1st Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 10854
asked theVice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 10855
asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
– I am not aware of any such proposal.
page 10855
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council,upon notice -
– General Hutton did not make the statement quoted.
page 10855
In Committee (consideration resumed from 11th March vide page 10819).
Clause 34 (Lists for formation of rolls.
– I move
That the words “and thereafter annually” be inserted after the word “ Act.”
The object of my amendment is to insure that annually the rolls shall be prepared by the electoral officers for the purpose of keeping them in good order, and having no confusion at election time. I think Senator
O’Connor will admit the advisableness of inserting this amendment, seeing that when the officers are appointed they will, be able to carry out this duty at very little additional expense.
– I am sorry that I cannot agree to the amendment, which would involve a very large additional cost. The collection which is referred to in the clause does not rest on the application of persons who are entitled to be enrolled, or of persons who wish to put electors on the roll. The Government by their own officers take the matter into their own hands, and make, if necessary, a house to house visitation in order to ascertain the names of those who are entitled to be enrolled. That is a very expensive work as it necessitates a number of persons being employed. If it is to be of any value we must have a revision court. If this process had to go on every year the rolls would continually have to be altered and lists made. It would be impossible under any machinery except the most expensive kind to carry out the object of my honorable friend. If he looks at what the scheme of the Bill is he will see that there is no necessity for the amendment. I am informed by the officers that it would probably cost £12,000 a year for the collection of the names, and £8,000 for the printing and clerical work. There is no necessity to incur ‘an additional cost of £20,000 a year, because the collections that would be made in making out the first lists would be very complete. I presume that every qualified person will be put on the list, and therefore when a person acquires the right to be put on the list he has to make an application in a certain form, and then his name is enrolled as a matter of course until the next revision is made. If any one offers a good ground of objection the name is removed, but if no one objects it remains. That is the simplest process which can possibly be devised, and at the same time it insures that additional names shall be enrolled whenever it is necessary. Are we to leave nothing to the elector himself? He is supposed to take an interest in having his name put on the roll, and if he does not, those who are interested in securing his vote will take care that it is done.
– Senator O’Connor’s explanation raise’s a very serious question, and that is that the electoral officers will have to prepare these lists after the passage of the Act at a cost of £20,000 a year. There is very little chance that the Franchise Bill will be passed this session. The electoral officers, therefore, will have to start immediately to prepare at a cost of £20,000 a complete list of persons who are entitled to vote under existing conditions. Next session we may reasonably expect to pass the Franchise Bill ; and again the electoral officers will be obliged at an expense of £20,000 to prepare entirely new rolls. In the debate on the second reading Senator O’Connor made it absolutely clear that this Bill was going to be taken independently of the Franchise Bill.
– I said that this Bill would be applicable even if the other did not pass. We shall make every effort to pass the other Bill, and I believe it will be passed this session.
– We are asked to assume that the Franchise Bill will be passed this session. If it is not, two lists will have to be prepared within twelve months at an expense of £20,000 each. There is a provision in the Franchise Bill for extending the suffrage to females. That will give rise to a great amount of discussion. There is also a provision by which any Chinaman from Hong Kong, or any nigger from Africa, Gambia, or the Gold Coast, or an Indian, would be entitled after six months’ residence in Australia to exercise the franchise. The fact that such provisions are contained in the Franchise Bill renders it absolutely impossible for that measure to become law this session. Under those circumstances I do not think that this process of preparing lists is a feasible one. Senator McGregor’s amendment does not improve the position, and I do not propose to support it, because an expenditure of £20,000 would, under the circumstances, be absolutely unwarranted. The whole of the part of the Bill dealing with electoral rolls is both useless and expensive.
– I should like to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether provision is made for holding revision courts at stated periods t
– -Notat stated periods, but at such times as may be proclaimed when necessary.
– In the face of Senator O’Connor’s statement as to the very great expense that the preparation of a complete roll would involve the committee should pause before adopting Senator McGregor’s amendment. But, as the Bill stands, we cannot have a new roll prepared for years. During the whole of that time the existing rolls will be getting into a condition of confusion through deaths, the removal of people from the Commonwealth, and other causes, which will make it very difficult at the time of an election to determine whether personation is being attempted or not. Unless careful provision is made we may find at election times, as has so often been found before, that the cemeteries will send forth a great number of voters. It would be a fair thing for the rolls to be renewed or prepared afresh every three years. It will be utterly impossible for the registrars to know who are disqualified, unless provision is made that the names of persons dying shall be communicated to them. Perhaps Senator McGregor will see his way to withdraw the amendment, substituting with the concurrence of the Government, a provision that the lists shall be prepared every three years, retaining, of course, the power of clause 52 to have new rolls prepared whenever the Governor-General may think fit, as an additional safeguard.
– If I follow rightly the arguments of Senator O’Connor we are not likely to have an annual revision of the rolls. According to his statement it would, cost something like £20,000 a year to have any sort of a pure and accurate roll. There should be some definite method of revision such as that suggested by Senator McGregor. If we adopt the method suggested by Senator O’Connor, the rolls will become practically useless. The sum of £20,000 a year comes to a little more than £3,000 per annum for each State. The money would be well spent in making provision for the rolls to be kept up to date and pure. The system proposed by the Bill is the loosest I have ever heard of. T have had too much experience of elections not to know the value of keeping the rolls pure. It must be remembered that we have a large nomadic population in Australia. In Queensland and New South Wales there are thousands of men whose occupations compel them to change from place to place. We also have mining townships springing into existence one day and disappearing in a year or two. Our rolls will get into a condition of utter confusion unless there is revision at regular intervals, and I sincerely hope that the VicePresident of the Executive Council will reconsider the position.
– It’ is too much to expect that honorable senators have looked into the clauses of the Bill critically in their bearing upon one another, but I would remind the committee that under the measure as it stands there is no justification for supposing that the rolls will get into au unsatisfactory condition. It is a simple thing to say “Prepare a list,” but that means an enormous amount of labour, considerable printing, and the employment, of a large number of officers who otherwise would not be necessary. The Government are bound in making the administration as economical as possible to see. that there is no undue extravagance in the working of the electoral machinery. In South Australia there is a most efficient system conducted at a small expenditure. I do not think that any system in Australia has worked more effectively than that. My objection to the amendment is not only on the ground of expense, but also because the annual preparation of rolls is not necessary, whilst in the second place it would be more likely to throw the lists into confusion. Our proposals are designed to bring about the certainty which ought to exist in regard to the rolls. Clause 34 provides for the preparation of the first lists. Necessarily in their preparation a great deal will have to be done which need not be done afterwards. I agree with Senator Glassey that it - is necessary to have the rolls purified as much as possible - that is to say, the rolls should disclose always the persons in the division who are entitled to vote. But that is carried out by the Bill as it stands. Under the Bill a revision court may be held at any time, and the work of the revision court embraces the correction of the rolls in every particular. In addition, there is power under clause 54 to provide supplemental rolls. That renders it unnecessary to have new rolls every year.
Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - I do not want to propose anything that would involve excessive expenditure, but it is absolutely necessary that there should be some periodical correction of the rolls similar to that originally made, so that at stated times there may be a complete roll of the persons entitled to vote. The supplemental rolls will consist only of the names of those who have voluntarily applied to be placed on them. As Senator O’Connor has raised the objection as to excessive cost, I am willing to adopt Senator Gould’s suggestion that the collection shall take place triennially. A complete roll should be compiled at least once in three years. The collection of any new roll in the future will not be anything like as expensive as the original collection, because, probably, it will only be those who are not on the roll who will have to be dealt with if the work is done triennially.
– The provisions -in the Bill are ample to meet all requirements. I do not believe in unnecessarily drawing a hard and fast line. This clause provides for the formation of the first Commonwealth roll; but there is also a provision for subsequent rolls, which leaves the matter entirely in the hands of <the Government. That is the wa in which it should be left. If the Government consider it necessary to have a new roll compiled once in three years, or just before an election, they will have the necessary authority. A new roll might be wanted in one part of a State owing to removals or from other causes, and yet be unnecessary in regard to the rest of the Commonwealth. I think the Bill will meet every case.
– The Bill provides very completely for the rolls being kept as perfect as possible. If a man has a claim to have his name placed on the rolls on coming into a district, he can make application, and his name will be put on ; while the name of any one leaving a district can be struck off. A special revision court may be called into existence to deal with matters of that kind, and the electoral officer has power also to strike off the -names of any persons who have died or removed from a division. By requiring the issue of supplemental rolls, I think every provision has been made for keeping the rolls up-to-date, and I fail to see why we should go to any further expense than will be entailed under the clause as it stands.
Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - In reply to Senator Playford I would point out that when a Parliament can reasonably foresee the necessity for certain action it is not wise to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Government. We have an opportunity now of saying that our rolls shall be purified at certain stated periods. The Government themselves recognise that new rolls will have to be prepared at certain times, and we should say that their collection shall take place triennially. There may be no revision court for two or three years. In New South Wales and in Queensland a revision court is held every year, but here we are going to rely on the chief electoral officer to make such amendments as he has power to make under the Bill. Necessarily, that power is not a full one, because we could not
Allow one officer to determine whether or not a name should be removed, simply because some person objected to its appearance on the roll. It is much better to deal with the matter by the revision court, giving the officer full power to act between the dates on which the revision court meets.
– The only qualifications necessary to enable a man to have his name on the rolls are that he shall be 21 years of age at least, and shall have resided for six months in the Commonwealth. For that reason I do not think that we require all the paraphernalia that we have had under the old system. Triennial rolls are unnecessary, as new rolls can be prepared whenever required. Triennial rolls might be required in halfadozen divisions, while there might be 30 or . 40 others in which the supplemental rolls would be quite sufficient. We have a chief electoral officer, and a Commonwealth officer for each State. What will these men be doing? If hundreds of men leave a mining field they have simply to ask for transfers when they go to another division, and, when an election is close at hand, they will take care to secure them. If the Franchise Bill is passed I. fail to see that there will be any trouble.
– One objection to the triennial period suggested, is that if rolls are compiled at fixed periods, we run the risk of having the collection of the rolls going on during or just before an election. If it is left as proposed in the Bill the Government can select the most convenient time, and can select also only the division in the Commonwealth for which it is necessary to have a new roll.
– I understand that Senator McGregor desires to amend his amendment to provide for the insertion of the words “and thereafter every three years.”
– Yes.
Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 12
Majority … … … 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 -
All officers in the service of the Commonwealth, and all statistical and electoral officers in the service of the State, are hereby authorized and required to furnish to the Commonwealth electoral officer in the State all such information as he requires to enable him to prepare the list.
– I move -
That after the word “ all,” line 2, the word “ police “ be inserted.
In Western Australia and in New South Wales the compilation of electoral rolls has been the duty of the police, and it has resulted in getting a larger proportion of the electors upon the rolls in those States than in any of the other States.
– I have no objection to the amendment.
– Have we the power under the Constitution to authorize and require State officers to do certain things ?
-Under section 5 of the Commonwealth Act, we can put a duty upon any person in a State, and upon any of the officers of a State.
– We are requiring stipendiary magistrates to form a court, and if the State should happen to require those officers at the same time I should like to know who will be able to command their services. If what Senator O’Connor says is correct, we may disorganize the work of State officials, and I do not think the Constitution contemplates that.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 -
Copies of the lists so far as they relate to any electoral division shall be exhibited at such places within thedivision, as the Commonwealth electoral officer shall elect, and shall remain so exhibited for a period of 30 days.
Amendment (by Senator McGregor) proposed -
That the words “ police stations, post-offices, school houses, and other” be inserted after the word “such,” line 2.
– I have no objection to the amendment, except that I think it would be better to leave out the reference to school houses. Wherever there is a State school there is certain to be a postoffice and a police station.
– In South Australia, where the children are intelligent, we find the State schools a most effective means of disseminating information. If there is any information posted on the State school premises, they bring it home to their parents. However, I accept the suggested amendment.
Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 (Persons may claim to have their names put on the lists).
– This is a provision with respect to claims made to have names placed upon a list which has to go before the revision court before it becomes the roll, but under the clause the returning officer or electoral registrar is to place the name of a claimant on a list only upon being satisfied of the claimant’s right to have his name placed on the roll. That is surely a matter which should be decided by the revision court. It should be sufficient for the claimant to make his claim to enable him to get his name upon the list, and it should then be left to the revision court to decide whether the name should be placed on the roll. The clause appears to me to give the returning officer or electoral registrar the right to determine a claimant’s right to vote.
– I do not see the honorable senator’s objection. The returning officer or electoral registrar must have some discretion, otherwise any person wandering along the road, who might not have been a month in the Commonwealth, or who might give a false name, would have the right to have his name placed on the roll. If any complaint is made by a person that his name has not been placed upon the roll, it can be decided by the court. The returning officer and the electoral registrar must have some kind of discretion in regard to residence, identity, and that sort of thing.
– Although a returning officer may have some experience in these matters, an electoral registrar may have none. In many cases in the country the person who will act as electoral registrar will be the keeper of some little post-office. I am not sure whether in Victoria there are not some female officers of the Postal department acting in that capacity. Even if it beright to give this power to a returning officer it ought not to be given to an electoral registrar.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - The Vice-President of the Executive Council has in no way answered my objection. I direct the attention of the committee to form B of the 1st schedule, which sets out the claim which has to be filled up by a person desiring a vote. If he fills up such a document no returning officer or electoral registrar should have the right to say - “ I am not satisfied with your claim.” That should be left to the revision court. If he gives a false name he can be prosecuted for personation. If he makes a claim which he cannot substantiate before the revision court he can be prosecuted under other clauses of the Bill. Surely this matter should not be left to the decision of a postmistress who is totally unacquainted with the electoral law. I move -
That the following words be omitted, “ upon being satisfied of the claimant’s right to have his name placed on the roll. “
Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - Supposing that a young fellow who is over 21 years of age went to an electoral officer and filed his claim, what right would that officer have to say that he was below that age? It is the revision court which should decide any disputed point. I agree with Senator Pearce that these words ought to be omitted.
– If the applicant did not fill up the form in the prescribed way the electoral officer should have the right to refuse to put his name on the roll. But if the applicant had filled up the form in the prescribed way he could insist upon his name being placed on the roll.
– I am inclined to agree with Senator Pearce that this amendment should be made. It is quite unnecessary to have two revision courts, but as the Bill is framed it would seem that a man’s qualifications are to be overhauled twice, once by the registrar and afterwards by the revision court.
– If a person claims to have his name enrolled, why should the officer have the right to say that it shall not be placed on the list for consideration by the revision court? The clause requires the returning officer to be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to vote, and yet the question of his title is to go before the revision court subsequently. If a returning officer erroneously says that a man is not entitled to have his name enrolled, how is that man to get his name put on the list when it goes before the revision court 1 The object of the clause is to give a person whose name has been omitted the chance of having his name brought before the revision court, which is properly vested with the responsibility of deciding any claim. The amendment is reasonable.
– It is highly necessary to retain these words. The revision court is a farce. It simply goes through the rolls, and takes the recommendations of the returning officer. What Senator Gould desires is that the returning officer should be a mere machine, and although he may know that an applicant is applying under a false name or is a child, yet he is to put the name on the list. . Whose duty is it to inform the revision court whether the list should be con- firmed or revised t Nobody’s. I would not give the returning officer any substantial judicial powers, but there are certain palpable frauds which may be attempted, and he should be empowered to settle paltry matters, leaving any person who is interested to object to his decision. I believe that in every State Electoral Act there is a provision of this kind.
– It all depends on the political proclivities of a returning officer whether he is likely to be satisfied or not. In some places in Queensland, thousands of men would never get their names put on the list if they had first to prove to the returning officer that they were entitled to be enrolled. A returning officer might say, as justices of the peace have said, “ I am not satisfied that you are entitled to be put on the list, and I decline to witness your claim,” and he would not have to give any reasons for his decision. If the amendment is accepted, the name of the applicant will be put on the list, and it will then be competent for any person to object to its retention.
– I agree that the name of an applicant ought to be allowed to be put on the list, subject to its being struck off, if necessary, in the revision court, and I have therefore no objection to the amendment. ,
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 40 (Special court of revision).
– I desire this clause to be amended, so that the returning officer for the division, together with a police, stipendiary, or special magistrate, shall constitute the special court of revision to revise the lists. Therefore I move -
That the following words be omitted - “h Two or more justices of the peace residing within the division.”
In the revision of these lists we ought to have as little partizanship as possible. J ustices of the peace ought to be excluded, because there is no question that they are more or less political partizans
– If we wish the Bill to be .workable we must have -a provision of this kind. We cannot have police, stipendiary, or special magistrates everywhere, and we do not want to put electors to the inconvenience of travelling an enormous distance. A special revision court will not be constituted by any chance or casual magistrates who may happen to be on the spot, but it will be specially appointed, and the re-turning officers may very well be trusted to see that everything is done in a proper way. The ordinary court of revision may be held regularly, but if special courts of revision are not held at the right time, the preparation of the list for division may be delayed. I do not think there is any justification for casting an imputation on a very large body of men who render very good service in the administration of justice.
– It is necessary to provide that the claim of a stranger in a district shall be adjudicated upon by persons possessing local knowledge. A stipendiary magistrate, who went to a new district, would not be in a position to say whether an applicant was a stranger or not. In the country districts it is desirable to have local administration, and, in my opinion, this is a necessary and justifiable provision to make.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 42 (Notice of sittings).
Senator MATHESON (Wester Australia - Some provision should be made fixing the hour at night up to which the court shall sit. At present it is left open. In Western Australia the revision courts; only sit till six o’clock as a rule. That means that many persons are not able to attend them. I suggest that there should be a stipulation that the courts shall sit till eight o’clock p.m. I move no amendment, because it would involve some drafting, but suggest, the point for the consideration of Senator O’Connor.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 44 (Time for lodging objections).
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). -I move -
That the following words be added: - “And such objections shall state the grounds of the objection.”
Form D of the schedule shows the manner in which objections are to be made ; but if it be necessary for the objector to state his grounds before the court, they should also be lodged with the objection.
– I do not think it is necessary to make the amendment in this clause, though I shall be prepared to make it in clause 45.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 -
Notice of every objection shall be served upon or sent by post by the returning officer to the person affected.
Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That after the word “objection,” line 1, the words “ stating the grounds “ be inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 -
The returning officer may by summons under his hand require any person to appear as a witness before the special court of revision, and any person served with any such summons, who fails to obey it without just excuse, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £10.
– There is no provision in the clause that a witness shall be paid for his time. I do not know whether the common law applies in this case, but usually, where a witness is summoned to give evidence, he is entitled to payment, and in some cases also gets a fee. I move-
That after the words ‘ ‘ summons” line 5, the following words be inserted “and being tendered his reasonable expenses.”
– I cannot accept the amendment. In the first place, I doubt whether itis competent for this committee to make such an amendment, as it is certainly an initiation of expenditure. But apart from -hat, the amendment would involve entering upon an undefined amount of expenditure. There is nothing to prevent expenses being allowed if a witness has to travel. I suppose the court would have power to allow the payment of such expenses, if provision were made by the G overnment for that purpose. If the Commonwealth cannot depend upon its own returning officers in a matter of this kind, the Bill might as well be thrown into the waste-paper basket. It would be a very hard thing to compel witnesses to attend, perhaps lose a day ‘s work, and receive nothing for expenses
– I shall support the amendment. I presume that the court will sit during the daytime, and a working man who was summoned as a witness would be compelled to lose a day’s work. If he refused to attend he might be fined. It would be extremely hard not to pay such a witness his expenses.
– The difficulty could, to a large extent, be met by the revision courts sitting in the evening. I notice that Senator De Largie has given notice of an amendment with the object of requiring the revision courts to sit between the hours of seven and twelve in the evening. If he carried that amendment on the recommittal of the Bill, a good deal of Senator Matheson’s objection would be removed, and a benefit would be conferred upon those who have to attend revision courts. It certainly would be hard to compel a man to attend, keep him all day at a revision court, and pay him nothing for his expenses.
– Clauses 41 and 42 were carried rather hurriedly, but at a subsequent stage I shall move the amendment to which Senator Barrett has alluded.
– If a revision court were sitting in a town where a witness lived he would not incur travelling expenses, but some provision should be made to meet cases where men are brought from their work to give evidence. It would be fair to allow them their railway or coach fare, and give them such an allowance as might be thought reasonable.
– Witnesses are compelled in the interests of justice to attend in criminal cases without payment, but this is not- a parallel case. Under this Bill a man may be summoned to attend to give evidence as to whether another person shall ‘ have a vote or not. It is something to a working man to be compelled to lose a day’s wages in order to attend a court and give evidence on the question of whether or not a person is entitled to a vote - a question in which he has no interest. I think Senator O’Connor should give way, at least to some extent.
– I see no reason why we should place witnesses attending a revision court in a better position than those who are called upon to give evidence at criminal or civil trials ; but the question, is whether we should place them on the same footing. I shall have no objection to the amendment if it is amended so as to provide that the words “ and being tendered such expenses as prescribed “ be inserted after the word “summons”.” Then a certain scale would be laid down.
– If we put in the Bill a provision that expenses shall be tendered as prescribed, expenses will have to be given in every case. I think it would be better to give power to the revision courts to allow expenses as prescribed. It rarely happens that any one is actually summoned to attend a revision court, and it is a mistake to put on the face of a Bill a provision such as that now proposed. Let the revision courts have a discretion to grant costs, if they think -fit.
– I am prepared to accept Senator O’Connor’s suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 -
The objector and the person whose name is objected to may appear before the Special Court of Revision in person or by an agent to support or resist the objection.
– I move -
That the words, “ If the objector or his agent do not appear the objection shall be deemed to be invalid,” be added to the clause.
We can readily imagine a case in which a man may make wholesale objections to the names of electors appearing on the rolls, although they are justly entitled to be there, and he should appear before the court to make good his case. Some harm might be done if we were to allow objections to be made by a person who did not appear to make good his case, and I think it is very necessary to amend the clause in the way I propose. I hope that the committee will adopt the amendment.
– I should like to see the clause amended so as to read -
The objector and the person whose name is objected to shall appear before the special court of revision in person to support or . resist the objection.
I think that principle is a fair one, because if an objector is allowed to appear by agent a rich man will be able to object to a whole list of names on. the roll which do not suit him, and simply instruct counsel to appear on his behalf to support his objections. On the other hand, the persons objected to might be working men who could not retain counsel to represent them, and the intention of the Bill is that counsel should not be required. I recognise that the agent need not necessarily be a lawyer, but the clause gives to the objector the option of employing one. That is what I am opposed to. The committee have decided that honorary justices may deal with these matters, and we might have a shrewd, wide-awake barrister puzzling the Bench to such an extent that they would not know where they were. Much has been said about the desirability of allowing witnesses reasonable expenses for attending the revision court, and yet, while in that respect we are particular that the working man shall have fair play, we propose to allow him to be pitted against a shrewd lawyer instructed by an objector.
– I think that the clause contains a very wise provision. It is certainly in advance of the electoral law as I have hitherto known it. I know of many cases in which men have been struck off the rolls because they have not been able to appear at the revision court. In one case the names of several hundreds of men were struck off simply because the persons objected to were engaged in their usual occupations, and could not appear. If the clause is passed as it stands, a man who cannot attend will be able to get the secretary of a political association, or some friend, to appear as his agent. Perhaps there may be dangers such as have been set forth by Senator Styles, but I think that the value of the clause cannot be denied.
– We may reasonably suppose that the person whose name is objected to will appear to defend his rights, while the presence of the objector himself is ensured by the provisions of the next clause, under which costs may be awarded against him to the extent of £5. That is the best security we can have for the attendance of the objector. In the interests of justice it is desirable that where it appears to the court that a man is not entitled to have his name on the roll, the bench should be allowed to go on with the case, notwithstanding the non-appearance of the objector, and if it is proved to their satisfaction that the name of the person objected to is not entitled to be on the roll, it should be struck off. Surely it would be most unjust to tie the hands of the court in the way proposed by Senator De Largie.
-Clause 49 does . not meet the case. In some of the States, and notably in Western Australia, a large proportion of the adult male population consists of single men living in boarding-houses, and they are continually changing from one place to another within the same division. Political partisans there run down a roll, check off every single man, and send in an objection to his name being on the roll, on the ground that he has left the division. In nine cases out of ten they will have some ground for their objection, because he will have shifted his residence, though not to some place outside the division. That could not be held to be a frivolous objection. In the way I mention I have had my name removed from the roll in Western’ Australia time after time. If the absence of the person objected to is sufficient to cause his name to be removed from the roll, the absence of the person objecting should.be sufficient to nullify the objection.
– If the amendment were carried it would neutralize to a large extent the usefulness of the clause. The attention of the revision court may be called to the fact stated in the objection, which may be that the person who claims to have his name on the roll has not been resident in Australia for the required period. The returning officer may be satisfied, and yet if the objector does not appear Senator De Largie proposes that the objection shall be held to be nullified. If wo carry such an amendment we shall effectually shut out all the aid we can get from the public in purifying the rolls. It is to the interest of every one to see that the rolls are purified. Under the Bill, if the objection is not upheld, the court may award expenses against the objector whether he appears or not ; but under the amendment if the objector does not appear the objection is to be set aside, and the name must remain on the roll.
– The amendment is an extremely reasonable one. If the objector does not appear to support his objection, are we going to allow the court to go on in his absence 1 That would be a strange departure from the ordinary procedure of the courts. If a man issues a summons against another, and does not appear to prosecute it, the court dismisses the summons as a matter of course. If, on the other hand, the defendant fails to appear, does the court go into the case in his absence? Nothing of the kind. The court immediately finds for the plaintiff. We are asked under this Bill to overturn every principle of justice known in the courts. I understood the Vice-President of the Executive Council to say that, in the absence of the objector, the duty of going on with the objection lies with the court itself, but if the person objected to appears, all that the court can do is to have an adjournment and hunt round for witnesses to sustain the objection. It seems to me that those who are responsible for drafting the Bill can have had very little, experience of what in Queeusland we call “purging the rolls.” I have been brought up in that* school, and I know all the tricks of the electioneering agent. I have known hundreds of men objected to, some on the ground that they were dead while they were still alive, and others on the ground that they had left the district, when they had moved only from one street to another. If the clause is carried in its present form, it will not be imperative on the objector to show his hand at all. All he will have to do will be to send in an objection and fail to appear in support of it, when the court will take the matter in hand, and while the person objected to will be put to all manner of inconvenience, the objector will all the time be shooting from behind a hedge.
– Senator Stewart has become warm upon the matter, because he thinks the case is analogous to that of one man issuing a summons against another. But this is a question as between the whole body of electors and the man objected to. The revision court will have written notice that a man is not qualified ko vote, and is not the court to take any steps in the interest of the purity of the rolls, and in the interest of every other >elector in the Commonwealth, simply because the objector does not appear t If the objector is absent through illness, or from any other cause, and neglects to instruct an agent to appear on his behalf, under the amendment his objection will fail. Suppose it is known to the court that the man objected to is not 21 years of age, or. has not resided for six months in Australia, or that he has really left the district, in the absence of the objector the court must give a “wrong verdict. The person objected to may appear, and may admit that he- has left the -division, but ‘if the objector does not also appear, the court under this amendment will be bound to put the man’s name on the roll.
– - Senator De Largie has evidently mls.understood the position. He thinks it is analogous to a case in which one man summonses another for some wrong. In such a case, if the person issuing the summons does not bring forward his witnesses to prove his case it goes by default, but this is different altogether. We do not believe in stuffing rolls, but I put . it to Senator De Largie that some unscrupulous individual, in order to stuff a roll, may put down the names of a lot of young fellows who are under 21 years of age. His next step may be to object to their names being on the roll, and then, simply because he fails to be present when the revision court sits, the court will have no option but to keep their names on the roll. I take another case in which from personal knowledge the returning officer is aware that the name of some person is improperly upon the roll. He may ask the court to strike the name off the roll, but that cannot be done owing to the fact that some third person has sent in a written objection to the name, and has not appeared in support of the objection. In that way it would be possible to stuff the rolls right and left. The amendment would create a great many more evils than it could cure. Under the succeeding clause the objector is liable to be punished if ho fails to substantiate his objection, and that is a quite sufficient provision to make.
– The revision court is established to purify the roll on information received. From whom is that information to come 1 In the first place it is to come from the electoral officer, whose duty it is to be present. The cases which Senator DeLargie wishes to provide for are those in which individuals who may or may not be political busy-bodies lodge objections. If an objector does not appear his objection is set aside, but where the objection is made by the returning officer it has to be inquired into, because he is always present. Supposing a person says that Senator Playford has died, or removed to another locality, it is not the function of the court to summon witnesses. The amendment is necessary in order to prevent any persons, for political purposes, making busy-bodies of themselves and endeavouring to do things corruptly. Where a person makes a legitimate objection he will always be prepared to attend or to be represented ; and, if not, steps in that direction will be taken by the electoral officer. If an objector does not appear, and clears out, how will it be possible to inflict upon him the penalty provided for in clause 49 1 Senator Playford knows very well that persons have been hired to slander candidates, and that on inquiry it has been found that they were not worth a straw, or had cleared out. I can cite plenty of such cases. A firm was employed by an association in Adelaide to send out a circular, and if it was not replied to within a certain time an objection was lodged before the revision court. Hundreds of persons were in that way put to very serious trouble.
Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia). - This is not so much a question of wishing names to be added to the roll or objecting to names being on the roll as of preventing frivolous objections being made. Before any person can get his name put on the list he has to answer certain questions put by the returning officer, and if he answers falsely he is liable to two years’ imprisonment for each offence. Surely that is an ample provision to make for such cases. If a man makes a frivolous objection, and does not appear, and in the meantime changes his residence, -the court might not consider it necessary to award any penalty.
– I think that this would be a reasonable amendment to make. If the secretary to a political association, or any responsible persons in a State, raises an objection to a name on public grounds, they will take good care to be present. But if, out of spite, a person who has no status, lodges a number of objections, and does not appear in court to prosecute, then they ought not to be proceeded with. A man who will condescend to such tactics cannot be reached, and therefore the penalty clauses are useless. The amendment does not punish such a man ; but the person whose name is objected to is not required to prove his case, and he is able to leave the court.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I arn astonished at the attitude of Senator Playford, who, I have no doubt, took considerable part in framing the following provision in section 74 of the Electoral Act of South Australia of 1896 -
The court shall also retain on the rolls all names (a) against which no objection has been duly lodged, or (6) against which objection having been duly lodged, the objector shall not have appeared in person, or having appeared in person, shall not have established his objection.
The ground on which Senator Playford bases his objection to this amendment could not happen under a provision of that kind, because a false declaration would carry the penalty of two years’ imprisonment. No person for the sake of getting half-a-dozen names put on the roll would run the risk of getting a few years’ imprisonment. I have never heard any objection to that provision in the South Australian law.
– We do not wish by any subterfuge or indirect means to perpetuate the disgraceful state of things which seems to have been experienced in various States. A man of straw cannot be touched at any time. The man we have to consider is one against whom a reasonable objection has been lodged, and in whose case a decision should be arrived at. Clause 49 does not assist us in any way because it uses the word “ established.” If a case is brought before the court and is dismissed it cannot have been “ established,” and the name of a mau who has no right to be on the roll is retained. The Bill provides no means for removing the same. There is no necessity for the amendment.
Senator EWING (Western Australia).This is a proceeding in what is strictly speaking a court of law. The notice of objection to a name being on the roll stands in exactly the same position as a summons to an ordinary individual. If I summoned a man and failed to appear in court on the day fixed, the case would be immediately dismissed. An objector has two duties to perform - first, to notify his objection to the person concerned, and, secondly, to attend at the court and prove his case. There ought to be no distinction made between these legal proceedings and any other. The fact that my name is on the roll is primd facie evidence that I am entitled to be enrolled. If a person lodges an objection, and gives me notice to appear at court the same day, am I to attend and fight my side of the case, and the other party not to appear at all, but to quietly leave me to prove a negative ? There is not a lawyer in the Chamber who will deny that in a court of law under such circumstances the .objection would not be established; and I take it that the revision court is a court of law. It is true that the court is not bound by the rules of evidence, but there are several other courts which are in the same position, but which are courts of law in the broad sense of the word.
– There are two sets of lists to be prepared under this Bill, the preliminary list and the roll, which is afterwards to be compiled, and which is subject to revision in the ordinary way. The preliminary list is the list of the officer, and it is altogether a mistake to say that the fact of a man’s name being on that list gives him the right to vote. I consented to an amendment on clause 38 which had the effect of making it incumbentupon theofficerto put a name on the list whenever a claim is made. The list is to be made up from any information the officer can get. But the fact of being on that list does not give any one a right to be on the electoral roll ; and if the officer subsequently finds out that the name of a person is on the preliminary list which should not be there, surely his objection, in the interests of the whole community, should be upheld. The section of the South Australian Act quoted by Senator Pearce dealt with revision by a court already in existence, but this clause deals not with the roll which does prima facie give a man the right to vote, but with the officer’s list prepared only upon the claims of people to be upon it. Senator Ewing is misled by the analogy of a court of law. If the list is to be prepared properly the officer should have access to any objection which can be made. If an objection is over-ruled or is frivolous the court may say so, and award damages. No greater protection than that can be expected.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 16
NOES: 12
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
– I move -
That the following words be added to the clause as amended : - “unless it appears to the court that the person objected to is not entitled to be on the roll.”
If there is clear evidence before the court that the person objected to is not entitled to be on the roll, it would be an absurdity to keep the name there. The person may have removed out of the State, and notification may have been sent by some one of that fact. The returning officer may have ample evidence that the information is correct, but the person sending it to him may not bother to appear before the court to establish the objection. But still, the court ought to be in a position to strike the name off the roll.
– I hope the committee will accept the amendment. I do not suppose that Senator De Largie wishes to retain on the roll a name which should not be there. Surely the honorable senator would not prevent any one else from making an objection if the original objector did not appear. The returning officer may have evidence that a man is not entitled to be on the roll. Why should not the court act upon that evidence? But if the clause stands as it is, if the person objecting fails to appear, there is an end of the objection. Surely that is an absurd, roundabout way of doing things. What will happen if the clause remains as it is, will be that in every case, if a returning officer finds on inquiry that there is anything in an objection, he will take good care that some one else, as well as the original objector, appears in support of it. So that Senator Charleston’s amendment would only state in plain language what the result will be. I trust the committee will recognise that, in the public interest, we should see that the rolls are kept clean, and that valid objections are dealt with by the court.
– Senator O’Connor appears to have overlooked clause 47. There are two methods by which a person’s name may be removed from the roll - one, by a private person objecting, and another, by the court specifying that the name is wrongly on the roll. Clause 47 says that the court is to revise the lists for the division in which it sits, by striking out the names of persons known to be dead, disqualified, or no longer resident in the district. So that there is an inherent power in the court to see that the electoral lists only contain the names of those persons who ought to be there. The courts are established to see that the lists are true, and that no name is left off that ought to be on, and no name left on that ought to be off.
Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I contend that if we leave the clause as it stands, it will override paragraph (J) of clause 47. An objection may be. made to a certain person who is not qualified. If the objector does not appear, we have provided that the objection shall be deemed to be invalid. In other words, the person objected to will be qualified to be on the roll.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - The court of revision can strike out the names of persons shown to be disqualified, and clause 4S contemplates objection being taken to certain names by private individuals’ for political purposes. In order that that power shall not be abused, the objectors should be required to attend to uphold their objections. Having voted in favour of that principle, Senator Charleston wants to nullify his vote by saying that if the objector does not attend, the court can take up the matter. If the court had any evidence that a name should not be on the roll it could strike it off ; or it could assume merely from the fact that an objection had been lodged that the name should not be on the roll and strike it off accordingly. We have decided that justices of the peace mayconstitute these courts. “Very often they are political partizans, and we should be very careful in giving them power to remove from the rolls the names of people who are entitled to appear upon them.
– It appears to me that clauses 48 and 49 are in the wrong place. If they followed clause 45, all the clauses dealing with objections would be in proper sequence.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 14
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 (New rolls).
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - Some reason should be given for providing that the method of preparing new rolls shall be defined by proclamation. We. have carefully provided for this work, and the Bill should not be overridden by a proclamation unless there is some good reason for it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 56 -
The last printed copies of the roll for each division . . . shall be obtainable . . . for two shillings and sixpence each.
– I move -
That the words “ two shillings and sixpence” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ one shilling.”
J think ls. would be a reasonable charge in view of the fact that in the case of the elections for the Senate it will be necessary for candidates to buy some hundreds of rolls for the different centres. The charge for the rolls in South Australia and Queensland is ls. I admit that these rolls will be much larger, but there will be a much greater sale for them, so that the cost of production will be reduced.
– A charge of ls. would be absurd. The cost of a State roll is 2s. in some instances, while in others it is 2s. 6d., and they are far less in bulk than those which we are asked now to provide shall be sold for ls. It would be very convenient to be able to obtain portions of the roll. An elector might want the roll for a part of a division or polling place, and it would be very much better if there was a scale of fees provided under which there might be one charge for a roll for a whole division, and another for a roll relating to portion of a division. That is simply a question of administration, and I would suggest to the honorable senator that he should amend his amendment so as to provide for the omission of the words “ two shillings and sixpence,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ on payment of the price prescribed.” A scale would then be laid down and a reasonable charge made.
– I am prepared to accept the honorable and learned senator’s suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly.
– I do not think that 2s. 6d. is an unreasonable price to charge for a roll which will contain a twenty-third of the entire list of electors in Victoria, and a twentysixth of the entire list in New South Wales. Under another Bill, which will come into operation before long, the number of names on the roll will be practically doubled by the admission of the long-haired persuasion to the franchise. Therefore, the change proposed in the clause is not an unfair one, and I shall vote for its retention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 -
New names may be added to rolls pursuant to -
– Sufficient provision is not made for placing new names on the rolls. There should certainly be provision for inserting any names that appear on the State electoral rolls, but which do not appear on the Commonwealth rolls, because under the Constitution, any person on the electoral roll of a State is entitled to have his name on the electoral roll of the Commonwealth.
– Not necessarily.
– The Franchise Bill provides that every adult person whose rights are preserved under section 41 of the Constitution shall be entitled to have his name placed upon an electoral roll for the division in which he resides. It is clear from section 41 that if a man is on a State roll entitled to vote for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, he is under the Constitution entitled to vote at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth without bothering himself whether he is on a federal roll or not. That is my contention.
– The honorable senator is not right in his interpretation. What we are dealing with here is not the provisional list, but the working roll to be prepared after the list has been settled and after this Bill has been passed. The sections of the Constitution to which the honorable senator really refers are sections 30 and 31. Before we enact our Commonwealth law there is no doubt that a person on a State roll and qualified, is, by virtue of that, entitled to vote at elections for the House of Representatives, but after we once pass our law the only question will be whether the person is qualified to vote under that law. If he has the qualification, and is upon our rolls, he will be entitled to vote ; but once we pass this law regulating the method of elections we cannot recognise the State rolls, and we cannot recognise that every person whose name appears upon a State roll is entitled to vote for that reason alone. To do anything of the kind would be to land ourselves and the States in hopeless confusion. What the honorable senator has not given sufficient attention to is thefact that the right given to vote according to the State rolls is only a provisional right given until we legislate upon the subject. Section 41 of the Constitution does not touch this matter in any way.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I am not prepared to accept the explanation given by Senator O’Connor, but I labour under the disadvantage that I am not a lawyer, and that the lawyers in the Senate do not seem inclined to take the matter up. It seems to me that section 41 of the Constitution is absolutely explicit. Senator O’Connor’s contention is that this law of the Commonwealth is going to override the inherent constitutional right of every State elector to vote at Commonwealth elections, simply because this subsidiary Act of the Commonwealth Parliament states that they must be upon a Commonwealth roll. I desire to have the matter debated, and therefore I move -
That the following new paragraph be added to the clause: - “(c) Enrolment of names on the electoral rolls of the States. “
– It may be held to be presumptions in a layman to differ with a lawyer, but I regard the statement of Senator O’Connor as, not the statement of a lawyer, but the statement of a Minister who wants to get his Bill through at any price. There is no provi~ion in section 41 or in any other section of the Constitution authorizing, the Commonwealth Parliament to pass any law that will take from an elector of Australia the rights he possessed at the inauguration of the Commonwealth. Under section 41 there is a distinct provision that no elector entitled to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State, shall be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I shall certainly vote for the amendment.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 3
NOES: 21
Majority … … 18
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 58 (Forms of claims).
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - This clause will require to be redrafted to suit the condition of affairs prior to the enactment of the uniform franchise. It provides that the claims may be as set out in form B of the first schedule. But if honorable senators will refer to that form, they will find that it is only applicable to a claim made under a uniform franchise. At the present time any claim would have to be made on a form appropriate to the law of the State.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 60 -
Any elector whose name is on the roll for any division and who has resided in any other division for one month may transfer his name to the roll for the division in which he resides.
– There is a good deal of doubt as to what constitutes legal residence in a division. For example, a teamster who resides in the southern portion of the Maranoa electorate in Queensland may be away from his place of residence for three months, and it is a question whether he will be able to transfer his vote. I may be told that voting by post will, to a certain extent, cure the defect, but that provision is not yet passed, and it may not be passed in its present form. The courts have held in some cases that residence means the place where a man resides with his family, and in other cases that it is the place where he happens to be-living at the time. I suggest to Senator O’Connor that it would be a good thing to define in the Bill what legal residence means.
– It is impossible to put the matter in a simpler way. It is necessary to have a system of divisions for an electorate. If a man resides in any portion of an electorate that will be his residence, and if he wishes to change to another electorate he must apply for a transfer. There is no difficulty in interpreting the word “ residence,” but once you begin to talk about a man’s domicile you get into a perfect labyrinth of legal decisions. I suggest to Senator Barrett that it is far better to leave the particular facts in each case to be decided by the court.
– The question raised by Senator Barrett has been a burning one in Queensland for many years. The great bulk of our electors possess residential qualifications, and it is the most difficult thing in the world for carriers, shearers, and rouseabouts, of whom we have a large number, to get on the rolls. A person has to reside in a particular place for six months before he can be enrolled. But, once a man is enrolled, it is the easiest possible thing for his name to be taken off in consequence of the shifty nature of his employment. We have a number of married couples who travel as hawkers or carriers from place to place, and their van is practically their domicile. In the Maranoa electorate a man may be residing in one place for a fortnight, in another for a month, and in another for six weeks, and he should be enabled to get his name on the roll. In Great Britain a man may move about in a borough, but in his application for enrolment he has to give his places of residence in succession, and the aggregate residence entitles him to get his name put on the roll at the prescribed time.
– I hope that the clause will be passed as it is. It is entirely in harmony with the very liberal spirit of the Bill. The word “ residence “ is used because that is the widest possible term which could be applied ; and it is carefully provided that the term- of one month shall not be any consecutive 28 or 31 days. The clause is couched in the widest and vaguest terms. It is evidently intended to give an elector the greatest facility to transfer his vote. It is not a question of robbing a man of his vote.
– I would urgeSenator Glassey to withdraw his opposition to the clause, because any definition of residence ought to be made in the Franchise Bill.
– The clause is quite inapplicable to the present situation of affairs. It gives any elector the right to move from one division to another division in Australia by making an application, and though it is very properly expressed if we had the Franchise Bill, it is absolutely useless without that Bill, unless the words “ of a State “ are inserted after the word “ division.”
– It is not division of a State, but division of the Commonwealth.
– No man can move from one division of the Commonwealth to another division ; he must have his State qualification prior to the introduction of a uniform franchise.
– It would not matter a bit so long as he was qualified to vote in the State.
– Supposing that a man who has been on a roll in South
Australia for six months goes to Western Australia, where he has to be resident for twelve months, and to be on the roll for six. months before he can vote ; can such a man get a transfer and be an effective voter in Western Australia under the Constitution ?
– On the Commonwealth roll, not on a State roll.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 61 (Form of transfer).
– This clause might be the subject of very great abuses. By simply filling in a form the elector transfers his vote from one division to another. ‘ In the State of Victoria we have had cases where a great number of people have resided in certain parts of the State, and, when a by-election was coining on, hundreds of them would transfer their votes temporarily, and by that means would evade the law. Form C of the first schedule ought to be amended so as to compel a declaration to be made.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I again wish to raise the question of transfers from one State to another. Surely Senator O’Connor does not contend, that a woman who is entitled to vote in South Australia or Western Australia under the existing State franchise, can go to New South Wales with a transfer form, and in the absence of a uniform Commonwealth franchise, vote there at Commonwealth elections’? If not, she cannot go from division to division as provided in clause 60. But I was told a little while ago that she could. This point emphasizes what I said with regard to clause 60, that the words “ of the State “ ought to be inserted after the word “division, “ because it is evident that an elector cannot go from State to State, though this Bill has provided that he may do so.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 65 -
Bolls may be altered by the returning officer or electoral registrar as follows : - (iv.) By removing any name on the written request of the elector.
– Paragraph4 gives the returning officer a very wide power, and does not safeguard the possibility of some one else, who is not the elector, asking in writing for the name to be removed.
– I have made a note of an amendment to meet the objection Senator Barrett has raised. I wish to make the paragraph read -
By removing the name of any elector on his written request.
I first of all move -
That the word “any” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ the.”
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Dobson) proposed -
That the words “on the”be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “of any elector on his.”
– As this paragraph stands there is an obvious danger. The returning officer has no safeguard that the request has been written by the elector whose name it is proposed to remove from the roll. Any man can write to the returning officer and ask that “A’s” or “B’s” name shall be removed, and the officer will have no means of verifying the signature. Could not the risk of fraud be avoided by ordering that the signature shall be witnessed?
SenatorO’CONNOR.- I see the difficulty the honorable and learned senator points out, but it will not be removed by multiplying signatures. We might provide that the signature shall be attested by a justice of the peace, but, if the name was forged, the signature of the justice of the peace would also be forged. Another objection to that would be that it would make the utilizing of these provisions of the Bill more difficult, and our object is to simplify the process for the elector.
– When one wants a postal address altered he notifies the Postmaster - General, and receives word that his request will be attended to. In the case of an elector wishing to have his name removed after he has made application to the electoral registrar, if that officer were to send to him a notification of the receipt of the request to have the name removed or transferred the elector would be warned, and if necessary could take steps to have his name kept on the roll.
– The safest and best course would be to strike out paragraph 4. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which an elector would take the trouble to notify the returning officer that he wished to have his name removed from the roll. Only a mad man or a mad woman would do anything of the kind ; and such persons are not worth consideration. If a person were going outside Australia altogether, he certainly would not take the trouble to notify the returning officer. The only person who would be likely to use this paragraph would be some malignant individual who wished to remove a name from the roll improperly.
– I am not enamoured of the paragraph, and should be willng to excise it, if it could be done at this stage. If not, we can excise it on the recommittal of the Bill.
– It cannot be done now. We have actually carried the clause down to the word “ the “ in paragraph 4. For the purpose of convenience we frequently put the sub-clauses of a clause separately, but when the sub-clauses have been dealt with, I have no alternative but to put the clause as a whole.
Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - If paragraph 4 were the whole of clause 35, after amendments had been made it would be possible to vote against the whole clause. We do not want to strike out the whole clause now, but simply to omit paragraph 4. I join with the Vice-President of the Executive Council in asking the Chairman to give us that facility.
– It would be very convenient if we could adopt the course suggested, but there can be no doubt about the correctness of the Chairman’s ruling, and I cannot shut, my eyes to the fact that to adopt the course proposed would probably create an inconvenient precedent. Perhaps it would be better to allow the clause to pass, on the understanding that it will be reconsidered.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 -
The clerk of each revision court shall . . . exhibit at each post-office within the division a list … of all objections to be dealt with by the court at its next sitting.
Amendment (by Senator Stewart) proposed -
That the words “State school and police station” be inserted after the word “postoffice.”
– I shall have no objection to the amendment if the words “ State school “ be omitted.
Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 (Date of nomination).
– Under this clause the date of nomination must be not less than seven nor more than 21 days after the date of the writ. I desire to know whether writs may be telegraphed to the returning officers?
– No doubt the issue and date of a writ would be telegraphed, so that the returning officer could make his preparations and receive his nominations in anticipation. It is not necessary that the writ should actually be in the hands of the returning officer so long as it has been issued.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 91-
The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than two days or more than 30 days after the date of nomination.
Amendment (by Senator Barrett) agreed to-
That the word “ two “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “seven.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94-
In the ease of a general election for the House of Representatives the same day shall be fixed for the polling in each division, and all writs shall be made returnable on the same day.
– I am anxious that the day selected for a general election for either House shall be a Saturday. In most States that has been proved to be the most convenient day on which to hold an election so far as the very great majority of electors are concerned. My experience is that where any other day is chosen a very large number of electors are disfranchised because they are compelled to leave home for their work before eight o’clock, and are unable to return until five or six o’clock. I do not think the position would be improved if election day were proclaimed a holiday, because generally speaking, only the banks and the public departments would close. At the elections which have just taken place in Queensland a number of men were debarred from voting because the party in power chose to select Tuesday as polling day I believe it was the first time in the history of the State that a Saturday was not chosen.
– I move -
That the words “and the Senate” be inserted after the words “House of Representatives.”
There is no provision in the Bill that the polling for the Senate in each State shall be on the same day.
– There are some constitutional difficulties in the way. The writs for the Senate elections are issued by the Governors of the States, and they are controlled to that extent by the Governments of the States. On the other hand, the writs for the House of Representatives are entirely under the control of the Parliament. There is no doubt that the theory of the Constitution is that the States, being represented in the Senate as States, the times and places of election and the issue of the writs, so far as this House is concerned, should be in the hands of the State authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (by Senator Higgs) proposed -
That the words “which shall be a Saturday” be inserted after the word “day,” line 2.
– No doubt, for reasons that are obvious, it would be desirable to hold the elections on a Saturday. On the other hand, there is the fact, which has been considered in many of the States, and which I think we are bound to consider also, that Saturday is observed as the Sabbath by a large number of the electors of Australia. I understand that there are some 12,000 Jewish voters on the rolls, and even if the number were not so large, their feelings should certainly be considered. Any Government which happened to be in power, would see the necessity of arranging the elections in such a way that every voter should have a full opportunity of voting. That has been done, and will be done in the future, by proclaiming election day a holiday.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I am anxious that we should not do anything to offend the religious susceptibilities of any section of the community. At the same time I am quite as anxious that the electors shall have an opportunity of performing what I consider to be a religious duty, and that is taking their part in the election of the persons who are to make the laws of the country. It might meet the objection of those who prefer that the polling should be upon a Saturday if Senator O’Connor could see his way to agree to an extension of the hours for polling. I see no reason why the polling should not commence at seven o’clock in the morning, and continue until eight o’clock in the evening. By declaring the election day a public holiday and inviting men earning from 7s. to 10s. a day to give up their employment to record their votes is asking too much of the electors.
– Under the South Australian law it is provided that no day other than a Saturday shall be fixed as a polling day. That provision has worked very satisfactorily. It has not debarred our Jewish friends from doing their duty at the polls, and there has never been any objection raised by them to the practice. In most places men can leave their work on a Saturday at twelve o’clock or one o’clock. They can record their vote on their way home, and then look after their household affairs while their wives are recording their votes.
– I hope that Saturday will be accepted as the day for polling. I agree with Senator Charleston that there has never been any complaint on the subject made by the Jewish people in South Australia. I have never heard of the difficulty before. If Senator O’Connor is anxious to assist the Jewish people he can do so by extending the time for polling on a Saturday to seven or eight o’clock p.m., because, as every one knows, the Jewish Sabbath does not continue until Saturday night. If there is any alteration, I hope it will be only to extend the hours of polling upon a Saturday.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - Senator McGregor’s proposal would not meet the objections of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose Sabbath extends until midnight. I think the difficulty might be overcome by making provision in clause 109 to allow persons who have religious scruples against voting on Saturday to take out voters’ certificates and vote the day before.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 15
Majority … … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 96 -
On a receipt of a writ the officer to whom it is directed shall (1) indorse thereon the date of its receipt ; (2) advertise its receipt and particulars in two newspapers circulating in the State . . .
– I move -
That the words” not less than “ be inserted after the word “in,” line 4.
I do not think an advertisement in two newspapers is sufficient to disseminate this important information, and it is for that reason I move the amendment.
– I point out that the newspapers selected might be those published in the metropolis, and the advertisement might deal with an election to be held in a remote part of the State. The clause provides that the notice of the election shall be published in two newspapers circulating within the division in which the election is to take place. I point out also that it is desirable that the returning officer, when he is stationed in some remote place, should be given an opportunity of advertising the particulars of the writ before its receipt. The writs may be issued, for the sake of argument, in Melbourne, and then have to travel to Western Australia. Under the clause they must be received by the returning officer there before the particulars can be advertised. We have made provision that nominations shall be made not less than seven nor more than 21 days after the date of the writ, and it is possible that the advertisement containing particulars of the writ would not appear more than a week beforehand. Provision might be made that the returning officer, upon the receipt of a telegram informing him that a writ had been issued, should, within a certain time, publish a notification to that effect.
– I quite see that there is something in the suggestion as to the papers in which the advertisement is to be published. They should be papers circulating in the division in which the election is to take place, and I have no objection to an amendment to that effect. I think that is all that is required, because notice of a matter of so much importance as the issue of a writ will be published throughout the Commonwealth by the press long before the returning officer has the writ in his hand.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Barrett) agreed to-
That the word “State,” line 4, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ division.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98-
To entitle a person to be nominated as a senator, or a member of the House of Representatives, he must be qualified under the Constitution to be elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
– I move -
That the clause be amended by the addition of the following words : - “ Provided that a.member of a State Parliament shall be incapable of being nominated, chosen, or appointed as a senator, or as a member of the House of Representatives.
I am seeking to introduce no new principle, but merely to extend a principle which is recognised in section 43 of the Constitution Act, which says -
A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen, or of sitting as a member of the other House.
The same provision is to be found, I believe, in the electoral law of every State of the Commonwealth, The provision in the electoral law of New South Wales is as follows : -
A member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall be incapable of being summoned, or being nominated or elected as a member of the Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly in the nineteenth, or any subsequent, Parliament of New South Wales.
The nineteenth Parliament of New South Wales is the existing one. It is not necessary for me to quote the provision in the electoral law of Victoria, which I have in my hand. Many reasons, no doubt, can be offered for the wisdom of the provision which has been introduced not only into the Federal Constitution, but into the electoral laws of the States. The proposition is one of so eminently safe and sound a character that it is not necessary to delay the committee. I shall be prepared to combat any arguments which may be offered.
– I have never heard a more illiberal proposition made. It is almost a dog-in-the-manager policy for us to debar the members of a State Parliament from contesting a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is not in keeping with what we understand to be the dignity of the members of this Parliament. Because the members of a State Parliament have seen their way to debar members of the Commonwealth Parliament from contesting a seat in the State Parliament that is no reason why we should descend to their level. It is evidently the desire of Senator Neild that we should create a close corporation for ourselves. In all probability our opponents at the next election will be members of the State Parliament. The appearance of such candidates in the field will give a wider choice to the electors. If we carry this amendment, their area of choice will be restricted, because very many of our best men, after having been to the expense of contesting a State election, will not be prepared to risk losing their seats in the State Parliament, and undertaking the expense of a Federal contest. I cannot see any virtue in the amendment. The State Parliament is a very good school for the Federal Parliament, just as a municipal body is a very good school for the State Parliament,and a debating society is a very good school for a municipal body. Everyman who has won a seat in a State Parliament should be free to contest a seat in the Federal Parliament. At a federal election a candidate who had sat in the Federal Parliament would have an advantage over a member of a State Parliament, because he might be deemed to have greater influence in the State. At the time of their election the majority of the members of the Federal Parliament were members of the State Parliaments. If such a restriction had been in force at that time, many able men would not have resigned their seats in the State Parliament and taken the risk of contesting a federal seat. Let us make the choice of the electors as wide as possible, and do not let us descend to the illiberal attitude of any State Parliament which disqualified members of the Federal Parliament from contesting a seat in the State Parliament.
– There is only one aspect in which we ought to regard this question. Ought we to hamper or interfere with the choice of the electors in any way ? It is contemplated by the Constitution Act that the widest possible choice shall be given to the people of Australia in choosing their representatives - in this Parliament. What the State Legislatures have done ought not to be an example to us here, or to influence us in any way. That is a matter for them to consider. There is absolutely no limitation of this kind in the Constitution Act. On the contrary, it appears to be implied through all its provisions that it is to be left entirely to the people to decide who are to be their representatives. It lays down certain disabilities. It dennes the qualifications of members,- and although that is the place where you would expect to find a disqualification of this kind, it is not to be found. If it had been intended to restrict the choice of the electors to a certain class, that restriction would have been put in the Constitution. I am not saying for a moment that we have not the power, if we think fit, to restrict that choice; I dare say we have. The matter lies in a nutshell. We should be doing a wrong to ourselves, and a wrong to the people of Australia, if we restricted or interfered in any way with their right of choosing their representatives.
Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - Senator O’Connor has been cheerfully oblivious of the section of the Constitution Act which provides distinctly that a member of the Senate cannot be nominated for a seat in the House of Representatives, and vice versa. If that is not an exactly similar embargo, what is the difference 1 I do not see any difference. It plainly means that a man holding one seat shall not contest another.
- Senator O’Connor is very much afraid that we shall limit the choice -of the electors if the amendment is passed. I think there is likely to be a greater number of candidates in the field if it is carried than otherwise. The Premier of a State and all his colleagues could contest a seat in .the Federal Parliament with the advantage df all their prestige and influence. They would almost be certain to secure seats as against abler men who held no public position. I do not consider that the whole of the talent is to be found in the Federal Parliament or in the State Parliaments. I apprehend that outside parliamentary life there are hundreds of able men who would see at once that they would have no show with the State Premier and his colleagues in the field. . I have heard my honorable friends in the labour party preach the doctrine of one man one billet. It has been thrown at me time and again. The members of the State Parliaments could have contested federal seats if they had thought fit to do so. No doubt every honorable senator is acquainted with many gentlemen who would be an acquisition to any House of Parliament, but such gentlemen would not think of trying to compete with State Ministers for a seat in this Parliament. In Victoria the Premier and an ex-Premier had a walkover because no one cared to oppose them.
– We ought not to restrict the choice by the people of their represenatives. Unmistakably this amendment would restrict their choice to a certain extent. It would be an advantage to any of us who intend to seek re-election if the choice were restricted, but would it be an advantage to the people of the States 1 We have to take a broader view of the position than the mere consideration of how it might affect our special interests. I contend that if the people wish to be represented by any man who has distinguished himself in the State Parliament, their choice should not be restricted. Whether he has been a Premier, a Minister of the Crown, or simply a member of the State Parliament, if he receives the confidence of the electors, and they are desirous of returning him, they should have the right. The Parliaments of the various States are the nurseries for the supply of members to the great Commonwealth Parliament. Those who have served the country well in the State Parliaments are the men. whom the people of those States may wish to occupy a higher sphere where they can be of more use. It is for the people to decide whether a candidate is to be elected or not. Will they not decide just as well if a candidate is a member of the State Parliament, as if he resigned his position and contested the election in “ the open”? When we seek re-election to the Senate, if we can restrict the number of candidates so much the better for us ; but I do not think that honorable senators will treat the subject from the selfish point of view, but will consider it as it affects the interests of the States whom they have to serve in the Commonwealth Parliament.
– It is not reasonable that a man should be able to occupy at the same time one seat in the Federal Parliament and another in the State Parliament, but we should s;op at that, and not show the selfish spirit which it appears some State Parliaments have shown We are sent here to conserve the rights of the States, and one of the greatest of those rights is that they shall have the widest possible choice in electing representatives to the Federal Parliament. Although I happen to be one of those who did not go through the nursery of a State Parliament, and had to contest my election against a number of candidates who did, I was chosen by the people of the State ; and though, if I were to consider my personal interests, I should like to see the amendment carried, yet I should be false to the interests of the people who sent me here, if I were to vote for such a selfish amendment as the one before the chair.
– I have no desire to attribute selfishness to Senator Neild, but we should not even exhibit the appearance of selfishness in a matter of this kind. I am not going to give any one the opportunity of saying - “You were a member of the State Parliament when you contested a federal election, and you are very selfish if you try to prevent others from doing what1 you did yourself.” If Senator Neild does not withdraw his amendment, I hope it will be rejected.
– It is eminently desirable that the States should have the freest and fullest choice in sending the best men to represent them in the Federal. Parliament. Senator Styles has attached importance to the view that candidates should come out into the open. But members of State Parliaments are those who have been out in the open. They have led public lives, and have been subject to the most searching criticism by the very electors whom they ask to return them to the Federal Parliament. In a matter of this sort we should be guided by what the Constitution provides. Inasmuch as the Constitution has gone into many details as to the qualifications of candidates and the matters which are a bar to their election to the Federal Parliament, and has said nothing whatever about membership of a State Parliament, we must assume that the framers of the Constitution exhausted, practically speaking, the bars to qualification, and did not think it necessary to prevent members of State Parliaments from standing for election. We should, therefore, be flying in the spirit of the Constitution by adopting this amendment.
– I have a considerable amount of admiration for Senator Neild, and understand his motives in this matter, but I venture to ask him not to press his amendment to a division. We may reasonably review the position in which many of us stood when we became candidates for the Federal Parliament. The bulk of the Queensland senators were members of the State Parliament. If I, for one, had had te resign my seat as a State member, and run the risk of not being elected to the Federal Parliament, I am not clear that I should have had the courage - though I do not think I am deficient in that quality - to do so. Senator Neild, also, was a. member of the State Parliament when he became a candidate for the Senate. We had considerable privileges as State members. We drew salaries from the States while we were federal candidates, and even after we were elected. Such being the case, it would be manifestly unfair on our part to debar other State members from candidature for the Federal Parliament. It would be a decided mistake to carry the amendment. Let us show by our votes that we are not afraid of competition.
Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - One point in connexion with this question has been entirely overlooked. I refer to what took place in New South Wales at the last federal election, when the then Premier, with all the influence of office at his back, fought an election against an opponent who certainly was not on equal terms with himself. The honorable gentleman in question went to -the electorate with all the prestige and power of office, and in company with his money-spending colleague, the Minister for Public Works. I do not remember that any distinct promise for carrying out public works in the electorate was made, but I ask any honorable senator of experience in public matters what was necessarily the influence in an electorate of the presence there of the most important spending man in the Government, who was supporting his chief1! This proceeding in New South Wales, though, so .far as I know, absolutely free from any tinge of impropriety as regards the breach of any known rule, nevertheless caused considerable scandal.
– That was political bribery.
– Idonotuseany term of the kind, but I do say that it was undue influence, that placed the Minister in a position prima fade superior to any competitor who could stand against him. It is simply a question of whether a candidate who has no influence whatever at his back, can have a fair and square contest with a gentleman who holds a seat in Parliament and is a Cabinet Minister, having other Cabinet Ministers to assist him. I do not regret in the slightest degree having brought forward this proposal, as one forming a fair ground for discussion.
– It seems to me that this is a case where the arguments are all on one side, and apparently the voting is going to be on the other. Although it may be illiberal to support the amendment, from the popular point of view, I intend to vote for it. We are told that by carrying it we should limit the number of candidates. How can that be? We only urge that the same rule that is applied by the State Parliaments to members of the Federal Legislature shall also apply to the State members. It is not fair, reasonable, and just to allow a Minister of the Crown, whether he be Premier or the holder of any other office, to go to the country with all the prestige and power of office behind him to contest a seat for the Senate or the House of Representatives. That would surely be an advantage. Therefore if members of the StateLegislature desire to contest seats for the Federal Parliament they should make up their minds as to whether or not they consider their chances good enough, and they should be compelled to resign their seats in the State Parliament before they stand for a federal election.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 99 -
No nomination shall be valid unless -
The person nominated or some person on his behalf deposits with the Commonwealth electoral officer or divisional returning officer at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper the sum of £25 in money or in bank notes.
– I move -
That paragraph (c) be omitted.
I see no reason why we should demand a deposit. It has been argued to-night that it is the right of the citizens to have a free choice of their representatives. I agree with that view ; and we shall do a very great injustice if we allow this paragraph to remain. When we have adult suffrage under the Franchise Bill, we shall have, at the very lowest, a quota of from 80,000 to 90,000 votes in New South Wales; and with such a quota, the result of clause 105 would be that, unless a candidate succeeded in obtaining at least 15,000 No. 1 votes, his deposit of £25 would be forfeited. There might be persons who would be prepared to come forward and preach the doctrine of direct taxation to a greater extent than it has yet been applied, but who would be afraid to offer themselves as candidates lest they might not obtain 15,000 No. 1 votes, and thus have to lose the deposit of £25 in addition to the expenses of contesting an election. The paragraph is opposed to the principles of true democracy, and I hope that honorable senators will agree to my amendment.
Progress reported.
Senate adjourned at 9. 55 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 March 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020312_senate_1_8/>.