition to what the Commonwealth Government can contribute in this field, study of these techniques could afford considerable benefit to private traders and commercial interests. Therefore, I welcome the intention to establish schools for export executives.
page 1364
QUESTION
ROADS
Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND
– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that work has begun on a developmental roads programme in Queensland in accordance with a plan announced by the Federal Government earlier this year, I ask the Minister: What is the financial arrangement-
Mr Harold Holt:
– To what plan is the honorable member referring?
Mr FULTON:
– To the developmental roads programme which was announced earlier this year. I ask the Treasurer: What is the financial arrangement between the Federal Government and the State Government for the completion of the programme? Will Queensland receive treatment as favorable as that extended to Western Australia? If Queensland is to be given financial assistance on the basis of £1 for every £1 of State expenditure, will that State receive additional loan money over and above its normal requirements in order to pay for this work, or must it use funds from its normal loan allocation?
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP
– I am glad to say that discussions between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government on this matter have been proceeding satisfactorily, and the road from Normanton to Julia Creek should be commenced at an early date. Both parties agreed that on any assessment of the programme this road would be a desirable development. While I was in northern Queensland recently, I had an opportunity to confer with the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Lands in the Queensland Government and a representative group of cattlemen from the northern areas of the State. Those discussions made it obvious that wrapped up with this question of roads and the attainment of the objective of greater export income from beef production were various other matters. These included the possibility of shipping by way of shallow-draft vessels from ports in the Gulf of Carpentaria to ports farther south on the east coast and the problem of nutrition to ensure that a bigger proportion of the cattle calved was eventually brought to market. Even the shortage of suitable seed for pastures and legumes appeared to come into the picture.
As a result of these discussions, I proposed that it might be useful if the appropriate expert technical officers of the Commonwealth Government conferred promptly with officers of the State Government, and I said that if the State Administration were disposed to request this of the Commonwealth, I would bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues in this Government and state my own view that we might readily respond to the request. Already, the Premier of Queensland has sent a letter about this matter to the Prime Minister, which was received to-day, and I have no doubt that it will be promptly considered by the Commonwealth Government. We are well aware of the desirability to encourage the production of beef not only in Queensland but in other suitable areas in the north, as a valuable contribution to our export income. For our part, we would be willing to collaborate in securing the objectives we have in mind, and the financial arrangements will be discussed in that spirit.
page 1365
QUESTION
TIMBER
Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for the Interior, relates to the suggestion that the Government follow the policy of using more Australian timbers in Commonwealth public buildings. Has the Minister now any information he can give me regarding the steps he has taken to put this intention into effect?
Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
– Some time ago, the right honorable member for Cowper raised this matter and I undertook to examine the position. I found then that in fact the Department of Works specifies that Australian timber shall be used in all instances where it is suitable to be used in Govern ment works. In many instances, contractors seek variations of their contracts to enable them to use other than Australian timbers. This principally occurs in New South Wales and South Australia, largely because local timber probably costs a little more than imported Oregon does. In South Australia, the building trade generally does not carry large stocks of Australian hardwood because the whole industry is built around the use of Oregon. Because the use of Australian timber by the Commonwealth would hardly alter the pattern of the industry there but would add to costs and cause delays, a genuine request by contractors is usually accepted. However, I have asked the department to insist more rigidly that the specifications be complied with. In addition, an examination has been undertaken of the use of Australian plywood - again a relatively small matter in relation to the total usage all over Australia. I have instructed that Australian plywood and plywood from New Guinea at least should be specified and used in departmental construction.
page 1365
QUESTION
LENIN PEACE PRIZE
Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA
– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does the fact that he and Mr. Khrushchev have exchanged new year greetings on several occasions make him eligible to be considered, as ex-Senator Morrow was, for the Lenin Peace Prize?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for this valuable suggestion. I regard it as rather helpful, but quite frankly I do not think I am very much in the race. The competition here is too hot.
page 1365
QUESTION
LAOS
Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA
– I ask the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs whether he has heard of any fresh developments in regard to the cease-fire arrangements in Laos.
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– There has been a meeting under a flag of truce between representatives of the two sides, but no finality has yet been arrived at. We are very much hoping that neither side will put up difficult or impossible conditions, because we attach great importance to an actual cessation of hostilities so that the other proposals that have been made will have a chance to succeed.
page 1366
QUESTION
POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I ask the
Postmaster-General: Has he seen the new Australian5s. stamp showing a man on a horse chasing a bullock? Does he agree that the left front leg of the horse is at least 12 inches shorter than the right leg, that the horse has a club hoof and a turnedin leg and that its hind legs are those of an old man kangaroo? Does he further agree that the bullock has bothlegs joined at the knees and is glued to the horse’s flank by its near leg? Has he seen this expression of view by the noted Australian artist, George “Finey? If so, will he examine this design with a view to the possible withdrawal of the stamp because it is arousing both laughter and ridicule amongst country people?
Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– I have seen some criticism of the stamp referred to by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. Naturally, I saw the stamp before it was issued, and I can assure the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that I have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing it. I should like to go on record as saying that the stamp is a very fine depiction of an action shot of a stockman operating and cutting out on the camp a beast in a way which those who have any knowledge of this sort ofthing would enjoy. It so happens that Imyself have ridden camp many times, and I know what I am talking about.
page 1366
QUESTION
TEXT BOOKS
Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND
– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a statement made in Brisbane this week by a lecturer of international repute to the effect that most of the text books on the English language and literature available in Indonesia and other South-East Asian countries are printed by the Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow, and contain antiWestern propaganda, will the Government try to encourage the sale in those countries of accurate, reliable text books published in Australia in an effort to counter this insidious Communist influence?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– I shall be very glad to look into this matter, which had not previously been brought to my notice.
page 1366
QUESTION
WOOL
Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA
– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that when the committee of inquiry into the wool industry was appointed the Government announced that it would be an open inquiry. Is it a fact that recently Sir Roslyn Philp asked a witness to prepare and submit confidential evidence to the committee? Does not that request negative the statement that it was to be an open committee, and is such a state of affairs desirable?
Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP
– It is an open inquiry, but there are times when the committee may seek evidence which obviously is confidential to the person concerned. The committee has every right to obtain that evidence and treat it as confidential. If the committee deems it necessary to obtain such information to help it in arriving at its conclusions, why should it not do so? Why should not the committee have the right to hear evidence in camera?
page 1366
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY
Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977
– I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be possible for him to have made available to honorable members a list showing the office bearers of the Australian Communist Party and of that party’s State branches.
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– I shall be very glad to do my best to secure such a list.
page 1366
QUESTION
TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr CLAY:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Treasurer whether it is true that an officer of his department is making a special and semiofficial investigation of the textile industry for the purpose of pinpointing the source and extent of its grievous wounds. Since he has already been informed by spokesmen for the textile industry that in their opinion their troubles stem mainly from the credit squeeze, does the Treasurer feel that all the spokesmen for the industry are liars or exaggerators and, as such, are not to be trusted?
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP
– Dealing first with the last and somewhat disorderly portion of the honorable member’s question, I think that representatives of the textile industry are entitled to the same respect and recognition as are the representatives of any other section of Australian industry. The honorable member has asked whether a Treasury official is conducting some survey of the situation in the textile industry. 1 would have the honorable gentleman know that the position of the Australian economy comprehensively is analysed regularly and almost constantly by the appropriate departments of this Government. I have already mentioned the fact that we are well aware that recent developments have left some lag of activity in the textile industry and some retrenchments and re-adjustments in the affairs of that industry. I have no doubt that in the surveys which have been made of the trend of the Australian economy officers of the Treasury, in conjunction with officers of other relevant departments - notably the Department of Trade, the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of Primary Industry and what might be termed the economic sections of the Administration - have been directing their attention to this as well as to other elements in the economy.
page 1367
QUESTION
TIMBER
Mr BANDIDT:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND
– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. I preface it by saying that the timber millers in my electorate are still concerned about imports of timber and plywood. What has been the latest trend in such imports?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– I am not able, offhand, to give the precise figures to the honorable member, but my latest advice is that the importation of plywood in the recent past has been falling very rapidly indeed. I will supply to the honorable member and to the House the precise figures in this regard.
page 1367
QUESTION
TASMAN EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED
Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA
– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that his Government has sold its half-share in Tasman Empire Airways Limited for £1,000,000? Also, is it a fact that the Minister for Air in the New Zealand Government, Mr. McAlpine, has announced that the value of the aircraft alone owned by T.E.A.L. is at least £7,000,000? If these are facts, why did
Australia sell assets worth at least £3,500,000 for £1,000,000?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– I will refer this question to my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, who 1 am sure will be giving a complete statement on this matter at the appropriate time.
page 1367
QUESTION
SUGAR
Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has he received the report of the Sugar Inquiry Committee 1960-61? If it is his intention to send copies of the report to those who offered evidence before the committee, can he say when they will be made available?
Mr ADERMANN:
CP
– I have not as yet received the report from the committee. I understand that the taking of evidence has been completed and that the committee is working on the compilation of its report. When the report reaches me I will give consideration to its distribution.
page 1367
QUESTION
AGED PERSONS HOMES ACT
Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA
– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services. Are there any indications of a decline in the applications for grants under the Aged Persons Homes Act? ls the Minister in a position to inform me of the exact amount of the grant approved under the act following the application of the Westhaven Aged People’s Home in the electorate of Gellibrand?
Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP
– I am happy to inform the honorable member that the volume of applications for assistance under the Aged Persons Homes Act is increasing from year to year. The total of grants approved under the act since its inception is approximately £9,250,000. Grants approved in the current financial year, a few weeks of which have still to run, will exceed £2,127,000. I regret that I cannot recall the exact amount of the grant approved as a result of the application made by the Westhaven Aged People’s Home in the federal electorate of Gellibrand, but from memory it exceeded £132,000. this being one of the largest grants ever made under this legislation in any part of the Commonwealth. I am indebted to the honorable member for Gellibrand for the assistance he has given me in the matter.
page 1368
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA
– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development a question concerning advances granted under the War Service Homes Act. As there is little or no waiting period for advances under this act for the building of new homes, will the Minister endeavour to shorten the waiting period for advances for the purchase of homes already built?
Mr ROBERTON:
CP
– It is my proud privilege, Mr. Speaker, to represent the Minister for National Development, who is responsible for the administration of the War Service Homes Division. I will be happy to discuss with the Minister the matter raised by the honorable member for Ballaarat. It is the Minister’s constant aim to have the waiting period for loans reduced and finally abolished. However, I think he would wish me to remind the House that the primary purpose of the War Service Homes Act is to encourage the construction of new homes. It would be possible to make all the funds of the War Service Homes Division available for advances for the purchase of existing homes, but this, of course, would defeat the primary purpose of the act.
page 1368
QUESTION
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA
– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for St. George. By way of preface, I refer the right honorable gentleman to a statement attributed to him in the following terms: - “ Marginal adjustments are needed to relieve particular hardships in the building, timber and textile industries “. I refer in particular to the textile industry, and I ask: In view of the extent of unemployment in this industry and the dependence of many country towns on textile factories, what form will these marginal adjustments take? Will the Government review its refusal to limit textile imports, or, alternatively, will it provide immediate additional tariff protection? In any case, will the Government give textile manufacturers a chance to compete against overseas competitors by enabling them to obtain all-important carry-on credit?
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP
– The honorable member has spoken of unemployment in the textile industry. If he means that there has been a reduction of employment in the textile industry, then I think he accurately states the position. But many of those retrenched from the industry have, as my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service has already pointed out, secured alternative employment in other fields of activity. I appreciate the fact that in some of the provincial centres there is not as much diversity of industry and not as many employment opportunities as are to be found in the major capital cities. This is a matter that has not been overlooked by the Government. We have given a good deal of thought to it, and in our instructions to the departmental officers who are currently examining the situation we have stressed this aspect of the matter. It would not be practicable for me to do more at this stage than make the following comment: - Having made a review of the situation, we believe that although there is a satisfactory level of employment in some sections of the building industry, we must endeavour to sustain a steady rate of home building. If we can stimulate housing activity, the results will be of value not only to the building industry itself, but also, indirectly, to the timber industry and the textile industry.
page 1368
QUESTION
SHIPPING
Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the House what is the present position in respect of coastal ships that are tied up as a result of seamen failing to answer calls for crews? Does the history of the decline of Australian coastal shipping illustrate the tragic results of a Communist-dominated union whose policy is in direct variance with Australian interests?
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– I wholeheartedly endorse the last part of the honorable gentleman’s question. The leaders of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia are a source of nuisance to the whole country and I believe that when they tie up ships as they are doing in Newcastle, they do great damage to the seamen themselves and to Australia. As to the first part of the question concerning the tie-up at Newcastle, I am obtaining information about this matter now to see whether there is something I can do about it.
page 1369
QUESTION
STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES
Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of the pending completion of the standard-gauge railway line between Albury and Melbourne and the urgent necessity to complete the Broken Hill to Port Pirie line, will the Minister inform the House when the last-named work, which will give employment to many unemployed in Broken Hill, will be proceeded with?
Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP
– The honorable member is probably aware that the Broken Hill to Port Pirie line is at present the subject of legal proceedings, and therefore 1 cannot comment on it.
page 1369
QUESTION
TIMBER
Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– My question to the Minister for Territories is supplementary to the question that was asked by the honorable member for Wide Bay. If wholesale restrictions were placed upon the importation of plywood from New Guinea, would not this be a serious blow to that industry in New Guinea? Would it not indirectly contribute to slowing up the development of New Guinea and retard the establishment finally of a self-governing community?
Mr HASLUCK:
LP
- Mr. Speaker, the plywood industry of Papua and New Guinea is of considerable importance to the Territory, both as a major item in the export trade and because it provides employment for a large number of people. In addition, of course, it is establishing, in the long term, a branch of trade which will be of economic importance to the Territory. I should mention that at present a certain specified quantity of plywood from Papua and New Guinea is admitted to Australia duty free. The fixing of that quantity was the result of a Tariff Board inquiry at which the competition between New Guinea plywood and Australian plywood was carefully examined and the representations of the Australian plywood industry were heard.
I think it would be a fair summary to say that the particular type of moistureresistant plywood which is being imported into Australia from Papua and New Guinea is not directly competitive with any similar type of plywood produced in Australia. It fills a need which is not precisely met by Australian production. Of course, one would concede that the preference of persons for one sort of plywood might diminish their use of another sort, but subject only to that, the competition from New Guinea imports is not one that impinges directly on Australian production.
page 1369
QUESTION
NEW GUINEA
Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the setting up of United Nations centres in New Guinea. The resolution to set up these centres was sponsored by Burma and it was carried in the General Assembly of the United Nations by 70 votes to nil, with eight abstentions. Will the Prime Minister say how Australia voted? If Australia abstained, what was the reason for this?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– If I may treat the honorable member’s question as if it were on the notice-paper, I shall let him have an explanation to-morrow when the House meets.
page 1369
QUESTION
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA
– I ask the Minister for Health in what countries foot and mouth disease is known to exist. Does Australia import any live-stock or meat of any kind from these countries? What precautions are taken by the Australian authorities to prevent the entry of foot and mouth disease through the importation of canned meats? Finally, can the Minister say what steps he, his department, or the Government, has taken to provide a remedy if, by accident, carelessness or fraud, the disease is brought to Australia?
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– Foot and mouth disease occurs in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. No meat or foodstuffs of animal origin other than in cans may be imported from any country except New Zealand where the disease does not occur. In the case of canned meats, certificates have to be furnished by veterinary officers in the country of origin that the meat was inspected and declared to be free of disease, both ante-mortem and postmortem. The canners have to submit certificates to the effect that every part of the contents of the cans has been heated to at least 100 degrees Centigrade. The efficacy of the procedure has again to be certified by veterinary officers.
Such other potential sources of infection as hides can be imported only if conveyed to certain approved tanneries which have to enter into a bond to observe certain conditions, and an extensive procedure of tanning and decontamination has to be carried out before the hides leave those factories. In order to deal with the introduction of the disease through the evasion, either wilfully or through negligence, of the regulations which the honorable gentleman has asked about, the Commonwealth has arrangements with the States for a procedure for the eradication of a possible outbreak and for payment of compensation in that case. The honorable gentleman will be aware that a bill to establish a fund for the Australian Territories is at present in the House. For a period of 50 years, the quarantine regulations have been successful in keeping foot and mouth disease out of Australia.
page 1370
QUESTION
FINANCE
Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Has the Prime Minister seen the statement made by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in the United States df America recently when, speaking on the economic problems of the free world, the right honorable gentleman drew attention to the imbalance in world payments and reserves? He also declared that money was the most important factor in trade and that it was the responsibility of the free world to adjust its credit system to meet requirements so that money would become the servant and not the master of man’s needs. Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the United Kingdom Prime Minister? If so, will he take immediate action to see that the hundreds of millions of pounds now lying in the Reserve Bank of Australia are released and made available to expand industry, provide work for the 80,000 unemployed, and provide finance for local government bodies and State governments to construct port works, roads, schools, housing and public works generally?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– So much do I agree with the first part of the honorable member’s question, in which he quoted the principles laid down by Mr. Macmillan, that I am sure that, like Mr. Macmillan, I would utterly reject the second part of the honorable member’s question, which, I say with respect, puts forward a really fantastic financial proposal.
page 1370
QUESTION
LENIN PEACE PRIZE
Award to ex-Senator.
Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question concerning the reported grant of £50,000 by the Russian Government to exSenator Morrow. Is the Treasurer yet in a position to say whether this £50,000 will accrue to the normal foreign exchange receipts of Australia? Will this sum, earned in the service of a foreign power, attract income tax at the usual rate so that this super-socialist will be enabled to contribute about two-thirds of the sum to the common weal?
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP
– I do not claim to be fully informed on this matter. Indeed, to me, there is some mystery about the manner of entitlement and also about the manner of payment. The individual circumstances of any taxpayer are regarded as confidential by the Commissioner of Taxation, but I understand that it has been the practice, when a prize such as the Nobel prize has been awarded, not to treat it as taxable income. Whether this gift will fall into that category, no doubt, the Commissioner of Taxation will, at an appropriate time, determine. It is not clear to me whether the funds provided can be enjoyed only in the donor country. If that were the case, then the former senator, whose services have produced this benefaction, would be able to spend a prolonged period of time in that country.
Mr J R Fraser:
ALP
– Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. Is there anything in the Standing Orders that provides protection for the ordinary citizen of this Commonwealth against attacks of this kind in this Parliament?
Mr SPEAKER:
– I think there is no substance in the point of order. The Treasurer is in order.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
– I was not conscious of making an attack. I was stating facts as I understood them. I complete my reply by saying that if, on the contrary, these funds are to be despatched to Australia they will, as the honorable gentleman implied in his question, make a useful addition to our foreign reserves.
page 1371
QUESTION
TIMBER
Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP
– by leave - When the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) asked me a question relating to imports of timber and plywood, 1 did not have some figures available. They are briefly available now. During the quarter, July to September, 1960, the actual imports of plywood were 10,700,000 square feet. In the quarter, October to December, 1960, the imports were 9,500,000 square feet. In the month of January, this year, the imports were 2,500,000 square feet. In the month of February, they were 2,700,000 square feet, and in the month of March, they were 1.500,000 square feet. In the first week of April they were 386,000 square feet, and in the second week of April they were only 67.000 square feet.
Mr Calwell:
– There are very big stocks on hand, are there not?
Mr McEWEN:
– These are imports. That is all I can give, and I think that the House probably does not want to hear at this stage the imports of timber–
Mr Barnard:
– I most certainly do.
Mr McEWEN:
– Then what about having a conference with the honorable member for East Sydney, who has sought to prevent me from giving this information? Speaking in terms of timber imports, Mr. Speaker, in the quarter ended March, 1960, imports of timber were 103,000,000 super feet; in the quarter ended June, 1960, 107,000,000 super feet; in the quarter ended September, 1960, 145,000,000 super feet; in the quarter ended December, 1960. 108,000,000 super feet; in the month of January, 1961, 29,000,000 super feet; in the month of February, 1961, 27,000,000 super feet; in the month of March, 1961, 24,500,000 super feet; in the first week of April, 1961, 4,400,000 super feet; and in the second week of April, 4,000,000 super feet. These represent a small proportion of total usage.
page 1371
COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES, PARKVILLE, VICTORIA
Report of Public Works Committee
Mr DEAN:
– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Commitee Act 1913-1960, I present the following report: -
Report relating to the proposed construction of a general laboratory building for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at Parkville, Victoria - and I move -
That the report be printed.
The committee believes that the present unsatisfactory conditions at Parksville should not be allowed to persist. These laboratories could not meet, without this additional accommodation, the demands which are arising from Australia’s increasing population for biological products such as human and veterinary vaccines and toxoids. The committee finds that the proposed site is suitable, and the proposed building should meet requirements for twenty years. The committee recommends construction of the building to the size and design proposed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1371
WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL 1961
Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-1954.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP
– by leave - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Australian Wine Board to operate an Australian Wine Centre in an overseas country to assist in promoting interest in Australian wines in export markets and to enable the board to purchase Australian wines and brandies for sale in such centres. The immediate object of the bill is to permit the board to acquire and operate, purely for promotional purposes, a suitable Australian Wine Centre in London.
The Australian Wine Board is constituted under the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-1954 to supervise the export trade in Australian wine and brandy and is financed by means of levies collected on grapes utilized by wineries and distilleries under the provisions of the Wine Grapes Charges Act 1929-1957. The rate of levy at present being applied - 12s. a ton of grapes - yields about £100,000 in a normal vintage year.
Under the existing legislation the board may expend its funds on, inter alia, activities likely to improve the quality or to promote the sale of Australian wine and brandy both in Australia and overseas. The board contributes annually to the scientific research programmes of the Australian Wine Research Institute and is committed to publicity campaigns in the Australian and United Kingdom markets.
At the request of the Federal Viticultural Council, which is the central organization of Australian winemaking interests, both proprietary and co-operative, the board has for some time been devoting its attention to the prospect of establishing a central point for Australian wines and brandy in the United Kingdom with a view to ensuring that adequate supplies of our best quality wines, including table wines, are constantly available to the public in that country under Australian, makers’ own labels. The industry considers that such a proposition would give great prestige value to the wine promotion campaign being conducted in the United Kingdom under the auspices of the Overseas Trade Publicity Committee.
A number of leading Australian wineries have given tangible support to the idea. They contributed to the share-capital of an Australian Wine Centre which was established in London late last year and, in fact, have the majority of the shareholdings in the venture. The board has contributed to the establishment costs of the centre and, with the support of the shareholders, the Federal Viticultural Council, the Federal Grape Growers Council and the South Australian Co-operative Winemakers Association, has been negotiating to take a lease of the centre. The stage was reached some months ago where the board was in a position to effect suitable arrangements if its legal standing in the matter was undoubted.
However, in consultations with the
Commonwealth’s legal advisers, some doubts were expressed as to the authority of the board properly to enter into a trade promotion venture of this kind under its existing statutory authority. The board, with the approval of all sections of the wine industry, therefore asked the Government to amend the Wine Overseas Marketing Act to make its legal status in the matter perfectly clear. The Government has agreed to the board’s request, and this bill is introduced for the purpose.
Clause 4 gives the board the express authority to undertake activities designed to improve the quality or to promote the sale of Australian wine and brandy in Australia or overseas. Under the terms of the principal act this authority arises by implication only - from paragraph (e) of section 22. Clause 4 also authorizes the board to purchase wine or brandy as a means of promoting the sale of these products in overseas countries and consequential alterations are made by clause 6 to enable the board to make arrangements for the handling and sale of the wine or brandy.
For the benefit of honorable members, I may say that the United Kingdom is easily the most important export outlet for Australian wines and the annual sales level is about 1,250,000 gallons, mainly in fortified wines, namely, sherry and port. Efforts in recent years to obtain a foothold in the United Kingdom market for our quality table wines have been largely negatived owing to the inability of the industry to obtain a continuity of retail outlets. The wine centre operation is expected to provide a part-solution to this problem and its development will also serve to counter the criticisms of Australian publicity activities which have frequently been expressed in the past on the grounds that our best wines have not been readily procurable in London. The Australian authorities responsible for the conduct of promotion campaigns for Australian products in the United Kingdom see in the project a vehicle for intensifying wine publicity and public relations activities generally in that country.
The opportunity is being taken by the Government to tidy up some other provisions of the principal act, mainly relating to the banking and investment arrangements of the board. They are not amendments of substance. The present necessity, under section 21 of the principal act, to require the appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of wine grapes charges collections to flow through a Wine Export Fund into a bank account is being removed. The appropriation from Consolidated Revenue will, in future, be directly to the board for crediting to bank accounts operated by the board for administrative convenience. A substantial proportion of the board’s expenses is incurred on publicity activities in the Australian domestic market and continued reference to a Wine Export Fund is misleading and confusing to the wine industry as well as superfluous.
In addition, the banking provisions are being reframed to give the central bank its proper designation and to bring them into line with similar provisions in other marketing board legislation of this nature. Finally, section 29 (2) relating to the tabling of the annual reports of the board is being revised to remove ambiguity in that connexion.
I commend the bill to honorable members.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.
page 1373
COAL EXCISE BILL 1961
Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Coal Excise Act 1949.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Acting Attorney-General · Lowe · LP
– by leave - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
I propose to deal with this bill and the complementary States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Bill 1961 together. They, along with an Excise Tariff Proposal which I will be commending to the Committee of Ways and Means, give effect to the Government’s intention announced earlier this year to encourage the development of coal export markets and at the same time make a practical contribution to reducing costs in the Australian coal-mining industry.
The Government’s decision was taken against the background of a review of the revenue collected from the present coal excise against the current and likely expenditures chargeable against those revenues. The conclusion was reached that the current rate of excise, namely, 5d. per ton, could safely be reduced. In giving effect to this decision the Government considered two possible courses of action - first, to make some reduction in the excise on all coal produced, and, secondly, to remove completely the excise on coal exported, at the same time making a smaller reduction in the excise on coal for home consumption. In choosing the latter course the Government has acted consistently with its policy of encouraging the development of export markets and has given a lead in the direction of reducing costs wherever possible. The amendments proposed in the Coal Excise Bill now before the House will remove from licensed coal-producers the liability to pay excise duty on coal exported and provide administrative machinery whereby coal maybe removed from mines for export free of duty. The bill also contains some minor drafting amendments.
The provisions of this bill will cover most export coal. There are, however, cases in which coal is not exported direct from mines licensed under the Coal Excise Act. To meet this situation and to provide for the case of State-owned coal, which is not excisable, there is the complementary bill I have mentioned. In some cases duty-paid coal from a number of mines is mixed by merchants prior to export. Where this occurs, the cost to the merchants includes an element to cover excise paid by the producer and it is therefore necessary to reimburse him from the coal excise revenue an amount equivalent to the excise already paid on the coal to be exported. There may also be instances in which State-produced coal is blended with excisable coal before export. Although State coal is not excisable, the States, by agreement with the Commonwealth, pay an amount equivalent to the excise on each ton of State-owned coal produced. A reimbursement arrangement similar to the one which will operate in the case of blended coal from privately-owned mines is therefore being provided.
As to the rate of excise duty which will apply to home-consumed coal, the Government has decided that it should be reduced from the present rate of 5d. per ton by 1d. per ton. At a later stage I shall move in the Committee of Ways and Means an Excise Tariff Proposal fixing the excise duty at 4d. per ton.
It is proposed that these bills and the tariff proposal will operate from 1st June of this year. This date of operation has been fixed to allow time for the promulgation of regulations and the settlement of administrative matters in the meantime.
I commend the bills to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr. E. James Harrison) adjourned.
page 1374
STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1961
Motion (by Mr. McMahon), agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949-1956.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Acting Attorney-General · Lowe · LP
– by leave - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
I have already outlined the reasons for this bill. I commend it to the House accordingly.
Debate (on motion by Mr. E. James Harrison) adjourned.
page 1374
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961
Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 1)
In Committee of Ways and Means:
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Acting Attorney-General · Lowe · LP
.- I move - [Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 1).]
Watson .- I shall relate my remarks particularly to section 106 of the principal act, which reads - >In printing the ballot-papers to be used in a House of Representatives election - (a) the names of all candidates duly nominated shall be printed in alphabetical order according to their surnames; The application of this provision undoubtedly gives a candidate in the top position on the ballot-paper a marked advantage over other candidates. This was clearly illustrated in the last federal election held on 22nd November, 1958, for the House of Representatives. Of 46 New South Wales electorates contested by the Australian Labour Party, it was in the top position in only seven. Of 46 electorates contested by the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party, those parties were in the top position in 21. Of 40 electorates contested by the Australian Democratic Labour Party, it was in the top position in fifteen. Of seven electorates contested by the Australian Communist Party, it was in the top position in three. The advantage gained is illustrated by using the Australian Democratic Labour Party and the Communist Party as examples. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- How many of their candidates were elected to Parliament? {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE: -- That is completely irrelevant to the case I am making. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- I think it has something to do with it. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE: -- Surely the Minister has the patience to wait and hear the illustration I am about to give. I should not think there would be anything wrong with him doing that. The advantage gained is illustrated by using the Australian Democratic Labour Party and the Communist Party as examples. The Australian Democratic Labour Party occupied the top position in fifteen electorates -and the allocation of formal votes was as Out of a total of 612,538 formal votes in those electorates, the D.L.P. gained 55,343, an average of 9.03 per cent. In the remaining 25 electorates contested by the D.L.P. - those in which its candidates were not in the top position - the results were as follows: - Out of the total of 1,063,749 formal votes cast in those 25 electorates, the D.L.P. gained 51,472, an average of 4.83 per cent. In the three electorates in New South Wales in which the Communist Party occupied the top position, it gair.ed the following percentage of votes: -
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES -- This is a good practice and, as my honorable friend says, some municipal councils are already doing it. I believe it should be made a universal practice and I think that the Department of Immigration, which is in charge of naturalization ceremonies, should see that it is generally applied. We want to have our rolls as complete as possible. In the case of Australian-born citizens who become entitled to get on the roll at the age of 21 years there is no such convenient procedure available to us, because there is no ceremony, which takes place at the age of 21, where the address and other details necessary for enrolment are recorded. So in regard to these young Australians who, after all, must be expected to know more about Australia, the country of their birth, than the migrant does, unfortunately we cannot apply the same system. I feel that honorable members on both sides of the House will agree that we should do everything we can to make the rolls as complete as possible, both by including in them all natural-born Australians who attain the age of 21 years and by including in them all British migrants who become entitled to enrolment without naturalization and all other migrants who become duly entitled to enrolment at the time of their naturalization. I believe that the administrative practice of including an enrolment card with the certificate of naturalization and ensuring that it is filled in should be followed by the Department of Immigration. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- You mean, filled in on the night of naturalization? {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- Exactly. I think it is right, lt is already done in some places and I feel that it should be done generally and that the Department of Immigration might throw its weight behind the practice and see that it is done generally. This is something which affects enrolment and affects the act but it does not require any amendment to the act. The second matter to which I wish to refer is in the same case, lt affects enrolments and the form in which the roll is kept, but does not require an amendment of the act. We know that our electorates are divided into subdivisions and a roll is published for each subdivision. The electoral officer keeps in his office a locality index, which is sorted into streets, so that people appearing as living in one street in the subdivision are all in the same pattern and that locality index is kept in parallel with the alphabetical index which is published as the roll. The suggestion I make is a very simple one. It is that we should publish the rolls in their locality index form rather than in the alphabetical form and that the alphabetical roll should be kept in the electoral office for consultation in the same way as the locality index is now kept. This, of course, would not involve any extra work. If my suggestion were followed what would happen would be this: The position in a subdivision would remain, as it were, unchanged and the subdivision would occupy, as it does now, a separate roll. In that subdivision, however, the streets - or where there are no named streets, the localities - would be arranged alphabetically and then, inside each one of those, the names of the people who reside in a particular street or locality would be arranged alphabetically. The objective of this procedure is a very simple one, which I hope will commend itself to honorable members on both sides of the House. It is to have the rolls as complete as possible and as correct as possible. At the present moment it is difficult to check the rolls for a subdivision for either incorrect omissions or incorrect inclusions, because one cannot identify a locality and go through it. One has to re-sort the whole thing. If the rolls were published in locality form - that is in the form in which they are already held in the electoral office - it would be very easy to check them, lt would be very easy for people who live in a street to remind neighbours who were not on the roll, to get their names on it, or to see that the names of people who had left the district were taken off the roll. In other words, this system would be very helpful to the checking officers of the Electoral Branch in the carrying out of their duties. It would make it easier to check the rolls and would make the rolls to a greater extent self-cleansing. I believe it is of the highest importance that the rolls should be as accurate as possible and I believe that this very small reform, which is an administrative matter only and does not involve any amendment of the act, would add quite considerably to the efficiency of our electoral system. I should like the Minister to give some consideration to this question and to see what can be done in regard to it, in the interests of getting better and more complete rolls, more accurate in every respect. I know that members on this side of the House at any rate - and I hope I spoke on this question for members on the other side of the House also - would wish the rolls to be like that, leaving nobody out who should be on the roll and including nobody who should not be there. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- This is really a very important bill, but there is not the interest taken in it that is taken in other measures which, I believe, are not of anything like the same importance. I have listened carefully to the debate and of the many points that have been made I have agreed with some and have disagreed with others. The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** spoke about the arrangement of the names of candidates in alphabetical order on the ballot-paper. The honorable member's name starts with " C ", yet he advocated a change in the system. My name starts with " T ", and is usually to be found towards the bottom of the ballot-paper, but I do rot care very much whether the procedure is changed or not. There is no doubt, I agree, that the person whose name is at the top of the ballot-paper has an advantage, but I am not going to worry about that to-day. It is obvious that the advantage lies with the person whose name is at the top of the paper. In a horse race the horse drawn near the rails is generally favoured to win, or at least to have a better chance than a horse of equal ability drawn on the outside. Every one knows that this is so, especially the sporting gentlemen in this chamber. I can see from the smiles on their faces that they agree with my contention. I listened carefully to the speech of the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird),** who is in the chamber at the present time. 1 thought he commenced his remarks on one aspect of the matter in a rather strange way, when he said, " I do not want to annoy members of the Australian Country Party ". In saying that he must have had in mind that he was about to make a statement that was not quite right, and which would, therefore, annoy the members of the Country Party. To an extent he was quite correct in his assumption, because although he did not annoy us, we were put on our guard. The honorable member said - >I do not want to annoy members of the Australian Country Party, but I would point out that in the cities, since the abolition of Saturday morning work in many industries, a great many people who used to vote between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. now vote in the morning. That is what happens in my electorate. Before we had Saturday morning closing, there was a terrific rush between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. at the booths. Now, however, you could fire a cannon down the street outside any booth in my electorate after 6 o'clock and you would not hit anybody. They would all have voted before 6 p.m. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: -- A very intelligent statement! {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The honorable member for Lang suggests that it is a very intelligent statement, but to my mind it is not a very convincing argument that the honorable member has put forward. If the honorable member for Batman is correct in his description of the state of affairs at polling booths in the cities, surely he has some thought for the rural areas of Australia. I would remind the House, further, that at least one of his colleagues did not agree with him. The honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** said during the course of his speech - >I represent one of Melbourne's industral areas. Of course, the honorable member for Batman also represents one of Melbourne's industrial areas. The honorable member for Wills continued - >My electorate is one in which some polling booths are teeming with people throughout polling day. These statements by the two honorable members show diametrically opposed points of view. The honorable member for Batman says that you can fire a gun down the street outside the polling booths without hitting any one, while the honorable member for Wills says that polling booths in his electorate are teeming with people throughout the whole of the day. I hear many honorable members opposite interjecting and saying, " He is right ". Which one is right? {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- I am. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The honorable member for Batman says he is right, but unfortunately the honorable member for Wills is not here to say that he is right. They cannot both be right. But I am not very concerned about which of the two honorable members is right. I am concerned about the fact that because the honorable member for Batman has found that people in his electorate vote on Saturday morning because no work is done these days on Saturday mornings in the industries in his district, he has got the idea in his head that the whole of Australia's work force ceases to operate at that time. That is not so, of course. During recent years, federal elections have taken place in the months of November and December. I. represent a rural electorate, which is the largest in Victoria. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr Bandidt: -- And a good one! {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- A very good one, and a highly productive one. At that time of the year many of my constituents are engaged in harvesting operations, taking in the harvests of wheat, oats and other products. They very much appreciate the fact that they do not have to rush in to the towns and vote before 6 p.m., and can wait until after halfpast seven to cast their votes. I think it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** who said that there is no need to worry about those voters, because if they are more than 5 miles from a polling booth they can cast postal votes. Surely to goodness it is not expected that primary producers situated 5 miles from a polling booth should have to go to all the trouble of casting postal votes. For these reasons, I repeat what I have advocated on many occasions in this House, that we should maintain the present polling hours, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. I congratulate the Minister for not having interfered with those hours in preparing the bill that is now before the House. In this regard, he has my sincere support. The members of the Labour Party represent mostly metropolitan areas. Very few of them represent country electorates. In fact, so far as Victoria is concerned, not one member of the Federal Parliamentary Labour Party is dependent on the votes of rural electors for his return to this House. However, the members of the Labour Party must realize that the primary producer deserves a fair deal, especially on this one most important day that comes round about every three years. At every election we hear people saying, " This is the most important election we have ever had in the history of Australia ". They are quite right. If I asked the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths),** for instance, what are the three most important years of a man's life, he would be quite right if he said, " The next three ". Every time a person goes to a polling booth to vote, he does so on a day that is most important, because the result of the poll has a tremendous bearing on that person's life for the following three years. That is why each election is the most important one. Earlier elections may also have been important, but they are in the past, just as the earlier years of a man's life are in the past. Let me say again that I appreciate the Minister's refusal to alter these times. Let me refer now to section 16 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which says - >For the purpose of the distribution of a State into Divisions in accordance with this Act the Governor-General may appoint three Distribution Commissioners, of whom one shall be the Chief Electoral Officer or an officer having similar qualifications, and, if his services are obtainable, one shall be the Surveyor-General of the State or an officer having similar qualifications. This is, of course, a wise provision. The officers referred to have been tested and tried and they are the right men for such duties. But the provision goes further. This is a matter that I have brought before this House on many occasions. Of course, the only way in which one can expect to have action taken on a particular matter is to keep bringing it before the House until something is done about it. Honorable members may recall occasions when I have brought matters to the notice of this House and certain members have cried out " Rabbits!" Of course, the rabbits have just about been annihilated, and perhaps something I said in this House may have been partially responsible for that. When I talk about dried fruits in this chamber honorable members opposite say, " Dried fruits again!" We must remember, however, that the dried fruits growers in Victoria have received £300,000 as a gift. I have spoken on numerable occasions about the menace of skeleton weed, and at last we are getting some results. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- What has that to do with this bill? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The honorable member for East Sydney, having finally awakened, asks what this has to do with the bill. It has to do with the matter of sticking to one's point and hammering away at it in this House until the required action is taken. That is the only way to get something done by a government, whether the present Government or a Labour government. The honorable member for East Sydney has not had much success in this place because he has not followed that policy. He comes in, usually with a sheaf of papers in his hand which constitute a conglomeration of facts, etcetera, and consequently his advocacy is never very successful. Section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act says - >At all meetings of the Distribution Commissioners the Chairman, if present, shall preside, and in his absence the Distribution Commissioners present shall appoint one of their number to preside, and at all such meetings two Commissioners shall be a quorum and shall have full power to act, Only two are necessary. The section continues - and in the event of an equality of votes the Chairman or presiding Commissioner shall have a casting vote in addition to his original vote. That means that one man who has already had an original vote out of the two votes cast, also has the casting vote and can decide matters of gigantic importance in the electoral field and, therefore, in every field affecting the Commonwealth of Australia. I have objected to this before. If there is to be a meeting of commissioners, let the quorum be three. Do not have only one man deciding these important questions. I do not know of any other act - there may be some because I have not read all of them - which provides that one man shall make the decision in similar circumstances. I think this matter should be looked into, and I ask the Minister to consider it. I am not at all satisfied. I know that the men who comprise the commission are excellent men, but no matter how good they are, they might have certain views individually that would not meet with the approval of all three Distribution Commissioners if all were sitting at the same time. The other point to which I wish to refer and one that I have mentioned often is contained in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which states - . . the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less. I compliment the Minister upon leaving that provision as it is. I hope that some day in the not too distant future the whole onefifth of the margin will be put into operation, but an amendment has been distributed and the Labour Party is supporting a move to make the relevant proportion one-tenth, or 10 per cent. If you have a quota of 40,000, and you apply a margin of allowance of 20 per cent., or one-fifth, the electorate could be 32,000 or 48.000. The metropolitan electorates should be 48,000 and the country electorates 32,000. In Australia, we are up against a great problem in the redistribution of population. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- Unemployment is the problem. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- If we had a redistribution of population, we probably would not have unemployment. After all. you have to overcome certain problems to end unemployment. I am sure the honorable member will agree that we could provide permanent employment by the distribution of the population on a reasonable basis. The Labour Party wants to make the margin of allowance one-tenth so that in no circumstances would the city electorates be disturbed. But after all, the great problem in Australia is that more and more people are living in the metropolitan areas. People talk about decentralization! It has become a catch-cry. The only way to get decentralization for the population is to decentralize political representation for this simple reason: The more people over 21 years of age you get into the metropolitan areas after redistribution, the more seats in Parliament there are created. With more members of Parliament, there are more amenities available, and the population flows to the places where there are amenities. So the trend towards greater population in the metropolitan areas snowballs. With political representation as it is now in Australia, we are in a hopeless position to decentralize population. No worthwhile suggestion towards that objective has been made except by my friend, the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond)** who has made a plea for the creation of new States. Although I have not sone into the New State Movement very carefully, I believe it is good, but I consider that project could operate only in conjunction with a redistribution of the electorates on the basis I have already mentioned. As the honorable member for New England has said, it is suicidal to have all these people in the metropolitan areas, chiefly Melbourne and Sydney. In this atomic age, as everybody knows, if an atomic bomb is dropped on a densely populated area not only are thousands and thousands of people killed but also the whole community is disorganized. In the electorate I represent there is a fine fertile valley known as the Murray Valley. The Murray Valley Development League has said that there is room for 1,000,000 people there. That is a modest estimate. If this area was properly organized and developed, there would be room in it for 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 before many years had passed. This is the only way that we can assure ourselves of the future peaceful occupancy of this country. It appears to me that the Australian Labour Party believes - and of course it is natural - that self-preservation is still the first law of the universe. If each and every member of the Labour Party were to speak his mind - and I do not say that in a disparaging way - he would say that there were too many people in the metropolitan areas, but if they were moved away, it would injure the Labour movement. That is the crux of the matter for Labour members. There is any amount of evidence on that point. I have only to cite the statements of the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** who is reported in " Hansard " to have said - >In my view the boundaries of electorates on the fringes of Melbourne and Sydney should have been revised long ago. This matter of boundaries could be serious- To whom? To Australia? No! The honorable member for Wills continued - to the member representing Wills which is a small metropolitan electorate. Serious - for himself! That is the way it is with the Labour Party. Such a move might be dangerous to the Labour movement and therefore every Labour member is prepared to put the future of this great Commonwealth aside so that the Labour Party can get most of the population into the metropolitan areas where the votes will be cast for the Labour members. That is a simple proposition, but it is one that the people of Australia should look at. I hope that the commissioners who frame the electorates for a redistribution will look into this matter and will use to the fullest extent the limits that are set each way and the quotas that are allowed. The population of Australia is increasing rapidly and is expected to reach 10,500,000 in June, 1961, when a census will be taken. The increase between 1947 and 1954 as shown by the last census was 1,407,000 compared with an estimated increase between 1954 and 1961 of 1,500,000. The increase includes about 900,000 by natural increase and 600,000 from net migration. This will represent the largest inter-censal increase in this century. All honorable members know that this does not mean that seats will be available to the extent of the increase in population because most of the increase is represented by births, and it will be a long time before the children reach 21 years. However, a big increase in the voting population will be shown when the census is taken and there is sure to be a redistribution of electorates before long. This will mean only an addition to the number of electorates in the metropolitan area. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: -- That is where they should be. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The seats should be in the metropolitan areas! That is the Labour principle. I believe that they should be right out in Australia so that the country can be developed. We have fertile areas of country. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Sand-hills and spinifex. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- That shows how littlehe knows. I see the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** in the House. He represents the south-east of South Australia, an area which embraces Mount Gambier, Penola, Narracoorte and Millicent. What a. great tract of land! What a great number of people could be settled in that great fertileplain! {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Do you believe that people will move to an area just because they get a vote? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- That question shows clearly that the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** has not grasped the situation. With greater political representation in country areas, the people of those areas would be able to exercise more power with their votes, and so would be able to bring more amenities to their districts. With those amenities would come population. People are not attracted to the country if they haveto live under a barbed wire fence. They want amenities, including good schools. Surely every member of this House knows that, in the final analysis, the only thing that counts in Parliament is votes. If the Australian Country Party had greater voting strength for the country areas it could build up amenities to attract population from the cities. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- What have you done about it?' {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I have advocated this procedure ever since I came here. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Have you voted for it? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Now we have an interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who comes from the Sydney metropolitan area. Of course, he opposesmy suggestion. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- No. I say one vote, onevalue. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The honorable member says " One vote, one value ". I am not asking for a new statute to be introduced. I am simply asking that the present electoral law be put into operation. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- Why not ask the Minister? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I have already asked the Minister. I have asked everybody in this chamber. It is easy to see from the interjections that Opposition members realize that what I am saying is absolutely correct, but being frightened of the effect of my proposals on their electorates, they will not support me. Is any member of the Labour Party prepared to support this proposition, even at the expense of his own seat? That is the test. The honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** is interjecting all the time. His electors stop work on Saturdays. Mine do not. They keep on working. That is why I am appealing on their behalf. It was the hard work of country people that built this country. Adam Lindsay Gordon said - >Twas merry 'mid the blackwoods, when we spied the station roofs, > >To wheel the wild scrub cattle at the yard, > >With a running fire of stockwhips and a fiery run of hoofs; > >Oh! the hardest day was never then too hard! But it is too hard for the metropolitan Labour areas. I say again that it was hard work in the country areas that built this nation. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** is making some guttural sounds. He is a man who should know better, but having been born and bred in the city he cannot get his mind away from the metropolitan areas to give this Australia of ours a chance. He has all the theories. I have listened to his speeches ever since T came here. I appreciate his utterances, but they are more in line with theory than with events. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- May I ask a question? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- With the permission of **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** you may. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- How can you get private investment to go anywhere else than where it has a market? If the market is in the cities, will the cities not attract the industries? {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-JSG} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Brimblecombe:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND -- Order! I remind the honorable member that this has nothing to do with the bill. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The answer to the problem is transparently simple. If there are sufficient people in country areas, freights and other charges to the industries that operate in those areas are soon reduced. A child in the kindergarten would know that. My advocacy is that more votes be given to country areas so that the people in those areas may bring about lower freights to the seaboard. Then the factories operating in the country will be able to send their goods overseas and to other markets as cheaply as can industries in metropolitan areas. The primary producer has to pay heavy freight on everything that he sends to the city and on everything that he brings from the city. If we only had a true Australian outlook, all these things would be known to all of us and we would see to it that Australia had a more evenly divided population. This would result in balanced development, which we cannot achieve while we continue to increase the density of population in city areas. Our attitude towards the provisions of the Electoral Act that I have mentioned is outmoded. Let us put this act into full use in order to decentralize the population and so do something for the future of Australia. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I would not have risen had it not been for the speech just made by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** who is not prepared to attack the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** or other members of the Government that he supports for not making certain amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The honorable member sought to evade the consequences of his lack of courage by blaming honorable members on this side of the House, who have been in opposition for some years, for all the failings and shortcomings that are apparent in the Electoral Act. The defects of which the honorable member has complained could well have been remedied at any time in thelast twelve years, but he has never moved to have this done. I can understand that his colleagues would not take any notice of him in caucus, but Labour members might have supported him on some of his proposals. The honorable member attacked members of the Opposition because of their policy of " one man, one vote " and their attitude to other sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think that we should examine the background in this House of the member who has made these charges. Let us see what attitude he adopts on legislation. I am reminded of a speech made in this Parliament by the late **Mr. Archie** Cameron who, like you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** occupied with great distinction the Speaker's chair. Speaking, I think, on an electoral bill, he said - . . 1 cannot allow the speech of the honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Turnbull)** to pass without comment. The honorable member referred to is of course the present honorable member for Mallee. It was one of the paltriest and pettiest speeches that I have heard in the whole period of my twenty years in Parliament. He quoted from an interview which he allegedly gave to the Sunraysia Daily, but apparently he wrote it himself . . . He added that he had contested three elections in twenty months. I say that it is a wonder he did not have to contest twenty in that time . . . Since he has been in this House, he has been one of the most vocal of the new members, yet he has contributed very little that was worthwhile to the debate. If we were to introduce the system of payment by results for Parliamentarians, the honorable member for Wimmera would be pretty well at the bottom of the list. I do not know whether the electors of Wimmera have developed a habit of putting freaks of one kind or another into the Commonwealth Parliament. We have just got rid of one - to Norfolk Island. He was one of the most silent members we have ever had in this place. But in exchange for the towers of silence we now have the sounding brass and the tinkling cymbal. If the electorate is in any way influenced by the case submitted by the honorable member for Wimmera, God help democracy because in that event democracy will be quite incapable of helping itself. Those are the words of the late Archie Cameron, one of the most honest and able men who ever sat in this Parliament, and one whose judgment, capacity and character were envied by us all. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member should get back to the bill. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I was merely making this passing reference to a man who has made withering charges against the members of the Opposition. I was prompted to rise only in order to show the public of this great country the type of people in the Australian Country Party who make charges against members of the Labour Party. I wanted the people to hear of this opinion of the honorable member for Mallee which was given by a man who, I think, was at that time the leader of his own party. I want the people who might, by accident, at some moment when they are sleepy and want to be put off to sleep, read the speech of the honorable member for Mallee, to realize that the person making it is not held in very high regard by those who know what the real parliamentarian has to have in order to be able to present a case. I should like to see the honorable member for Mallee make some constructive suggestions in the Parliament about the electoral reforms that are needed - and they are many. The Opposition has submitted a number of them. 1 will lay the odds that practically every one of them will be dismissed out of hand and not accepted, despite their importance and despite the fact that they will be designed to prevent certain malpractices regarding the vote in this country which have existed for many years. The honorable member for Mallee would be better advised to read the Electoral Act section by section and this bill clause by clause. Instead of blaming the Opposition, as he has done, he should put the blame at the feet of the Minister whose responsibility it is to reform these malpractices. He, being a free and independent thinker like, as we are told so often, all members on the Government side should do something. Why could he not submit amendments and test them in a vote of the House? If he has the courage that he has always said he has, but which he has never shown in this Parliament, why does he not show that he is prepared to vote against the Government even on issues' such as this? I know the honorable member too well. He is always putting these things up, but doing nothing about them. On one occasion in this Parliament I saw him vote to gag himself. Any man who. could do that will not put up a case for amendment of the Electoral Act and be prepared to fight for it. I suggest that the honorable member might well have moved amendments to do' what he suggests, and put them to the test. He should have put the blame at the feet of the Government for any shortcomings in the Electoral Act, instead of trying to lay it at the feet of the Opposition, which in no way is responsible for those shortcomings, because we have not been in government for many years. I therefore hope that, in view of what the honorable member for Mallee said, the Minister will take some notice of the amendments from the Opposition. I hope that a number of these important amendments, which deal with postal voting and other questions relating to the closing of the poll and things of that nature, will receive support on the other side, because they are important and they are worth supporting. There are many more amendments which could be submitted, and if there was an ounce of thought in the Government backbenchers they would probably have submitted a few amendments themselves on this important legislation. When all is said and done, it will take more than this bill to save a few of them at the next general election. If at this stage they could have put up some amendments that might have been worth while and could be assured of the support of the honorable member for Mallee, that might have been a contribution to democracy despite the statement of the late Archie Cameron about the honorable member for Mallee. Having infringed on your generosity, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** almost to the limit, I resume my seat with those few comments. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I desire to make a personal explanation, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Yes. The honorable member for Grayndler said that I had found fault with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. During my whole speech I did not find any fault with the act. I supported the act. All I said was that the commissioners should use the power they are given to bring about what I suggested. I favoured the Commonwealth Electoral Act all the time, and found no fault in it. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES:
Barker .- I was not going to speak on this bill at this stage, but I have been emboldened to do so by some of the statements made by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** about the remarks of the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull).** Whatever my distinguished predecessor, the late Archie Cameron, may have said about the honorable member for Mallee on the particular matter which was being discussed at the time, Archie Cameron was, above all, a person who stood up in this House for the interests of the people who live in the rural areas. If he were here to-day he would thoroughly approve the stand taken by the honorable member for Mallee in the interests of the rural areas. The main point being made by the honorable member for Mallee, as I understood it, was that the Labour Party intends to move amendments to the bill which would deny country people the rights to which they are entitled under the act. In particular there is the amendment which will seek to shorten the time available for polling by reducing it from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., as it is now, to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. It was to that amendment that the honorable member for Mallee objected strongly. Not only the honorable member for Mallee objects to such a proposal, **Sir, I** object to it very strongly also. This is an attempt by the Labour Party to make it more difficult for the people in the country areas to vote. As has been explained many times in this House, many people on the land have to make time in order to be able to vote, even though general elections are held on Saturdays. They are not like the people in the metropolitan areas, practically all of whom these days spend their Saturdays watching sport. No, **Sir, the** average farmer has to make a special effort to find the time to vote in an election, if it occurs at the time of the year in which his agricultural operations take place, because he needs, and uses to the maximum effect, the hours of daylight. The result is that a farmer may not be able to get to a polling booth before 6 o'clock in the evening. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- What about Queensland, where the polls close at 6 p.m.? {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES: -- I am not interested in what is done in Queensland. I am talking about the situation which exists in the southern part of Australia. Even the Opposition should realize that there is a very great difference between climatic conditions in the north of Australia and those in the south of Australia. I .have enough belief in my friends on the Government side of the House who come from Queensland to know that farmers in Queensland would not be affected in this way by the closing of polling booths at 6 p.m. or they would have said so. Therefore honorable members on this side have stated their views on this in good faith, thinking of the situation in their own States. But there are other people in Australia besides the people in Queensland, and what I have to say about the farmers in the southern parts of Australia, and their need to use all the hours of daylight for their agricultural operations, is beyond dispute. 1 believe that, by moving an amendment designed to prevent farmers in the south from taking the maximum advantage of the hours of daylight, the Labour Party is acting reprehensibly. Many people in the country have to travel up to 20 or 30 miles in order to vote. I wonder what some of the constituents of the honorable member for Grey **(Mr. Russell)** will think about his party endorsing this proposal. At least most of the people in my electorate have to travel 20 or 30 miles in order to vote. In the electorate of Grey many people have to travel up to 100 miles in order to vote. Yet, presumably, since he has not said otherwise, the honorable member for Grey is supporting this proposal by the Labour Party. The point I want to make is that the proposal will affect not only agricultural operations. Because many people in the country have to travel great distances to vote they do not want to make two trips during the day. The normal habit of many people in the country is to go to the pictures or to a social function in the nearest town on a Saturday evening, and over many years the widespread practice has been for country voters to go to town after finishing their milking or their other work on the farm on polling day, vote, and then go to the pictures. The amendment proposed by members of the Australian Labour Party in this House would require country people to make two trips to their local town in the one day if they have to vote and if they want to go to the pictures or to a social function on the evening of the same day. The amendment would make it impossible for the country man to combine the discharge of his voting responsibilities with the enjoyment of any of the few amenities which are available to country people. The constituents of Labour members, most of whom represent metropolitan electorates, are all right; they have television. But many of my constituents do not have television, and if they want to see moving pictures, they have to travel perhaps 20 or 30 miles to the nearest town. Attending picture shows is still a habit in country areas. Not having television is something which I regard as intolerable anywhere. Yet the Opposition wishes to place a further burden on country people by making impossible for them the enjoyment of one of the few amenities and pleasures which are available to them - attending the pictures or a social function in the evening after voting. This sort of thing is typical of the hypocrisy of members of the Australian Labour Party who comprise the Opposition in this Parliament. Just recently, Opposition members suggested in this House that they had the interests of country people at heart. Yet, at their first opportunity subsequently to demonstrate in practice that they have the interests of those people at heart, what did they do? They certainly did not indicate positively that they have the interests of the people in the rural areas of Australia at heart. Instead, the Opposition foreshadowed an amendment to this bill which would definitely deprive country people of some of their rights. And the proposed amendment which I have been discussing is not the only one which would have this effect. The other amendment, which was mentioned by the honorable member for Mallee, also, would work against the interests of people in the rural areas. That is the amendment relating to the percentage margin above or below the quota of electors within which the Distribution Commissioners are allowed to work in determining electoral boundaries. Although Labour subscribes to the principle, " One vote, one value ", Opposition members would support an amendment which would deprive country people of one of the advantages which they have been given in order to compensate them for many of the disabilities to which they are subject. As the honorable member for Mallee so rightly said, if the Australian Labour Party has its way, the exercise of principles like those on which these proposed amendments are founded will mean that the country areas of Australia will never develop but will always remain in their present condition. That will be the inevitable result if country people have to rely on parliamentary representation based solely on this abstract and academic principle, " One vote, one value ". I agree entirely with the honorable member for Mallee that this country can be developed only it we abandon abstract principles such as this, realize the practicalities of the situation and ensure that country areas are represented by more members of Parliament. From the practical standpoint, that is the only way in which this country will be developed in the end. Country people realize this, and therefore they understand that the Opposition's proposed amendment with respect to the margin above or below the electoral quota, as well as that designed to close polling booths at 6 p.m., will militate against country interests. People in the rural areas realize that the principles on which amendments such as these are based are typical of members of the Australian Labour Party who comprise the Opposition in this Parliament. {: #subdebate-33-0-s7 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** it is interesting to note that on many occasions Government supporters in this Parliament become rather disturbed at what they regard as an attack on the rights of country people. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** and the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** - the last two speakers on the Government side of the House up to this stage - have never been practical farmers. The honorable member for Mallee was an auctioneer before he entered this Parliament, and the honorable member for Barker- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member for East Sydney get on to the bill. Whether or not the honorable members whom he has mentioned were farmers or whether they were something else has nothing to do with the measure. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- Strangely enough, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I agree with you. But I remind you that discussion of amend ments which the Opposition intends to move in committee is not in order at present, because this is the second-reading stage of the bill. As you have permitted other honorable members to wander on to discussion of those proposed amendments, I intend to say something about one or two of those amendments. The two honorable gentlemen whom I have already mentioned seemed to imply that there was something sinister about the proposal to reduce the margin above or below the quota which Distribution Commissioners are permitted to observe when making a redistribution of electoral boundaries. The proposal is that the present margin of one-fifth above or below the specified quota be reduced to one-tenth. Why did not the honorable member for Mallee direct some of his criticism on this issue at some of the members of his own party who, as members of the Constitutional Review Committee, supported this proposal? I was one of the members who represented the Opposition on that committee, which unanimously decided to recommend that the margin be reduced from one-fifth to one-tenth. The honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond),** who, at least during some part of his life, was a practical farmer, supported the reduction, as did the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton).** {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Another practical farmer! {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- He is another practical farmer. If the honorable member for Mallee sees something sinister in the amendment proposed by the Opposition, he should direct some of his criticism at his own colleagues. The contributions made by the honorable member for Mallee and the honorable member for Barker show conclusively that they believe in the gerrymandering of electorates in order to keep Labour out of office. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- They do. Tell us about South Australia. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- There is never raised any question about the position in South Australia, where two-thirds of the voters elect thirteen members to the House of Assembly - one-third of the number of its members - and one-third of the voters elect 26 members to that House. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- That is what we want. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The honorable member for Barker, at least, is honest about it. If he had his way in this matter, the industrial electorates represented by Labour would have no representation at all in the Parliament. I think that the average Australian citizen believes that the margin of one-fifth was not provided for in the Commonwealth Electoral Act in order to give country voters greater representation in the Parliament, but was provided for because those responsible recognized that, with shifting populations, the principle of " One vote, one value " is difficult to maintain for any lengthy period. As far as I am aware, that principle has always been accepted by all those in the community who believe in democratic government, and I would hate to see the day when electorates could be gerrymandered in the way proposed by the honorable member for Barker, who approves of the South Australian system under which two-thirds of the voters elect one-third of the members of the House of Assembly and one-third of the voters elect two-thirds of the members of that House. I do not think that that system is approved by the great majority of the Australian people. I had not originally intended to address the House at this stage of the consideration of the bill, but I could not decline the opportunity to correct the honorable member for Mallee and to direct his attention to the fact that there were on the Constitutional Review Committee, which recommended unanimously a reduction from onefifth to one-tenth of the margin above or below the electoral quota, six Government representatives, including two active and prominent members of the Australian Country Party. In conclusion, let me address a few remarks particularly to the honorable member for Barker. Probably, he was thinking more of his own interests than of those of country people when he said that he approved a scheme under which electorates in South Australia are gerrymandered. I am quite certain that, although he has been a university lecturer and a permanent Army officer, he does not know a great deal about the interests of country people, for he kept describing farmers as " agricultural operators ". As far as I know, they have always been referred to in this country as " farmers ". I would like to know what an agricultural operator is. I am satisfied that the honorable member knows very little about the people he claims to represent in this Parliament. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** said that, when I spoke before him, I referred to farmers as agricultural operators. I referred to agricultural operations, which is a broad term to describe the process of farming that I mentioned. Every time I referred to the gentlemen concerned, I used the word " farmers " and the honorable member for East Sydney knew that I did. {: .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr Drummond: -- I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim that the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has misrepresented me by using the term " one vote, one value ". He is confusing the expression with " one man, one vote ". The difference, as I understand it, and, I hope, I made clear to the House, is that " one vote, one value " means that an electorate covering a country area should have fewer electors in it so that the electors in sparsely populated areas would have a reasonable chance of exerting their influence and would not be at a disadvantage when compared with electors in such congested areas as that represented by the honorable member. {: #subdebate-33-0-s8 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- I had not intended to speak on this bill, but I have been stung to fury by certain remarks made by Opposition members. We know that in New South Wales we suffer very severely because of attempts made through the electoral laws to disfranchise people in the interests of a political party. Whatever may be said about the bill before the House, it is a very fair bill, and I strongly support the stand taken by the honorable members for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** and Barker **(Mr. Forbes).** Electoral laws have a very powerful effect on the distribution of population. The honorable member for Mallee made a very strong case for the retention of the provision relating to a 20 per cent, variation in the electoral quota. This provision has a powerful effect in country electorates and I compliment the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** on retaining the present provision. The honorable member for Mallee made a very strong claim for the recognition of the right of country areas to work on lower figures than do city areas. He was bitterly attacked by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly),** who referred to a speech in which the former member for Barker criticized the honorable member for Mallee. What the honorable member' for Grayndler did not say was that this was not a speech on electoral laws but a speech on the increase of Parliamentary salaries during the Chifley regime. The honorable member for Mallee refused to accept the increase and did not accept it for three years. The honorable member for Grayndler, in his usual way, tried to distort the true position. Electoral laws have a powerful effect on the distribution of population. By interjection, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** asked how this could be so. as the markets were on the coast. A greater number of members of Parliament in country areas means an increase of amenities in the country and that would bring the markets to the country. That is how decentralization could be effected. The means of obtaining decentralization are mainly in the hands of the States. New South Wales suffers lamentably because the population of Sydney is increasing. In New South Wales, very ugly attempts are being made to defranchise the people. Let us consider what happens with an electoral visitor. An elector who is sick in New South Wales must apply for an electoral visitor ten days before an election. The application must be in the hands of the returning officer seven days before the election. If the elector becomes sick six days before the election, he is defranchised. This is not so under Commonwealth electoral laws, but the Opposition wants to introduce into the Commonwealth laws the monstrous provisions of the New South Wales electoral laws. Most subdivisions do not have a hospital. The application by a sick man for an electoral visitor may be in the hands of the returning officer seven days before an election and everything may be in order. But if the doctor suddenly sends the sick elector to hospital in another subdivision, the elector is defranchised. In some electorates there are more than fourteen subdivisions, but a sick elector sent to hospital in another subdivision is denied the right to vote if his application is submitted in the wrong subdvision. Honorable members opposite say they are the apostles of the voting rights of the people. But what sort of apostles are they? They are deliberately trying to defranchise people whilst they claim to be honestly trying to introduce good electoral laws. The honorable member for Mallee made an excellent case for the retention of the provision for a 20 per cent, variation of the quota. I would fight very strongly against, any attempt to change that provision. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** in his usual way attacked the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond)** because he was a member of the Constitutional Review Committee which recommended a reduction to 10 per cent. On this side of politics, each member is entitled to say what he thinks. Opposition members do not enjoy this privilege and if they say that 20 per cent, is good, they will be expelled from their party. They cannot criticize the decisions of their party. They cannot speak their minds but must say what the party tells them to say. No Opposition member would dare to criticize any decision of that abomination called caucus. Opposition members are political serfs who say only what caucus tells them to say. Caucus, has said that they must try to get the same mean and vicious electoral laws as we have in New South Wales. So each Opposition member who speaks makes an attack on the Commonwealth electoral laws and tries to reduce them to the low ebb reached by the electoral laws of New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister on introducing very reasonable amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is the task of all decent people to preserve the Commonwealth electoral laws which are a standard that could be followed by all countries. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I wish to make a personal explanation, **Mr. Speaker.** The honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond)** in making a personal explanation, claimed that I had misrepresented him. He has misrepresented me. He claimed that in attributing to him the statement that he approved of the principle of one vote, one value, I had misrepresented him and that what he had stated he approved of was one person, one vote. If he looks at page 1169 of *' Hansard ", he will see that he is reported as having said - >It is essential that he shall not be prevented from having the benefit of the principle of one vote, one value. The honorable member for New England was at fault. He may have been mistaken when he contradicted me, but the " Hansard " record proves that the statement T made was absolutely correct. {: .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr Drummond: -- I wish to make a personal explanation. {: #subdebate-33-0-s9 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Does the honorable member claim that he has been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr Drummond: -- I do. I listened to what the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** said in reply to my explanation. What I did say was that I believe in the principle of one vote one value, whereas the honorable member for East Sydney was advocating the principle of one man one vote, which is an entirely different matter. If I have misrepresented him, I regret it, but I want to make it clear that I was advocating that the country areas should have smaller populations in order to balance the congestion in the cities. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** said that I had misrepresented him. In the course of my speech on the second reading of the bill, I quoted from a speech delivered by the late **Mr. Archie** Cameron, your illustrious predecessor in the chair, **Mr. Speaker.** I should like to place on record exactly what was said because it has been said that what I quoted was from a speech made in a different debate from that which I mentioned. The speech from which I quoted is recorded in " Hansard " of 4th June, 1947. On that occasion, the late **Mr. Archie** Cameron, the then honorable member for Barker - he was much better than the present one - said, when commenting upon the speeches of other honorable members - It is not often- {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- I rise to order. Is the honorable member for Grayndler, in a personal explanation, in order in reading out in detail again the whole extract in respect of which he claims to have been misrepresented? {: #subdebate-33-0-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! Has the honorable member for Grayndler read this extract before? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- Not all of it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is out of order. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I rise to order. The honorable member for Hume said I had misrepresented the honorable member for Mallee. He said that I quoted an extract from a debate other than that which I named. I wish to quote what was said. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member has already read the quotation. He would not be in order in repeating it. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- The honorable member said the quotation was from a speech made in a different debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I again rise to order. Might I ask you to make the position clear? Have you refused me permission to make a personal explanation? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: #subdebate-33-0-s11 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- 1 was rather surprised at the bitter attack made by the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** on honorable members on this side. He seems to be of the opinion that we of the Opposition are not free to say what we think. If ever the time comes when I am not free to say what I think about any matter, I shall cease to be a member of this Parliament. He implied that we have to obey exactly the dictates of caucus. I can only say that the honorable member is drawing heavily on his imagination. Let me ask him how many times he has voted against the decision of his party on any matter. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- Never. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- He has never voted against the decision of his party. Let me point out to him that when a decision is made by the Labour Party, whether it be on an electoral bill or anything else, every member of the party has a free vote. The honorable member for Hume, and the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** however, support measures decided upon not by a meeting of their party but by a Minister or the Government. They simply follow decisions by a Minister or the Government, willy-nilly. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I ask the honorable member not to get too far away from a discussion of the bill before the House. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Let me now deal with the bill. Much has been said about the position of a candidate's name on the ballot-paper. There is no doubt that the position on the ballot-paper does play a big part in elections. Let me state what happened in South Australia on one occasion when a large number of candidates stood for election. On that occasion, two men from Sydney nominated for election to the Senate to represent South Australia. They nominated as a group. They did not go to South Australia, nor did they hold any meetings. They did not have anybody handing out " how-to-vote cards " for them. When the positions on the ballot-paper were allotted, these two men occupied the first two positions. Five or six groups of candidates and quite a few independents stood for that election. Although the two men had done no organizing, and nothing whatever had been done on their behalf, theirs was about the last group to be eliminated at the counting because they benefited from occupying the first positions on the ballot-paper, many voters automatically giving them first preference votes. In investigating how the transfer of votes worked, I went to the Electoral Office and, during my investigations, discovered that invariably a voter who gave first and second preferences to candidates whose names appeared on the right-hand side of the ballot-paper automatically cast the balance of his votes for the candidates grouped on the opposite side of the paper in the order in which they appeared. If the group at the top of the paper on the side opposite that on which the elector wishes to record his primary vote, is small, then invariably it benefits greatly from the preferential votes of the opposite party. I have had a good deal of experience in conducting ballots for my party in South Australia, and years ago" I advocated that a change in the system be made. I pointed out that when twenty or more candidates were standing for election those whose names appeared at the top of the ballot-paper held a distinct advantage over those whose names were nearer the bottom of the paper, because many people cast their votes indifferently and simply started at the top, irrespective of who the. candidate might be. In this way, those whose names appeared at the top might benefit from five or six times the number of preference votes recorded for those who appeared lower on the ballotpaper. I recommended to my own party that the alphabetical system should be abandoned and that candidates should draw lots for positions on the ballot-paper. The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** quoted many figures to-day to prove the extent of the advantage enjoyed by a candidate whose name appears first on the ballot-paper. He quoted the benefit gained by the Communist Party in particular. Let me deal now with informal votes. The most remarkable, experience I had in this connexion was an occasion when the only candidate opposing me was a Communist. I had no Liberal Party or Democratic Labour Party opponent. On that occasion there was only one part of my electorate in which the Liberals enjoyed a greater majority than I did, but in that part where I had only a Communist candidate - it was considered an elite area in which the Liberal Party enjoyed a strong vote - the Communist candidate was given more of the Liberal votes than I obtained. At that election, many of the votes in that area were informal and the electoral figures indicated conclusively to me that many of the informal votes were deliberately made informal. For example, in that area where there were 41,000 electors, there were 2,906 informal votes despite the fact that there were only two candidates standing for election. If the electors had put the figure " 1 " opposite the name of either of those candidates the vote would have been formal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the high number of informal votes was due to the fact that the electors could not remember the numbers or that there were so many candidates that some voters had inadvertently put down the same number twice. All the indications were that many of the informal votes were deliberately made informal. We often hear honorable members of the Liberal Party in this Parliament saying that the Communists or their off-siders have polled heavily at a particular election. I have figures relating to the election to which I have referred which show that in group A the Senate candidates supported by the Liberal Party polled 2,656 votes, whereas, in group B they polled 9,391 votes, while the Communist group polled 731 votes. I repeat that 731 votes went to the Communist group on that occasion when the leader of that party was **Dr. Finger,** the greatest Communist then in Adelaide and the greatest vote-getter for his party that one could find. He got 731 votes for that group and yet at that same election, the same voters cast 5,918 votes for the Communist candidate for the House of Representatives. Why was that? It was simply because the Liberals would not vote for me, but would sooner vote for the Communist candidate. Yet we have all this talk here about Labour supporters voting for the Communists and giving them preference No. 2 on the ballot-paper! When there was only a Labour candidate and a Communist candidate, 5,900 electors voted for the Communist, because there was no Liberal to vote for; but where there was a Liberal group to vote for in the Senate election the Communist candidate received only about 700 votes. It irritates me when I hear members opposite talking about us cavorting, as it were, with the Communists and trying to get their support. I say definitely that the Government supporters are not too concerned- {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- I would vote for you in those circumstances. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- You might. Some of the Liberals voted for me, but there was a big number who did not. I come now to the question of the positions occupied by the candidates' names on the ballot-paper. I have a great honour. Up to the last election, in every election in which I stood as a candidate for the federal House I received the biggest vote in Australia. The letter " T " is right at the bottom of the ballot-paper, yet 1 was able to get the votes, even on the occasion when Liberal Party supporters voted for the other fellow and against me. That was because I, as an individual, have become known to the people in my electorate. They do not need to ask whether " Thompson " stands for Labour, Communist or Liberal. They know the position in my electorate. But if I had to stand as a candidate in a district where the majority for a candidate might be about 1,000, swinging one way or the other, and if my name were placed at the bottom of the ballot-paper, I would certainly go west in that election. Years ago in Senate elections, the first letter of the surname of a candidate in a group determined the position on the ballotpaper of the three who stood in the group. Political parties began to select as candidates men whose surnames began with " A ". Nobody can tell me that any political party in any State could pick three candidates for the Senate, all of whose surnames started with the letter " A ", as the best candidates in that State. It simply could not be done. It is just not common sense, but that is what happened on one occasion. As has been pointed out, that system was altered. From time to time in close contests the man whose name is at the top of the ballotpaper has a distinct advantage. I put this proposition to the Minister and to the Government: Suppose in an electorate the voting is likely to be very close. If there is a Labour candidate whose surname starts with the letter " W ", members of the Government would say, " If we can get a candidate whose name will be near the top of the ballot-paper and secure all the ' uneducated ' votes of those who vote for candidates in the order in which their names appear on the ballot-paper, we will get our candidate in." In such circumstances, the Government picks a candidate whose name will be near the top of the ballotpaper because for political purposes it wants to get him to run. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** shakes his head. If any one goes through the figures over the years he will know that, as in my own case, if the candidate is a well-known man there is no need to worry so much about him; but if he is some one who has not been in public life the opposing candidate, who is placed at the top of the ballot-paper, will have a very big win. I remind the Minister for the Interior, who is a Liberal Party member, that on occasions in recent years there has been a Country Party candidate opposing a Liberal Party man at an election. In such circumstances, if the vote was likely to be very close, I would like to be the man whose surname was higher than that of his opponent on the ballot-paper, because I know what it would mean to me. I have referred from time to time to a candidate for the Senate election in South Australia and what happened there. However, that has been pretty well thrashed out. There is one other amendment proposed by the Minister, which I hope he will not pursue. It is that which relates to the entrance to a polling booth. In many places the polling booth is a hall in a city street, with only one entrance to it. The entrance is from the street and those who are handing out how-to-vote cards have to keep 20 or 30 feet - whatever distance is determined - away from that entrance. If members of the Liberal Party thought that how-to-vote cards were no good they would not pay out the money they do to man every polling booth. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- We do not pay. You pay. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Three or four years ago a man at a polling booth came to me and said, " I am living at an institution. I was told, ' Here is a job for you. You can get 30s. for it '." That was in my own district, and that man was told to go down to the polling booth and hand out howtovote cards. He told me that he felt that if he refused to do so he would lose the place where he was sleeping. This man was not concerned about giving out too many howtovote cards. He said to me, "I am a Labour supporter ". Then there is the other chap, whom members of the Liberal Party say they do not pay. I can remember when I was working for the honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin)** when he was the member for Hindmarsh, I saw a man hand ing out how-to-vote cards. I had made representations on his behalf to the honorable member for Bonython, who had done everything he could to secure an invalid pension for him. This man came to me, and, calling me by name, said, " Bert, I am not doing this to put the other fellow in. He cannot get elected here, but I am getting £1 to hand out these cards and so I am handing them out." It is no use honorable members opposite saying that they do not pay people. We know that they get young people connected with the schools to hand out how-to-vote cards. I have known of such people going out and working for the Liberal Party and being paid for it. But 1 do not want to argue that part of the matter. I have never had to pay anybody one penny to work for me or my party at an election. The Minister considers, for the reasons I have discussed, that it is of some value to have how-to-vote cards handed out to people whom he would like to vote Liberal because if they did not receive the cards they might make their votes informal or vote for the other candidate. Why make the position difficult in the suburbs, for instance, where the polling place may be in a school, which has a front gate, a side gate and a back gate? People can go in by any of those gates before they get to the entrance of the polling place. The Minister says now that persons handing out how-to-vote cards must keep so many feet away from any of the gates. T, like any one who has handed out how-to-vote cards, know a bit about the position. If one has to remain 30 feet down the street from the entrance to the polling place and if somebody jumps out of a motor car opposite the entrance, there is no hope of handing that person a how-to-vote card. It is not so bad where there is only one entrance to the polling place and there can be two people, one on each side of the gate, to hand out how-to-vote cards. They do not argue with voters as they approach. One says to them, " Here is a Labour ticket ", and the other says, " Here is a Liberal ticket ", and the voters take the tickets and go in to vote. But what can one do in a place where there are three or four entrances, if there must be two people at each entrance to hand out how-to-vote cards to people coming from either direction? it the Government thinks that any change in the procedure is necessary, I would rather it prevented entirely the distribution of how-to-vote cards in the vicinity of polling booths, so that we would have to deliver the cards to the homes of voters before they left for the polls. However, this provision is now in the bill, and I must voice my protest against it. I hope the Minister will not persist with this proposedchange. It will help neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Party nor any other party. If we allow the distribution of how-to-vote cards at the front entrance to the polling place, why should we not allow persons to distribute them on either side of an entrance to the polling place? i remember on one occasion casting a vote in a federal election at a polling booth in your district, **Mr. Speaker.** The polling booth was a room at the back of a church. There were no fences around this church. Evidently the church authorities wanted to allow people to enter the church freely, without having to go through gates or over fences. Persons distributing howtovote cards could, therefore, stand very close to the actual entrance to the polling booth itself. If there had been a fence, and three or four gates in the fence, all parties would have needed three or four times as many assistants to distribute their how-to-vote cards. I am not opposing this measure on the ground that it will assist the Labour Party or any other party. If people wish to cast a formal vote, knowing whom they are voting for, I think they should be given every assistance. The other provisions in the bill are mainly machinery matters. They are of minor importance. However, we have been given an opportunity to talk about electoral matters generally, and particularly about the amendments that the Labour Party intends to propose. If it were not for the Labour Party's amendments the bill could have been disposed of in five minutes, with very little debate. I know, or at least I hope, that the Minister will accept some of our amendments. If he does so we will see improvements in the Electoral Act that I feel should have been made by the Labour Government when it was in office, but for which we have had to wait until now. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I wish to make a persona] explanation, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Yes, by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly).** I made a speech this afternoon during the debate on the Electoral Bill, and I was followed in the debate by the honorable member for Grayndler. He quoted a passage from a speech made by the former honorable member for Barker, **Mr. Archie** Cameron. The honorable member for Grayndler said that the speech had been made during a debate on the Electoral Act, {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- He did not say that. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- He said that the speech had been made during a debate on the Electoral Act. I repeat that. The honorable member's statement was completely untrue. I have a copy of " Hansard " before me, in which is recorded my speech on the Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1947. It appears at page 3384 of the report for 4th June, 1947. In that speech I said that I would refuse to take the additional allowance of £500 until the 1949 election. The former honorable member for Barker had some splendid qualities, as we all know, but he was a bit annoyed by my remarks in that speech, and he followed me in the debate, his speech being recorded at page 3385 of " Hansard ". {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! It seems to me that this is entirely out of order. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- My speech had nothing to do with the Electoral Act, **Mr. Speaker.** Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4. Section thirty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-sections: - " (6.) An aboriginal native of Australia is not entitled to enrolment under Part VII. unless he - (a) is entitled under the law of the State in which he resides to be enrolled as an elector of that State and, upon enrolment, to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of that State or, if there is only one House of the Parliament of that State, for that House; or {: type="a" start="b"} 0. is or has been a member of the Defence Force.". {: #subdebate-33-0-s12 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa **.- Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I move - >Omit proposed sub-section (6.). Clause 4 amends section 39 of the act, and it substitutes two new sub-sections, numbers (5.) and (6.), for existing sub-section (5.). The existing sub-section prevents aboriginal natives of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific, except New Zealand, from enrolling or voting unless they are aboriginal natives of Australia who are entitled to a vote pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution, or are or have been members of the Defence Force. The new sub-section, for the omission of which I have moved, no longer precludes aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa or the islands of the Pacific from enrolling or voting, but it does preclude aboriginal natives of Australia from enrolling or voting. The Opposition cannot endorse this reenactment of a provision denying to Australian aborigines the right enjoyed by all other citizens of enrolling and voting for candidates for election to this Parliament. I know of no other country in which aboriginal natives are precluded from voting on the basis of their race. This has happened in Australia and in Australia alone in recent years, and if the bill goes through in its present form the practice will be continued in Australia alone. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- They do not get the vote in Malaya. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I did not know that. Does the honorable member mean that persons who are said to be of Malay race are not given a vote in Malaya? {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: -- The aborigines in the hills are not given a vote. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Are they deprived of the vote just because they are aboriginal natives of Malaya? {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: -- Yes. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Then we share an odious eminence with Malaya in this matter. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- The natives of India are not given a vote. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Is that so? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- The members of the aboriginal tribes. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- There are aboriginal tribes in a very great number of countries, and until the honorable member for Barker informed me of the position of Malaya I had never heard of a country which precluded its aboriginal natives from voting on the ground that they were aboriginal natives. Until now, aborigines have had a vote for this Parliament if they have had a vote for the parliament of the particular State in which they live. If this bill goes through, that will continue to be the position. They will not be able to vote in elections for this Parliament if they do not have a vote for the State parliament. In other words, aborigines on the Queensland, Northern Territory or Western Australian sides of borders are not considered fit to vote, or at least are not permitted to vote. Those on the South Australian or New South Wales sides of the borders, however, are permitted to vote, whether they are fit to vote or not. There is no need for this Parliament to adopt the policy of extending the franchise only when State parliaments extend it. We are obliged, under section 41 of the Constitution, to give a vote for this Parliament to every person who has a vote for the State parliament, but we are not prevented from giving a vote for this Parliament to a person who is not allowed to vote in a State election. In the Northern Territory, by administrative act, we virtually exclude all aborigines from voting, just because they are aborigines, although in that Territory we can give any person a vote for the Legislative Council of the Territory, for this House of Representatives or for the Australian Senate if we wish to. Persons with whole or part aboriginal ancestry in this country already have fewer and smaller opportunities in life than other Australians have. We are told from time to time of cases of aborigines who have emerged and they deserve more praise for having emerged in that they have had to overcome handicaps that other Australians have not had to overcome. From the historical and practical points of view, we must acknowledge that the Parliament is really concerned only with people to whom it is answerable. The condition of under-privileged persons improves when they receive the vote. In fact, the emancipation of any section of the community commences with its enfranchisement. Various excuses are given for not giving the aboriginal the vote, but in cases where none of those disabilities apply to an aboriginal - any disability of occupation, education, thrift or hygiene - the aboriginal is still deprived of the vote in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. He is deprived not because he is in any way inferior to his fellow citizens, but because he is an aboriginal. I shall refer to the two principal objections which are made. The first is that the aborigines are very often nomadic. If aborigines were enrolled - as they would have to be in normal circumstances if our amendment is carried - then they could still not vote unless their real place of living at some time within three months immediately preceding polling day was within the division in respect of which they were enrolled. Thus, there would be no discrimination against an aboriginal because he was nomadic, because the same law applies to all persons who are nomadic. The other reason which is most commonly given is that aborigines are illiterate, but under section 120 of the act, other persons who are illiterate are entitled1 to vote. They are required to vote and are given assistance to vote. During the secondreading debate on this bill, I went in some detail into the international reasons why aborigines should have the vote now. I believe that we are in breach of articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter so long as we deprive aborigines of the vote on the basis that they are aborigines. That is not a matter of domestic jurisdiction. We have now - although belatedly and in somewhat surly fashion - admitted that human rights are not a matter of domestic jurisdiction. We joined in declaring in the United Nations, as far back as 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in it we have said that one of the things that all human beings are entitled to is the vote and representation in Parliament. More recently, in 1957, we attended an International Labour Organization conference which adopted the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention 1957, which states - >The enjoyment of the general rights of citizenship without discrimination shall not be prejudiced in any way by special measures of protection for aboriginal persons in any State. It is unfortunate that this bill was reintroduced into the Parliament just four days after South Africa was excluded from, or denied re-entry into, the Commonwealth of Nations on the basis of policies which are the same in principle, although not in degree, as are being enacted in this bill. {: #subdebate-33-0-s13 .speaker-L0V} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Wight:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s14 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY:
Perth .- I think it is rather wrong of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** to get up in the committee and assume that he is putting a case for the Opposition because Opposition members alone believe that the aborigines should get a vote. The proceedings are not being broadcast, but the people can read in " Hansard " what the honorable member has said. I wish to point out, first, that the Government has stated that it will appoint a select committee of this Parliament to investigate this matter of a vote for aborigines. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The Government has not even chosen its members for the committee. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY: -- Why did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition agree in the House to the appointment of that select committee? Why has the Opposition chosen three members to sit on it? The Opposition has accepted the terms of reference of the select committee. What will it achieve by this proposed amendment? Absolutely nothing! The Opposition seems to think that by this move it will win plaudits all over the world. Do not be so ridiculous in your assumption, for heaven's sake! You will do nothing of the sort. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quoted one paragraph from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and said that because Australia was a signatory to that declaration, we must accept the Opposition's amendment. I suggest that the honorable member read out the whole Declaration of Human Rights. He would then see that we have solemnly declared that we are behind this declaration or this part of it. The Opposition would find itself slipping up on that point, so I do not think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to use that argument. I think we will reject the proposed amendment for the simple reason that the Government has stated that a select committee will be appointed to investigate this matter. The Opposition should realize that many supporters of the Government have studied this problem and understand the difficulties. Perhaps the select committee will be able to unravel the problem and report back to the Parliament. In the circumstances, it is a waste of time to discuss the amendment {: #subdebate-33-0-s15 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Bonython .- I cannot follow the reasoning of the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney).** He has suggested that we should, not press this amendment because a select committee is to be appointed to consider the- claim that we are making on behalf of the aborigines and the proposal that they should have the same electoral rights as other people have. If, as the honorable member for Perth suggests, there is no merit in the Opposition's amendment, the Government should withdraw its proposed alterations to the electoral act in this connexion now. Consideration of this particular proposal should be deferred. In my opinion, Government supporters are adopting a most inconsistent attitude. They are prepared to give a vote to an aboriginal in the Australian Capital Territory but would deny a vote to an aboriginal who happened to be outside that territory and was. not in a State unless the aboriginal was enrolled in that State. Surely, if an aboriginal is entitled to a vote in one part of Australia, he should be entitled to a vote in any other part of the Commonwealth. That is consistent. Government supporters aTe discriminating inexcusably against aborigines who are resident outside Commonwealth territories. I believe that the people of Australia would not endorse that view. They realize that all people in Australia are entitled to fair treatment. If it is right that the aborigines should be qualified for a vote for the National Parliament in one part of Australia, they should be qualified in other parts of this country. Surely the good name of Australia demands that the native people should have equal rights wherever they happen to be in Australia. I press the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** to consider withdrawing the amendment proposed by the Government to the Electoral Act until the committee mentioned by the honorable member for Perth has deliberated and has given us the advantage of its recommendations. {: #subdebate-33-0-s16 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin, · LP .- 1 think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** and the honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin)** have raised an issue which is not really the issue before the committee. Judging from the way in which they have spoken, they have tried to give the impression that, in some way or other, opinion in this chamber is divided along party lines as to whether aborigines should have the vote. There is no such division. On both sides of the chamber wilt be found members who would speak with equal enthusiasm to the proposition that all aborigines in Australia should have the vote if they are capable of exercising it. That is not a matter upon which this committee is divided along party lines. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is as well aware as any one in this chamber that only a few days ago the Government introduced, and the Opposition supported, a proposal to appoint a select committee of the House to examine this particular problem. The fact that the House agreed to the proposal for the appointment of the select committee surely implies very clearly two facts: First, it implies that the House, as part of the Parliament, is conscious of the fact that there is a problem here to be examined; that the present conditions of the law are not wholly satisfactory, and that this is something to which the Parliament should give its attention. Parliament has already given a clear expression of opinion that this is a question to which it wants to give attention and a question in respect of which some amendment should be made. The second proposition which is quite clearly implied by the action which the House has already taken in appointing a select committee is that the giving of a vote to aborigines, without any restriction at all, will be attended by some problems which need careful examination. A select committee was appointed so that the problems of applying any reform could be examined and so that any reform that might eventually be decided upon by the House would be suited to the conditions of the people concerned and, above all, would lead to the effective exercise of a vote by those who received it. Let us assume that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** and supported by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were adopted by the committee. That would not be an immediate solution of our difficulties. It would not enable us immediately to cut through all the problems. In view of the recognition by the House that problems exist which need investigation by a select committee, the carrying of the Opposition's proposed amendment would mean only that we would then, with less deliberation and perhaps with less expertness, have to try to cut our way through all these problems. The method which the House itself has already chosen, with the support of both sides, is to appoint a select committee so that these problems can be examined and so that we can see all the implications of extending the franchise to all aborigines. The Opposition now proposes to do this and many members of the Government would not resist doing it, but we both want it to be an effective action which would lead to a happy result for all concerned. So this amendment is out of place. The issue which the Opposition is trying to raise does not exist at this time. If members of the Opposition are trying to create the impression that they want votes for all aborigines and that the Government does not want votes for all aborigines, they are trying to create a totally false impression. There are members on both sides of the chamber who would speak with enthusiasm on the question of giving votes to aborigines. There are members on both sides of the chamber who would speak with caution about giving votes to aborigines. The attempt to turn this issue into a party issue, I think, does no service to this committee and is not likely to do much service to the aborigines themselves. We have to keep in mind the principle that merely giving a right is of much less importance than giving it under conditions which will lead to its effective political exercise. If you give votes under conditions in which they will be thrown away, not used, or under which they can be misused and exploited, you will confer no benefit on any one. We will not truly be serving the interests of the aboriginal people and of Australian democracy if we make an extension of the franchise but take no measures which will lead to the effective use of that franchise. Another point that I would make is this: We often overlook the fact that a very large number of aborigines in Australia already do vote. They are already on the rolls and already exercise the franchise. It is true that in certain parts of Australia - mostly in those parts in which a large proportion of the natives are living under tribal conditions - they have no vote either under State or Federal laws. It is to that problem that I think we are addressing our minds. Do not let us deceive ourselves or give a false impression to other people by suggesting that, for the first time, we are giving the vote to aborigines. Thousands of aborigines already have a vote. They exercise it intelligently and are not differentiated from any other voters because they are aborigines. The whole assumption the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made about excluding people solely because they are aborigines falls down because there are thousands of people who, being aborigines, do vote and are not excluded on that ground. The exclusion of some people of aboriginal blood is on grounds other than that they are aborigines. It is their particular circumstances that the select committee wants to investigate and on which it will report. I feel confident that, for the aborigines themselves and for Australian political democracy, a far happier result is likely to ensue by allowing the select committee to go ahead with its work, to examine all facets of this problem and present, without party division, what I hope will be a unanimous report regarding the extension of the franchise to more of the aboriginal population than enjoy it at present. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- We have chosen our members of the committee. Why have you not chosen yours? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- That is purely a matter of machinery. There is no going back on the appointment of the select committee nor on the functions of that committee. My final word is that it seems to me that this surely is one of the issues on which parties should not be divided. It is an issue on which members of the committee can speak their minds as one. It looks very much like a silly political manoeuvre that this amendment should have been introduced at all. {: #subdebate-33-0-s17 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- The Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** ignores the fact that aborigines in Australia receive a vote for this Parliament, not because of the actions of this Parliament, but despite them. Any aboriginal who votes for a member of this Parliament at an election votes because of the action of his State Government in giving him a vote at State elections. The only provision in Commonwealth law enabling aborigines to vote for members of this Parliament is that which gives the vote to those who have served in the defence forces. The Minister for Territories imputed motives of insincerity to members of the Opposition and said that we were attempting to gain some political advantage on this occasion. I know that I have had the wholehearted support of my colleagues in this place and of the Labour movement wherever I have raised this question. If people are to impute motives to one another, I might examine with some criticism the choice of the date upon which the report of the select committee shall be tendered to the Parliament. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that the anomalies in the legislation are anomalies that can be removed only by this Parliament, and that this Parliament had failed in the past to take action to give equal voting rights to the aboriginal people of Australia. I said that in this particular instance the initiative lay with this Parliament. In fact, in those States in which aborigines have the vote - New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania - they have the right to vote at Commonwealth elections only because it has been given to them on the initiative of the State parliaments and not on the initiative of this Parliament. They are able to vote for elections to this Parliament not because of the actions of this Parliament. I said that we ought to take action immediately to do something about this. I do not believe that this Parliament can, in honour, allow to be perpetuated this discriminatory provision in its legislation. The Parliament has been faced squarely with the decision that it must make. The Minister has chosen to bring down an amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in which this provision is specifically included, removing some of the people from its ambit who beforehand could not vote but leaving the aborigines under it. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- It covers the same people, but puts it in a different way. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- What about people from the islands of the Pacific? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- People who come here on temporary migration certificates are covered by it. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- That only makes it worse. We are faced with the decision of whether we will tolerate the continuance in Commonwealth legislation of a racial, discriminatory law, and we on this side say, " No ". It has been said that we are quibbling because of the select committee appointed to consider this matter. What is the position of this select committee? The date by which it must report to the Parliament has been set as not later than 31st October. The last two general elections were held in November and December; so, assuming that this Parliament runs its ordinary course, by 31st October not only will the Parliament have ceased sitting, but it will have been dissolved. Therefore, there is no obligation on this select committee to report to this Parliament at all. We cannot let this challenge go unanswered. Honorable members on this side of the chamber speak with all sincerity, and I think that in the few minutes that one has at this stage of the debate I should point out the anomalies which persist. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Then why did you not vote against the appointment of the select committee? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- I did not vote against it, because I regarded the actual stepping up to the table of a Minister of the present Government, and his admission that something ought to be done about the voting rights of aborigines, as a major break-through. I pay all credit to the Minister for doing so, but I believe that it was a very stumbling step indeed. I say that the select committee may well carry on with its duties and find how it may prevent anomalies, and the subversion of secret voting, and so on; but the general principle of the vote for the aborigines has been accepted by the Australian people. That has been stated by the Minister for Territories here to-day, yet the Government refuses to let this Parliament carry the principle through to its logical conclusion. Let us look at some of the anomalies. The Minister for Territories said there were difficulties. If he gave voting rights to many of the aborigines of the Northern Territory, provided they had European ancestry, why will he not give them the same voting rights if they step across the border into Queensland? As the law stands, if aborigines leave the Territory, which is under the Minister's control, and go to Queensland, they lose the right to vote. Why does the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes),** who comes from South Australia, not wish to give aborigines from Western Australia the same right to vote in Commonwealth elections as the aborigines in South Australia have? Why is not the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney),** who spoke earlier to-day and charged us with lack of sincerity, prepared to give the aborigines of Western Australia the voting rights that aborigines in South Australia have? Is it a question of these people being too primitive to vote. Of course, it is not! I have mentioned here before the case of the Palm Island natives. One of the anomalies and the great disadvantage of the Queensland electoral law is that an aboriginal must leave his mission station or reserve in order to be qualified for citizenship. {: .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McColm: -- What aborigines have not the vote in Queensland? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- Some aborigines have it, but thousands have not. {: .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McColm: -- The majority have the vote. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- Thousands have not got the vote. The honorable member has not the exact figures, and neither have I. However, even if one is disqualified, that makes it all the worse. If you admit it for one, you must admit it for the lot. You can find thousands of aborigines all over Australia who are literate, self-possessed, and capable of looking after their own affairs, who are deprived of the vote. The challenge is to this Parliament. It is not a question of a select committee or anything else. The Minister has chosen to put before us an amending bill including this particular provision. We say that there is no justification for its continuance. The eyes of the world are upon us in this particular instance. It is not an electoral law - it is a racial law. Why is it that an aboriginal may not vote? Is it because he is illiterate? Of course not, because as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** pointed out there are provisions in the act to enable illiterate people to vote. Is it because he is not knowledgeable in the English language? Of course not, because a person may come here from, say, Malta, take up residence here and, after six months' residence, may vote, whether he is competent in the English language or not. Is it because he is not knowledgeable in Australian politics? Of course not, because that is not a test that is applied to anybody else. It is simply because he is an aboriginal, because he is a descendant of the original race of this continent, and because we have not yet developed the initiative or the know-how to give ourselves the confidence to overcome the problem. I say that we can overcome the problem and that we must overcome the problem. Earlier this evening, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the aboriginal people of other nations have the right to vote. The honorable member for Barker said, by interjection, that that was not so in Malaya. I have checked on that, and, for the benefit of that honorable member and other honorable members, I shall read section 119 of the Constitution of Malaya. It states - >Every citizen who has attained the age of twenty-one years on the qualifying date and has been resident in a constituency for at least six months immediately preceding the qualifying date is entitled to vote in that constituency in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly . . . The statutes which define this say - >On and after the appointed day, the following persons shall be Federal Citizens: These persons include any person who - belongs to an aboriginal tribe resident in that State; . . . So, in this case the interjection by the honorable member for Barker was irrelevant and was not based on fact. But of course this is a question for us to resolve. We do not need to have recourse to the rest of the world for examples. This is a simple straightforward question: Are you going to give literate people on Palm Island the right to vote? Are you going to deprive them of the right to vote because the Queensland act does not give them that right? If this is to be a sovereign parliament, if it is to make its own decisions, if the electoral laws are its responsibility, then we must face up to 0 Lir responsibility, lt is a simple fact that if the Queensland Government or the Western Australian Government to-morrow gave aborigines the right to vote they would be entitled to vote also at the next Commonwealth elections. The Minister is able to shed his authority on to the Western Australian Government. He is not prepared to accept it for himself. I say that this is a simple straightforward challenge. We cannot permit to continue to exist on our statute-book laws which can be denned as racial in their context and as being levelled against one section of a community, and not based on simple justice, or on the question of the ability of these people to exercise a valid vote, but are there simply because these people happen to be people of the aboriginal race. {: #subdebate-33-0-s18 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- The honorable member for Wills **(Mr, Bryant)** has his head away up in the clouds on this particular subject, and I have no doubt that he is quite happy to have it there. I give him credit for full sincerity in his approach to this. I have no doubt that he would not worry about a select com mittee. He is prepared to brush aside any problems which exist in this matter but I charge some members of his party with going to the absolute depths of political hypocrisy in their approach to the matter, because all the members of the party sitting opposite agreed that it was desirable to appoint a select committee to examine this matter. If they agreed to that, then they admitted that there were problems, because a select committee would be quite purposeless unless there were problems to be examined. Honorable members opposite agreed to the appointment of this select committee to examine these problems and report back to the House. Now they want to anticipate a possible result of the select committee's examination. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Why not have a couple of irons in the fire? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- The honorable member asks, " Why not have a couple of irons in the fire? " Why not leave the existing provisions as they are until at least these problems have been examined? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Why did you choose 31st October as the date by which the select committee must report? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- I shall give the honorable member some information about that in a minute. Since he has chosen to accuse us of playing politics in this matter, let me remind the committee that the present provisions in the act were introduced by the Labour Government in 1949. The gentleman who was then the member for Kalgoorlie was a Labour man of very wide experience of the problems in regard to natives. He said at the time that the situation bristled with difficulties. That was the view of the Australian Labour Party then. The present honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** who regretted that natives all over Australia could not be given a full right to vote, and who is still a member of this Parliament, agreed that the situation was regrettable, but he accepted it. The governments of Western Australia and Queensland were consulted in this matter by the Commonwealth Government in 1946. In that year, there was a Labour government in each of those States, and both of those Labour governments agreed that there were tremendous difficulties. I agree with that view. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Time marches on. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Indeed it does, and that is a good thing. Our appointment of a select committee is a good thing, too. If the honorable member will forbear for a moment, I am just coming to the point that, because time has marched on, we think that it would be a very good idea for this Parliament to give a lead in discussing the problem with the governments of Queensland and Western Australia. In the eyes of the world, we would do ourselves small credit if we gave natives a vote at Federal elections and the State governments took umbrage at our going over their heads and said: " We were not consulted. We will not change our attitude. Natives shall not have a vote in State elections, because there are too many problems involved." If this select committee does nothing else but go to Western Australia and Queensland, discuss with the governments of those States the problems which stand in the way and overcome those problems to the point at which the State governments, having looked at the problems, agree that solutions can be found and the electoral laws can be improved, the select committee will have achieved something. We have taken the lead from the State governments in this matter. We have been forced into this position because the governments of Queensland and Western Australia do not give full voting rights to aborigines. It is very easy to say that we are discriminating against aborigines simply because they are aborigines. We are not in fact. The two States where the great problems exist are the States of Queensland and Western Australia. There are relatively few problems in the other States because there are relatively few aborigines and therefore all these problems of the possible exploitation of natives do not arise. The problem of giving the aborigines the right to vote, and thereby rendering them liable to a fine if they do not enrol and liable to a fine if they do not vote, does not arise in the States where the aborigines are numerically insignificant. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** cited the case of the Australian Capital Territory and spoke of the magnificent aboriginal vote that was recorded at Wreck Bay. There is only one full-blood aboriginal in the Territory, and there is a number of half-castes, who have the right to vote in any event. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R Fraser:
ALP -- But only one voted Liberal! {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is right. Surely Opposition members rise to the heights of political hypocrisy when they, within a few days of having conceded that there are problems which should properly be examined by a select committee, say that the Commonwealth Electoral Act should be amended in order to give aborigines full rights to vote, regardless of what the select committee may find. Opposition members have tried to get over this inconsistency by saying that, in effect, we are altering the existing act in relation to its application to the people who are described in section 39 as aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa and the islands of the Pacific, and re-enacting the provision with respect to aboriginal natives of Australia. That is perfectly true, but there was a legal difficulty which was brought to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to-night for the first time, I believe. The difficuly was that there are in Malaya, for example, some people who are regarded there and in other parts of Asia as aboriginal natives of that area and who are not among the people whom we have described in this act as aboriginal natives. In order to remove this difficulty, we approached the problem in another way, and the section has been redrafted in order to provide that people who come to Australia on a temporary entry permit in the ordinary way under our immigration laws, and who previously would have been denied the right to vote, shall not bc enrolled and shall not be entitled to vote, even if they stay for six or eight months, or whatever may be the duration of the permit. That is the explanation of the omission of the reference to aboriginal natives of Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands from the proposed new section of the principal act. The fact that at this stage we are content to leave the situation as it stands in regard to aboriginal natives does not mean that there is not, as the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** intimated, a tremendously strong feeling that something should be done to improve the situation of the Australian aborigines, **Mr. Chairman,** lt does not mean that we are discriminating against aborigines merely because they are aborigines. In both Queensland and Western Australia, aborigines can obtain a vote. In all the other States, they already have the right to vote. We give aborigines in Western Australia and Queensland the right to vote if they have not a preponderance of aboriginal blood - in other words, if they are half-castes or have less than half aboriginal blood. That is different from the definition of the term " aboriginal native " in those two States. There is, as I have said, a tremendously wide recognition that something should be done in an endeavour to make further progress in dealing with this problem. But no Opposition member has dealt with the very real problems that exist. Do all honorable members opposite suggest that merely because the governments of Queensland and Western Australia are blind and obstinate on this issue, and will not budge from an entrenched position, we should forget about the matter? Of course we should not. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- The Labour Government in Western Australia tried to give aborigines the right to vote two years ago. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- In 1946, when **Mr. Chifley** raised the subject at a Premiers' Conference, the Labour Government in Western Australia refused to give any concessions beyond what it had already given. So did the Labour Government in Queensland. If the honorable member for Wills is trying to derive some political advantage from this, he will find very cold comfort in the records of the Labour governments in those two States. The plain truth is that we are taking the lead in this matter. We are looking at the problems and we hope that they will be thoroughly examined by the select committee and that its report to this chamber will enable this Government to do something about the matter. The honorable member for Wills suggested that there was some sinister significance in the choice of 31st October as the date by which the select committee must report. Does he think that the committee will require longer? If the committee chooses, it can make a report next week or the week after. However, I hope that it will at least study the problem thoroughly. The setting of a specific date some time ahead at least prevents the committee from coming back and saying, " We have not had time to study the matter properly. We want an extension of time." If the committee does its job properly, there is nothing whatever to prevent it from making a report within one month, two months, or three months, as the case may be. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Have the Government representatives on the committee been appointed yet? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- If they have not already been appointed, they will be appointed within the next day or so. I give the honorable member that assurance. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Will the committee go overseas in the course of its inquiry? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- It has been given power to move from place to place. I do not know whether that power extends to inquiries overseas. I need a little constitutional advice in order to answer on that point. 1 suggest, **Mr. Chairman,** that members of the Australian Labour Party are really trying to have a little bit each way on this issue. They agree that there is a problem and they have supported the appointment of a select committee, but now they want to kick the ground right away from under the committee's feet and forestall its inquiry. That, of course, would be quite an absurd thing to do. {: #subdebate-33-0-s19 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** is rejecting the amendment on two grounds. The first is that this would be embarrassing to the Commonwealth in its relations with the two States that deny aborigines- {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- I did not say that at all. I said it would be an improvement if we had co-operation from the States. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Very well. His first objection concerns relations with the two States which deny aborigines the vote. The second ground for refusing the amendment is the fact that a select committee has been unanimously appointed to inquire into the difficulties, if any, of aborigines voting. The Minister went so far as to allege that the Opposition had reached the height of political hypocrisy in this matter. I point out that we had resolved to oppose the reenactment of the ban on aborigines voting - that is, we had decided to vote against this proposed new sub-section - before the Government decided to seek the appointment of the select committee. We had made that decision and had announced it at least a week before. The Government knew that a decision had been made and what decision had been made. Speaking for myself, I resent the suggestion that any political capital has been sought in this matter. Before this bill was re-introduced this session, I suggested to one Cabinet Minister that, if the bill forecast in the Administrator's Speech opening the Parliament was the same as the one introduced last year, this clause should be omitted from the bill or a better clause substituted for it. Furthermore, when the first reading of this bill was given, I said to another Cabinet Minister that he should, in the interests of the country as a whole, have a second look at this provision. I had in other places taken it on myself to forecast what our party's attitude would be towards this clause. Our party was faced with this position by the Government: It either had to approve a continuance of the ban on aborigines voting in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory or oppose it, and in those circumstances we had no difficulty or hesitation whatever in deciding to oppose a continuance of the ban. The Minister has mentioned the matter of the relations between the two States and the Commonwealth. In other circumstances, Government supporters often allege that the Parliaments of the States are sovereign bodies. It is true that the Parliaments of the States can themselves decide the conditions of the suffrage and the conditions of membership for their parliaments, but our Parliament does not have to wait until the States have determined this matter. We have the right ourselves to decide who shall have the vote for both Houses of this Parliament and who shall be eligible to be a member of both Houses of this Parliament. It may be improper for us as a Parliament to say that the parliaments of Western Australia and Queensland should give a vote to aborigines, it would be just as improper for the Parliaments of those States to say that we should deny aborigines the vote for our Parliament. We are entitled to do as we want to do for our Parliament. It is invidious for the Government to refer to the position in Queensland and Western Australia. There is also the position of the Northern Territory. Every aboriginal born in the Northern Territory at some time in his minority is declared in the Government Gazette to be a ward and accordingly ineligible for the vote. Nobody but an aboriginal has ever been declared a ward and only twenty of the aborigines in the Northern Territory have never been declared wards. We can do what we like in the Northern Territory and we do not have to wait for Queensland and Western Australia to move in this matter before we can give votes for the Legislative Council of the Territory and for both Houses of the Parliament to aborigines in the Northern Territory. As the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** said, aborigines have a vote for the two Houses of the Parliament only in those States where they have a vote for the lower House of the State Parliament. We give them the vote in those States not because our act permits it but because the Constitution requires it. The Minister alleged that the Labour Minister for the Interior in the Chifley Government, the Honorable Victor Johnson, then M.P. for Kalgoorlie, had brought in the ban on aborigines. In fact, the ban on aborigines was put into the 1918 act when Labour was not in power in either House of the Parliament. The section imposing the ban in the 1918 act reads as follows: - >No aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific (except New Zealand) shall be entitled to have his name placed on or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election The section has remained in the act since 1918. What the Honorable Victor Johnson sponsored by his amendment was a vote for aborigines if they were or had been members of the Defence Forces. The appointment of a select committee would not have precluded a decision on this bill; the introduction of this bill a couple of weeks before the select committee was sought does not preclude the committee from making a recommendation. They are independent. We are entitled in this Parliament to decide what bill we will pass, and we had the bill before we were asked to set up a select committee. How long do we have to wait for the select committee to report? The Government members have not yet been appointed or elected to it. There is no committee in operation yet, but we are being asked to determine this bill now. There are, of course, difficulties in aborigines voting. I am glad that the Minister did not refer to any of the grounds that are commonly alleged as disentitling or disqualifying aborigines from voting. He merely referred to difficulties. The difficulties in aborigines voting are exactly the same as the difficulties attending all outback voting. They are the difficulties which attend small polling places presided over by a station owner or a station manager. It is true that mustering and other outback activities - " agricultural operations " as the academic from Adelaide University referred to them - do not cease on polling day. However, the people who are detained by these operations have a vote cast in their name. The whole position of outback voting at isolated polling places and on private stations ought to be looked at. It is not a disability to which aborigines alone are subject; it is a disability to which all jackeroos and other itinerant workers are subject. I will give a few figures to show the extraordinary unanimity of the anti-Labour vote in the outback. The Commonwealth does not publish these figures, but candidates can get them from their returning officers. I shall quote the figures for the last general election in the Division of Calare. There were several polling booths in which not one vote was cast for the Australian Labour Party; not one vote was cast for the Labour Party in polling booths where 41, 32, 26, 28, 19, 18, 40 and 22 votes were cast. There was one vote cast for the Labour Party in polling booths where 62 and 42 votes were cast. There were two votes cast for the Labour Party in two polling booths in each of which 36 votes were cast. There were three votes cast for the Labour Party in polling booths where 27, 43 and again 43 votes were cast. There must be skulduggery and dishonesty going on in these small outback polling places. The station manager perpetrates it. There is no such striking antiLabour feeling amongst these electors, but there is amongst the presiding officers. They are crooked and honorable members opposite know it and connive at it. The difficulties of aborigines voting attend all voting at these small, remote polling places on station properties, and that is the problem that this select committee will look into once the Government bestirs itself and appoints its members to it {: #subdebate-33-0-s20 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- I associate myself completely with the sentiments expressed by honorable members on the Government side. I have just listened to a speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** with which I do not agree. People hearing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the first time would think his speech very effective, but those of us who are constantly in this chamber and who heard his recent speeches on foreign affairs have a very different view of his effectiveness. During the course of his remarks, he criticized the conduct of a certain polling booth in the Calare electorate. In my electorate there is one polling booth at which, at all elections in which I have been interested except one - and they number five - 40 votes have been polled for the Labour candidate and one vote - that of my scrutineer - for me. At the remaining election, there were two votes for me and 39 for Labour, and the Labour Party conducted a witch hunt in an endeavour to find out who the second man was. It is absolutely futile to argue that there is any skulduggery in the conduct of the ballots in these areas. The plain truth is that some people in the country will not have a bar of Labour. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then talked about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when pleading for a vote for the aborigines. I understand that the Labour Party believes in extending the principles of that declaration to the Congolese natives, to the Tanganyikans, and other black people in Africa, and to the dark men in Asia, but its members do not extend them to the good Australian worker who is not allowed freedom of association. Nor are the principles of the declaration extended to the Labour Party's own members for they are denied freedom of speech. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- Rubbish! {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- It is not rubbish. Does the honorable member say that compulsory unionism is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The Australian worker is not allowed the ordinary freedoms which the Australian Labour Party demands for every Tom, Dick and Harry in every other part of the world. I look upon this proposal as an attempt to gain political advantage. Everybody should know that there are many difficult problems associated with aborigines which have yet to be settled. It is because we have those problems that a select committee is being appoined. If members of the Labour Party do not understand the problems associated with giving every aboriginal in Australia a vote, then they do not know anything about the life of Australian aborigines. For instance, I challenge any honorable member to discover the address of many of these aborigines. I do not look upon this proposal as a genuine attempt to obtain a vote for the aborigine. I look upon it as an attack upon the Australian Constitution. I look upon it as a suggestion of a type of apartheid. This House has already agreed to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the best methods of dealing with this great problem of giving the Australian aborigines the right to vote. Now the Opposition comes forward with a carte blanche proposal which it knows is not in the interest of the Australian aborigines. There is a tendency to-day for those who have not the interests of the native people at heart to try to hurry them along the road to progress. That is dangerous. Just imagine a walkabout aboriginal being subjected to pressure from a Labour, a Liberal or a Country Party politician! Does any one think the aboriginal could form a judgment on the problems that beset us in those circumstances? {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- I do not think the honorable member could do so. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- I know a great deal more about the natives than you do. The Opposition is trying to induce this Parliament to agree to something that has been submitted purely for political reasons yet it denies to its own members the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. {: #subdebate-33-0-s21 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Reid .- The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** says first that we have appointed a select committee to inquire into the question of granting a vote to aborigines in Australia and then he says that if we hurry the natives along to self-determination we shall be sorry for the results that will accrue. In other words, the honorable member for Hume has implied that the Opposition is hypocritical in bringing forward this proposal. The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** who is sitting at the table, also said that the Opposition was hypocritical in submitting the proposal. I remind honorable members that this Government has been in office since 1949 - for twelve years - and it has taken all that time to suggest the appointment of a select committee to consider this matter. It is only because the Government knew that the Opposition proposed submitting an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which had for its purpose the granting to Australian aborigines of the right to vote that it came forward with this gimmick in the shape of a select committee. We all remember that the Government appointed a select committee, known as the Constitutional Review Committee, to consider certain amendments to the Constitution. That committee consisted of six members from the Government side and six members from the Opposition. It sat for two years and its report has been before the Government for two years, but nothing has yet been done about implementing its recommendations. The select committee that is to be appointed on this occasion is to consist of four members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. The Opposition has already selected its three nominees, but when the Minister was asked whether the Government had selected its four members, there was no answer. He could not give us the names of the four Government nominees. {: .speaker-KXW} ##### Mr Pearce: -- I rise to order. Is the honorable member in order in debating select committees when we are discussing the Commonwealth Electoral Bill? {: #subdebate-33-0-s22 .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Select committees and their relation to the matters covered by this clause have been mentioned. The honorable member is in order in referring to the select committee appointed to inquire into the granting of a vote to aborigines provided he relates his remarks to the clause under discussion. I suggest to him, however, that he should not devote the whole of his speech to a discussion of select committees. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN: -- The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** has reminded me that honorable members on the Government side do not have a say in the appointment of these select committees, that the Prime Minister makes the decisions for the other side, and that consequently honorable members on the Government side must be " Yes " men if they aspire to appointment to a committee. The lead must be given by the Commonwealth Government on this aboriginal question and it has neglected to give that lead for far too long. It has been argued that the Labour Government did not do this or that in the past. We of the Opposition do not contend that Labour governments of the past were perfect. It must be remembered that both the Chifley Government and the Curtin Government were in office during a very difficult war period and were not then able to do anything about the aborigines because of the many other pressing problems requiring attention. Now, the Labour Party is living up to its responsibilities and urging that Australian aborigines be given the right to vote at federal elections. They now have the right to vote in State elections for the lower House in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. In the home State of the Minister for the Interior - Western Australia - the Hawke Labour Government sought to give aborigines the right to vote in connexion with the election of members to the lower House but the proposal was strenuously opposed by the conservative upper House in which the majority of the members represented the same party as that represented in this chamber by the Minister for the Interior. He has talked about the Labour Party indulging in hypocrisy, but the Minister and the members of the Government should examine their own house. There is a problem in the Northern Territory. In many respects the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** has done a good job, but this is not a game of throwing bouquets. This is a matter of principle. The principle is that the aborigines of Australia should have the right to vote, and that is the principle of the amendment moved by the Opposition. We believe that all aborigines in this country should have the right to vote in elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. {: #subdebate-33-0-s23 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- The observations of the honorable member for Reid **(Mr. Uren)** represented as priceless a piece of humbug as one could imagine. He referred to principles and said that all Australian aborigines should have a vote. I have been a jackaroo on properties in the far west of Queensland, and I know that some of the aborigines on the mustering camps have seen an aeroplane go over and have referred to it as a high-powered buggy. I put it to the honorable gentleman and to the committee: Do honorable members believe that one could take hold of a mentality of that description and project it into a civilized community and make it embrace all the responsibilities of democracy and understand the obligations and complexities of voting? If so, the honorable gentleman and the committee, indeed, are seriously misunderstanding the intelligence of the aborigines. The House came to an agreement - I would have imagined that it was an eminently sensible, fair, and, above all, rational agreement - that it would appoint representatives, on a non-partisan basis, to consider the full ramifications of this problem. Do honorable members believe that one could go out to some of the aborigines in the far west of Queensland and say to them, in homely style: " Brothers, you have a vote on Saturday. You must vote for Labour"? If the honorable member for Reid did so the aborigines would be puzzled and I do not know whether they would regard him as a great white chief or as a specialist in yo-yo. This is a serious problem to which I would have thought the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** with his impeccable sense of honesty and judgment, had devoted his attention. But honorable members opposite, and in particular the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam),** have sought to make political capital out of it. I believe that one observation which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made this afternoon stands as a blot upon his escutcheon and upon that of the Labour Party. It was one of the most monstrous observations I would have believed possible to have been made by any person in this place, and if the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** had been in the chamber no doubt he would have turned to him and hit him either with his hand or with a tranquillizing dart in a sensitive part of his anatomy. He accused the presiding officers in federal elections of skulduggery. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- And quite right, too. They all do it in the back country. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- Aha, here it is! This sounds like choir practice. I am pleased to find that the honorable member agrees with his deputy leader. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- There is skulduggery, plenty of it. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- The honorable member repeats it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when 1 interjected with characteristic courtesy, said to me, " It is crook, and you know it ". All I can say is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was reminded of the circumstances which took place when the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** was disappointed in the ballot. He said to him, " lt is crook, and you know it ". And there he is! He has reflected that statement here this evening. I believe his was a monstrous charge to make against the presiding officers; to accuse them of skulduggery, and to say to them, " It is crook, and you know it ". I hope that the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** with his sense of justice, will rise during the course of this debate and apologize 10 the committee for what one may euphemistically describe as the mental aberration of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He should be ashamed of himself. {: #subdebate-33-0-s24 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** spoke about the insistency of the Opposition in appointing three members to a select committee and yet having a view on this matter before the select committee reported. I do not think the Minister should be so ready to suggest that the actions of the Opposition are limited by the fact that it decided to co-operate with the Government on a vital matter. I believe the Government ought to recognize that the Labour Party may be prepared to enact a law now to confer voting rights on aborigines, but as the Government is the government of this country and has a very large majority in this chamber, if the tempo of the Government's reform is to be the tempo of the select committee, how foolish we would be not to be represented on the select committee. If we had refused to go on the select committee on the ground that we thought such a law ought to be enacted now, our attitude in refusing to cooperate with the Government in investigating the question of aboriginal voting would also have been used against us. The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** has spoken of primitive aborigines. He knows that if we were to enact a law now which said that every aboriginal had the right to vote it would not be practicable for people to chase all the nomadic natives with ballot-boxes and so those natives would not get a vote. Their votes would not be recorded. There is nobody who knows this better than does the Minister for the Interior because his electorate contains some of these people. There are many people in Western Australia, classified as aborigines, who are people of mixed European and aboriginal race, living around towns like Katanning in the Minister's electorate- {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- You are mixing up your boundaries. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- That may be so. There are many people in such towns as Katanning where the Minister distinguished himself as a lawyer in representing these people. I am sorry I did not know that the boundaries of the Minister's electorate have changed, but he acted for aboriginal people at Katanning. An honorable member appears to query that statement. Well, I am not going to make points against the Minister. I know that, as a lawyer, he was a very important friend of the people classified as aborigines in Western Australia who were of mixed race and some of whom had rather a tough time from the police under the laws of that State. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- No. What rot! {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- They had, on the question of drinking. They are always in trouble on that question, because it is an offence for them to drink in Western Australia. Members know how impossible the position is in areas where it is considered that citizenship rights for aborigines - as in Western Australia - have almost come to mean the right to drink rather than the right to vote. It is a deplorable situation. But 1 do not think that even if we enacted a law and enabled every aboriginal to vote, any Commonwealth authority would be stupid enough to prosecute all those aborigines who did not vote. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Of course not. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- There are risks attendant on granting the vote, and there are also risks attendant on the situation that we have to-day. There is a very distinguished aboriginal in Perth who is an officer of the Department of Native Welfare and who has no vote. There are some very highly educated aborigines in Western Australia who have refused to apply for Australian citizenship because to obtain it they must go to the State Government and make application, and they regard that as an insult. They were born in this country and are its original inhabitants yet the law of that State does not confer citizenship upon them. I know that some of those points are arguable. I am perfectly prepared to concede to anybody that the Labour Party has taken a very different view on this subject since members like the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** have come into this chamber from that taken in the past, and I hope it will constantly adjust its views. There are many things that we decided in the past which are not now valid and this is one of them. It is wrong for the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** to suggest that we are doing damage to our country by speaking in this way. He seems to be concerned that our discussions on this matter will be construed as showing a division of opinion on a racial question, and that this will damage our prestige. I believe that what is really damaging in the world to-day is the attempt to cover up. If the honorable member for Hume were to study speeches made by the highest officers of the Department of Territories, and by the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** himself, at political science summer schools, he might be able to point to what he could call most damaging admissions, which could be used as propaganda against Australia by any one who cared to do so. But I believe that if propaganda damaging to this country is soundly based, then the country's policies should be changed. It seems to me that real patriotism consists in advocating such a change, not in taking the stand that this is a subject that should not be mentioned. {: #subdebate-33-0-s25 .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt .- I very much regret that the Government is proceeding with this bill at the present time. I have consistently advocated, both in this Parliament and outside it, that the aboriginal native should have the same right to a vote as any other Australian-born citizen. However, I am not unmindful of the difficulties that are involved, and I believe the correct procedure would be to postpone the implementation of legislation of this kind until after we receive the report of the proposed select committee. I am sure that every member of this Parliament agrees that there should be no discrimination against aboriginal natives. However, every thinking member of the Parliament also realizes that there are very great difficulties to be surmounted before that principle can be fully implemented. I. for one, would hate to see the Parliament provide that it shall be an offence for aboriginal natives in their tribal state to fail to enrol. The question of requiring natives to enrol is, I suggest, one of the matters for the select committee to consider. Should we discriminate against white Australians by maintaining a provision that it shall be an offence for them to fail to enrol, while such a failure on the part of aboriginal natives shall not constitute an offence? We must consider whether it is fair and practicable to provide by law that an aboriginal native who is still in his tribal state commits an offence if he does not enrol, when obviously he does not know what enrolment means or what a vote means. This merely emphasizes the need for an investigation by the select committee. Amongst other matters that the committee will have to investigate is the question of whether an aboriginal native in the tribal state should be compelled to vote, and, if he is so compelled, of what arrangements should be made for him to vote. Are we to establish polling places in the remote parts of the Northern Territory and the north of Western Australia? Are we to send electoral officers to those places to guide the aboriginal natives who cannot read or write and show them how to vote? How are are we going to do about enrolling them when they cannot read or write? How are they going to fill in the usual enrolment card? So 1 say, **Sir, that** there are many matters that have to be considered by the select committee before legislation such as this can be implemented. I find myself, therefore, in the position of being unable to support the Government's proposal, as contained in clause 4 of the bill, and I also find myself unable to support the Labour Party's amendment, because it does not deal with the question of how aboriginal natives in their tribal state are to be enabled to cast votes. I want to make my attitude perfectly clear. I believe that aboriginal natives should have the same right to vote as any other Australian-born persons. At the same time I believe that they should not be compelled to enrol and also that we should devise methods such as those that have been adopted in New Guinea and elsewhere of enabling the natives to vote in such a way that they will understand what they are doing. We know perfectly well that the great majority of them at the present time will not understand our system of voting. For these reasons I support neither clause 4 nor the proposed amendment. **Mr. CLYDE** CAMERON (Hindmarsh) 18.56]. - I find myself to a large extent in agreement with some of the remarks of the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson).** I believe he was right, up to a point, when he said that the Government should not have brought this bill down until we had received the report of the select committee. However, the Government seems to be more interested in getting the bill through than in putting the select committee to work. Although the Labour Party has long since selected its representatives on the committee, so far as I am aware the Government has done absolutely nothing about selecting its nominees. If it has selected them, and I understand that it has not, it has certainly shown no enthusiasm for getting the committee on the job, so that it may present an early report and legislation may be prepared as a result of that report. In common with other members on the Government side, the honorable member for Sturt tried to stress the difficulties attendant upon implementing a plan to give aborigines the right to vote. Great emphasis was placed on the position of the tribal aborigines. But what was conveniently overlooked was the fact that there are thousands of de-tribalized natives who have no vote, and who could be given a vote at once, without any of the difficulties that it is suggested would be encountered in giving the vote to natives still living in tribal conditions. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- How long has this been the policy of the Labour Party? {: #subdebate-33-0-s26 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It has been the policy of the Labour Party for years that the natives of Australia should be given the right to vote. I remind the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton)** that the Labour Party has pledged its adherence to principles enunciated by the United Nations. Article 55 of the United Nations Charter says - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the United Nations shall promote: {: type="a" start="c"} 0. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. That is a principle to which the Australian Labour Party has adhered for many years. Article 56 of the United Nations Charter, which the Labour Party endorses, says - >All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- When was that drawn up? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I would like to remind the honorable member for Canning, who is shortly, I understand, to retire from this Parliament, and who I also am given to understand will contest a State seat against the Liberal member in his district - and 1 wish him well - that Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 1. Everyone has the right of equal access to the public service in his country. 2. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. As a matter of fact, it is worth mentioning before we go further on the matter of the aborigines that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations has still not been implemented in South Australia in respect of people who are looked upon as of European origin. It is not true to say that in South Australia we have the right of free and equal voting. The seats are so gerrymandered that the people living in the areas of South Australia which normally vote Liberal, the farming communities- {: #subdebate-33-0-s27 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member is getting wide of the bill. To a large degree, many of those who have spoken already have gone a little wide of clause 4. I remind honorable members that this is not a debate on the rights of the people to universal franchise, but on the aborigines in particular. This part of the bill has no relation at all to the rights of any other people in respect of elections. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I think that is a very wise ruling, **Mr. Chairman.** I wish you had given it a little earlier because I had been hoping to reply to some of the remarks that have been made by Government supporters. However, I will not pursue that point any further. Too much emphasis has been placed on the difficulties associated with tribal aborigines. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Do you not agree that there are difficulties? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am glad the honorable member for Moreton has returned to the chamber, because I want to say something about his speech. Too much emphasis has been placed on the position of tribal aborigines. Honorable members have overlooked altogether the fact that there are thousands of aborigines in the Northern Territory who are capable of exercising the franchise now, but they have been denied that right by the decisions of this Parliament. There is no need for us to go to Queensland or Western Australia or any of the other States. Let us look at the Territories that are completely under our control, such as the Northern Territory. There is absolutely no excuse for not giving the aborigines in the Territory the right to vote immediately. The honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** talked about the difficulties of giving people who cannot read or write an opportunity to vote. He asked, " How are they going to enrol if they cannot read or write? ". Let me remind him that under section 120 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, provision is made for people who cannot read and write. I have many persons in my electorate who cannot read or write, but under section 120 they are entitled to vote and be helped in any way they need. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr Kelly: -- An open vote! {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- There are plenty of people who would exercise an open vote in accordance with section 120. If the Government is really sincere in this matter it should accept the Opposition's amendment. There is no difficulty about it. The Government can show its sincerity and satisfy the members of the United Nations who are looking to us to prove our bona fides in this matter by accepting the Opposition's amendment. That would show that we practise what we preach, that we do not believe in racial discrimination and that we do not believe in putting the original inhabitants of this country on a lower level than those who have followed them. At this time when the Afro-Asian group represents such an important and influential section of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Australia should grasp the opportunity now to prove to the world that we do not regard our aborigines as inferior people. {: #subdebate-33-0-s28 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Canning .- Once again members of the Opposition are using the proceedings of the Parliament for tactical purposes. Not long ago - within the past fortnight - the Opposition supported a move to appoint a select committee of this chamber to inquire into the vexed problem of voting rights for aborigines. One would think that as men of responsibility, having committed themselves in that way, Opposition members would let things stand until the select committee had had an opportunity to inquire into this matter before making any other move. To-night, we find that they are trying to remove portion of a section of the act which gives a vote to certain aborigines. That section has been in the act for years. While the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** was speaking, 1 tried to find out by interjection how long the Labour Party had supported the views that he was putting before the committee. I did not quite get the answer, but one honorable member passed me a note to say that the change happened in 1953. Then we were treated to a recitation by the honorable member of portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the Charter of the United Nations. If my memory serves me correctly, that dates back to about 1945 or 1946. At that time the previous Leader of the Opposition was President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the Labour Party had had any real intention of doing something for the unfortunate aborigines, it would have done so then when it had the opportunity. The previous Labour Government could have done something between 1946 and 1949. But the original act shows that when the amendment was brought forward in 1949, the Labour Party did absolutely nothing about it but let the matter rest. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- It gave the vote to aborigines who were ex-servicemen. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I am not taking any credit away from the Labour Government. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- You said it did nothing. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- You did nothing about the particular provision we are talking about. It is all right to be very nice to-night, but do not bring forward those matters because it has been recognized for many years that if an aboriginal served in the armed forces, he would get the vote. The Labour Party validated that provision on that occasion by including in the relevant section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in respect of persons eligible to vote the words - is or has been a member of the Defence Force. The Labour Government had already agreed to the United Nations Charter and one of its Ministers at that time was the president of the United Nations. What is the intention of the provision before the committee? lt merely renumbers the section. In the original act it is section 39, sub-section (5.), and the provision about aborigines is now to be altered to section 39, sub-section (6.), but not one word in respect of the aborigines is being altered by this Government. When it was thought that some move might be made in respect of the aborigines, the Government suggested the appointment of a select committee. The Opposition fell in with that proposal and has appointed three members to the select committee. Now, the Opposition wants to cut across the work of the select committee before it starts to inquire into this vexed question. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** became confused when speaking on this matter to-night, and I do not wonder that the aborigines are confused. The honorable member was confused about the boundaries of my electorate. He put portion of it into the electorate of the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth).** I want to say this, and the honorable member for Fremantle can swallow it as best he can: I was a member of the Constitutional Review Committee. We took evidence in Western Australia about the natives. During the morning tea break, I said to those people who were putting forward the case of the aborigines, " How far afield have you been on the question affecting these natives?" They had been to Narrogin, which is 120 miles from Perth. They had never been to Katanning, Tambellup, Gnowangerup or Kojonup. Members of the Labour Party who were on the committee were told by representatives of these people that the Labour Party need not think that it would catch all the votes by pandering to the aborigines. Once again we find, in this place, that members of the Opposition, having agreed to a certain line of action - the appointment of a select committee to inquire into this matter - are not prepared to conform to that agreement. I ask them not to confuse the Constitution with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. If the Constitution is to be blamed, the fundamental cause of this problem goes right back to the founding fathers before 1901. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Do not blame them. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I am not blaming them. But we do blame some members of the Opposition, because, when they were in government and since, they have had ample opportunity to discuss this question of the native population. They have run this way for a moment and have then dashed off at a tangent somewhere else, the whole time thinking that they would capture the vote of the aborigines. They have another think coming. I think it is a disgraceful exhibition of statesmanship for members of the Opposition, after having agreed to a course of action with which I think every citizen in Australia would agree - the appointment of a select committee - to try to drag a red herring across the path of this bill. They are trying to create a disturbance in the minds of people who are honestly, though perhaps misguidedly, trying to do something for the aborigines. If they studied the Electoral Act they would be much better informed. All this clause proposes to do is to move a certain provision from section 39, subsection (5.) to section 39, sub-section (6.). This conforms to ideas to which the Labour Party has subscribed. Opposition members have had the opportunity to alter this provision and they have never done so. It accords with the principles to which they have subscribed through the years, and it does not affect in any way the idea of having a select committee to inquire into the matter. If we were foolish enough to support the amendment moved by the Opposition where would we stand in regard to the select committee which was set up so recently? Finally, we must remember this: Until the Constitution is altered, the State governments have some responsibility for the aborigines. Rather than go too far, I think it might be better if this matter were tackled from another direction altogether. {: #subdebate-33-0-s29 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- If the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton)** would only spend as much time chasing clauses as he spends in chasing votes he would be of more use in this place. The honorable member was apparently a member of the Constitutional Review Committee. When the committee ceased its deliberations in 1958 it had given some consideration to the very important question of making laws with respect to aborigines. The committee did not complete its inquiries on this issue and, consequently, no recommendations were made. In other words, the Constitutional Review Committee had no time to deal with the matter. The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** said that I had my head in the clouds. Honorable members on the other side, of the chamber can rest assured that when the people of Australia realize their attitude to this matter they will have fleas in their electoral ears. Let me start with the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** who is concerned, as is the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson),** with the position of the aborigines who may well be primitives, but who nevertheless have had votes in South Australian State elections since 1902. Apparently it was possible to overcome the difficulties in South Australia. Why can the Commonwealth Government not enable aborigines in other States to vote at Commonwealth general elections? On that point, the Government's case falls to the ground. The honorable member for Sturt said that he could not vote for the Opposition's amendment although he could not vote with Government supporters either because he is in doubt about the position. Why does not he look at the position in his own State? There are about 6,000 aborigines in South Australia. Many of whom live in such a primitive state that the Aborigines Welfare Board does not even count them, yet this has not inhibited in any way the granting of a vote to aborigines in that State. Why cannot South Australian members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party agree to give to the aborigines of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory the same right that is enjoyed by the aborigines of their own State? The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** spoke about primitive aborigines in remote spots. Why does he not visit Palm Island where there have been schools since 1919 and where there are 600 or 700 adult aborigines, most of them literate and capable of handling their own affairs although the Queensland department concerned will not admit it and they have not had a vote? In the next federal elections some 70 white people on the island will vote and some 700 aborigines will not. This is the position all over Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member for Moreton will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- He is being rude. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- I am simply asking you to examine this with your well known critical mind. If you would only apply yourself to this question and criticize your own party's viewpoint in the same way as you sometimes criticize ours you might bring something more productive to this chamber. Every argument put forward from the other side of the chamber can be invalidated in the light of the facts existing in Australia at the moment. Let us take the position created by the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck).** He has given the vote to aborigines in the Northern Territory with any European blood in their veins. Yet if those people cross the border into Queensland cannot vote. Why will the Minister not take action to enable those people to vote if they move to Queensland or Western Australia? This is an anomaly. How can the Minister justify his attitude on these matters? Why is it that honorable members from New South Wales, where aborigines have had the vote for years, will not support the right of their aboriginal constituents to vote if they move to Queensland? {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- I rise to order. Is it in order for the honorable member for Wills to give the same speech twice in one night? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The point of order is not upheld. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- These arguments have been raised by honorable members opposite since I spoke last, I am grateful, **Mr. Chairman,** for the opportunity to speak to those members who, before the suspension of the sitting, were dilatory and were absent from the chamber. I am grateful, also, for the opportunity to speak to those who are here again. It will do them good to hear me twice. The honorable member foi Bowman **(Mr. McColm),** perhaps, will be able to adopt a better attitude as a result of hearing me speak twice on this issue. All the arguments produced by honorable members opposite have been invalidated. I have come to the conclusion that honorable members opposite are hiding behind a select committee. I know very well that it will not produce its report before- {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- That is because you are not on it. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- The Labour Party made its decision before the select committee was announced. The Minister came out of his seat in a death bed repentance on this question because it is a burning issue all over Australia. A select committee was established some weeks ago, but the Prime Minister has not nominated the Government members of it. Therefore, the select committee has no validity as far as this particular provision is concerned. This Parliament has to make its decision now. The honorable member for Sturt may well leave the chamber. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would vote with us on this issue. You cannot have it both ways. The honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney),** in January or February, at a meeting in Perth, made, I understand, a rousing speech in which he talked about full equality for the aborigines of Australia. Now is his chance to prove that he meant what he said. The aborigines of Western Australia could well be given the vote by the Government there, as I have pointed out before, but apparently it has not got through to honorable members opposite. Only two or three years ago a Labour government in Western Australia provided for this in a bill, but the bill was rejected by the upper House of that State. The facts are that this Parliament confers citizenship on everybody bom in the Commonwealth. Aborigines are citizens, but we allow the State parliaments to remove from them the rights which we ourselves have conferred. {: .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr Chresby: -- Only 20,000 of the 70,000 aborigines in Queensland have the vote. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- I will write to the honorable member about it later. Perhaps if he takes time to study my letter he will understand what this is all about. The facts are that we are allowing the initiative to lie with other parliaments. I am glad to see that honorable members opposite are able to wring some humour out of a situation which is, unfortunately, one which will seriously reflect on the people of Australia as a whole, and not only on those honorable members, if their constituents continue to elect them as their representatives in this place. I personally know many aborigines well. I can show you a man now living in Victoria who has the right to vote in Commonwealth elections, but who will lose the right to vote if he returns to Queensland. We ought at least to provide in our law that any aboriginal who secures the right to vote at Commonwealth elections may not have it taken from him by the law of a State. The present position is that aborigines have the right to vote in Victoria and New South Wales, but the Queensland Parliament takes that right from them if they go there, because we allow this law to remain on our statutebooks. I am not appealing to people's emotions or anything of that nature. I simply ask the Government to apply the faculties of reason, with which most honorable members are endowed, to the facts of life as they exist in the electoral system. Let "honorable members opposite make a simple examination of the electoral laws as they apply to aborigines, and give to the aborigines in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory the rights which are freely conferred, and which nobody thinks of taking away, on aborigines in "New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. **Mr. FREETH** (Forrest- Minister for the Interior [9.23].- The honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** has used again the argument that he used previously to-night. On the former occasion I said that he rather had his head in the clouds. Let me make it clear once again, if it was not clear to him in the first place, that nobody quarrels with his ideals. Let me make it clear that everybody hopes that it will be practicable to give aborigines the vote if they want it. But the difficulties involved in giving aborigines the vote, if they want it, in accordance with our particular electoral laws are many. It is rather significant that the only places in the Commonwealth where there are considerable numbers of aborigines most nearly in their original state are the places which recognize those practical difficulties. Where there are relatively few aborigines, the State Governments concerned have decided that there may be odd difficulties but that that does not matter. Where there are large numbers of aborigines, the difficulties are recognized. The honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** tred to argue that none of these difficulties was any different in kind from the difficulties that exist with certain types of Australian white voters in certain cases. He mentioned illiterates, and then he went on to make some very heated and rather shameful accusations about improper activities at outback polling booths. Then, if you please, the only evidence that he had to support his accusations was that no votes for the Labour Party were recorded at some of those booths. I have heard stories about voting at outback polling boths in north Queensland where there is rarely a vote recorded for the Liberal Party or the Country Party, but we do not say that that results necessarily from any improper action on the part of the electoral officers there. It results from the congregation of certain people who think alike either by persuasion or because they happen to be the same kind of people. But there are not the difficulties which exist in regard to natives. First of all, there is the question of compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting. I dare say that if we decided not to apply this provision and to have an honorable understanding that, if a native did not want to enrol or did not want to vote, we would not force him to do so, but would leave it entirely to the discretion of the electoral officer, an electoral officer in the north-west of Western Australia might apply a rather different practice from that applied by an electoral officer in the north of Queensland. Or should we incorporate a provision in the act making voting non-compulsory for the people who do not want to vote or do not understand what it is all about? When you get an illiterate into a polling both, he must be assisted to vote, but he must have some knowledge of whom he wants to vote for, because he has to instruct the electoral officer accordingly. If you have somebody in the polling booth who does not know what it is all about and has not the slightest clue to the identity of the candidates or what they are standing for or anything else, how can this particular section of the act come into force? These things must be examined. It may not matter, perhaps, where there are only two, or a dozen or even 100 such people in a State of 1,000,000 people, but in a State with 500,000 people where you may have some thousands of illiterates, the problem assumes large proportions. I am rather sorry for the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** who, I think, differs no whit in his ideals from other members of the Government parties. He apparently does not understand the situation that arises in regard to this particular amendment. This only re-enacts the existing situation. The rest of the bill is brought in for other reasons and to deal with other provisions. If he cannot support the status quo at least until the select committee brings in its report, I am rather sorry for him. I come to one final point. Several members of the Opposition have made some play to-night on the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet appointed the Government members who will sit on this select committee. By interjection I gave an assurance to one Labour member that if the Government members had not already been appointed, they would be appointed within the next day or so. Checking up, I am told that these members have been appointed and that the notification is in writing and on its way to **Mr. Speaker,** in accordance with the normal requirements. The only thing that prevents me from announcing the names now is that I do not know whether that communication is yet in the hands of the Speaker, but I understand it is already on its way. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- What was the voting on that? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- There is no voting in the Government parties on such matters. We do not have the troubles that you have in the Labour Party. 1 know that the honorable member for Wills is broken-hearted because he did not get a guernsey in this matter, but we have far fewer troubles and far more peace in our party meetings than honorable members opposite have in theirs. Let that be disposed of once and for all. The Government does intend to press on with this select committee. It has taken the necessary action to appoint it. I hope that honorable members opposite will let this matter be voted on very shortly. We have had a long and exhaustive argument on it and I think that most matters have been canvassed on one side or the other. {: #subdebate-33-0-s30 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- I would not have risen to speak except for certain statements made by the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton),** which, I think, need answering because they related to a time when the Labour Party was in office. The first thing that must be realized is that there was a general belief that the Commonwealth had to follow the States in this matter. We are indebted to the Constitutional Review Committee for disillusioning many people on this aspect of the matter. This erroneous belief was based on a misreading of section 41 of the Constitution. I believe that the same misapprehension was in the mind, for a time, of the Minister who is particularly responsible for law. Section 41 of the Constitution says that no adult person who has or acquires the right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of Parliament of the State in which he resides shall, while that right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. That was interpreted to mean that the Commonwealth must follow the States. In actual fact, it does not mean that. It means that the Commonwealth may not be less generousthan a State in conferring the right to vote. But it can be more generous than the State in conferring the right. However, that wasnot generally recognized, although these matters were discussed. The honorable member for Canning said that the Australian Labour Party introduced no amendment of section 39 of the principal act. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- I corrected that. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- Yes . I am glad that the honorable member did so. The Labour Government introduced this provision about aborigines who had been members of the defence forces. That was believed to be a matter in which the Commonwealth could move because the Commonwealth powersover repatriation, defence and the like would cover it. But, otherwise, the rather oblique wording of section 41 of the principal act, and also of placitum (xxvi.) of section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth power to legislate with respect to the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, foi' whom it is deemed necessary to make special: laws, inhibited the action of the Commonwealth. I think that before we get this select committee out of perspective, we ought to look at the steps that have been taken in the introduction of this bill. The select committee has been within our knowledge only over the last two weeks; this bill was introduced late last year. When it was re-introduced this year, it was before us long before the proposal for the appointment of the select committee. There was an understanding with the Government that the Opposition would discuss the measure at the next party meeting after i:s re-introduction and be prepared to go on with it. At our next party meeting, we decided on these amendments. Subsequently, the Government brought forward the proposal for the appointment of the select committee. The Opposition is entitled to its point of view. Based on our experience over the last twelve years, realism suggests to us that our view will not prevail and that the Government has chosen another method - that of appointing a select committee. We have not rejected the idea of appointing that committee, but all those honorable members o" this side of the chamber who believe that this Parliament can go ahead, and legislate in this matter without waiting for the report of a select committee, are not obliged to abandon their views because the Government has chosen this other method. I think that the two sides of the chamber can disagree in this matter. We have heard these charges of hypocrisy and vote-seeking. I personally do not care if every aborigina! upon whom is conferred the right to vote decides to vote against the Australian Labour Party. I think that those in the Great Southern area of Western Australia, for instance, may well take the view taken by the farmers who employ them, and they may as a consequence vote for the Australian Country Party. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Many of them may support the Liberal Party of Australia. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I forgot for the moment that the Minister represents part of that area. It is true that some of these aborigines may vote Liberal. But what on earth has that to do with the matter? That is beside the point. The point is we either believe or do not believe that aborigines are ready now to exercise the right to vote. {: #subdebate-33-0-s31 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley **.- Mr. Chairman,** I shall be very brief in my remarks on this matter. May I say at the outset that many honorable members deprecate the efforts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam),** the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** and other Opposition members who have attempted to make a party political issue of this problem concerning the Australian aborigines. May I say further that this illustrates the difference between the attitude of the Australian Labour Party when it is in opposition and its attitude when it is in office. While Labour was in office in 1949, this matter occupied the minds of the Australian Labour Party caucus in this Parliament a great deal. The problem then occupied the minds of the members of the Cabinet. This will be recalled by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** who were members of the Chifley Government. They recognized that there were many problems associated with the conferring of voting rights on aborigines. It is true that the Labour Government extended the right to vote to an increased number of Australian aborigines, and this move was approved by the present Government parties, which were then in opposition, and acclaimed by the Australian people. However, the Chifley Government, in its wisdom - I do not decry or criticize it for so doing - retained a degree of restriction on the number of aborigines deemed as qualified to vote at federal elections. It recognized that great problems were involved in this issue. The attitude adopted in this debate by members of the Australian Labour Party suggests to our thoughts two alternatives: Are we to believe that the remarks made this evening, not by all Opposition speakers, but by persons such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Wills, indicate that the Labour Cabinet of 1949 was entirely devoid of wisdom and did not fully appreciate this problem? Or are we to believe that the remarks of these honorable members this evening indicate that those honorable members believe that since Labour went out of office in 1949 the Australian aborigines have had an opportunity to develop under the administration of this Government to a point at which to-day they all are qualified to vote in federal elections? The answer is " No ", **Sir. The** fact is that neither of these propositions is really true. The truth of the matter is that the Australian Labour Party is now in opposition and its members are trying to develop over this issue a political situation favorable to themselves. No member of this Parliament who is sincere will deny that very profound problems are involved in the subject of voting rights for Australian aborigines. I believe that this Government - I am sure that every Opposition member who is honest in his own heart agrees with me - has acted with the greatest wisdom in proposing to insert proposed new sub-section (6.) in section 39 of the principal act and at the same time moving for the appointment of a select committee representative of both sides of this chamber to study the problem of voting rights for aborigines. That select committee will be able to inform itself on the matter and bring back proposals which can be considered by honorable members with a view to ensuring that justice is done to the Australian aborigines in the matter of the right to vote in elections of members to this Parliament. May I suggest, **Sir, that** if members of the Australian Labour Party are sincere they will not even call for a division on this Opposition amendment. If the Opposition does call for a division, I can conclude only that Opposition members now insinuate that the Labour caucus and the Chifley Cabinet in 1949 were incompetent and that none of the brains of the Labour Party resided in those bodies; or, alternatively, that the present Government has done so much for the Australian aborigines, and has enabled them to develop their capacities so much since 1949, that they all are now qualified for full voting rights in federal elections. Question put - >That the sub-section proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** stand part of the clause. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 57 NOES: 39 Majority . . . . 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1420 {:#debate-34} ### TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961 {:#subdebate-34-0} #### In Committee of Ways and Means: {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Customs Tariff (Damping and Subsidies) Amendment (No. 1) Consideration resumed from 27th April (vide page 1220), on motion by **Mr. Osborne** - {: type="A" start="A"} 0. That duties of customs be imposedin accordance with the following provisions: - . . (vide page 1214). Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. {:#subdebate-34-2} #### Ordered - >That **Mr. Osborne** and **Mr. Opperman** do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. {: .page-start } page 1420 {:#debate-35} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL 1961 Bill presented by **Mr. Osborne,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP -- I move - That the bill be now read a second time. I do not propose to make a lengthy speech on this motion, having said all that was necessary in moving the proposals which this bill is intended to enact. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- The procedure we have gone through to-night is an essential procedure when dealing with a measure which imposes customs duties. The Opposition agreed to the proposals which preceded the introduction of this bill. It did so to shorten the debate and to show that on the general principle of the protection of Australian industry, the Opposition traditionally stands firm and fast as always, whether the protection is afforded through customs tariffs, dumping duties or any other method devised by the Parliament to achieve this objective. The Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Osborne)** in introducing the original resolution explained the reason prompting the Government to introduce this bill, which repeals the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1957. In essence, it means that over the long period from 1921 to 1957 the present act has been proved to be inefficient in carrying out the intentions of this Parliament to protect the industries of this country against the dumping practices of other countries which seek to compete unfairly with the products of Australian industries. The original act was amended in 1921, 1922, 1933, 1936, 1956 and 1957 and, despite all those amendments, we have now reached the stage at which - all too late - because of the adverse balance of payments position and because of the outcry from Australian manufacturers for something to be done to protect Australian industries, the Government has determined that the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act shall be brought up to date to meet the present difficult economic situation. What the Government is doing is at least two years too late and may well be too little. As far back as August, 1959, the Tariff Board, which is generally accepted by all parties in this Parliament as being a fairly accurate and responsible guide to the need for the protection of Australian industries, warned us in its annual report of the need to amend the law relating to the protection of Australian industries against dumping. Twenty precious months went by after that and this Government made no move. Now, in an era that knows the credit squeeze and in which many of Australia's industries have suffered the results of the removal of import controls, in an era in which we have not even selective control of imports, in an era in which both the Australian worker and the manufacturer who employs him have suffered agonies the Government belatedly, and without giving the Opposition sufficient time to study the measure, introduces an amendment to the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act and asks Parliament to agree to it. Why did not the Government do this twenty months ago? Why did it not act promptly? No government in the history of federation has convened the Parliament so infrequently and achieved so little for Australian industries as this Government has. It has been content to trust to luck, to hope for the best, to continue with a policy of laisser-faire until at last we have reached the crucial stage at which the promptings, appeals and urgings of Australian industries have moved the Government to take action which, after twenty months, is probably too late. What does this amending bill do? First it completely obliterates the original act. Secondly, it revises those sections of the original act which, with the passage of the years, have been proved to be inadequate in some respects to meet the needs of the times and the developments that have taken place not only since the legislation was introduced but also since the many amendments were made to it. For instance, the bill contains a more explicit definition of those particular activities which can be detrimental to Australian trade. In the original act, and in the earlier amendments, there was no provision designed to protect an Australian industry which is only visualized, which may not yet actually exist. This bill provides that action may be taken in certain circumstances to protect an Australian industry, or a visualized Australian industry, against dumping by other countries, lt enables the protection of industries by the imposition of a dumping duty. That alone modernizes the law, and that is desirable. The bill provides that if an industry that is contemplating establishing itself in Australia might be hindered by the dumping of goods from overseas - perhaps by a country that has a low wage standard or which has an embarrassing surplus of goods and finds it profitable or expedient to dump them in Australia at below cost, or below their normal market value - a dumping duty may be imposed for the protection of the contemplated industry. To that extent, this measure is an improvement on the existing law. As always, the Opposition supports an amendment which seeks to protect Australian industries. The opportunity is also taken to protect Australian industries against a wide range of other circumstances that might obtain. In effect, the measure modernizes the verbiage used in the original act and, although the actual phraseology of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is not adopted word for word, the end result is the same. We are told that the reason why the exact verbiage of a certain article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is not adopted is because of some possible legal difficulties connected with interpretation. But the wording is as near as can possibly be to that used in, I think, article VI. of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We do not object to that. We applaud it, but I emphasize that we feel that it is too little too late. I appreciate that the honorable member for Corio **(Mr. Opperman),** who is interjecting, does not like the criticism I have offered during this debate. Apparently it hurts him a little because the industries in Corio have been under some stress and strain at a time when I believe, if the Government was really in earnest, it could have done all the things that are desirable and necessary, under the existing law. But no! That would more obviously lay the Government open to criticism for not using the existing act, and so it produces an amendment which seeks to insert this and delete that. The impression is created, with some element of truth, that this measure will provide more effective machinery for the purpose of preventing dumping and injury to Australian manufacturing industry than was the old Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act. I think that belief which is held by the Government is largely fallacious. I do not know of any really serious attempt by the Government in the last ten or twelve years to utilize the provisions of the existing act. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- They were used two months ago. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Was the usage successful? {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- I have no reason to think it was not. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The Minister has no reason to think it was not, so therefore the old act was effective. Is that right, or wrong? {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- This measure is an improvement. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The Minister says this measure is an improvement, but he found the old act effective. The Government, now finding itself in difficulties with the Australian manufacturer, comes along and says, " Boys, we were in difficulties because of the inadequacy of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act. So we bring to this Parliament an amending measure, notwithstanding the fact that we used the old act with great success." What do members make of that one? The only argument that the Minister can put up in extenuation of the wastage of the time of this Parliament and in extenuation of the situation in which the Government finds itself, is that in future we may strike a snag and so it is wise to take any and every precaution possible to ensure that in that event we will have available the armament to deal with it. That is all he can say. The Opposition stands 100 per cent., as ever and always, in favour of any and all measures of an effective character which will not only assist and encourage existing Australian industries, but also encourage the establishment in this country of industries from overseas countries. That is our objective, provided there is reasonable facility for the investment of Australian capital in those industries and some measure of Australian control of them. We stand for that and will assist the Government in that regard. In due course, when we become the Government, we will give effect to more effective legislation and administration to that particular and desirable end. By its very nature this measure is one which, during the second-reading debate, does not require any further remarks from me. I know that other members of the Opposition, and in particular the honorable member for Scullin **(Mr. Peters)** and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** wish to make some remarks on it. I will reserve any further comment for the committee stage, when I may be able to indicate to the Government some improvements to the legislation and some of its weaknesses, and offer some criticism. I leave it at that, except to remark that I hope the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** although he represents an exceedingly conservative rump in this Parliament, will be such a big Australian as to allow his free trade attitude to be completely eliminated, and give forthright support to the bill. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- What about the primary producers? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The home market is their best market. Without the establish ment of further Australian industries, where does the primary producer ultimately go? I leave it at that and pledge the Opposition's support of the measure. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond .- I want to say a few words in support of the measure which is before the House. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** seems to be a bit dissatisfied and doubtful whether the provisions of the bill will actually improve the existing legislation. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- I am delighted. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I think there is good reason for improving the act. Recommendations have been made by the Tariff Board on two things. In 1952-53 it suggested that it had some difficulty in defining what was a fair price and some difficulty, also, in relation to goods being dumped in Australia. In 1958-59 the board reiterated what it had said and suggested that something should definitely be done about the importation of goods from countries where there were State-controlled enterprises. As a result of a request from the Tariff Board the Government is now modifying the old Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act. There have also been moves in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to have countries brought into line. Gatt has recommended under Article 6 that countries modify their legislation so as to give all member countries protection from unfair trading practices such as dumping or countervailing practices on subsidized goods. It is interesting, if one reads the report of Gatt on anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to notice that Article 12 emphasizes the anomalies of import restrictions and says they should be imposed only for the purpose of conserving overseas reserves. But, of course, if there is any harm being done to a country's industry by dumping it has the right, under Article 6, to impose protective duties. Australia has exercised, under the existing legislation, certain protection, in the form of duties, in the last 40 years since this act was first invoked. In that period there have been 60 occasions when duties have been placed against the dumping of goods. Most of them have been revoked in the meantime, but there are still nine in existence. The articles concerned are acetylsalicylic acid, ladies nylon hosiery, slide fasteners, low-power factor chokes for fluorescent lamps, dolls, glucose and certain basic chemicals. They are the only articles upon which these duties are placed at the moment although I see, in Gatt's report, that something like 120 items have been submitted, but only nine have been accepted by the Australian Tariff Board for the imposition of extra duties. The Opposition is making great play on this, but I would like to remind honorable members opposite that we brought a Tariff Board bill into the House last August or September to give us power to impose temporary or emergency duties to protect Australian industries when goods were being dumped into this country or were being brought here from a subsidized industry in another country. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- It was to give the Minister power, behind the back of Parliament. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- The Opposition opposed it. Tinned ham was coming on to the Australian market. The only way we had of protecting the Australian pig industry was the new legislation which was brought down. What did the Government do? It imposed a temporary duty of 4s. 3d. per lb. on tinned ham until the case was heard by the Tariff Board. But that legislation, which we needed to protect Australian industry, was opposed by Opposition members to a man. I do not think honorable members opposite really understood the bill, and they must have regretted their action ever since. I should also like to mention the fact that quite large quantities of tinned chicken have been coming into Australia, and that this has caused some concern to the poultry industry. I have had figures taken out on these importations. One fact that struck me was that when the complaints were first made by the poultry industry there was no comparable Australian-made article on the local market. There was no Australian tinned chicken at all. It was a bit unfair, therefore, to suggest that we should prevent this product from coming in, when there was no Australian competitor. I am pleased to say, however, that since that time two or three Australian brands have been put on the market, and the producers of the Australian tinned chicken may now, if they think they are suffering from unfair competition from tinned chicken imported from the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom, submit a case for reference to a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board and ask for the imposition of an emergency duty. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- You would not suggest that the best way of purveying chicken is in tins, would you? {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- It is a product that some members of the public like, and I think we should give the public what they want. It is unfortunate that until recently the Australian industry did not put up chicken in this manner, but since the importation of this product commenced I know of three Australian brands that have been put on the market. I priced one brand in Canberra last week-end and found it quite competitive with the " Diplomatic " brand coming from the United States of America. There was only ls. difference between the two prices, for the same sized can, weighing 3 lb. 4 oz. It seems that the local canners of chicken now have a case to substantiate a claim of unfair competition. I think it is a bit unfair for the poultry man himself to say that these importations are affecting him, although, indirectly, they probably are. If the persons affected wish to do so, they can submit a case to the government for reference to a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board. I hope that this is done, so that a close examination can be made of the position in order to decide whether there is unfair competition or whether there is any degree of inefficiency in the Australian industry. I have quite a volume of figures before me in connexion with this tinned chicken. It is interesting to note that in a 3 lb. 4 oz. tin there is only 1 lb. 12 oz. of chicken. The price of the actual chicken works out at about lis. per lb. The price of fresh or frozen chicken selling in delicatessens or chain stores is about 6s. per lb. There is a big difference between the price of tinned chicken and that of fresh chicken. I believe that at present a good deal of tinned chicken is being bought as a novelty, and that when the Australian housewife fully realizes the big difference in price she will not want any more tinned chicken. I would like to see this matter fully reviewed by the Tariff Board, and an intermediate protective tariff imposed if it is thought to be warranted. Let me now return to the provisions of the bill itself. When you are dealing with State-controlled enterprises, such as those which operate in Communist countries, it is very difficult to determine whether the goods they produce have been subsidized. The proposed legislation will give the Tariff Board a means of determining whether goods exported from these Communist countries are being sold in Australia at unfair prices. The Tariff Board will be able to consider the costs of production of similar goods in comparable countries. For instance, when considering an article exported from Communist China, the Tariff Board will be able to study the costs of production of a similar article in India. In the case of a product coming from Czechoslovakia, which is an important manufacture ing country, the board can investigate costs of production of a similar commodity in, say, Italy. The legislation will give the Tariff Board something to work with that it did not have before, the lack of which placed it in a very difficult position. I believe we will have to contend with more and more competition from Communist countries as the years go by, and it is vitally necessary for us to have some kind of legislation to enable Australian industry to be adequately protected, without being given absolute or unreasonable protection. We of the Country Party believe that a degree of protection is necessary for Australia's secondary industries. We cannot simply abandon industries that we have grown up with over the last 60 years. Too many people are employed in them; too many people are dependent upon them. For this reason we believe in a degree of protection for such industries, just as we believe in a degree of protection for some of our primary industries which have been built up in an artificial atmosphere. The dairying industry is a case in point. At one time this industry arrived at such a position that butter rationing had to be introduced. Subsidies were granted, and an artificial atmosphere was created so that we just cannot afford to have the importation of butter from other countries. This is not because it would sell at a lower price than the Australian butter, but because it would cause the breakdown of our organized marketing system. Our stabilization scheme would go haywire if there were importations of butter from overseas. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- What about the timber industry? Do you adopt that attitude with regard to timber? {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- As the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** pointed out, the problem of the timber industry is not one of imports but one of demand. The answers that the Minister gave to questions this afternoon were a clear indication to any reasonable person that it was not the importation of timber and plywood that was causing the troubles of the timber industry. It is obvious that if we did introduce selective import controls or some other system of protection against imports without helping the timber man one iota we would not provide any more employment in the industry. The only way to help the timber man at the present time is to try to stimulate activity in the building industry. That is what every one of us in this House should be doing, and it is what we of the Country Party are trying to do. This bill is a major step forward. It will help the Tariff Board to determine whether the prices of goods coming from various countries overseas are unreasonable, whether they are Communist countries with State-controlled economies, or countries like Canada in which certain activities are subsidized, such as the production of pork and bacon. The bill will also protect Australian industry from unfair dumping being indulged in by countries trying to establish their products on the Australian market. Some big enterprises in other countries indulge in questionable practices to establish their products in new markets. A large undertaking may have a well-established trade in the European market and may wish to get a leg into the Australian market. To do so it may drastically reduce the price of its products for sale in Australia, being willing to cover the loss incurred with profits derived in the European market in order to establish itself here. This legislation will enable the Tariff Board to counter such moves. I have much pleasure in supporting the measure. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS:
Scullin .-! have been reading this bill carefully, **Mr. Speaker,** and I find many admirable provisions in it. I cannot find, however, how action is to be initiated to discover whether dumping is being practised. We find frequently phrases such as, " If the Minister is satisfied, he may . . .", " the Minister may . . .", " if the Minister is satisfied after inquiry ... he may . . .". But who initiates the investigation to determine whether goods are being sold in other countries, for example in England, at prices higher than those being charged in Australia, and whether, in fact, the Australian price is less than the cost of production? There was a case in point in my own electorate recently. It concerned certain pieces of electrical equipment known as ballasts which were being produced in Victoria for 15s. 6d. each. Similar articles were being sold in England at 9s. 6d. each to people who put them on the Australian market. They were, sold in England to retailers at a price higher than the price for which they were sold by Australian retailers. They were placed on the Australian market at such a price that they were below the Australian cost of production; but how could that be proved? Who was the person who initiated the investigation? Would the Tariff Board take action in England to find out whether there was dumping? Would the Minister take action? He might do so in some cases, but I do not think the bill is explicit enough. It does not show exactly how an investigation can be initiated to convince the Tariff Board or the Minister that dumping is occurring. After all, a private employer, particularly if he is starting a small business, cannot enter into serious investigations in England to discover costs of production there in comparison with the price at which the goods are being placed on the Australian market. Such a procedure is too costly and difficult. All the manufacturer can do is to compare the market price of the goods with the price at which he can produce similar goods. If he can present a prima facie case that there appears to be dumping, the Minister should take the necessary steps immediately to have an investigation carried out overseas to determine whether in reality dumping is taking place. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** spoke about planned economies. Hitler had a planned economy which operated on the basis of barter. Czechoslovakia has a planned economy and it places great quantities of boots on the Australian market. But how are we to determine when dumping begins? Actually, it is almost impossible. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- It will be made easier under the provisions of the bill. That is one of the purposes of the bill. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- I do not know how it will operate or how the Government proposes to determine when goods from China are being dumped in Australia in return for the wheat we are going to send to that country. Under the planned economy of China, goods can be sold at less than the cost of production. There is no question in that country of profit. If the Chinese have a surplus, the goods go overseas and they get as much as they can for them. That might be considerably less than the cost of production in the countries where they offer the goods for sale. But it will not be possible to bring the Chinese under this legislation. Much more will be needed to protect Australian industry. Japan encourages its exporters by legislation. The export income of Japanese merchants is subject to a lower rate of taxation than is the income raised on the home market by the sale of similar goods. Clause 9 of the bill provides that the Minister may take act/on if he is satisfied - >That a subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance has been or is being paid or granted directly or indirectly upon the production, manufacture, carriage or export of those goods. But how is the Minister going to determine the effect of the taxation laws of Japan on the Japanese export industry? Textiles and other commodities from Japan that are sold in Australia are produced under labour conditions infinitely worse than ours. The workers get lower wages and work longer hours. But the manufacturers are also subsidized in a variety of ways. They are subsidized by income tax concessions and by assistance from Japanese Government sources with freights. The Government can introduce this anti-dumping legislation, but it is a different matter to implement it. It is not so easy to determine just when goods coming from other countries are detrimental to Australian industries, and, after all, that should be the main consideration. If imported goods are destroying Australian industries and putting Australian workers out of employment, they should not be allowed into the country. An embargo should be placed oh them. If this Government had placed an embargo years ago on goods similar to those that were being made and could be made in Australia, we would not be in the sad position we are in to-day. We have boot factories in Australia that can supply all our footwear requirements. We have knitting mills with machinery adequate to supply every requirement of the people of Australia for knitwear. That applies also to many textiles. We have many factories which manufacture piece goods into shirts, blouses and clothing of that description, yet we find millions of pounds worth of these goods coming into Australian and putting Australians out of work. I have said previously that the biggest emporium in Melbourne has thousands of imported Italian suits of clothes for sale. Is that in the best interests of the people of Australia and the immigrants who have come here to seek employment? These goods from Italy are being imported in great quantities. To me, that is dumping. Dumping is the destruction of the industries and the employment of the Australian people by goods coming from other countries, and we should prevent such importations. We should prevent Japanese goods from coming to Australia when they are subsidized by tax concessions and in other ways. I do not think that the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** has said when conducting negotiations with the Japanese: " What exactly are the methods by which you seek to exploit the markets of other countries? Do you give tax concessions and subsidize shipping freights? Do you give bonuses? If you do, we want to know so that we can see that these methods are not used to place goods on the Australian market to the disadvantage of our own manufactures." It is one thing to pass this legislation. It is a different proposition to implement the legislation and initiate actions that will show that dumping exists. The British Board of Trade used to tell the manufacturers of England that they could have a certain quota of goods which they would be permitted to sell at a certain price, but that a certain percentage had to be sold overseas. The price of the goods was so fixed that the manufacturers were enabled to sell their goods overseas for considerably less than the price at which they sold them on the English market. Those conditions are not peculiar to England. This has been done in other industrialized countries which seek to create for their own people better conditions than are enjoyed by the nations to which the goods are exported. I suggest that the Government should examine all these things. I suggest that it should have a kind of committee continually in operation to examine the general method whereby goods are shipped from other capitalist countries. Bounties ar.d remissions of duty should be recorded. The marketing methods of countries such as Czechoslovakia, China and Russia should be examined. In this way we could prevent goods from any country, whether it be Japan, England, or America, coming on to the Australian market to the detriment of Australian manufactures. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- What about the Australian primary producer? {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- I think that the first voice raised in this Parliament to protect the primary producer of chickens was my voice. The primary producer finds his greatest defender in the ranks of Labour as do the industrial workers and the manufacturers. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- We have just listened to a speaker on this bill who said, first of all, that there were admirable clauses in the bill but then raised objections to others. This bill is a safeguard against certain dumping. As the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** said, the Australian Country Party believes in a certain amount of protection, but if everything that the honorable member for Scullin **(Mr. Peters)** advocated were implemented, no goods would be imported into this country at all. The honorable member has made it very clear that, under his policy, if we could produce in this country all the goods that we needed no imports would be allowed. When he was speaking, I interjected, "What about the primary producer? " This is a great primary producing country. Secondary industries are very dependent on the primary industries of Australia, not only for local raw materials, but also because the primary industries supply 80 per cent, of our exports which build up our overseas balances and enable the purchase of raw materials overseas to keep our secondary industries in operation. Here we have a Labour member advocating restriction of imports from Japan. The available statistics indicate that a month ago we were selling to the Japanese primary products at the rate of £135,000,000 per annum. We were buying from Japan £48,000,000 worth of goods per annum, so that the balance of trade was greatly in our favour. It may be that there are some Japanese goods coming into this country which we could do without, but we have a trade agreement with the Japanese and the balance of trade is so much in our favour that we have to accept certain goods in order to keep trade buoyant. We in this corner of the House stand not only for the primary producer but also for the residents of country towns who depend for their prosperity on the surrounding farm lands. The Labour Party was against the trade agreement with Japan. When the former leader of the Australian Labour Party moved an amendment to the legislation ratifying the agreement every member of the Labour Party who was in the House at the time voted for it. When the only member of the Opposition who puts forward some commonsense propositions for the primary producer, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** returned from a trip overseas he must have said to the Labour Party, " It is time that you softpedalled on the Japanese Trade Agreement". Since then, the Labour Party has been strangely quiet in its opposition to the agreement. Of course, they want it both ways. They want to be able to say that they are against the agreement and so to curry favour with the textile industry. But they also want to be able to say that they support the agreement, in the hope of getting some misguided primary producers on their side. The honorable member for Scullin represents a metropolitan electorate. In his electorate are industrial workers for whom I have every sympathy if they are unemployed. The honorable member says that goods should not come into this country under any circumstances if this means increased unemployment. But what if not importing these goods should decrease production in the great primary producing industries? What about the primary producer having to buy his goods on a high local market and to sell most of his products on the world market? If Australia were big enough to consume all our primary products I would say to the honorable member for Scullin, "You have a perfect case". But that is not so. We cannot always sell and never buy. Therefore, any sane government tries to get on to a fairly level keel, buying from overseas and selling overseas in reciprocal trade. By that means, primary industries are kept prosperous. It has been truly said that when primary industries are prosperous there is no need to worry about other sectors of the economy. That is a fact. We know it was gold that first brought substantial population to Australia. When gold mining became unprofitable, people looked for something more stable and turned to primary production. On the basis of primary production we built up secondary industries. I have said in this chamber on many occasions that we should give our secondary industries every assistance possible, but not at the expense of the primary producer. Primary production is the foundation of the prosperity of this country, and any future stability can come only from that source. **Mr.** CREAN (Melbourne Ports) r10.40]. - I should like to support my colleagues, the honorable members for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** and Scullin **(Mr. Peters),** who have pointed out that the Tariff Board, as far back as August, 1959 - getting on for two years ago - suggested that certain changes were necessary in what are known as the anti-dumping provisions of our customs law. We have already chided the Minister for being late in his presentation of the measure, but I still say it is expecting a little much of a House such as this to discuss in a matter of a couple of hours something on which it has taken the Government nearly two years to make up its mind. The bill will repeal the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1957, and will supersede that act and one or two other measures. This is necessary largely because of deficiencies in the act to which the Tariff Board pointed in its annual report for 1958-59. The principal difference in the measures, old and new, seems to arise from the fact that the Tariff Board in its report pointed to the inadequacy of the word " detriment ". Because of certain legal doubts about the degree of detriment, that word is replaced by the phrase " causing or threatening injury to Australian industry ". It would seem, on reading the measure, that it does go along the road to correcting the deficiencies which the Tariff Board said exist in the present law. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- The most important part is the definition of " normal value of their goods ". {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I am coming to that. On page 12 of its report for 1958-59, the board points to section 4 of the act, which fs to be replaced by the new section 7 proposed by this bill. Section 4 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1957 requires the board, in effect, to report to the Minister whether three prerequisites of gazettal have been met. It leaves to the Minister the responsibility of determining whether he should have goods gazetted. The first of these pre-requisites is whether the goods imported are comparable with goods manufactured in Australia. Dwelling on that point for a moment, I should like to take up the example cited by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony).** He talked about the competitive advantage which, presumably, tinned chicken had, and I think he hinted that because there was no locally produced tinned chicken it was difficult to have anything to argue about. But surely we have to recognize that one of the bases of international trade is that, for the most part, when a country imports something from another country it does so because it does not have it available from local production. It is difficult to have a basis of likeness, and I think that, technically, the proper comparison in relation to chicken should not be a comparison of tinned chicken from abroad and locally produced tinned chicken, but a comparison of tinned chicken and chicken as normally marketed in Australia. Why anybody, unless he is going camping, wants to eat things out of tins, if he can get the products in their fresh state, is beyond me. Perhaps the fact that we could not get any tins of chicken before they were imported points to some deficiency in the marketing acumen of Australian chicken producers. But, by and large, as long as the channels between sources of production and consumers are short enough and adequate enough, I should think that people would prefer to have a fresh chicken than a chicken from a tin. This simply points to the difficulty you have in these things. Where does the competition take place? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- There are no blowflies in tinned chicken. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- The tins have some advantage. The real reason that tinned chicken came to this country from abroad was the stupid decision of this Government to relax import controls. Again, we have a shrewd set of business men, with not much patriotism, who are concerned only with the fact that anything they can import they can sell. That is broadly the reason why chicken is imported. The second pre-requisite was whether the goods had been sold to an importer in Australia at a price less than the fair market value of the goods at the time of shipment from the country of origin. That was the point on which the honorable member for Scullin argued. How do you determine what is a fair cost of production in a foreign country? These things are intangible rather than tangible. While the Minister may feel safer with the words as they are written into the bill, the difficulty is still there of determining what is reasonable, what is normal and what is fair. If the Minister takes comfort from the wording, well and good, but I suggest that if he had wanted to be firm enough he could still have invoked the existing provisions. The third pre-requisite - the third gate or test through which the thing had to go - was whether detriment might thereby result u> an Australian industry. In its report for 1958-59 the Tariff Board refers to three or four separate things in respect of which dumping had been pointed to, but also in respect of which, because of the terms of the existing legislation, it could not act. One of those things was paper board. In this instance the Tariff Board was asked to answer the question: Should paper boards from New Zealand be gazetted under section 4 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1956? The board said that in this particular inquiry it had little difficulty in establishing that all three pre-requisites had in fact been established to its satisfaction. It also said, however, that in reaching its decision it could only construe the words " detriment may thereby result " as implying no qualification in the degree of detriment. In other words, although it was detrimental, because the act did not say that it had to be. detrimental to a certain degree, or to the point of annihilation of an Australian industry, the board could not act. That seems to be one reason why the word " detriment " is not being used in this legislation, but the fact is that in the new provision the Government is using a vaguer formula, referring to the importation of the goods " causing or threatening injury to an Australian industry ". It seems to me that this belated legislation is based on that doubt about the word " detriment ". Because of the vagueness of the term it was difficult to invoke the provisions of the law. The Minister seems to feel sure that the replacement of the term " detriment " by the phrase " causing or threatening injury to an Australian industry " puts the matter on safer ground. The opinion of the Tariff Board, expressed nearly two years ago, was that it could not act, not because the first two pre-requisites were not satisfied, but because the word " detriment " was so vague in meaning as to leave the board in some doubt as to whether it could manoeuvre legally. The second matter that was mentioned by the Tariff Board in its annual report for the year 1958-59 was polyvinyl chloride resin. At page 12 of that report, the board stated - >The main comment that the Board wishes to put forward as a result of this inquiry concerns the possible- The word " possible " is in italics - inadequacy of this Act in dealing with a situation where the component elements of the cost of production of the imported products consist of goods transferred from affiliated companies at noncommercial prices and/or services supplied at special rates . . . That seems to me to go to the root of what may be called undesirable or restrictive trade practices by means of which goods are transferred by a foreign company through a chain of affiliated holding companies. Whether that is covered by this measure, I do not know. The third and final example that 1 cue is that of printed cotton piecegoods. One of the most substantial increases in imports into this country since the relaxing of import controls has been in the field of textiles. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- The honorable member is making a substantial impression! {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I may he making a substantial impression. An impression has to be made in this way because of the manner in which this Government conducts th: business of this Parliament. We have been fooling about for the last four or five weeks, and now we face what we have faced in every sessional period under the administration of this Government - a plethora of legislation in the last weeks, i make no excuse for taking as much time now as I could have taken a week ago at a fitting hour of the day. I suggest to the honorable member that if he has any objections he raise them in the party room. We heard much prating about democracy earlier to-day. Let Government supporters put into practice in the right place what they have been preaching. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- None of the Opposition members is listening. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I do not care whether or not any Opposition members are listening. The person whom I want to listen is the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Osborne),** who is in charge of the measure in this House. I am looking to him for information. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER <Hon W C Haworth:
ISAACS, VICTORIA -- The honorable member ought to address the Chair. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I do not like these inane interjections, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** Tha honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** is light-headed and he should go out of the chamber. In August, 1959, as appears at page 12 of the Tariff Board's annual report for the year 1958-59, the board stated with respect to printed piecegoods - >It is very difficult for the affected Australian industry and the Board to obtain details of the cost of production of goods in a state-controlled economy for the purpose of computing a " reasonable price". . . . The Minister has indicated by interjection that that is one of the deficiencies which this bill will remedy. I am glad that that deficiency is being remedied, although section 5 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act was supposed to meet the situation, The board goes on to state - lt is true that, under section 5 (5) of the Act, provision is made whereby if there is no satisfactory evidence as to the cost of production, the Minister may fix such amount as he thinks fit to be the cost of production for the purpose of computing the anti-dumping duty. It seems that a similar sort of provision is contained in this bill and that the Government has attempted to clear up the difficulties over the legal interpretation of words and thereby to remedy the deficiencies concerning the determination of what is reasonable cost and what is normal cost. Anybody who knows much about accounting knows that the determination of the cost of an article made in this country is sometimes difficult enough if the article is produced in considerable numbers, and that there are all sorts of questions about how overhead expense is to be allocated as between several items of production. How much more difficult it is to obtain that sort of information about goods produced in a foreign country! Here at least there will be machinery by which the information can be obtained from some other country where comparable goods are produced if it cannot be obtained from the country of production, which may have a state-controlled economy or some other sort of economy. However, as I said earlier, the difficulty is that most of the goods that we import are not altogether comparable with goods produced in Australia. If they were, we would not import them. One of the weaknesses inherent in the re laxing of import controls, of course, is that there has been a flood into this country of goods that could satisfactorily be produced here. By and large, in a rational system, the purpose of international trade is to raise the standard of living to the highest possible level by transferring goods between countries. The surplus of our own production that we do not want is exchanged for the surplus production of other countries that they do not want. In a very theoretical sense, there is no basis for a comparison of costs in respect of an article that is not produced at home, if you do not manufacture motor cars, how can you determine whether or not the price of vehicles coming in from another country is fair? That is where a lot of this theorizing falls down in the final analysis. We on this side of the House take the view, broadly, that what a country can import is determined in the first place by what it exports. If a country's exports are limited, as ours are, its imports will be limited. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** no doubt will agree that primary products are at least the backbone of our export trade. I do not think that one can make a complete distinction between the various components of our export trade, but primary products are at least its backbone. I do not argue about that. The difficulty is that the prices of our primary products are not quite as firm as they ought to be. In other words, the vertebrae are not as rigid as we would like them to be. The prices received for our primary products fluctuate pretty violently, and this limits the volume of our imports. Therefore, we should rationalize our imports. In our view, import licensing was a sensible way of doing this. We at least use the tariff system to buttress or implement such a method, or, in this instance, to take its place, since import controls have been thrown overboard. Therefore, it is right for the Government to strengthen the provisions of the law to guard against dumping. The honorable member for Scullin gave his definition of the term " dumping ". {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- That was a definition of his own. Nobody else uses it. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- lt may be a definition of his own, but I think that he was only doing as most of us sometimes do in debate. He was perhaps overstating rather dramatically what dumping is. By and large, dumping is understood to be the bringing of a commodity into a country at an unfair low price, that being a commodity the import of which interferes detrimentally, to use the word adopted by the honorable member for Scullin, with local production. But the stating of a definition of dumping is not so easy as may be suggested. The Minister may not like the definition enunciated by the honorable member for Scullin, but any definition that the Minister cares to produce would probably be just as arguable. As I have said, we on this side of the House think that this measure is an improvement on the existing law, because it will strengthen some of the legal defences available under the existing legislation. However, whether those who will have the job of making this measure work can in fact make it work remains to be seen. We welcome this measure, as I have said, but I repeat that we regret that the real importance of the issue before us is being lost in the rush of business at the end of the sessional period. We have not sufficient time to debate it as fully as we would wish. At this time of night, the tempers of honorable members occasionally become a little frayed, and the spoken word does not sound so interesting as it would have done at an earlier hour. Nevertheless, if the Government chooses to bring in legislation at 10 p.m. or after, we are entitled to take as much time to debate it at that late hour as we would take if the legislation had been brought in at 10 a.m. That is our democratic right and we intend to exercise it. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** this measure is designed to introduce additional facilities to permit the protection of Australian industries, and apparently it has the support of honorable members on both sides of the House. Therefore, there is no need for us to spend very much time in discussing it, and I am rather surprised that the Opposition has wasted time by bringing up quite a number of relatively unimportant points. I wish to deal with only one matter, and that very briefly. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** raised the subject of protection of the poultry industry, and stated that the importation of a relatively large volume of canned chicken presented a threat to the poultry industry and to the poultry-processing industry. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** also referred to this matter and said that it would not have arisen but for the removal of the greater proportion of import licensing a little over a year ago. He perhaps has overlooked the fact that, even when import licensing was in force, persons who had a B category quota could have imported these goods if they had so wished, and if it was profitable enough for them, they undoubtedly would have done so. So this is not directly attributable to the removal of a fair proportion of the remaining import controls at that time. It is a fact that due to the importation of some cheaper lines of chicken, the poultry industry in Australia considered that it was facing a threat, and a couple of months ago made an application to the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** to establish an industry panel so that the matter could be considered under the emergency legislation introduced and passed through this Parliament last year. However, as the poultry industry is not very highly organized and as several difficulties presented themselves because various sections of the industry are not closely related, it did not produce in its first application sufficient information and sufficient evidence on which a case could be substantiated. Therefore, the Minister for Trade took the previously unprecedented step of arranging for investigating officers from the Department of Trade to assist the industry in obtaining the necessary information to substantiate its case. Investigating officers from the department carried out certain investigations in New South Wales and Victoria and some additional information was received from Commonwealth departmental officers in Queensland and South Australia. When that additional information was received, it was, with the permission of the poultry industry, incorporated in the case presented by the industry. After being passed by the Minister for Trade, the case was submitted to the Deputy Chairman of the Tariff Board early last month. As honorable members know, under the legislation the Deputy Chairman of the Tariff Board has 30 days in which to consider the case. This means that his report will be returned to the Minister for Trade in about a week's time. {: .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr Buchanan: -- Did the industry make an application under the dumping legislation? {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ: -- No, this is not related to the dumping legislation before the House at the moment. It is an application under the previous emergency legislation for an emergency tariff to be introduced. I refer to this matter, which was raised to-night, merely to make that point clear. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1432 {:#debate-36} ### COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1961 In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 1419). Clauses 5 to 9 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 10. Section eighty-five of the Principal Act is amended - (a)........ Section proposed to be amended - >-- (1.) An elector who - > > > >is seriously ill or infirm, and by reason of such illness or infirmity will be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, or, in the case of a woman, will by approaching maternity be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper. {: #debate-36-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I move - >After paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - " (aa) by inserting in paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) after the word 'infirm', the words ' and whose place of living as appearing on the Roll for any Subdivision is situated more than five miles by the nearest practicable route from each and every polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled ';". The clause amends section 85 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which prescribes the persons who may apply for postal votes. The amendment would limit the persons who may apply for postal votes on the ground that they are seriously ill or infirm to such persons as are enrolled at places more than five miles from each and every polling booth in the State. The amendment should be taken in conjunction with two other amendments which, with this amendment, have been circulated in the name of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** The first of these amendments provides for voting by persons who are ill, infirm or approaching maternity before electoral visitors who call at their place of residence, and the other provides for mobile polling booths in hospitals for patients in those hospitals. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- You will disfranchise people. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It will not disfranchise people. It will provide that sick persons have a secret ar.d private vote where it is well known that under the Commonwealth act they do not have such a vote at present. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- If they apply seven days before the election. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Why are you not content with the present provision? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** in his second-reading speech on the bill analysed this position in a very persuasive fashion and I would recommend the honorable gentleman who interjects to read the remarks of the honorable member for Fremantle. He pointed out that most persons who apply for postal votes do so on the ground of sickness. Postal votes, as everybody who has stood for an election must frankly acknowledge, are open to abuse. The technique is deplorably well known. A person who applies for a postal vote is known to have applied for a postal vote by any person who cares to make inquiry at the Divisional Returning Office. The time at which the postal vote will be received by the applicant is similarly anticipated by anybody who inquires at the Divisional Returning Office. Supporters of any candidate armed with that knowledge can call at the address given by the applicant and are likely to offer their services to the applicant and accordingly to know how the applicant has voted. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- That does not necessarily follow. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- But this is perfectly possible, as the honorable gentleman knows. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- There is no reason for the vote to be known unless the voter himself discloses it. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I do not think anybody will assert that there is anywhere near the privacy or secrecy in postal voting that there is in all other voting. We must all frankly acknowledge that. The abuse comes in this way: If the applicant casts a vote in accordance with the wishes of the canvasser or the supporter of one of the candidates, that canvasser or supporter will ensure thai the vote is duly delivered. If the applicant casts a vote otherwise, the vote can be and very often is invalidated or altered. If the ballot is marked in ink and cannot be altered, then it is otherwise marked by the canvasser, or the supporter, so as to invalidate it. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Where does this go on? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It goes on in every Commonwealth electoral division. If the ballot has been marked in pencil, then it will be altered - the pencil mark erased and another pencil mark made in accordance with the desire of the canvasser, or the supporter, who is assisting the applicant for the postal vote. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Is this practice known to you? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Every honorable member knows that this dishonorable practice goes on. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is so. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- I did not know that. I have no knowledge of it whatever. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- This allegation was made as recently as last week during the second-reading debate. There is no need to be heated about it. It is a practice which goes on, as is known to every honorable member and to most candidates. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- That is absolutely untrue. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- After the ballot has been sealed? It is simply not true. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is true. The Minister for the Interior has interjected, " After the ballot has been sealed? " In these cases, if, as often happens, the applicant hands the ballot to the sympathiser to seal, the sympathiser can make the gesture of sealing it, but not properly, so as to enable it to be opened outside. If in fact the applicant himself, or herself, seals the envelope securely and if, on the supposition that I have been pursuing, the applicant has filled in the ballotpaper contrary to the manner desired by the supporter, then that ballot-paper is not delivered, or it is defaced or destroyed. There is not the secrecy or privacy attaching to Commonwealth postal voting which attaches to every other form of voting under the act. The amendment which was circulated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** is designed to ensure tha. persons who are sick and unable to go to a polling booth shall, if they live within five miles of a polling booth, have the services of an electoral visitor, or, if they are in a hospital, have the advantage of a mobile polling booth. {: .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McColm: -- What happens in the case of a person who becomes ill during the seven-day period immediately before polling day? {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- He does not get a vote. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That is true, unless he is in hospital. However, there are other grounds on which such a person can apply. For instance, if a woman is approaching maternity, that is known more than seven days before the poll, but if a person is sick or infirm because of some accident, which is a common occurrence, then he or she is in no position to apply for a vote, under the present circumstances. The number of persons who would be deprived of a vote because they are sick, although perfectly coherent, is quite negligible. The present procedure has led to abuses, as everybody frankly acknowledges. {: #debate-36-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock: Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-36-s2 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman .-! think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** was wrong when he said that probably all honorable members knew that this practice occurred, but I would say that any honorable members who have taken an active personal interest in postal voting would know that the great bulk of what he said was true, that this does happen, and with great regularity. For quite a long time now, I and many people in my electorate have been trying to think of some way by which this could be avoided. In the field of postal voting this kind of skulduggery does go on, more in some areas than in others, but I do not think that it actually involves a great number of votes. There is little doubt that it does happen in connexion with a percentage of the votes, and in some cases, it could have a decisive effect on an election. I remember an incident at a State election in one part of my division some time ago in Queensland, in which it was proved that some postal ballotpapers had been forged. Another election was held as a result of that finding, but the outcome of the two elections was the same. The chap in whose favour the votes had been forged won the second election. That happened comparatively recently. One thing that causes me a great deal of concern is the fact that as these things do happen it is possible that, by accident, innocent people could be involved and suffer serious consequences. I must admit that I am inclined to favour this proposal. The only thing that makes me dubious about it is the fact that some people could be disfranchised by it. But for that, I would vote in favour of it. Anybody who has had a close association with postal voting would know that under this proposal some people could be disfranchised quite close to election time. They may not number many, but I hesitate to do anything that is likely to disfranchise even one person. To my mind, the scheme has considerable merit. If only some way could be found of overcoming the disfranchising of anybody in the last week before an election, I would certainly support it, because at present there are practices carried out in connexion with postal voting which, I think, are completely reprehensible. There is not the slightest doubt that a tremendous amount of time, effort and expense is involved in postal voting by the supporters of the various parties. In my view, it should be the responsibility of the various returning officers to ensure that these people shall cast their votes in complete privacy and that there can be no means of tampering with the votes between the time the ballot-paper is sealed and it reaches the returning officer. {: #debate-36-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** has used some very strong language to-night. He has cast doubts on the validity of nearly all our electoral procedures, not only in relation to this clause but also in relation to previous clauses which we have adopted. But he has not produced one scrap of evidence. The less evidence he has, the more vehement apparently his assertions become. I suggest that already there are provisions in this act which cover all the irregularities which he suggests exist. If there is the slightest shadow of evidence of the things which he has mentioned he should bring them to the notice of the proper authorities. I know of no case where any evidence has been produced to support the assertions that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made to-night. The Commonwealth Electoral Officer has no knowledge of the practices that he suggests exist. I know very well that a person who has been defeated at the polls never thinks that he has been defeated fairly, just as a prize fighter who has lost the world's championship always contends that he has been the victim of an unfair referee. The assertions that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made to-night are just too fantastic for words. The provisions covering postal voting were introduced by a Labour government in 1949. Whilst it is true that times change, it is interesting to read the reasons for the introduction of these provisions in 1949. The then Minister for Information and Minister for Immigration, who is the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** said - {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- This sub-section was not amended in 1949. It has not been amended since 1928. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- There was some amendment to the provisions of postal voting in 1949. I am sorry if I have made a mistake. At any rate the impression was sought to be conveyed that postal voting was going to be put on a basis that would prevent any racketeer from interfering with postal votes. The whole thing boils down to this: The Labour Party has suggested that there might be malpractices, and in order to prevent those malpractices from happening it wants to deprive people of their franchise, lt proposes that a person who is ill and infirm, and whose place of living appearing on the roll is five miles or less from any polling booth, be denied a postal vote if he becomes ill within seven days of an election. It is quite immaterial whether he happens to be 1 mile or 100 miles from a polling booth when he is in bed or ill. If his place of residence, as shown on the roll, is less than five miles from a polling booth then he cannot get a postal vote. Under the present postal voting provisions of the act, a postal vote is available to a man who will not be within the State, or will not be within five miles of a polling booth, or will be travelling on the day of the election. It is available to all those people; but if this amendment is carried, it will not be available to a man who is sick or infirm if he happens to live at an address on the roll within five miles of a polling booth. The position is quite absurd. This is a hastily considered amendment which has been brought in by the Labour Party to confuse an already complicated system. The amendment is unacceptable to the Government in its present form. Nobody is happy, except the Labour Government of New South Wales, with the provisions in New South Wales State legislation for absent postal voting. I suggest to the House that it would be a very retrograde step to write into this act something which would disfranchise a number of people just because the Labour Party, which is always very conscious of possible jiggery pokery at the ballot-box - it has had so much experience of it in trade union organizations - suspects that something wrong might be going on. Not one bit of evidence or proof has been adduced. No action has ever been taken to uncover or investigate any allegations that have been made. I suggest that it is most unjust to a lot of people who work hard for party organizations in a perfectly straightforward manner to try and include them in the sweeping assertions that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made. {: #debate-36-s4 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton .- It is quite unrealistic for the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** and other honorable members on the Government side to adopt the sanctimonious attitude that they have never heard of electoral misdemeanours having occurred. We are grateful to the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm)** for his frank acknowledgement that these things, do occur and for his contribution, in a positive way I hope, to remedy this sort of thing so that democratic procedures in the community will command respect in the future. The Labour Party is ready to try to correct the things it knows about. We have all heard about them, but they are not very easily proved. That is a frank statement of the position. To my mind there is no reason to doubt that these things go on, but if I were asked to prove in a court of law that they go on I admit I would be pretty hard put to it to do so. That is a frank statement of the matter. I understand that even more subtle things go on in some places. A canvasser goes to a sick person and says, "Just sign here, you will be all right and it will save you £2 ". The canvasser then fills in the ballot-paper himself. Some have even gone so far as to unstick an envelope. I believe that that is not hard to do. {: .speaker-KFZ} ##### Mr Halbert: -- Is that how you instruct your supporters? {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- Why misconstrue the position? Why play around like this? Why not be honest and be a participant in cleaning up abuses in the electoral system if you think that they occur. That is what we are trying to do. I am not a party to this sort of thing and I imagine that you would not be a party to them either. I give you credit for not encouraging this sort of thing and for discouraging it, and I would certainly do the same. {: .speaker-KFZ} ##### Mr Halbert: -- To-night is the first time I heard about it. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- At any rate, apart from the misdemeanours that I have referred to there is the other unfortunate fact that we are dealing mainly with sick people. What happens, of course, is that in a close electorate canvassers go around as soon as they hear that somebody down the street is sick. They rush down to see if they can organize a postal vote application. The hospital authorities complain bitterly about these things. Surely honorable members have heard about these things. Hospital authorities complain bitterly about canvassers rushing into people who are dangerously ill - people who have been taken to hospital suddenly with appendicitis or some other trouble. The canvassers rush in to try to arrange a postal vote for these people. To my mind, wherever possible, elections should be conducted by an authorized officer of the Electoral Office and should not be primarily in the hands of party participants or supporters. It has often been said, although it has become a bit laboured by now, that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. While you have this practice of party supporters racing around chasing into homes of sick people, pestering them, aggravating them, and irritating them we should not be satisfied. In many cases the sick person is all too ready to say, "Will you take it away and fill it in for me? I do not want to be bothered with this sort of thing." That is no way for respectable democratic government to be carried on. Where it is at all possible I think votes should be registered in the presence of a duly authorized electoral officer. That is what we are trying to do. I am not going to say that the proposal that the Labour Party has put up, based substantially on the New South Wales procedure, is perfect, but I think it is at least superior to what goes on at present. I share the frank opinion of the honorable member for Bowman that we ought to try to do something about the matter. I do not imagine that a lot of people suddenly become ill in the vicinity of a particular polling booth seven days before polling day. This amendment will not affect a lot of people. It should be possible to cater for people within this range of a polling booth almost up to polling day. I should like to see a genuine attempt made to get over the difficulty I have mentioned and to ensure that wherever possible votes are recorded in the presence of an electoral officer. If desired, party supporters could be present as scrutineers. I know that in the big hospitals in Sydney in the vicinity of my electorate an electoral visitor goes to the hospital, and there is no wrangling between hospital officials and party supporters as a result of party supporters alleging that the hospital officials are favouring one party or another. At times there is a suspicion that a hospital secretary who admits people to canvass for postal votes gives preference to officials of the same political faith as himself. These are some of the things that do occur. There should be impartiality, and an appearance of impartiality, by having present an electoral officer to record postal votes and, if possible, to deal with applications for votes. Certain big hospitals do not allow party officials to go in and solicit applications. As soon as patients are admitted to the big hospitals in Sydney of which I have some knowledge, the secretary provides them with an application for a postal vote. They are all sent in together. The hospital arranges as far as possible for all the ballotpapers to be returned on the same day. Then the electoral officer is invited to come up and collect the votes. That arrangement seems to me to have been eminently successful. I shall be as frank as supporters of the Government have been and say that I know of the criticism that people are disfranchised. I do not want to see anybody disfranchised. I have no reason to believe that the number of people who are disfranchised because of sudden illness during the last week of an election campaign is preponderantly greater on one side of politics as against the other. The party allegiance of persons who become ill is a matter of chance. Even if I know that such persons were likely to be supporters of the Opposition, I would still take the view that wherever possible they should be provided with an opportunity to vote and that wherever possible that vote should be recorded in the presence of an electoral officer. If party supporters want to provide scrutineers, that would be all right. But I repeat that wherever possible the votes should be registered in the presence of a duly accredited electoral officer. {: #debate-36-s5 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP -- The alteration to the system of postal voting that is suggested in the amendment is substantially in line with the system that has been in operation for some years in New South Wales. Experience in that State indicates that the amendment should be rejected emphatically. If the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm)** had seen *the large-scale* disfranchisement of ill people and people who were absent in New South Wales-- {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- This provision would not disfranchise absent people. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- I mean ill people. If he had seen it he would have less enthusiasm for the amendment. In order to bolster up a bad case, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** made the most fantastic charges of widespread abuse of the present postal voting system. He was circumstantial about it and alleged, quite wrongly, that all of us knew about it. It may occur in his electorate; it certainly does not occur in mine. He said that when an application is made for a postal vote it becomes known who has made the application and by devious means the vote is improperly examined. He alleged that, if the ballot paper has been marked in pencil, some one acting in the interests of one party or the other will alter it; that if it has been marked in ink, it may be defaced so as to be made informal; and that if the envelope has been properly sealed, it will be destroyed or defaced in such a way as to render the vote invalid. A simple test can be applied to ascertain whether there is any substance in the fantastic story that has been put up by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is the test: If his story is true, the percentage of informal votes cast by postal voters would be higher than the percentage of informal votes cast in the ordinary way. In fact, the position is quite the reverse; the percentage of informal votes cast by postal voters is lower, on the average. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- How do you know that? {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- I have inquired about it. You could do the same, because the figures are available to you. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should check the facts. If he does so, he will find that the percentage of informal votes cast by postal voters is lower than the percentage for ordinary *recorded votes.* When submitted to that test, the honorable gentleman's fantastic story falls down. {: #debate-36-s6 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .- I was very interested in the comments of the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Osborne)** and the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** who is in charge of the bill. I refuse to believe that the Minister who is in charge of the electoral affairs of this country could be as naive as the statements of the Minister for Repatriation imply. It is quite clear, as has been said by the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Reynolds)** and the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm),** that there is adequate scope for the unscrupulous, cunning or sharp campaigner, irrespective of the party to which he belongs. It is quite outside the capacity of the electoral officer to control tactics which may change entirely the trend of postal voting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** did not make the charge that the electoral officials were corrupt in any way; but he did imply that the electoral machinery at present in operation leaves the way open for people who are unscrupulous and who are beyond the control of the electoral officer to take advantage of the loopholes that exist. As honorable members know, the Electoral Act provides that when applications for postal votes are received they shall lie on the table of the electoral officer. 1 had this experience years ago in the electorate that is represented by the Minister for Repatriation: The Liberal Party had a couple of very competent officials in the electoral office each day. They exercised their right to peruse the applications. The ballot-papers were generally posted on the same day. The party had an organizer stationed at the top of the street in which the applicant lived and, as the postal vote went into the house, so did the organizer. I do not say that there was anything wrong with that except that the aged or ill person who was approached was probably delighted to have some one there to fill in the form or to assist him. In many cases - no doubt in all cases - those people acted in good faith. But it was quite easy for any organizer who may have been unscrupulous to do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has suggested could be done. These things are common knowledge to party organizers, and I cannot believe that the Minister would be so naive as to say that it does not happen. I agree that possibly the New South Wales act is not perfect, but at least it does attempt to make certain that people who previously did not cast a secret vote are given .the right and the opportunity, upon the arrival of an electoral visitor, to cast their vote as they would at a polling booth or any other place. It is idle to say that people are disfranchised. It may happen in some cases, but under the terms of the amendment a postal vote could be cast when the elector resides more than five miles from a polling booth. There are mobile booths in hospitals, and electoral visitors call at certain other places. In view of the naive comments that have been made by the Minister for Repatriation, I should like to quote figures relating to his electorate. It is interesting to note, as a result of the survey that I have made of Commonwealth electoral figures, that in safe Labour seats the trend in postal voting is substantially less than the trend in voting at the polling booths and that in some safe Liberal seats the trend in postal voting is 10 per cent, above that in ordinary voting. That applies also in borderline seats. I refer now to what happened at the 1958 election. Instead of relying upon information received from somebody else, I shall rely upon the electoral papers that were supplied to me by the electoral officer. In the borderline seat of Evans, the Minister for Repatriation received 51.99 per cent, of the formal primary votes that were cast in the ordinary way and 66.5 per cent, of the formal postal votes. It is first-class organization! I make no charges, but many things could easily have occurred without his knowledge, as instanced to-night by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** In the Phillip electorate, 51 per cent, of the ordinary formal votes and 54 per cent, of the postal votes went to the Liberal candidate. In Lyne, 68 per cent, of the postal votes and only 53 per cent, of the ordinary votes favoured the Country Party candidate. In Riverina 61 per cent, of the postal votes went to the Country Party candidate, but he got only 53 per cent, of the ordinary votes. First-class organization! Who knows, somewhere along the line, unknown to those candidates, some clever, unscrupulous and shrewd campaigner may have changed the vote, yet the Minister has said the number of informal postal votes is less than the number of informal ordinary votes. No shrewd cam paigner wants to add to the number of informal votes. He will change a paper to suit himself or make sure that the postal vote is posted too late, so that it will not get to the electoral office in time. The trend of voting is practically the same all over Australia. In borderline Labour seats like St. George, 51 per cent, of the ordinary votes but only 40 per cent, of the postal votes went to the successful candidate. Similarly, in the electorate of Barton, the Labour candidate got 51 per cent, of the ordinary votes and only 40 per cent, of the postal votes. In Eden-Monaro, the Labour candidate got 53 per cent, of the ordinary votes and 48 per cent, of the postal votes. In Parkes, 51 per cent, of the booth votes went to Labour and only 40 per cent, of the postal votes. In some areas there are skilled organizers paid to work against the Labour people - I make no charges on these matters - but I do not doubt that all parties at some stage have some person who, unknown to the candidate, is able to do these things. In the safe Liberal seat of Warringah 83 per cent, of the postal votes went to the successful candidate, but he got only 73 per cent, of the booth votes. In Richmond, 78 per cent, of the postal votes, or nearly eight out of ten, went to the successful Country Party candidate, and only 69 per cent, of the booth votes. In Bradfield, 85 per cent, of the postal votes went to the Liberal candidate, and he got only 75 per cent, of the booth 'votes. In Wentworth, 79 per cent, of the postal votes went to the Liberal candidate, and only 69 per cent, of the booth votes. In New England, the Country Party candidate received 76 per cent, of the postal votes and only 59 per cent, of the booth votes. What is the trend of postal voting in safe Labour seats? In West Sydney, the Labour Party candidate got 58 per cent, of the postal votes and 65 per cent, of the ordinary votes in the booths, which shows that even in that electorate a candidate can be beaten by the postal votes. Similarly, in Blaxland 60 per cent, of the postal votes went to the Labour candidate and 63 per cent, of the ordinary votes. In Darling, Hunter, East Sydney and my own seat, Grayndler, which are held by Labour by big majorities of 63 to 70 per cent, of the vote, in each case the postal vote is below the average, which proves that there is skilled organization throughout. Many of these anomalies have to be stamped out. We do not say that the system is perfect. I mention in passing that I have taken these figures from practically all the States in the Commonwealth and with one or two isolated exceptions it is significant that the trend of postal voting is right against that of ordinary voting, particularly in the Labour seats. In the case of the Liberal seats it may be said that they are better organized, but that is not always so. The fact of the matter is that, as the honorable member for Barton. **(Mr. Reynolds)** has stated, this system lays itself open to manipulation. Some one could take a postal vote from a person and either fill it in or alter it as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, or, if it cannot be changed, that person can make sure that it will not reach the electoral office in time. That may account to some extent for the lack of informal postal votes and it would be interesting to have figures of the late arrivals of postal votes. This is an attempt to alter the system so that people will be able to record postal votes in a ballot-box secretly, just as they would in a polling booth and in that way have a secret vote equivalent, to all intents and purposes, to that recorded in a polling booth. It is idle to say that the system in New South Wales does not act to the advantage of all parties. It is no use saying it has been adopted in order that Labour may get all the votes. In the Liverpool Plains electorate, under the system which we are endeavouring to write into this act, the successful Country Party candidate won by a few votes. He had, in respect of postal votes, a majority of 141 to ten, or something like that. So, it is no use saying that the system is all for the benefit of the Labour Party and that a person may be disfranchised. Much as I dislike to see any person who is entitled to a vote disfranchised, if the odd one has to suffer in order to close the loopholes which exist under the present system, this change will be well justified. I cannot agree with those who say we should just let the whole thing go. I should like to think that every one was honest under this system and did not try to get votes in the way that has been suggested. But do not forget that postal votes win elections. There are some members here in all parties who had very narrow majorities and we have had cases where seven or eight votes mattered. In the Lismore by-election in the State sphere a candidate won by two votes, and they were postal votes. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** on one occasion led by about 1,200 votes, but ultimately he won by about 100 votes. Nine out of every ten postal votes were against him. A change is necessary. {: #debate-36-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. **Mr. ANDERSON** (Hume) TI 1.46].- I look on this amendment as an abomination. It was designed particularly by the New South Wales Government to work effectively against the non-Labour group. There is a very good reason why postal votes favour the Country Party and the Liberal Party. It is because the voters who support Labour are more likely to be stationary, whereas those who support our side of politics are more likely to be moving about. That is why the postal votes favour us. Furthermore, the postal votes favour us because more of our supporters live in the country and more than 5 miles from a polling booth. There are obvious reasons for it. But this system is designed to affect and has affected two State elections in New South Wales. One point that has just been raised is that if a person applies for an electoral visitor in a sub-division and moves out of that sub-division he cannot get the electoral visitor. He can only get the electoral visitor in that sub-division. That is designed to disfranchise people- {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- Why do you assume that such people vote for only one side of politics? {: #debate-36-s8 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- People are entitled to their votes- {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- Of course they are! {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- How does a person know, eight days before an election, that he is going to become ill? This provision is designed to disfranchise people. Another matter which disturbs me - I have never heard of it in my life and I have been through six elections - is the manipulation of postal votes. It is certain it does not happen on my side of politics and I am certain that my opponent would not have it either. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- You might not know it happened. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- It is degrading to ask a sick person to record a postal vote. One asks him to apply for a postal vote and the Post Office sends it to him. We do not have people watching the postmen in country districts and we would have to travel miles to get one vote. It is nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** says these things do take place and as he is a lawyer I presume he understands the laws of evidence and must have good evidence that these things happen. Otherwise he would not say that they do. That does not take place to my knowledge and ii it does take place this is not the way in which to remedy the position. The honorable member for Grayndler mentioned the extraordinary number of postal votes in the Liverpool Plains by-election for the New South Wales Parliament. That election took place on a day that was specially selected as being most embarrassing for the Australian Country Party candidate, as it was one of the principal days of the Royal Easter Show. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- Do not Labour people go to the show? {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- A lot of them do, but nine out of ten of the country people, who go to the show are supporters of the Country Party or the Liberal Party. In that by-election, of 150 postal votes nine went to Labour and all the rest to the Country Party. Do honorable members opposite think that they were all cast dishonestly? If they thought so, they did not make any complaints. An electoral visitor has to give an infirm person a form to sign. Does that not give an opportunity for malpractice in the sick room? The electoral visitor will say, " Here is your ballotpaper ", and the sick person will reply, " Please fill it in for me ". What security will that provide? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- He will be accompanied by scrutineers. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- Suppose that one party cannot afford to provide a scrutineer to travel many miles from house to house visiting sick persons or women expecting babies. Is this the proper way to give effect to electoral laws? This amendment is an abomination and I would be thoroughly ashamed to be a member of a party that made such a suggestion. It is not even decent. If electoral laws are being broken and if the alleged malpractices in regard to postal votes in fact occur, surely there must be a way of stopping them. The existence of these practices is news to me. Perhaps this is why so many Labour people are elected. I have never heard of these practices in my experience and I am quite certain that my political opponent does not work in that way. Postal votes favour our side of politics because Labour supporters are more likely to be stationary than are our supporters. The Labour Party is trying to prevent us from having the benefit of those, postal votes that are registered in our favour. This amendment is a nasty bit of work. {: #debate-36-s9 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- For the purposes of this debate let us accept - though I do not accept - the thesis of the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** that the travelling or absent voter is more likely to be Country Party or Liberal than Labour. I think the honorable member will agree that sickness does not fall on people according to their party affiliations. If one dissects the sick vote in an electorate, it should follow the distribution of votes in the electorate generally. The honorable member for Hume has spoken as if the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** would affect travelling and absent voters. It would not have such an effect. It deals with the sick and infirm within five miles of a polling place and it is designed to let them have a private, secret vote. Like the honorable member for Hume, I have never heard of anybody faking a vote but a matter that did not relate to my electorate was brought to my attention because the woman concerned happened to be the mother of a boy I once taught when I was a teacher, and I was a political figure whom she felt she could approach. What happened in her case was that a party organizer had come into a Silver Chain Nursing Home in Western Australia where she was a patient and said, "This is your ballot-paper " and had filled it in for her. She saw how the ballot paper had been marked and objected, " I do not want to vote in that way ". The counterfoil had been sealed. The woman organizer said, " Oh, you do not want to vote in that way? ", and she tore the counterfoil open and marked the ballot paper in the way that the voter wanted. But the fact that the counterfoil was torn and that the vote went in in that form meant that the vote would be invalid. I cannot see the force of the objections of the honorable member for Hume to the proposed amendment. After all, if we look at the matter from the point of view of a parliament attempting to keep the counting of the votes that determine the nature of the parliament in neutral and responsible hands, what a scandalous thing it must appear that in election advertisements, parties put three or four telephone numbers which a person can ring to ensure that he gets a sick vote. Why on earth is if impossible to prevent parties advertising these numbers in the press? It should be made quite illegal for a political party to publish telephone numbers in an advertisement appealing for sick votes. It should be mandatory upon the Commonwealth Electoral Office to advertise telephone numbers to which one can apply for a sick vote. What objection could any honorable member have to that procedure? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- This has not anything to do with the amendment. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- No. I do not think the abuse in relation to postal voting is that there is a mass faking of votes. I rely on my own experience and what I was told by a member on the other side of the chamber. He told me that he had to stand up a supporter who had said that he knew a number of people had not voted for the member and that he was not going to allow their votes to go in. The member said that would not support that sort of thing. I have walked into the Trades Hall in Fremantle and seen piles of postal votes. If one were dishonest, it would be quite possible to ensure that those votes did not go in. The point is that the collecting of sick votes - I stress this aspect particularly - is not in neutral hands. The efficiency of a party organization lies in rounding up the votes that the organization thinks will support it and not those that it does not think will support it. I do not think that there are sufficient grounds for allowing that kind of voting to continue. I do not think it is desirable. I cannot understand why it is not possible in great institutions, such as hospitals, where it is known that there are some thousands of voters, to have an electoral officer and scrutineers charged with collecting votes. That is not the position at the present time. The lady to whom I referred earlier, who directed my attention to her preparedness to make an affadavit, was very sick. She had to fight to cast her vote in the way she wanted it cast. She felt the pressure of this partisan electoral worker. Unfair pressure takes place under the system that we have now. Question put - >That the paragraph proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 32 NOES: 53 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Thursday, 4 May 1961 Clauses 11 and 12 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 13. Section one hundred and thirty of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - " 130. - (1.) A candidate may appoint scrutineers to represent him at the scrutiny. " (2.) Except as provided by the next succeeding sub-section, a candidate is not entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at a particular polling booth by more than one scrutineer. " (3.) The officer who is to conduct, or is conducting, the scrutiny at a polling booth may, subject to any directions given to him from time to time by the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in which the polling booth is situated or the Divisional Returning Officer in whose Division the polling booth is situated, permit each candidate to be represented at the scrutiny at the polling booth by scrutineers not exceeding in number such number as that firstmentioned officer determines. {: #debate-36-s10 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I move - >Omit proposed sub-sections (2.) and (3.), insert the following sub-section: - " ' (2.) A candidate is entitled to appoint as many scrutineers to represent him at the scrutiny at a polling booth as there are ballot-boxes at that polling booth fromwhich ballot-papers are being counted at any one time.". Section 130 of the act provides at present that each candidate may appoint one scrutineer to represent him at the scrutiny at each polling booth. The defect of this provision is that in fact it is only on very rare occasions that only one ballot-box at a time is counted at any particular polling booth. If more than one ballot-box is being counted at a time it is clearly impossible for one scrutineer to do his job properly on behalf of his candidate. The bill provides that a candidate is not entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at a particular polling booth by more than one scrutineer, although it also provides that the officer conducting the scrutiny may, subject to directions given him by his superiors, permit each candidate to be represented at the scrutiny at a particular polling booth by scrutineers not exceeding in number such number as the officer conducting the scrutiny determines. The defect of this provision is that in some polling booths a greater number of ballotboxes may be counted at one time than the number of scrutineers permitted. The proposed new section undoubtedly represents an improvement on the existing section of the act. Admittedly the present section is usually waived by presiding officers, who permit more scrutineers than one on behalf of each candidate. It is to the advantage of the presiding officers as well as the candidates to have more than one scrutineer per candidate, because an accurate and prompt check can then be made. However, this clause could still operate to prevent a scrutineer being available on behalf of each candidate in respect of each ballot-box being counted at the one time. Acceptance of the amendment which J have moved, and which was circulated several weeks ago in the name of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** , would effectuate the purpose which the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** proclaimed in his second-reading speech on the first bill that was introduced on 8th November, 1960, to which he referred in his second-reading speech on the measure now before us or. 21st March, 1961. The Minister said on 8th November last - >The intention of this provision is to allow a candidate to appoint to each counting centre a number of scrutineers up to the number of tables *st* which ballot-papers are being scrutinized or are being prepared for scrutiny. I suggest that acceptance of the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition circulated, and which I have moved, would in fact implement the intention stated by the Minister. There can be no cavilling at the intention which the Minister stated, but there can be, I suggest, a cavilling at the method outlined in the proposed new section. In fact, while the intention might miscarry under the proposed new section, it would be brought to fruition by the adoption of the amendment. {: #debate-36-s11 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- There is no very great difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government regarding the result that it is desired this clause should have. The Opposition desires to have it written into the clause that scrutineers must be permitted up to the number of ballot boxes being counted at any one time. The intention of the Government is that scrutineers will be permitted up to the number of tables which are being used in a booth to count the votes. In most cases, that is virtually the same thing. The Opposition has asked that such a provision be written in precisely. We prefer to leave it a little indefinite, a little within the discretion of the presiding officer, under the direction of the assistant returning officer, because there are two points which have to be taken into consideration. First, there are occasions in some of the States when a large ballot box is used and a quantity of votes may be counted from one ballot box at two or possibly even three tables. The counting could be going on and, under Labour's proposal, in theory only one scrutineer would be permitted. The other point which must be considered goes to the opposite extreme. We have heard to-night some startling allegations of improper conduct during elections. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- You know they are right. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Not at the count. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Let us imagine that somebody wants to take advantage of those conditions. Let us imagine that there is a polling booth where counting is going on at three tables simultaneously. In theory, if there are fifteen Senate candidates there can be 45 scrutineers milling around the polling booth, and if there are four candidates for the House of Representatives there can be another twelve scrutineers representing those candidates, if three ballot boxes are being counted simultaneously. All those people could cause absolute chaos in the counting, because there would be no chance for the presiding officer or any one else to see that hanky-panky was not going on. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is going to extremes. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Of course it is. We heard some extreme cases about loopholes mentioned here to-night. How much chance would there be to guard against such practices if there was a whole army of scrutineers moving about at any one time? The chances of malpractices occurring would be multiplied excessively. I suggest that the provision that the Government proposes to insert in the act leaves the way open for a sensible degree of cooperation between the major political parties which are likely to appoint scrutineers and the divisional returning officer, or people under his direction who are conducting the count. We believe that on this basis a proper scrutiny of the poll will be possible. I suggest that it is not desirable to adopt the precise form proposed by the Labour Party. We wish to allow more scrutineers, to enable a proper scrutiny to be made, but not to the point of absurdity. {: #debate-36-s12 .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD:
Batman .- I have listened very closely to the reasoning of the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** but I am by no means convinced that it is absolutely sound. To my way of thinking, there appears to be too much indecision. There is an air of indecision about the whole clause. The Minister has said, "We prefer to make it a little indefinite ". Why does he prefer to do that? Because of the indefinite nature of the provision the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer could vary from election to election if he so desired. It is possible that the Government may change its mind. We shall not always have the present Minister for the Interior in charge of electoral arrangements. It is possible that the Chief Electoral Officer will be told - not at the next general election, but perhaps the one after that - that only one scrutineer will be allowed for an entire booth. I suggest, **Mr. Chairman,** that the only way to make certain that there will be no complaints from political parties in this connexion is to have a scrutineer at every ballot box, and for that right to be given to the parties by the act itself. I fail to see why the matter should be left to the discretion of the electoral officer. Why is that necessary, when different decisions may be given from time to time? I had an experience during an election in Victoria not so long ago when, had it not been for the action of a scrutineer, the Labour candidate would have been deprived of a number of votes. The electoral officer in charge of the table was very fatigued after a long day, and when he was totalling up the votes he gave the Labour candidate's votes - I think they were those from P to Z - to the Liberal candidate and the Liberal candidate's votes to the Labour man, with the result that the Labour candidate's total was 426 votes fewer than it should have been. If it had not been for the fact that there was a Labour scrutineer at the table the Labour candidate's majority would have been reduced by 426 votes. Under the provision proposed by the Minister, that could happen again, because there could be a time when there was no scrutineer at a table. Why cannot we have a guarantee in the act that there will always be scrutineers at all tables? I have no doubt that while the present Minister is in charge of electoral arrangements he will honour the intepretation , of the provisions that he gave to-night. But there may be a change in the occupancy of the portfolio. Since I have been a member of this Parliament there have been five or six Ministers for the Interior. It is quite possible that the present Minister will be replaced, as have other Ministers for the Interior who thought they would have a long tenure of that portfolio. Judging by past performance, another person will shortly take over the portfolio. It seems to be a portfolio in which there is a marked insecurity of tenure. The policy of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** seems to be to give everybody a go at it and to change the occupancy almost from election to election. It is possible that a new Minister for the Interior, appointed by the Prime Minister after the next general election, will have different ideas and will give instructions to the electoral officer that there shall be only one scrutineer at polling booths instead of three or four. Therefore, with the idea of ensuring electoral justice to all parties at all times, I suggest that the Opposition amendment be accepted. {: #debate-36-s13 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- I thought that the remarks of the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** were right on the ball. He was in error, however, in suggesting that the present Prime Minister will appoint the next Minister for the Interior. I have no doubt that that will be the prerogative of the Australian Labour Party. It seems to me that the Minister's explanation, while satisfactory to us here, is not sufficiently explicit. Elections are our concern principally and we ought to lay down the principles on which they should be carried out. So far as I can recollect, the occasions on which I have been in polling booths returning officers are always asked, " Can we have as many scrutineers as ballot-boxes? " After some indecision on their part, agreement is reached. In my electorate I suppose there is one of the largest polling booths in the Commonwealth. Some 6,000 or 7,000 people record their votes there. I have seen no evidence of a milling throng or an army of scrutineers which could confuse the ballot. I agree with the honorable member for Batman that we cannot be too careful about this matter. There must be somebody present to scrutinize at every place where counting is going on, and the requisite decision ought to be made by the Parliament and incorporated in the law. I am sure that the position could be covered in a more explicit way. It is better to have too many scrutineers than too few. Honorable members opposite were inclined to scoff at the suggestion that ballot-papers might get into the wrong bundle. In Victoria, during an election in 1950, a bundle of 25 votes was put on the wrong pile. The result was that the anti-Labour candidate was almost declared elected. Eventually our man won by three votes. Had there been no scrutineer actively engaged in scrutinizing the count, the result would have been different. The conduct of elections is one of the most important aspects of community life. Scrutineers do not cost the country anything. An explicit direction from this Parliament as to the exact number of scrutineers to which we think candidates are entitled should be included in the act. The matter should not beleft in the indefinite state to which the honorable member for Batman has referred. Therefore, I urge honorable members opposite to support the Opposition amendment. Question put - >That the sub-sections proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** stand part of the clause. The committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 54 NOES: 33 Majority . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 14 (Display of certain electoral posters prohibited). {: #debate-36-s14 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- The Opposition will vote against this clause which proposes to increase the permissible size of electoral posters from 60 square inches to 1,200 square inches. The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** said it was felt that some limitation of size was still desirable to prevent undue extravagance and the ugly disfiguring of the countryside. We agree that there should still be a limitation on size on those grounds. We feel that the objectives would be properly achieved by retaining the present size. We believe that no case has been made out for increasing the size from 60 to 1,200 square inches. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 53 NOES: 33 Majority . . . . 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 15 (Prohibition of canvassing near polling booths). {: #debate-36-s15 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP against this clause, as indicated in the list of amendments circulated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** I am confident that the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** who is a reasonable man in some matters at least, will, after reconsideration, agree to delete this clause. It would impose the greatest difficulty upon representatives of all parties if the law were amended in the form proposed in the bill. Take the case of a country school at which perhaps only 50 or 60 votes are recorded during the day. Such a school stands in its own grounds and there may be as many as four or five entrances to the grounds in which the school stands. It is difficult enough to get one supporter to stand at such a small booth and distribute howtovote cards. {: .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman: -- Not in my electorate. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Obviously it would be impossible, even in the electorate of the Minister for Shipping and Transport, to get four or five workers to stand, one outside each gate of a school, in order to attend to the needs of 40 or 50 people who would vote there during the twelve hours on polling day. No harm would be done by continuing the present position under which in such a case- a representative of each party stands inside the grounds but 20 feet away from the entrance to the building which is in fact the entrance to the booth. Often a pleasant arrangement exists under which the representative of one party leaves the place for a while to have his lunch or a cup of tea and the representative of the other party hands out the opposing party's cards as well as his own cards during the time the representative of the opposing party is away. As I have said, it would be utterly impossible to man such a booth if it had to be done in the way which the amendment proposed by the Government provides. Therefore, I hope that honorable members on the other side of the chamber will see the force of my contention and that the Minister for the Interior will agree to re-examine this clause either now or before the bill is introduced in another place. **Mr. FREETH** (Forrest- Minister for the Interior [12.35 a.m.]. - There is a great deal of force in what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** has said. The reason why this clause has been inserted in the bill is simply that at present there is a regulation, made under the act, which provides for exactly what the clause specifies. In other words, if the regulation were to be enforced, if would be possible for all the entrances to a school ground to be deemed to be entrances to the polling booth. There is some doubt about the validity of the regulation, because it is rather difficult to say that a regulation can define something which is in the act. Therefore, in the past the regulation has not been enforced as strictly as it might have been, although from time to time attempts have been made to enforce it. The intention is that in the kind of case quoted by the honorable member for EdenMonaro an arrangement will be made whereby there will be only one actual physical entrance, and that will be the one where the canvassers will stand. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- What will happen if people come in by the other entrances? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- The entrance to the actual booth, rather than to the grounds, will be deemed to be the entrance. There may be places to which many thousands of people will go to vote and at which there would be no great physical difficulty in manning the numerous entrances, but difficulty could be caused by cluttering up the entrance to the building itself with canvassers. The Government believes that the matter should be left to the discretion of the divisional returning officer, who will instruct his presiding officers, after consultation with the political parties involved before polling day so that a sensible and reasonable arrangement can be arrived at. Finally, I make the point that the whole purpose of manning polling booths with people equipped with how-to-vote cards and all the necessary propaganda is to enable the voter to receive some assistance if he wants it. Even if there are a number of entrances, there is no great difficulty in a voter going to the entrance where the canvassers and manners of the booth stand and collecting a how-to-vote card. Quite a number of people do not like being pestered by the propagandists of the various political parties. They prefer to avoid the attentions of such people, if they can, because they have already made up their minds and do not want to go through the process of waving such people aside. So in certain cases I do not think there is anything unreasonable in the possibility that one entrance through a side or back gate will be left unmanned. The voter himself is the person who has to be kept in mind on polling day. If facilities are provided for him to collect how-to-vote cards if he wants them, surely that is all that is really necessary. As I have stated - I have also given this undertaking to members of the Government parties, because they are interested in this matter, particularly in country areas - the intention is that at polling booths with a small number of voters, where there is. physical difficulty in providing a satisfactory number of party supporters, the divisional returning officer will instruct his presiding officers to deem one entrance to be the entrance to the polling booth. That will be the entrance to the building itself. I do not think that there is any great difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on this matter, but we believe that a little elasticity is necessary. {: #debate-36-s16 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- There is only one polling booth in my electorate at which the presiding officer has tried to carry out the regulation about which the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** has spoken. At every election there was more trouble than enough at that polling booth because that officer came out, measured the distance on each side of the gate and said, " You have to go down there " or " You have to go down there ". If anybody crept closer to the gate, this man would come out and threaten to call the police. If the Minister does not intend to accept the Opposition's request not to proceed with this clause, but intends to carry on with it, I hope that as a result of the instructions that will be issued the presiding officers will not cause irritation or arguments between parties. At some polling booths, one chap hands out howtovote cards for the Communists, one for the Australian Labour Party, one for the Australian Democratic Labour Party, and one for the Liberals. They come to grips because one of them creeps up on his mark. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- We are not talking about the distance. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- But that will happen at every gate. In the past, the question has been whether the gate was the entrance. In this case, if you defined the entrance as the gate it would not matter. It is where there are three or four entrances that the difficulty arises. I am sorry that the Minister is insisting on this. {: #debate-36-s17 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY:
Perth .This problem could be solved quite easily if the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** were to instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to direct the electoral officers in every State not to have schools as polling booths. 1 think that, representing a city electorate-- {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- We can see that you are a city man. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY: -- Very well! What is the basis for the proposed amendment? The Opposition has proposed the amendment. We have not. This trouble occurs mainly at schools at which there are four or five entrances. It is difficult for any party to man all those places because there is a main entrance through which most of the people go. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- You would have to change all the polling places in Australia. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY: -- It is ridiculous to say that. You cannot point out any place at which a school has been nominated as a polling booth where there is not, within easy reach, a place with one entrance which would solve this problem. Because of the parsimonious approach to this matter, in most cases, schools and roads board halls are made available for nothing as polling booths. If the Government were prepared to pay a few pounds for a comfortable polling booth, this problem would be solved. {: #debate-36-s18 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford -- At the next general election, I will press this point concerning distance, since the Minister for the Interior is so determined. I hope that, on polling day, all returning officers will be supplied with tape measures because I will see that the exact distance is kept - not 1 inch one way and not 1 inch the other. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 54 NOES: 33 Majority . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 16 and 17 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause. Section proposed to be amended - State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to - {: #debate-36-s19 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I move) - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- " 3a. Section nineteen of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word ' one-fifth ' (wherever occurring) and inserting in its stead the word one-tenth'.". The proposed amendment will affect section 19 of the act, which lists the matters to which distribution commissioners must give due consideration in any proposed distribution of a State. I regret that no opportunity has been taken to enable distribution commissioners to take into account the number of voteless persons including aborigines, infants and immigrants in electorates. As we know, there are three times as many human beings in some electorates as there are in others. The amendment deals with the margin which the commissioners are allowed to permit above or below the quota determined under the Constitution. The amendment will give effect to the unanimous recommendation made to this Parliament two and a half years ago by the Constitutional Review Committee and fully reasoned in a further report to the Parliament eighteen months ago. I would anticipate that the committee's recommendation would be endorsed by the Parliament. It is one recommendation which may be given effect by statute and which does not require a referendum. It is a recommendation that was supported not only by the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** and Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Kennelly)** in the Senate, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** and the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** who comprised the six Opposition members on the committee, but also by the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Downer),** by **Mr. Justice** Joske as he. now is, by the former AttorneyGeneral, by **Senator Wright** of the Liberal Party, by the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond)** and by the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton).** Last week, during the secondreading debate, the honorable member for New England reiterated his support for the proposal. In my second-reading speech two weeks ago I quoted the matters of principle upon which the committee relied. The committee pointed out that a gerrymander might be perpetrated quite legally under the present statute in that one seat might have half as many more voters in it than a neighbouring seat. If the quota is 40,000 there may be neighbouring seats each with a one-fifth tolerance - 32,000 voters in one and 48,000 in the. other. It has hardly ever been necessary for the commissioners to diverge from the quota to that extent, and the committee was unanimously and strongly of the opinion that it was quite possible and altogether desirable that the margin be reduced to one-tenth. {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- Would your suggestion not have the effect of creating new seats? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, no amendment is proposed that would affect the number of seats. The committee did recommend that there should be no longer a link between the number of senators and the number of members of this House and that the number of members for each State should not exceed on the average one member for every 80,000 persons. If that amendment were made to the Constitution it would be possible for seats to be reduced slightly below their present number of electors and there would be fewer difficulties in drawing the boundaries of the larger seats. During the debate on the second reading this afternoon, some members of the Country Party suggested that it was to the advantage of persons who live in the country for the margin to be one-fifth. There is, in fact, no guarantee that the margin would not be operated against the interests of persons in the country and in the interests of persons in the cities. In actual fact, that is how the matter now stands. The electorates in New South Wales that have the smallest populations are East Sydney and West Sydney. The electorate with the smallest population in Victoria is Melbourne; in South Australia, it is Adelaide; in Western Australia it is Perth. In Queensland the electorate of Brisbane has only 100 voters more than ' Dawson and 400 voters more than Kennedy. Those figures have been supplied to me by the electoral authorities and are the figures as at 31st March this year. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Kalgoorlie has fewer voters than Perth. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Thank you. I had overlooked that Perth has 400 more voters than Kalgoorlie. In general the inner city electorates are the ones that have the smallest populations. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- That is because of the drift. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yes, it is because of the declining population. In New South Wales there are more non-rural seats than rural seats with less than the quota. The drop in population in the inner city areas in every State is even greater than in the provincial cities and country districts. It is not correct to say that the present margin has operated in the interests of country areas. It has operated to the detriment of people in the country. The electorates that are growing quickest are those in the outer suburbs of the State capitals. Those electorates happen to be the electorates that have the greatest number of voteless persons - infants and migrants. Objections were taken during the second-reading stage, largely by interjection, that it would be very difficult to cater for seats such as Kalgoorlie, Kennedy and Darling. In actual fact there is no division in the House that now has anywhere near the population or covers anywhere near the area that a very great number of electorates had and covered before 1949. Furthermore, those electorates are now more readily reached than they were in 1949 because not only are they smaller but also communications, whether by telephone, radio, aircraft, road or even rail, have in every case greatly improved. It is easier now to reach any electorate than it was formerly. These objections were specifically dealt with by the Constitutional Review Committee, which unanimously stated - >But, in the opinion of the Committee, it is quite unrealistic to imagine that in electorates covering more than 100,000 square miles, the reduction of the permissible margin from one-fifth to one-tenth will produce any vastly different results. > >It is the Committee's view that each large division can be fitted into a marginal allowance of one-tenth without frustration of the purposes of section 19. The same legal considerations have applied to the last three redistributions, but the assessed enrolment of Kalgoorlie, Darling and Kennedy, for purposes of the redistribution in 1937, was, in each case, considerably greater than the quota determined for each of the States concerned for purposes of the redistributions in 1948 and 1955. The committee then referred to the fact that if the Constitution were altered in the two ways recommended - that aborigines be counted in assessing the quota for each seat and that it be permissible for a seat to be created for every 80,000 or more inhabitants - it would be still easier to comply with a one-tenth margin. {: #debate-36-s20 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-36-s21 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee -- Despite what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** has said, he did not in any way disprove my contention that the Electoral Act could be used to encourage the distribution of population more evenly throughout the land. Despite what he said, I have not claimed that the legislation is now being used in that way. 1 said that the legislation should be used for that purpose. The Electoral Act is one instrument that we can use in endeavouring to get the people away from the metropolitan areas and distributed throughout this country. This is the only method that can be used. I am strongly opposed to the amendment, of course. I complimented the Minister earlier to-day on his decision to maintain the margin of 20 per cent., and I do so again. {: #debate-36-s22 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- **Mr. Chairman,** we heard a great deal of discussion about this proposal at the second-reading stage this afternoon, and I do not propose to deal with it now at very great length. I point out that one of the reasons for this amendment adduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** is a fear of gerrymandering. I do not know that the danger of gerrymandering will be reduced by multiplying the number of redistributions, because a greater number of redistributions will be the inevitable result of a reduction, in the way proposed, of the flexibility permitted to distribution commissioners. The present method of distributing electoral boundaries provided for in the principal act is, I think, one of the fairest that has been devised. We very rarely hear sustained with any great argument or heat a suggestion 'that there has been a gerrymander in the true sense of the word. Electoral boundaries are determined by distribution commissioners in each State, and their methods of procedure are defined in such a way as to leave it fairly clearly understood that they are the people who make the positive proposals. Objections to their proposals may be made, and can be heard, but in the ultimate the commissioners are the people who determine the electoral boundaries. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Who appoints the .distribution commissioners? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Those are fairly stock appointments. The Surveyor-General and the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State and an independent person are almost automatically chosen. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- That is a matter of practice, not of statute. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is quite true: It is a matter of practice. It has become part of our pattern, and all three major political parties accept the fact that there has never been - at least, there has never been, so far as 1 am aware - any serious allegation of improper practice 'in the -fixing of electoral boundaries. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Oh, no! I say now that there are improper practices. I put that on record. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- The honorable member says a lot of things, tout he produces no evidence to support his statements. The Distribution Commissioners have ito consider a number of factors in the determination of electoral boundaries, **Mr. Chairman.** They are enjoined by the act to consider community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, existing boundaries of divisions and subdivisions, and State electoral boundaries. We know from the reports that they make in conjunction with their proposals that they do take into account population movements and the trends in any particular division. To reduce the flexibility of the limits within which the number of electors in a division may be fixed would simply be to reduce the degree of account that the Distribution Commissioners can give to the other matters of which they are enjoined to take notice. That would -be one inevitable consequence of this amendment. The Surveyors-General of the States were called before the Constitutional Review Committee and asked to give their views a'bout this proposal. Almost without exception, their attitude towards it was quite lukewarm. I think it would be fair to summarize the views of the New South Wales Surveyor-General in these terms: He thought that a margin of either 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, would not be practicable, but 'that a margin of 7i per cent, would be practicable, subject to a proviso that where the elector population density of any division is less than one-tenth of the average elector population density of the State, the margin may be increased, but it should not be in excess of 15 per cent. He wanted a different formula. The Victorian SurveyorGeneral said that there would be no insuperable difficulty in fixing a margin of one-tenth more or less, but that a margin of one-twentieth would be impracticable. He was not very keen about the proposal. The Queensland Surveyor-General saw no practical difficulty in coastal and city divisions, but said that the proposal was impracticable in respect of large western divisions which, even with a one-fifth margin, must take in coastal areas. He considered that there would be nothing to be gained but much to be lost in flexibility by any alteration of the existing margin. The South Australian "Surveyor-General -considered that restriction of the marginal allowance of one-tenth would be undesirable and that it certainly should not be reduced to onetwentieth. Except in some .State -divisions, narrow margins would quickly throw redistribution out of balance, wreck stability and necessitate frequent redistributions. So the story goes on. The Tasmanian Surveyor-General stated that practical difficulties exist where there is a natural boundary. All the other aspects which Distribution Commissioners are asked to take into account in fixing electoral boundaries are made much more difficult to take into account if we reduce the flexibility of the limits within which the number of electors in a division may be fixed. That is one very great difficulty, especially, as I have already pointed out, in the situation that we now have in Australia, with a large migrant intake and a trend away from the inner suburban areas of the large cities to the outer suburbs. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that all these things make the character of electorates change quickly enough. If the distribution commissioners have not sufficient flexibility in the margins to enable them to take into account all these trends when they first fix the boundaries, electorates will get out of balance far more quickly. With margins less than those specified now, electorates inevitably would get out of balance much more quickly than now, even with frequent distributions. We had a redistribution in 1955 - six years ago. In some parts of Australia, a redistribution is needed now, and we shall certainly need a complete redistribution immediately after the next census, which will be taken at the end of June next. We shall find that we have to have a redistribution within seven years at the outside after the last one. An interval of seven years between redistributions is not excessive. Indeed, it is fairly reasonable. If we are to have redistributions at intervals only half as great as that, or even more frequently, the voters of this country will be confused, and I do not think that that would be desirable. The views expressed by the Constitutional Review Committee extended, I may say. also to a lot of other matters in respect of which provisions are not being written into the electoral laws or the Australian Constitution. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- None of the views expressed bv that committee is being given effect in the law. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is right; none of them is being given effect at the present time. The Opposition's amendment might be worth closer consideration in association with all those other matters, but that is not practicable at the present time. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the amendment. {: #debate-36-s23 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP , - **Mr. Chairman,** I rise to deal with only one point. I refer to the contention by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** that the present margin of one-fifth should be used deliberately to create numerically smaller electorates in the country areas and numerically larger electorates in the cities. In justice to the honorable member, I suggest that his reactionary mind honestly fails to appreciate the wickedness and political immorality of his proposal. In that respect, he is typical of the members of the Australian Country Party, who would really prefer to see in this Parliament representation of broad acres and sheep and cattle rather than representation of human beings. He and those like him are the direct descendants of the property-owners of the United Kingdom, who fought so hard to prevent the introduction of adult suffrage in the first place. I take my stand on the principle of " One vote, one value ". To my mind, that appears to be absolutely essential to the concept of democratic parliamentary government. Although I represent a very large rural electorate in which there are approximately 150 polling places- {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- That is why the honorable member speaks now. He believes that this proposal will affect him. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I at least pay the honorable member the compliment of believing that he put his view forward honestly. I imagined that he would do me equal justice. I am convinced that the people of my electorate see the force of that principle just as clearly as I do. If they differ from me on that point, I would rather go out of public life than put forward a claim for differential electorates in this Commonwealth. {: #debate-36-s24 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle -- The remarks of the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** seem to me to demonstrate that, somehow or other, our basic political and constitutional thinking tends to be 25 years behind the times. I think that the framework of our electoral law dates back to the 1930's, when our population was extraordinarily stable. To-day the population is increasing by 1,000,000 every five years, or perhaps a little less than five years. Let me give honorable members an example of what is happening in the Australian population from evidence that came before a Labour Party educational committee in Western Australia. Enrolments in the State schools of Western Australia increased by only 400 between 1930 and 1939, but between 1950 and 1959 it increased by 65,000. There was a long period of stagnation in population increase in Australia. It took a tremendously long time - probably nearly twenty years - for the population to rise from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000. In these circumstances a re-distribution every six years was quite adequate, but I do not think that that is true now. It is not the convenience of electoral commissioners, or the fact they would meet difficulties, as has been suggested, that should determine whether we have more rapid adjustments. Surely it is the changing nature and the movement of the Australian population that should be the determining factor. Now we have a tremendously rapid change of population. I wish to refer to the point made by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** who apparently believes in electoral weighting to help in a re-distribution of population. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- Do not take South Australia as an example. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I think that in South Australia an average country electorate has about 7,000 electors and an average city electorate between 22,000 and 23,000. There is no State in the Commonwealth where the city is growing so fast in relation to the whole of the State. The population of the South Australian capital was much more than half that of the State areas some time ago, and population in South Australia is becoming more and more concentrated in Adelaide. The honorable member for Mallee, I understand, represents Mildura. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Mildura is in my electorate. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- Do you seriously think that the city member, Alfred Deakin, when he backed the scheme that led to the development of Mildura said, in effect, "lama city member, I am interested only in the concentration of people in tha city? " Of course he did not. Do you think that Western Australian governments, irrespective of their political complexion, when they asked the Commonwealth for funds for such schemes as the Ord River - and governments of both political complexions have asked for such funds for that scheme - were thinking in terms of votes in the city? They thought of that project as an enterprise which would lead to settlement of an irrigation area right away from existing cities. I do not think that there is one scrap of evidence that any Commonwealth projects, irrigation schemes, or schemes like the Snowy Mountains Scheme depend on the country origin or city origin of members. **Mr. Chifley** was not concerned whether it was in his electorate or not when he initiated the Snowy scheme. No Commonwealth actions have done anything at all to de-centralize population except such basic developmental schemes. If in a free enterprise economy investors wish to open a stocking factory, are they going to establish it in Mildura, or in Sydney near a great market? Of course they will establish it in Sydney.- That is why you get a constant movement of private investment near existing markets. Concentration of industry means concentration of population. The honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page)** has advocated an electrification scheme on the Clarence River. Alfred Deakin advocated the development of Mildura. What **Mr. Hawke** was attempting to do, and what **Mr. Brand** is attempting to do on the Ord River will bring about de-centralization, but there is not one scrap of evidence that the gerrymandering of electorates has ever achieved it. {: #debate-36-s25 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .I take this opportunity of answering the questions that have been asked by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley).** He referred to Alfred Deakin as advocating the establishment of Mildura. Alfred Deakin, of course, was a great statesman, but Mildura was founded by the Chaffey brothers. The honorable member said that only things such as irrigation schemes will bring about decentralization of population. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- I said that they are the only Government actions that will bring about decentralization. There are other, natural, things that decentralize population. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- All right, they are the only Government actions that will decentralize population. I made that point this afternoon and I believe it. The question is: How are you going to get a government to introduce an irrigation scheme or other amenities? You can only get a government to do that if you have a strong political representation in the area. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The honorable member for Fremantle mentioned Mildura. I have pointed out before that if there were stronger political representation in north-west Victoria the rail, freight to the seaboard would be adjusted so that factories would be attracted to Mildura. If country areas had more votes in the State and Federal Parliaments there would be decentralization of population. That is the point I am trying to make all the time, but of course it does not seem to sink in with the honorable member for Fremantle. I answered his questions on the same subject this afternoon. The honorable member for Fremantle pointed out that in South Australia country electorates are of a certain size and population, and city electorates are much smaller. He said the same applies to Western Australia. I am not denying that. What I am suggesting has not been put into operation. I am suggesting that the 20 per cent, margin is the only weapon we can use to bring- about a decentralized population. You cannot get decentralization in a country unless you decentralize political representation. That is the point which I wish to make, but in spite of everything I have said it is not understood. A certain honorable member here represents a rural area. I shall not mention his name, for obvious reasons. Being a member of the Labour Party in New South Wales, and being concerned about his position, he says, "If my electors do not agree with what I say I will be prepared to go out of public life ". Apparently he thinks his electors might not agree with him on this subject. I know that some of them will not. If I were in the same position as he is I would be trying to put things right at this stage, but I am not in the same position. I represent an electorate that is bounded on the north by the Murray River' and on the west by the South Australian border. It is in a corner of the State of Victoria. When a member has an electorate in a corner it will not make much difference to him politically whether the population of it is increased or decreased. I am not suggesting for one moment that I will always win, but it would be the same even if my electorate contained many thousands fewer or many thousands more. I am not one of those who goes about saying he will always win. Any man can be beaten in politics. However, it does not matter whether my electorate is larger or smaller, it will not make much difference. If I am going to be beaten I will be beaten anyway. I am not just talking in a self-interested manner; I am talking about this matter as it affects the whole Australian population. The honorable member for Fremantle said that the population has increased rapidly. He gave an instance in Western Australia of how school enrolments increased by a small number in one period and in another period increased by many thousands. That, of course, is the reason why I am advocating my proposition. It is because so many people are shifting to the metropolitan areas. Surely the Labour Party must understand that this drift to the city must be arrested in some way or other. People in densely populated cities are vulnerable to atomic bomb attacks, and the country has not been given the chance to progress as it should. I have made a suggestion to encourage decentralization. Have honorable members of the Opposition made any suggestion how to decentralize the population? Of course they have not. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -. - Unlock the land. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The fact is that if amenities are not supplied in the country the population will not be attracted there. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the honorable member for Mallee has been getting a little away from the clause under discussion. He is concentrating on the problem of decentralization. I will allow him to mention that by way of illustration, but I do not think he should devote his speech to decentralization. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I quite agree with your ruling, **Sir, in** every possible way. We cannot really bring decentralization into these matters all the time. At any rate, I do not need to say much more. I have satisfactorily answered the questions asked by the honorable member for Fremantle. He mentioned that our population is growing because of the large number of people coming from overseas and the natural increase. That is the reason I put forward this idea. If our population were not increasing rapidly, I would never think of putting forward such a suggestion. But of course, the whole position is that the Australian Labour Party is tied to the city, and I represent a country area. That is where we differ. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Why did you oppose each country public works scheme, like the Snowy Mountains project? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I can answer the honorable member. He asks why I opposed the commencement of the Snowy Mountains project. I tell the honorable member that it is on record in " Hansard " that in this Parliament I urged the Government to get moving with the Snowy Mountains scheme. But that has nothing to do with this amendment. It is a very clever question asked by the honorable member for Fremantle to try to draw me off my theme. He knows he is getting the thin end of the stick in this argument. He knows I have answered all the questions he has asked. I know that the Minister will not accept the amendment. Let us hope that some day those who frame the electorates after a census will use the elasticity that they have in regard to numbers to better purpose than previously. {: #debate-36-s26 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** has argued that by giving the country areas a bigger representation, population would be atracted to country areas. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- You would get the amenities. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- You would get the amenities and the population. Let me tell the honorable member that in South Australia we do not have any provision for 20 per cent, or 10 per cent. What we do there is this- {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- You have 200 per cent. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Yes. In making a redistribution, the State commission in South Australia is required to give the metropolitan area half as many members as the country areas have. The country areas have two-thirds of the total representation and the city has one-third. Over 60 per cent, of the total population of the State is in the metropolitan area, which has 13 members while the 40 per cent, of the population in the country areas have 26 members. Nevertheless, the great complaint in South Australia is that people are leaving the country areas and going to the city. If the honorable member thinks that giving the country areas greater representation will stop the drift to the cities, he should have another- think. In discussing this matter, we should consider ways of giving the people real representation. After a re-distribution is made, the variation between the electorates would not be 10 per cent, or even 5 per cent, except perhaps with such electorates as Kennedy and Kalgoorlie. After a re-distribution, the difference between electorates is very small. But the difficulty I think the Minister has in mind is this: The electorate of Bruce, for instance, has 80,000 electors. That is because of the drift of population that has taken place from the time of the last census until the present. The electorate of Melbourne, on the other hand, has about 30,000 electors. The difference between the two electorates is tremendous, but that is caused by the drift of population. At present, Adelaide has about 30,000, but Bonython and Kingston have about 60,000. That is not the fault of the committee that applies the 20 per cent, to the quota. The position is that if the percentage is reduced and made 10 per cent., there may be more divisions which exceeded the quota by the permitted percentage and that would cause a redistribution. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- There would be one every three years. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- That is what I thought the Minister had in mind. There is a certain amount to be said for that contention, but 1 still think that the figure should be 10 per cent. The Constitutional Review Committee considered this matter thoroughly and had all the figures before it. It reported that there was no need to have 20 per cent., that the figure could be 10 per cent. There might be a possibility of a gerrymander, but I do not think it would be likely. However, when we make a law we should ensure that it is a reasonable law that will operate in the best interests of the people. After the next census is taken, there will certainly be a re-distribution in most States because of the big alteration in population. But when we talk about a gerrymander we must remember that all sorts of things can happen. I know of the difficulties that can arise, because of the experience I have had in my electorate. When the number in my electorate increased, a portion of the district had to be taken away. Unfortunately for me, when the alteration was made the parts that were taken away from the electorate included many Labour voters. However, although I lost a percentage of the Labour vote I was able to win part of the Liberal vote. I do not blame the commission in that respect; it was guided by geographical features. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- It was nature. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- The honorable member says it was nature. The cause was that I had the ocean on two sides of me. However, I suppose that is nature. I think the appropriate figure would be 10 per cent., and I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam),** because it seeks to substitute 10 per cent, for 20 per cent. {: #debate-36-s27 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .I will be very brief at this late hour, but there are two points I want to make. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** who usually makes a very intelligent contribution to debates in this chamber, when presenting his argument on the question of city electorates and country electorates asked where a manufacturer of stockings would set up his factory. He said that the manufacturer would, of course, set up his factory in Sydney, where the market is. On that argument, every factory would be established in Sydney. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- That is what is happening. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- Is that what is happening now? Is that what the Australian Labour Party wants? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- I am not advocating it. I am merely saying that if private enterprise operates on that basis, that is what it will do. The establishment of factories in city areas or country areas has nothing to do with the number of voters. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- Nonsense. If we had a proper State government, the drift to the city could be changed. But the State Government permits 64 members to represent Sydney electorates and only 30 members to represent country areas. The members of the Labour Party think like ants and live like ants in concentrated areas like Sydney and Melbourne. They have an ant-like complex. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** in an effort to refute the argument presented by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** quoted South Australia as an example. Why take an exceptional State? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- South Australia has not had a Labour government for 30 years. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- But why take an exceptional State? In mentioning a State in which there is no Country Party, the honorable member used a very poor argument in seeking to establish his case. If the margin allowed on either side of the quota were 10 per cent., then conditions would develop which could result only in cities like Sydney and Melbourne becoming bigger and bigger. Every new redistribution of boundaries would mean that there would be fewer people representing country districts and more people representing city electorates. Then we would have centralization. {: #debate-36-s28 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The speech just delivered by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** was most revealing. I think it ought to be placarded at the next election. With the innocent candour that is typical of him, he has uttered the greatest condemnation of this Government that I have heard during my term in this Parliament. He has declared that the country districts are suffering from severe injustices and from a lack of amenities and facilities which v/ill not be remedied until country electorates are created with far fewer voters than city electorates, so that the country representation will be so much enlarged as to be able to compel governments to do justice to the country districts. In other words, he is saying that the present Government is not doing justice to the country districts - something which the Labour Party has been contending for a very long time. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr Cleaver: -- Are not you twisting his words? {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Not at all. He is saying, in effect, that the Country Party is supinely agreeing to this injustice to country districts. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I point out to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that he is getting a little away from the question before the committee. I explained to the honorable member for Mallee that decentralization could be mentioned to illustrate the point he was making with regard to percentages above and below the quota. This is not a debate on decentralization or amenities in country districts. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am dealing solely with the question of representation of electorates. The final point I make is that the Country Party, which holds the balance of power in this Parliament, already has sufficient members here to enable it to require the Government to carry out any policies which it considers necessary for the benefit of the country areas. Therefore, the whole point of the speech just made by the honorable member for Mallee is that the Country Party is completely ineffective and unwilling to do the task which it came into this Parliament to do. {: #debate-36-s29 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- We cannot achieve a better distribution of population by distorting the distribution of electorates. According to the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** and the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson),** a 20 per cent, margin would permit the country areas to be better settled. I would have thought that that argument had been sufficiently demolished by reference to the 200 per cent, margin which is allowed in South Australia and the 100 per cent, margin which is allowed in Western Australia, where, respectively, the country electorates have one-third and one-half of the populations of the city electorates. It is perfectly possible to give representation to an electorate as large as any which are at present represented in this Parliament. The electorates of Grey, Darling, Kennedy, Leichhardt, the Northern Territory and, normally, Kalgoorlie, are represented in this Parliament by Labour men. They are well able to represent those electorates, which are the largest in this country. They have never complained that they cannot represent them adequately. The Minister quoted the evidence given by the Surveyors-General of the various States to the Constitutional Review Committee. The committee considered their evidence and was not convinced by it. It is astonishing that the Minister should presume to reject the advice of twelve parliamentarians, eight from this place and four from the other, equally divided between Government and Opposition parties, who heard evidence on this subject, not only from State officials, not only from bureaucrats, but also from a great number of distinguished citizens, many of them experts in their fields. If we are democrats and not bureaucrats, we will amend the distribution machinery in accordance with the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee. The Committee acknowledged that the preponderance of official opinions was clearly in favour of retaining the present marginal allowance of one-fifth. However, in paragraph 346 of its report, the committe said - >Undoubtedly, it would be easier to apply a onefifth margin than to work within the limits of a one-tenth marginal allowance from quota. Nevertheless, the committee is satisfied that the problems of applying a one-tenth margin are quite manageable. If the Surveyors-General and electoral officers are competent and diligent, they can do this quite readily. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Being manageable does not make it desirable. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It was considered desirable, urgent and just by the twelve members whom this parliament appointed to consider the matter. This is not something which has to be dealt with jointly with all the other recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee. It is a completely severable matter. It is not a matter which requires a constitutional amendment; it is something which can be done by statutory amendment. We have this amendment before us now. The views of the twelve members of this Parliament who went into this matter thoroughly with all the experts, in a dispassionate manner, over very many sitting days should be respected. I am confident that the colleagues of the twelve persons who were on that committee will respect the conclusions to which they came after expert assistance and due deliberation. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr.Whitlam's amendment) be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 31 NOES: 51 Majority . . . . 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. Section proposed to be amended - {: #debate-36-s30 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- " 3b. Section twenty-five of the Principal Act is amended - > >by inserting after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section: - (1a.) Not more than ten years shall elapse between the making of one such proclamation and the making of the next following such proclamation.'; and > >by omitting from paragraph (b) of subsection (2.) the word ' one-fifth ' (wherever occurring) and inserting in its stead the word ' one-tenth'.". This is an amendment to section 25, which enacts the circumstances in which redistribution of elecorates shall or may be made. The first half of the amendment provides that there must be a redistribution of electorates at least every ten years. The second half provides that there may be a redistribution when one-quarter of the divisions in any State differs from the quota by onetenth as distinct from one-fifth, for which the act at present provides. The arguments in favour of the second part of the amendment are the same as those for the amendment which has just been dismissed by the committee, and I do not add to them. The arguments in respect of the first half, **Sir, were** dealt with by the Constitutional Review Committee. The two halves of this amendment are designed to incorporate in this statute the recommendations of that committee. The committee's recommendation on the decennial review is contained in paragraph 338 of its report, in these terms - >The Act does not, at present, require a review of electoral divisions at fixed periods, but it is important, in the Committee's view, if the objective of avoiding disproportion of numbers in the electoral divisions is to be achieved, that there should be some machinery requiring periodic review. Otherwise electoral divisions originally fixed in conformity with the requirements which the Committee has recommended could, over a period of years, become seriously out of adjustment and yet nothing be done about it. Under the Committee's proposal it would be necessary upon redistribution to bring all divisions within a one-tenth margin of the quota in a State at least once every ten years. The gerrymander between country and city has been quoted by honorable members. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- What gerrymander? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The gerrymander in South Australia. There has been no allegation of gerrymander in respect of federal distributions, but much reference has been made to the electoral gerrymander in South Australia flowing from the distortion between the city and country quotas in that State. One can find in the same State an instance of the gerrymander which can arise from sheer neglect to redistribute. For some twenty years there was no distribution in South Australia, and the distortion became just as marked within the one-third of city seats and the two-thirds of country seats as the distortion between the city electorates on the one hand and the country electorates on the other hand. There were city electorates which were three times as populous as other city electorates. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- There were only 84,000 electors in my division. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Then they were more than three times as populous. The same position can arise within quite a short space of time with present population shifts occasioned by migrants and young couples settling in the outer suburbs of the State capitals. For example, in New South Wales at the next election the divisions of Mitchell and Hughes will each have the same population as the combined divisions of East Sydney and West Sydney. Already in Victoria the divisions of Bruce and Lalor each have at least twice the population of the electorates of Fawkner,, Isaacs, Melbourne,. Melbourne Ports, Scullin and Yarra. It is an affront to democracy that one member who represents more than twice as many electors as does another member should have the same vote in this place as that other member. I realize that before the 1964 election there will probably be a distribution based on the census to be held on the last Thursday in next month. But there is no. guarantee under the act that there shall be periodic redistributions. There is an option to- redistribute whenever there is an alteration in the number of members of the House to be elected for each State, or whenever the- present margin of one-fifth is exceeded in one-quarter of the divisions, in any State, or at such other times as the Government thinks fit. That is, it is entirely up to the Government to decide when there will be a distribution. There should be some statutory prescription on this matter. We are dealing with the relevant act. We should make this amendment. It would ensure that such distortions did not continue indefinitely and it would be in keeping with the unanimous and strong recommendations of all members of the Constitutional Review Committee. {: #debate-36-s31 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** has produced a proposal which would make it compulsory to have a redistribution at least once every ten years. The only reason that he adduces for that is that a state of affairs could arise in which, although electorates had become unduly disproportionate, a redistribution might not be ordered. In actual fact this evil which he fears has not arisen in the Commonwealth. We had redistributions in 1903, 1906, 1912, 1922 and 1934. Then there was a gap of fourteen years to 1948, but I imagine that the. intervention of the war with the reSUlt that the census was not taken until 1947 was the cause of that. Only when a census is taken can there be a re-allocation of the number of seats as between the. States. If, therefore, under the Opposition's proposal a redistribution was due in the year before a census was to be taken it might be necessary to- have another redistribution shortly afterwards because of population movements disclosed by the census. There is no great evil to be remedied here. There is no need for this amendment at this stage and there is a possibility that it could force on the electors of Australia rather more frequent distributions than they would feel desirable or than would be really necessary in the light of actual conditions at that time. This would involve unwarranted expense and could throw the electors into unnecessary confusion, because a redistribution does create quite an upheaval and electors who are affected by altered boundaries often do not know for a considerable time in whose electorate they are. We see no need for a disturbance of the existing situation. If there had been an acceptance of the previous amendment introduced by the Labour Party, which sought a reduced margin in apportioning the number of electors between electorates, there might have been some stronger weight for the Opposition's argument. Indeed, if we had accepted that amendment we would probably have found it necessary to have a redistribution once every three years because of the present rate of population change which I believe causes a great deal of confusion and lack of stability in the electoral pattern of this country. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** be so inserted. (The Chairman - **Mr. P.** E. Lucock.) Ayes . . 30 Noes . . 51 Majority . . 21 Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. {: #debate-36-s32 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- "11a. After section ninety-seven of the Principal Act the following Part is inserted: - > >Part XIIa. - Voting by Persons Who are ILL, Infirm. Etc. 97a. - (1.) An elector whose place of living as appearing on the Roll for any Subdivision is situated not more than five miles by the nearest practicable route from each and every polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled and who is seriously ill or infirm, and by reason of such illness or infirmity will be precluded from attending at any polling place to vote, or, in the case of a woman, will by approaching maternity be precluded from attending at any polling place to vote, may, if he has not already made an application under this section, in respect of the same election, and if he has not made application under section eighty-five of this Act for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper in respect of the same election, make application to record his vote under this section before an electoral visitor. (2.) (a) The Returning Officer for each Division shall, by writing under his hand, appoint in respect of each Subdivision into which his Division is divided, one and not more than one person to be the electoral visitor for that Subdivision for the purpose of taking votes under this section: > >Provided that if circumstances so require, the Returning Officer may, with the written consent of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, appoint two or more persons to be electoral visitors in respect of any such Subdivision. > >Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this sub-section the Returning Officer may, and shall if so directed by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, appoint as an electoral visitor a member of the Police Force. (3.) The Returning Officer shall provide each electoral visitor with a locked ballot box with a cleft or opening therein capable of receiving the ballot-papers > >Before providing an electoral visitor with a ballot box, the Returning Officer shall take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to exhibit for ti; e inspection of the candidates or their representatives, the ballot box open and empty, and shall immediately afterwards close and lock the same, and deliver or cause it to be delivered to the electoral visitor. > >Where such ballot box has been locked by the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer shall keep the key of the said box. (4.) An application to record a vote under this section (in this section referred to as an ' application ') shall contain a declaration setting out the grounds on which the applicant applies and shall be in or to the effect of the form prescribed and must be signed by the elector in his own handwriting in the presence of an elector, and must be made and sent after the tenth day prior to the issue of the writ for the election to which it relates to the Returning Officer for the district in respect of which the applicant is enrolled, and shall be made and sent so as to reach such Returning Officer nol less than seven days before the polling day for the election. (5.) If any application reaches the Returning Officer less than seven days before the polling day for the election, the implication shall be deemed to be invalid and the applicant shall not be entitled to vote under this section. (6.) The provisions of section eighty-seven of this Act and the provisions of section eighty-seven a of this Act shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to an application under this section in like manner as they apply to an application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper. (7.) The Returning Officer who receives the application, if he is satisfied that it is properly signed by the applicant elector, is properly witnessed and is otherwise completed, shall, if he has received the application not less than seven days before the polling day for the election, take steps as early as practicable to direct an electoral visitor for the Subdivision in respect of which the applicant is enrolled to visit the applicant for the purpose of taking the vote of the applicant. (8.) (a) As soon as practicable after an electoral visitor has received in relation to any election the first direction from the Returning Officer to visit any applicant or applicants under this section, the electoral visitor shall send by post a written notification of the fact to each candidate for the district at that election: and thereafter, at the request of any such candidate or of any scrutineer referred to in this section the electoral visitor shall as far as is reasonably practicable furnish such candidate or scrutineer with information as to the electors whom the electoral visitor proposes to visit, and the times and places at which l.e proposes to make such visits. > >(i) Each candidate shall be entitled to appoint by writing under his hand scrutineers on his behalf at the taking of voles by electoral visitors under this section. Save as otherwise provided in this section such scrutineers shall be entitled to be present in the room or place in which a vote is to be taken under this section. > >The provisions of section one hundred and nine of this Act shall apply to and in respect of scrutineers appointed under sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph. For the purposes of such application - > >a reference to a ' polling booth ' shall be construed as a reference to the room or place in which the vote is being taken under this section; > >a reference to ' polling ' shall be con strued as a reference to the period during which the vote of an elector is being taken under this section; > >a reference to ' the presiding officer ' shall be construed as a reference to the electoral visitor. > >Regulations made under this Act may prescribe the questions which an electoral visitor may put to an elector or which a scrutineer may request an electoral visitor to put to an elector when the vote of such elector is being taken under this section. > >The voter's answer to any such question shall be conclusive. (9.) (a) All applications under this section received by a Returning Officer shall be kept by him. > >All applications under this section shall be open to public inspection at all convenient times during office hours, from and including the third day after polling day until the election can be no longer questioned. > >The Returning Officer shall in consecutive order number all applications received by him under this section. (10.) Every electoral visitor shall sign his name on the back of each ballot-paper issued by him under this section. The signature shall be placed in such a position as to be easily seen when the ballot-paper is folded so as to conceal the vote. (11.) The Returning Officer shall note or cause to be noted on the certified copies of the roll, the name of every elector for the taking of whose vote a direction has been issued to an electoral visitor by the Returning Officer. (12.) Every visit by an electoral visitor under this section shall be made at a reasonable hour during the daytime, and if the applicant is for any reason unable or unprepared to record his vote within one half hour after the electoral visitor hits indicated to the applicant or to any person in charge or apparently in charge of the applicant that he is available for the purpose of taking the applicant's vote, the electoral visitor may terminate his visit, and shall not be required to make a further visit under this section to such applicant in respect of the same election. (13.) An electoral visitor shall not visit any elector for the purpose of taking his vote under this section unless directed so to do by the Returning Officer, and it shall not be lawful for an electoral visitor to visit an elector for the purpose of taking the vote of such elector under this section at any place which is outside the Subdivision for which the electoral visitor is appointed. (14.) The following directions for regulating the talcing of votes by an electoral visitor are to be substantially observed: - > >The electoral visitor shall issue to the elector a certificate printed on an envelope addressed to the Returning Officer for the Division and one ballotpaper. > >The certificate shall be in or to the effect of the following form: - > >I............................ of .................... (here insert place of living of voter as appearing on the roll) hereby certify that the signature of voter hereunder is my personal signature, written with my own hand. Signature of voter................. (in his or her own handwriting). > >Signature of electoral visitor......... (in his or her own handwriting). The ballot-paper shall be in or to the effect of the form prescribed. > >The elector shall then and there, in the presence of the electoral visitor, sign his name in his own handwriting on the certificate in the place provided for the signature of the voter. The electoral visitor shall countersign the said certificate as a witness in the place provided therefor, and shall add the date. > >The elector shall then and there in the presence of the electoral visitor, but so that the electoral visitor cannot see the vote - > >mark his vote on the ballot-paper in the manner directed on the ballot-paper; > >fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen; > >place the ballot-paper in the envelope, addressed to the Returning Officer and fasten the envelope. > >After the envelope has been fastened the elector shall forthwith place it or cause it to be placed in the ballot box provided by the electoral visitor. > >If the elector's sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, a person appointed by the elector shall mark the elector's vote on the ballotpaper in the presence of the electoral visitor, and shall then and there fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen, place it in the envelope addressed to the Returning Officer, . fasten the envelope, and place it in the ballot box: > >Provided that if no person is appointed by the elector, the electoral visitor, if so requested by the elector, shall take the action required by this paragraph to be taken by a person appointed by the elector, and in taking such action shall mark the ballot-paper according to the instruction of the elector. > >The electoral visitor shall not, unless the elector's sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance and no person is appointed by the elector to mark his vote for him, look at or make himself acquainted with the vote given by the elector, and, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this sub-section, shall not suffer or permit any person (other than the elector) to see or become acquainted with the elector's vote or to assist the elector to vote or to interfere in any way with the elector in relation to his vote. > >A vote may be taken under this section by an electoral visitor, at any time before six o'clock in the evening of polling day. (15.) Every electoral visitor shall - > >comply with this section in so far as it is to be complied with on his part; > >see that the directions in this section are complied with by every elector voting before him, and by every person present when the elector votes; and > >refrain from disclosing any knowledge of the vote of any elector voting before him. > >An electoral visitor shall not influence or attempt to influence, in any way, the vote of an elector voting before him. (16.) No person other than - > >the elector to whom a ballot-paper has been issued under this section; or > >a person appointed by the elector or an electoral visitor acting in pursuance of paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) of subsection fourteen of this section assisting an elector whose sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, shall mark a vote upon the ballot-paper. (17.) Each electoral visitor shall immediately after he has carried out the directions of the Returning Officer and the provisions of this section in relation to the taking of votes under this section deliver the ballot box or cause the same to be sent or transmitted to the Returning Officer. (18.) (a) No person other than the Returning Officer for the Division in respect of which a vote under this section has been taken or an officer acting under his directions shall open any ballot box delivered or sent to the Returning Officer under this section or any envelope contained in any such ballot box. > >Any person to whom an application for a vote under this section is entrusted by an elector for the purpose of posting or delivery to a Returning Officer and who fails to post or deliver forthwith the application, shall be guilty of a contravention of this section. (19.) Any person present when an elector is before an electoral visitor for the purpose of voting under this section shall - > >obey all directions of the electoral visitor; and > >except as provided in paragraph (e) of sub-section fourteen of this section in the case of persons whose sight is impaired - > >refrain from making any com munication whatever to the elector in relation to his vote; > >refrain from assisting the elector or in any manner interfering with him in relation to his vote; and > >refrain from looking at the elector's vote or from doing anything whereby he may become acquainted with the elector's vote. (20.) At the scrutiny the Returning Officer or the officer assisting him shall produce all applications for votes under this section and shall produce unopened all envelopes containing votes taken under this section received by him up to the end of the period of seven days immediately succeeding the close of the poll and shall - > >compare the signature of the elector on each certificate signed by such elector under sub-section fourteen of this section with the signature of the same elector on the application, and allow the scrutineers to inspect both signatures; > >if satisfied that the signature on the certifi cate is that of the elector who signed the application and that the signature purports to be witnessed by an electoral visitor and that the elector is enrolled for the Division, accept the ballot-paper for further scrutiny, but, if he is not so satisfied, disallow the ballot-paper without opening the envelope in which it is contained; > >withdraw from the envelopes the ballot- papers contained therein and accepted for further scrutiny, and without inspecting or unfolding the ballot-papers or allowing any other person to do so, place them in a locked and sealed ballot box by themselves for further scrutiny; > >seal up in separate parcels and preserve- > >all envelopes bearing certificates relating to ballot-papers accepted for further scrutiny, and > >all unopened envelopes containing ballot-papers disallowed; and > >proceed with the scrutiny of the ballot- papers which have been accepted for further scrutiny. (21.) A ballot-paper issued under this section shall not be informal because of any mistake in spelling, if the elector has made clear his intention. (22.) If an elector to whom a ballot-paper has been issued under this section satisfies the electoral visitor who issued the same that he has spoilt his ballot-paper by mistake or accident, he may on giving it up, receive a new ballot-paper from the electoral visitor who shall cancel and preserve the spoilt ballot-paper. (23.) Any person contravening any of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.'.". Acceptance of this amendment would give a seriously sick, infirm or pregnant person the right to a secret and private vote before an electoral visitor, accompanied, if desired, by scrutineers of candidates, in the sick, infirm or pregnant person's home, as an alternative procedure to the postal vote. In relation to the first postal vote amendment, it was sufficiently established, I believe, that the seriously sick, infirm and pregnant are not predominantly anti-Labour, although those who pole on them, or poll for them, generally are. This is not at all a contentious amendment. The proposal is based on the electoral visitor system which has obtained in New South Wales State elections for the last eleven years. The objections which were made to that system by some honorable gentlemen had no relation to the postal voting amendment previously proposed, insofar as it concerned absent or travelling voters, because they were not affected by that amendment. Nor did those objections have any relevance to the position of sick, infirm or pregnant persons enrolled more than five miles from a polling booth, because that amendment did not concern them. But this amendment is designed to provide an alternative procedure for the sick, infirm and pregnant persons. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Is there any difference between this and your amendment to insert proposed new section 102a in relation to a mobile booth? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, it is complementary to that. This amendment will enable a sick, infirm or pregnant person to cast a vote in his or her own home before an electoral visitor. The mobile booth will enable such a person to cast a vote in a hospital or infirmary at such a booth. In either case, the vote will be secret and private. It will be carried out by electoral officials. No reflection has been cast on their honesty by any person, nor has it been suggested that they are incapable of conducting elections in a proper manner, lt will give satisfaction to candidates in that scrutineers may accompany the electoral visitor. I apprehend that no objection can be made to this proposal. It is a completely optional one and I believe that it will give satisfaction to candidates, electoral authorities, and, above all, to persons who are sick in their homes and want to have a certain security, secrecy and privacy in casting their votes and so avoid the huckstering or pestering which inevitably accompanies the present procedure. {: #debate-36-s33 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** It is complementary to the amendments that have been moved in relation to the postal voting sections of the act, and were designed to make those sections applicable to voting outside the five-mile limit. Under this amendment, an elector who is seriously ill or infirm and, by reason of such illness or infirmity, will be precluded from attending at any polling place to vote, may apply to record his or her vote in the presence of an electoral visitor, or may in certain circumstances record a vote at a mobile polling booth. An elector who is qualified to apply for a postal vote is not entitled to vote under this provision. The position is, therefore, that a sick or infirm person or an expectant mother, whose place of living, as appearing on the electoral roll, is situated within five miles, by the nearest practicable route, of a polling place which will be open on polling day in that district for the purposes of an election, may apply to record his or her vote in the presence of an electoral visitor. The returning officer for each district is required under the amendment to appoint, in respect of each subdivision, one electoral visitor. He may, however, if circumstances require, with the consent of the electoral commissioner, appoint two or more electoral visitors in respect of each subdivision. An electoral visitor shall not be required or directed to visit an elector outside the boundaries of the subdivision, because there will be one or more visitors for each subdivision. He will be required to make his visits at a reasonable hour during the day-time. If the applicant, for any reason is unable or unprepared to record his vote within half an hour after the visitor has informed the applicant, or any person in charge of the applicant, that he is available for the purpose of taking the vote of the applicant, the visitor may terminate his visit and shall not be required to make a further visit. Provision is made for the appointment of scrutineers by candidates, and the procedure in regard to the taking of votes is fully and clearly set out. This will ensure a secret vote, to the satisfaction of all candidates. It will be noted that the electoral visitor is required under the amendment to take a locked ballot-box with him for the purpose of receiving the votes of the electors, and every possible safeguard will be taken to ensure the proper custody of the votes recorded under this provision. Special provision is made for the assistance of persons whose sight is impaired. That is similar to the postal voting provisions of the legislation. Another amendment proposes that conveniences and safeguards shall be provided for electors who are in convalescent homes, hospitals or similar institutions. This should answer the charges made by the Government that certain persons will be disfranchised. It will be seen from the amendment and the remarks I have made that if that protection is given, every person eligible to vote will be able to vote. These, briefly, are the provisions. Like other honorable members, I do not desire, nor does the Opposition desire, to deny a vote to any person who is qualified to exercise such a right. We on this side of the Parliament do not think that everybody who may be disfranchised is a Liberal voter. The chances are even. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, and any law that prevents or impedes the exercise of that right is contrary to the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament. {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- Who prepared this for you? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I carefully prepared it myself, because I could see that unless any proposal were explained simply to unintelligent members opposite they would not understand it. I believe, and shall endeavour to show, that the present system of postal voting is open to malpractice by shrewd, unscrupulous or well-organized campaigners, and the figures I cited earlier show that the vast majority of these campaigners evidently belong to or support the Liberal Party. The opportunities for malpractice are apparent from the trend of voting figures in previous elections. I cited these figures when, seemingly, the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight),** who is now seeking to interject, was asleep. This amendment may not be perfect, but it is the view of the Opposition that, in order to ensure the greatest purity in the electoral system, as many people as possible should vote in the presence of officials appointed by the electoral authority. It is only by insisting on the observance of this sound principle to the fullest possible extent that malpractices will be reduced to a minimum. This brings us on the Opposition side to the point we made earlier. Unless this amendment is accepted by the Government the malpractices associated with postal voting, which are known, or should be known, to every political campaigner, will continue unchecked. There is a responsibility, therefore, on members of the Parliament to see that people entitled to postal votes get them, and that they are not disfranchised in any way. At the same time, we must ensure that in exercising their right to vote they are not subject to pressure, and that they can vote secretly, just as if they were attending a polling booth. I have given the committee a summary of the provisions of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 1 have indicated a way out of a difficulty that has become a matter of grave concern to people associated with electoral campaigns. If certain aspects of the proposals are not satisfactory - such as, for example, the closing time for receipt of applications - then minor adjustments and amendments might well be considered by the Government, and perhaps by the Opposition. At least this amendment represents a practical attempt to remove a feature of our electoral procedure that is objectionable to all people who believe in a democratic vote. It will remove the opportunity for manipulation of postal votes that has become evident in trends shown by voting figures from time to time. Many examples could be cited showing that in electorates in which the voting is about 50-50, a sudden change occurs when postal votes are counted, resulting in an overwhelming majority for one candidate. This does not happen by accident. Voting follows a pattern in all electorates and overall, and if there is a sudden increase of postal votes for one candidate or another it is for special and unusual reasons. We on this side of the Parliament suggest, *without* making any charge against the electoral authorities or others associated with elections, that be cause the system leaves the way open to malpractice we should endeavour to provide a means whereby such opportunities may be removed. The proposed system has been tried in New South Wales and has worked successfully. Liberal Party, Labour Party and Country Party candidates have all won under the system. It cannot be said that it is objectionable in any way. I know that members of the Country Party had intended to object to this amendment, because they expected that it would be stacked in favour of the Labour Party. However, they received a shock when their candidate won the Liverpool Plains seat at a State byelection on postal votes, when this system was in operation. Now they find that they cannot condemn the system. It was introduced in the New South Wales Parliament to prevent malpractice. It was not introduced by the Labour Government there with any ulterior motive. Let me summarize the position. If this amendment is accepted, no elector will be disfranchised because he cannot attend a polling booth. He will have the opportunity to cast a postal vote, and in certain circumstances he will have the advantage of an electoral visitor. His rights will be further safeguarded by the provision of mobile polling booths, if a later amendment is accepted. In the presence of the electoral visitor he will record his vote with the same secrecy and the same safeguards as if he were attending a polling booth. Does any honorable member opposite object to the proposition that every elector should have the right to vote secretly? Or do honorable members opposite want to retain the present system, under which the vote cast by an elector can be seen by another person, may be posted by that person or not posted, according to whether he wants to post it or not, and can be altered by that person, if he happens to be unscrupulous - a system, in short, under which the whole purpose of voting in Australia can be defeated? If the Government refuses to accept this proposal it will be seen that it does not desire to amend the present system, and it will appear that it has some ulterior motive, probably a political motive of its own. Alternatively, it may reject the proposal because it does not want to give the people their democratic right to vote secretly and in accordance with the accepted principles of voting. I hear some honorable members opposite endeavouring to interject. Unfortunately I am unable to answer muffled interjections. Let them speak on this question if they have any views on it. Let the honorable member for Maribyrnong **(Mr. Stokes),** who is interjecting at present, take particular note of my remarks, because he will need every vote possible at the next election. He does not want to change the system because he has probably got a few. extra votes in the past under the present system. {: #debate-36-s34 .speaker-JWV} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw that remark, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- What remark? {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- That I obtained extra votes by malpractice. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- He did not say that. {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- He implied it. {: #debate-36-s35 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! 1 call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Proposed new clause. {: #debate-36-s36 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- by leave - I move - >That the following- new clause be inserted in the bill:- " 11c. After section one hundred and', two of the Principal Act the following, section is inserted: - 102a. - (1.) Where a polling place has been appointed in any convalesent home, hospital or similar institution, the Divisional Returning Officer shall provide at least two polling booths therein. (2.) One or more of such booths designated, by the Divisional Returning Officer shall be used as a mobile booth for the purpose of affording an opportunity to vote to every elector who - > >is for the time being resident in the home, hospital or institution in which the booth is situated; and > >by reason of illness or infirmity, or, in the case of a woman, by reason of approaching maternity, is unable to attend at the polling place to record his vote; and > >has, by message to the presiding officer in charge of the polling place, requested him to afford the elector an opportunity to record his vote at such mobile booth. > >Every person to whom any such message is given for delivery to the presiding officer, shall, unless otherwise ordered by a legally qualified medical practitioner, deliver such message forthwith, to the presiding officer in charge of the polling place. > >Any person contravening this sub-section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds: (3.) Where any such message has been received by the presiding officer in charge of the polling place he shall direct the assistant presiding officer in charge' of a mobile booth to afford the elector an opportunity to record his vote by visiting the elector at some time before the close of the poll. On any such, visit the assistant presiding officer shall take with him. the ballot box provided for the booth and- shall be accompanied by his poll clerk and such of the scrutineers appointed in respect of the booth as choose to accompany him. > >On any such visit to an elector the elector's vote shall so far as is reasonably practicable be taken in all respects as if the vote were recorded in a. polling booth under usual conditions. > >No visit shall be made under this section if such visit is forbidden by a legally qualified medical practioner' . ". This amendment would implement the system that obtains under New South Wales legislation with regard to the use of mobile booths in hospitals. This system has been in operation in New South Wales for the last twelve years, to the complete satisfaction of all candidates at State elections. I commend the proposal to the House. {: #debate-36-s37 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .I am sorry that the committee has agreed to link this proposed clause with the one previously under discussion. I do not like the electoral, visitor principle,, but the proposal for mobile booths has a good deal of- merit. The system has worked quite satisfactorily in Queensland. It has worked, I would say, to the satisfaction of all major political parties. It relieves hospital staffs of the embarrassment caused by people who come into hospitals at all hours, running around' the wards and upsetting the patients. I hope that the Minister will earnestly consider this proposal, because- *1* think it would represent a significant advance. I fail to see any solid objection to it. {: #debate-36-s38 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .I would not wish to prevent any honorable member from expressing his view on this proposal. I did not realize that different views might be expressed on it, and I would ask leave of the committee to have the leave previously granted to me revoked'. As it seems that some honorable members may wish to express different views on the two proposals, 1 believe the fair thing would be to have two separate divisions. I sought leave to link the two matters together merely in order to save time, but I believe that honorable members should be given the opportunity of expressing different views if they wish- to. I hope that the committee will have the opportunity of voting on the two matters separately. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- Perhaps the Minister would clarify one point, ls it not a fact that under the existing act there is no provision which would allow the use of a mobile booth in a hospital? {: #debate-36-s39 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior [2.19 a.m.]. - These are two quite different propositions, although they bear some relationship to one another. Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam · Forrest · LP , I thought that time would be saved if we linked the two- matters and voted on them at the same time. I agree, however, that if honorable members have different views about the two propositions they should be allowed to vote separately on them. Let me answer the query of the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** while it is fresh in my mind; The interpretation- of the act, as at present adopted, does not mean that the Commonwealth has power to provide for mobile boths in hospitals, but there is room for some doubt about the position. In practice, mobile booths are not used in federal elections. As the Deputy of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** has pointed, out, the electoral visitor system is an additional method of recording, a vote over and above the existing system of postal voting. The Opposition's first proposal was to cut out the provision for postal votes for people who became sick or infirm, or who were approaching maternity, and who lived within five miles of a polling booth. Since that proposal has been rejected by the committee, the Opposition has amended its subsequent proposal in. order to substitute the electoral' visitor system to make provision for those people who are to some extent disfranchised by the rejection of the right to a postal vote. The Opposition is now proposing to superimpose that system on the existing system. This method has the major defect that it does not apply to people who become ill within seven days of the polling date. That, of course, is probably the time when a great number of people who are sick or infirm suddenly realize that they do not want to go to a polling booth to record their vote. The evil that it is proposed to remedy has been enlarged on at great length by honorable members opposite, but there is no outstanding record of demands by people who have been visited by canvassers and who suggest that they might have, the right to apply for a postal vote. There is no outcry at election time that undue pressures are put on people. Party organizations - the Labour Party in particular - make all these allegations. To load our already quite complex electoral organization with an additional organization at this stage is asking a little too much, I suggest. No great dissatisfaction has been expressed and there is no great evil to be remedied. If such an evil as that suggested by some honorable members opposite in fact existed, I point out that the act provides very strong penalties and that it would be necessary only to take action to remedy the evil. I want to make the point that in the forthcoming elections, whenever they may be held- {: .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr Costa: -- Why not give us the date? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That would be nice to know. Whenever the elections may be held, some publicity will be given to the possible penalties for infringement of the act: I can give the committee that assurance at this stage. If there is any indication that the act is being breached, people will be made aware of the penalties. Other than strong and emphatic assertions by honorable members opposite, there is no factual evidence before the committee that there is a. real evil- to be remedied. I cannot at this stage accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition which seeks to load onto our electoral system this complicated visitor system that operates in New South Wales. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I suggest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might ask for leave to withdraw his request that proposed new clause 11c be considered with the proposed new clause 11a at present before the committee, so that the former might be dealt with separately. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Yes, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** 1 ask for leave accordingly. Leave granted. Proposed new clause He - by leave - temporarily withdrawn. {: #debate-36-s40 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman .This matter has been discussed at considerable length, but I should like to be clear on it. As I understand the position, the Minister has stated that even with the proposed amendment of the act there will still be a blank period of seven days before an election when a person may not record a vote with an electoral visitor. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Yes, that is true. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- He may still apply for a postal vote, but he cannot arrange for the electoral visitor to call unless he has applied seven days before polling date. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- It would be mechanically impossible, anyhow. {: .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM: -- I disagree with the Minister on this matter. As has been said before, there is no doubt that malpractices exist. Under the existing legislation there is no way in which they can be pinned down. Penalties are provided, but the position is so wide open in some ways that you just cannot get a conviction recorded against the people concerned, although you know that certain things are going on. I hope that that point will not be lost sight of. I do not know how this difficulty is to be overcome without superimposing some other system on the existing system. I do not think that we can get a complete alternative to the existing system. For that reason, I propose to support the amendment. I think that it represents one of the closest approaches that we can make to the rectification of something which I know to be wrong. {: #debate-36-s41 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson .- I wish to refer to a couple of instances of malpractice of which I have knowledge in elections in years gone by. The first incident concerned a council election in my area in 1948. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- A council election? {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE: -- The Minister should be patient. It was stated this afternoon that the circumstances in relation to postal votes in municipal elections are similar to those that obtain in respect of federal elections. Canvassing was going on, and a man was caught at the end of the voting with a sugar bag full of votes. He was taken before a Quarter Sessions court and charged. It was fortunate for us that he was caught, because if he had not been apprehended our man would have been defeated. Apparently, the person concerned had gone about canvassing. He had approached old people and said to them, " All you have to do is put a stroke here. It will save you the trouble of going to vote ". As the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm)** has said, there has been a lot of abuse of the electoral system. There is nothing wrong with the electoral visitor legislation in New South Wales. The only difference is that instead of a person representing a candidate you have an electoral visitor employed by the Commonwealth. What could be fairer than that? If an elector is outside the five mile limit, he may record a vote irrespective of whether he claims the right to record an electoral visitor vote. We all trust the electoral officers to ensure that such matters are administered in accordance with the act, so that there will be no canvassing and no bribery to win votes. Every honorable member knows that malpractices have been going on. What is wrong with the electoral visitor system? As my friend, the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** has stated, it certainly does not favour the Australian Labour Party. That was evidenced in the Liverpool Plains by-election that was held in New South Wales recently. The Labour candidate received only nine of 150 postal votes. We must defeat malpractice, whether it is designed to elect candidates of the Liberal Party, the Australian Country Party or the Australian Labour Party. It must be stamped out. The amendment proposed by the Opposition offers a way to stamp it out. We propose to put the necessary power in the hands of a man whom we know will not canvass for any party and who will see to it that there is no malpractice oi abuse of the act. {: #debate-36-s42 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** fails to appreciate the significance of this amendment while the provision for postal voting still exists. This will not prevent the kind of malpractices that have been alleged. If these malpractices are occurring, then, while the opportunity to obtain a postal vote still exists, the party officials responsible for them will continue to act in the same way. They will try to persuade a person to apply for a postal vote, and will go to the person to collect the postal vote when it is completed. If they do it now, they will continue to try to persuade the elector to vote in a certain way and hand the vote over. What will be done by party organizers will be exactly what is done now if there is any particular advantage in collecting postal votes. It will be left to the initiative of the sick or infirm person alone to resist. A sick or infirm person can resist the pleadings of the people who are supposed to make a nuisance of themselves in this way if he is sufficiently firm of mind. If the sick and infirm are sufficiently firm in their minds to apply for a postal vote, there is every prospect that they will record a vote as they wish. This amendment will not remove the evil that the honorable member has claimed exists. {: #debate-36-s43 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman .- I find myself differing again from the view that has been presented by the Minister. The party organizations - at least in my area - as a part of the effort they put into their work, contact every person they can find who is going to have a postal vote and they ask him whether he wants any advice or help. Above all, we ask him to make sure that some responsible person puts the postal vote into a letter box. We are already asking the voters to do it. I maintain that the various organizations and the electoral officers would not have any difficulty in impressing on people that they could have this vote by means of an electoral visitor, if they desired it. I am certain that the Minister would be surprised at the great number of electors who would be prepared to make use of that service if they knew it was available. {: #debate-36-s44 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .The honorable member for Bowman **(Mr.** McColm) and honorable members on this side should have convinced the Minister that there is a lot of substance in the charges that have been made. As the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Reynolds)** said earlier, they are difficult to prove, and as the honorable member for Bowman has said, it is almost impossible to produce direct evidence, but these practices do exist. The Minister's statement that if these things do occur something might be done, hardly supports the expectation that much will be done about them. Earlier, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** said that if there is not some advantage to be gained from collecting postal votes, why do people in all parties advertise extensively that electors should telephone such and such a number to obtain a postal vote? I think that, more than anything, these people, who are shrewd and skilled in political campaigning, realize that a postal vote is almost a bird in the hand. They realize that by getting postal votes within their grasp, they could be in a position to pick up the odd vote or the odd 20 votes as the case may be. The fact that this practice exists must put doubt on the trend of postal votes, irrespective of the party concerned. Some supporters of the Government would imply that these changes are levelled exclusively at one party. I do not make that charge. I suppose that through the years all political parties may have been involved. We think that it is fair to say that people collecting postal votes should be above reproach and that, if we can, we should stamp out the manipulation of these votes. I can see no reasons why this proposal should not be supported in its entirety, or with certain amendments, if the Government thinks it goes too far. There may be sound reasons for saying that the proposal to close postal voting seven days before the polling day is too wide, and that voting should close the night before polling day. I cannot agree with the Minister that it would be impossible to work this arrangement. However, differences on points of that kind are no reason why the Government should throw out a proposal designed to stamp out malpractices which unfortunately exist, no matter what might be said to the contrary. This proposal would provide the voter with an opportunity to record a secret vote in an electoral box, under the same conditions as votes are recorded in a booth. Personally, I think the proposal should be supported, and I hope that more members on the Government side will add their support to that of the honorable member for Bowman, who has recognized that these things do happen and must be faced. The fact that there have not been numerous complaints about malpractices over the years does not mean that they do not exist. Those who have been getting away with it will not tell you, and other people probably are not interested enough to find out. What I and other members on the Opposition side have said about political parties of all colours endeavouring to get every possible postal vote indicates how much the parties value them. It suggests that there is more chance of getting a vote in this way than if the voter goes into a polling booth. I suggest that the amendment might well be supported, or that the Minister, if he is committed by a party decision to vote against it, should assure us that there will be a complete investigation of this aspect of the electoral system so that malpractices will be stamped out in a way that will do justice to the electorate and bring credit on us as legislators. {: #debate-36-s45 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson -- I wish to reply briefly to the Minister. I did not mean to imply that what I had in mind would cure the position as a whole, but I did say that abuses within the five-mile limit would be remedied. I know that we would still have abuses outside the five-mile limit, but at least this would be a step in the right direction. It is quite obvious that if honorable members would own up to it, they would admit that many people who are not sick say, " I can't be bothered getting up ", or " I want to go to the races. Fill this in and tell them I am sick ". That is what is going on, and everybody knows it. It should be remedied. Many voters claim to be sick when they are not sick, and honorable members know it. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.) AYES: 31 NOES: 50 Majority . . 19 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. {: #debate-36-s46 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I now formally move - >That the following new cause be inserted in the bill:- " 11c. After section one hundred and two of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 102a. - (1.) Where a polling place has been appointed in any convalescent home, hospital or similar institution, the Divisional Returning Officer shall provide at least two polling booths therein. (2.) One or more of such booths designated by the Divisional Returning Officer shall be used as a mobile booth for the purpose of affording an opportunity to vote to every elector who - > >is for the time being resident in the home, hospital or institution in which the booth is situated; and > >by reason of illness or infirmity, or, in the case of a woman, by reason of approaching maternity, is unable to attend at the polling place to record his vote; and > >has, by message to the presiding officer in charge of the polling place, requested him to afford the elector an opportunity to record his vote at such mobile booth. > >Every person to whom any such message is given for delivery to the presiding officer, shall, unless otherwise ordered by a legally qualified medical practitioner, deliver such message forthwith to the presiding officer in charge of the polling place. > >Any person contravening this sub-section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. (3.) Where any such message has been received by the presiding officer in charge of .the polling place he shall direct the assistant presiding officer in charge of a mobile booth to afford the elector an opportunity to record his vote by visiting the elector at some time before the close of the poll. On any such visit the assistant presiding officer shall take with him the ballot-box provided for the booth and shall be accompanied by his poll clerk and such of the scrutineers appointed in respect of the booth as choose to accompany him. > >On any such visit to an elector the elector's vote shall so far as it is reasonably practicable be taken in all respects as if the vote were recorded in a polling booth under usual conditions. > >No visit shall be made under this section if such visit is forbidden by a legally qualified medical practitioner.'.". This proposed new clause is in accordance with the practice in Queensland and New South Wales which has secured universal acceptance since its introduction in those two States. {: #debate-36-s47 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley -- I want to say something on this proposed amendment particularly. I have in my electorate, at Sandgate, the Eventide Home for the Aged. When the poll is taken there about 1,000 votes are counted. A part of the old people's home is a hospital. For many years, at general election time, enthusiastic party supporters - I refer to all political parties - have almost lined up at the gate like racehorses, waiting for the time when postal voting canvassing would be permitted. Then they race through the hospital section, trying to persuade as many of the inmates as possible to sign an application form for a postal vote. After exhausting the hospital section, they race through the other sections of the home in order to interview those who may be crippled or who may have difficulty in getting to the polling booth, in order to persuade them also to fill in applications for postal votes. 1 have protested at this method a great many times because I have felt that much undue strain is placed on sick old people in the home by these enthusiastic party supporters who are trying to do what they believe is the best for their candidates. My criticism of this action is not directed at party supporters but at those who continue the system which allows such a situation to develop. In discussions on this matter I have had a very sympathetic hearing from electoral officers. The Queensland Government recognized that this situation caused a great deal of unnecessary distress to old people and it instituted a mobile booth system. People are now forbidden to enter the home to canvass for postal votes at State elections because everybody in the hospital section is given an opportunity of voting on polling day. The mobile booth goes around from bed to bed with the electoral officer who is taking the poll and a scrutineer from each of the political parties concerned. If an inmate has any difficulty in voting, the electoral officer, with complete impartiality, asks for whom the patient wants to vote. He then sees that a scrutineer for that candidate gives assistance in filling in the ballot paper. No trouble or problem arises. I have felt that, in the existing Commonwealth Electoral Act, there might be provisions which would allow mobile booths to operate. I had hoped that, at the next federal elections, it would be possible to adopt at the Eventide Home the practice adopted by the Queensland Government at State elections. This has worked well to the benefit, not only of party workers, but also of people in the hospital section of the home. I for one will support to the hilt the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** even if he has not yet seen fit to stay in the chamber to obtain support for it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The amendment was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- I am prepared to support it unless the Minister for the Interior **(Mr.** Freeth) can give me an assurance that under the existing act there is nothing to prevent the mobile booth system from being implemented in hospitals such as that at the Eventide Home. {: #debate-36-s48 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- If the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** had been in the chamber a few minutes ago he would have heard me explain that I cannot give an assurance that under the existing act mobile polling booths can be introduced. The system which operates in Queensland was introduced largely as a result of the rather complicated State procedure in applying for a postal vote. It is not nearly as simple as the existing procedure for securing a postal vote at a Commonwealth election. The mobile booth system in Queensland is very costly and very slow. At the Brisbane General Hospital, including the women's hospital, 27 officials were engaged in collecting 332 ordinary and 937 absentee votes. At various other hospitals large numbers of officials were engaged. At the Eventide Homes for the Aged at Sandgate twenty officials were engaged. They collected 489 ordinary votes and 565 absentee votes. At the Princess Alexandra South Brisbane Hospital, 24 officials were engaged. They collected 348 ordinary votes and 841 absent votes. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- For how long are they engaged - for the whole of the day? {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- I understand that they are engaged for several days prior to polling day. They roam the hospitals. This facility is extended at all the public hospitals and institutions in Queensland, but it is extended at private hospitals and institutions only if permission is obtained. There is no real evidence to -suggest that our postal voting facilities, which are far simpler than they are in Queensland, are so inadequate as to justify, at this stage, appointing a considerably larger number of officials to collect a relatively small number of votes. However, I will undertake to examine this proposal sympathetically and to see exactly what expense would be involved and what kind of procedure would have to be introduced, if such a system were to be adopted under our legislation. At the present time, it seems that the additional number of officials that would have to be appointed for a relatively small benefit would not make it desirable to accept the proposed amendment. {: #debate-36-s49 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton .It surprised me to learn from the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** that so large a staff was required to enable the use of a mobile voting booth. I have had experience in the collection of votes at St. George Hospital in Sydney. I do not know how many patients that hospital holds, but it would be one of the biggest hospitals in Sydney. There, a couple of officials accompanied by scrutineers got through the whole of the hospital in one day to enable patients to cast their votes. This is under the New South Wales system of voting. I cannot understand what the complications are in Queensland. I must say that the secretary of the St. George Hospital and his staff arrange for the filling in of applications for the electoral visitors. They distribute the application forms and the patients fill them in at their leisure. The forms are then gathered up and forwarded to the returning officer who, on an appointed day, comes along and gets the votes. I cannot see why it would take a long time to collect the votes of patients in a ward. I do not know what can account for the vast difference between the experience in Brisbane and my experience of Sydney hospitals. {: #debate-36-s50 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .With very great respect to the argument advanced by the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** against the amendment proposed by the Opposition, I remain completely unpersuaded. The Minister has claimed that the postal voting procedure in Queensland is complicated. From recollection, the only vital difference between applying for a federal postal vote and applying for a postal vote at State elections is that in the States the applicant must put a stamp on his envelope when he returns his application. No great differences are involved. There may be one or two minor differences concerned with the witnessing of an application. As far as numbers are concerned, we all know of polling places where only 50 or 60 votes are lodged. The argument submitted by the Minister surely will not persuade the committee to reject this amendment. I think that the mobile booth is the essence of good sense. It is most unseemly, unbecoming, uncivilized and improper to have scores of political enthusiasts racing around hospitals, adding to the burden of the staff and distressing the patients. Such action offends my sense of propriety. I intend to support the amendment. {: #debate-36-s51 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- I cannot agree with the part of the amendment that states that the returning officer shall provide at least two polling booths. That provision would apply to every convalescent home, hospital or similar institution. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Which is a polling place. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- Yes. There are a number of such places that are very small and where it would not be necessary to provide two polling booths. I suggest that the word " may " be substituted for the word " shall ". That would give the electoral officer a discretion. I cannot accept the contention that it needs a big staff to man these mobile booths. From experience T know that it is possible, at the Eventide Home in any event, for the women's section to be closed for voting by about lunch time because by then every female inmate of the home has cast her vote and there is no longer any need for the officers to remain with a ballot-box waiting for votes to be cast. Those officers are able to spend the rest of the afternoon moving through the wards in which patients are hospitalized. All that is required is for an officer appointed by the electoral officer to go round with two scrutineers, one from each party. They could so through the hospital, stop at the foot of each bed and allow the patient to cast his or her vote. That would take no more than five minutes for each patient. The Minister has said that he will give consideration to this matter. It must be remembered that we will have another election in December, or whenever the Government decides - at least within a matter of months. T feel very strongly about the amount of distress that has been caused to patients in the Eventide Home year after year at election time. I feel, in all conscience, that I must support the amendment, but I do ask that the word " may " be substituted for the word " shall ". I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** will agree that it would not be essential for a mobile booth to be provided in every convalsecent home. {: #debate-36-s52 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- 1 cannot accept the suggestion of the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** that the word " may " be substituted for the word " shall ". If the honorable member looks at the amendment he will see that his suggestion is unnecessary. It is proposed that mobile booths shall be provided only in convalescent homes, hospitals or similar institutions which have been declared polling places. Furthermore, an elector who is resident in such a home, hospital or institution will be visited by the mobile polling booth only when he or she cannot visit the polling booth in that home, hospital or institution. That is, if the sick person is mobile, he or she will go to the polling booth in the institution. But if he or she is not mobile, he or she may have the mobile polling booth call. This will not apply in any homes that are not polling places. The returning officer will set up a mobile booth only at a polling place, and it will be used only when a patient wishes to cast his or her vote but is unable to visit the polling place. {: #debate-36-s53 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .- Tonight is the first occasion that I can recollect when I have agreed in entirety with the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** and to a limited extent with the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight).** I agree that the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** would, if adopted, introduce a necessary reform. I cannot agree that the Opposition's amendment would require too many officials to put it into practice. The story that too many officials would be required is the usual story put out by departmental officers as a reason why beneficial reforms cannot be introduced. It should be possible every three years to provide the men and women necessary to visit hospitals and operate the mobile polling booths. Under the New South Wales law, there is no stipulation as to the number of patients a hospital must have before a mobile booth will be provided. The hospital may be a large one or it may bc a small one; the matter fs left to the discretion of the returning officer. If a similar provision were inserted in the Commonwealth legislation it would overcome many of the matters associated with voting in' hospitals which are repugnant to the average campaigner. If a candidate or a party is supported by the people running a hospital, it would be only human for that candidate or party to receive concessions from that hospital, either because of friendship or for other reasons. Some candidates are denied access to certain hospitals on technical grounds. The person in charge of a hospital may say that he or she does not want the patients to be disturbed. A nurse may be told to collect postal votes in a hospital, and although patients may trust her, they may in fact inadvertently vote for a candidate other than the one of their choice. Things of that kind happen and the inmate is not able to cast a vote according to his inclinations. Many people in hospitals have very few friends to visit them and help them to record their votes, and in many cases those inmates are denied the right of recording their votes. The hospitals under the control of the various State instrumentalities should be investigated by the electoral officer in order to decide whether mobile polling booths should be set up in those hospitals. If mobile booths were set up the patients would be happy because their votes would be recorded. The mobile booths would relieve matrons of any responsibility and a charge could not be made that votes had been manipulated or obtained contrary to the intentions of the voters. I am delighted to know that two members of the Liberal Party have decided to support the amendment, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will agree to the proposal. So far he has advanced only one reason why the amendment should not be agreed to. That is the implementation of the proposal embodied in -t would require the services of too many people. As I and other honorable members have said, that argument does not hold water, and there- seems to be no reason at all why this amendment should not be carried. T support it sincerely and T hope that it will be agreed to, because I believe that it would be a forward step in bringing the act up to date. Members of the Australian Country Party, a number of whom have been interjecting, no doubt do not care what happens to the- electors'. Those honorable members have an' opportunity to speak on this amendment, just as I have.. I think that an honorable member is entitled to air his views on these matters. It is still quite early in' the session and I am not in any hurry to get home. The responsibility rests on the Government. {: .page-start } page 1474 {:#debate-37} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-37-0} #### THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN. - Order! The honorable member should confine his remarks to the amendment. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I shall come back to the amendment, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** I was rudely interrupted by interjections from members of the Australian Country Party, and I felt that I should make passing reference to the attitude of the members of that party. I just want to say again - it cannot be stressed too often - that something should be done to enable people in hospital to vote. Something must be done in order to remove the anomalies that I mentioned a few moments, ago - anomalies which are accepted by the honorable member for Moreton and the honorable member for Lilley. This amendment represents a very good approach to the problem, and I think that it would do justice to all. concerned. The Opposition's proposal would be satisfactory to the electoral officers, the persons who would be afforded an opportunity to vote and the electorate generally. The occasion for. making these arrangements arises only once in every three years, and, occasionally when there, is a by-election. All in all, we now have an adequate opportunity to bring up to date the provisions of the principal act relating to voting by inmates of hospitals and similar institutions, and this amendment is designed to do that. I commend to the committee the sentiments that I have expressed. I hope that the amendment will receive the committee's support. I trust that some honorable members on the Government side will see the light. I have lost all hope for members of the Australian Country Party, but I trust that some other honorable members opposite who believe that an injustice is being done at present will support the amendment. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr.** Whitlam's amendment) be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.) AYES: 33 NOES: 48 Majority . . . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. Section proposed to be amended - 106. 'In printing the ballot-papers to be used in a House of Representatives election - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the names of all candidates duly nominated shall be printed in alphabetical order according to theirsurnames; 1. if there are two or more candidates of the same surname, their names shall be printed according 'to the alphabetical order of their christian names, or, if their christiannames are the same, then according to the alphabetical order of their residences, which shall in such case be arranged and stated on the ballotpaper; {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .I move - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- " 11 d. Section one hundred and six of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraphs (a) and *. (b)* and inserting in their stead the following paragraph: - > >the names of all candidates duly nominated shall be printed in the order determined as follows: - > >The Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall, at the place of nomination, immediately after the close of nominations and before all persons present make out in respect of each candidate a slip bearing the name of the candidate, enclose the respective slips in separate blank envelopes of exact similarity and deposit the several envelopes in a locked ballot-box; > >The Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall then shake and rotate the ballot-box and shall permit any other person present, if he so desires, to do the same; > >The ballot-box shall then be unlocked and an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service, other than the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, shall take out and open the envelopes therefrom one by one; and > >The candidate whose name appears onthe slip enclosed in the envelope first taken from the ballotbox shall be placed first on the ballot-papers, the candidate whose name appears on the slip enclosed in , the envelope next taken from the ballot-box shall be placed next on the ballotpapers and so on until the placing of all the candidates has been determined;'.". This amendment provides for the determination of the position on the ballot-paper of the names of candidates for the House of Representatives by the same method as has been used for the last twenty years without complaint and, in fact, with universal support, in determining positions on the ballotpaper in elections for the other place. This afternoon the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** stated the arguments which he had adduced from the figures of voting in New South Wales at the last federal general election. A good statistical coverage can be obtained in a State like New South Wales. The honorable member mentioned the position of the D.L.P., which contested 40 out of the 46 seats in that State. In the seats in which the D.L.P. candidate was placed first on the ballotpaper, that party achieved results very different from those achieved in the seats in which its candidate's name was in another position on the ballot-paper. In fifteen of the 40 seats which the party contested the name of its candidate was at the top of the ballot-paper, and in those seats that party obtained an average of 4 per cent, more of the votes cast. There was, as I have said, a good statistical coverage, and one cannot minimize the significance of the results as shown by that coverage. He also quoted the position of the Communist Party which, however, contested fewer seats. Following the honorable member's investigations, which he gave to the House during the debate in 1959 on the Estimates for the Department of the Interior, I extended the investigation into the basis of the general election figures and gave them to the House in the debate on the Estimates for that department last year. In New South Wales in 1958, Liberal candidates were placed first on the ballot paper in seventeen House of Representatives' electorates and secured 43.8 per cent, of the votes. In twenty other electorates where they were not first on the ballot paper they secured 39.3 per cent, of the formal votes. In Victoria, in thirteen electorates, the Labour candidates were placed first on the ballot paper and secured an average of 45 per cent, of the formal votes. In the other twenty seats the average Labour vote was 36.1 per cent. The D.L.P. candidates secured first position on the ballot paper in twelve Victorian electorates and polled an average of 16.9 per cent., whilst in the other 21 electorates they secured an average of 13.3 per cent, of the formal votes. A similar advantage can be seen clearly in respect of the Senate elections in 1958. In Victoria and Queensland the Labour candidates secured the first position or group on the Senate ballot paper. In twenty seats in Victoria, the Labour candidate was not first on the House of Representatives ballot paper. A.L.P. candidates secured 40.9 per cent, of the votes for the Senate - where they were first - and 36.1 per cent, of the votes for the House of Representatives when they were not first. In Queensland the A.L.P. candidates were also first on the Senate ballot papers. In fifteen seats where the A.L.P. candidates were not first on the House of Representatives ballot paper in that State, the Senate candidates secured 41.3 per cent, of the votes and the House of Representatives candidates 37.3 per cent, of the votes. I submit that it is quite plain there is an advantage of up to 4 per cent, if a candidate is first on the ballot paper for the Senate or for the House of Representatives. I have taken seats where there is a large cover, where there can be no possibility of mere chance or fluke. At the second-reading stage of this bill I pointed out that whereas the Senate members were evenly divided alphabetically, the members of this chamber were divided as to 95 with surnames beginning from A to M and 29 with surnames beginning from N to Z. It is quite clear, **Sir, that** there is the same advantage in being on the top of the House of Representatives ballot paper as the Parliament recognized twenty years ago when it decided that the position on the Senate ballot paper should no longer be determined alphabetically but by lot. At the last general elections there were several seats which changed their party allegiance by a narrow vote, and in each case the alphabetical factor was the determining one. The alphabetical accidents were as follows: In Braddon, **Mr. Davies** beat **Mr. Luck;** in Kalgoorlie, **Mr. Brown** beat **Mr. Collard;** in Stirling, **Mr. Cash** beat **Mr. Webb;** in Griffith, **Mr. Chresby** beat **Mr. Coutts;** and in St. George **Mr. Clay** beat **Mr. Graham.** There were two other seats where the party allegiance was changed. One was Herbert where the sitting candidate was incapacitated throughout the campaign, and the other was one where the Labour candidate received a smaller number of votes than the Liberal and Country Party candidates, and his preferences changed the Government representation of that seat. I could go through all the general elections - 1954, 1955, as well as 1958. The clear pattern emerges that the great majority of seats which have changed their political allegiance one way or another at these, three general elections have changed them in favour of the candidate whose name happened, alphabetically, to be above that of the sitting member. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD:
Batman .- I do not propose to quote many statistics, but the fact remains that you can take statistics in any State for any candidate and for any party, and you must come to the conclusion that the man whose name is at the top of the ballot-paper receives a preference so far as votes are concerned. 1 quoted at the second-reading stage an instance where D.L.P. candidates in Victoria in twelve electorates secures 91,000 votes' of 538,000, that is 16.9 per cent. In 21 other electorates, where the candidates were not at the top of the ballot-paper, they received 117,000 votes of 866,000, that is 13.5 per cent. - a difference of just on 3i per cent. In each State the figures relatively are much the same. The position is that we recognize the inequity of allowing candidates whose names start with the first letters of the alphabet, to have an advantage so far as the Senate is concerned. We had the famous example in New South Wales where the names of four Labour candidates started with A, and naturally they headed the ballot-paper. Now, everybody connected with politics knows that candidates wait with bated breath to hear the result of the draw for places on the Senate ballot-paper. There is as much interest in the draw for places on the Senate ballot-paper as there is in the drawing of a f 100,000 prize in the lottery. There is not the slightest doubt on that point because every party recognizes that if its candidates are placed first on the ballot-paper, they gain a definite electoral advantage. If a party is successful in that way its officials rub their hands with glee because they know that the placing of its candidates at the top of the ballot-paper will help them in the election. That is an incontrovertible fact. Why cannot the Government adopt the same method in House of Representatives elections and refuse to give preference to those fortunate people whose names start with the letters A. B. C or another early letter of the alphabet? I cannot understand the reluctance of the Government to change the present system. It is true that the Labour Party supported the present system, but the Labour Party is a progressive party. When it supported the legislation providing for the placing of candidates in alphabetical order on the ballot-paper for the House of Representatives it thought that the system would work; but over the years it has realized that it does not work. I say that as a candidate whose name starts with the letter B, and as one who has always been at the top of the ballot-paper. I must confess that a candidate whose name, like mine, starts with an early letter of the alphabet has an advantage over a candidate whose name starts with the letter W, T or S. Why is the Government reluctant to make a change? Why is it prepared to retain two different systems of placing candidates' names on ballot-papers in elections for the two Houses of the Parliament? The Minister may have an explanation, but one does not occur to me and I doubt whether any explanation could be supported statistically. As I say, every one hopes that when the draw is made, his group will be first on the ballot-paper. The figures undoubtedly prove that the first group on the Senate ballot paper is given a preference. Unknown parties whose candidates do very little work during an election campaign receive an undue proportion of votes if placed first on the ballot paper. The position with the House of Representatives can be seen by an examination of absentee votes. If a person does not receive a how-to-vote card because he is absent in the country, he will frequently give his first vote to the candidate at the top of the ballot-paper. Absentee voters simply write, one, two, three down from the top of the paper. The Government should be consistent. If it is, it will change the system, because it must realize that the Government parties are happy when they are given first place on the Senate ballot-paper. {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- I am well aware that there is a system of drawing lots for the position on the Senate ballot-paper. The Senate vote is quite complicated to the man in the street. [Quorum formed.] The position on the Senate ballot-paper is determined by lot, but nobody is satisfied with that situation. At every election we hear protests that an electoral advantage by chance has been given to some candidates. There is no doubt that some advantage is given to the first group on the Senate ballot-paper. However, the ^ advantage in the final result is by no means clear. In spite of a clear advantage in the first votes, it is never quite certain what difference has been made when the preferences have been distributed. But there is dissatisfaction, and people come forward with all kinds of propositions about circular ballotpapers and devices that will remove the element of chance. The clear implication that emerges from the remarks of honorable members does not seem to be much commendation for members of the House of Representatives or the intelligence of the people of Australia. The system of voting for the House of Representatives is far simpler than that for the Senate. There are fewer candidates, the candidates represent particular divisions that are smaller in area than a State and they are known or have a greater opportunity to be known to individual electors than have candidates for the Senate. The vote for the Senate is. a very wide impersonal vote. It does not pay a compliment to our conception of democracy when the whole argument tends to suggest that a government exists simply because of the wise choice by candidates, of their parents. On the basis of this argument, the Opposition wants a government that happens to be determined by lot. Nobody suggests that that is the kind of result that is in fact achieved, but what honorable members propose is to encourage in the electorate the idea that if a party happens to be lucky enough to get a good draw, the chances of a change of government are thereby improved. Although there have been a considerable number of statistics quoted about this alleged advantage of position on the ballotpaper, a large proportion of the statistics dealt with people who in fact were not elected to the Parliament. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- That is completely irrelevant. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- You may say it is completely irrelevant. I say that a lot of the statistics you quoted were completely irrelevant. If we look at the people who in fact did get into Parliament, we will find that there is nothing to show that a great advantage was conferred by a position on the ballot-paper. Let us look at some of the figures. Honorable members opposite who are now interjecting quoted quite a lot of figures. I did not argue with the figures they quoted. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- There is no argument against them. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- May I quote some figures which show a contrary view? Have you any objection to hearing other figures? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- No. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Then why don't you listen to them? The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lucock).Order!** I think this evening there have been sufficient interjections from both sides of the committee. I remind honorable members that interjections are disorderly and if they continue, the Chair will take action. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- At the last general election, of the 122 members elected to the House of Representatives, 41 had first position on the ballot-paper and 40 had second position. That seems to establish that there is not a very great divergence between first and second positions. In electorates where there were four candidates, nine of those elected had first position and nine had fourth position. So there does not seem to be any great advantage there. If honorable members do not like that kind of approach, let us look at the opposite view. In New South Wales, eighteen of the candidates who lost their deposits had first position, but only twelve had second position. These figures are quite factual; they are just as factual as are the statistics quoted by honorable members opposite. The voting public of Australia is used to this system. No case has been made out by honorable members opposite for changing it. They in fact lose sight of the objective of the voting system that we have, and that is that the people should record an intelligent and informed vote. Honorable members should not seek to foster the view that the result of any election depends on chance or some stroke of good fortune. As far as possible, we want every person to inform himself of the candidates, their qualifications and their party, and then to vote. intelligently. That is the objective which should be sought. Honorable members dc not do themselves much credit when they suggest that their presence in this chamber is due only to some kind of accident. {: #subdebate-37-0-s4 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson .- At the beginning of my speech in the. secondreading debate the Minister interjected twice before 1 had uttered about three sentences. He did not wait to hear my story. Yet this gentleman complains to-night about my interjecting when he was speaking. In other words, honorable members on the Government side like to give it, but they cannot take it. I suppose the Minister's last speech is about the most unstable and stupid speech ever delivered in this chamber. I remind honorable members that the Chief Electoral Officer is sitting in the chamber. He heard that speech and I wager that when he goes home to-night he will have a good laugh to himself about the Minister's foolish assertion that it is not of advantage, to a candidate to have his name at the top of the ballot-paper. Let me repeat a few of the figures quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** He pointed out that in the fifteen instances in which members of the Australian Democratic Labour Party in New South Wales were at the top of the ballot-paper at the last federal election they polled an average of 9.03 per cent, of the total votes cast whereas in the other 25 cases where they were not on the top of the ballot-paper they polled an average of only 4.83 per cent, of the total votes cast. The advantage to those who were on top of the ballot-paper in that case was worth 4.2 per cent. The same position applied in connexion with the Communist Party candidates. There again the advantage enjoyed by those who were on top of the ballot-paper over those who were not was almost 4 per cent. I think every one in the chamber will agree that the most disciplined vote of all the political parties in Australia is the Communist vote. Now let me quote further figures, and after I have done so, let the Minister say again there is no advantage in being at the top of the ballot-paper!- Even the Chief Electoral Officer was laughing behind the Minister's back when he made that stupid statement. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I rise to order. I ask that those remarks be withdrawn. The honorable member has no right to refer to officers who are not members of this Parliament. This is the second time the honorable member has directed attention to the presence of an officer. It is definitely ill-mannered and out of place. {: #subdebate-37-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The Chair has no authority to prevent an honorable member from passing remarks about anybody who is not a member of the Parliament. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Would you direct attention to the fact that it is churlish and ill-mannered? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- What the honorable member says is a matter for himself. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE: -- I did not intend any insult to the officer. I merely made a general remark in passing. I also mention in passing that the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R. Fraser)** directed the attention of honorable members to a question that was asked about remarks made on two occasions by people who were not members of this. Parliament. Now, when an honorable member on this side says something about a person who is not a member of the Parliament, a Minister takes strong exception to it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member will discuss the matter before the committee. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE: -- As I said before, I am sure all honorable members will agree that the Communist vote is the most disciplined vote in Australia. Will any honorable member deny that? Let me now refer to what happened in the electorate of Banks in the 1955 and 1958 elections. In 1955, **Mr. P.** M. Clancy, the, Communist Party candidate who contested the Banks seat polled 3,356 or 8.014 per cent, of a total of 41,875 votes cast. On that occasion, his name was at the top of the ballot paper. In 1 958, when a Liberal candidate occupied' top position on the ballot-paper and Clancy held second place, Clancy polled only 1,634 or 3.55 per cent, of a total of 48,700 votes cast. The advantage in being at the top of the ballot-paper was worth over 4 per cent. 1 know of one instance during the last federal election in which the Liberal Party selected for Parks a man who was not the best candidate offering. He was selected purely because the Liberal Party knew that his name would appear at the top of the ballot-paper. It was a seat that the Liberals dearly wanted to win from the Labour Party, and they by-passed a much more suitable man who was wellknown and well-liked in the electorate. The man who was by-passed was a most intelligent person who would have been a much more suitable candidate but he was not selected because his name would not appear at .the top of the ballot-paper Every member of the Liberal Party knows that the selection of candidates depends on the position in which their names will appear on the ballot-papers. The Minister spoke about how many people were elected, but did not submit figures to support his argument. We have the irrefutable facts backed up by figures. Earlier the Minister made out a good case in favour of the drawing-out-of-the-hat system. When speaking to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about redistributions, the Minister said, " If you have them too often, people do not know who their candidates are." That is so. After the 1955 re-distribution, the people of Sydney were muddled for some considerable time because they did not know who their members were. When there is a re-distribution and people are transferred to other electorates they do not know who their members are. Especially is this so in the case of electors who are wishing to cast absentee votes. The position is not so difficult for the electors who are voting in their new electorates because the names of the candidates are well advertised, but very often those who are seeking to cast absentee votes find it necessary to inquire who the candidates are. If there is no officer present at the absentee table outside the booth, the electors are not sure who the candidates are and almost invariably mark their papers from top to bottom when they enter the booth. At one time the Labour Party conducted pre-selection ballots under the alphabetical system and we found that those whose names began with " A " enjoyed a distinctive advantage. This was especially so in Senate pre-selection ballots, although there was also an advantage in the preselection ballots for the House of Representatives. The Labour Party altered the system several years ago at its annual conference. The names of candidates are now drawn out of the hat and placed on the pre-selection ballot-papers for the House of Representatives and the Senate in the order in which they are drawn. At the last pre-selection, which was made under the new system of drawing out of the hat, the three successful Senate candidates were Arnold, Ormonde and Amour. Arnold was lucky and drew No. 1 position. On one occasion, I assisted as scrutineer at a pre-selection at which 600 votes were cast. Thirty of the voters marked their ballot-papers from top to bottom just as is done quite often at the final election. Even though it was only a pre-selection, 5 per cent, of the voters merely marked their papers from top to bottom, lt is my opinion that the advantage to be derived from being at the top of the ballot-paper is worth at least 3 per cent, or 1,200 out of every 40,000 votes cast. I admit that this advantage is greater in federal elections than in State elections because, at federal elections, two papers have to be filled in at the one time. When the electors are confronted with twenty-odd names for the Senate and only four or five for the House of Representatives they become confused and many of them simply vote across the paper for the Senate and down the paper for the House of Representatives. When the Minister says, in the face of that evidence, that it is of no advantage to be at the top of the ballot-paper, his statement it too ridiculous for words. He is only pulling his own leg, and everybody on the Government side knows he is pulling his own leg. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-37-0-s6 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman -- This subject always raises a lot of discussion - sometimes very lively discussion - no matter where it is considered. On odd occasions I have heard within the organization to which I belong and in a number of other organizations discussion about whether a certain position on the ballot-paper gives an advantage to the person concerned. I have noted with interest that, after such a discussion has been held, there has been a change-over to the holding of a ballot for a position on the ballotpaper. As honorable gentlemen on this side of the chamber know, that system works equally as well within our own organization as it does in other organizations. There is not the slightest doubt that a candidate whose name is in the No. 1 position on the ballot-paper in a House of Representatives election enjoys an advantage of between *2i* and 4 per cent. That is an established fact against which I do not think anybody could argue. I was rather amazed to hear the honorable member for Farrer **(Mr. Fairbairn)** cite some figures which he said had been furnished by the Minister for the Interior. The Minister himself cited some of those figures again to-night. In actual fact, they are quite irrelevant to the argument, which is that the No. 1 position on the ballot-paper attracts an extra percentage of votes. It could be said that the attraction of those extra votes is a result of the stupidity or ignorance of a percentage of the electors who are uneducated in electoral matters or who are not sufficiently interested in the outcome of the election. While we have compulsory voting, that situation is bound to arise. So this state of affairs will be with us for a long time. To my mind, the only sensible and fair thing to do is to have a ballot for positions on the ballot-paper. I have advocated that for years. It is not unnatural that I should have done so. My name was last on the ballot-paper on one occasion out of five and usually it has been in the middle. When one sees a candidate whose name is at the top of the ballotpaper attracting votes which he would not ordinarily attract because of his party membership, with the result that a completely false impression of the strength of that party in the particular electorate is given, one feels that it would be a good thing to have one's own name at the top of the ballot-papery and that one could do just as well in those circumstances. The honorable member for Farrer made a very sensible suggestion the other day. I am surprised that there has not been a lot more reference to it. He suggested that beside the name of the candidate on the ballot-paper there should be an indication of the party to which he belongs. That would do a lot to help the elector who may not be taking as great an interest in these matters as we would hope. I trust the Government will bear this suggestion in mind when it is next considering legislation of this kind. Perhaps it is not too late for consideration to be given to it now and for an appropriate provision to be introduced in another place so that it will be in time for the next election. I wholeheartedly support this idea of balloting for positions on the ballot-paper. I have not yet heard any argument that such a provision would not be logical or fair. {: #subdebate-37-0-s7 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I am disappointed in the Minister if he devised the arguments that he has advanced. I am disappointed in the officers of his department if they devised them for him. It really does not matter what would happen in the three propositions that the Minister has put forward. Australian Democratic Labour Party candidates and Communist candidates will never win a House of Representatives election, wherever their names appear on the ballot-paper. Usually they will lose their deposits, wherever their names appear. Two of the three instances that the Minister gave come within that category. The instances that have been mentioned on this side of the chamber were based on statistics, and the Minister has not attempted to refute them in any way. There is a very distinct difference in the number of votes that are cast in a State like Victoria, which has a great number of seats, for party candidates as a whole - when I refer to party candidates, I mean Liberal Party, Australian Labour Party or Democratic Labour Party candidates - according to whether their names occupy the first position or other positions on the ballot-paper. The same applies to New South Wales, which has a great number of seats. There is a distinct difference between the Senate poll for a party where its candidates are at the top of the ballot-paper for a whole State and the poll for the House of Representatives where its candidates are in varying positions on the ballot-papers in the various electorates. We gave figures for the States in which there was a good number of seats to give coverage - namely Queensland and Victoria - where the names of candidates of one of the major parties were at the top of the ballot paper for the Senate, and where a considerable number of its candidates for the House of Representatives election occupied that position and a considerable number occupied other positions on the ballot-paper. We drew comparisons between comparables, but the Minister advanced arguments that were based on irrelevancies. On the balance of the arguments advanced, I should say that the case for having the same method of determining the position of the names of candidates for the House of Representatives election as for Senate candidates remains unanswered and unanswerable. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 31 NOES: 49 Majority 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. Section proposed to be amended - 111. The polling shall be conducted as follows: - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The poll shall open at eight o'clock in the morning, and shall not close until all electors present in the polling booth at eight o'clock in the evening, and desiring to vote, have voted; 1. The doors of the polling booth shall be closed at eight o'clock in the evening and no person shall be admitted after that hour to the polling booth for the purpose of voting; {: #subdebate-37-0-s8 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- "11e. Section one hundred and eleven of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraphs (b) and (c) the words 'eight o'clock in the evening ' (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words ' six o'clock in the evening '.". At this outrageous hour, and after such a prolonged sitting - with at least a couple of hours still to go - it may seem anomalous for me to propose an amendment to shorten the hours of voting. The amendment, which was circulated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** proposes that the hours of polling shall be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. instead of from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. I should think that members generally might be in a mood, after such a lengthy sitting, to consider favorablyaproposal to shorten the hours of polling. Perhaps the most effective argument which can be advanced in favour of this proposal is to quote the experience of Queensland. I understand that none of the parties in the Queensland Parliament would propose to revert to 8 o'clock closing, because 6 o'clock closing has operated successfully in Queensland in both local government and State government elections for a considerable time. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- It is not very popular in South Australia. {: #subdebate-37-0-s9 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am talking about Queensland. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- Six o'clock closing is not popular in South Australia. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am talking about the hour of closing of polling booths.I understand that none of the difficulties which have been conjectured as an argument against the reduction of polling hours have actually been experienced in Queensland, where the experimental 6 o'clock closing of polling booths is working to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. The only other thing which need be said in favour of this proposition is that we are living in an age of speedier transportation and shorter working hours, when the majority of the people are working a fiveday week and very few people work from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays. Being most interested in the proposal, I have made very careful inquiries throughout my electorate of Eden-Monaro. I am convinced that there are very few people in that electorate who would not welcome the proposed reduction of polling hours. One incidental advantage of the earlier closing hour would be that it would enable an earlier announcement of the result of polls. It is obvious that at the next general election a considerable number of members of the Government will be in a state between shock and the shivers until the result of the polling is known, and the earlier they can be put out of their misery the better. On the whole, I think that this proposal has everything to commend it and there is nothing against it. If any one has anything against it I trust that he will put his objections in writing and submit them to the Acting Clerk at a later stage of the proceedings. {: #subdebate-37-0-s10 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- The main argument that has been advanced by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** in support of the amendment is that we have speedier transport these days. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- And shorter working hours! {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is true, but is it really relevant? Under the act, any one who lives over 5 miles from a polling booth can avail himself of postal voting. It seems to me to be hardly relevant that transport is- speedier now than it was in the days of the horse and buggy, because any one could have travelled to a polling booth by 6 p.m. in those days. The plain truth is that this amendment suits party organizations and candidates - and probably a few other people also - who have an insatiable curiosity about the result of polls. But one day in every three years belongs to the individual in the street, the voter. Is there any reason why we should not meet his convenience by giving him as long a spread of hours as possible in which to vote? It is quite true that any one can vote by 6 p.m. if he wants to. Why deprive the man in the street of his right to vote up to 8 p.m. in order to suit the convenience of party organizations? I do not think that at this stage we should shorten the hours of polling. If anything we should extend them to suit the convenience of the public. Polling day is the day in each three years when the voter, and not any one else mixed up in politics, should be considered. {: #subdebate-37-0-s11 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .I rise only to refute the allegation of the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** that this amendment is proposed for the convenience of party organizations. A much more important consideration is the fact that unnecessarily throughout the Commonwealth on election days we seriously overwork and inconvenience the very efficient people who staff the polling booths. They must be at the booths by about 7 a.m. They have to get all their papers in order and assemble their organization. The poll does not close until 8 p.m. The count has to be made and it is midnight or later before their day's work is completed. In this age and generation, when shorter hours are the order of the day, some consideration ought to be shown to the people who staff these booths. That is an important aspect. Most of them are temporary employees - school teachers, clerks, labourers, and all sorts of other people - who do this work for a not very generous fee. Since the closing hour of 8 p.m. was fixed, Saturday morning work has been virtually eliminated throughout Australia. {: .speaker-JWK} ##### Mr Cash: -- Nonsense. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The honorable member should not be so utterly stupid and ignorant. It is correct that Saturday work has been virtually eliminated. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- And you are a farmer! {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The honorable gentleman is trying to lead the committee to believe that farmers normally work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week. They do nothing of the sort. Farms are mechanized, and there is no difficulty whatsoever in this respect in the great majority of farming communities. After all, working farm proprietors in the Commonwealth number a mere, but very important 250,000. Compare that number with the rest of the voting population. Whilst there may be an element of truth in the suggestion that a reduction of polling hours may inconvenience a small segment of the farming population who may be in the midst of important harvesting operations on polling day, it is also true that if the Government does not agree to this reform it will continue to inconvenience millions of voters engaged in other types of industry. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- They can vote whenever they like. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The Government will be encouraging them to keep polling staffs at work for unduly long hours. Surely the Government should bring itself up to date. The plain fact is that Government supporters are adopting an attitude identical with that which they have adopted to every reform in the way of reduction of hours that has ever been advocated. One has only to look through our political and economic history. When the 48-hour week was advocated people of the same political complexion as honorable members opposite opposed it. Similarly, they opposed the 44- hour week and the 40-hour week. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- And they would oppose an extension of my time to speak. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The reduction of working hours has nothing to do with the amendment that is before the committee. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The amendment, of its very nature, affects the hours of staff. In addition, under present conditions people are encouraged to dilly-dally. We stand for efficiency. There is no need to encourage late arrival at the booths and that sort of thing. It is true that some consideration has been given to party organizations, but the proposal is not party-political. I stand outside booths with representatives of the Liberal Party and the Country Party, distributing how-to-vote cards. It is plain madness that the staff inside should have to sit in cold unheated rooms, having their meals brought in to them, while voluntary party workers outside have frequently to stand in most adverse weather conditions, especially when elections take place in the middle of winter. It is surely up to this Parliament to set an example that will be followed ultimately in all parliamentary and municipal elections. I appeal to the common sense and humanitarian instincts of honorable members. In particular, I ask Government supporters to bring themselves up to date and to introduce a reform which will have no political advantages for any party. This is a step that is required in order that this country might march in line with modern developments. {: #subdebate-37-0-s12 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .Some of the hyperbole that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has used in his argument has weakened the case for reducing polling hours to the period between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. The honorable gentleman and his colleagues have made' up their minds. They vote in the one mould of sameness. They will vote with a common characteristic in the manner in which their party has decided. My role at this hour of the morning is not to persuade any one on the Opposition benches to support this proposal. They will do that. My endeavour will be to persuade those members on the Government side. ] am attracted to this task because, as I look to my right and to my left, I see people who are wide awake, and eager to engage in rational argument and to make a judgment on the facts. I do not ask them to make a judgment according to some prejudice or according to some petty idea that may have beset their organization or themselves. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- What about the farmers? {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- I shall deal with the farmers later on, I imagine to the intense satisfaction of my honorable and gallant friend. The circumstances surrounding State parliamentary and municipal elections in Queensland have been alluded to. Let no one imagine that those circumstances are something new. I have been unable since this sitting began to pursue the matter to its grass roots, but I find that polling hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. prevailed in Queensland certainly as far back as 1915. By a twist of irony, the Queensland Parliament in 1915, at this very hour, was dealing with the committee stages of its Elections Act. I recite to the committee the relevant provision in the Queensland act - >At every poll the voting shall commence at 8 o'clock in the forenoon and shall finally close at 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day unless adjourned by reason of riot or other interruption. We have never had occasion in Queensland to adjourn polling because of riot or any other interruption. So for at least 46 years 6 o'clock closing, in relation to polling, has been the law. The precise arguments that have been raised, and that will undoubtedly continue to be raised, against 6 o'clock closing were raised 46 years ago. As I look to the right, I see my friend the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull).** He is not the representative of reaction in this Parliament. He is a man possessed of progressive ideas, ideas that are constantly on the go. I put it to the honorable gentleman, as a representative of a very small school of opposition to this proposal, that for a minimum of 46 years - I did not examine the history before 1915 - the proposed hours have worked quite satisfactorily in Queensland, in all seasons, in the winter time and in the summer time. Honorable members who are opposed to 6 o'clock closing have said, " What about the farmers? They will work until 6 or 7 o'clock, then have a quick shower and hop into town ". As I understand the position, individuals in the western part of Queensland - I do not refer particularly to farmers - many of whom live at distances of up to 150 miles from a polling booth, consider polling day a day out. It is a day on which they come to town and meet their friends. There is no suggestion on their part that they will work until 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon, have a quick cup of tea and then go to town. I think this is a trifling and a piffling amendment. As for travelling long distances in country areas to get to the polls, I can say that I frequently used to travel 35 miles on horseback to visit a girl friend. I put it to the committee, particularly honorable members on the Government side, that 6 o'clock closing has worked in all weathers and at all times of the year to the complete and utter satisfaction of every political party in Queensland. There is no argument of any substance that can be raised against it. The present polling hours, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., impose a physical strain upon many tens of thousands of people, and this committee would do well to bear that fact in mind. {: #subdebate-37-0-s13 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .You will remember, **Mr. Chairman,** that I have raised this issue from time to time in this Parliament during the last ten years. During every debate on the Estimates I have advocated that polling hours should be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Whenever I have raised this argument I have been subjected to interjections from either the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** or the Opposition Whip, the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie).** On each occasion I have been challenged by one or other of those two individuals, and have been told by them that the Labour Party would never agree to 6 o'clock closing. Honorable members can verify my contention by looking through the pages of " Hansard ". They will find that during the debates on the Estimates in 1958, 1957 and 1956, I suggested 6 o'clock closing on polling days, and that the Leader of the Opposition said the Labour Party would never agree to it. On those occasions I have pointed to the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. George Lawson)** and said, "There is one member who would most certainly support it." It seems strange that the Opposition should suddenly change its mind. I wonder whether honorable members on the other side are sincere in moving this amendment, or whether they have brought it forward merely as a stunt, knowing that the honorable member for Farrer **(Mr. Fairbairn)** and other honorable members on this side, including myself, have continuously advocated a reduction of polling hours. I am inclined to believe that this amendment has been moved merely as a kind of a test. The Opposition has not proposed it with any sincerity, but merely to see what attitude will be adopted by honorable members on the Government side who have previously advocated the 6 o'clock closing. 1 am all the more convinced that polling hours should be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. when I look at other amendments contained in the bill before the House. In the past an argument used against earlier closing of polling booths has been that members of certain religious organizations are debarred from voting before sunset on Saturday. We now find that the bill we are discussing will cover the position of those persons, and that they will be permitted to cast postal votes. That being so, there is now no tangible reason why polling booths should not close at 6 o'clock. I disagree entirely with the Minister's suggestion that polling hours might well be extended. Let us remember the people who work at the polling booths, to whom the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** made some reference. The officers employed by the Electoral Office start work at the booths before 8 a.m. They have to be there early in order to prepare the booths. They are then required to sit at their tables, doing a boring and tedious job, until 8 p.m. They work for twelve hours continuously, without any respite. They even eat their meals at their tables while continuing to do their work. When the poll is closed their job is by no means finished, because we expect from them an optimum degree of efficiency in counting ballot-papers accurately. They continue to work until midnight, and they are lucky if they get home by 1 a.m. In other words they work for a minimum of seventeen hours a day. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I ask the committee to come to order. There is a constant cross-fire of comment in all parts of the chamber. If honorable members have no consideration for the honorable member who happens to be speaking, at least they might show some consideration for the members of the " Hansard " staff who are trying to record the speeches at this late hour. I suggest that the committee come to order and that honorable members desist from interjecting. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- As I was saying, **Mr. Chairman,** these employees must work for a minimum of seventeen or eighteen hours a day. It is not reasonable to expect any human being to give of his best if he works for that length of time. I remind the House that these officers are required to exercise particular care and to be extremely accurate in counting the ballot-papers. Let me emphasize my three main points. First, we have dealt with the position of people who, because of their membership of certain religious organizations, are precluded from voting before sunset on Saturdays. Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect people to work so many hours in one day. Thirdly, in a great many polling booths, even in metropolitan areas, there is no adequate illumination by electric light, and the electoral officers are required to struggle along in the dim light of hurricane lamps or other substitutes. It is impossible to conduct a ballot with full efficiency in those circumstances. The honorable member for Moreton said that 6 o'clock closing has been the order of the day in Queensland since 1916, and that every one has been able to cast his vote without discomfort and without difficulty. He has said that the system has worked with the maximum of success in that State. The only reason why we have not been able to persuade the Commonwealth Government or other State governments to adopt the system is that those governments have not looked closely into it and tried it out. I know that if the Commonwealth Government were to adopt 6 o'clock closing, every other State in the Commonwealth would follow suit, because they would see that the system leads to greater efficiency, and that the votes are counted at an earlier hour. Finally, the acceptance of this proposal would represent a humane gesture by the Government towards its employees. {: #subdebate-37-0-s14 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson **.- Mr. Chairman--** Motion (by **Mr. Freeth)** put - That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 49 NOES: 31 Majority . . . . 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Allan Fraser's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 34 NOES: 46 Majority . . . . 12 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clauses. Sections proposed to be amended - 123.- (1.) In a Senate election a voter shall mark his vote on his ballot-paper as follows: - >Where his ballot-paper is a ballot-paper in accordance with Form E in the Schedule - he shall place the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference, and shall place the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of his preference for them; 133. - (1.) A ballot-paper shall (except as otherwise provided by section one hundred and twentythree of this Act, and by the regulations relating to absent voting on polling day or to voting by post) be informal if - > >in a Senate election, it has no vote indicated on it, or it does not indicate the voter's first preference for one candidate and the order of his preference for all the remaining candidates: > >Provided that, where the voter has indicated his first preference for one candidate and his consecutive preferences for all the remaining candidates except one and the square opposite the name of that candidate has been left blank, it shall be deemed that the voter's preference for that candidate is his last and accordingly he has indicated the order of his preference for all the candidates; {: #subdebate-37-0-s15 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .by leave - I move - >That the following new clauses be inserted in the bill:- " 12a. Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (l.) the words 'all the remaining candidates ' and inserting in their Stead the words ' the number of candidates required to be elected'.". " 13a. Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (b) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: - > >in a Senate election, it has no vote indicated on it, or it does not indicate the voter's first preference for one candidate and the order of his preference for the number of candidates required to be elected; The amendments, if agreed to, insert new clauses 12a and 13a, amending sections 123 and 133 of the present act. The former of these sections requires a voter to mark his Senate ballot-paper by numbering every square in the order of his preference. The second of the sections invalidates any Senate ballot-paper which is not so numbered. The amendments would require a voter to number a Senate ballot-paper and would regard any Senate ballot-paper as valid if it were numbered to indicate the voter's preference among the number of candidates required to be elected. There is a shockingly large number of invalid votes cast in the Senate elections. At the last general election, 18i per cent, of the votes cast for the Senate in one electorate were invalid. In the second-reading debate on the bill, I gave in greater detail the arguments which I believe prove that the percentage of invalid votes declined as the number of groups on the Senate paper declined. I believe that if the amendments were adopted, there would be a very great decline in the number of invalid votes. It is no reflection on the Australian public that there are so many invalid votes for the Senate because the Senate ballot-paper is the most complicated presented to any electorate in the world. The amendments proposed would effectuate the optional preferential system of voting. It is a wellknown system and through it many more of our fellow citizens' votes should be validated. {: #subdebate-37-0-s16 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP -- It is interesting to note that an experiment was made with this kind of voting in the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council election. The amendment proposed by the Opposition on this occasion was adopted in the form of voting for the Advisory Council. The informality was 10.11 per cent., the highest ever recorded in Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council elections. The figures for informality tend to suggest that the question of correctly filling in all squares on the ballot-paper is not the greatest single factor which causes informality. The. interest and the importance that are attached to Senate elections on any -particular occasion are more telling factors. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- How many candidates were there, in that election? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- And in previous elections. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- I cannot give precisely the number of candidates. The interesting fact is that on occasions when some importance has been attached to Senate elections, there has been a far greater degree of correct voting. In 1953 - and this proves that the figures quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are wrong - when there were 25 groups over the whole country, the total incorrect vote was 4.56 per cent. In 1951 when there were 23 groups - two groups less - there was a percentage of informality of 7.13 per cent. The figures vary. They did not show any substantial increase with the introduction of proportional representation because as far back as 1937 there was an aggregate informal vote of 10.63 per cent, with nineteen groups which is less than the number of groups in 1951 or 1953. So the cause of informality can be shown by the amount of interest that the particular Senate election arouses, and when the candidates concentrate on impressing on electors the importance of voting correctly. The other matter which makes it undesirable to adopt this suggestion is that it could change the result of an election. Again, this is illustrated by what happened in the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council election. Where you fill in a ballot-paper for only the number of members to be elected, a number of votes will be exhausted. In the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council election, 276 votes were exhausted. The last man in was elected by a majority of nine votes, and the application of those 276 exhausted votes could have actually changed the result of the election. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- It might have given the wrong election. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- It might, but the point is that the result might have been changed. There is a third objection. In elections for the House of Representatives, the voters are required to fill in all their preferences on the ballot-paper because that is necessary to determine the election of a single member. If you confuse people by saying, "You need not vote, for all the Senate candidates but you must vote for all the House of Representatives candidates ", you could easily create a greater degree of informality in the House of Representatives election through people misunderstanding the situation. We feel that no case has been made out for a departure from the present practice. {: #subdebate-37-0-s17 .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD:
Batman .- I have listened very intently to the Minister for the Interior and I believe that his case does not hold water. As a matter of fact anything would be better than the perpetuation of the present system. What are the facts? In the last election 5,141,109 people voted and there were 529,050 informal votes cast for the Senate, or 10.2 per *cent,* which is even worse than the 10.1 per cent, mentioned by the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council election. The Minister said that there could be a different result because the number of ballot-papers were exhausted, and consequently, a number of votes were not counted. I suggest that if the number of informal votes could be reduced there would be quite a number of different results in the Senate elections throughout Australia. As one who has taken part in scrutineering at very many Senate elections over the years, I say that the main single factor responsible for informal votes is the failure of voters to number all the squares on the ballot-paper. Frequently voters put perhaps two thirteens or two fourteens and instead of finishing up with number eighteen they finish up with number seventeen and therefore the vote is informal. I suggest that it is completely idiotic to say that because a voter votes correctly from numbers one to ten but makes a mistake when he gets to number eleven his vote should be informal. He has completely indicated his preference from numbers one to ten. Because of the system under which Senate elections are conducted there is a tremendous number of informal votes. Surely the Government is not satisfied with the present system. For every informal vote cast in House of Reps elections there are *3i* informal votes in Senate elections. Nobody should be satisfied with that. We should endeavour to get a truly democratic reflection of the mind of the people. The present system is not giving that. It is true that a Labour Government inaugurated proportional representation in the Senate but the Labour Party has since recognized that the voting procedure has not worked out in practice, I suggest to the Minister that we are dealing with all types of intellects and all types of voters including people who are not very concerned about elections. Therefore, we should make the marking of the ballotpaper as easy as possible in order to obtain an authentic opinion from the people. The present system does not do that. I am at a complete loss to understand why the Government will not accept this amendment. I am not a betting man, but I would like to have £1 on the result if the Government changed the system. I am completely satisfied that the high incidence of informal votes in Senate elections - 10.2 per cent. - would be reduced by half if electors had to vote for only the number of candidates required. Elderly voters particularly become confused. Often the polling booths are dark and the surface on which the ballot papers have to be marked is rough. So, the voters have filled in the numbers up to say eight or nine they give it away in disgust. I suggest that if an elector votes for the number of candidates to be elected - usually five - that is enough. We should take every step to ensure that the will of the people prevails. Under the present system, in New South Wales where the quota was 245,000 there were 244,000 informal votes. Surely the Government is not satisfied with that position. If it believes that some other method is better, why did it not incorporate it in this bill? Apparently it is prepared to allow this horrible incidence of informal votes, which reflects upon everybody concerned, to exist for all time. I am satisfied that the suggestion made by the Labour Party would reduce considerably the altogether too high proportion of informal votes which are cast under the present system. {: #subdebate-37-0-s18 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Canning . - I am very disappointed that the Government has failed to do anything about the number of informal votes that are cast in Senate elections. What the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** has just said about the 1958 elections, when more than 500,000 informal votes were cast, is quite correct. We saw the same picture in the 1955 elections. I think that every member of this Parliament who has been here since 1949 will recall that at some time or other, and more than once, members of the Government side, from the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** right down, have expressed alarm at the number of informal votes that have been cast at the various Senate elections. There is definitely something wrong with this system. Perhaps the people are opposed to the system of Senate voting at present. Personally, I believe it is all right because it caters for the minority. But to me it seems rather strange that there should be 10 per cent, or more of informal votes in Senate elections, while informal votes in the House of Representatives elections have always been in the vicinity of 3 per cent. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- I think that is because the main interest is in the House of Representatives. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- That may be so, but I point out to the Minister that there has been a renewed interest in the Senate ever since proportional representation was introduced into elections for that chamber. The fight for control of the Senate since the last double dissolution has been so close that people have been very mindful of the responsibility that a Government has to get legislation through the Senate. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- In the election consequent upon the double dissolution and in 1953 when there was only a Senate election the number of informal votes did go down to a reasonable figure. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- That may be so. Probably there were not so many candidates at those elections. My information, which I admit goes back a few years, is that there are available to the department and to the Government statistics that will prove that voting for only a restricted number of candidates will give almost the same results as voting for all candidates. For the moment I have forgotten the name of a gentleman I met in Hobart. He was a Fulbright scholar from America. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- George Howard was his name. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Whatever his name was, on the Monday or Tuesday after the 1955 elections he predicted what would happen in every State. I know that an experiment was made at an Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council election here in Canberra. The information that I have received about that trial is not quite in accord with what the Minister read, but I do not intend to argue that point. The Government should take cognizance of this position because it is too serious. It is an indictment of the people of this country. Unless somebody puts time into considering this question of reducing the high percentage of informal votes in Senate elections we will be made a laughing stock by people who study the various electoral systems. There is something in the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** that where the ballot-paper is simpler the percentage of informal votes is reduced considerably. That was demonstrated in the 1935 Senate elections. In Queensland there were only nine candidates in three groups of three and the percentage of informal votes was 4.07. In Victoria, where there were fifteen candidates, the percentage was 13.49. In Tasmania, where there were twelve candidates, the percentage was 12.63. At the last Senate elections in 1958, in New South Wales, which topped the list with 21 candidates, the percentage of informal votes was 12.46. When you look at the way the candidates were grouped in that State - there were two groups of four, two groups of three, one group of two and five ungrouped candidates - you can imagine the state of mind of the people when they were confronted with that ballot-paper. I believe that there is a simpler method of voting for the Senate, which would probably give a truer indication of the opinion of the people. I will not say that this will be achieved by just requiring electors to vote for the number of candidates required; but I am convinced - and I think any one who looks at the figures for the various elections will agree - that something between voting for the number of candidates required and voting for all the candidates will be the answer. Unfortunately, my investigations into this matter show that it is our side of politics that is losing as a result of this system. I think every one of us will be able to recall an occasion when we have listened to conversations that have taken place at polling booths and heard Liberal and Country Party supporters say, "Yes, I have done a good job. You have my vote, but I did not give the commos a vote." Of course, that meant that their vote was useless. But supporters of the Opposition have the way to vote drummed into them from a very early age. I am afraid that people who vote for the nonLabour parties do not take as much interest in this matter. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to take time to study this problem in order to see whether it cannot put before the people a simple method that will give a truer reflection of the political thinking of the people, particularly in voting for the Senate. Sooner than we think - perhaps after the end of this year - we may have to do something about the present system. The high percentage of informal votes is a terrible indictment of the Government and of the people of this democratic country. If we agree on that the Government should lose no time in instructing the electoral office to get down to making a study of this matter in order to see whether a simpler method which will give a better indication of the political thinking of the people, can be devised. {: #subdebate-37-0-s19 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- I shall be brief. Will the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** see that a proper survey of the voting at the next election is conducted so that more facts can be adduced than was possible by studying the voting in the Territory? Will the Minister have printed on the ballot-papers a note to the effect that if a ballot-paper is spoilt the voter may obtain another one? Will he consider having the Senate ballot-paper printed on pasteboard to make voting easier? As I pointed out several nights ago, in my electorate huge numbers of votes are cast at the polling booths - as many as 6,000 at one booth. They come in at the rate of 500 or 600 an hour. The polling booth is rickety, the pencil is not too good and the light is not good. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- And the voting is not good, either. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- The voting is not too bad in my electorate. If the standard in Wills were reflected all over Australia the country would be much better off. Voters would appreciate the provision of facilities to enable them to sit down and cast their votes on paper that did not crumble or wrinkle. I think this is a reasonable request. I realize that it would be too hopeful at this hour to expect the Minister to concede the valid points that have been put from this side of the chamber and by the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton).** I have made these suggestions in a spirit of helpfulness. *Mi.* Freeth. - I will give them consideration. {: #subdebate-37-0-s20 .speaker-KET} ##### Mr KING:
Wimmera .- I believe that the time is overdue when an alteration should be made in the method of voting at Senate elections. I cannot agree with the assertion of the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** that adoption of the suggestions that have been advanced by the Opposition would result in fewer informal votes. On the contrary, I believe that the number of informal votes would rise, for the simple reason that where there are a number of groups, invariably the people vote for the more or less minor groups. If any of their candidates were not elected, under this proposal those votes would be informal. {: #subdebate-37-0-s21 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland -- I have listened very carefully to the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** and I am concerned by what he has said on the motion before the committee. If the committee had adopted the last proposal that was before it, namely, to close the polling booths at 6 p.m., there would have been a colossal reduction in the number of informal votes. Even if the polling booths were not closed until midnight, somebody would come in at two minutes to midnight to cast a vote. Having watched elections year after year, I am convinced that the great majority of informal votes for the Senate are cast once the shadows start to fall. The older people who come to vote at that time are not able to follow the sequence on the Senate how-to-vote card, particularly when there are fifteen or twenty names on the ballot-papers. The lighting in the boxes at the polling booths leaves a lot to be desired, and once the shadows start to lengthen there many informal votes in the Senate elections are cast. In my view, only when Senate voting is brought back to sanity by being performed in the daylight will informal voting disappear. {: #subdebate-37-0-s22 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .I want to query one of the arguments advanced by the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** to show conclusively that he does not know very much about his subject. The Minister said that unless electors mark every square on a ballot-paper, ex hausted votes could affect the result of the poll. Of course they could! But 1 take it that the ballot is for the purpose of ascertaining the exact will of the electors. Why should an elector be obliged to vote for a candidate of whom he has no knowledge or whom he does not prefer? After an elector has voted for the candidate of his choice it should be optional whether he records a vote for other candidates. A true reflection of the elector's opinion is not obtained if he puts a number alongside every name on the ballot-paper without knowing the candidate's qualifications. By this system, we advocate, an entirely different result could be obtained from that which might be regarded as reflecting the will of the electorate. The Minister has advanced an extraordinary argument. Anybody would imagine that he was not concerned about what the people desire. I have always been of the opinion, as have greater authorities than I on these matters, that the registering of preference votes should be optional at any election. A well-known public figure in the sphere of electoral matters, **Mr. A.** G. Huie, has always favoured optional preferential voting. He has made a life study of systems of voting. I imagine that the Minister is not well advanced in this subject or in any other subject. I suggest that he examine this matter again and consider the arguments that have been advanced. We have heard every member of this committee say, at some time, that he believes in democracy. The intention at an election should be to ascertain the will of the people. If you compel them to vote for people in whom they have no interest and of whom they have no knowledge you do not get an expression of the true will of the electorate. Question put - That the new clauses proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 29 NOES: 49 Majority . . 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause. Section proposed to be amended - 145. A candidate shall not, in respect of any candidature, incur or authorize electoral expenses exceeding in the aggregate - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. in the case of a Senate election - Five hundred pounds; or 1. in the case of a House of Representatives election - Two hundred and fifty pounds. {: #subdebate-37-0-s23 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- " 13b. Section one hundred and forty-five of the principal Act is amended - > >by omitting from paragraph (a) the words Five hundred pounds ' and inserting in theirstead the words ' Seven hundred and fifty pounds '; and > >by omitting from paragraph (b) the words Two hundred and fifty pounds ' and inserting in their stead the words Five hundred pounds'." The effect of the proposed new clause would be to increase by £250 the permissible electoral expenses of a candidate for either House. The present supposition is that candidates for the House of Representatives shall not incur or authorize electoral expenses exceeding £250 all told. Electoral expenses include all expenses incurred by or on behalf or in the interests of any candidate at or in connexion with any election except his electoral rolls and his living expenses. All other expenditures that he authorizes or incurs are electoral expenses and he breaks the law if he does not confine those expenses within £250.I have no doubt that if I were to assert that there are candidates for this House who have in fact spent more than £250 on electoral expenses the Minister would say that he knows nothing about that matter. He would say that he had never heard such an allegation. He would say that none of his officers has ever had such an allegation brought to his notice. I do not want to reflect on those officers, but the state of innocence in this chamber during the 20 hours or so that we have been sitting is such that it is with real apprehension that I suggest that there are cases where the law in this regard has been broken. I would not expect the Minister to acknowledge that. {: .speaker-JMF} ##### Mr Aston: -- This is sheer hypocrisy. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Of course it is. Most candidates spend much more than £250 on their elections. They are faced with this choice. They must either spend more than £250 and thereby break the law, or they must make a sworn return to the Electoral Office stating that they have not spent more than £250. I have never met nor heard of a candidate belonging to any of the major parties with any prospects of winning an election who has spentonly £250. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Oh! {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Electoral expenses mean expenses that you have incurred or authorized. If the honorable member for Wakefield reads the form that he is sent he will see that he has incurred authorized expenses in excess of £250. In a large electorate with many polling booths and a great number of voters on the rolls, or a considerable number of newspapers circulating within the electorate, it is impossible to print the necessary notices of meetings and how-to-vote cards for less than £250. I know that I have never been able to do it. I have never been able to get that printing work done for twice that amount. {: .speaker-KXW} ##### Mr Pearce: -- But you sign the form. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, I do not. My principal opponent in recent elections has always had as many how-to-vote cards, as many advertisements, as many hall meetings and as many loudspeakers as I have had. Unless he obtains those facilities cheaper than I obtain mine he must have broken the law similarly. Honorable gentlemen are solicitous enough to ask me what I do. Under this act I do nothing. I refuse to make a forsworn statement. That is, I will not break that law. I break the law, as the electoral officer knows, and as my opponents do, by spending more than £250. An honorable member opposite asked, did I claim the £250? I suppose he was referring to an income tax claim. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- I said exactly that. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I claim as a deduction from my taxable income for the year in which the election falls the amount that I spend, which has always been more than £250. That claim has always been allowed, and I daresay every other honorable member is in the same position. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- This is incriminating. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is not. The Commissioner of Taxation does not reveal to any other persons or authorities what one earns or what one deducts from one's earnings. It is with no very great conviction that an increase of £250 will cover the expenses of most candidates that I have moved the amendment. I suggest that in frankness we all have to devote our attention to this matter. Everybody knows that the amounts which were fixed in 1946 have not covered the election expenses of any member of this chamber or of the principal opponent of any member at either the last genera! elec tion or any other election contested for many years past. Therefore, to test the sincerity of honorable members in this matter, 1 have moved the amendment foreshadowed by my leader. **Mr. FREETH** (Forrest- Minister for the Interior [5.21 a.m.]. - I suppose that whatever amount has been fixed at any time as the limit for election expenses has seemed inadequate in the eyes of candidates. One of the interesting thoughts that occurs to me is that if the Government had suggested that we should face the situation frankly and remove all limits on expenses, there would immediately have been an outcry by honorable members opposite that we were trying to make election to this Parliament a prerogative of the wealthy man, although, in plain truth, the party organizations and other large bodies can finance election campaigns to limits far in excess of the means of any individual. The argument that we have heard on this matter is only quibbling. At this stage, the change suggested is really not worth while. The amounts suggested by the Opposition might give a little relief to some people, but I suggest that if they were adopted the provisions of the act would be broken to almost the same extent as at present. I see no way out of the difficulty short of abolishing altogether limits on election expenses, and the Government does not wish to do that. {: #subdebate-37-0-s24 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot **.Mr. Chairman,** the Minister is stubborn to the bitter end. He has given the most sustained exhibition of stubbornness that I have witnessed in a Minister for a very long time. The Opposition has asked the Government to agree to sensible amendments to-night, and has had the support of honorable members on the Government side of the chamber for a number of those amendments, but the Minister has just turned a deaf ear to all of us. He has his script before him and he does not deviate from it one iota. He knew about 4 p.m. on Wednesday, or even earlier, what he would say about this amendment. I should just like to recount to the committee the history of the limit on election expenses which we are discussing. I think that the limit in respect of elections for the House of Representatives was first fixed in 1918 at £100, at which level it stayed until 1946, when it was increased to the present level of £250. For the last fifteen years this limit has remained unchanged, although, under the administration of the present Government, inflation has raged madly throughout Australia almost as Hitler's Panzer divisions raged through Europe in World War II. The expenses incurred by members of Parliament during election campaigns have increased in every way. We now find the Minister attempting to put the responsibility on to our party organizations in his efforts to evade his responsibilities to members of this Parliament. I am indeed surprised at the excuses for not accepting the Oppositions amendments that he has invented. This excuse that even if the limit for House of Representatives elections were increased to £500, as we suggest, the law would still be broken, is a fantastic argument for him to advance at this early hour of the morning. The limit on election expenses has been increased only once in the 43 years since it was first imposed in 1918. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- What about the case against **Sir Percy** Spender that failed? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- Let us not worry about him. He is not here any more. I am thinking of those who are with us, including the honorable member and his colleagues,, who are forced to break the law if they want to do their jobs as members of this Parliament. This Government is encouraging us to break the law, **Mr. Chairman.** It is not prepared to accept a sensible suggestion by the Opposition that the limit on election expenses be raised to a realistic, level in relation to the cost, of living, which has risen greatly in recent years, and in relation to present-day electioneering cost. {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr Stokes: -- Does the honorable member subscribe to the principle of candidates in the. Senate elections being allowed to spend more on electioneering than are candidates for the. House of Representatives? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- Yes. I supported in caucus the move to have that principle adopted. We on this side of the chamber have been a little more frank about these things' than Government supporters have been to-night. They sit on their benches like a lot of dummies. All they can do. is interject, thereby breaking the Standing Orders in addition to a lot of other rules. At this hour, the Government should be a little gracious. After all, we have sat here all night. The attendants, the " Hansard " staff and the press staffs have been on duty all night. Could not the Minister at this late stage agree to this amendment which would bring the permissible limits of election expenses to realistic levels? {: #subdebate-37-0-s25 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman -- **Mr. Chairman,** I think that the suggestion that the amendment would brine the limits on election expenses to realistic levels is quite ridiculous, as has been indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** himself. As the wording of form G stands at present - I am: relying on my memory, but I am pretty certain that I am right - it requires a candidate to affirm three things: That he himself has not spent in excess of the £2:50 permitted; that, to his knowledge, more than this amount has not been spent or authorized by him to be spent; and that more than the permissible amount has not been spent in his interest. The important part, I think, is the question of expenditure having been made in his interest in excess of the permissible limit. Any money spent by an organization in an election campaign must have been spent, either directly or indirectly, in the interest of a candidate endorsed by that organization. That is where the whole thing becomes completely and utterly ridiculous. The limits of £500 for candidates for the House of Representatives and £750 for candidates for the Senate, which are suggested by the Opposition, are completely unrealistic. I suggest that we should examine the wording of the return that candidates sign and see whether we cannot alter the words in order to provide that a candidate is required to state that more than the specified amount has not been spent by him or directly authorized by him to be spent. I think that, if we did that, limits of £500 or £1,000 would meet the case. On only one occasion in five elections have we in the Bowman electorate felt that we stayed within the letter of the law. On that occasion, we spent only £247 10s. The wording of the return required of candidates is completely ridiculous in some respects, and I urge the Minister to examine the possibility of changing it to meet the needs of the situation. {: #subdebate-37-0-s26 .speaker-JZP} ##### Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt -- **Mr. Chairman,** I have not spoken in the debate on this bill previously because there have been plenty of honorable members wishing to discuss its various aspects. I fully support the amendment, although I know quite well that the amounts proposed are not adequate and that increasing the limits imposed on election expenditure will not solve the problem with which we are faced. As the law stands at present, we have no alternative to increasing these limits. It is useless to hide our heads in the sand, like an ostrich. The important words are, as the honorable member for Bowman has said, " with my knowledge ". We all know that expenses, including advertising, cost more than £250. In my electorate, I have to travel many hundreds of miles in a motor car because there is no other form of transport. Therefore, I say that it is not realistic to say that expenses shall not exceed £250. In any case, how many members sign this form? I believe that it is signed only by new members such as myself, who do not know any better. To my knowledge, very few of the older members sign it. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- I have signed one every year. {: .speaker-JZP} ##### Mr FULTON: -- Then you are breaking the law, because you know in your heart that the expenses amount to more than £250. In order to try to overcome this difficulty, it is suggested that the limit should be raised to £500. I should be more prepared to sign the form if I had to state that my expenses had not exceeded £500. Travel by car costs me more than £250. and then there are the expenses of advertising. This is something that we must face. Perhaps there is something in the suggestion of the honorable member for Bowman that the wording of the declaration should be altered so that nobody would be embarrassed or would sign a statement that he knew to be untrue. It is useless to shelter behind the words " with my knowledge ". We all know that the expenses are more than £250. We could not honestly sign the declaration, knowing in our hearts that the expenditure was more than £250. A sum of £500 would be nearer the mark and certainly would be more realistic than £250. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-37-0-s27 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- I wish to correct a mistake that has been made. In signing the declaration provided for in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a member does not state that he has not spent more than £250, or £500. In that declaration he gives details of what he has spent himself and of what has been spent on his behalf. The form of the declaration is set out in the schedule to the act. I have always signed this declaration. I have stated what I have paid for public meetings, halls and scrutineers. The declaration has a paragraph relating to disputed and unpaid claims, and concludes with the statement - >And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that this return is true in every particular, and that, except as appears by this return, I have not, and no person has with my knowledge or authority, paid any electoral expenses incurred by me or on my behalf or in my interest at or in connexion with the said election, or incurred any such expense or any liability for any such expense or given or promised any reward office employment or valuable consideration on account or in respect of any such expense. There is no mention of £250 or of £500 in that declaration. Section 145 of the act refers to £250, but the declaration does not. That is what I wanted to make clear. It is in relation to a member's taxation assessment that the £250 applies. We are allowed by the Commissioner of Taxation to claim a deduction of £250 for election expenses without giving details of the expenditure. If a claim is made for a deduction of more than £250, details must be given. I remember that some years ago, when I was in a State parliament, the deduction allowed was only £100, but we had to produce receipts to support a claim for that deduction. If we did not do so, the deduction was not allowed. I think we should be clear in our minds on this matter. In this declaration you state the amount you have spent and certify that nothing else was spent. {: .speaker-JZP} ##### Mr Fulton: -- To your knowledge. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- That is so, but there is no reference in the declaration to a limit of £250. You put in what you have actually spent, and it might be £500. You state that you have spent the money on hire of halls, advertising, payment of an agent and so on. You do not sign a declaration that you have not spent more than £250. If this amendment were agreed to, you would not have to sign a declaration that you had not spent more than £500. {: #subdebate-37-0-s28 .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong -- This section states that a candidate in a Senate election shall not incur or authorize electoral expenses exceeding £500 and a candidate in a House of Representatives election shall not incur or authorize expenses exceeding £250. I have never been able to find out why the sum in the case of a candidate for the Senate should be double the sum in the case of a candidate for the House of Representatives. The only argument that has been advanced in favour of the difference is that members of the Senate are elected for six years and members of the House of Representatives for only three years. I do not know what the procedure is in other States, but I know that in Victoria the cost of printing and circulating the Senate how-to-vote card and the cost of advertising on behalf of the candidates for both the Senate and the House of Representatives is carried by the House of Representatives electoral committee and by the candidates for the House of Representatives. The Senate candidates are not compelled to make, and very rarely do make, any contribution towards the cost of the election campaign, yet under this act they have authority to claim as a deduction from their taxable income a sum of £500 expended in an election year. To me, that is quite wrong. There has been a great deal of discussion about the amount spent in an election campaign and about members being asked to make a declaration, a false statement in which would render them liable to a charge of perjury, to the effect that they have not spent, and have no knowledge of money being spent on their behalf, in excess of a certain amount. Having done that, quite likely they break the law. I cannot go along with that type of legislation. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Why do you not move an amendment? {: .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr STOKES: -- I will carry on with my speech. The Minister went to the crux of the matter when he said that if this matter were to be handled correctly, these limitations should be removed. The members of the Opposition do not want that, for the simple reason that if the limitations were removed they would be able to claim only the amount actually expended as a taxation deduction. That is a very fine stopper. I cannot agree with the perpetuation of the present position. Whether we specify £250, £500, £750 or £1,000, that would still be perpetuating a wrong. I can only support the complete removal of it, and I hope that the Minister will give consideration to that. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Before the motion is put. **Mr. Chairman,** I should like to express the appreciation of my leader and my own appreciation of the help that the Acting Clerk and his staff gave in the preparation of the amendments. They took every care, but, of course, no responsibility. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted Whitlam's amendment) be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 29 NOES: 44 Majority 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Is** leave granted? {: #subdebate-37-0-s29 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Leave is not granted. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Mr.Freeth) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1498 {:#debate-38} ### VOTING RIGHTS OF ABORIGINES {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Appointment of Select Committee {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I wish to inform the House of the appointments of honorable members to be members of the Select Committee on the Voting Rights of Aboriginals. **Mr. Barnes, Mr. Browne, Mr. Howson** and **Mr. Pearce** have been appointed by the Prime Minister and **Mr. Beazley, Mr. Luchetti** and **Mr. Nelson** have been appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. {: .page-start } page 1498 {:#debate-39} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - Judges' Pensions Bill 1961. Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1961. Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1961. National Health Bill 1961. House adjourned at 5.49 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 1498 {:#debate-40} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-40-0} #### War Service Homes {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: t asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the maximum loan advanced to eligible ex-servicemen under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act? 1. When was this amount first granted? 2. What was the average cost of purchasing or building a brick house of, say, ten squares, in each of the States, at that time? 3. What is the average cost of purchasing or building a house of similar size, in each of the States, at present? 4. How far will the proportion of maximum loan to purchase price "have to decline before an increase in the maximum Joan is granted? {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The maximum loan that may be granted under the War Service Homes Act is £2,750. 1. By an amendment to the act which came into operation on 11th December, 1951, the maximum loan was increased from £2,000 to £2,750 in respect of "building applications. The maximumloan of £2,750 was subsequently extended to all forms of assistance under the Act on 8th November, 1954. 3 and 4. It is not possible to provide specific answers to these questions as the War Service Homes Division does not keep statistics showing the average cost of purchasing or building a house of the type mentioned in the questions. 2. It is not practicable to furnish ananswer to this question. This is a matter which can only be determined in the light of overall budgetary considerations, bearing in mind that the division has on hand applications from a large number of ex-servicemen who are anxious and willing to proceed on the basis of the existing loan and that an increase in the maximum loan would necessarily reduce the totalnumber of applicants who canbe assisted. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Commonwealth Development Bank {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What funds were available to the Commonwealth Development Bank for the performance of its functions at the time it was established? 1. What additions have been made to its funds since? 3 What is the .present state of the bank's finances and what amount is available for further advances? 2. What is the total amount of outstanding advances made by the bank showing also the amounts under principal headings such as jural, secondary industry, &c? 3. Are the bank's funds adequate for its future needs; if not, is it proposed to supplement them, and from what source will they be supplemented, or is it proposed to curtail the Bank's future activities? {: #subdebate-40-1-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On its establishment on 14th January, 1960, the Commonwealth Development Bank took over the assets and liabilities of the Mortgage Bank and Industrial Finance Departments of the former Commonwealth Bank of Australia totalling approximately £39,000,000. The main sources of the bank's funds were the capital and reserves of the two departments amounting to £15,500,000 and the Industrial Finance Department's borrowings from the Commonwealth Savings Bank totalling £16.200,000 at the commencement date. In addition, the Development Bank was provided with £5,000,000 of new capital from the funds of the Reserve Bank. Liquid funds available to the Development Bank at the commencement of business amounted to £9,100,000 against which there were direct loan commitments of £2,200,000. 1. Apart from loan repayments and certain minor items, the only subsequent addition to the funds of the Development Bank has come from profits. For the year ended 30th June, 1960, net profits amounting to £582,035 were credited to the Commonwealth Development Bank Reserve Fund. These moneys are available foi use in the bank's operations. 2. The bank is approving loans at an annual rate in the vicinity of £10,000,000. At 22nd March, 1961, the funds immediately available to the bank were £7,700,000 against which there were direct loan commitments of £6,400,000. 3. The total amount of outstanding advances at 22nd March, 1961, was £18,400,000 of which £9,100,000 is classified as rural and £9,300,000 as industrial. In addition the Bank's hire purchase outstandings for producers' equipment amounted to £18,300,000 on the same date. 4. The Development Bank's funds position is kept under close review by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board and also by the Government, from the viewpoint of ensuring the adequacy of .the funds at the Bank's disposal. {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Banking {: #subdebate-40-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What interest rates have been charged in the last ten years by (a) the Commonwealth, State and private savings banks on credit foncier loans and loans to building societies, (b) the Commonwealth, State and private trading banks on overdraft for housing purposes, and (c) life assurance companies on housing loans? 1. What monthly payments would a home purchaser have to pay to these banks, societies and companies for each £1,000 borrowed at the respective interest rates over periods of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years? {: #subdebate-40-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 (a). The following table shows the interest rates charged during the past ten years by the Commonwealth, State and private savings banks on housing loans to individuals and on loans to terminating building and housing societies: -
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 May 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610503_reps_23_hor31/>.