Senate
19 November 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 7th Parliament
  3. 1918

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

page 7952

QUESTION

ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY

Answer to Address to His Majesty the King.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral the following communication in reference to the address to His Majesty the King agreed to by the Senate on the 12th November, 1918: -

Commonwealth of Australia.

Governor-General.

The Hon. the President of the Senate,

The Governor-General transmits herewith, for the information of the honorable members of the Senate, copy of a cablegram received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, conveying; a message from His Majesty the King acknowledging the receipt of an address to His Majesty, which was agreedto by the Senate on the 12th instant.

M. Ferguson,

Governor-General.

Federal Government House,

Melbourne, 18th November, 1918.

Decode of Cablegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated London, 15th November, 1918.

I have laid your telegram of 13th November before His Majesty the King, who commands me to convey to the Senate and House of Re presentatives of the Commonwealth bis deep appreciation of their message of loyalty and devotion and of congratulation on the victorious termination of hostilities. In this hour of joy and thanksgiving His Majesty desires to express his sincere gratitude to the Government of the Commonwealth, which has so staunchly supported the Empire throughout these anxious years; to the people of Australia, who, conscious of the menace to all civilization, have borne with steadfast determination the long burden of a distant war; and not least to the brave sailors and soldiers of Australia, who by their imperishable deeds have won for themselves undying fame’ in assisting to bring our enemies to defeat. And especially in this hour His Majesty bears in mind the relatives of those Australian heroes who in Gallipoli and many hard fought fields laid down their lives in the common cause. Those glorious dead the Empire will not forget; and it is His Majesty’s earnest conviction that their sacrifice has not been in vain, but that in dying they have helped to win for the free nations of the earth a peace and ordered security which shall live.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

page 7952

QUESTION

HANDLEY PAGE AEROPLANE

Supply of Food to Berlin

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement: -

Australian press representatives in London participated in a record passenger carrying flight on the new Handley Page aeroplane, which carried forty people in addition to the pilot. The machine, which ha; just been completed, belongs to a squadron . that was specially designed to bomb Berlin. Some of the machines were actually in readiness to visit Berlin on Monday night, but the flight was abandoned in consequence of the signing of the armistice. The machines are capable of flying over 1,000 miles without a stop. Their weight is 7 tons, and they can carry 8 tons.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is not in order in reading a prolonged statement.

Senator GARDINER:

– I desired to make the Leader of the Senate acquainted with the nature of my question. I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to that paragraph, and, if so, whether the Government will cableto Great Britainasking them to use this machine to convey bread to the starving poor of Berlin, and drop bread instead of bombs ?

page 7953

QUESTION

FEDERAL MINISTERS IN ENGLAND

Relations between Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook : Mr. Hughes and the British Government.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– I ask Senator Millen, as Leader of the Senate, in view of the statements appearing in the Age of this morning in a letter from the London correspondent of the newspaper, dated 1st October, to the following effect-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is not entitled to read the statement. I point out again, as I have frequently done before, that it is contrary to the Standing Orders for an honorable senator to make a statement in asking a question. No one outside Parliament can have a greater right than a member of the Senate in this regard, and to give permission to the honorable senator to read the statement he has referred to, would give the newspaper correspondent that greater right.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I will make the statement after reading the letter.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in making a statement in asking a question.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I ask whether the Leader of the Senate is aware of the fact that a statement has been published in this morning’s Age, dated from London, 1st October, to the effect that whilst Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook had been in London for three months they had never met, that Sir Joseph Cook had been anxious to meet Mr. Hughes, and although he had tried to do so several times, had not succeeded ; that he had written several letters to Mr. Hughes, but had received no reply ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is evading my ruling. ‘He is entitled to ask any question for information upon public business, but not to make a statement or quote a statement.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Will Senator Millen say whether it is correct or not that Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook, representatives of Australia in London, never met during three months; whether it is a fact that Sir Joseph Cook was anxious to meet Mr. Hughes, but had failed to do so ; had written to him and received no reply, and that on matters affecting the relations of the Commonwealth with Great Britain Mr. Hughes has never consulted his Cabinet colleague in . London, and on matters affecting Australia, communicated to Mr. Hughes by his Cabinet colleagues “in Australia, that gentleman has not consulted with his Cabinet colleague in London? If these statements are correct, will Ministers consider the advisability of at once- recalling Sir Joseph Cook, and if they are not correct, will Ministers ask the proprietors of the Age to make an official public denial of the statement made?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Government is not at all likely to shape its actions by the utterances of irresponsible and illinformed journalists. Communications have passed between the Government and Ministers in London which show that the statement referred to cannot be correct.

Senator GARDINER:

– Has the attention of the Government been drawn to reports of Mr. Hughes’ speeches in which he makes it clear that he was not in the confidence of the British Government with respect to peace proposals before the armistice terms were agreed to? If it is a fact that Mr. Hughes does not possess the confidence of the British Government, and that Sir Joseph Cook does not possess the confidence of Mr. Hughes, will the Government consider the advisability of sending Senator McDougall to Great Britain?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am sure that the honorable senator’s sense of humour is too strongly developed to expect an answer to that question.

Senator Long:

– It would arouse a lot of jealousy over here, too.

page 7953

QUESTION

BLYTHE RIVER IRON DEPOSITS

Senator LONG:

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if, as stated, it is the intention of the Government to bring from ‘Great Britain an expert to report upon, and advise the Commonwealth Government, as to the metallic value of the ore known to exist in the Blythe River Iron Mine? Has the expert been engaged, and, if so, will he be requested to extend his investigations to other well-known iron deposits in Tasmania?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I have no hesitation in answering the question; but I direct attention to the fact that, in essence, at any rate, it anticipates one which is already on the business-paper. The Government are making inquiries with a view to securing the services of an expert to report upon the deposits referred to.

Senator LONG:

– I may have misunderstood the answer as it was stated by the Minister; but if the expert has not been already engaged will the Minister inform the Senate if the Government, before sending for an expert in some other country, has ascertained whether or not such experts are not already obtainable in one or other of the States, thoroughly competent to advise the Government as to values and quantity.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not in a position to say whether the efforts of the Government to secure expert advice have reached finality. Many things may happen within the next few days ; but all the information which has been hitherto prepared on the subject is, I believe, in the possession of the Government, who are desirous of supplementing that with independent advice. Therefore steps are being taken to secure the assistance of an expert.

page 7954

QUESTION

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Having regard to the statement read by the President from the Home authorities relative to the war, and to the fact that the War Precautions Act was passed to. remain in operation during the currency of the war, and that the Government have been taking the matter into consideration, I ask the Minister for Defence what has been done, and if the Government have decided to forthwith relegate to obscurity all the regulations passed under the War Precautions Act, and the Act itself?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The matter is under consideration, and as soon as the Government have arrived at a decision it will be made known to both Houses of Parliament.

page 7954

RENTS OF PUBLIC OFFICES

Report from the Committee of Public Accounts upon the expenditure on premises in- the capital cities, owned and rented by the Common-wealth for office accommodation, presented by Senator Crawford.

Ordered to be printed.

page 7954

QUESTION

RESTRICTIONS ON HORSE RACING

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that in Sydney on Saturday last there were twenty horse races in which 300 horses competed? If so, will the Government see that the restrictions on horse racing are removed, and that the meetings shall be distributed over two days in the week, so that the Government may receive double the revenue which they hope to obtain by way of the tax on entertainments ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– That question, with many others which arose during the continuance of the war, is now under the consideration of the Government in order that we may see how far, after revision, the circumstances can be remedied.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– In view of the fact that picnic race gatherings, and races held in connexion with eight hours celebrations, are fast approaching with the summer months, will the Minister for Defence consider the advisability of immediately instructing the Commandants in the various States to remove the restrictions which have hitherto been imposed upon such meetings?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– That question has already been answered by the Leader of the Senate, who. informed honorable senators that the matter of horse racing generally, together with other subjects, is now receiving the attention of the Government. Therefore, any action that might be taken by the Defence Department would be dependent upon the general decision of the Government.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– May I explain that it was not from any want of courtesy that I addressed my question directly to the Minister for Defence, but it was due to the fact that that Minister had previously answered questions upon the same matter.

page 7955

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Enlistments

Senator GARDINER:

– I asked the Minister for Defence last week whether he had any objection to the preparation, and laying upon the table, of a return showing the total aggregate enlistments in the Australian Imperial Force, and the total foreach Military District. Is the Minister now in a position to answer that question ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The enlistments for the Commonwealth from the beginning of the war to 31st October, 1918, numbered 415,685, made up by Military Districts. as follows: - Queensland, 57,542; New South Wales, 163,528; Victoria, 112,207; South Australia, 34,854; Western Australia, 32,165; Tasmania, 15,389.

Senator GARDINER:

– I understand that those figures are for the various Military Districts. Seeing that portion of New South Wales comes within the Fourth Military District, another portion in the First Military District, and the remainder in the second, will the Minister arrange to compile a return showing the exact number of enlistments for New South Wales?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is not possible. Not only is New South Wales affected in that regard, but other States also. The figures which I have just supplied are compiled for the various Military Districts, and not for the States. It will be impossible, therefore, to supply the information in the form suggested.

page 7955

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Act 1901-1916 - Proclamations, dated 6th November, 1918, prohibiting exportation (except under certain conditions) of -

Cheese.

Cinematograph films to Nauru.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1916. - Land acquired at Port Pirie, South Australia - For Defence purposes.

Papua Act 1905. - Infirm and Destitute Natives Account - Statement of the Transactions of the Trustees, 1917-18.

page 7955

QUESTION

BY-ELECTION AND CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– In view of a pending by-election, do the Government propose to lift the censorship regulations during that contest?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– As there is no political censorship, there is nothing to lift.

page 7955

QUESTION

ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY

Holiday for Commonwealth Public Servants : Fireworks in the Streets.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to repeat a question which I put to the Leader of the Senate last week, with respect to granting to . Commonwealth public servants and employees a holiday in celebration of the signing of the armistice with Germany, upon the same lines as are afforded on Christmas Day and Good Friday?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The Government do not at present propose to proclaim a further public holiday in celebration of the signing of the armistice.

Senator BARNES:

– Is it a fact that a number of invalid soldiers Were in certain cases very cruelly injured by shock as the result of explosions of fireworks in the streets of Melbourne during last week’s celebrations of the signing of the armistice, and that a number of civilians, also, were injured ? If that was the case, will the Minister for Defence see that steps are taken to prevent a repetition of that kind of thing.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

-The maintenance of civil order is the responsibility of the State Government; ‘but, owing to the complaints made as to the number of soldiers who have suffered a recurrence of shell shook, I am considering whether we should not prevent the repetition of these things at the forthcoming peace celebrations. I issued an appeal to the public, through the medium of the press, torefrain from that kind of celebrating, but it apparently had no effect, and we shall have to see whether other steps should not be taken.

page 7956

ELECTORAL BILL

Private Members’ Business.

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the fact that the Standing Orders have been suspended to permit a very large Bill to be passed without delay, does the Leader of the Government intend to allow private members the usual Thursday night this week to deal with theirbusiness? I have on the notice-paper for that day a most important constitutional amendment.

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– It will entirely depend on the progress made with the measure in respect’ of which the Standing Orders have been suspended.

Senator GARDINER:

– Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Minister if he will divide the consideration of the Electoral Bill into reasonable progress periods, so that we may run to a timetable?

Senator MILLEN:

– If the Senate will undertake to pass the guillotine provisions through in a reasonable periodsay, half-an-hour - I shall gladly fall in with the honorable senator’s suggestion.

Senator GARDINER:

– Does the Minister think a Bill of 220 clauses should pass through the Senate in less than three months?

Senator MILLEN:

– Seeing that there are only two new provisions in the Bill, and the others represent the existing law. I see no unreasonableness in the proposal of the Government.

Senator GARDINER:

– Does not the Minister think that senators are here to introduce new provisions into the Electoral Act?

Senator MILLEN:

– Get rid of this business and you will have that opportunity.

page 7956

QUESTION

LITIGATION WITH MARCONI COMPANY

Senator LONG:

– Last week I asked a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, to this effect: -

Will he lay on the table of the Senate all papers and reports in connexion with the High Court case of the Marconi Company Limited against the Commonwealth Government, settled in 1914?

I was informed that the question was incorrectly addressed. As I am told that the Minister now has the reply, I shall be glad to hear it. .

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– I regret if there has been any delay through the matter being overlooked by myself, but I shall try to furnish the honorable senator with the answer to-day.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Return of Australian Soldiers.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– I have received the following communication from Senator McDougall : -

In accordance with standing order 64, I desire to inform you that this day I shall move “That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 3 p.m. on Thursday,” for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely, “ The returning of Australian soldiers and others to Australia.”

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 3 p.m. on Thursday.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places in support of the motion -

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I am sorry to have to take this course to ventilate this grievance. I waited all last week for an opportunity to do so. The question brooks no delay, and calls for consideration by the Legislature and by the Government, both here and in another place. Our Standing Orders permit private members to ventilate grievances of this kind only on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, or by moving a special adjournment motion themselves. There is something happening at present which ought to be seen to as quickly as possible. I do not wantany man to return to Australia thinking that this country has forgotten that he has fought, or what he has fought for; but, unfortunately, if something is not done toremedy the present state ofaffairs, we shall have a repetition of what occurred after the South African war. The transport of our soldiers from the Old Country should be under civil, and not military, control. I do not want to see our soldiers placed in the position in which some of the soldiers’ wives found themselves on being brought across the water to Australia. One of these women waited on me in Sydney and explained her case to me. I wanted her to bring forward some corroboration of her story, but apparently she went to the Sydney newspapers. The Sunday Times, of 10th November, took the case up. That is a widely circulating journal, which has gone throughout Australia, and the Australian public will be misled if the facts, as stated in that issue, are not correct.The article is headed, “The Pathetic Tragedy called Open Berths.” “Anzac’s English Wife paints an Awful Picture of how Soldiers’ Wives and Children fared on Shipboard,” and is as follows: -

The little Anzac wife, now childless, showed her steamer ticket. On it were the usual particulars. Then, underneath; the words, “Open Berth No. - . “

Mercifully, few women know just what an open berth means. On this ship, it meant about 360 women and children packed in bunks round the ship’s hold. In the middle were the tables at which they ate and forms on which they sat. It meant, too, that, unless the weather was fine, these 360 people ate and slept and lived for nearly nine weeks in almost the same spot. It meant an open hatch, tarpaulin covered and airless in bad weather. It meant indescribable noise and dirt, and confusion always going on round mothers nursing their babies, and women waiting to be confined.

Births and Deaths.

There were births and deaths on this floating Babylon. Five babies were born before Sydney was reached, and eight children died.

There were two hospitals, but one had to be kept for the males, who occupied the forward part of the ship, and so all the cases from the women’s quarters went into the other. Babies were born and died here. A little girl of eight years, operated on for appendicitis immediately after the evening meal, died in this hospital next day.

Although it was obviously certain that some births must take place on the voyage, the ship was not supplied with one single midwifery nurse. The matron in charge of the women and the Army nurses did what they could, but they were certainly hampered by want of knowledge. The nurses, too, were to be pitied, as they were journeying home oft leave, and it was hard to expect them to turn to and nurse medical cases.

The little wife who tells the story lost her baby soon after the voyage began. The ship’s food was utterly unfitted for women who were feeding their infants, and it required a hardy child to thrive.

In the berth next to this mother was another woman with her baby. Both children were removed to the hospital on the sameday, and both died shortly afterwards. Incidentally, the ship’s doctor left at Wellington.

The Awful Food.

To say that the food was bad on the ship is, this Anzac bride says, to let it off lightly. The women lived principally on army biscuits and stew. The stew was boiled in big pots, and the tea was made in the same vessels, and served with a thick coating of grease floating upon each cup.

Passing through the Panama Canal, the ship received quantities of presents in the form of bananas, cases of tinned milk, and other provisions. These things were intended for the women and children: What they really received was one banana each, and one tin of milk to every four passengers.

It must be remembered, too, the passages had been paid for by most of these people. Some of them, indeed, had laid out as much as £30 for this accommodation.

As has already been said, the weather was consistently bad. The open berths were quite often swamped by the sea. In such conditions meals were an absolute nightmare, although at times the poor passengers had to laugh at some of the accidents that occurred. “ I never want to see another moving picture,” said the passenger who told the story. “ We lived in a Charlie Chaplin atmosphere at our meals for weeks. We would get the tables laid and sit down, and the stew would be served out. Then the ship would start rolling. Over would go nearly everything. A child . would fall off one of the forms, and his plate of stew would go over and on top of him; and all the time the noise of crockery falling, children screaming, and people being seasick, would be beyond description. Then we went to sleep beside that. About our meals, too, I should like to say that we mothers received no food from about 5.30 or 6 o’clock at night until 8. o’clock next morning.”

Miseries Epitomized.

Briefly, a few of the troubles suffered by these women were dysentery (caused by bad water), awful overcrowding, generalnoise and squalor, absence of proper bathing facilities (there were two bathrooms for the 360 people), bad food, total lack of privacy, and a plentiful supply of vermin. Add to these sea sickness and dirt, and some idea of an open berth will be gained.

There is just one more detail that might be mentioned. Nine days after the ship berthed in Sydney, the passengers were still awaiting the delivery of their luggage.

A Nurse’s Statement of the Case.

Nurse Helen Meggy, an Australian Army nurse, who returned by the same boat, says that the discomfort on board was appalling, and the food bad. The soldiers’ wives were accommodated in the ship’s hold, and though they had the run of the ship, the weather was so bad . that most of their time was spent below.

Mothers with infants were, however, Nurse Meggy says, attached to the hospital staff, and given the best food on the ship.

When that statement appeared, a noncommissioned officer who made the voyage and complained about the treatment of the women, was interviewed by the Sunday Times, and in the issue of that paper of 17th November, the following appeared: -

page 7958

QUESTION

NOISE, AND FILTH, AND WANT OF GOOD FOOD

Almost unbelievable Story of Conditions on a Ship that Brought Anzacs’ Wives to Australia.

A story of shipboard conditions even ‘more harrowing than the one published in the Sunday Times last week, has been told us by a non-commissioned officer, who says he was on hospital duty on the ship referred to. He amplifies what was said in the previous article under the heading “ The Tragedy Called Open Berths,” and paints a picture of huddled misery that is almost unbelievable. “ The food,” our informant says, “ was bad, and also scarce, and it was a very hard job for the women to get a second slice of bread. Thewomen’s quarters were a perfect disgrace, and the smell from them was awful. The food was mostly stew, which was badly cooked, and the porridge was very seldom cooked either. “ Biscuits, when procurable from ship’s stores, were 3s. a lb., and common ones at that. From ls. to 2s. 6d. was charged for a slice of dry toast. “ On the way out, wo had, roughly speaking, three good days, when the hatches could be opened with safety. What with noise, filth, want of good food for the children, and confusion and inconvenience, the women’s hold was a regular bedlam. “ Lavatories, of which there were two on the women’s deck, were vile, and things were made worse by some people putting things down them which they had no right to do. There were some under the poop deck blocked up,- near which some of the women slept, or tried to. “ The water on the boat was as good as could be expected, but at times it was very dirty.

Shocking Hospital Conditions. “ There were two hospitals. In one were both men and women, and the goings on at times were disgraceful.

One hospital was badly fitted up. There was no water of any kind, and the lavatory and bathroom pipes were connected together, so that when the lavatory was blocked up,, which was often, the overflow would come out on the floor and run down the deck, and backwards and forwards into the bath, which could not be used as there was no water, although there were two taps. You would have to climb the steps to get into it to turn the water on, as the tap was at the far end. The connecting pipe was eventually cut, but the bath was never fixed up so that it could be used. “ At one port, some people came aboard, and when they saw the women’s quarters, they said they would not keep pigs there. They treated us wonderfully well, and from them we received 240 tins of milk, boxes of chocolates, 100 sandwiches and cakes for the hospital, which- they never received. “ As regards the issue of milk to the women, I myself gave out, unopened, 600 tins during the voyage, including the 240 tins given by the American Rod Cross.

Good Work by Army Sisters. “ The Army Sisters did all in their power for the women in hospital; but they were greatly handicapped through, inadequate conveniences. Everything that was possible was done for the babies that died by the nurses and military doctors. “One little girl was operated on in the evening within three hours of having had midday meal, comprising fish and potatoes, and a good helping of tapioca pudding, which I gave the mother to give her, little dreaming that the child was to be operated on so soon. Otherwise, she would never have got it from me, as I have been connected with hospital work for seven years, and I have never known a person to be operated on for appendicitis with a full stomach, of which the doctor had knowledge. “ The ship was not supplied with any nurses, so, therefore, the work fell upon the Army Sisters, one of whom had some knowledge of midwifery,’ and did all she possibly could, with the aid of the others, for the benefit of the new-born and the mothers.

Food not from the Ship’s Stores. “ There was ample food of sorts for the hospital, mostly supplied by the mothers and the American Red Cross, who are to be thanked for their kindness. “ I myself, whilst in charge of the hospital, gave and . distributed in various ways: Milk, 600 tins; malted milk, about 40 lbs.; arrowroot, 30 lbs.; and various patent foods for children in great quantities. And very little of this came from the ship’s stores. . “ In one storm in the Atlantic, a lifeboat and the women’s cook-house were smashed, and the water just went down the hatchway in tons, where there was nothing but noise and confusion caused .by the floating backwards and forwards of boxes, trunks, bags, &c, and a lot of women in hysterics. “ I and a night orderly found a young woman (single) half-dressed in a .fit, with a lot of semi-nude women around her. ‘ The young lady in question w.as weak and exhausted through insufficient food.

Attended all Deaths and Births. “ I am a single man, and I may say that I was in close attendance at all deaths and births, and I hope to God that I never have another voyage like it. “ Our bathroom and lavatories were all smashed, and for some days we had to use a part of the women’s lavatories. Our bathroom was never replaced, and the temporary lavatory which was fixed up was a perfect disgrace. “ We left the vessel towards the end of last month, and I myself met some of the women in Sydney on the 7th inst. who were still waiting for their luggage. “ There ire several little incidents that I have left out; but these are a few of the main facts, to which I was, an eye-witness - not news conveyed to me by others.”

It is unthinkable and unbelievable that treatment like this could be meted out to those warmhearted people. Any one who has visited the Old Country will bear me out when I say the people of England, from the highest to the lowest, are very kind to Australian soldiers. They showed us every kindness possible when we were in England as Australian representatives. English girls who are brought out here under such conditions will land here with anything but a good opinion, either of Australia or its Government. Personally, I have had experience in travelling on troopships, both inwards and outwards, and, while the need existed for sending military reinforcements to our boys at the Front, I always adopted the attitude that inconveniences must be suffered. But now that the war is over and our troops are returning, there is no need for their wives to be treated in the way that I have outlined. In my opinion, the curse of military control is alone responsible for that treatment. . In the troopship on which I voyaged to the Old Country, no complaint could be urged against the treatment of the men on board.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– No. Upon the vessel by which I travelled, when men came to me with their grievances I went to the captain and secured the redress of those grievances: But when ships are under military control, all complaints in regard to the treatment of the men are obliged “to filter through a great many channels before they reach the supreme authority.

Senator Millen:

– Were any soldiers on ‘board the particular vessel of which the honorable senator has spoken?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I do not know.

Senator Millen:

– Then the honorable senator’s argument does not apply.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I am not arguing that point at all.

If the statements I have read be true, the conditions of which complaint is made are a disgrace to the Commonwealth Government, and, if they be not true, they should not be permitted to be spread broadcast throughout Australia. These vessels should be under civil control. It is, of course, quite possible that they are. It may be that they are under the control of Mr. Fisher or of some of his officers. But my own opinion is that they are under naval control. Something should certainly be done to prevent a repetition of the occurrences to which I have referred. No honorable senator can have the slightest sympathy with the treatment which was meted out to these unfortunate girls. I have been asked by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) whether there were any military on board this vessel. My reply is that there were Army doctors and nurses there, and that the man who voices some of the complaints which I have read is a military sergeant.

I waited the whole of last week for an opportunity to bring this matter before the Senate, but I was denied that opportunity. I do not think that the consideration of the Electoral Bill is of more importance than is the bringing back to Australia, under fair conditions, of the men who have fought for us. What is the Electoral Bill ? Nothing at all.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– In discussing this motion, the honorable senator is not entitled to refer to the Electoral Bill.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I was merely making an . incidental reference to it, showing that my action in submitting this motion is not prompted by any desire to delay the passing of that measure.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How does the honorable senator connect the Commonwealth Government with the incidents which he has related?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I do not connect the Government with them .at all; but they, and they alone, are responsible to our Australian soldiers.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator said that the conditions were a disgrace to the Commonwealth Government and to Australia.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

.- If Senator McDougall had set out to justify the very opposite course to that which he. has recommended, he could not have done better than quote the case that he has quoted. He started off by expressing the hope that, in the demobilization of our troops, and their return to Australia, they would be under civilian control - not under military control. He then proceeded to quote this particular case with a view to justifying his contention. He could not -have -quoted a more unfortunate case because the ship in question

Was under civilian control.

Senator Maughan:

– What was the dame of the vessel ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The City of Kur,rachee. We have experienced some difficulty in ascertaining the facts of the case, simply because the ship was not under the control of the Government. We have, however, learned from Admiral Clarkson, who is in charge of shipping matters generally, that -

Neither the Navy nor the Defence Department are in any way responsible for this ship. The immigration authorities in London, in eonjunction with the States Agents-General, made ail the arrangements, although it is probable that they may have conferred with the High Commissioner. *

Nobody can utter a word in justification of the condition of affairs set out in the newspaper report quoted by Senator McDougall, assuming, of course, that that report be true. As soon as those statements came under the notice of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen), who has to make arrangements from time to time for the return to Australia of the female relatives of soldiers who are to be discharged here, he at once cabled to England to insure that there should be no repetition of the conditions narrated upon any ship on which the people with whom he is concerned will come to this country. We “ agree with Senator McDougall that if such conditions do exist they should not be tolerated for a single moment. The Government would not shelter anybody who was responsible for permitting such conditions to obtain on any vessel. The Minister for Repatriation, 1 repeat, has already cabled on this matter, and he will follow .up that cable with action which will insure that the people with whom his Department is concerned, shall be brought to Australia under proper conditions. We have on many occasions, as I have told the Senate before, firmly objected to. certain ships being used for this service. Certain ships that are suitable for short voyages are absolutely unsuitable for the .long voyage to Australia. The Navy Department is to-day keeping a strict eye on ships, used for this service, to see that they are such as can be properly fitted up. and particularly that they have sufficient refrigerating apparatus and space. That is the secret of the whole food problem on these vessels. In nine cases. out of. ten the reason for the complaints about the food can be traced to the lack of proper refrigerating apparatus and space. The Government are taking steps to see that the vessels used in bringing o.ur soldiers to Australia shall be properly fitted in this respect.

I do not know that I can add any more. I repeat that the Government do not in any way excuse the kind of thing which has been complained of, and do not tolerate it. I say that in this particular case we disclaim all responsibility. The responsibility is not ours. We shall endeavour to see that, so far as the ships for which we are responsible, and the immigrants . coming out to Australia for whom we are responsible, .are concerned, the condition of affairs referred to, if correct, shall not be tolerated in respect to them.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– So far as the Minister’s reply went, it was all very well, but to my mind he missed the real point. He will accept- no responsibility in connexion with this matter. I do not wish to hold him responsible. But I do say that this is a matter in connexion with which the Government should make some provision, even if it be necessary to hastily pass a law by the suspension even of the Standing Orders to secure that if the owners of vessels bring people to this country under the conditions which have been referred to, their action will not be ignored because the Federal Government disclaim responsibility for it. I take it that outrages of this kind should be resented and punished. Are we to be told that the Commonwealth Government under the law are powerless in the matter ? If they are, the sooner we take to ourselves the power to punish such outrages, and the sooner the Government realize that we must have this power, and that the owners or officers of any ship bringing into our ports passengers who have been so illtreated must be punished, the better. We should take the power to ourselves to deal with such people, even though it should bring about international complications.

Senator de Largie:

– Under what law could we take proceedings?

Senator GARDINER:

– If we have not the power now, we should assume it. We have in this Parliament power over navigation, and we should take to ourselves power to deal with such people.

I was very pleased to hear Senator Pearce express his disapproval of the conditions under which these unfortunate people were brought to this country. But I was not pleased to hear that the Commonwealth Government would not shoulder any of the responsibility. I am very glad that this has not occurred under the military authorities. I have never made complaints about those authorities. I have defended the military authorities from complaints made in this Chamber that they tried to ride roughshod over the civil authorities. I have gone out of my way to defend them against such complaints. But Senator Pearce does not meet the case by saying that this was a private vessel, that the Government are Sorry for what occurred, and disapprove of it, but do not takeany responsibiity for it. I say that we should punish the ship-owners or the officers of that ship if the statements which have been published are true. If there isno law under which we can punish them, the sooner the law is amended to enable us to deal with such brutality, cruelty, and infamy as was committed on board this vessel, the better.. These outrages were committed on board a British ship, and the sooner people realize that we will not permit any ships to trade with Australia in which passengers are carried in that manner, the better. I am not satisfied with the statement of the Minister for Defence. I am sure that no supporter of the Government will say that the Minister has gone far enough when he says that this was a private vessel, and the Government were not responsible for it.

Senator McDougall did not submit his motion, nor do I support if, with a view to put the blame for what occurred in connexion with this vessel upon the Government, but every member of the Senate will agree that when our own press is permitted to publish statements of this kind, it is the duty of every representative man in Australia to raise his voice and see that’ statements of that kind shall be investigated to the’ utmost. If cruelty unheard of and unthinkable has been inflicted upon women coming from Great Britain to Australia, and the Government, are powerless to interfere, it is about time that we assumed the necessary power.

Senator Lynch:

– Did the man who wrote the statement sign his name to it?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know whether he did or not. Senator McDougall showed the statement to me as published in a reputable journal of the State from which I come, and the proprietors of that journal have accepted the responsibility of printing it. I do not say that we should accept the responsibility of newspapers as. proof of such occurrences. I have too much contempt for them.

Senator Lynch:

– The open berths referred to have been on this coast for years.

Senator GARDINER:

– If newspapers spread broadcast slanders against shipping authorities trading with Australia, the duty of the Government is not to say, “This was not our vessel ; it was not under military control; it was controlled by a private company.” My contention is that the Government should realize that enormous crimes have been committed. These are crimes that are described.

It fills us with horror to learn that women should for nine weeks have been on board a vessel coming to Australia under the awful conditions depicted in this press report.

Senator Barnes:

– Is it not a fact that the Government have assumed the duty of transporting the wives of Anzacs to Australia ?

Senator GARDINER:

– It will be a very poor return to the Anzacs - and I should rather say to the Australians, because I prefer the word “ Australian “ to the word “Anzac” - if before they return to Australia they receive a copy of the journal which has. been quoted, and learn that their wives on their way from Great Britain to Australia were treated in this most inhuman fashion; and, further, that when the matter was brought up in the Federal Parliament, the Commonwealth Government said that it was a private vessel, was not under military control, and that inquiries had been made. No doubt the Leader of the Senate will speak on this motion, and I should like him to say what inquiries have been made.

Senator Millen:

– More than inquiries; definite instructions have been given to see that this kind of thing will be rendered impossible in future so far as those in respect of whom the Government are responsible are concerned.

Senator GARDINER:

– I think that Senator Pearce said something of that kind, and I am very glad to hear it. Not only ‘ must inquiries be made, but this kind of thing must be prevented from occurring in the future. Does ‘ Senator Millen not realize that a crime has been committed sufficiently serious to warrant the Government in taking up the matter and bringing the perpetrators of that crime to justice? That is the point I wish to make. Here are statements made with regard to the carrying of passengers from Great

Britain to Australia, . and among them the wives of our Australian soldiers abroad. A condition of things is depicted at which the reader shudders. No man can defend it, because it is not defensible. Inquiries have been made, and the Government say that steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such a condition of things. So far so good, and I am in hearty agreement with that. But if the inquiries have convinced the Government that the statements which have been published are so well founded that it is necessary to take steps to prevent their recurrence, it would appear that the statements made are correct.

Senator Millen:

– I do not know. I am taking the statements as made from the other side.

Senator GARDINER:

– But the Government have made inquiries, and are taking steps to prevent .the recurrence of this kind of thing- If that be so, I take it that the Government have been satisfied as to the truth of the statements made.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator should not take it in that way at all. I do not know any more of the matter than is contained in the newspaper extract quoted, but on that alone I wa8 bound to take action.

Senator GARDINER:

-Hear. hear ! I do not want to get the habit of quibbling.

I have already said that we should not he moved by sensational reports in newspapers, but I took it from the statement that inquiries have been made, and steps taken to prevent the recurrence of the condition of things described, that the Government were satisfied from the inquiries made that those steps were necessary. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the Government.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is misrepresenting the Government if he means that the statement made is an admission by the Government that all that is said in the newspaper extract is correct. I do not know whether it is or not.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not wish to say that all that appears in the news- paper is correct. If the inquiries made by the Government have shown that a condition of things obtained on the voyage of this vessel which must not be allowed to occur on any ship for which they take responsibility, and that they have taken steps to see that no other ship shall bring passengers to Australia under similar conditions-

Senator Millen:

– They have taken steps to see that no ships shall leave England under departmental .control under such conditions as are described in that newspaper.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad that the Government have gone that far. In view of this blood-curdling report, which describes the most wicked condition of things about which I have yet read, though I am not a bloodthirsty . man, and we have had a period of four years of bloodshed, I do think .that I could stand by aud watch the most drastic punishment of the people responsible for the treatment of these women in the way described without shuddering, and would say that it served them right. I repeat that if our laws do not give us the power to deal with ships coming to this country on which passengers are treated in the way described, the sooner we take to ourselves that power, and announce to the world that those responsible for any ship coming into our harbor under similar conditions will be liable to the most drastic and severe penalties, the better. I should like the Government to realize the true position.

I think that the motion is wide enough to enable me to refer to the fact that our Australian soldiers will be returning from the Front, and I should like to impress upon the Minister for Defence the importance of not permitting the overcrowding of the vessels by which they will be returned. I have received a state- ment from one wounded man who has returned that on the vessel by which he returned there were twice the number of men for which the carrying capacity of the ship provided. I have had no means of checking that statement, but I want to suggest to the Government that in bringing the men back, if they are to be catered for by contract at 2s.- Id., 2s. 3d., 2s. 6d. or whatever the amount may be, it would be well to contract for an additional meal for each man. They should take into consideration the fact that strong, lusty men may not be satisfied with the food supplied by a caterer under’ contract. I know that it has, on occasions, been punishment to me to have to travel as a saloon passenger on board a ship.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– The men will get plenty of food if they, get the ordinary rations.

Senator GARDINER:

– There will bc hundreds of thousands of our men coming back, and their trip home should bc one of pleasure and enjoyment. They should not be herded’ together as third class passengers usually are, but should be treated as they deserve to be. If their comfort and convenience is studied as it ought to be they will land in this country in a better frame of mind than they. -will, if it is not, and it is important to the Government and the people of the Commonwealth that they should land in Australia again in a good frame of mind.

Senator Pearce:

– Those points have all been taken into consideration. It is not the quantity of food that is the difficulty, but the necessary provision for refrigeration.

Senator GARDINER:

– I impress on the Minister that the money will be well spent if the Government go out of their way to see that an additional quantity of food is supplied for the returning soldiers.

Senator Pearce:

– That would not cure the matter. The trouble is not as to the quantity, but the quality of the food at the latter part of the voyage owing to defective refrigeration.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no wish to waste time on small points, but I impress on the Minister that it is better that the ships should carry less than their complement of returned soldiers than that they should be overcrowded. The Government should go out of their way to see that they are supplied with increased comforts.

Senator Pearce:

– That has been done.

Senator GARDINER:

– I now come to another suggestion, which, sp far, has not been followed. In the trenches-

Senator Lynch:

– The war is over. That has been done, too.

Senator GARDINER:

– The war is over, but I wish to say that in the trenches our officers- and privates wallowed together in the same mud, and I hope that on their return the same baths will be made available for them on the vessels by which they return. I hope that we shall not have the best part of the ship set apart for bathing accommodation for a few officers and the worst part left for the accommodation of the soldiers generally. Now that the men are returning to become citizensagain, I hold that, from the day on which they embarked until they have reached the shores of Australia, their trip should be made so pleasant that not one disagreeable thought could enter their minds. To pack a thousand men on board one ship would be, I think, under the best of conditions, intolerable. I know that even a saloon passage is intolerable to me.

Senator Foll:

– Has the honorable senator ever been on board a troopship?

Senator GARDINER:

– No.

Senator Foll:

– I had fifteen weeks on board.

Senator GARDINER:

– Well, I hope the honorable senator will give the Senate the benefit of his experiences. I know, however, that he will have his leader objecting to that course; and, since the honorable senator is still a good soldier, he will obey orders.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator had better keep going as his time is nearly up.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

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

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I am glad to know that the Government are investigating the subject. There have been some charges made which certainly should be investigated, and the parties responsible prosecuted. One of the most serious of those is with respect to the stealing of the men’s food, and selling it back to them on board. Iknow that that has occurred. On the vessel on which I returned from England, the men had to pay 3d. each for a cup of tea and a scone in the morning. Complaints were lodged, and the captain ordered all concerned to appear before him, when the charge was repeated in front of three members of the crew, whereupon he told them that if it happened again, they would be prosecuted upon their arrival in Australia. After that, the men got their cup of tea and scone for nothing. I could make public one or two other very discreditable and disgraceful occurrences. At Harefield Park Hospital, I was present at the bedside of Corporal Hitchen, who was prominent in the inauguration of the recruiting march of the Gilgandra “ Cooees.” I saw him on his death bed in that hospital. Shortly before his death, I took down, at his request, the most harrowing statement of cruelty thatcould have been perpetrated upon a man. He was not able to sign it. He was too far gone. Upon my return, I saw his brother and sister, and told them that the deceased soldier wanted the facts made public, and I asked whether I should take steps in that direction. The brother and sister preferred to leave it to me. I thought better of it, after consideration. It seemed to me that I should not make such information public during the war. But now is the time when one may speak; and, if one knows of anything in the nature of cruelties and injustices having been perpetrated, it is right and proper that he should speak. For myself, I shall do so upon every occasion. Recently, in the Senate, I heard Senator Needham asking for information with respect to the transport of a prize bull on board a ship which was bringing some of our soldiers back to Australia, and which animal was occupying room that should have been devoted to the recreation of the invalided men. The Minister repliedto the effect that such a thing would not occur again, but I am given to understand that it - was done again.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Where the mistake was made was in trying to blame the Military authorities for what happened on the ship.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– That does not matter. It is a mere quibble. It is a question of militarism, and, in future, I shall be up against that all the time.

I heard of the case of a man who fell overboard while journeying on one of the transports, and he was left miles behind before the vessel was stopped to return to him through the military officers having to report to the officer commanding before taking any action to stop the ship. That is militarism. Now that the war is over, I shall say everything I can against military rule everywhere.

With respect to the matter which I have brought up, I desire to add that I saw the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) last week, and gave him a copy of the statement. I told him that I contemplated mentioning it upon the adjournment, hut that if he did not want the information made public, I would not do so. The Minister raised no objection; and, so, having been “cut out” by sessional orders on the adjournment last Friday, I have taken the present opportunity. I desire to make nothing out of this matter, but will endeavour to see justice done. There is no justification for women and children having to wait for nine days about the streets of Sydney for their luggage. I am not complaining of the Commonwealth Government at all, but I desire that they should take action to see that there is no repetition of it.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– All honorable senators will agree to that.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Yes, and would support the punishment of the perpetrators.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I would not care if they were shot.

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No ; if it is true, the perpetrators should be punished. It was lack of proper attendance that caused the deaths of some of those children. Is not that a charge that should be sheeted home? Does it not indicate incompetency on the part of officials responsible for sending the vessel on its, voyage without the proper authorities to look after those unfortunate people in their trouble? I do not care who was responsible in the Old Country. He, or they, should be punished, and should stand a trialjust the same as if it had been in respect to a breach of civil law.

I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, byleave, withdrawn.

page 7965

QUESTION

BLYTHE RIVER IRON DEPOSITS

Offer to Government

Senator DE LARGIE:
for Senator Thomas

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Are the BlytheRiver iron deposits in Tasmania under offer to the Commonwealth Government?
  2. If so, what are the terms of such offer?
  3. Has any money been paid; if so, what is the amount?
  4. Has any technical report been made and published on the deposit; if so, by whom,and what?
  5. Is the Government obtaining the services of any expert from abroad in connexion with an examinationof the value of the property?
  6. What is the capital of the Blythe River Company in shares, andwhat amount has been paid in actual cash?
  7. From whom did the company obtain its title to the property, and what is the nature of such title?
  8. What price was paid by the company for the property, and what has been the total capital expenditure to date?
  9. What improvements have ‘been made?
  10. What are the names of the present directors of the company?
  11. What previous offers, if any, of the company’s property have been made, and to whom, and on what terms?

SenatorMILLEN. - The information desired will be obtained and furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 7965

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF MOLASSES

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is ita fact that the Government has purchased molasses from North Queensland Sugar. Mills for use in the manufacture of acetate of lime?
  2. If so, what quantity was purchased, and at what price?
Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are-

  1. Yes.
  2. Up to the end of June, 1918, 968 tons 5 cwt. have been received and paid for at the. rate of 2s. 6d. per ton net.

page 7966

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Abolition of - Prohibition of Books and Periodicals : “ War of Steel and Gold

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

In view of a recently cabled statement made in London by Mr. Hughes, at the Dominions press gathering, viz.: - “ He had never been able to understand the working of the press censor’s mind. (Cheers.) Perhaps when posterity came impartially to recall the history of these days, it would furnish reasons why the censor of the press had acted as he had done. For his (Mr. Hughes’) part; he would welcome the day when need for a censor no longer existed “ - will the Minister inform the Senate whether, in view of the cessation of hostilities, the Government contemplate the immediate abolition of censorship throughout Australia?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The whole question of the continuation of censorship is now under consideration, and. decisions on each phase of this subject are being, and will be, arrived at as the war situation develops. It should be noted that the time fixed for the carrying out of armistice conditions has not yet expired.

Senator BARNES:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will the Government lift the prohibition now in force against certain books, periodicals, &c., entering Australia?

Senator PEARCE:

-The whole question of continuance of censorship and the prohibitions referred to is now under consideration, and decisions on each phase of these subjects are being, and will be, arrived at as the war situation develops. It should be noted that the time fixed for the carrying out of armistice conditions has not yet expired.

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the sale of a book written by Henry Noel Brailsford, entitled the War of Steel and Gold, has been prohibited in Australia?
  2. Is it a fact that this book is sold in England without let or hindrance?
  3. If so, who is responsible for its prohibition in Australia, and why?
Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are-

  1. Yes.
  2. The censors’ office has., no information as to whether the book is sold in England without let or hindrance.
  3. The book was recommended for prohibition by this office because it contained matter which was most prejudicial to recruiting, and persons engaged in pacifist propaganda were continually using portions of the publication as a basis for their literature in a way which was most prejudicial to recruiting. The only method of checking such use was to prohibit the book itself, as the prohibition would then extend, under regulation 28ab, War Precautions Regulations, to the publication of extracts from it. The recommendation was approved by the authorities on the 10th October, 1918.

page 7966

QUESTION

RELEASE OF INTERNEE

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware whether, in July, 1918, a man named Jenssen, or Jensson, falsely reported to the police that he had been tied up and badly beaten by two men?
  2. Is he aware whether, in connexion with this case, a man named Gwynne was charged and tried for murder?
  3. Is he aware whether when Jenssen, or Jensson, was questioned by a detective, he admitted his story was false, and that he was a German, “ unnaturalized “ ?
  4. Is he aware whether Jenssen, or Jensson, was taken to Perth and handed over to the military authorities on 1st August, and interned ?
  5. Is he aware whether, on Saturday, 26th October, 1918, he returned to Baker’s Hill, and is now in the employ of his old employer?
  6. If so, what is the reason forhis release from internment?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Each district commandant has power to intern or release unnaturalized enemy subjects. Inquiry will be made from the commandant, Perth; with a view of obtaining the information desired.

page 7966

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD

Detention of F. Bilboa and j.burtovitch.

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware whether John Burtovitch and Frank Bilboa, of Western Australia, who were originally charged with being members of an unlawful association (viz., the Industrial Workers of the World), and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, are still detained in prison, although their original sentence expired seven months ago?
  2. Will the Minister make inquiries with a view to these men being released?
Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

  1. The persons in question are detained as aliens, pending deportation.
  2. Full inquiries were made before deportation was decided upon, and it is not considered that any good purpose will be served by making further inquiries.

page 7967

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Enlistments

Senator NEEDHAM:
for Senator O’Keefe

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. The total number of men who have offered themselves in Australia for enlistment during the war?
  2. The total number who have been accepted?
  3. The total number who left Australia for active service abroad?
  4. The total number of deaths?
  5. The total number of other casualties?
  6. The total number who havereturned to Australia?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

  1. Information not available. . The only records kept were of those actually accepted for enlistment.
  2. Enlistments to 31st October, 1918, 415,685.
  3. Embarkations to 31st October, 1918, 328.612.

The following figures represent casualtiesreported by cable up to and including casualty list No. 442:-

  1. Deaths’, 55,554.
  2. Other casualties, 256,576.
  3. Returned to Australia, 3,746 officers, 76.238 other ranks; total, 79,984.

I may add that that is gross casualties.

page 7967

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minis ter representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of an early settlement of war conditions, will the Government give prompt consideration to the two proclamations necessary to give effect to the Navigation Act, No. 4 of 1913, passed by Parliament, and assented to by His Majesty, 24th October, 1913?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– Early consideration will be given to- the matter; but, as the honorable senator is aware, there is much to be done before the Act can be brought into operation. The Government is fully seized of the necessity for bringing the Act into force, and there will be no avoidable delay in dealing with the matter.

page 7967

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAM-SHIPS

Use of Collie Coal

Senator LYNCH:

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

  1. Whether the Government has given an extended trial to Collie coal on the Commonwealth steamers ?
  2. If so, what quantity has been issued, and with what results?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

  1. The manager for Australia of the Commonwealth Government line of steamers informs me that he has been advised that three of the vessels of that line bunkered with Collie coal, and that, in each instance, the coal fired in the bunkers. Further, that one steamer, after replenishing bunkers at Durban, again fired, as the result of combustion in the Collie coal.
  2. Instructions have been issued for two steamers under the control of the Commonwealth Government line, if they call at Fremantle, as anticipated, to take supplies of Collie coal, for the purpose of making a further test.

page 7967

QUESTION

REGULATED. IMPORTS

Senator GRANT:

asked the Minister representing the. Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What are the classes of goods the importation of which have been regulated?
  2. What quantity of such goods is at the present time in Australia?

  3. What was the average cost of such goods

    1. prior to August, 1914, (b) at November, 1918?
  4. Will the regulating of the importation of such goods have the effect of increasing prices?
  5. What are names of the firms or persons trading in these goods?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The information requested has reference to so great a variety of goods, and covers so wide a field of investigation, that it would require a great deal of time and work to prepare, involving considerable expenditure. I would therefore suggest to the honorable member that he move for the preparation of a return giving the desired information.

page 7968

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Contracts with Woollen Manufacturers.

Senator BARNES:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - 1.Is the Defence Department proceeding with the contracts entered into with the woollen manufacturers?

  1. Has the Business Board for Defence granted increases to the woollen manufacturers in order that increases in wages could be paid to certain workers?
  2. If so, will the Minister see that the increases in wages granted by the Board are paid, and are made retrospective to commencement of contracts?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are-

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. In determining the prices to be paid under the contracts referred to, an anticipated increase in wages was, amongst other things, taken into consideration. If the increases in wages are not paid, the price to manufacturers willbe reduced accordingly.

page 7968

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Government Scheme

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the present war position, and the likelihood of more shipping being released, does the Government intend to revise in - any way their shipbuilding scheme?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The matter will receive the fullest consideration.

page 7968

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 15th November, vide page 7919) :

Clause 2-

The several parts and sections of this Act shall ‘commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation.

Senator GARDINER:
NewSouth Wales

– I understood that when the Committee came to the actual consideration of this measure, the Minister in charge (Senator Russell) would furnish some idea of how far the Government intended to go, so that the debate might advance on smooth working lines. It was considered that, upon clauses of small importance, little or no delay need be caused, whereas upon the more important clauses there should be granted as full a debate as the Committee might think fit. If, however, the idea is that the Bill shall simply go through, with its almost innumerable clauses, merely because the Government desire it, then the proceedings cannot be expected to advance with smoothness. I remind honorable senators on the other side that the Opposition has its rights. Senator Millen himself stood on this side of the Senate at one time, when an Electoral Bill was under discussion. Upon the 19th October, 1911, according to Hansard (page 1587), the honorable senator said -

Whilst the Government may be satisfied that they have explained the matter elsewhere, and have received approval for what they propose, even an Opposition in Parliament are entitled to ask what is intended under the. Bill. Further than that, the country has a right to know what is intended; though apparently the present Government are forming the habit of ignoring the great body of electors outside.

I bring that matter up on this clause because I regard this Bill as the most important piece of legislation, so far as Parliament is concerned, that we have ever had to deal with. It is the foundation of the election of members to this Parliament, and the people’s liberties depend upon whether the foundations are well and truly laid.

Senator Millen:

– That is hardly a matter for a Committee discussion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I recognise that, and, to put myself in order, move -

That the clause be postponed for five years.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I doubt if I can accept the amendment in that form. The honorable senator may move simply that the clause be postponed.

Senator GARDINER:

– A little while ago, when another Bill was in Committee, Senator Bakhap moved that the operation of a certain clause be postponed for five years.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That was moved as an amendment to the clause. The honorable senator will be in order in moving a similar amendment on this clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– I took exception to Senator Bakhap’ s amendment at, the time, but both you and Mr. President ruled that it was in order. I trust I shall not be ruled out of order for doing the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may move to amend the clause in that way.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I move -

That the following words be added : - “ but this section shall not come into operation until -the first day of January, 1919.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

– The honorable senator previously put a question that was quite proper for him to submit to the Government - whether it was possible for the Government to indicate some stages of progress that they thought should be made with the measure. Without referring to the remaining stages through which we have to carry the Bill, seeing that it is a consolidating measure, and with the exception of two portions constitutes a mere repetition of what is already operative law, under which elections have been held, the Government think it is not unreasonable to invite the Senate to join in passing it through this week.

Senator Gardiner:

– This week!

Senator MILLEN:

– I hope I make myself clear on that point. The honorable senator quoted me as saying, away in the dim, distant, hoary past, that other people besides theGovernment hadrights, and indorsed the view I expressed then, that the Opposition had its rights. I cordially agree,but so has the majority in this Chamber its rights, and so long as the Opposition is given a reasonable opportunity to exercise its rights, it must not complain if the majority claims similar rights and liberties under the Standing Orders. There being only two matters in the Bill which are at all new, it is not unreasonable or unfair to ask the Chamber to dispose of them during the sittings arranged for this week. That is the intention and desire of the Government.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I indicated on the second reading that I would divide the Committee on this clause. When the Bill was first introduced in another place, the clause read -

This Act shall commence on a day tobe fixed by proclamation.

Afterwards the late honorable member for Corangamite passed away, and the clause was then amended toread-

The several parts and sections of this Act shall commence on such dates as are respec tively fixed by proclamation.

The very fact of the Government altering the clause in that way shows that they were afraid that the Bill would not become law in time for the by-election, and that they wanted to take power to proclaim the particular parts and sections which would affect that election. They even state now that only certain portions of the Act are to be brought into force at Corangamite. Under those conditions I shall feel compelled, after Senator Gardiner’s amendment is disposed of, to move to restore the original wording of the clause.

Amendment (Senator Gardiner’s) temporarily withdrawn.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I move-

That the words “The several parts and sec tions of “ be left out.

If that is carried, I shall move a further amendment to make the clause read as it stood when introduced in another place. By that means the whole Act will come into force at once. I see no reason why it should not apply to the Corangamite election. I am not afraid of anything happening there.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

.- Senator McDougall’s proposal is fair and reasonable,- and the Minister (Senator Millen) shouldnot allow it to go to a vote without the courtesy of a reply. As the clause stands, the Government will be left free at their own sweet will to proclaim any part of it as the law of the land. If one part of it is calculated to injure the Government at Corangamite they can postpone it until after the election. If another part is calculated to benefit them there, they can give effect to it. immediately by proclamation, while holding back all the other provisions. These’ are very wide powers for the Government to ask for, especially a Government in the position of the present ohe, whose Leader in the Senate has announced that they intend to run a Bill of over 2.00 clauses through the Chamber this week. If the Minister desires to do that, I shall not try to stop him. A Government with their majority may run a Bill containing 1,000 clauses, through, for all I care. The Minister knows that I am not particularly interested as to when the Bill gets through, but I am still interested in preserving the right of the Senate to consider measures. Personally, if they put the Bill through this evening it will give me time to get to Monaro. The amendment demands that,- when it is passed by Parliament, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, shall be proclaimed by the Government as the law of the land. Is that unreasonable? Does not that deserve from the Minister the courtesy of a statement as to whether he agrees with it or not? He may agree with the amendment and mean his .silence for consent, but if he does not speak his followers may imagine that he wants them to vote against it. It is usual for Acts of Parliament to come into operation by proclamation as a whole. It is quite unusual for a measure to be treated as so urgent that it must be run through the Senate in a week, and then brought into operation piecemeal by several proclamations. But for the parts of the Bill that I read last week, I venture to say that there is not one senator on the Government side who is acquainted with it.

Senator Millen:

– They have been elected under all of it except” two portions. They know it off in practice.

Senator Senior:

– I have- read it many times.

Senator GARDINER:

– I congratulate the honorable senator on his industry. I am glad to withdraw my statement a.s regards him. He is the exception for honest industry in dealing with legislation that proves the rule in this Senate. Senator Millen puts forward the extraordinary contention that we have, been elected under the Bill, and, therefore,’ know all about it. Does not this create the very condition that we, who are elected under an Act of Parliament, become experts on it? In our peregrinations through our electorates - and I represent a fairly large constituency-

Senator Senior:

– If we become experts on the Electoral Act, why do you doubt that we have read the Bill ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I judge from the. conduct of. honorable senators opposite. If they have read it, they cannot want a measure of its importance to go through in one week. The only excuse I can make for them is that they have not read it.

Senator Reid:

– This is a consolidating measure.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is more than that. It contains new provisions.

Senator Reid:

– - Most of them are at my fingers’ ends from a practical working of the law.

Senator GARDINER:

– Can the honorable senator point to any other Electoral Act which contains this particular clause ?’

Senator Reid:

– There is nothing new in it.

Senator GARDINER:

– The very first clause we are called upon to discuss contains an innovation, and I ask Senator Guthrie if the enormous Navigation Act, which was passed by this Legislature some years ago, will be brought into force in the same way, or whether the whole of the Act will come into force by one proclamation.

Senator Guthrie:

– You heard what the Minister has said to-day.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not remember if I heard it.

Senator Guthrie:

– He said that the Government’ intend to keep their promise.

Senator GARDINER:

– But I was wondering if that huge Act is to come into operation in sections or whether the whole of” it will commence by one proclamation..

Senator Guthrie:

– There will be two proclamations for the Navigation Act, bringing different parts into operation at different times.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thought that possibly the Navigation Act was the one exception that proved the rule, but I required the assurance of an expert like Senator Guthrie concerning our navigation laws.

Senator McDougall, following the excellent example set by Senator Senior, made himself acquainted with the whole of the Bill, and discovered in this clause an innovation which he mentioned to the Committee, and suggested an amendment to bring it into accord with the previous Electoral Acts. The Minister, neither accepting nor disagreeing with the proposal, apparently expects the Committee to act in the same manner as his own followers - to be like dumb, driven cattle.

Senator Bakhap:

– Do not call us cattle.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do, because honorable senators opposite are driven by the lash of the GovernmentWhip. This clause is new to me, and because it is new, and because it applies to this Bill, it is objectionable in view of the fact that a by-election for Corangamite is at hand, and the Government anticipate being defeated, while the Labour party expects to win.

Senator Bakhap:

– Never!

Senator GARDINER:

– If the Government did not expect to be defeated they would not be rushing this Bill through the Senate. We are justified in assuming that they anticipate defeat, and for the same reason we are justified in assuming that the Labour party will win.

Senator Reid:

– Why?

Senator GARDINER:

-For the reason that we are running the same candidate as on the last occasion.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! I ask the honorable senator not to discuss that question too far.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

– I have no intention of discussing.it to the end of the week, Mr. Chairman, but surely you will not rule that I would be our, of order if I endeavoured to show that the new clause has a bearing upon the. divisions in my own State?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have not ruled the honorable senator out of order.

Senator GARDINER:

– I recognise that you have not, and I. can assure the Committee that I am not going to “ stone-wall “ the Bill, though I know the Government and their supporters have had it suggested to them that mem bers of the Opposition in the Senate intend to “ stone-wall “ this measure. I do not want to make use of anything that has been said privately, but I might mention that I told a responsible Minister that if we met on the Wednesday instead of Tuesday, to discuss this Bill, my speeches and the length of time I would occupy would be determined by his own judgment. I do not think that any man could go much further than that in offering a fair deal to the Government. I am not out to “ stone-wall “ the Bill, but I cannot see that thereis a reasonable hope of getting it through by the new year. I speak subject to correction, but I think that when’ the 1911 Act was before Parliament there was then an Opposition of five or seven in the Senate, and still the Bill was nine weeks in Committee, although it contained only forty-eight clauses.

Senator Needham:

– There were thirteen on this side then.

Senator GARDINER:

– Well , there are now twelve. If an Opposition comprising thirteen members took nine weeks to discuss an Electoral Bill of forty-eight clauses, surely an Opposition of twelve should be allowed the same time to discuss a Bill of 220 clauses?

Senator Bakhap:

– Yours is false logic.

Senator Senior:

– There are not 220 new clauses.

Senator GARDINER:

-This is a consolidating measure, and it contains some new provisions. If the Government are in a hurry to have certain of these provisions proclaimed let them say so. Honorable senators will remember what I said last week on this point. If the Government want the principle of the majority vote to operate at the Corangamite election, let them introduce a new Bill, give facilities to the soldiers to vote, and it will go through.

Senator Bakhap:

– Probably that would have been the best course.

Senator GARDINER:

– I think it would have been.

Senator Bakhap:

– Still, we had better get this Bill through.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Government should take the course most suited to the convenience of honorable senators.

Senator Bakhap:

– This Bill was prepared long before the Corangamite seat was vacant.

Senator GARDINER:

-Exactly; but during all those months the Government exhibitedno haste.

Senator Russell:

– As a matter of fact, the honorable senator helped me to prepare nine-tenths of this measure.

Senator GARDINER:

– Here is another conflicting statement! The Minister says that the Bill was partly prepared when I was in the Government.

Senator Russell:

– The bulk of it was.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept the Minister’s statement in good faith for this reason: If the Bill could stand over for two years, why this sudden desire to rush it through now 1 When I was in the Government there was no occasion to hurry measures through. On the contrary, we allowed honorable senators the fullest opportunity to consider and digest them. I cannot agree, however, that this is the identical Bill that was then prepared, and that there have not been some material alterations.

Senator Russell:

– I was referring to nine-tenths of it.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes ; and it is the tenth part that I want honorable senators to understand. So far we have not had an opportunity of considering these new provisions which are most objectionable to me.

The clause provides that the several parts and sections of the Bill shall come into operation on dates to be fixed by proclamation. I think I will be in order in referring to the various parts of the Bill. Part I. is preliminary. I have no objection to that coming into operation by proclamation. The same may be said of Part II. - Administration. Part III., however, deals with electoral divisions. Should I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in discussing how Part III. would affect the people in my State?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– I would like the honorable senator to connect his remarks with the clause under discussion.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is provided that the several parts and sections of the

Act shall commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation, and there is an amendment by Senator McDougall that the whole of the Act shall come into operation at one time. I want to understand clearly, because I am anxious not to come into conflict with the Chair, whether I shall be in order in showing how Part III. will affect the divisions in my State?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order I must ask the honorable senator not to discuss Part III. now. He will have an opportunity when that part is before the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– The opportunity might not then be of any avail because the clause under consideration gives the Government power to declare that certain parts and sections of the Act shall commence on dates to be fixed by proclamation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– My desire is to give the widest scope to the discussion allowed under the Standing Orders..

Senator GARDINER:

– I feel quite sure it is, and I hope it will still be your desire before the. Bill is out of Committee. If I could show what will be the effect of Part III. upon divisions in my State - and the Chairman’s suggestion shows that I cannot - if I could show how harshly it will bear upon my constituents, I could bring unanswerable reasons before the Committee why the clause under discussion should not be passed. The parts of the Bill which may be brought into operation numbernineteen; its sections aggregate about 210; and, in addition, there are seven schedules.

Senator Senior:

– Those schedules are in operation to-day.

Senator GARDINER:

– They are in operation in Acts with which we are all in accord.

Senator Senior:

– I do not like to say what’ I feel of the honorable senator’s conduct.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator is always so charming in his candour that I would like to hear what he thinks.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! These conversations across the chamber are distinctly out of order.

Senator GARDINER:

– While that is so, I would remind you, sir, that interjections are frequently of a very helpful character. An interjection by Senator Senior, for example, may elicit from me a reply which will show him that he can support Senator McDougall’s amendment, or suggest the adoption- of an intermediate course which will meet with the approval of the Minister. The amendment by Senator McDougall follows our regularprocedure, whereas the proposal embodied in the Bill contemplates an unusual procedure, which is designed to meet an exceptional case and to secure a party advantage. Is it worth thewhile of this deliberative Assembly to adopt a practice which is decidedly pernicious - the practice of permitting the Government to proclaim one portion of the Act upon a specified date, and another portion of it upon a different date? In other words, ought we to empower the Government tobring into operation any particular section of this measure just when they may deem it advisable to do so? How will such a practice operate in the case of preferential voting? I take it that eight out of every ten honorable senators are in favour of that principle.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the honorable senator not to discuss that part of the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I merely desire to . show that, although probably thirty out of thirty-six members of this Senate are in favour of preferential voting, under this clause the Government may not make that portion of the Bill operative until after the general elections. I object to placing this power in the hands of Ministers.

Senator Guthrie:

– How much shall we leave in their hands?

Senator GARDINER:

– Shall we be acting wisely by affirming that Ministers may bring into operation any portion of the Act just when they may see fit to do so? This clause creates in my mind a suspicion that Ministers intend to use just so much of the Bill as suits them in the case of the Corangamite election, and to defer bringing into operation so much of it as does not suit them. If they take to themselves this power by reason of their superior numbers, I desire to let the electors know exactly what they are doing. They can pass the measure tonight if they choose, and that’ they will use their power to do so I feel sure. They will “gag” honorable senators by moving, “ That the Senate do now divide.” The electors have a right to know that.

Senator Bakhap:

– They have a right to exercise the system of preferential voting, too.

Senator GARDINER:

– They also have a right to know how that system will operate.

Senator Bakhap:

– They know all right: otherwise they would not be fit to possess votes.

Senator GARDINER:

– When the system of preferential voting obtains, the party system will, to some extent, be more loose in its operation. Consequently, more candidates from the rival political parties’ will go to the poll. For sixteen years past the electors have been required to put crosses in the squares opposite the names of the candidates for whom they desired to vote. But, if this measure be passed to-morrow, not one elector out of ten in Corangamite will know that his vote will be rendered informal if he fails to disclose his preferences in regard to all of the candidates, even though there be fifty of them. It is one of our chief functions to enlighten the people in regard to these matters.

Senator Senior:

– Nonsense!

Senator GARDINER:

– One of the chief functions of Parliament is to fully and fairly discuss the legislative proposals which comebefore it. Many electors read the Hansard report of our debates, and receive enlightenment in that way. The daily newspapers may, perhaps, devote only a very small space to an amendment which is submitted here, but, immediately they see it, 100,000 readers of the Age, possibly 200,000 readers of the Sydney Morning Herald, 300,000 readers of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, and, perhaps, 500,000 readers of The Worker, begin to discuss it. It is our duty, therefore, to enlighten the electors upon all measures which may come before us. I know that some new members of the Senate believe it to be the duty of Parliament to rush a Bill through without consideration, but they will gain wisdom by experience. Senator Millen says that the Bill is to go through this week, and when he says it, we may be sure that that result will be achieved. He gives no reason, but his supporters on the other side accept his word, and will vote accordingly. They have already shown their willingness to do that. This clause, providing for parts or sections of the Act to come into operation by proclamation, is of very great importance. The part providing for postal voting may be proclaimed in operation for the purpose of the Corangamite election. I was driven, much against my will, to vote against postal voting. because I consider the principle reasonably fair.

Senator Reid:

– Hear, hear ! .

Senator GARDINER:

– Senator Reid agrees with that, but he must admit the truth of the statement that the corrupt use made of postal voting compelled Parliament to remove the provision from the statute-book.

Senator Reid:

– Parliament was foolish to do that. It would have been better to have safeguarded the principle.

Senator GARDINER:

– I voted for the principle, but I was compelled reluctantly to vote for its abolition because of the corrupt way in which it was used. The Minister in charge of the Bill recognises that corruption was introduced under the postal voting provisions.

Senator Russell:

– I admit that, but it was because Parliament had not sufficient wisdom to properly safeguard these provisions.I voted against their abolition.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is the difference between the honorable senator and myself. This Bill re-introduces the postal-voting provisions, and, apparently, the present Government have not the wisdom to safeguard them against abuse and corruption.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not dealing with the clause before the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– The effect of this clause is very wide. It might suit the Government to get this through for the purposes of the Corangamite election.

I shall not delay the Committee very long. Some concession might be made to me, as I spoke for less than a quarter of an hour on the second reading of the Bill.

Senator Senior:

– For ten hours.

Senator GARDINER:

– No ; I spoke for ten hours becauseI was not allowed to speak on the principles of the Bill through the attempt to “gag” the Senate by moving the suspension of the Standing Orders. Strange to say, owing to the inhumanity of honorable senators opposite, I had to neglect referring to the very part of the BillI wished to bring under their notice. Will the Minister give honorable senators the assurance that the whole of this Bill or none of it will be brought into operation for the Corangamite election ?

Senator Russell:

– Every part of it that can be proclaimed will be proclaimed; but, for instance, it will not be possible to proclaim the part affecting the soldiers.

Senator GARDINER:

– That could be done by the issue of a regulation under the War Precautions Act if the Government desired to give the soldiers a vote.

Senator Reid:

– The soldiers are all over the place.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course they are, but notices could be inserted in the newspapers of France and Great Britain informing the soldiers that they were entitled to vote at the Corangamite election at any time after the. issue of the writ. They could be treated as absent voters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is wide of the clause before the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– I hope that I shall not be pulled up too frequently. The clause now under consideration affects every clause in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Standing Orders distinctly provide that the honorable member must discuss only the clause before the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– They also provide that references may be made to clauses in the Bill affected by the clause under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I give the honorable senator that latitude, but he. should not exceed it.

Senator GARDINER:

– The latitude that I claim is that given me under the Standing Orders, and not one tittle beyond that. If that is not allowed there must be a friendly conflict between you, sir, and me, which tho President will settle. However, I do not desire that, and I remind you again that this clause affects every clause in the Bill. It reads -

The several parts and sections of this Act shall commence on such d?.tes ‘as are respectively fixed by proclamation.

The section affecting the soldiers who have votes at Corangamite may, under this clause, be set aside by the Government. The Government could make arrangements for polling places for the soldiers as easily as in New ‘South Wales, Queensland, or Port Darwin. They should exercise all the powers necessary to give every elector who went abroad to fight for Australia the right to vote. The Government and party that will not do that should be condemned.

Senator Barker:

– They say that nothing is too good for the soldiers.

Senator GARDINER:

– Those things are easily said. The Government are continually promising to do something good for the soldiers, but when they have an opportunity to do something effective in their interests they excuse themselves by saying that there is not time.

Senator Reid:

– How many soldiers are there having the right to vote for the Corangamite division ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I suppose there. must be 2,000 soldiers aWay who are enrolled for Corangamite. If I had here the parliamentary year book I could give the honorable senator the exact number of men who enlisted from Corangamite. There were about 200,000 soldiers’ votes polled at the Referendum, and as there are seventy-five electoral divisions it is possible that ‘2,000 electors of Corangamite are at the Front, and their voice will not be heard at the coming election.

Senator Lynch:

– It is going to be heard.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should like Senator Lynch to tell me how.

Senator Lynch:

– Let us get on with the Bill, and the honorable senator will soon hear.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not intend to speak at length, but this is a clause which should not be hurriedly passed.

Senator Reid:

– Why not move an amendment to provide that the soldiers should have votes instead of talking about it?

Senator GARDINER:

– I can assure the honorable senator that we will move an amendment to give votes to soldiers, but even though, with the assistance of Senator Reid, it .should be carried, the Government might not under this clause bring it into operation until two years after the next general election’.

Senator Reid:

– The honorable senator is imagining all these things.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not. I participated in the passing of the Navigation Bill. In our innocence we left it to the Government to bring that measure into operation by proclamation. It was passed six or seven years ago, but we are still waiting for the Government to proclaim it.

Senator Lynch:

– If the honorable senator will turn to clause 39 he will find the provision for the soldiers which he is looking for.

Senator GARDINER:

– I find that clause 39 deals with enrolment and not with voting. Senator Lynch knows the difference between enrolment and voting, and he knows that he is misleading himself, the Senate, and the general public, when he suggests that there is provision in this Bill for votes for the soldiers. We intend to try and make that provision, but if this clause is passed the Government may snap their fingers at it. At the last election, in the electorate of Corangamite, the candidates were the late Mr. Manifold and Mr. Bennett. The number who voted included 1,794 oversea voters. There were 31,000 voters altogether. I hope” the Committee will make provision to permit those 1,794 soldiers to vote at the coming by-election. As a matter of fact, my estimate of 2,000 will probably be little short of the mark, seeing that there have been many more enlistments, no doubt, since the last ejections. And it may be, also, that among those Corangamite soldiers entitled to vote at the last elections there were some who could not do so for the reason that they were holding the trenches in the Front’ lines. Possibly, too, it may have been known that some of them intended to vote “ No “ in connexion with the referendum; and, therefore, they may have been defrauded of their votes. Although the electoral authorities have not made it known, I am in a position to state that when. about 180,000 votes had been counted of the actual votes cast by soldiers at the Front, there was, at that stage, a difference between ‘ ‘ Yes ‘ ‘ and “No” of only seventy-one votes. I got that information from a gentleman who was in a position to know the facts.

Senator Reid:

– That was a sad day for the soldiers.

Senator GARDINER:

– It was the most splendid day those men have ever known.

I’ am glad to note that there is at present another Minister in charge of the Bill. I’ ask Senator Pearce if he will give the assurance that if this Bill passes - as it will, no doubt, before the end of the week - the whole of its provisions shall be brought into, operation at the same time, and that the Government will permit the Corangamite soldiers who are away from home to exercise their votes. If he will give that assurance there should be no reason why the measure should not pass before the dinner hour. I am inclined to think that Senator Pearce will, if he can, give those soldiers their votes. I do not think he would wish to disfranchise them merely for the sake of party advantage. The whole trouble is that even if the necessary provision were made in this Bill the Government could still refuse to issue the proclamation to put it into operation. There will be soldier candidates at the by-election. There will be soldier constituents. I am anxious to tell those constituents, and the whole of the electors, all about the actions of the Government in relation to the soldiers’ votes. And I shall be there. There will be some honorable senators there who will tell” the electors of Corangamite just what has become of a Parliament which has reached its present state of deliberative. and legislative perfection after centuries of slow parliamentary development. “We shall tell the Corangamite electors that this Parliament has been smashed and shattered because the Government desired to make it the tool of one political party; and all for the sake of one by-election ! What will be the difference of just one seat to the Government ? We . shall win the seat in any circumstances.

Senator Reid:

– Then why waste time by stopping the passage of the Bill V

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator holds that discussion is a waste of time’,- and that Bills should be merely brought in by the Government and passed1 as a matter of course. If this clause is passed, it will take -the power away from Parliament and place it in the hands of the Government. With great respect I say that this is the worst Government that Australia has ever known. This clause will give to that worst Government the right to override Parliament, to issue a proclamation saying which portions of an Act shall or shall not come into operation. Why should the Government depart from the ordinary procedure? Why should we not wait for the assent of the GovernorGeneral to the whole of the measure ? Why should we give such power to the worst Government Australia has ever known - that is, judged by the undoubted verdict of the Swan electorate? Why should we now give to this condemned Government - condemned already at Swan, and soon to be condemned again at Corangamite - a power which has never been asked for in respect to other Acts? I, for one, am not prepared to grant such power. This Parliament may as well not exist. I hope the Committee will force the Government to see the fairness of the proposition that if the Bill is to come into force at all the whole of it should come into operation at the same moment.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– This is not only an innovation, but a very mischievous one - one which, if given effect to, will place in the hands of the Government a power that they may use to the disadvantage of sections of the electors. Why are not the Government prepared to deal with this measure in the same way as with every other Act of Parliament? There are three portions of the Bill which are set out in bold, black type. I refer to Parts VI., VII., and XII. Apparently, those are the parts concerning which the Government, desire power to bring them into operation by proclamation. At present, the remaining portions of the measure are in operation, and they will remain so until the Bill is passed. Part VI. deals with qualifications and disqualifications for enrolment and for voting. It is instructive to notice that -

Subject to the disqualification set out in this part, an persons not under twenty-one years of age-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing that clause at this stage.

Senator GRANT:

– I wish to indicate the clauses which I think the Government want to bring into operation by proclamation under clause 2, and to show that it is really the new parts of the Bill that they have in their minds. I wish, then, to prove that Senator McDougall’s amendment ought to be agreed to. When the Bill was first introduced in another place,” it was intended to bring it into force as a whole, but that idea was abandoned, arid now we are asked to agree that only certain parts and sections shall be brought into operation. It is evident, and much to be regretted, that the Government have determined to have- certain sections made law mainly in connexion with the Corangamite by-election. It would have been far better if they had decided to conduct that ‘ election under the existing Electoral Act. I do hot know what they are afraid of,- because at the last election they had a majority of about 6,400 in that division. The Government have been guilty of many shortcomings, but I had no idea that their faults were so numerous as to turn 6,000 votes against them in Corangamite. I hope it is so, and that when the election takes place they will find they have not only lost their majority of 6,000-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing the whole question of Corangamite elections on this clause.

Senator McDougall:

– On a point of order, I submit- that your interpretation of the Standing Orders is not correct. I have moved to amend clause 2 in order that the whole Act may be brought into force by proclamation on one day, instead of the “ several parts and sections,” as the Government put it, ,being brought into operation on different days.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The last Corangamite election has nothing to do with the clause.

Senator McDougall:

– I submit that the honorable senator is in order in indicating what sections or parts of the Act are likely to be proclaimed by the Government for a certain purpose.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I called the honorable senator to order, not for indicating certain clauses, but for .discussing the last Corangamite election.

Senator GRANT:

– My purpose was to refer to the by-election now approaching. Surely the Government, with all their shortcomings,- are not so much afraid of defeat that they have to rush a provision of this character through ? I wonder if they propose to bring the postal voting clauses into operation for the by -election. The Minister is silent on that point. But if this clause is* passed, it will be in -the power of the Government to put only certain clauses into force. Are they going to bring the disqualification part or the enrolment part into force ? Is it intended to bring Part V., Part VII., and Part XII. into operation by proclamation ? It is . to be regretted that the Government cannot see their way to accept Senator McDougall’s amendment. I am against the clause, and will assist to divide the Committee on it.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I take it that I shall be in order in referring to later clauses which I fear may be put into operation if this clause is passed. Have the Government de’cided to proclaim immediately that part of the Bill which refers to postal voting, and particularly clause 87? If so, I would point out to the Minister the grave danger to the purity of elections involved in that clause. Clause 86 gives the list of persons who may be authorized witnesses to an application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.

Senator Guthrie:

– You do not want to reduce the number ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It may be advisable to add others to that list. Clause 87 provides -

An authorized witness shall not witness the signature of any elector to an application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper, unless -

He knows that the statements contained in the application are true -

It would be all right if it stopped there, but then follows this further provision - or has satisfied himself by inquiry from the applicant or otherwise that the statements contained in the application are true.

If the part containing that clause is brought into operation by proclamation separately, it will involve a very great danger to the purity of elections. If a person has made up his mind to apply for a postal vote certificate for improper use, knowing that he is not entitled to it, it is a farce to empower the authorized witness to accept the applicant’s own word that everything in the application is correct.

The CHAIRMAN; (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order ! The honorable senator must not discuss a subsequent clause. A passing reference to other clauses is permitted, but nothing more.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Under clause 2, the Government have power to bring into force the particular provision to which I am objecting. I suggest to the Minister that that would be a dangerous course to adopt. But we shall have further opportunities of discussing this clause at considerable length. I have no desireto unduly delay the passage of the clause, or of the Bill itself ; but I must add my protest to that already made bySenator Gardiner that it is a political offence of a serious nature for any Government to come down with a measure like this, and ask for power to proclaim any portion of it at any time. There is absolutely no necessity for this course, unless it arises from the fact that a by-election is at hand. Unless the Government have this in mind, they can advance no reason for the proposal now before the Committee.

Senator Guthrie:

– We agreed to two proclamations under the Navigation Act.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That was absolutely different.

Senator Guthrie:

– Not a bit.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The cases are not on all fours. I admit there were two proclamationsunder the Navigation Act; but there were excellent reasons for the adoption of that course. Senator Guthrie knows the Navigation Act had not been proclaimed when war broke out. And Senator Guthrie, probably more than any other honorable senator, knows the reason for that departure from our usual procedure. ‘ There was then a belief that Australian interests might conflict with Imperial interests, and grave reasons were placed before the Government then in power, concerning the wisdom of withholding the proclamations affecting the Navigation Act. But I want to get back to the clause. I was led off the track by Senator Guthrie’s interjection.

Senator Senior:

– You have never been on the track yet.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am satisfied that if I had not been on the track, you, Mr. Chairman, would quickly have asked me to get back to it or resume my seat.

I challenge , the Minister in charge of the Bill to advance one reason which will bear the light of criticism, both here and in the country, as towhy the Government should have power to proclaim any portion of the Act without proclaiming the Act asa whole. It is true that one Minister, by way of interjection, said that certain powers were asked for, in view of an impending by-election. I invite the Minister to say ifthey want this Bill through before a certain time, and to be able to proclaim the Act before a certain date, so that its provisions may be applied* to the Corangamite by-election.

Senator Guthrie:

– So that the majority shall rule.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have said, and I repeat, that I am not against majority rule. I am in favour of it.

Senator Guthrie:

-But you are “stonewalling” the proposal.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It is not worthy of big statesmen in times like the present that this subject should be handled in a way that will not bear criticism from unbiased people outside.

Senator Senior:

– I wish the people outside could see clearly what is taking place here to-day.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator need not’ worry about the people outside; they are watching, and every member on the Ministerial side must shoulder his share of the responsibility for what is taking place. I hope they will have as little misgiving as members on this side of the Senate. The Minister should endeavour to give the reasons actuating the Government in asking for this power to proclaim portions’ of the Act. If they want it because of the approaching by-election, let them be candid.

The Minister would give satisfaction to the country, and do credit to the Government, if he accepted the straightforward proposition made by Senator Gardiner. If they want to insure majority rule at the forthcoming by-election, and will give the opportunity for every soldier and sailor outside of Australia who happens to be on the Corangamite roll to vote, they can have their proposal.

Senator Senior:

– It is already there. Read the Bill.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have readthe Bill, and I cannot find this provision. Senator Russell, in an interjection at an earlier stage in the debate, said it was not usual, at a by-election, to arrange for the votes of soldiers and sailors overseas.

Senator Senior:

– Look on the first page.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I would cheerfully stand corrected, if Senator Senior would point out under what part of the Bill this privilege is secured for soldiers and sailors.

Senator Guthrie:

– Dead or alive.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That interjection is unworthy of the honorable senator.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is what you wanted, and what you are asking for.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am referring to those soldiers and sailors who, fortunately for themselves, have come through the war; not those who have made the supreme sacrifice. And I think no man will be more emphatic than Senator Guthrie in saying that, if any persons in the division of Corangamite deserve the vote; it is those who went overseas to fight for what they believed to be, and what we all agree was, a splendid cause.

Senator Guthrie:

– How do you propose to give the vote to prisoners of war?

Senator O’KEEFE:

- Senator Guthrie must know that regulations are made in general terms, and that it would be impracticable to provide for prisoners of war. But there would only be a small percentage of such cases. Senator Senior is, perhaps, in the confidence of the Government when he states that the soldiers and sailors are already provided for; but I point out that Senator Russell said, most emphatically, that it was not customary at by-elections to providefor voting by soldiers and sailors overseas.

I shall now resume my seat. I have not the slightest desire to delay the passage of the measure by one moment’s unnecessary criticism, but I think such a clause as this should be criticised. I admit that the measure is a consolidating one. But while there are few new features in . it, every honorable senator should be permitted to discuss to the fullest extent proposals which are designed to radically alter our electoral system. I should like the Minister to make a statement on the matter.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– In ordinary circumstances I would not support the amendment proposed by Senator McDougall. But because we are now considering this Bill under extraordinary circumstances I am obliged to choose the lesser of two evils. Senator McDougall’s amendment, if carried, would necessitate the simultaneous proclamation of the whole. Bill. I do not like the measure, because it seeks to introduce into our electoral system an innovation which is not a wise one. It has been argued that because in the past legislation has become operative by proclamation, we are quite justified in following that procedure in connexion with our electoral law. But I submit that the electoral law of a country is really its basic law, and that we ought to proceed very warily before we alter a long-established precedent in regard to it. I do not believe in Parliament slavishly following precedent, but I am very jealous of the law which governs the right of every citizen in Australia to record a vote for the election of representatives of this Parliament. It is because of that jealousy that I shall support the amendment.

Senator McDougall pointed out, when this Bill was introduced into another place, that it did not contain the provision to which I am now- objecting.

Senator Guthrie:

– What has that to _ do with us ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Senate is part and parcel of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator Guthrie:

– It is an independent Chamber.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No. The Commonwealth Parliament consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Senator Long:

– Of the King, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– When the Bill was introduced into another place this clause read -

This Act shall commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

But later on the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) secured its amendment to read -

The several parts and - sections of this Act shall commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation.

Now, if the Bill be a good one, why should it be proclaimed in parts? We cannot get too much of a good thing, nor can we get it too soon. If the measure be a good one, why should not our electoral law be amended by proclaiming the entire Act immediately it has received the assent of the1 King’s representative ? ‘ It has been pointed out that various parts of . the Navigation Act were proclaimed at different times. But there is surely no analogy between that measure and this Bill. There was a necessity for proclaiming different portions of the Navigation Act upon different dates by reason of the complicated nature of international interests. But the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) cannot submit a valid reason why the Bill should be proclaimed in sections. If he were able to do so my hostility to it might possibly be weakened.

I object to - this clause for another reason. The writ in connexion with the by-election which will be determined on the 14th December, and the nominationsfor which have not yet been lodged, was issued last Tuesday under the old law which this measure seeks to alter. I need scarcely point out that when the writ is issued, the roll automatically closes. No more names can be added to it. Although I am not a constitutional lawyer, I entertain a very strong belief, no matter what may be the result of the Corangamite elec-, tion, that an appeal to the High Court may result in the election being vitiated. It is necessary to fix a time for the closing of the rolls in order that the electoral machinery may be got into working order. The Department must have time to get out ‘ballot-papers, make necessary arrangements for polling booths, and the -appointment of poll clerks. But, once that action has been taken under the law, no new law should intervene to alter< electoral conditions.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is as much as to say that after the declaration of war no new law should be passed until the war is closed.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The declaration of war placing the fate of a nation in danger is an entirely different matter from the danger to the fate of a political party who, with the reins of government in their hands, use the machinery of Parliament in order to snatch a party victory.

Senator Guthrie:

– No ; for the protection of the people.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Government whom Senator Guthrie has supported enthusiastically recently promised the electors that they would amend, the electoral law by introducing preferential voting for the House of Representatives and -the proportional system for the Senate. If they were so desirous to protect the people as they professed, why was not the electoral law amended long before twenty months had elapsed from the date of their return to power?

Senator Guthrie:

– They have taken the first opportunity.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Electoral Bill was on the business-paper for weeks, and was being proceeded with in another place as it suited the Government to change the order of business, until suddenly a by-election was fought and won by the party on this side, and then, for the first time in it3 history, the guillotine was used in another place to carry this measure, .and the very wording -of the clause we are now discussing was altered. If it is necessary to-day that the several parts and sections of this Bill should come into operation respectively by proclamation, it was necessary when the Bill was first introduced. The reason for the alteration is public property, and I need not again refer to it.

In connexion with the appeal made by Senators Gardiner and O’Keefe that our soldiers should ‘ be given ari opportunity to vote at the Corangamite election, it was suggested from the other side that, in clause 39, the Bill makes the. necessary provision for that purpose. In the short time at our disposal I have looked through the Bill, but I can see no clause in Lt giving our sailors,’ soldiers, munition workers, general labourers, or nurses engaged in the activities of the war the opportunity to vote at the b.y-election pending. All these citizens of Australia were given this opportunity at the referendum on compulsory military service in 1916, at the general election in May, 1917, and at the compulsory military service referendum in December, 1917. For that purpose, a special Act had to be passed by this Parliament. This measure consolidates, and does not repeal, that Act, and, had the war lasted, the citizens to whom I have referred would, at a general election, have the right to vote. But there is no provision in the Bill to enable them to vote at the election for Corangamite on the 14th December.

Senator Guthrie:

– The Act to which the honorable senator refers will not be repealed by this measure.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I admit that. The electors to whom I have referred would have the right to vote at a general election or a referendum, but Senator Guthrie cannot point to any clause in this Bill which will give them the right to vote at the Corangamite election. I have had to choose the lesser of two evils - the clause which is bad, and the amendment that is not much better. I am against bringing our electoral law into operation piecemeal. I say that, as soon as this Parliament determines what the electoral law of the Commonwealth shall be, it should at once become operative.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– As there is no sessional order providing for a suspension of the sitting on Tuesday evening in order that honorable senators may obtain refreshments, I ask whether it is the wish of honorable senators that the proceedings of the Committee should be suspended for the purpose ?

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Sitting suspended from 6.80 to # p.m.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Prior to the suspension . of the sitting I was pointing out, in reply to an interjection, that there was no provision in the Bill for soldiers and sailors to vote at “the forthcoming 1-9-election. Such persons can vote only at a general election; and even after this Bill has -become law there will be no power to proclaim any portion of it which would provide opportunities for absent soldiers -and sailors of Corangamite to vote.

Some remarks have been, already uttered as to the time occupied in the consideration of this measure. I recall the debate upon the Electoral Bill of 1911, which ‘ required considerably more than eight weeks to secure its passage through both Houses of the Legislature. I remember also that the war-time measure occupied a considerable period ; and no one will say that it was time ill-spent. I admit that the eight weeks occupied upon the amending Bill of 1911 were not entirely devoted to that measure. There were interludes for the consideration of other important business. The Government may deem it. wise in the present instance to postpone this clause, and even to adjourn consideration of the whole Bill, in order to deal with other important matter. When the Bill of 1911 abolished postal voting there were thirteen honorable senators in opposition. That measure contained forty-eight clauses, and its passage required eight weeks. Here is a Bill of 220 clauses, and there are twelve honorable senators on this side. In the same proportion it should require at least sixteen weeks to dispose’ of the present measure. The Government will do wrong in proclaiming any Bill, or any portion of a Bill, just as and when they see fit. With regard to the by-election the Government may contend that because they are introducing preferential voting for the House of Representatives, and reinstating the system of postal voting, they require to “ try them out” at Corangamite. An electorallaw should not be framed to suit one part of the country, nor should its machinery he brought into operation merely to be tried therein.

If this Bill were being put through on the eve of a general election my opposition would not be so keen, because, then, after reasonable discussion, an instrument would have been created which would probably be to the advantage of all of the people. It is almost immoral that the Government should adopt their present procedure. I know of no act on the part of any Government which runs as closely as this along the border line of immoral political practice. There was nothing to prevent the Government from following the usual course with this Bill. It could- have been passed in another place without the introduction of the guillotine ; and there should have been no reason why the Senate should be called to meet on Tuesdays at such an early stage in the session in order to force the passage of one particular measure. I support the amendment.

SenatorLt. -Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [8.9]. - I am generally in accord with the main principles of the Bill. It is the peculiar way in which the Government are attempting to force it through, in view of an imminent byelection, that I regard as reprehensible. The clause under discussion is unprecedented. Not only do the Government propose to secure the right to bring in the Bill, or any part of it, separately, and at different times, but they may even proclaim it clause by clause. The Government could make 220 separate proclamations with respect to the 220 separate clauses. If clause 2 is passed as it stands we do not know what the Government may not see fit to do with the aid of the power granted to them. I do not know that the Government could interfere with that part of the Bill referring to polling, when once the writs have been issued; but as to the polling booths themselves the Government might even be able to provide that the booths in any part of a district where a majority of votes was likely to be cast in favour of an Opposition candidate should be closed, and that only those booths should remain open in centres favorable to the Government candidate. Then, as to the limitation of candidates’ election expenses, it would be quite possible for the Government to refrain from proclaiming that portion of the Bill. Wealth is not on the side of Labour, and thus Government candidates, with the pecuniary assistance of the Government, and of supporters behind them, might be able to spend an unlimited amount in securing their return. With respect also to that part dealing with electoral offences, the Government might see fit not to proclaim it; whereupon there would be nothing to prevent all sorts of illegal practices. The Government may omit to proclaim Part XVIII. “Court of Disputed Returns,” which would have the same effect. If there is no Court of Disputed Returns, it will be an invitation to those engaged in the election to ignore all restrictions, and indulge in illegal practices. Therefore, this little clause of only two lines practically nullifies what the Senate may do, and the other House may have done, in passing this Bill. After passing it, we place it entirely in the hands of the Government” to decide how much of it they will bring into operation, and at what time, and how much omit. In fact, we leave them free to manipulate the Act in whatever way suits their convenience, or the convenience of their party. That is a monstrous and unprecedented power to give any Government. I can find nothing in any of the Bills that have been before us this session to parallel it. It is the first time, so far as I can remember, that such a provision has been put before the Federal Parliament. All other measures passed this session apparently became law immediately they received the assent of the Governor-General. The Institute of Science and Industry Bill contains no provision as to proclamation, wholly or in part. No Minister or senator on the other side has explained why this unusual course is to be followed in this Bill. The Government may have some valid reason. If so, we are entitled to hear it. We pass the Bill as a whole when we pass the third reading, and it should come into operation as a whole. I strenuously oppose this new departure, which aims at the fundamental principles of our system of government, and the rights of. the Senate. I shall support the amendment to provide that the Bill, when it comes into operation, shall be the Bill as passed in its entirety.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I thought some honorable senators on the other side might care to speak on this important matter, but I suppose they have been ordered not to. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) might tell us how far he is going to-night. We are anxious to meet him on a fair basis. We travelled all last night, but I suppose he will tell us that we ought to live in Melbourne. He will probably get on quicker by telling us what we want to know than if he persists in his obstinate silence, thinking he can force the Senate. I doubt whether he can. I do not intend to speak at much greater length on the amendment, because I am waiting for an opportunity to move one of my own, to prevent the clause operating until the by-election is over. If, before this Bill is through, the Committee adopt preferential voting for the Senate, as I hope they will, because nothing could be more objectionable than to have preferential voting for one House, and the old form of voting for the other - will the VicePresident of the Executive Council give me his . assurance that he will not delay its proclamation for longer than six months?

Senator Russell:

– No; I would not do that.

Senator GARDINER:

– I see the Government are determined to have ever line and clause of the Bill without concession or compromise. They have their majority, which is as subservient as they want it to be. They have held their caucus meeting, and are sure they will get their Bill through. Does the Leader of the Senate intend to go right through with the Bill to-night ?

Senator Millen:

– No.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am much, obliged to the honorable senator. I thought, having carried the motion to suspend the Standing Orders to enable the Bill to be put through without delay

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator will ‘ recognise the difference between going through to-night, and going through the whole Bill to-night.

Senator GARDINER:

– I understand. Until I am declared off duty at 12 o’clock, I promise the Committee that I shall interest them. If there was a fixed place in the Bill to which the Government were prepared to go to-night, I should be prepared to let them get there much sooner.

Senator Millen:

– The intention is to get the Bill through by a definite time. If the honorable senator will facilitate that, I will make a suggestion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should be glad of any suggestion that will smooth the passage of a Bill of this importance. It is most objectionable to us to have to. fight for our rights all the time.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

– Senator Russell and myself are quite willing to give every reasonable consideration to the honorable senator’s suggestion that some intimation should be given as to the progress we expect to make with each sitting. It is the desire of the Government, and we think it is within the compass of this Chamber, to pass the Bill through all its stages by Friday afternoon. Subject to that limitation, it should not be difficult, if honorable senators desire a reasonable working arrangement, to apportion so much of the Bill to each sitting. I suggest that honorable senators should facilitate the passage through Committee of all clauses except those which deal with postal voting, preferential voting, and the scrutiny, by the dinner hour to-morrow, leaving Thursday and Friday for the consideration of the rest of the Bill.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then you want to pass over 200 clauses to-night ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No ; it would be sufficient if they were passed by tomorrow night. There is no reason why they should not be, because they are really the law of the laud now, and are being repeated in this Bill merely to secure a consolidating measure. That will leave- the Committee two full days for the discussion of the new provisions I suggest that, as a working compromise. It is the most the Government can offer, with the obligations resting upon them.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– That is a most generous offer - that we should pass 200 clauses without rising!

Senator Millen:

– I ask nothing of the sort, because my offer means to-day and to-morrow.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator is not in earnest in expecting us to get through all those debatable clauses by to-morrow night, seeing that we do not meet to-morrow afternoon until 3 o’clock.

Senator Millen:

– There isnothing to prevent us meeting to-morrow morning.

Senator GARDINER:

– If such is the case, we might as well go on as we have been going.

Senator Millen:

– I hope you will go on faster.

Senator GARDINER:

– I may have to propose a number of most important amendments. The very clause which follows clause 2 repeals a series of existing Acts. This Bill brings all the provisions of those Acts under one cover, but clause 2 would allow the Government to perpetuate one of those old Acts by proclamation, and put another out of existence. Senator Millen, without any intention to deceive, said there were only one or two new clauses in the Bill, and that, therefore, we should accept it. In the existing Act there are dozens of provisions to which I have been opposed all my life, and I ask the honorable senator, as man to man, if this is not my opportunity to secure some amendment of these provisions? The fact that some of them have been in operation for fifteen years or more is no reason why they should stand. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator

Russell) to pay attention to this aspect of the question.

Before I sat down in order to allow Senator Millen to speak, I was about to point out that if we got preferential voting for the Senate,, the Government could, if they liked, withhold the proclamation bringing it into force. The next election might be held under the present conditions, and the following election under the preferential system. Let us see how it could work out to party advantage. If an election for the Senate were held next June - the Government with their majority could send half the Senate to the country at any time - and if the Labour party won, but did not have sufficient strength in the other House to displace the Government, the Ministry could issue a proclamation providing for the next election to be held under the preferential system. One of my objections to the clause is that it gives the Government power to manipulate elections. There is no question about that. Some honorable senators might assume that this Government are so honest that they would not try to manipulate elections, and that it would be unthinkable for the Corangamite election to be manipulated. But they might think that some portion- of this Bill would materially affect their interests in Corangamite, and could prevent that portion of the Act from becoming the law of the land for the time being. I am not one to give that power to any Government without a strong protest.

  1. . the sight of means to do ill deeds

Makes ill deeds done.

The election should be above suspicion, but the action of the Government to-night casts upon them a just suspicion of wanting to fake the election, to “ gerrymander “ the electors to bring about a condition of things that will enable them to win by foul means, if they cannot win honestly.

Senator Millen just now told us that we ought to pass over 200 clauses of the Bill by dinner hour to-morrow evening. Was ever a more outrageous statement made to a deliberative assembly? We have been asked to pass 215 important clauses, some of them covering whole pages of the

Bill, by that time. I realize that we are “ up against it.”

Senator Senior:

– We want you to realize that you are up against it.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am quite well aware of that, but I remind the honorable senator that the brutal tactics exercised the other evening cannot be employed in Committee. That is my fortunate position now.

Sub-clauses 2 and 3 of clause 3 read -

A)ll appointments, divisions, subdivisions, polling places, electoral rolls, regulations, notices, proceedings, and all other matters and things duly appointed, made, commenced, or done under the Acts hereby repealed and in force, current, operative, or pending at the commencement of this Act shall, subject to this Act, be of the same force or effect in all respects as if this Act had been in force when they were so appointed, made, commenced, or done, and they had been respectively appointed, made, commenced, or done ‘hereunder.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act 1917.

This is the point. If the Government did want to .affect the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act they could bring the Act into law, without making effective this particular provision of the Bill.

Now let me refer to some of the things which the good sense of the Committee might decide shall be put into the Bill under the Acts already in existence. The Government have power to give the absent soldiers a vote.

Senator Senior:

– It is in this Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– In what particular clause ? Tt is not there, and there is no pretence that the Government intend to give the soldiers the vote. The Senate might say that the absent soldiers should have the vote, but if we pass this clause, the Government will then be in the happy position of being empowered to withhold the proclamation with regard to any section of the Act, with the result that the soldiers of Corangamite would be denied the vote, in the face, possibly, of the decision of both Houses of Parliament. I am not going to accept that’ position, but intend to appeal to honorable senators with ‘such force that there will not be the slightest shadow of an excuse afterwards for any honorable senator to say that he did hot know that ‘this would be the effect of the Bril. I am determined that they shall know. If the

Government intend that the soldiers should have, a vote, they could insert a special clause providing the necessary facilities, and arrange for polling places at certain centres in France and Great Britain, as was done during the fiercest of the fighting at the time of the last referendum, when hundreds of thousands of our soldiers voted. If that could be done then, it could be done now in the happy lull that has taken place. It could easily be done by regulation under the War Precautions Act, and if the .Government promise to do so, they will expedite the passage of this Bill. At the last referendum about 1,700 soldiers voted for the Corangamite division, and as we have had eighteen months -of recruiting since then, it is quite likely there are about ‘2,000 soldiers belonging to that division. It is not too much to .ask that the ‘Government should give the vote to these men.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– I must ask the honorable senator not to discuss “that aspect of the question.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks are not quite in -order, but, after all, the -probable affect of the soldiers’ vote is really material to the argument,- because I suppose it is influencing the actions of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Chair is the commencement qf the Act.

Senator GARDINER:

– The question is whether it shall be proclaimed in parts, or as a whole. And the Government, realizing that the soldiers, who know them so well, are likely to vote against them, might be influenced to suspend the proclamation of certain parts of the Act - assuming that the Committee will decide to -give the soldiers a vote - knowing that they have nothing to expect from the soldiers.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Nonsense !

Senator GARDINER:

– I do mot see any nonsense in my statement that the Government cannot expect the vote .of any- intelligent soldier.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– I am speaking as a soldier, land I -say -that that is nonsense.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Government have been -in the peculiar position that for two years they have carried out the policy of the Opposition, namely, the voluntary system of enlistment, although they had their majority, and were opposed to this policy.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable senator not to discuss that aspect of the question at length.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that I must bring my remarks within the scope of the amendment. I intend to do so by saying that the Government, who have nothing to expect from the soldiers except condemnation, justly anticipate that the soldiers’ vote will go against them, and even if the Committee decides to give the soldiers’ a vote, as I believe it will, the Government could withhold the proclamation. I know that Senators Rowell, Senior, Keating, Newland, Earle, and Crawford, as well as some other honorable senators, would like to give the soldiers a vote, but they must obey the party Whip. I ‘know that Senator Senior is quite impatient to rise and debate this clause, but I am equally satisfied that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) has merely to look at him to cause him to subside. I recognise, as well as does any honorable senator, the value of good party support.

In this clause the’ Government are seeking power to set at defiance the views of, perhaps, a hundred members of both branches of the Legislature. By means of it, a bare majority of the Cabinet may upset the will of Parliament. Now Parliament was called into existence to prevent that sort of thing. When Senator McDougall submitted his amendment the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in a flippant manner, which is quite unusual with him, did not vouchsafe the courtesy of a reply. I am quite prepared to resume my seat if the honorable gentleman will reply now.

Senator Barnes:

– He knows that the less he says about the clause the better.

Senator GARDINER:

– Why, at the very outset of this discussion, he should adopt the attitude which he has adopted, I cannot understand. Evidently he believes that any powers which the present Government may exercise will be exercised rightly. But is it proper that we should confer the extraordinary powers which are sought in this clause, upon a Ministry, two of the chief members of which, if the press reports are to be credited, are not on speaking terms with each other? I suppose that the Vice-President of the Executive Council feels that it is not necessary for him to say a word in favour of this provision. He is willing to allow it to pass supported only by his smile.

Senator Russell:

– Both the honorable senator and myself are -responsible for the provisions of this Bill, inasmuch as we prepared 90 per cent, of them.

Senator GARDINER:

– That “ gag “ will not work. If both the VicePresident of the Executive Council and myself were chemists, and if we prepared 90 per cent, of a most excellent medicine, to which somebody added 10 per cent, of poison, we should hardly be willing to swallow it. Further, I am rather inclined to question the accuracy of the honorable gentleman’s statement that the Government of which we were members prepared 90 per cent, of the provisions of this Bill. But even, in our existing Electoral Acts there are quite a number of most objectionable features which ought to be amended.

I am in a position to. submit one important amendment, the adoption of which will, I am satisfied, result in the saving of thousands of pounds at every general election. That amendment provides for the counting of the whole of the Senate votes at the polling booths where -they are recorded. Under that provision what would happen? In a small country booth” within an hour of the closing of the poll, all ths votes would be counted, whilst in the largest booths they would be counted by midnight. But under the existing system all these votes have to be forwarded to one centre.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order ! The honorable senator is now getting wide of the clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– I recognise that you are right, sir, and I bow to your ruling. But I would have liked to show that at every general election a big waste of money is incurred under the presentpractice, and the counting of the Senate votes, instead of occupying four hours, frequently occupies four weeks. Having made my protest I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to decide that we shall deal to-night with Parts I. to III. of the Bill, and to agree to the postponement of important clauses.

Senator Russell:

– That is the very proposal which the honorable senator turned down the other night.

Senator GARDINER:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council made no such offer, or if he did, I did not understand it.

Senator Russell:

– I offered to postpone any clause in relation to either preferential or postal voting.

Senator GARDINER:

– I certainly have no recollection of it. But even .that circumstance does not justify the VicePresident of the Executive Council in treating Senator McDougall as he has treated him.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I was hoping that the Minister would listen to reason, and accept the amendment, but it would appear that it is the intention of the Government to rush the Bill through at all hazards. They are introducing a very bad precedent in endeavouring to tamper with the electoral laws of the country. Honorable senators on this side have a right to protest with the utmost vigor against that. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) has suggested that if we pass the non-contentious clauses, honorable senators will be given an opportunity to discuss those dealing with preferential voting, the scrutiny, and postal voting. Whilst I admit that many of the clauses of the Bill are merely machinery provisions, there are many others upon whichamendments might very well be moved. A more reasonable attitude for the Government to take up would be to agree that we should pass as many clauses as we can up to half-past 10 o’clock tonight, and then adjourn until the usual time to-morrow. The Committee will be wrong in passing clause 2 as it stands, because the writ has been issued for the Corangamite election, and that election should therefore be carried out under the existing law. Over twelve months ago there was talk of a general election in Great Britain.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– I must ask the honorable senator to connect that with the clause under consideration.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I intend to do so. Though the general election in the Old Country was postponed because of the war, the Imperial Government recognised that an amendment of the electoral law of Great Britain was necessary. They admitted that it was necessary to extend the franchise, but they did not rush that legislation through in order to apply it to a particular bv-election. The Commonwealth Government are endeavouring to rush this clause through in order to apply it to the coming byelection at Corangamite. We are guided here very largely by the practice of the House of Commons, and in this matter the Government might very well follow the example set by the Old Country, where the Imperial Government have refrained from using the machinery of the House of Commons to rush through an amending electoral measure for the sake of a by-election,- but have waited to apply, the amended law to the general elections,, so that the whole of the people of Great Britain may benefit by it. If we were on the eve of a general election in Australia I should be prepared to support this clause even as it stands. But I am not prepared to give the Government the power to use this measure, for the purposes of a by-election. Part XVII. of the Bill deals with electoral offences, and the Government might choose to hang up that part of the Bill for an indefinite period. I do not say that they would do so. Thank God, the present Govern- ment will not always be the Government of the Commonwealth, but the power conferred by this clause is too much to give any Government. Part XVIII., dealing with the Court of Disputed Returns, might also under this clause be suspended at the will of the Government. Part XVI. is an important part dealing with the limitation of electoral expenditure. It will be most dangerous to hang up the operation of that part of the Bill. To do so might open the door to a vast amount of corruption. Part VIII. deals with objections to names on the rolls. I remember that at the 1913 elections, so severe were the comments upon the way in which they were -conducted that the Senate appointed a Select Committee to inquire into it. I was a member of that Select Committee, and very useful information was obtained, which proved that there was nothing in the allegations made at the time. But if- under clause 2 the operation of Part VIII. of this Bill were to be suspended the rolls might be packed in any way, and in the circumstances there could be no election held which would give a .true reflex of the opinions of the electors. Like Senator Gardiner, I would be amongst the last who would unnecessarily block the passage df this Bill, and I beseech the Government to accept the amendment. If they do so, they will make more rapid progress with the remaining clauses of the measure.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to discuss this clause at much greater length, as the next clause is very important, and I have an amendment to submit before it is arrived at.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– I ask the honorable senator not to discuss the next clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall not do so until we come to it. The clause under consideration provides that the several parts and sections of the Bill shall com- .mence at such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation. One of the clauses of this Bill which would be brought into operation by proclamation is that which consolidates quite a number of Acts of Parliament. The clause under consideration and clause 3 are linked up, because clause 2 gives the Government power, even if we pass clause 3, to refrain from bringing it into operation. Will the Minister in charge’ of the Bill (Senator Russell) give me a promise that if we pass this, to me, most objectionable system of proclaiming parts and sections of an Act,- the whole of clause 3 will be proclaimed at the same time? I receive no reply, and this confirms my growing suspicion that the Government have something up their sleeve in connexion with this Bill. The Government pretend that it is their intention to make clause 3 of this Bill the law of the land. The Minister in charge of* the measure has so far declined to extend to us the courtesy of speaking to theamendment, and he has refused to put thecase of the Government whether they wilt agree that clause 3 shall be brought into operation with the first proclamation issued respecting this measure. I noticethat Senator Russell shakes his headHow am I to interpret that?

Senator Russell:

– As “ No.”

Senator GARDINER:

– That is to say, the Government will not give that assurance. Is that the way to treat honorable senators, as though we were not here toassist in, or to be given any information with respect to, , the legislation of thiscountry ?

Senator Millen:

– Or to carry on a “ stone-wall.”

Senator GARDINER:

– When a Minister most impertinently and almost impudently suggests that honorable senators, in discussing a measure before the Committee, are guilty of “ stone-walling,” if you, Mr. Chairman, do not call him toorder, I think that, at least, I am entitled to reply to that interjection. It was most objectionable to myself.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Does the honorable senator object to a remark by Senator Millen, and does he desire that that remark be withdrawn ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall not at this stage take the necessary steps to protect myself from such observations; but in future, I trust that, instead of being considered out of order if I endeavour to defend myself and fail to keep closely to the matter before the Chair, I shall not meet with any objection onyour part, sir. I insist that clause 3 - as to which the Minister in charge will not give an assurance - must be taken into consideration in the discussion of clause 2, seeing that the latter, in so far as it refers to the proclamation of the whole or any part or section of the Act, certainly does bear upon the clause following. That clause is of considerable importance, as it has to do with the consolidation of all the electoral legislation since the Act of 1902.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorablesenator will not be in order in discussing; clause 3. I have given great latitude to the honorable senator in his references so far to clause 2.

Senator GARDINER:

– You have =given me no latitude, sir, except as the Standing Orders provide and permit; and I do not ask for any further latitude than that from you. But I insist that there is a very important connexion in the bearing of clause 2 upon clause 3. I agree that to discuss clause 3 in detail would l>e out of order; but to incidentally refer to it by way of indicating its importance in view of the bearing of clause 2 upon it, should not meet with the disapprobation of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is going further than making passing reference to clause 3.

Senator GARDINER:

– If you rule me out of order, I shall have to take the subsequent course available to myself, because I shall not have my rights taken from me. If I were to be tied -down on a ruling of that kind, I should find myself bound by four or five words which, in themselves, would be comparatively unintelligible unless I were permitted to link up their significance with other portions of the measure. I need scarcely repeat that clause 2 deals with the matter of the proclamation of all or any part of the Bill) while clause 3 has to do with the consolidation of existing laws. It is quite out of accord with the ordinary procedure of the Senate for a Minister in charge of a Bill to refuse to answer .an argument, whether reasonable or unreasonable, and to refrain from stating the position of the Government. It is treating the Committee with -discourtesy. However, lest by unduly prolonging my remarks, I might give colour to the unfair and discourteous accusation that I was “” stone-walling,” I shall at this stage have nothing further to say.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Senator Gardiner:

– The “gag,” at half -past 9!

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The question now is -

That the words proposed to be left out be left out.

Senator Gardiner:

– No !

Senator O’Keefe:

– On a point of order, I understand that the question before the Committee is, “That the Committee do now divide.” If that question had been put, there were a number of honorable senators who would have voted against it. I did not hear it put, an’d I intend to vote against it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has lost his opportunity.

Senator Gardiner:

– I called “ no “ 011 that question. You cannot refuse a division, Mr. Chairman.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I ask you to put the question again, sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I put the question, “ That the Committee do now divide,” and there was not a voice raised against it.

Senator Keating:

– Senator Gardiner said, “ The gag, at half-past 9.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I put the question, and as there was not a dissentient voice I declared the motion agreed to.

Senator Gardiner:

– I heard you put that question, and I said “ No.” If you did not hear me, sir, I ask you to repeat the question, because I said “ No “ in a loud enough tone of voice for you to have heard it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question, “ That the Committee do now divide “ was carried on the voices.

Senator Gardiner:

– If that is your ruling, I object.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Senator Gardiner must state his objection in writing.

Senator Gardiner:

– I will do so. I did not lose my opportunity of voting upon that question. I took it by calling “ No.” Senator Grant took it with me, and we both now make the statement that if you failed to hear us then, we will not put up with that. I shall dissent from your ruling, because I can Understand, in the hurry of a division, how easily a misunderstanding can occur. This is the position as I understand it. Senator Millen moved. “ That the Committee do now divide.” You, sir, put that question, and I loudly called “ No.” Senator Grant also called “No,” whereupon you said, “ The noes have it.”

Senator Keating:

– That was not so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That was upon the second division, namely, “ That the words proposed to be left out be left out,” and confusion’ arose, during which Senator Gardiner called “ No.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Those were not the circumstances. You ‘ immediately put the second question, and I objected to your doing so, because I and Senator Grant had called “No” on the first question, and I asked for a division. My objection to your ruling is as follows: -

I respectfully dissent from your ruling that I had lost my opportunity to call for a division. When the question was put, “ That the Committee do now divide,” I called “ No “ in a loud tone of voice. Senator Grant also called “No.” The Chairman declared, “The noes have it,’” and- then proceeded to put the amendment before the Chair.

It is our right to call for a division, and honorable senators on this side claim their right.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no. point of order before the Chair. The position is very clear. When Senator Millen moved, “That the Committee do now divide,” the question was put from the Chair, and carried on the voices. Then when the question, “ That the words proposed to be left out be left out,” was put, there was some confusion as to what should be done. Senator Grant and Senator Gardiner called “ No,” and I declared that the “ Noes “ had it. I understand that Senator Gardiner and Senator Grant really wished to call “Aye,” that is, to vote that the words should be left out, as Senator McDougall had moved. Therefore, for greater accuracy: I put the second question again. I declared again that the “ Noes “ had it, and a division was-called for. While the bells were ringing to summon honorable senators for that division, objection was taken to my ruling.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will you not accept the statement of Senator Grant and myself that we called “ No “ on the first question t

The CHAIRMAN:

– I assure the honorable senator that it was on the second question.

Senator Gardiner:

– If two of us called “ No,” was it not your duty to take notice of the fact?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Even if fifty called “No,” no one called for a division on the first question.

Senator Gardiner:

– Two of us called “No” to the first question. I do not see why we should suffer by your mistake. You declared that the “ Noes “ had it, and, therefore, it was not necessary for us to call for a division.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It was on the second question that I declared that the “ Noes “ had it.” I then, for the sake of greater accuracy, put the question again.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then would it not be in keeping with the proper conduct of the business of the Committee, seeing that there was some confusion, that you should put the first question again, “ for greater accuracy “ ?

Senator Millen:

– We have passed on to other business.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is not worthy of the honorable senator.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It would be an unfortunate position to put me in to ask me to go back to the first question after a division has been taken on the second question. That would be a reflection on myself as Chairman.

Senator Gardiner:

– Is it not putting you in a worse position to become a common party hack for this Government, for the sake of getting this business through ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in alluding to ma as “ a party hack.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Conduct of that kind makes one use the expression.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must unreservedly withdraw it.

Senator Gardiner:

– Yes, I think on consideration that I will unreservedly withdraw the remark. It is so apparent that there is no occasion to make it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator must withdraw that expression.

Senator Gardiner:

– I withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Ring the bells for the division.

Senator Gardiner:

– We are tricked out of our rights:

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must withdraw that remark.

Senator Gardiner:

– We are in division, are we not?

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are still in Committee. The honorable senator is not in order in casting a reflection on the Chair, and must withdraw it when called on to do so.

Senator Gardiner:

– Must I stand up to withdraw it, or will I be permitted to withdraw it sitting down?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator can withdraw it sitting down if he wishes.

Senator Gardiner:

– As we are in division. I simply wanted to know the position.

Senator Needham:

– What is the question on which the Committee is dividing ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is, “ That the words proposed to be left out be left out.”

Senator Gardiner:

– I withdraw my last statement unconditionally.

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

AYES: 6

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ but this section shall not come into operation until the 1st day of January, 1919.”

That is the amendment which I temporarily withdrew to allow Senator McDougall to move his. This clause will have considerable bearing on the application of the Act to any by-elections that may take place. I do not want any byelections to be conducted in the manner in which the Government may conduct them. After the scene we have just witnessed, we know that the Government and their followers are capable of anything. There is nothing too mean or too despicable for them. There is nothing they will not descend to for the meanest party advantage. They are absolutely unworthy of any powers of control or management.

Senator Bakhap:

– Where does the party advantage come in?

Senator GARDINER:

– Instead of putting the whole Act into force by one proclamation, the Government and their party, under the clause as it stands, if we do not postpone its operation, will be ableto bring any part of it into force at any time to suit themselves. From their conduct in the last ten minutes, we know that the Government and their party have lost all sense of the proportion of things and all sense of self-respect.

Senator Bakhap:

– They have retained their sense of proportion.

Senator GARDINER:

– If that is their method of maintaining it, they are welcome to all the satisfaction they can get out of it. If the Government and their party are prepared to do as they are doing, they are certainly not to be trusted with powers of this kind, particularly when by-elections take place. A Government that, on the most miserable and mean pretext, will act as this Government act should certainly not be given extraordinary powers. A Government lost to all sense of decency or dignity in conducting the business of Parliament, ‘ a Government backed by supporters similar to themselves, with a majority in both Houses of men who are absolutely so degrading their political positions that no one can even think of them with respect, let alone speak of them with respect, should not dare to ask for, and certainly cannot be given, the powers they are seeking in this clause.

Senator Bakhap:

– We are making the bounds of electoral freedom wider.

Senator GARDINER:

– A Government lost to all sense of self-respect, and with a party in both Houses in the same position, are not to be trusted with exceptional powers. I have moved an amendment similar to one which Senator Bakhap moved on another Bill a few weeks ago. All I ask is that the operation of this clause bedelayed for the remainder of November and the whole of December - a little less than two months. That is not a very great delay, but it will secure to all the candidates at the byelection freedom from Government trickery which is menacing the coming election in Corangamite. There is no question that the Government party must have had a meeting and decided on their course of conduct in respect of this Bill, if such a scene could happen as happened in this chamber a little while ago. It is to me the absolute limit to which a Government can go. I have seen Governments which would adopt various methods, but when a Minister of the Crown stands up and moves that the Committee divide on the amendment, and the Government get out of the vote on that question in the way this Government and their party got out of it, they have reached a level that I never thought even they would fall to.

Senator Earle:

– In fact, language fails you.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank the honorable senator for that most expressive phrase. Language fails me to describe the depths of degradation to which Senator Earle and the Government he supports have descended.

Senator de Largie:

– On a point of order, I want the readers of Hansard to understand that the Government and their supporters on this side of the chamber, in allowing Senator Gardiner to go on with this abuse, are simply letting it go in one ear and out of the other.

Senator GARDINER:

– I take exception to Senator de Largie’s remark. I ask you, sir, to call on him to withdraw the statement he made reflecting on me.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Does the honorable senator take exception to any remark Senator de Largie made?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask Senator de Largie to withdraw any reflection he has cast on Senator Gardiner.

Senator de Largie:

– Where is the reflection ? I am not aware that I made any. If there was any reflection in what I said, I certainly withdraw it.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept Senator de Largie’s withdrawal. I thought when he rose that he was fulfilling his duty as Government Whip by giving instructions to the official reporter not to report my utterances. As a motion was recently carried enabling the Government to strike out of Hansard anything they objected to, the honorable senator apparently thinks he can, as Government Whip, instruct the Hansard staff what they are to report. Probably the Government, in the exercise of that power, will strike out of Hansard what I have said.

SenatorFoll. - That motion applies only during the war.

Senator GARDINER:

– I think I understand Senator de Largie well enough. I have a pretty good idea what he had in his mind when he stood up to refer to the Hansard report.

Senator de Largie:

– If Senator Gardiner understands me, I certainly understand Senator Gardiner.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sure the honorable senator will do so before this Bill is finished with.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! These personal recriminations are certainly out of order.

Senator GARDINER:

– We are asked to give extraordinary powersto a set of men who are conducting the business of this country in a manner that would be a disgrace to any one.

Senator Senior:

– That is distinctly out of order.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We know that, but it does not matter, coming from him..

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator has his rights, if he thinks my remarks are out of order. I am sure the Chairman would have ruled me out of order if be thought I had exceeded my rights. I am referring to the Government and their supporters in both Houses.I quite understand that it is objectionable to those who support the Government to hear the Government and themselves described in fitting language. It is language they are not accustomed to, but they know it is thoroughly descriptive of themselves, and at the same time quite parliamentary. If it was not, they would avail themselves of the opportunity of taking a point of order.

Senator Senior:

– And play your game?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no game to play. I am merely referring to the fact that this despicable Government, in the most contemptible way, are endeavouring to secure unusual powers in this particular clause, and that their action is supported and condoned by the most servile following that I have ever seen behind any Government.

Senator Guthrie:

– Cannot you recollect something else?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have noticed that when anything nice is said about honorable senators, Senator Guthrie asks to be included. He is just as despicable for his servility to the Government as any other honorable senator. The fact that he is sitting where he is, and not where his sympathies are, often leads me not to include him, but I do so now.

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

AYES: 8

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Repeal).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Now that we have passed two clauses, I think it is fair to ask the Minister to report progress. The Minister does not reply. It will be as well, then, to read the clause to see what it means. Sub-clause 2 states -

All appointments, divisions, subdivisions, polling places, electoral rolls, regulations, notices, proceedings, and all other matters and things duly appointed-

Senator Millen:

– Do not read so rapidly. You will tire yourself out.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Am I reading too quickly ? Fearful lest sub-clause 2 should not be thoroughly understood, I shall start again -

All appointments, divisions, subdivisions, polling places, electoral rolls, regulations, notices, proceedings, and all other matters and things duly appointed, made, commenced-

Senator de Largie:

– If I could not “ stone-wall “ more gracefully than that, I would not start.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I consider that remark offensive, Mr. Chairman, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator de Largie:

– I withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! Senator Needham is entitled to be heard in silence.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The sub-clause continues - or done under the Acts hereby repealed and in force, current, operative, or pending at the commencement of this Act shall, subject to this Act, be of the same force or effect in all respects as if this Act had been in force when they were so appointed, made, commenced, or done, and they had been respectively appointed, made, commenced, or done hereunder.

  1. Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act 1917.

I have taken the trouble to read the clause, and I- obeyed the request of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) to read it slowly and distinctly, so that we would know where we are. This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, because it contains the gist of what is intended to be done. I have read all the Acts to be repealed and consolidated. The Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act is not included. I think it was a sufficient reply to Senator Guthrie, who pointed out that soldiers and sailors and other citizens engaged in war-like activities could vote at a by-election. The first Act to be repealed is the Commonwealth Electoral Act No. 19 of 1902. I have a full copy of that Act. It is entitled -

page 7994

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

No. 19 of 1902

An Act to regulate Parliamentary Elections. [Assented to 10th October, 1902.]

This Act is divided into seventeen parts, so it is a large order to ask the Committee to repeal that measure, amongst others, in this clause, without honorable senators having had sufficient time to compare that Act with the important clauses in the Bill now before us.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was under the impression that there might be something good in some of the sections of the 1902 Act that could be retained in this consolidating measure, and, for that reason, I consider that the Committee is being rushed at an unnecessary pace, in order to get this clause through. To my mind, this is the vital portion of the Bill, and I protest against the hurried manner in which it is being rushed through the Chamber. If I were desirous of delaying the passage of the measure, I might effectually achieve my object by comparing the provisions of our Electoral Act of 1902 with the provisions of the Bill which we are now considering. In this measure, it is proposed to repeal the Electoral Act of 1911. In other words, it is intended to restore a method of voting which, only a few years ago, was regarded by many honorable senators as being an exceedingly reprehensible one. In 1911, we abolished postal voting, and thereby improved our electoral system. Honorable senators opposite enthusiastically supported the abolition of postal voting, as the pages of Hansard clearly show. Senator Lynch, Senator Pearce, and others supported its abolition.

Senator Lynch:

– As it stood then, I did.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yet they are now prepared to assist in its restoration.

Senator Guthrie:

– Did not Senator Needham vote for its abolition?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I condemned the postal-voting system then, as I condemn “ it now. If honorable senators opposite were allowed time to reflect upon this phase of the question, they might register a different vote from that which they will now register.

Motion (by SenatorMillen) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Upon a point of order, I desire to say that I have not resumed my seat.

Senator Millen:

– The Chairman called me. The honorable senator had resumed his seat. He had finished his speech.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Does Senator Needham wish to continue his remarks?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes.

Senator Gardiner:

– Read the whole of the Electoral Act 1902 from beginning to end.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I would not have continued my remarks, but for the alertness exhibited by the Leader of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is an admission that my ruling was correct.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No. I had not resumed my seat. But if you, sir, rule that I am out of order, I will sit down.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may proceed.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We need to be very careful what we are doing. The Electoral Divisions Act 1903 is a very important one, because it deals with the boundaries of the electoral divisions of the Commonwealth. Some of those divisions contain more than the quota of the electors, and I. think we should have paid attention to the redistribution of our electoral boundaries before dealing with this Bill. It appears to me that we are establishing dangerous precedents. We are laying Parliament open to the charge of having rushed this Bill through in order that the Government may obtain a party advantage.

Senator Senior:

– Honorable senators from one side of the Chamber only have now been discussing one of its provisions for six hours.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Apparently, the Government intend to “gag” every clause of the Bill through the Chamber. If that be their intention, we cannot prevent them giving effect to it, except by subjecting ourselves to physical exhaustion. I do not intend to reduce myself to that state. I protest against the Government bludgeoning important clauses through this Chamber by ‘ sheer brute force. Clause 3 of the Bill is a very important one, because it will govern the franchise of a free people.For that reason, it is practically immoral for the Government to use the “gag” for the purpose of preventing adequate discussion of the measure.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Senator Gardiner:

– I rise to a point of order. When I was discussing clause 2, you assured me that, upon clause 3, I would have an opportunity of making the remarks which I then desired to make.

Senator Millen:

– This question has to be put without discussion.

Senator Gardiner:

– But I am raising a point of order.

Senator Millen:

– That does not matter.

Senator Gardiner:

– This is quite a new procedure. All I wish to know is whether the Minister for Repatriation and his supporters can deprive me of the right which you, sir, said I would have upon this clause?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The Chairman has only the power to inform an honorable senator of what are his rights under our Standing Orders. If the Committee see fit to carry proposals affecting those rights, it is quite competent for it to do so.

Question - That the Committee do now divide - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

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

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Parts)

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister forRepatriation · NAT

– I move -

That the Committee do now divide.

Senator Gardiner:

– I rise to a point of order. I take it that Senator Millen is practically moving the previous question, and the Standing Orders say that the previous question cannot be moved in Committee.

Senator Millen:

– It is not the previous question. There is a difference between my motion and the previous question, and the honorable senator has been long enough in Parliament to know it.

Senator Gardiner:

– The effect is the same, is it not?

Senator Millen:

– The same effect, but a very different procedure.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion negatived.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [10.25]. - I move-

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Committee has just carried a motion, “That the Committee do now divide,” and I have no option but to put the clause.

Question - That clause 4 stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: -17

NOES: 7

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) put -

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Clause 5 (Interpretation)

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation [10.34]. - I move -

That the Committee do now divide.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Fifteen minutes not having elapsed since the previous motion I cannot, under the Standing Orders, put that motion.

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– That would be only if the previous similar motion had been negatived.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Standing Ordersare against the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then I must regretfully dissent from your ruling, sir.

Senator Gardiner:

– I ask the Minister not to take that point now. Hewill get away all the earlier.

Senator Millen:

– I shall waive dissent at the present stage.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Clause 5 reads as follows : -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “Candidates” in Parts II., XVI., and XVII. includes any person who within three months before the clay of election announces himself as a candidate forelection as a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives ; “ Controller-General of Prisons “ means the Controller-General or other principal officer of a State having control of the prisons and gaols of the State; “ Division “ means an electoral Division for the election of a member of the House of Representatives ; “ Elector “ means any person whose name appears on a roll as an elector; “ Justice of the peace” means a justice of the peace of the Commonwealth, or part of the Commonwealth, or of a State, or part of a State; “ Officer “ includes the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth, and any Commonwealth Electoral Officer for a State, Divisional Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Registrar, Presiding Officer, Substitute Presiding Officer, Assistant Presiding Officer, Poll Clerk, and doorkeeper; “ Registrar “ means an Electoral Registrar under this Act and includes a Divisional Returning Officer acting as Registrar ; “ Registrar-General “ means the RegistrarGeneral or other principal officer of a State who is charged with the duty of registering deaths occurring and marriages celebrated in the State; “ Returning Officer “ includes Divisional Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer; “ Roll “ means an electoral roll under this Act; “Subdivision” means a subdivision of a Division.

Will the Government agree to add to the list of persons set out in the interpretation as being qualified to witness claims the secretaries of unions?

Senator Grant:

– And the secretaries of Labour leagues?

Senator GARDINER:

– That is inferred, of course. I see no good reason why, if a well-qualified and reputable person occupies the secretaryship of a union or of a labour league he should not be equally as capable and qualified as the other persons indicated in the interpretation clause - for instance, a justice of the peace in New South Wales.

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Shannon). - Order! Before the honorable senator can discuss that, it will be necessary for him to move an amendment.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall take that course. If I hadan electoral roll before me, I would be able to show the number of electors whom I represent. I was returned, if I remember correctly, by 344,151 voters of New South Wales.

Senator Senior:

– They never thought you would have made such a misuse of the power they gave you.

Senator GARDINER:

– They have been most lenient with me; but they never thought that I would be in a Parliament where clauses would be passed without discussion, and with the aid of the “gag.” But for my intervention the other evening the whole Bill would have been rushed through. A gang of highwaymen or burglars would be gentlemen compared with those guilty of conduct like that.

Senator Reid:

– Is that parliamentary, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understand that the honorable senator has made a remark to which Senator Reid objects.

Senator GARDINER:

– I said that a. gang of burglars or highwaymen would be, by comparison, gentlemen; and, if that reference is objectionable, I withdraw it. But, at the same time, I apologize to the burglars and highwaymen. I hope the Minister will be prepared to include among the persons entitled to witness claims the secretaries of unions and Labour leagues. They should be qualified equally with justices of the peace and other officials indicated in the interpretation clause. I am surprised, by the way, to note that the Minister in charge of the

Bill (Senator Russell) should have reached such a stage that he has gone back upon the Labour leagues and unions which put him in the Senate. What is the Minister’s objection to include those officials ?

Senator Russell:

– I object to the inclusion of any political partisans, and that covers the whole lot of them.

Senator GARDINER:

– How can one find any person in a -Democracy such as ours who is not interested, one way and another, in one political party or another? I remind Senator Senior that in another measure he desired the insertion of a definition clause after the Bill had been passed. At present, we are dealing with the interpretation clause of this measure, and I ask for the support of Senator Senior in requesting the Minister to postpone this clause until the Bill, .as a whole, has been dealt with,- at which stage interpretations could be inserted which would cover definitions in accordance with the Bill as passed.

Senator Reid:

– Have you left off pulling Senator Senior’s leg?

Senator GARDINER:

– That is most objectionable. Senator Senior knows that I was practically the only honorable senator to grasp the importance of the point which he raised, and I now ask for his assistance in securing the recognition of that principle in this Bill.

Later on I shall move to leave out the words “ In this Act unless “, and insert in their place, “Notwithstanding anything to”. The clause would then read, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary.” I should afterwards have to move to strike out the words “intention appears”. That would improve the phraseology of the clause, but it would necessitate quite a number of other amendments. The definition of “candidate,” in Parts II., XVI., and XVIII. “ includes any person who within three months before the day of election announces himself as a candidate for election as a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives.” It is difficult to discuss clause 5 when by weight nf numbers there has been no discussion r.n clause 4. This definition will apply to the clause by which a candidate announced for an election renders himself liable if he incurs expenditure in excess of that allowed by the Act. Three months is the period set out here. As a member of the Senate, there is no necessity for me to announce myself as a candidate until the day of nomination, so that technically I could escape any penalty for exceeding the allowed expenditure during the three months’ period. Every candidate who announces himself within three months of the election brings himself within the bribery clauses of tho Bill. A wealthy candidate could go round an electorate spending money freely, possibly bribing newspapers, and getting in all his fine work to secure support, four months before the election, and not announce himself as a candidate until the day of nomination.. A poor man who has announced himself as a a candidate may make an innocent mistake by hiring a vehicle, and so exceeding the amount of expenses allowed under the Act, and make himself liable, whereas the other man is not. I have here the electoral rolls for a number of divisions in New South Wales, and will quote a number of names from them to show the varied occupations of electors, and their fitness to act as witnesses to claims for enrolment. Frequently they work early and late to produce foodstuffs, not only for Australia, but for the other side of the world, and incidentally, I may add, millions of bushels have been ruined owing to the neglect of the Government. These men are not in daily communication with town folk or officers of the Electoral Department; but. Parliament has decided that farmers, as electors, may witness the claims of other persons for enrolment. I will take now some more names - Frederick William Anderson, farmer; George Andrew Anderson, fettler; Daniel Angus Reefton, labourer. It will be seen that a labourer, as an elector, may also witness applications for enrolment. A person whose name is on the roll is an elector, but a person may be qualified as an elector, and although his name may not appear on a roll, he may be permitted to stand, as a candidate for Parliament. Let us see now who may be a candidate for Parliament. The clause states that a candidate includes -

Any person who within three months before the day of election announces himself as a candidate for election as a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Is not three months too long a period?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know whether it is or not. A person may be a candidate before the day of nomination if he has announced himself.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– But he is not a candidate until he has nominated.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is true, and possibly the point raised is debatable. A man may pretend he is a candidate, but he is not one until he lodges his deposit with his nomination form. I do. not know whether the interpretation of “candidate” could not, with a great deal of advantage, be altered.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Have you considered the effect of Holman’s Bill in New South Wales on the definition of candidates?

Senator GARDINER:

– I must confess I have not.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– It alters it as far as New South Wales is concerned.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am considering, from the electoral rolls, the wide selection we have of people who may become candidates.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– That is democratic. Surely you do not object to that.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am thoroughly in accord with it. In fact I welcome it. -I now find the name John Smithwood Atkins, sharefarmer. He would be a very suitable man as a candidate for Parliament. He works a farm on shares with another man, who is in a more fortunate position, and I have no doubt that Senator Grant could advance some intelligent reason why there should be some alteration of the law in this respect. Robert William Ashton, sawmill proprietor, is another good type of candidate, and perhaps could fill the position in this Senate with a good deal of credit. The same could be said of John

Baldwin, tailor. As a rule the tailor is a most intellectual man. His shop is the place where all political questions are discussed, possibly more intelligently than anywhere else. In the Barmedman subdivision alone may be found the names of over1,000 persons entitled to be candidates for Parliament.

With the possibilities of a lengthened debate on this clause, will Senator Millen tell me how far he intends to go to-night; and how much of the Bill he wants to keep in reserve for to-morrow night? If he does not I must go on discussing it until he does, and that will take up a considerable amount of time. I find I have not taken more than about twenty names from over 1,000,000 that we have in New South Wales alone. When I have dealt with the New South Wales roll, I shall be in a position to take up the Queensland roll, and subsequently I intend to deal with the South Australian, Western Australian, Tasmanian, and Victorian electoral rolls. Senator Millen . will see, therefore, that, although he had the “ pull “ over me when he moved “ That the Committee do now divide,” the position has since been reversed. If, however, he will say how far he intends to proceed with the Bill to-night, I shall resume my seat, and thus allow honorable senators to catch their last trams.

Senator Reid:

– Is not the honorable senator ashamed of our day’s labour - the passing of clause 3? .

Senator GARDINER:

– We are now discussing clause 5. We allowed clause 1 to pass without debate; we discussed clause 2, and upon clause 3 the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) moved, “That the Committee do now divide.”

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in referring to that matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I shall content myself with showing what persons may become candidates for election to this Parliament, what is the interpretation placed upon the word “candidate,” and what constitutes an “elector.” I find, from the roll which is before me, that John Martin Berwick, of Wyalong, farmer, is eligible to become a candidate for election either to the Senate or to the House of Representatives, inasmuch as he is an elector by reason of the fact that his name appears upon the roll.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– A candidate need not be an elector, so long as he is qualified to be an elector.

Senator GARDINER:

– I recognise that there are many persons whose names do not appear upon the roll, but who are qualified to be candidates for election to this Parliament. Then I come to Robert Hamilton Blakeley, a police constable. He will require to resign his position before he can become a candidate. But Alfred Ernest Bonham, farmer, may easily become a candidate for a seat in either branch of this Parliament if honorable senators opposite are only sufficiently broadminded to abolish the preliminary deposit which is requiredof candidates under the existing law. Charles James Bowering, a miner, also comes within the definitions embodied in this clause. Then, under the definition of “ elector,” James Butler is in a position to witness an elector’s application for enrolment.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– How do the definitions in this clause compare with the definitions of similar terms in the Electoral Act of New South Wales?

Senator GARDINER:

– There is a very marked resemblance between the definitions of “ candidate “ and “ elector “ in the NewSouthWales Act, and the definitions of similar terms in this Bill. Then I find that Robert Burt, of Riverton, comes within the definition of “ candidate” and “elector.” This clause also contains a definition of “ justice of the peace,” and I know that almost every second person in New South Wales is a justice of the peace.

Senator Guthrie:

– For the appointment of how many justices of the peace is the honorable senator responsible?

Senator GARDINER:

– My attitude towards Governments has always been the same. They have ever failed to appreciate my good points.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator will not give us peace.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am quite prepared to accept peace by negotiation.

If the Minister for Repatriation will only say how far he intends to proceed with this Bill to-night, I shall be satisfied. I can assure him that there is no intention of “stone-walling” the measure. But there are difficulties in the way.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has made the difficulties clear to me, and I hope that we are making clear the means we propose to adopt in order to overcome them.

Senator GARDINER:

– The passing of the Bill will not be delayed if the honorable gentleman will only say how far he wishes to proceed with it to-night. I will meet him half way by saying that he can have the measure whenever he wants it.

Senator Millen:

– What about the offer I made earlier in the day - that we should pass through Committee by tomorrow night all clauses excepting those which relate to preferential voting and postal voting, and that we should finalize our consideration of the Bill by Friday afternoon?

Senator GARDINER:

– Does not the Minister for Repatriation think that the question of the desirableness of abolishing a money deposit by candidates ought to be discussed as fully as either preferential or postal voting? I am in favour of preferential voting.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator voted against the second reading of the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I wish now to say a few words regarding the officers who will be charged with the administration of this Act, and to point out what constitutes an “ officer.” I find that “officer” includes “the Chief Electoral Officer of the Commonwealth and any Commonwealth officer for a State division.” Now, in my judgment, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer should be absolutely free from parliamentary interference. He should hold his position just as does a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State. He should be as free and independent as a Judge, and should not be removable from office nor have his emoluments reduced except on a resolution of both or at least one, House of Parliament. He should conduct the elections without interference. I do not say that there has yet been any gross interference,, but political warfare is becoming morebitter every year, and an over -zealous Government, if not restrained, might ask. the Chief Electoral Officer to do something which he did not feel legally justified in doing.

Senator Needham:

– There is not a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

– We were told that this is merely a consolidating measure makin? no serious alterations of the existing law. but I find, that we are asked to occupy our time with the consideration of such amendments as that which alters the definition of “ officer,” so that “ poll clerk” may. come before “doorkeeper.” For sixteen years the doorkeeper has come before the poll clerk in the enumeration of the persons who are defined as officers. Now Senator Russell, our former colleague, who was sent here by the Trades Hall, is so affected” by his new social surroundings that he feels that a poll clerk is the social superior to a doorkeeper, and must take precedence of him in an enumeration of titles of offices. I see nothing, but snobbery in the proposed amendment. It is a straw which serves to show the drift of the minds of Ministers.

Then we are told, that a “ ‘ roll ‘ means am electoral roll under this Act.” I have quoted the names of various electors from several electoral rolls to indicate what an electoral roll is, within the meaning’ of the definition set out in the clause under discussion. I do not desire to read out a list of many thousands of names; and I again ask whether the ‘Government are determined - seeing that it is midnight, and that it is the hour1, therefore, at which ordinarily an adjournment is granted for supper - to carry on the inhumane procedure, which was inflicted the other day. I understand that the sessional orders do not provide for an adjournment on Tuesday nights. I have no desire that the Government and officers of the Senate should exhibit the same brutality as was displayed on the other occasion.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! The honorable senator is not in order in using the word “ brutality,” and must withdraw it.

Senator GARDINER:

– I withdraw it. I admit that, it is not sufficiently strong, for I consider that the conduct on that occasion was more than brutal.

Senator Millen:

– So it was;, but I have- my own opinion as to who waa the brute.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the Government have decided on that method of conducting business rather than adopt the ordinary procedure, I would prefer to take certain steps which would free me from association with all such doings.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is surely not threatening to write out his resignation ?

Senator GARDINER:

– No ; but while the President in his unfairness, and the Senate, in following the dictum of the Government,, inflicted an indignity on me which I should not have been subjected

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not in order in referring to the conduct of the President as unfair, and must withdraw.

Senator GARDINER:

– I withdraw; and will withdraw from the chamber if the Chairman requires me to do so. Now that Senator Russell has returned I hope that he will agree that the stupidity displayed on both sides should no longer continue. I do not know how fair he proposes to proceed with the Bill, but I trust that he will’ indicate the decision of the Government. v I have quoted from several divisional and subdivisional rolls, including that of South Sydney, as a typical city roll, in order that honorable senators may appreciate that in the conduct of an election the officials have a great deal of work and responsibility. I desire to quote now the result of the elections for the Senate in New South Wales in 1914. I have two reasons for doing so. My first is that in reciting the figures honorable senators will be impressed with the enormous number of votes which had to be handled by the electoral officers;, and my second reason is that months ago Senator Pratten referred to our relative positions in the Senate as representatives of New South Wales. By quoting the f914 election re- + turns I shall be able to indicate exactly how Senator Pratten and I stood in relation to that contest. I promised him on that occasion that I would eventually get those figures into Hansard. They are as follows: -

I have no desire to occupy any further time. I am sorry that the Minister will not tell us how far he proposes to go. Perhaps he may do so on a later clause.

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

AYES: 15

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Woes . . . . . . 2

Majority … … 13

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Chief Electoral Officer)

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

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

AYES: 15

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave tosit again.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The standing order is very explicit. A motion of this character, having been negatived, cannot be again submitted within fifteen minutes. No motion of this character has been negatived within the last fifteen minutes. The motion is quite in order.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (Divisions)

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– May I urge upon the Government that the Committee have made fairly good progress? We have by mutual consent arrived at an understanding as to the manner in which the Bill shall be discussed, and I think that the Senate might now adjourn.

Senator Millen:

– Certainly not.

Senator GARDINER:

– This clause strikes out section 13 of the Act, and I think the Committee ought to know the reason for the alteration. I do not mind passing without discussion a clause which makes no amendment in the existing law, but it is in accordance with parliamentary custom that when an important change is made the clause should not be rushed through by dividing the Committee and without any explanation of the reason for the amendment. I do not insist upon an explanation of this clause, but I merely indicate my opinion in regard to all clauses which make important alterations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Distribution Commissioners)

Senator GARDINER (New South was struck out by the preceding clause, is here re-enacted in an amended form.

Senator GARDINER:

– They should be explained. If they are only verbal, why are they made? The Committee are entitled to know why even verbal amendmentsare made.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19-

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to -

Existing boundaries of Divisions and

Subdivisions, and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed front to a greater extent than one-fifth more or onefifth less.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I do not agree with the directions here given for the information of the Commissioners. It would be a very good idea if paragraphs a to e were disregarded and the States were as nearly as possible cut into sections containing approximately the same number of electors. If, however, directions must be inserted, I would like to see the addition of another paragraph, and I move as an amendment -

That the following paragraph be inserted : -

Inthe case of any division adjacent to Federal Territory, the practicability of including such territory in the division.

That would be a direction to the Distribution Commissioners to take into consideration, for instance, the allocation of Canberra to one of the adjacent electorates in New South Wales, and the allocation of the Northern Territory to some neighbouring Federal electorate, and would involve also the giving of some representation to Papua and the other islands in the Pacific. The time will come when the Australians in the Federal Capital area and in the Northern Territory must be given representation in. this Parliament. I am at a loss to understand why the people in the Northern Territory, who are subject to all the laws made by this Parliament, have no representation at the present time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- The Minister (Senator Russell) must see that the time has arrived when the people in the Federal Capital Territory should be included in one of the Federal electorates in New South Wales. If there were any immediate prospect of the Federal Parliament meeting at Canberra there would be some reason for disfranchising them. But so far as the Constitution will allow, we might reasonably provide for the representation of all persons resident in Commonwealth Territory. With the present Government in office, the Federal Parliament will continue to meet in Melbourne for some time. That being so, if arrangements can be made to give representation to the people in the Federal Capital Territory, the Government should consider the matter.

Senator Russell:

– I do not think that is permissible under the Constitution.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 14

Majority . . … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 (Arrangement with States,).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– A good deal of attention has been directed at various times to the desirableness of the States and the Commonwealth co-operating in the preparation of a uniform electoral roll which could be used for both State and Federal elections. But this clause does not appear to be sufficiently comprehensive to bring about that result.

Senator Russell:

– I can assure the honorable senator that it is complete. It requires nothing beyond the consent of the States, and it is exactly similar to the provision under which Tasmania has been operating for the past ten years.

Senator GRANT:

– I am content to accept the assurance of the VicePresident of the Executive Council, and will not therefore oppose the clause.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I should like to know when the whole of theStates are likely to come into line with the Commonwealth in regard to the adoption of a uniform electoral roll ?

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

.- This Bill will permit of the fullest co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth in regard to the adoption of a uniform electoral roll. The fact that the States have appointed officers to attend various conferences upon this matter is indicative of a genuine desire on their part to co-operate with the Commonwealth. I hope that all the States will come into line within a few months after the passing of this Bill.

Senator McDougall:

– Why cannot one roll be adopted, without any distinguishing marks as between State and Federal electors?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Because the Commonwealth roll is in some respects wider than are the State rolls. We cannot compel the States to accept our list of voters. The marks of which the honorable senator speaks will show what persons are ineligible to vote as State electors, who are eligible to vote as Commonwealth electors.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33 (New rolls).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Notwithstanding that for a number of years a system of compulsory enrolment has been operative so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, it is a fact that many electors fail to enroll and that no steps are taken to secure their enrolment. The elector is supposed to see that his name is placed upon the Toll. But many persons change their residences so frequently that they neglect this duty. In fairness to them, I think it should be recognised that our system of compulsory enrolment is more or less of a failure. My own opinion is that in each electoral division an officer should be appointed, whose special duty it should be to see that the rolls are kept as accurately as possible. We all know that at every general election thousands of persons whose names should be upon the roll are disfranchised. This undesirable result could be obviated by the appointment of an alert officer in each division, whose time would be fully occupied in insuring that only qualified electors were enrolled. Consequently I move -

That the following new sub-clause he inserted : -

” There shall in addition be an officer appointed for each division whose duty it shall be to see that all duly qualified electors are enrolled.”

If my proposal does not meet with the approval of honorable senators, I hope they will recognise the necessity of doing something to secure the enrolment of all electors who are qualified to vote.I know some divisions in which at least a third of the electors move from one place to another between elections. The necessity for obtaining employment is their first consideration, and the need for their electoral enrolment is quite a secondary matter. The additional expenditure that would be incurred by the appointment of an officer in each division for the purpose I have outlined would be merely a nominal one. The existing system does not insure the preparation of a complete roll. In New South Wales members of the police force collect the rolls.

Senator Russell:

– Will the honorable senator read clause 38 of the Bill ?

Senator GRANT:

– That does not provide for the appointment of an officer whose time would be devoted exclusively to this particular work. The Electoral Registrar, for example, merely registers the names of persons who apply to him for enrolment, and secures the removal of names to which exception is taken.

Senator Russell:

– Postmen collect the names of electors.

Senator GRANT:

– And the nominal pay which they receive for doing that work is not calculated to inspire one with confidence that it is well done. I quite recognise that the appointment of an officer for each division would probably involve the payment to him of a salary equal to that of an Electoral Registrar, in addition to travelling expenses. But, after all, that would amount to only a few hundred pounds a year in each division, and the number of electoral divisions in the Commonwealth is not very large. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

. - May I point out to the honorable senator that at the present time we have in each electoral division one permanent officer whose duty it is to obtain information from every possible source. The appointment of an additional officer would mean that in a large electorate he would be completely lost. Our best way of achieving the result which the honorable senator desires is to insure the cooperation of the States with the Commonwealth. We shall then be able to avail ourselves, not merely of the services of the police, but of a great many other officers. At present a small subsidy is being paid to the postmen, who come into daily contact with the whole of the citizens of Australia, and who are, therefore, specially fitted to undertake the work of collecting the rolls. If the postmen are not getting sufficient remuneration for their services in this connexion, I shall be glad to co-operate with Senator Grant with a view to seeing that justice is done to them.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– In my judgment the greatest mistake made has been to trust this work to postmen. I suppose that quite 50 per cent, of the people never receive a letter. How, then, is the postman to know what persons live in a particular house? How can he ascertain the names of those who are resident in flats ? He has merely to report that’ he cannot deliver a letter in order to receive his fee. That is the greatest mistake of all. I believe that a system could be devised under which we should not have to rely on postmen to collect our rolls, and under which we should secure much purer rolls than we have to-day. We know that at every general election it is found that persons who have been living in the same house for perhaps forty years have had their names struck off the rolls simply because the postman has reported that they did not reside there.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– There are many districts in Australia in which the postman does not effect a letter delivery. In such districts he would have no knowledge either of the arrivals or departures from it. Then, on account of the high cost of land in suburban areas, it has been found necessary by many families to abandon living in bungalows, cottages, or mansions, and to take up their residence in flats. Other persons are continually coming and going, so that obviously the postman can have no real knowledge of the changes which are taking place. . I do not suggest that one officer in an electoral division will be sufficient to cope with the work of enrolment in that division, but there is certainly nothing in the provision we are now discussing which will meet this difficulty. The amendment which I have submitted is a step in the right direction. I quite admit that one officer would be utterly unable to travel over the whole of our large electoral divisions, seeing that it takes a very active candidate several months to traverse them.

Senator Senior:

– The honorable senator desires the appointment of a sort of truant officer?

Senator GRANT:

– An officer of that description appears to be necessary. There was a time when persons would fight for the. franchise, and, if necessary, die for it. But it is not so to-day. It is really a difficult matter to get some people to enroll. The existing law is very defective in that regard, and it would be wise for us to appoint an officer such as I have suggested in each electoral division.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I venture to suggest that the system of compulsory enrolment is unnecessary in Australia. In the case of adults, I think that anything of a compulsory character is objectionable. But peculiarly objectionable is the system of compulsory electoral enrolment. Let me draw attention to the way in which a very great hardship is inflicted under the existing law. A person may be living on one side of a street in East Sydney, and may move to the other side of that street, thereby transferring his residence to the division of Wentworth without being aware of the fact. The ever-alert electoral officials discover that this change has been made, and, because the elector has not secured a transfer from one division to the other, he is haled before a Court and fined. Or, again, a person in the Waverley subdivision of the division of Wentworth may unconsciously move into another subdivision. He is liable to be fined if he does not notify the Department of his change of residence. Yet it is almost impossible for him to know where a subdivision begins and where it ends. It may be said, by way of reply, that a map showing the different electoral boundaries is posted at the local post-office. But from that map it is quite impossible for an elector to ascertain whether he is resident in one electoral division or in another.

Senator Pearce:

– This is not the clause which deals with that matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I will not pursue the subject further.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 18

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 (Objections and Notices to have effect in relation to new rolls).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It has been a provision of our electoral law that a fee of 5s. must accompany any objection to an enrolment; but the evidence given before a Select Committee of the Senate which inquired into electoral matters in 1913 was that the practice of requiring the fee had become a dead letter. Under the circumstances, should this clause be retained?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– This clause does not deal with the payment of the fee of 5s. The provision to which Senator Needham refers has discouraged the lodging of objections by organizations and private citizens, which perhaps is a good thing; but the clause under discussion merely provides machinery for the removal of names from the roll by the electoral officials.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36 (Printing ofRolls).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– At the present time, it is impossible to procure in Sydney an electoral roll which is even approximately correct, and no doubt the same statement holds good of the other capitals. The rolls now obtainable were printed prior to the last -election. In some cases, supplementary rolls were published later, but in other cases no such rolls were published. In my opinion, the printing of the rolls should be undertaken, not at the direction of the Minister, but at regular intervals. The shortage of paper cannot be advanced as an objection to this, because any quantity of paper is now available. Will the Minister agree to an amendment providing for the printing of the rolls eighteen months after a general election, and then again immediately before the next election?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– The practice now is to print the rolls just prior to the election, but in each division there is an Electoral Registrar, whose duty it is to keep as accurate a list of the electors as can be compiled. On his roll are shown all additions, transfers, and omissions, and this roll can be inspected at any time. Nothing would be gained by printing the rolls eighteen months after an election, because such rolls would only serve the convenience of a few persons who can now get any information they require by visiting an Electoral Registrar’s office; and, by the time the next general election came, they would be entirely out of date, so that we should be no better off than we are now. There is still a scarcity of paper, and it is necessary to economize. I trust, therefore, that the honorable senator will not press for an amendment of the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.

Clause 39-

  1. Subject to the disqualification set out in this Part, all persona not under twentyone years of age, whether male or female, married or unmarried -

    1. who have lived in Australia for six months continuously, and
    2. who are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the King, and
    3. every member of the Forces, according to the definition of such in the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act 1917, shall be entitled to enrolment subject to the provisions of Part VII. of this Act…

  2. No aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific (except New Zealand) shall be entitled to have his name placed on or retained on any Boll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election unless so entitled under section 41 of the Constitution.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the words “ twenty-one “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ eighteen.”

The amendment will meet with the approval of a majority of ‘ the electors, though not with that of those who have always opposed the extension of the franchise. It was most difficult to obtain the franchise for all adults of twenty-one years of age, and it is not long since - in New South Wales, at any rate - the owners of property could record a vote in every electorate in which their property was situated. It was not unusual for a big property-holder to record votes for from twelve to thirty candidates. The elections were not then all held on the same day, which made it possible for such an elector to vote first in city and suburban electorates, and later in country electorates. It is humiliating that today our municipalities, instead of being under the direct control of the men and women living in them, are governed largely by property-owners. I remember an occasion on which one man recorded four, votes by virtue of the property that he was thought to possess; and yet a few days later he filed his schedule.

Senator Pearce:

– There is no property vote under the Bill.

Senator Reid:

– Does the honorable senator think that a boy or girl of eighteen years of age has sufficient sense to exercise the franchise properly?

Senator GRANT:

– The number of persons which ray proposal would affect would not exceed 250,000, and the number in any one division would be very much smaller than that. Parliamentary elections take place usually at intervals of about three years. Consequently, a person who was twenty years and eleven months of age at the time of one election would be nearly twenty-four years of age when the next arrived. Neither the possession of property nor the attainment of the age of twenty-one years should be the qualification for a vote. Some of those who vote now give only the most casual attention to political matters. But, under our system of education, children leave school at the age of fourteen well equipped, and between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years are earning their own living. Boys and girls of eighteen years of age have only left off their schooling for three or four years, and are intellectually keen and alert. They are capable of grasping and solving a problem much more quickly than men and women of more advanced age, and physically are almost as fit as they will ever be. The average person of eighteen years of age would beat, on an. educational test, 99 per cent, of the members of this Parliament, and such persons are playing the part of citizens. Why then, should ‘they not have the right to vote for parliamentary candidates? A considerable number of, boys, under eighteen years of age were accepted for military service abroad; but,, leaving out of account the military aspect of the matter, I say that, intellectually, the young man and young woman of eighteen years of age is equal to the average citizen, and,, in many respects, surpasses him in education and intelligence.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I cannot accept the amendment. It would vitally alter our franchise. I intend to provide,, however, that all who have served in the Australian Imperial Force - among whom are youths of eighteen who, having had an opportunity to see the world, have thus got to know more of it than is expected of those of their years - shall have the right to vote. We propose this as an acknowledgment that, by their military service, they have earned the full rights of citizenship. But we cannot agree to an extension of the franchise to every person of the age of eighteen years.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I move -

That paragraph c bc left out, with a view to insert, after sub-clause 1, the following sub-clause: - 1a. In addition to the persons specified in the last preceding sub-section, all persons who are: or have been members of. the Forces within the meaning of theCommonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act 1917 and who -

have lived in Australia for sis months continuously, and

are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the King, shall be entitled to enrolment subject to the provisions of Part VII. of this Act. This provision shallhave effect only during the continuance of the present state of war and for a period of three years thereafter.

The age of enlistment is eighteen. By the time that the period of three years has expired, all those who enlisted at the age of eighteen will have become qualified, under the present provisions of the electoral law, toexercise the franchise.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.. -Can the Minister for Defence indicate the number of men who, under his amendment, would be entitled to vote during the next eighteen months, and who would not have been in such a position but for his amendment? Would there be any at all?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [1.57 a.m.]. - I am not quite clear as to the provision requiring six months’ previous residence in Australia. Will the Minister explain that further?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– Under the amendment persons who may be qualified to vote must have resided, prior to enlistment, during some period of their lives, for six months continuously in Australia. As to the point raised by Senator Grant, I cannot give the exact figures, but at one stage of the war, after about two years had elapsed, an analysis was made to ascertain the average age of members of the Australian Imperial Force, and it was surprisingly low. At that time it was about twenty-three years. That would indicate that of the number of those who had enlisted there were probably between 80,000 and 100,000 who were at that time under twenty-one. Of course, since then many have reached the age of twenty-one. I should say that when our men have returned there will be from 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers throughout Australia who will be entitled to vote as an outcome of the provision covered by the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Sub-clause 4 prevents an aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific (except New Zealand) from voting unless he was so entitled by reason that he had a vote prior to the framing of the Federal Constitution. That disability prevents quite a number of worthy and intelligent aboriginals of Australia from exercising the franchise. I admit that there would be a difficulty in providing a test. I do not suggest an educational test, but that it should be left to the discretion of the Electoral Registrar. I shall move a specific amendment later.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [2.5 a.m.].- Will aboriginal natives who have served in the Australian Imperial Force be entitled under the amendment just agreed to to vote irrespective of the disabilities imposed in sub-clause 4? Among the members of the Australian Imperial Force with whom I have come in contact, I can recall several aborigines and half-castes who were smart fellows, , and had been well educated at mission stations in South Australia.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I am afraid that if they were full-blooded aborigines they would not be able to take advantage of the amendment just agreed to. Personally, I do not know of any fullblooded aboriginals in the Australian Imperial Force, and I understand that there has been a prohibition against their enlistment. I hope Senator Gardiner will see how impossible it would be to efficiently administer the law if his amendment were incorporated. No doubt, there are some constituencies where a little looseness on the part of an electoral official in enrolling aborigines might sway an election. Unfortunately, the aborigines, as a class, is susceptible to the sixpenny piece in a manner which does not ordinarily apply to the white man. What sort of a test would be suitable, and what class of electoral officer would make the test?

Senator Gardiner:

– One speciallyappointed for that work.

Senator PEARCE:

– That would entail much travelling. I know of one aboriginal mission station in the centre of Australia. An electoral official appointed to apply the test in some distant part of the Commonwealth might enroll hundreds of half-wild aborigines.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have known fullblooded aborigines to possess intellectual and business intelligence equal to white men. I do not desire to open the door to any grave malpractices. I move -

That the following words be added to subclause 4 : - “ unless he can pass a test prescribed by the Electoral Registrar proving his fitness to exercise the franchise.”

Senator Pearce:

– That would let in the Asiatic as well.

Senator GARDINER:

– Possibly the Minister can frame an amendment to include Australian aborigines only.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

– Ihave considerable sympathy with Senator Gardiner. I have known many aborigines who were fine fellows, but those sufficiently educated to vote are so few that it is hardly worth while pressing the amendment. I do not think that the few intelligent black men really desire the franchise. If we extend it to the Australian native, we might also be required to give it to Asiatics, Africans, and kanakas.

Senator Crawford:

– Their offspring possess the right to vote in Australia now, if they were born here.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– I resent hearing our Australian blacks described as the lowest people on the face of the earth. That is far from true. There are many excellent folk among them; but I do not know that they desire to vote.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– There are many intelligent aborigines in Western Australia, but if there were only one in Australia who had intelligence enough to understand our electoral laws, and to know what he was voting for, he should be permitted to exercise the franchise. In New Norcia there is a long-established mission, at which many really intelligent natives may be met. Two at least have qualified for the priesthood, and today are practising in the order in Lon don. There should be a standard of intelligence.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– It ill-becomes me to oppose any attempt to do justice to native inhabitants of this continent. But there is much in Senator Pearce’s contention that unprincipled individuals might easily manipulate the aboriginal vote. In some countries the qualification for the possession of the franchise is the ability to personally write out an application for the vote. If Senator Gardiner will make his amendment more particular, and will cite the qualifications as being the ability to write out an application before a justice of the peace or an electoral officer, I will support him. Any test should be educational.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– My proposal is much better than to attempt to fix a test here and now, because the Minister will be able to provide by regulation for such a test as will not leave itself open to the looseness which the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) foresees.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following proviso be added to the clause : - “ Provided that any Minister or mem- ber of Parliament who introduces into either the Senate or the House of Representatives any proposal to disfranchise any Australianborn elector shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty : £1,000 and imprisonment for five years.

Provided also that if any member of the Senate or the House of Representatives votes for such proposal, bis seat becomes vacant within seven days of recording such vote.”

Of the. fifteen honorable senators who voted in opposition to giving Australian natives the franchise, ten are not Australiansby birth. If Parliament should come under the control of such men, they might disfranchise all Australians born of European descent. The object of my amendment is to prevent this from being done. There is a growing prejudice among the power-holding imported Australians against the Australian born.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Does the fact that the honorable senator is an Australian born make him a much better man than those who are not Australian born ?

Senator GARDINER:

– It makes me take very good care to see that I and my fellow Australians shall not be at the mercy of those who, not being Australians, seem to have no sympathy with them. During the last twelve months, without hesitation, and for party purposes, a Bill was passed through this Parliament disfranchising Australian-born citizens, the sons and daughters of British mothers and German fathers, and leaving them without a country, not because of their lack of loyalty, but because of the names they bore. If an Australian-born elector has done anything against this country let him be put where he cannot vote, but where there is no proof of anything but upright conduct against an elector he should not be disfranchised. Many Australianborn citizens feel their position keenly, and we cannot be too severe in imposing penalties on Ministers who attempt to deprive them of their right to vote in their native country.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The honorable senator exhibits a very laudable desire to safeguard the interests of Australian native-born. I am of foreign extraction and birth, but I am just as anxious to safeguard the well-being and true interests of Australian native-born, and I seek to know whether the honorable senator has in mind persons who have been born on islands adjacent to Australia. There is an island on the western coast of Australia called Rottnest. Has the honorable senator the Rottnest native-born in his mind when he speaks of Australian native-born. There is also a big island on the east coast of Australia called Pinchgut. Has the honorable senator the Pinchgut native-born in his mind?

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 (Claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment)-.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I direct attention to the phrase “ for a period of one month last past.” It is very vague. Probably we can convince ourselves of the meaning the draftsman intends to convey, but could not a phrase somewhat less vague be employed?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– The English is perfectly clear. Another way of expressing the meaning would be to say “for the month immediately preceding,” but it would be much more cumbrous. Prior to making a claim for enrolment, a person must be residing for a period of one month last past in the subdivision. Other words might sound better, but may not express the meaning so clearly.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– If a person applies for enrolment on the29th November and he is asked, “Have you been resident in this subdivision for the month last past?” it may be interpreted to refer not to the thirty days prior to the 29 th November, hut to the month of October. The simplest language should be. used in our Statutes, and words that can not be misinterpreted.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I am assured that there has never been any dispute in regard to the meaning of these words. “A period of one month” is a well-known term in our electoral law. If a deliberate attempt is made to keep a person off a roll he has always the right of appeal, and the further remedy that if he cannot be enrolled for the new subdivision he is presumably enrolled for his old subdivision in which he has lived for a month, or may claim to be enrolled for it. I cannot see any substance in the honorable senator’s objection.

Senator Gardiner:

– On the interpretation clause we could make provision to indicate clearly the meaning of the words “ for a period of one month last past.”

Senator PEARCE:

– I have ascertained from the Electoral Officer that if a man makes a claim on the 28th November to be enrolled, he is. asked whether he has lived for the month last past in the subdivision. If he then inquires what is meant by that, he is asked if he has lived in that constituency since the 28th October.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42 -

  1. Every person who is entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for any Subdivivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll, shall forthwith fill in and sign, in accordance with the directions printed thereon, a claim in the prescribed form, and send or deliver the claim to the Registrar for the Subdivision.
  2. Every person who is entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of twenty-one days from the date upon which he became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while he continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that his nonenrolment is not in consequence of his failure to send or deliver to the Registrar for the Subdivision for which he is entitled to be enrolled, a claim in the prescribed form, duly filled in and signed in accordance with the directions printed thereon.

Penalty: For a first offence, Ten shillings; and for any subsequent offence, Two pounds.

  1. Every person who changes his place of living from one address in the Subdivision for which he is enrolled, to another address in that Subdivision and who, at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of making the change, has failed to notify the Registrar for the Subdivision in the prescribed form of the new address, shall be guilty of an Offence.

Penalty: For a first offence, Ten shillings; and for every subsequent offence, Two pounds.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move as an amendment -

That the following words he added to subclause (2) : - “ Provided that the Divisional Returning -Officer shall give twenty-one days’ notice to electors who have not enrolled before taking proceedings against such electors.” .

That would mean that a person could be resident in the subdivision for forty-two days before proceedings could be taken against him.

Senator Senior:

– A more reasonable objection is that he must live in the subdivision a month before he is entitled to be enrolled, and yet he is required to enroll within twenty-one days.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no objection to the elector being required to enroll within twenty-one days, but I wish him to have another twenty-one days’ notice before proceedings can be taken against him. This is a country of vast distances, with a large migratory population, and it may be that shortly before the twenty-one days has expired change of occupation compels an elector to move to some other part of the Commonwealth. He may not be conversant with the requirements of the electoral law, and in any case he may not have had time to notify the electoral office of his change of address. I propose the amendment in order that no person may be unduly harassed.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · “Western Australia · NAT

.- The amendment would place in the hands of officials a power that is not likely to be beneficial to the rolls. Its effect will be to place on the official the responsibility of notifying the elector of his obligation.. That would mean that an elector” would say, “ I am all right ; until I receive notice I need not bother.” We know how difficult it is to induce people to interest themselves in getting their names on the roll. Make this amendment, and the elector will have the idea that before he needs to take any action, he will receive a notice from the Department. Thus he will be lulled into- a sense of false security. Even when notices are sent they do not always reach the addressee, and this amendment would prove a trap for the unwary elector, who would find that, through trusting to receive a notification from the Department, his name had been omitted from the roll.. So long as we retain, the compulsory enrolment provisions, it is better to- place the obligation on the elector, because, if only to escape the penalty, he will see that his name- is on the roll. If the amendment is made he will rely upon the officials, and the last state will be worse than the first.

Senator Senior has pointed out by interjection what he. regards as an inconsistency between the twenty-one days allowed for enrolment,, and the month last past. The two periods are not concurrent. ‘In the first place the elector must have resided in the subdivision for the month last past before he can claim enrolment, and after that month, he is allowed twenty-one days within which, to enroll himself and escape prosecution.

Senator Senior:

– During that fifty days, an election might happen, and the elector would be disfranchised.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course an election might happen,, but the elector could enroll on the very day on which he completed his- residential qualification.

Senator Senior:

– If a man moves from one division to another,, he ought to be entitled to vote in one of them.

Senator PEARCE:

– If he has not actually applied for a transfer, he may still vote in the subdivision he has left.

Senator Gardiner:

– He is not permitted to vote in a subdivision from which he has been, absent for one month.

Senator PEARCE:

– He is not entitled to get his name transferred until he has resided in the new subdivision for a full month.. Then he is allowed twenty-one days in which to make his claim. But his name is not removed from the other roll until he himself makes a claim, or until an objection has been lodged against his name,, and he has had notice of such objection and time to file an answer to it. The elector is fully safeguarded.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I call the- attention of the Committee to the fact that, under’ subclause 3 every person who changes his place of living from one address in the subdivision for which he is enrolled to another address in that subdivision must notify the Registrar of his new address, or bc liable to a penalty of 10s. That means that if a man moves from one street to another in the same division, or from one house to the house next door, he will be liable to this penalty. This seems to be imposing penalties unnecessarily. I agree that there should be a time limit within which a man should notify his change of address, but usually the persons who are most likely to commit this offence are those who can ill-afford to pay a fine of 10s.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I support the amendment, on the ground that I object to compulsory enrolment; but if penalties are to be inflicted for non-enrolment on moving from one subdivision to another, I am prepared to support any amendment that will make the electors less liable. Why we should go out of our way to compel persons to enroll who do not wish to do so, I do not know. When a person has’ lived outside his. subdivisionfor a month, objection can be lodged against his name being on the roll, and unless, he can show to the satisfaction of the Electoral Department that, for the month last past he. has been living in- that subdivision, his name will be struck off. Clause 55, dealing with objections, makes that point quite clear. If I move from one side of the road to the other, and in so doing enter another subdivision, somebody may take objection to my name being on the roll for the subdivision which I have just left. And I remind the Committee that objecting is becoming a fine art. The National party has organizers who positively pursue electors in order to object to their enrolment. I may move across a road without knowing that I am entering another subdivision. I am not in that subdivision long enough to qualify for enrolment in it, and yet I -am disqualified from voting in the other subdivision, because I have not lived in it for the month last past. It is an outrage to fine an elector for something he has done innocently. If there has been a deliberate offence against the law, punish the offender, but this proposal to impose penalties in such a way that the electors will be annoyed and harassed makes me stronger in my opposition to compulsory enrolment. In the case of a working man who has offended against this provision, he has not only to pay the fine of 10s., but he must lose his day’s employment in order to appear at the Court. It means nothing to one section of the community to drive to the Court at the appointedhour to answer a charge under this Act, but to the working man it means a lot. We can well afford to wipe out all penalties in respect of unintentional offences. If the Bill went further and provided that in addition to compulsory enrolment, there should be compulsory voting, it would be consistent. I do not say that I would favour compulsory voting. In all the laws I help to frame the fixed idea I have in mind is never to curtail the liberties of the people. Let their individual liberty be as great as possible, consistent with the well-being of the community. There is nothing inconsistent with the well-being of the community in saying that an elector ought to be able to move from one house to another without rendering himself liable to a penalty. The amendment provides a safeguard that before he is penalized for not having reported his change of address, the elector shall have notice that will enable him to comply with the wishes of the Department. It is no more trouble for the Department to issue a notice to him that he must attend to his enrolment than it is to send a summons to him.

All these wrongs come from a bad principle that is getting an increasing hold ; we do not consider the people, but adopt a roughshod method of ordering them to do something or be penalized. I object to compulsory enrolment in its entirety. I object also to the manner in which it has been administered. I will not say that the electoral officers have not been considerate in individual cases, but having such a law to administer, they must inflict great hardships on the community, who alreadyhave enough hardships without being involved in penalties for non-enrolment. In many cases it is impossible for the elector to know that he has shifted from one subdivision into another. I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole of -this clause, and if he will not abolish compulsory enrolment, will at any rate not seek to drag electors before the Court without giving them notice that they ought to enroll. If a hundred notifications were sent to electors, telling them that they must enroll within a specified time, 90 per cent, of them would comply with the requirements of the Act. Only 10 summonses would then be required, and surely there would be a great saving in time and trouble in issuing only ten summonses instead of 100. The Department should study, also, the convenience and feelings of the electors. A wealthy importer doe3 not mind going before the Court to answer a charge of having defrauded the Customs; he suffers no anxiety by reason of the indignity placed upon him. But the highly sensitive working class people suffer intensely when they are summoned.I know of persons who felt so keenly at having been taken before the Court that the monetary penalty was no punishment compared with the mental anguish and sense of degradation they felt at having been dragged into Court for an innocent breach of the law. I do hope that the

Minister will consider the convenience of the people who sent us here. I am glad of this opportunity to enter my protest against such an iniquitous clause.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WesternAustralia · NAT

– In connexion with sub-clause . 3 of this clause, it is proposed, subject to clause 220 being passed, to provide by regulation that defaulting electors may elect to be dealt with by the District Returning Officer, instead of being summoned to a Court. This will avoid Court fees, which in some States are heavy, and insure uniformity of penalty. It was proposed to adopt a similar course in connexion with the compulsory voting provisions of the Act passed in 1915 in relation to the abandoned referendum of that year. I think the course which I have outlined will remove much of the objection which has been urged to our present procedure. Of course, it will not remove objection to compulsory voting as a principle. But we are not now discussing that question.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– There is something worthy of consideration in the announcement of the Minister. I shall, however, avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the Minister’s statement that, if my amendment be accepted, a power will be placed in the hands of certain officials which it may not be desirable to vest in them. Whilst I have every confidence in the officers of the Electoral Department, I have no desire to see people unduly harassed. If, for example, a person engaged, say, in the timber industry in the Swan division of Western Australia finds that he can better himself by accepting employment in the mining industry in the Kalgoorlie division, and accordingly removes to the latter division without notifying the authorities of his change of address within the prescribed period, I want to avoid the possibility of his being summoned for his forgetfulness. Notwithstanding the announcement of the Minister, which removes a good deal of my objection to this provision, I still think it will be worth while to ascertain the opinion of the Committee on my amendment.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 15

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- As the Committee has indorsed the principle of compulsory enrolment, I intend to move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (4) Every person whose name is on the certified list of voters shall record his or her vote on polling day.”

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator should submit that amendment when we reach Part XIII. of the Bill’, which deals with polling.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Perhaps it would be better to bring it forward then. I am not in favour of the exercise of compulsion. But the Committee, having decided for compulsory enrolment, I submit that its natural corollary is compulsory voting.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 43 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 -

Any name on a roll may be objected to by objection in writing lodged with or made by the DivisionalReturning Officer;

Provided that a sum of Five shillings shall be deposited in respect of each objection lodged by any person other than an officer, to be forfeited to the Kingif the objection is held by the Divisional Returning Officer to be frivolous.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Senator Pearce:

– Look at subparagraph 2 of clause 57.

Senator GARDINER:

– I challenge the Minister to say that all objections lodged within the past twelve months to the retention on the rolls of the names of electors, have been accompanied by a deposit, as provided by the law. As a matter of fact, the paid professional organizers of the National party avoid ‘the necessity for putting up this deposit by inducing the Electoral Department to send out the requisite notices. These ‘ organizers are the means of persistently disfranchising persons who should not be disfranchised. I know that Labour electors are persistently pursued by these professional organizers with that end in view. All the tricks imaginable are resorted to in an endeavour to prevent these electors being afforded an opportunity to record their votes.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 57-……

  1. If any objection lodged by any person other than an officer is held by the Divisional Returning Officer to be frivolous, the person objected to shall be entitled to such reasonable allowance, not exceeding £5 as the Divisional Returning Officer thinks fit to award.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is the clause to which the Minister directed my attention a few minutes ago. If the names of a number of electors are objected to by an electoral officer, and the Divisional Returning Officer regards the objection as frivolous, ought not the officer who lodged the objection to pay for the inconvenience to which the electors have been subjected?

That is the question which I would like the Minister to answer. I move -

That the words “other than an officer “ be left out.

My amendment, if adopted, will prevent the paid organizers of the National party from prompting the Electoral Department to object to retaining on the rolls the names of qualified electors, with a view to avoiding the lodging of thedeposit of 5s. in connexion with each objection.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I cannot accept the amendment, because I do not think it represents the proper way to deal with an officer who has exceeded his duty. The officer is supposed to lodge these objections only after he has informed himself that there are names upon the roll which ought not to be there. Senator Gardiner has alleged that under this provision officers lend themselves to party political organizations by lodging objections to the names of persons who have a perfect right to be on the roll. The way in which to deal with such officers is to discharge them. Members of Parliament are keenly alert to the grievances of electors, and would quickly bring before the Minister any misconduct on the part of an officer. A provision such as the honorable senator proposes would be calculated to deter an officer from doing his duty. Officers are not desirous of objecting to enrolments, because such objections may make trouble for them, and if we made it risky for them to do their duty in this respect we should have inflated and unreliable rolls, and that would not be of advantage to any party.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– My proposal is merely that an officer who makes a frivolous objection shall be liable to. the same penalty as the ordinary citizen who does so. If I make a frivolous objection I am justly punishable, and should an official who does the same thing escape punishment? I do not include in any general condemnation the officers of the Electoral Department, because it is only a fewold National organizers who have done what I complain of; but certainly the official who does what the ordinary citizen is punished for doing should be punished.

He is more blameworthy than the ordinary citizen.

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

AYES: 6

NOES: 14

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 66 agreed to.

Clause 67 (Duty of Returning Officer on receipt of writ).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Much expense could be saved if it were not made necessary to advertise in the newspapers the receipt and particulars of writs. When the Senate elections take place, within a couple of years’ time, a notice must be published in two newspapers in each of the States, although the event could be made known to the public equally well by the posting of notices at the post offices and electoral offices. In regard to House of Representatives elections, notices must be published in two newspapers in each Division. I think that the newspapers might well he asked to publish for nothing the announcement of elections. In the Sydney newspapers columns are filled’ with the election announcements relating to the various metropolitan and country electorates, because we are slavishly following a practice that was adopted when there was no better means of informing the public. The New South Wales notices are published not only in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph, but, toprevent complaint, they are published also in the daily newspapers’ and the Sunday newspapers.

If we had business announcements to make we could not do better than advertise in the newspapers with the largest circulation, but the electors could be informed of the particulars of, writs without any newspaper advertising. The candidates themselves could be trusted to make their supporters acquainted with the detailed arrangements for the election. Australia will never have to advertise for Parliamentary candidates. With preferential voting there will be more than ever. The present newspaper expenditure is a waste of public money. No doubt in regard to the coming Corangamite election the Government will publish a formal notice in every newspaper circulated in the district, including the metropolitan newspapers; but the public could get its information just as well from notices published as I have suggested.

Senator Grant:

– Or from announcements in the Government Gazette.

Senator GARDINER:

– To my mind, publication of notices in the Government Gazette would be sufficient.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– Senator Gardiner is making a mountain out of a molehill. The cost of this advertising is not very heavy, and as the whole population of Australia does not live in the. cities, every elector could not read the notices which the honorable senator would display at the. post-offices and at the electoral offices. I know that in the country persons who take an interest in election’s cut out the newspaper advertisements for reference.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The determination of the Government to continue the subsidizing of the newspapers is characteristic of their attitude towards the press. We were told the other day that some of the newspapers have been paid£1 5s. per inch for advertisements of the war loan, and the electoral advertisements must be very expensive. The publication of notices in the Government Gazette would meet all the requirements of the clause, and if I had my. way, the Government would confine its advertising to its own newspaper. No private company would subsidize other agencies than their own. I hope that the Government will not continue to spend money unnecessarily on press advertising.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 (State members not entitled to be nominated).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The clause provides that no person who is at the date of nomination, or was at any time within fourteen days prior to that date, a member of a State Parliament shall be capable of being nominated. I ask the Committee to strike out the clause. It unnecessarily restricts the choice of the electors. For a long time I have been of the opinion that members of the State Parliaments should not be compelled to resign their seats before being nominated for this Parliament. I think that the intention of the framers of the Constitution was that every citizen should be permitted to offer himself as a candidate for election to this Parliament. I know of no good reason for the clause. When Senator Lynch and I were elected in 1906 he had to resign the seat which he had in the Parliament of Western Australia, and many others have had to do the same. Some have obtained seats in this Parliament, but others have been less fortunate. No embargo should be placed on State members who ‘wish to contest Federal seats. They should be permitted to do so while still in possession of their State seats, and, if unsuccessful, should be able to retain their State seats. The striking out of the clause would save expense in many cases, because it will make a number of State by-elections unnecessary. Now a State by-election is caused whenever a State member resigns to contest a Federal seat.

Senator Russell:

– A similar provision was adopted by the State Parliaments in regard to the nomination of Federal members as candidates forState seats.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is a poor reason for retaining the clause. The National Parliament has been thought to occupy the highest sphere of legislative activities, and should set a good example to the States, instead of following their bad example. If we do so, the States will reciprocate. In any case, the choice of the Commonwealth electors should not he restricted. State members have “proved themselves, and their services would be of great value in this Parliament. I should like to know the Government’s reason for retaining the clause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator can do what he wishes simply by voting against the clause.

Clause negatived.

Senator Russell:

– I rose to speak on the clause. I was awaiting the conclusion of the Temporary Chairman’s explanation. I shall have to move at a later stage for the recommittal of the clause.

Senator Needham:

– I do not wish to take advantage of the position of the clause having been negatived. I was under the. same impression as the Minister.

Senator Foll:

– I distinctly heard several honorable senators call “Aye” when the Chairman put the question. When the Chairman declared ‘ ‘ The Noes have it,” I distinctly called for a division.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I had no option but to decide on the voices as I heard them. The clause has been declared negatived.

Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 (Requisites for Nomination).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– This clause provides that, before a person can be nominated as a candidate for election, he must deposit the sum of ?25 with the Returning Officer. I intend to move for the deletion of that provision.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will the Minister consent to the postponement of this clause?

Senator Russell:

– I amwilling that it be postponed until the remainder of the clauses are dealt with.

Clause postponed.

Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.

Clause 76 postponed.

Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 82 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause83 agreed to.

Clause 84 (Failure of Election).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This clause reads -

  1. Whenever an election wholly or partially fails a new writ shall forthwith be issued for a supplementary election.
  2. An election shall be deemed to have wholly failed if no candidate is nominated or returned as elected.
  3. An election shall be deemed to have partially failed whenever one or more candidates is returned as elected, but not the full number required to be elected.

In the case of an election, suppose that there arefour candidates forthree seats. Two of the four may be fatally injured in a railway accident shortly before the day of voting. The surviving candidates, I take it, will not be eligible to be voted for on polling day, although they have conducted their campaign and borne all the expenses associated therewith..

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– The honorable senator misinterprets the clause. It is intended to meet such cases as that of the late Senator McGregor. And if there were three seats to be filled, and one of the candidates died, leaving only two, a writ would be issued, and a new election held for the third vacancy only; but, if the elected candidate died after polling day, the vacancy would be filled automatically by the State Parliament concerned. If there were four candidates for three vacancies, and one died prior to the day of election, the surviving three would be elected automatically. This clause provides only for the event of the number of candidates not being equal to the number required. I may add that the Department has had cases arising under this clause, which is merely re-enacting present legislation, and it has stood the test of time and the law.

Clause agreed to.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– As considerable discussion is likely to arise regarding this subject, I am prepared to postpone the whole of

Part XII., which deals with voting by post, until the rest of the Bill has been disposed of.

Clauses 85 to 97 postponed.

Clause 98 (Returning officer to make arrangements).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Sub-clause 3 states -

No person under the age of twenty-one years shall be appointed to be a presiding officer or assistant presiding officer.

I do not see the need for that provision. The choice of such an officer may be limited. There may be an individual who is just under twenty-one, but who in all other respects completely fills the requirements and would make a better presiding officer than any other man available who would not be debarred by the age limit. To indicate the need for placing no restrictions upon the selection of the most suitable presiding officer, I call to mind the incident of an official who was removed from performing his duties in peculiar circumstances. It was in connexion with an election for a New South Wales constituency. The presiding officer at a polling booth lost his job because he refused to shake hands with one of the candidates - a former friendly acquaintance - on election day. The point is that that officer offended the Nationalists’ interests by that action, and the outcome was that many of the electors so resented the unfairness of the treatment meted out to the official that they refused to go to the polling booth at all. Here was a reputable man, quite capable of carrying out all his duties, and whose integrity was unquestioned; but he was immediately removed because he had been somewhat offensive in the polling booth to a particular candidate, and because he was not deemed suitable, therefore, from the National stand-point.

Senator Russell:

– If that statement is correct, the parties responsible ought to be dismissed. We should all be interested in keeping the electoral machinery clean.

Senator GARDINER:

– I will cite another instance. I boarded a train from Sydney on the’ morning before election day, and there were four other men in the carriage goingout to stations along the line. One mentioned that he was proceeding to take charge of a polling booth, and added that he had been organizer of a party but that it was considered that he could do more good as a presiding officer. I did not report that matter, as such action is generally useless. Conditions such as that operate in numbers of political contests. Altogether I cannot see why there should be an age limitation when it should be desired to secure the very best man available. Undue influence of party or other nature should not be permitted to interfere with the selection of returning officers. Possibly it might be wise, where there are two officers to be appointed, that, in view of the fact that there are two main parties, one of the officials should be known to belong to one, and the second to the other party. In that way, in every polling booth, one official would be inclined to keep check on the other. No member of a Labour league could secure such a position, because he would be known to be connected with a political organization. But there is no goodreason why such a person should not be chosen. A man who belongs to neither one party nor the other is not likely to be either fair and impartial or of a good intelligent type generally. Under this clause very serious disabilities are growing up owing to the particular pull which a party may have. Scrutineers should be paid. It is absolutely impossible for a Senate candidate to send a scrutineer to every polling booth, although he may know that if he does not send scrutineers to certain centres he will not get a fair deal. Knowing that my party had not got a fair deal at one Rolling booth on a prior election, I sent a scrutineer to that booth at a recent election for the Senate, and he reported that there was some underhand work going on.. Thereupon, a second man was sent to see that every ballot-paper counted from that booth was scrutinized. Out of 470 ballotpapers, twelve were wrongly counted to the disadvantage of my party. I insisted on a recount. When the parties are very evenly divided, twelve votes out of 470 could easily turn the result of an election. Our application for a recount was not granted. In such polling booths dishonesty can creep in, and now we have the opportunity to render it impossible for unfair tactics to he employed in order to unseat a man who has honestly won his election. However, as I do not think that honorable senators would support a proposal to pay scrutineers, I shall not move in that direction. There are many other clauses in the Bill which should receive full consideration, but they can be dealt with on recommittal. Now that we have made so much progress with the Bill, it would be a fair thing for the Minister to have progress reported.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 99 agreed to.

Clause 100 (No licensed premises to be used).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– There is no good reason for retaining this clause. If there is one class of business which is under the immediate supervision of the police, it is the retail liquor trade. The object of this clause is to prevent the consumption of intoxicating liquor on polling days, but in some of the States no licensed premises are permitted to open on the day on which an election for Parliament is held. In any case we should study the convenience of electors. The wealthy candidate is able to stock his committee rooms with liquor in order to make ample provision for those who work hard on polling day, and who are otherwise debarred from obtaining it through the closing of the hotels; but the day has gone by when the consumption of strong drink may -be considered likely to affect an election. I object to our pretending a virtue which we do not possess. The intelligence of the community would strongly resent too open an inroad upon the proper conduct of elections. It would also be inclined to resent the idea of some candidates that they can control votes by supplying liquor to electors. There may be attached to licensed premises a large dining or billiard room, which, seeing that the bar is closed, could be used as a polling booth, hut this clause will prevent its’ being utilized, and may compel the officers of the Electoral Department to rent premises which are by no means conveniently situated. Many of the schools have not the advantages possessed by a billiard-room in licensed premises.

Senator Fairbairn:

– They have not a bar alongside.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator must have been asleep. He knows that what occurred twenty years ago does not take place to-day.

Senator Fairbairn:

– For the last twenty years no liquor has been supplied in committee rooms in Victoria.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am very pleased to hear that Victoria has come into line with New South Wales in that respect.

Senator Fairbairn:

– I will offer the honorable member £1 for every bottle that he could prove was in any of my committee rooms during the last fifteen years.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am pleased to hear the limitation of fifteen years. I gather then that these things may have occurred fifteen years ago.

Senator Fairbairn:

– Possibly, and probably in the honorable senator’s committee rooms also.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator will give the Labour warty credit for having helped to purify elections. I have had the opportunity of watching the means that the old-time candidate used in order to secure his return to Parliament. Those days passed away when the Labour party began to take an active part in the affairs of the country. This clause may have been a very necessary provision in the old days, when some candidates adopted certain means to provide refreshments for their supporters; but that state of affairs does not exist to-day, and the clause is no longer necessary. Many licensed premises are strictly closed on polling day. The landlords will not permit the consumption of liquor even at the price of £1 per glass, and the few shillings that these publicans could earn by letting their dining or billiard rooms as polling booths would serve to compensate them to some slight extent for the loss they suffer by strict adherence to the law and by closing the bars. Why should we make an hypocrisy of this matter by saying that we prevent the consumption of intoxicating liquors by prohibiting the use of any portion of licensed premises for polling booths, when wealthy candidates are able to supply voters and friends at their committee rooms, or at other places conveniently situated to the polling booths? Why should licensed premises be singled out for discrimination? We say to the licensed victualler, “ You must conduct your business ou legitimately licensed premises; the State will partake of your profits, and the public’ must be protected against you; yet your business is such that we cannot permit a polling booth to be conducted in one of your rooms, no matter how far removed it may be from the bar.” However, I feel that I have done my duty in pointing out that this kind of thing could well cease, and I shall not deal with’ the matter further.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to.

Clause 104 (Senate ballot-papers).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– This clause informs us that ballot-papers to be used in the Senate election may be in the Form E in the schedule, and that form instructs the voter to put a cross opposite the candidate’s name. The Bill attempts to provide for uniform rolls, Federal and State, and provides for preferential voting for the House of Representatives. If the Government desired to confuse the electors at general elections they have gone the right way about doing it. The people who will be called upon to put crosses opposite the names of candidates on the Senate ballot-papers will have other ballot-papers in their ‘ bands on which they will be asked to mark 1, 2, 3 in order to show their preference for House of Representatives’ candidates. Why cannot the Senate ballot-papers be also marked 1, 2, ‘3? It may be said that it can only be done when proportional representation is adopted for the Senate. The Government announced as portion of. their policy preferential voting for the House of Representatives, and proportional representation for the Senate, but they have gone only half way, having baulked at the latter proposal. With two systems of voting in operation, we shall have confusion worse confounded. It may be that at a general election some referendum regarding proposed alterations of the Constitution- will be taken, and that will mean that there will be at least three ballot-papers handed to the elector, who will be. required to apply to them two methods of voting. In the confusion that will result, there will be a large increase of informal votes.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- When Senator Russell was in charge of the Bill,, ho agreed to’ the postponment of several clauses, notably those dealing with postal voting, and he also referred to the clauses dealing with preferential voting. I therefore ask Senator Millen to agree to the . postponement of this clause.

Senator Millen:

– The postal voting clauses have nothing to do with this clause. We have been delayed so long on unimportant clauses that we had better proceed with the important ones.

Senator GARDINER:

-Preferential voting involves and permits an intelligent discussion of proportional representation. The two systems must be considered together, and the Minister will surely not refuse us an opportunity -of discussing them in a manner and under conditions befitting a deliberative assembly. If my request for such an opportunity is not granted, it will be a stain on the credit . of the Senate that after a highly intelligent community had been pressing this most important matter on public attention, when the Senate had what should have been an opportunity of . discussing it, the” Minister would not allow discussion to take place under favorable conditions. Last night Senator Millen said that he would be willing to postpone this clause, and because of that promise I have refrained from speaking on many clauses to which the Committee has agreed. I remind the Minister that even if the clause is not postponed the schedules will be open for discussion, and if they are altered a recommittal of the clause will be necessary to make it conform to the schedules.

Senator McDougall:

– There ought to be a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

– I wish to emphasize” the confusion that will result from having two different systems of voting in operation on the one day. The elector will be given a ballot-paper on which, in accordance with the existing practice, he will be required to place a cross opposite the names of the candidates he prefers. In the same booth, and at the same time, he will be given a ballot-paper for the House of Representatives upon which. may be the names of seven candidates, and he must record a continuous and exhaustive preferential vote. Unless he marks the order of his preference to the full extent of the seven candidates his vote will be informal. I can foresee that under a changed system for the House of Representatives and the old system for the Senate there will be a large crop of informal votes, due not only to a misunderstanding of the system, but also to confusion as to who are the candidates. The confusion may be assisted by’ the similarity of the names of the candidates on the two ballot-papers. If the elector should mark a cross against a name on the Senate ballot-paper his vote -will be informal. The Government should provide that ballot-papers shall not be considered informal if the intention of the elector can be clearly seen’. We ought to adhere to the old system of voting until we are in a position to- apply the same new system to both Houses. Preferential voting would have a greater advantage when applied to the Senate than when applied to the House of Representatives. The Senate constituencies are so huge that that system would probably give candidates who had real support in the community an opportunity of being elected to this Parliament. To some. extent the preferential voting will do away with the party candidates. Why any elector should be called upon to give a second preference to a candidate whom ho dislikes I cannot understand. Of course, it is said that unless preference is indicated in respect of every candidate whose name appears on the ballot-paper the system will fail, and I have good reason to believe that that fear is well founded. Some years ago the Queensland

Parliament adopted a system of preferential voting, but if the elector did not wish to indicate a preference for more than one candidate, he simply placed the numeral 1 before the name of the candidate whom he favoured. The result was that both parties ignored the- preferential system and each selected a candidate for whom its supporters plumped. The option is still in operation in Queensland to-day, and preference is not much exercised. For the sake of safety each party plumps for its own candidate. The .principle of preferential voting has been very widely discussed. I do not understand it, although I have read a good deal about it. I refer to the system of proportional representation. Quite a number of persons see in this system not the (proportional representation of the States, but a more equitable system of representation than we have at the present time. At the elections which took place in 1914, the Labour party secured four out of. the six vacancies which existed in New South Wales. At the general elections in 1917, that verdict was reversed, and the. Opposition secured the whole of the seats.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– I beg to call attention, to the state of the Committee. ‘ [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not intend to discuss this clause at much greaterlength. I should have liked an opportunity of debating the preferential and proportional systems of voting under conditions which would have “enabled me to deal with them intelligently. However, that cannot be done now. Nobody will pretend that after the strenuous sitting to which we have been subjected, the conditions for debating these matters are anything but bad. One is almost at a loss to understand why the Government have said in effect, “ Important as these matters are, we shall debar honorable senators from discussing them in a way which will permit of justice being done to them.” Of course, I am aware that Ministers regard all debate of their measures as an- impertinence on the par.t of honorable senators, and I can quite understand how they have arrived at that condition of mind. While the war was in progress we were, reluctant to oppose them, and as a result they have contracted the habit of suspending our Standing Orders to rush their measures through Parliament. That is the explanation of their attitude on the present occasion.

In order to insure majority representation, I think that a second ballot is preferable to preferential voting. This system has obtained in New South Wales for some years. At- the close of each election it is found that, in regard to about a dozen out pf ninety seats, a second ballot requires to be taken. In the closely settled metropolitan districts this second ballot is taken within one week after the first ballot. In the more scattered rural areas, a fortnight is allowed to intervene between the first and second ballots. This interval affords an opportunity for great exertions being put forth by those responsible for the running of the party machines, in’ all contests in which there is a possibility of effecting a change in the result of the first ballot. But, generally speaking, the second ballot gives the opinion of the majority in a rough-and-ready way. If, for example, there are five or six candidates at an election, a.nd no candidate secures an absolute majority On the first ballot, a second ballot is taken. To my mind this second ballot is better’ than is the preferential system of voting.

I have not yet grasped the proportional system of voting sufficiently to understand it.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I -am in the same position. The transferable vote is very difficult to grasp.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was hopeful that during the discussion of this Bill I would be able to gain a better idea of it. f recollect that some time ago a large, representative, and influential deputation from his own party waited upon the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) upon the question of proportional representation. But, after a number of its members had spoken, it transpired that they Were addressing themselves to the question of the proportional representa tion of the States. These were the keenpoliticians of the National party.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The proportional representation of the States is more easily understood than is proportional voting.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. ‘ I recollect the fight which. Senator Millenput up in New South Wales upon thisquestion when our Federal Constitution! was being made the subject of a referendum of the electors. At that time a great deal of suspicion existed between the States. The small States in particular feared to concede proportional representation lest an injustice should be done to them. I am sorry, indeed, that the Government have missed such a splendid opportunity for enlightening the community upon this very important matter. One of the things which puzzles me in connexion - with proportional voting isthat of - the quota. ‘ I would have been pleased if Senator Earle and other Tasmanian senators had essayed the task of making clear to me exactly how the system of proportional voting operates. I am satisfied that we’ shall not be afforded another opportunity of dealing with the question during the present Parliament. Those of us whose term as senators has not six years to run will not be again called upon to amend our Electoral Act. I am bitterly disappointed with the Government for having refused to postpone the consideration of this clause. Upon the admission of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) and the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell), it Is the most important provision in the measure. However, I have entered my protest, and I have nothing further to say. But I shall consult the Standing Orders, with a view to determining whether, upon the motion for the recommittal of the Bill I shall be in order in discussing . proportional representation and the preferential voting system. I hope, however, that this threat will not induce Ministers to try to rush the measure through more hurriedly than they have been doing.

Senator Millen:

– Very frankly the honorable senator has admitted that hot has made a threat.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no intention of threatening the Government at this hour of the morning.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 105 to 107 agreed to.

Clause 108-

  1. Appointments of scrutineers shall be made by notice in writing, or by telegram addressed to the returning officer or presiding officer, and such notice or telegram shall be signed by the candidate, and shall give the name and address of the scrutineer.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -I move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted: -

“Such scrutineers shall be paid from the Consolidated Revenue of the Commonwealth the sum of two guineas.”

I submit the amendment, because I think it is one which is worthy of the consideration of the Committee. It is a democratic proposal. The cost of elections is paid out of the Consolidated Revenue, and the Commonwealth Government goes further in paying for the machinery of elections than does the Government of any other country. It would not add greatly to our electoral expenditure to do what I propose. The clause as it stands permits candidates to appoint scrutineers for all the polling places, but it is impossible, owing to the cost, to obtain scrutineers for all the polling places in a State, or even in a division. The division of Dampier is, after the division of Grey, probably the largest single electorate in the world, and a candidate contesting the Dampier seat has almost as difficult a task as a candidate for the representation of Western Australia in the Senate. It is impossible, owing to the cost, to place a scrutineer in every polling booth in an electorate like that. I think that £2 2s. is only a reasonable sum to pay to a scrutineer for attending in a polling booth from the opening to the closing of the poll. I admit that my proposal will add to the cost of conducting elections, but it would help to secure still purer elections, though I do not say that our elections have been impure. The presence of scrutineers will facilitate polling, and very often they will be able to materially assist the presiding officers.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 16

Majority . . 10 .

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to.

Clause 111-

The polling shall be conducted as follows: -

. . .

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted: -

Every person who is entitled to vote and whose name is on the roll shall record his or her vote on the day of the election. Penalty, 10s. first offence; £1 for each subsequent offence.

I intimated earlier that I am against compulsion in most matters, but that, as we have adopted the principle of compulsory enrolment, I think that we should adopt its corollary, the principle of compulsory voting. When, on a previous occasion, we were considering the amendment of the electoral law -I think in 1911 - the introduction of compulsory voting was proposed, but for some reason was not proceeded with.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 112 agreed to.

Clause 113 negatived.

Clauses 114 to 123 agreed to.

Clauses 124 and 125 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clauses 126 to 130 agreed to.

Clause 131-

Each candidate may, by notice in writing or by telegram addressed to the Assistant Returning Officer or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires, appoint one scrutineer to represent him at the scrutiny at each polling booth or other place at which the scrutiny is being conducted, and such notice or telegram shall be signed by the candidate, and shall give the name and address of the scrutineer.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In the appointment of scrutineers for Senate contests, there is involved the signing by candidates of some thousands of documents. In the circumstances, candidates might be allowed to use a stamp. I move -

That after the word “ signed “ the words “or his signature stamped” be inserted.

SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council) [6.41 a.m.]. - I ask the honorable senator not to press his amendment. I am informed by an officer of the Department that, while there is no objection to the proposal, there would be certain details required to be embodied in a regulation to insure that some responsible organiza tion guaranteed the, signature as being that of the candidate in question. The Government will accept the principle of the proposal, and I undertake that the necessary regulation shall be made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause agreed to.

Clauses 132 and 133 agreed to.

Clause 134 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 135 agreed to.

Clauses 136 and 137 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clauses 138 to 152 agreed to.

Clause 153-

  1. The Chief Electoral Officer may, by notice in writing in the prescribed form, require the president or chairman and the secretary or other officerof any trade union, registered or unregistered, organization, association, league, or body of persons, or any person, within such time, not being less than one month as is specified in the notice, to make a return in accordance with this section, of any money expended or expense incurred in respect of which a return is required to he made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of this section, and the president or chairman and secretary or other officer or person who neglects or refuses to comply with the notice shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to a penalty not exceeding One hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding six months. . .
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the word “ One “ be left out, and the word “ Five “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

The effect would be to make the penalty £500, as hitherto, instead of £100 as proposed in the clause. Any organization failing to send in a return should be liable to the heavier penalty. I am quite aware that it would hit poorer associations, such as the Trades Hall organizations, much harder than many opposing bodies.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I ask the honorable senator not to press his amendment, for the reason he has just given. Arising from the last three elections, I have had to appeal for extensions of time in the case of certain organizations, which could not have afforded to pay a big fine, and which had committed a breach of the law, not from any dishonest motive, but chiefly owing to difficulty in getting all country returns sent in.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to.

Clause 154 -

  1. The proprietor or publisher of a newspaper published in the Commonwealth shall, in accordance with this section, make or cause to be made a return setting out the amount of electoral matter in connexion with any election inserted in his newspaper in respect of which payment was or is to be made, the space occupied by such electoral matter, the amount of money paid or owing to him in respect of such electoral matter, and the names and addresses of the trades unions, registered or unregistered, organizations, associations, leagues, bodies of persons, or persons authorizing the insertion thereof.

Penalty (on proprietor) : One hundred pounds. . . .

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the word “ One “ be left out, with a view to insert the word “ Five “ in lieu thereof.

My motives are the same as those which I have just advanced.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to.

Clauses 155 to 163 agreed to.

Clause 164-

  1. The proprietor of every newspaper shall cause the word “advertisement” to be printed as a headline in letters not smaller than ten point or long primer to each article or paragraph in his newspaper containing electoral matter, the insertion of which is or is to be paid for, or for which any reward or compensation or promise of reward or compensation is or is to be made.

Penalty : Fifty pounds. . . .

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the word “ Fifty “ be left out, witha view to insert the words “ Five hundred “ in lieu thereof.

I take this action for the same reasons as I have previously indicated. The old law provided for a penalty of £500, and that should continue. We have all had experience of newspapers in this regard, and although I have been treated somewhat fairly by them in every State, still I think that a penalty of £500 would not be too much.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 165 to 177 agreed to.

Clause 178 (Disorderly behaviour at meeting).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– At some public meetings held in New South Wales, notably at the Gwydir election, men were fined for asking irrelevant questions at election meetings. It should not be an offence to ask a question.

Senator Russell:

– I have seen meetings stopped by very enthusiastic cheering all the evening. That is certainly disorderly conduct.

Senator GRANT:

– But the mere asking of a question should not be regarded as disorderly conduct. - I would like to see the regulation which will probablybe issued embraced in the clause.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive . Council · Victoria · NAT

– The honorable senator is complaining about the administration of the provision. The clause in itself is all right. One cannot get at the back of the minds of magistrates or justices of the peace, but it is certain that any one who behaves in a disorderly fashion’ at a public meeting ought to be punished. I have seen meetings of both political parties at Which the conduct of the audiences was a disgrace, and I feel sure that the clause represents the wish and desire of the Senate that election meetings should be conducted in an orderly fashion, and not be disturbed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 179 (Neglect to initial ballotpaper, &c).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

. - I do not know to what extent presiding officers have neglected to perform the very necessary task of initialing ballot-papers, but if it is clearly shown that the fault lies with the electoral officer it is not fair to rob the elector of his vote. I would like to see provision made by which the vote shall not be disallowed in such circumstances. Is it proposed to deal with the matter by a regulation ?

Senator Russell:

– Certainly not.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses180 to 219 agreed to.

Clause 220-

The Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act prescribing and in particular -

the grounds upon which postal ballotpapers are to be rejected as informal.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following paragraph be added: - “(d) and a schedule setting out the rea sons upon which ballot-papers are rejected as informal.”

There are schedules attached to the Bill setting out the different systems of voting, and giving other instructions. . I think that a schedule should be prepared setting out the exact reasons for which ballotpapers are rejected. There is often a difference of opinion, but it should be an easy matter for the Department to draw up such a schedule, and attach it to a regulation, so that the elector will have no difficulty in knowing the real reasons for which ballot-papers are rejected.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– The general principles upon which a ballot-paper may be. rejected are already indicated in clause 134. It is impossible to define what mark, sign, or action of any kind, on the part of the voter, may lead to the rejection of a ballot-paper. I could enumerate off-hand a dozen possible causes, but any list of them would prove deceptive to the public. In any case, I am not sure that it is possible for the electoral office to say finally what an acceptable ballot-paper may be. That is a matter for the decision of the High Court. We would be glad to do what the honorable senator suggests should be done, but it is not possible to do it.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the following sub-clauses be added to the clause: - “ (2) All such regulations shall be notified in the Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law.

All such regulations shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days after the making thereof, ifthe Parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.”

My proposal is to re-enact provisions contained in the Act of 1911. It appears to me that regulations framed under the old Act had to be notified in the Government Gazette before they were operative, and we know that the multitudinous regulations issued under the War Precautions Act and under the Crimes Act had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within thirty days after the meeting thereof. That practice could be continued with advantage.

Senator Russell:

– It is provided for under the Rules Regulation Act.

Amendment negatived.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following paragraph be added to the clause: - “No new regulation shall be issued after the issue of the writ.”

I have protested against any new electoral law being brought into operation after the writ for the election has been issued, and the purpose of the amendment is to insure that after that date, and when the electoral machinery has been set in motion, the Governor-General in Council shall not make any new regulations before the day of election.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 73 -

No nomination shall be valid unless -

at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper the person nominated or some person on his behalf deposits with the Commonwealth Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires, the sum of Twenty-five pounds in money or in Australian notes or in a banker’s cheque.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– At one time it was necessary for a. candidate for the State Parliament of New South Wales to make a deposit of £50 beforehe could offer his services to the electors. I do not know why the amount was fixed at £25 in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, but, whatever the amount, the deposit is a relic of the bad old days when property and not human beings counted at the ballot-box. It has resulted in a number of enthusiasts who were determined to place their views before the public having to pay a penalty by forfeiting their deposits. I therefore move as an amendment -

That paragraph (c) be struck out.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause76 agreed to.

Postponed clause 85 -

  1. An elector who-

    1. will not throughout the hours of polling on polling day be within fifteen miles by the nearest practicable route of any polling booth open in the Commonwealth for the purposes of an election; or
    2. will throughout the hours of polling on polling day be travelling under conditions which will preclude him from attending at any polling booth to vote; or
    3. is seriously ill or infirm, and by reason of such illness or infirmity will be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, or, in the case of a woman, will by approaching maternity be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.
Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In view of the progress the Committee has made I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to defer the consideration of the remaining clauses to a later hour in the day.

Senator Millen:

– I cannot agree to spoil a good record.

Senator GRANT:

– I have no serious objection to the provision in the Act which provides that persons who will be absent on polling day may record their votes before registrars, but that section is being repealed by this Bill, and apparently absentees will have no means of voting except through the post. In theory the postal vote looks all right. A person who by reason of illness is prevented from recording his vote does suffer a hardship, and I should be very pleased if I could remove that hardship without having to adopt practices of so questionable a character that I predict that after the first general election under the new Act it will be found necessary to repeal this clause. My experience has forcibly impressed upon my mind the conviction that immediately a ballot-paper gets outside a polling booth it is liable to be misused. We are all desirous of seeing elections conducted cleanly and free of abuses, but the postal system has always lent itself to abuse, and I feel certain that the Government are making a grave error in contemplating its reintroduction. Probably the Ministry have carefully thought over the matter and arrived at a conclusion; therefore, a prolonged discussion of the clause would be futile. I understand that the Minister proposes to strike out the present distance limit of fifteen miles and substitute ten miles, and that will make the provision still more objectionable. It will place an immense number of votes at the disposal of those who can employ clerical assistance, and will not result in recording the true opinions of the persons who are alleged to be voting by post. I ask the Committee to reject this clause. The postal system was not in operation at the last general election, and surely the National party ought not to grumble at the results they obtained. If they say that they are including this clause for the special benefit of the Labour party I should very much doubt their word. It is a pity that a blot of this sort should be included in this Bill, which contains very many excellent provisions. The postal voting provisions, were the main reason why I voted against the second’ reading. I intend to move an amendment to provide for a departure from the ordinary method of recording votes. It will permit of the inmates of hospitals exercising their franchise, not through the post, but in the presence of a Returning Officer and of a scrutineer. Certainly the ballot-papers would require to be sent to those Institutions some days prior to polling-day, and that I regard as objectionable, because it might possibly permit of the manipulation of those papers. But the fact that the Returning Officer will subsequently appear on the scene would, I think, provide an adequate safeguard. I recognise that in no circumstances is it possible to secure the votes of the entire community. But the amendment which I shall submit will; allow the majority of those who are unable to attend a polling booth on election: day an opportunity of recording their votes.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– I cannot accept the amendment which the honorable senator has indicated, as it is practically a new clause.

Senator GRANT:

– I desire to move its insertion in lieu of clause 85.

The CHAIRMAN:

– But it would first be necessary to strike out clause 85. The honorable senator’s amendment, therefore, is not in order.

Senator MILLEN:
New SouthWalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

– I move -

That the word “ fifteen “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ten.”

This amendment is designed to reduce the distance from the polling booth which constitutes one of the conditions of eligibility on the part of an elector to vote by post.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– May I suggestthat the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) should report progress, so as to afford us an opportunity of discussing this clause fullyat a later stage. I am “totally opposed to postal voting, because ofthe way in which it lends itself to abuse. In this connexion I need only read the statements which were made by honorable senators opposite some time ago. Senator Henderson, on the 19th October, 1911, is thus reported in Hansard -

Senator Millen:

– I refer to the abolition of postal voting.

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– It is a good job; we will wipe it out. . . . Theback-blocks man never voted by post in his life. It is the city man who has used the postal vote.

No safeguards against the abuse of postal voting are provided in this Bill. A man may go fishing, or may attend a race meeting on polling day, and may thus be 20 miles distant from a polling booth. He will consequently be at liberty to vote by post. On the 19th October, 1911, Senator de Largie said -

We are going to substitute a better method.

In 1909, during the divisions on the Electoral Bill, the following honorable senators voted against the postal vote : - Senators de Largie, Guthrie, Henderson,

Lynch, Pearce, Needham, Croft, W. Russell, Story, Findley, Trenwith, Turley, Stewart, and McGregor.

Senator Russell:

– Under that Bill, if a man believed that he would be absent fishing, he could vote by post.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– And under this measure he will be able to vote by post if he is 20 miles distant from a polling booth on polling day.

Senator Pearce:

– This is a ghostly hour to make these resurrections.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– On the 20th October, 1918, Senator Henderson said -

Those honorable senators (referring to Senators Millen and McColl) evidently feel very sore about the proposed abolition of postal voting. Ever sinceI entered the Senate I have battled against postal voting, and have consistently and strongly opposed it whenever the question came up for discussion. On the first opportunity afforded me here to raise my. voice in opposition to the postal voting system, when I found I was beaten I tried to make the Senate realize the ridiculous nature of the system by suggesting provisions to enable any member of the general public to witness applications for postal ballotpapers. However, that was not done. The Government now recognise the absurdity of the postal voting system, and propose its abolition. . . .

Senator Russell, on the 26th October, 1911, said-

On the last occasion when this matter was before the Senate, every member of the Labour party, with the sole exception of myself, voted for the abolition of postal voting. I honestly believed at that time that the system was good and necessary, and that it was possible to safeguard it from corruption, and enable people who could not otherwise do so to record their vote. I regret to say that I was mistaken. The electoral officials have not been able to devise sufficient safeguards to prevent corruption under the postal voting system. . . .

I have heard it asserted, and I have every reason to believe that in some cases the statement is quite true, that more postal votes have been issued than have ever been accounted for at the poll.

Senator Russell:

– Because I am in favour of a principle, I do not defend wrongdoing under it.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The honorable senator proceeded -

I can prove that in too many cases justices of the peace, whether belonging to one side or the other, have become political partisans and canvassers for postal votes.

But let me inform honorable senators that, from the Equitable Buildings, at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins streets, during the recent referendum campaign, an organization supporting the Fusion party sent out forms of application for postal ballot-papers to every doctor in Victoria, with a covering letter asking them to influence their patients- on sick beds to vote against the referendum. I am pleased to say, to their credit, some of the. doctors resented this appeal. … I am prepared to produce a covering letter if he (Senator St. Ledger) challenges its accuracy.

Senator Givens was the hottest of the whole lot. He said -

If it had not been proved conclusively to me by the experience of several elections that it is absolutely impossible to safeguard the provisions for .postal voting, I should not be in favour of abolishing the system.

He said further -

My experience has taught me that, no matter how many safeguards are provided, their system will be availed of to render elections corrupt, and to unduly influence electors. . . . I shall be -able to show that, not only were the parties engaged in the conduct of elections corrupt in their actions, but they went so far as to corrupt the public servants of the country….. Would it astonish honorable senators if I told them that at one election for Townsville, nearly one-third of the total votes cast were postal Votes of men and women who would have had no difficulty or trouble whatever in going to the poll and recording their votes an the ordinary way. … I was led away by the interjection from the matter I had in hand, which was the conduct of a particular election at Townsville, in which onethird of the total votes polled were postal Votes. On that occasion, I go so far as to say that somebody was responsible for corrupting a Commonwealth public . Department, and inducing the officers of that Department, to do something which they should not. have done, and which was against the law of the land. These are facts for which I can vouch from personal knowledge and observation.

Yet he is one of those who are in favour of it now.

What happened at the referendum in last April? I take the State of Victoria, and let honorable senators see what the figures disclose. There was a total of 28,000 odd postal votes recorded. Of that 28,000 odd votes, no less than 14.000 were recorded in Victoria, where there are greater facilities for voting than in any other State. ‘Under the Queensland Electoral Act it was provided that a postal vote should be posted on the day on which it was attested by the authorized witness, the same as under the Commonwealth Act, and it should bear the postal stamp of the date on which it was filled in and posted. What happened at the election to which I refer? The canvassers for the alleged Liberals - who ought to be honest enough to call themselves Conservatives and Tories of the deepest dye - went round every day and collected as many postal votes as they could. Of course, as they went round, they tried to influence people to vote for the candidate whom they favoured. After they had collected as many postal votes as they could during the day, they carried them into the organizing office of the alleged Liberal party. They were there retained until after 10 o’clock, or later, when the meetings concluded, and after the letter boxes had been cleared for the day by the postal officials. Then they were posted, and when, next morning, the postal officials cleared the letter boxes, they put on one side the postal ballot-papers, which they could recognise, because of the marking on the envelopes. They then date stamped all the other letters in the ordinary way with the date on which they were Collected from the boxes, but when they came to stamp the postal voting envelopes they Changed the date stamp to that of the previous clay. That is a fact which came under my own observation, and I reported it at the time to the PostmasterGeneral.

I am using these arguments to support my opposition now to the postal voting provisions of the Bill. When the Government of that, day appealed to the country to restore the postal vote, it was ignominiously defeated, and the present Government should not have tried to restore the system without a mandate from the electors. The decision of the people has not been reversed. They do not want a postal voting system. To continue my quotation from Senator Givens -

Let me mention another case to show what happened under the postal voting system. I can say from personal knowledge that, while it was in force in Queensland, on certain mining fields, while the men were at work, the managers, who were justices of the peace, used to go round- to the women folk - the wives, mothers, and sisters of the miners - and terrorise them into recording votes against their convictions. This led to a great deal of family disunion and heartburnings in, many families on the mining fields in Queensland. A poor unfortunate wife, dependant upon her husband continuing in employment with the good-will of the mining manager, would be absolutely forced by the duress of her circumstances to give a vote when asked -for it in that way, though there was no reason why she should not have gone to the polling booth and recorded her vote in the ordinary way. These managers knew that the only way in which they could secure votes for alleged Liberal candidates whom they favoured was to induce such people to vote by post. Will any reasonable or fairminded man say that a system which could lend itself to so much iniquity and corruption should be retained? What happened at the referenda in last April? I take the State of Victoria, and let honorable senators see what the- figures disclosed. There was a total of 28,000 odd postal votes recorded.

Those are the views of men possessing greater experience of the postal vote than 1 have Fad. On one occasion, during a “Werriwa election, a Liberal organizer, who had been paid a sum of money to leave the Labour movement, told me that he had put 640 postal votes in the day before the poll, and he was right to the very figure. That shows what can be done by unscrupulous persons. Let me now quote Senator Lynch -

I confess that a serious pass has been reached when I have to recognise that, after a trial of nearly nine years, this method of enabling absent voters to record their votes on polling day has broken dawn. . . .

I have been forced to the conclusion that the system- of voting by post has been greatly abused time and again.

The Opposition has been asking all along the line for proofs of abuse of postal voting.

Senator Millen was in opposition then.

When the system was in full blast in Western Australia, one vote was recorded in the name of a person who was an inmate of a gaol. At the same election votes were recorded for persons who had not been heard of for years, and persons who it was known were residing in South Africa. Senator Buzacott can confirm my statement that the scrutineers burst’ into a ‘fit of laughter at the votes coming forward with the alleged signatures of these persons’. . . While I recognise that there will be hardships inflicted under this clause, still we shall secure that greater benefit of a purer, a cleaner, and a more systematic recording of’ votes in the future than has been our experience in the past. I was once a believer in postal voting, but as one who has watched its operation, and noted its results, although we could not get positive evidence of abuse, I feel perfectly satisfied in my mind that it is a system which ought to be abolished, and which must go.

  1. . What I complain of is that postal voting has been associated with gross injustice, for which there was no warrant. Persons have been employed to go round ‘ as postal vote officers, and as justices of the peace, to collect the votes of those who were not entitled to vote, and at the same time abused every possible means to win votes to their side. We know that undue influence has been exercised over and over again by those who were sent out to collect votes.

When the clause relating to the abolition of postal voting was before the Committee, during the discussion on the

Electoral Bill 1911, and a division was called for, the following honorable ‘ senators voted for its abolition: - Senators Buzacott, de Largie, Givens, Lynch, Henderson, Pearce, Barker, Findley, Gardiner, Long, McDougall, McGregor,. Needham, O’Keefe, Rae, Russell, and Blakey. Here is an. illuminating quota-, tion from a newspaper, which speaks for itself : -

page 8032

THE POSTAL VOTING SYSTEM

Justice of the Peace Fined.

Hamilton, Tuesday

In the police court to-day, before Mr. Williams, P.M., Louis Lesser, J.P., of Coleraine, was’ charged with several offences under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Mr. Morley, instructed by Mr. Westacott, appeared for the Crown Solicitor, and conducted the prosecution. Defendant was represented by Mr. E. Silvester and Mr. Walker.

The first case concerned a voter named Selina Campbell. The first, charge was that defendant as an unauthorized witness had witnessed signatures to an application for a postal ballotpaper without being personally acquainted with the facts, and without satisfying himself by inquiry that the statements were true. The second charge was that he had induced the woman Campbell to make a false statement that she was ill and would be unable to attend a polling place- on polling ‘ day. The third charge was that defendant had influenced her vote.

Selina Campbell stated that defendant had visited her and had asked if she would like to vote. On receiving an affirmative reply, he - gave her a paper which she signed. Defendant did not’ ask her any questions. This was on 22nd April, a few days before the Referendum poll. On 25th April defendant returned and - gave her a paper. He did not say anything, and he did not see where she put the cross. She had made a statement previously to Constable ‘ Harrington, but she was so excited at the time that she did not know what she said.

The statement was read over to witness. She said she did not remember having said that defendant had told her. where to put the cross in the square. As a fact she was not ill at the time.

A lengthy legal argument took place on various technical points, which were noted by the bench.

The magistrate found that there was no evidence as to inducement or influence, but found defendant guilty on the first, charge of not making proper inquiry*. On this charge defendant was fined £5, with £5 5s. costs.

In two other cases in which similar charges had been laid in relation to defendant, defendant pleaded guilty to not making proper inquiries, and was fined £5.

If the Government will say that it will be only sick andinfirm people in hospitals, or folk who can produce doctors’ certificates, who will be granted the facility of postal voting, I shall have no objection to the system. . But in the Bill the Government are making the whole provision just as open as it was before it was so soundly condemned by the Labour party. The practice of postal voting lends itself so much to the man with money, and to all those who are not fair and honest in their dealings, that unless I recieve the specific assurance of the Government in terms as I have just indicated them, I shall be compelled to vote against this portion of the measure.

Question - That the word “ fifteen “ proposed to be left out be left out- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 4

Majority … . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to; word “ten” inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 86 -

  1. Subject to sub-section 2 of this section, the following persons are authorized witnesses within the meaning of this Act-

    1. All Commonwealth Divisional Returning Officers . ‘ . . all superintendents of mercantile marine and their deputies while permanently employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth or of a State; and
Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I move -

That after the word “State,” at the end of sub-clause (a), the following words he inserted: - “ any elector or any person qualified to be enrolled as an elector.”

The Government, in providing for postal voting, are apparently anxious to afford the electors every possible facility to exercise the franchise. They have just carried an amendment under which an elector who has reason to believe that he will not be within 10 miles - instead of 15 miles, as before - of a polling booth on election day will be entitled to vote by post. That will have the effect of largely increasing the number of electors who will avail themselves of this part of the Act; but, at the same time, the Government are placing serious difficulty in the way of prospective applicants for postal ballot-papers by restricting, in the way they have done in this clause, the classes of persons who may act as authorized witnesses to such applications. Those who are remote from centres of population will have great difficulty in securing the witnessing of their applications. These restrictions on the part of the Government are contemptible. Why should not a duly qualified Labour organizer be entitled to witness applications for postal ballot-papers? Many of the authorized witnesses for which this clause provides are to be’ found only in our large cities, and are not available to the men in the back-blocks.

Senator Pearce:

– In New South Wales a man cannot leave his house without meeting a justice of the peace.

Senator GRANT:

– I am prepared to admit that they are fairly numerous in that State ; yet I believe it would be difficult to secure one to attend to the work of witnessing these applications. In one of the suburbs of Sydney, we had the greatest difficulty in enlisting the services of a justice of the peace to go round with an officer to witness applications for enrolment for the municipal franchise. I do not know whether the Liberal Caucus has met, but I do know that it is most obstinate, and now that the Government have decided to inflict on the people this pernicious and nefarious system of voting-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– The honorable senator is not entitled to refer in that way to a principle which lias been agreed to by the Committee.

Senator GRANT:

– Then I withdraw the remark. In order that the people for whom ostensibly this discredited system of voting by post has been provided may have an opportunity to avail themselves of it, I submit my amendment, and sincerely hope that it will be carried. Under it any man, say a selector working out back, could get his mate to act as witness and thus save much time. We all know that to many working people it is a matter of much concern to lose even half-a-day’s work in view of the high cost of living. If the Government are determined to have postal voting, then every elector should be given full opportunity to exercise the franchise.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– It is certain that if the witnesses be limited in the way proposed ‘ in the clause, every elector will not be afforded equal opportunity. The penalty for fraud is so drastic that there need be no fear that a man will witness a signature unless he is very satisfied that the case is genuine. Nobody but a husband far away in the back-blocks can know whether his wife is able to go to the poll, and he, if an elector himself, should be able to witness her application. I do not see that the choice of witnesses should be limited to people permanently employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth. What objection is there to permitting the captain or chief engineer of any vessel attesting the signature of a member of the crew, just in the same way as the master of a vessel owned by the Commonwealth or State will be permitted to do ? Why not make it a free and easy matter to take advantage of this clause? During an election in which I was a candidate, one very dear to me was lying in a hospital, and it was amusing to hear from her how the canvassers of the Liberal organizations waited on her and endeavoured to get her vote, until they heard she bore my name. Many unfortunate sick people do not care whether they vote or not.

Senator Fairbairn:

– In many hospitals patients were not allowed to vote.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– An elector who deliberately leaves his electorate for some purpose on the day of election should not be allowed the postal vote facility.

Senator Reid:

– What about shearers and commercial travellers?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I have done some commercial travelling myself, and I know that travellers may vote at a lot of places - vote early and often. The postal vote is for the men in the backblocks who have to fight famine, storm, and pestilence; and we should also consider the members of our mercantile marine, and enable, as I say, the captain, engineer, or any qualified elector, to witness the signature. I may be appealing in vain, but I know that on previous occasions I have induced the Government to bring about desired amendments by means of regulation; and I hope that on the present occasion some method will be found to give full voting facilities to the classes of people I have mentioned.

Question - that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 17

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 87 agreed to.

Postponed clause 88 (Issue of certificates and ballot-papers).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I venture to say that, between the issue of the writ and the day of election, it will, . in many cases, be quite impossible for electors in districts in which the postal facilities are of a somewhat primitive character, to succeed in securing a postal vote certificate in time to record a postal vote at the election. I think that steps should be taken to enable electors to make application for postal vote certificates at any time when an election is approaching. Notwithstanding the provision here made to meet the convenience of out-back electors and those who are sick, I believe that, in practice, it will be found that very many will be unable to take advantage of it. I am aware that it is useless to submit an amendment upon the clause, but I hope that some attention will be given to what I have said when the regulations dealing with this matter are under consideration.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 4

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Senator McDougall) put -

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Postponed clause 89 agreed to.

Postponed clause 90 verbally amended andagreed to.

Postponed clause 91 agreed to.

Postponed clause 92 -

The following directions for regulating voting by means of postal ballot-papers are to be substantially observed: -

  1. The elector shall exhibit his postal ballot-paper (in blank) and his postal vote certificate to an authorized witness;
  2. The elector shall then and there, in the presence of the authorized witness, but so that the authorized witness cannot see the vote, mark his vote on the ballot-paper in the prescribed manner, and shall fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen;
  3. If the elector’s sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, the authorized witness, if so requested by the elector, shall mark the elector’s vote on the ballot-paper in the presence of a witness, and shall then and there fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen;
  4. The authorized witness shall then and there sign his name in his own handwriting on the postal vote certificate in the place provided for the signature of the authorized witness, and shall add the title under which he acts as an authorized witness and the date;
  5. ) The authorized witness shall then and there place the ballot-paper in the envelope addressed to the Divisional Returning Officer, fasten the envelope, and hand it to the voter, who shall forthwith post or deliver it, or cause it to be posted or delivered to the Divisional Returning Officer;

Amendments (by Senator Russell) agreed to -

That the words “ (in blank),” paragraph (a), be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “unmarked.”

That paragraphs (b) and(c) be left out.

That after paragraph (e) the following paragraph be inserted:- (ee) The elector shall then and there, in the presence of the authorized witness, but so that the authorized witness cannot see the vote, mark his vote on the ballot-paper in the prescribed manner, and shall fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen, and hand it so folded to the authorized witness.

That after paragraph (f) the following paragraph be inserted: - (ff) If the elector’s sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, the authorized witness, if so requested by the elector, shall mark the elector’s vote on the ballot-paper in the presence of a witness, and shall then and there fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen, and deal with it in the manner provided in the last preceding paragraph.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clauses 93 to 97agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That the Bill be reported with amendments.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I protest that this question cannot be put within a quarter of an hour of the Committee having decided not to report the Bill.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap). - I cannot uphold the honorable senator’s point of order, as. the two matters are not identical. The question is, “ That the Bill be reported with amendments.”

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 70.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 70-

No. person who is at the date of nomination, or who was at any time within fourteen days prior to the date of nomination a member of the Parliament of a State, shall be capable of being nominated as a senator, or as a member of the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That clause 70 be re-inserted.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I can understand that anything I may say at this stage is not likely to have any effect upon the majority of honorable senators opposite. It appears that they have held a number of secret meetings and-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! The honorable senator must discuss the clause before the Committee.

Senator GRANT:

– I have not much hope of being able to alter the views of honorable senators supporting the Government. In the early stages of Federation it was understood that there should be no limitation on the choice of the electors among candidates for the Federal Parliament. We have no reason to believe that the restriction contained in this clause has had a very beneficial effect. The fact that some of the State Parliaments would not reciprocate should not affect this Parliament. The clause limits the right of electors to choose their representatives. As the field of choice should be made as wide as possible, I oppose its re-insertion.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– By far the greatest number of members of the Federal Parliament have had some experience in State Parliaments. We should not be greatly discommoding ourselves by permitting members of the State Parliaments to ascertain the wishes of the electors for Federal seats without inconveniencing their constituents, and occasioning further expense, by having to resign their State seats before nominating. This has been a vexed question in

Tasmania, where, I believe, an Act has been passed enabling State members to contest Federal seats by providing that, if they are defeated, it is not necessary for them to stand again for re-election to the State Parliament. Why should we impose a disability upon men in whom the electorshave already expressed confidence ? It savours somewhat of the doginthemanger business. Iadmit that a State member has ah advantage over the ordinary candidate by retaining his railway pass, and not having to pay his fares in the campaign, but that advantage does not amount to very much; and I know of no other that he possesses. I was a State member, and resigned my seat because I did not find the position very attractive. If I had been defeated for the Federal Parliament it was not my intention to recontest the State seat. It would be generous on the part of honorable senators to refuse to impose any disability on State members, because, after all, whatever may be said of us by some people” outside, the public have selected most of us after experience of us in State politics, and for many years to come the representation in these national Chambers will be largely constituted of recruits from the State Parliaments. It would do no harm if this clause, which was left out by accident, was allowed to stay out.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I want every elector in the Commonwealth to have equality of opportunity. Every State member should have the chance to nominate for the Federal Parliament without having first to resign his State seat. I hope to see the day when there are no State Parliaments, but that will be a long time coming. We have had some hard lessons lately so far as that is concerned, but it takes very hard lessons indeed to alter old, crusted national customs: This clause was originally put in our electoral law because of the unfair advantage aState sitting member, with his travelling facilities and his railway pass, had over his opponents.I agree with Senator Bakhap that that is a matter of very little importance, and no consideration of that kind should stand in the way of the mostbrainy men in the community seeking to enter the Federal Parliament without having to go through the ordeal of resigning their State seats.

Motion agreed to; clause re-inserted.

Bill reported with a further amendment; reports adopted.

Motion (by Senator Russell) put -

That thisBill be now read a third time.

TheSenate divided.

Ayes . . . . . . 15

Noes . . . . 5

Majority . . . . 10

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 8037

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (bySenator Millen) agreed to-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 3 p.m. on Thursday next.

page 8037

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

page 8037

ADJOURNMENT

Graves Commission, Gallipoli

Motion (by Senator Millen) pro posed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

. -Have steps been taken to secure the representation of Australia on the Graves Commission that is about to visit Gallipoli from England?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– An announcement was made in the press that a Graves Commission had been appointed, on which all the Dominions, including Australia, are represented. Complete plans of’ all the graves are ‘being made out under the direction of that Commission, showing the identity of the soldier and the locality of his burial. Immediately news was received of the Forces being despatched to occupy the Dardanelles, arrangements were made in England for a representative of Australia on the Graves Commission to proceed with them to the Dardanelles, to take in hand the work of locating the graves on Gallipoli.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.15 a.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 November 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19181119_SENATE_7_86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant