8th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President (Senator theHon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m.’, and read prayers.
page 896
Sale of Properties toQueensland government.
– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether the Government are proceeding with the offer to sell the Ganungra timber properties stated to . have been made to the Queensland Government or are considering the offer of the property to a private firm?
– I assume that the honorable member’s question is directed to an offer made by the . Queensland Government. They have offered only to purchase one very small portion of the freehold area of” the property referred to.
page 896
Protection of Aboriginals
asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
– The answers are-
page 897
Percentage Paid by States.
Senator DE LARGIE (for Senator
Thomas) asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The information is being prepared, and will he furnished as soon as possible.
page 897
SenatorWILSON asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister forTrade and Customs has supplied the following answers: -
As to the first part of Question 1. - I do not think it is a fact.
As to the rest of Question 1, and to Questions 2, 3, 6, and 7. - The Commonwealth Government has not yet made any proposal for an export duty, and I cannot answer hypothetical questions. But I would point out that the honorable senator’s questions do not cover the whole ground of the protection of Australian ‘industries from destruction by unfair competition. There are dangers of monopolies outside Australia as well as inside.
page 897
Debate resumed from 26th July (vide page 752), . on motion by Senator Pearce -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– The Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce), in moving the second reading of this Bill, told us that it was largely a machinery measure, and we may be somewhat assured by that statement that it is not loaded. There is. however, one matter upon which I desire to be satisfied. The Minister stressed the importance of the provisions for the grouping of candidates, but I am more concerned about the provisions affecting itinerant electors which appear to me to constitute a somewhat doubtful reform.
This Bill must be read in conjunction with the principal Act, and. as even lawyers will differ as to the interpretation of legislative provisions, it is not a little difficult to discover what is proposed in this measure. I am sorry that I am able only to depend on the impressions I formed from listening to the Minister’s remarks in moving the second reading, as we have, so far, not been placed in possession of the Hansard report of his speech. That is very regrettable. - It cannot tend to the proper consideration of the business of the Senate to have Government measures rushed through before honorable senators can have the assistance of a full Hansard report of the Minister’s remarks.
– The honorable senator might have obtained a. proof of my remarks at any time by asking for it.
– These proofs should be at the disposal of honorable senators without the necessity of having to ask for them. The Minister may smile, but any one possessing a business mind will agree with me.
– The honorable senator would not give one an opportunity to correct his proofs.
– We certainly should have more information at our disposal than we have at the present time in discussing this measure. I happened to be present when the Minister moved the second reading of the Bill, but I might have been away at the time.
– The honorable senator should not be away.
– We know that at times two-thirds of the members of the Senate are not present in this chamber.
– Ministers are themselves away sometimes.
– Thatis so. On occasions two-thirds of the representatives of the Government in this Chamber are away. I suggest that it would be better as a matter of routine to provide all necessary facilities to enable honorable senators to properly discuss the business submitted to this Chamber. I have said that I am somewhat doubtful as to how the Bill will affect the people in whom I am specially interested. The itinerant electors of Australia, for the most part belong to the workers whom I have the honour to represent. It is unfortunate that quite a number of people are not in a position to depend on a settled occupation.
SenatorRowell. - A good many of the idle rich are in the same position.
– They would not represent one in ten of the electors of the working class who are so placed. The previsions to which I specially refer will not affect miners to any great extent, but they will affect shearers, rouseabouts, and other pastoral workers, and also workers in the sugar industry, men who have to travel long distances from place to place in order to earn a living. I understand this matter, because in my boyhood I lived with my parents in the back-blocks of Australia, and I know that some of the men who have to follow the occupations to which I have referred are of the small farmer class, who are the backbone of the country. Instead of putting obstacles in the way of such men we should rather provide facilities toenable them to exercise political control.
– Does the honorable senator not think that an electoral right should remain practically where the domicile of the elector is?
– That might be so, if every one were fortunate enough to have a settled domicile. Itinerant electors are sometimes insulted by being told that they have not a stake in the country, but they often include farmers who, in order to earn necessary funds, have at times to go into the shearing sheds or canefields to do so. I believe that these people should be assisted in every possible way to a position of equality with other citizens of the Commonwealth. I have formed the impression that the Bill will give power to other people to strike a blow at the electoral rights of the nomadic worker. I may be mistaken in that view, and the Minister may be able to make that clear to me later on. The Minister stated that it was proposed to tighten up the machinery so that an elector could vote only in the district of which he was a bona fide resident. I would point out that a man might be a bonâ fide resident after working for two or three months in a district. The proposal would place too much power in the hands of the individuals who make, a living by scrutinizing electoral rolls, and often designedly rushing in to strike off the roll the names of those people whose political views are different from their own.
– Roll “ doctors.”
– They are worse than that.
– Are they actually making a living out of it? We cannot afford that.
– Theyare all paid servants of the Government.
– Apart from the electoral officers, there are a number of people employed by the political organizations having the most money.
– You refer, of course, to the Labour party.
– No ; I do not refer to the Labour party, andthis clause certainly has not been framed in the interests of that party. The Minister said that there was a possibility of a number of itinerant persons assembling themselves at the poll in a particular division. That is the only shadow of an excuse that the Minister has for desiring to put this very dangerous provisionon the statutebook. When I refer to the people who scrutinize the rolls, I have not in mind the paid officials, although there is often necessity for a close oversight of the powers they exercise.
– Youseem to overlook the fact that it is compulsory to enroll.
– While we make enrolmentcompulsory, this proposal will make it more difficult for an elector to vote.
– Are there 60,000 more names on the Queensland State roll than on the Federal roll?
– There is always a considerable excess in every State, but the object in every democratic country should be to encourage every citizen to exercise the franchise. The DenhamBarnes Government in 1915 passed an Act in . Queensland to make voting compulsory. That was a very proper thing to do, but a provision like the one under consideration places obstacles in the way of an elector voting. It would be better that ten men should vote twice than that one intelligent Australian should be prevented from doing so.
– The intentional impersonators would swamp his vote altogether.
– I do not believe that impersonation at election time has ever affected a single contest in the Commonwealth. The Minister will well remember the year 1913, when there was a Labour ‘Government in power. As the election results came in, the party opposed to Labour raised a howl. It was said by a gentleman who once occupied a seat in this Chamber, that “ Labour had raised the very dead to vote for them “ at that election. An honorable member in another place - a Queenslander - made certain statements about corruption existing throughout Australia in connexion with electoral matters, and he felt compelled to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the position. That Commission visited every part of the Commonwealth. It may have cost more than the Minister’s visit to Washington, but, judging by the results, that visit was certainly worth ten times more than the money paid for the Royal Commission.
– Perhaps it was because the Minister brought back the truth, and the Commission did not.
– So far as I remember not a single case of impersonation or corruption was discovered.
– The electoral machinery itself prevents any discovery.
– It is so difficult to prove breaches of the law.
– I am quite satisfied that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, there would not be a single case of double voting. In a small electorate that danger may exist, but in a division with 30,000 or 40,000 voters the risk is practically non-existent.
– Is it not because the safeguards are being tightened up from time to time? Would you withdraw these?
– While on the one hand we are compelling people to enroll, it is proposed to take steps to nullify that position.
– You cannot see any use for this clause?
– I see an absolute danger, so far as the people I represent are concerned. Bather should they have their names placed on a dozen rolls, so long as they do not vote more than once, than that they should be disfranchised.
– Should not the Government take reasonable precautions against abuse?
– The precautions taken in the past twenty years have been considered reasonable.
– Governments learn by experience, and it is now said that there should be a tightening up.
– As I have not a full Hansard report of the Minister’s speech, I am dependent - as I have already pointed out - on the newspaper reports, and on my memory. Every effort should be made to encourage the granting of electoral facilities to the workers and small farmers, who are the backbone of the country.
– Can they not vote as absentees?
– They are not deprived of the vote.
– Any proposal tending to prevent a citizen from voting should be resisted.
– This clause will not put a single man off the roll.
– It will apparently reduce the facilities for voting. According to the Minister’s statement, his idea seems to be that people would have a burning desire to vote in several electorates. Thatis a slur on the general honesty of Australians,” and past experience has shown that such a safeguard is unnecessary. The nomadic workers, unfortunately, have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain work.
– I have to travel a thousand miles a week to work, and I am only home two days, a week.
– The honorable senator has a more settled domicile than the ‘workers whom I have in mind. He cannot claim the same sympathy as they are entitled to. In the absence of a fullreport of the Minister’s second-reading speech, I am at a great disadvantage in endeavouring to debate the various clauses of the Bill, but when the measure is in Committee I shall have a further opportunity of discussing those points on which I now need enlightenment. I am particularly anxious that the bush workers, whom this measure will largely affect if it becomes law in its present form, shall not be severely . handicapped, because, as it is drafted, it appears merely to protect the interests and convenience of those who are supporting the Government.
– Not at all.
– It certainly has not been drafted to protect the interests of country workers and to increase their facilities for voting, and I shall keep my eyes open to see that the nomadic workers are- fully protected. With compulsory enrolment, it is the duty of the Government to see that men. whose duties call them from place to place are not deprived of the privileges enjoyed by those who have steady occupation in one centre. The Commission to which I have referred reported that during probably the most exciting time in Australian political history the amount of impersonation was so trifling as to be almostun worthy of consideration, and it would, therefore, appear that the tightening up of the law in this connexion is hardly necessary.
The grouping system, which is embodied in this measure, has certain objectionable features, but on the whole the principle is one’ which should commend itself to the majority of the Senate. The system will undoubtedly help electors to record an intelligent decision, because when there are a number of names on the ballot-paper voters who do not follow the political situation very closely are not quite clear as to which party the different candidates represent, in which case they record either informal votes or votes which do not express their real intention. Since the introduction of the doubtful preferential system of voting for the Senate, and the advent of the socalled Country party-
– I like that.
– I am waiting to see-
– Which way the cat jumps.
– No ; that is what the Country party is doing. Can the honorable senator prove that the interests of a squatter in Queensland, who is an acquaintance of mine and who has sixty-two holdings, are not closely allied with Nationalist or Tory interests? I can mention the names of numerous men in Queensland who are extensively engaged in the business of grazing and sheep-raising who are supporters of the so-called Country party.
– Why should the honorable senator object to that? . Are not their interests in the country?
– -Men of the type I have mentioned are naturally supporters of Conservative principles. Senator Wilson, who is a representative . of the Country party, is opposed to the continuance of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, ‘but, so far as I have been able to study the programme of the Country party, which has very strong Victorian representation in another place, one of its most important planks1 is the continuance of the Commonwealth Line . of Steamers.
– I direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that the policy of the Country party has nothing to do with the provisions of this Bill.
– When I was led away by interjections I was referring to the grouping system, and saying that it was one that should be acceptable in any Democracy.
– Did the honorable senator obtain his seat in this Chamber in a democratic way?
– Yes, I topped the poll at the Labour plebiscite, and even if the most humble worker in Queensland had attained that position he would have been where I am standing to-day.
– Can the honorable senator vouch, for the purity of the Democracy?’
– There is corruption on all sides, but I do not think it can be said that £25,000 has ever been subscribed in connexion with our party.
– Should not a Nationalist be standing, in the place of the honorable senator?
– The honorable senator must remember that two and a half years have passed since the Federal electors in Queensland wore consulted, and it is unreasonable to- suggest that, the opinions of the electors in that State have not changed during that time. It is quite possible that if an election were held now the party which I am representing would secure a majority at the polls and Labour members would be returned. If an election is held within a couple of months, as the Leader of the Government in another place (Mr. Hughes) suggested, possibly the tables may be turned, because it need’s only 10,000 electors out of 300,000 electors in the State Irepresent to change their political opinions, and I would be here elected; by the people. The preferential system increases the number of candidates for parliamentary honours. I have an open mind concerning the working of that system, but the mathematical problems involved lead to considerable doubt as to whether the system gives the best results from a democratic stand-point.
– Does the honorable senator regard the system employed in connexion with Senate elections as a preferential system ?
– It is, in effect.
– Very remotely. It is to prevent minorities defeating majorities.
– However, the so-called preferential system will lead to a multiplicity of candidates which it will be necessary to group. in order to enable some electors to record their votes as- they desire.
– Does the honorable senator not think that it will mislead the electors ?
– Probably the honorable senator will be able to enlighten us concerning the proposal ; but he’ must admit that elderly men and- women who are not altogether conversant with the names of the representatives of the different parties, those- who are short-sighted or are otherwise infirm, and even a few who may have imbibed too freely, will be assisted in voting. Generally speaking, Federal elections have been carried out’ in the most satisfactory manner, and the grouping system will be the means of- removing some of the difficulties which now exist.
I shall have an opportunity when the Bill is in Committee to speak upon other aspects of it, but I have taken advantage of my privilege on the second reading to emphasize my doubts regarding the clause relating to itinerant ‘ voters, and to seek from the Minister a more satisfactory explanation of it than I have yet been able to obtain. I do not intend to discuss the Bill seriatim. The important part of it relating to the grouping system is one which, generally, I support, and I hope members of this Chamber will assist to place it on the statute-book.
– Without intending to discuss the Bill in detail, I desire to say that, taking it all in all, it will amend the Electoral Act in a very desirable direction. But the group system., which is absolutely new in our electoral machinery, I would support for only one reason, namely, so that the elector may be better guided in his task of voting. I do not think that I am, overstating the case when I say that, when there is a large number of candidates, a majority of the electors cast their votes without a sufficient knowledge of the personality of the candidates and the policies they represent. It would only be in order that there might be a wider ‘ distribution of knowledge of the candidates, parties, and policies represented at an election that I would favour an alteration of the Act in the direction of grouping; but I am not going to support the grouping system in the form now proposed. I think it is going to make confusion worse confounded, becauses it proposes a mere cypher designation instead of honestly recognising the existence of ‘parties. Party, after all, is only another name for organization. We must have organizations in every walk of life, including politics. The grouping system only recognises parties under certain alphabetical designations, and the electors will be more confused when they are asked to vote for a group whose political views are announced to them under the designation of a letter of the alphabet than they are to-day. If the group system is accepted by Parliament, I hope it will be accepted in such a form that the electors will know to which party a candidate belongs. We shall, no doubt, have a good deal of clamour raised in the press and elsewhere to the effect that another attempt is being made to foist the party machine on the people; but it is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that parties have come to stay. It ought to be recognised that J ones is standing in the interests of the National party, Brown for the Progressive . or Country party, and Smith for the Labour party. Personally, I would prefer to abandon the idea of the group system, and mark against the name of every candidate the policy or party which he professes and supports.
– Will not the grouping of three or four names of men belonging to a particular party signify to even the dullest elector that they are members of that party?
– That might apply in a small State like Tasmania, where, according to what I have been told, one has only to use a megaphone at one end of the island to be heard at the other end. In a large State like New South Wales or Queensland the position is quite different. A man living, say, at Bourke may be unknown in the city of Sydney, and he has to be an outstanding figure to be elected simply on his name. If he were announced as the member of a certain party, as it is justifiable he should be while we have the party system, then the electors would know for whom they were being asked to vote, and for what policy or party. Unless the Act is altered in a way that will indicate to the electors which policies the candidates favour, I shall not support that portion of the Bill.
Assuming, however, that we are going to have the group system,, there is a danger in the wording of clause 3 of the Bill, sub-section 2 of which provides-
A group of candidates shall not be formed unless each of the members of the proposed group notifies the Commonwealth Electoral Officer . . . that he desires to have his name included in that group.
There is a danger in not having machinery to indicate how the group is to be formed. There may be three men - Brown, Smith, and J ones - who each desire to be grouped together. Robinson comes along, and, without conferring with the other three, and probably for the purpose of breaking up the group, asks to be included.
– That is provided for in the Bill. He cannot get in the group without the consent of those who are in it.
– In that case, then, the group cannot be formed. Subclause 2 of proposed new section 72a says that a group of candidates shall not be formed unless each of the members of the proposed group expresses his desire to have his name included. What is to prevent the fourth man from saying he proposes “to be a member of the group ?
– That clause prevents it. The group has to be a mutual and” joint concern.
– I would like the Minister to consider the sub-clause again a little more clearly. It reads -
The result of that provision might be that a group could not be formed because a fourth man chose to come along and say, “I want to be in that group, and the others will not have me.”
– The honorable member’s contention is wrong.
-It may be wrong; but I want to bring my view under the Minister’s attention, so that he may further consider it and make sure whether, after all, I am not right.
There is another feature of the Bill to which I wish to refer because of the remarks of Senator MacDonald. He has pointed out that there is, apparently, an insinuation in the proposed amendment of section 115 that the adherents of a certain party are in the habit of not honestly recording their votes. There is no such insinuation. The object is simply to prevent - what we know does happen - a turnover from one subdivision to another of a large body of electors for the purpose of swaying a vote. Men who are not bond fide living in a subdivision have still postal or absentee votes whereby they can record their votes for their own subdivision. The Bill aims at securing that men who really live in a subdivision, and whose interests are in it, shall vote for it, and for no other. It will nob prevent men who are away from their subdivision on election day from voting for that subdivision, because there is other machinery to enable them to do that.
– I take it that the clause would prevent big public works from being started in a district for the purpose of securing the return of a certain candidate.
– I think that is so. While a man should very properly be prevented from casting a vote for a subdivision in which he does not reside at the time, there ought not to be any suggestion of preventing him from casting a vote for the Senate, the electoral division of which is the whole State, simply because he does not live in the particular subdivision in which he seeks to vote. I am inclined to think that a safeguard in that direction has not been provided, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the clause, so that consideration can be given to it when we get into Committee. We ought to prevent a drift over from one subdivision to another; but we ought not to put obstacles in the way of a man voting for the State in which he lives. I want to make it clear in response to a remark that was made while the Minister was explaining the Bill, to the effect that the party I represent has been called upon to support the Bill holus-bolus, that if the clause of the Bill relating to grouping is regarded as vital - that is to say, if the Government declare that they will insist upon it or withdraw the Bill - then I shall exercise what I consider, to be my judgment, and cast a vote against the grouping system as now provided for in the Bill, whether it affects the passage of the Bill or not.
– In discussing an Electoral Bill and considering provisions that are introduced in a non-party spirit, but rather with the intention that they shall be efficacious in facilitating the work of electoral officers and recording the suffrages of electors, there can be very little contention except in regard to the actual merits of the provisions proposed. I am not going to analyze this measure for the purpose of discussing very many of the amendments of the existing law which.it embodies. I am on my feet on this occasion to enter my protest against the attempted introduction of the grouping system, and the indication of certain groups on the ballot-paper itself. I do not accuse the members of the Administration of having subordinated themselves to the necessities or representations of outside organizations in this matter. I do not believe that they have been so influenced, but I do believe that honorable senators individually, or perhaps in certain groups, have been influenced in regard to their opinion on this matter by the covert attitude of outside political organizations.
– That applies to all questions.
– No, it does not.
– Then, why any parties ?
– This measure represents an attempt to get party into the ballot-box, not in the ordinary sense of the voter exercising his individual suffrage, but by putting something before him that is only shadowed forth at present and not clearly expressed to give him some knowledge of party grouping.
– Why not?
– I say why do this? I set up an opposition of opinion to the justice of the proposition implied in the honorable senator’s question, “Why not?”. The Constitution has no knowledge of political parties. It expresses no opinion on them. It is concerned only with the men to be elected by the electors to represent them in this Chamber - because honorable senators must bear in mind that this Chamber will be particularly affected by the provision embodied in the Bill now before it, to which I direct special attention.
Just as we are censors of legislation that comes up to us from another place, I hope that honorable members in another place will not forget that they are constitutionally censors of what goes to them from this Chamber. This provision, for the very arguments I am about to use, was either rejected or withdrawn before; but I believe that unhappily it is likely on the present occasion to be passed by the Senate. Honorable senators will be acting very unwisely and with a very imperfect knowledge of the psychology of the Australian people, if they subscribe to the passing of such a provision.
It is true that there is a certain sheep - ishness about the human race that compels people very often to do what is indicated as desirable by a few. There is a good deal of the follow-my-Ieader business about the human race. At the same time, I believe that the best intellects, amongst the people and the electors who give most consideration to the affairs of the nation are those who say, “ Do not let us hear so much about your machine. Bring out your men.”
– What about measures ?
– We shall never get bad measures from good men.
– The trouble is to find the -good men.
– The electors arc afforded ample opportunity to find them. The Senate is being asked in this measure to subscribe to an absolute indictment of Democracy by introducing the grouping system into the ballot-box. Honorable senators are assuming that the electors are so grossly ignorant of politics and of events that make the history of the nation that, notwithstanding that illiteracy has disappeared in this country, they do not know how to record an intelligent vote.
– I did not say that.
– They are going to be asked to vote for a letter instead of a man.
– That letter will be put forward to indicate the name of the political party to which a candidate professes to belong. The names of political parties are not suggested on this occasion, because some honorable senators who favour this step are not quite sure of their game. They are not quite sure that what is proposed will not be resented by the electors.
We have been told that the system proposed has been in operation in America for years. That is no argument in support of its adoption in Australia. It is well known that I am an admirer of the American Constitution in regard to several of its features. I am very glad that the men who framed the Constitution of the Commonwealth took that of the United States of America as their model. But when the American Constitution was framed it was drawn up by men who were the representatives of a population in the United States of America which differed very greatly in number and character from the present population of that country, which includes groups, in some instances, of hundreds of thousands of almost illiterate Eastern Europeans. The introduction of the group system into the ballot-box in America was clearly due to the influence of the great American “bosses,” ‘who hoped to take advantage of the sheep-like instinct of the human race, which enabled them to draft voters together and give instructions upon which they would vote like automata, and not like human beings.
It is said that it is necessary for us to educate the electors. Are we to assume that they are ignorant? I do not assume anything of the sort. I believe that I was sent here by intelligent electors, and I applaud their intelligence. . I expect to appeal to them within a comparatively brief period for a renewal of their confidence and a fresh exhibition of their intelligence. The electors are not ignorant at all. A certain percentage, perhaps, consists of people who are concerned entirely about their own interests and care very little about politics. But, if even those whose intelligence is of the very highest standard care little about politics, neglect the consideration of the interests of the nation, and do not know the names of the candidates for election that appear on the ballot-paper, it is a thousand times better that their votes should be informal than that they should be registered merely because of something that is put on the ballot-paper. It is the intelligent voter who should govern the situation, and not the illiterate voter or the voter who does not care who governs the country. This Bill contains a proposal to carry into the ballot-box something which will enable such persons to oast a mechanical vote, because a vote cast under such a system will bo a mechanical vote.
– The unintelligent vote is not necessarily informal.
– I admit that; but the honorable senator will admit that a formal vote is more likely to be an intelligent vote than is an informal vote.
The Constitution provides for a Parliament. It provides that there shall be Ministers, and that Parliament shall have powers in regard to legislation, some of which are partial and some of which are complete. But I venture to say that the Constitution will never express itself in set terms in regard to political parties or the grouping of electors. If this Parliament likes to do so, it may, but in taking such a step Parliament, in my opinion, will begin to impair substantially the very nature of the parliamentary institu tion. We want men here who are the result of the exercise of the electoral franchise by intelligent electors, and not by electors who are assumed to be so ignorant and so devoid of political information and interest in the affairs of the country that they require tobe provided with information on the ballot-paper to enable them to cast an intelligent vote.
I know that at the back of this proposal there is some discontent arising from the advantage which it is alleged that certain candidates will procure because the initial letters of their names will place them in a certain position of priority on the ballot-paper. I think that is one of the delusions which men sometimes hug to themselves, and which have no foundation in fact. I have contested a good many elections in my time, and, although my name begins with the letter “B,” I do not think that I have once secured the first position on the poll, though I have secured first position in pre-selection ballots. I believe that if my name had begun with the letter “ Z “ I would have been successful in any case in those contests in which I have been elected. Some people suggested in a spirit of jest that on one occasion my election was in danger because a number of Chinese made their ballot-papers informal by marking the figure 1 upside down. I escaped the danger, however, and was elected. I should be quite willing to permit theReturning Officer to draw lots to determine the position of the names of candidates on the ballot-paper if it is contended that candidateswhose names beginning with the letter “ A “ or the letter “B” are given a marked advantage in regard to the possibility of their success. I do not believe that is so, because I know that men whose names begin with letters very low down in the alphabet have topped the poll time and again.
I understood Senator Garling to make some reference to the territorial inferiority of the State I help to represent.
– Its size.
– Because of its size, the honorable senator suggested that it is possible for a man to make his voice heard all over the State, but I remind him that it is not very difficult at times for Tasmanians to make their voices heard all over Australia. I do not think that a
Tasmanian, if he cared to address himself to the public of New South “Wales, would fail in securing an audience as far west as Bourke. In my opinion, the electors are not so unintelligent as some persons would have us believe. It is true that we often have a considerable percentage of informal votes recorded; but, as I have said before, it is better that we should have 50 per cent. of informal. votes if the informality represents unintelligence. I am not in favour of compulsory voting or compulsory enrolment. True, it is an accomplished fact, but I would prefer elections to be decided by people who are sufficiently interested in the welfare of their country to go voluntarily to the polling booth. People who have to be coaxed there in motor oars, and to whom candidates have to go down on their knees to get them to vote, are blind to their own individual and national interests.
– A candidate would not be returned if he neglected those people.
– If the honorable senator’s candidature were left to those people who would vote entirely of their own accord, it would be quite safe, just as my own would be safe, even if it were declared to be an offence to solicit a vote. But I do not think that the grouping proposal is a good one, even in the interests of the political organizations themselves, and they would realize it, if they could see far enough ahead. It is a two-edged sword, and it is the shadow of the machine on the ballot-paper. Any sidestepping of the issue is futile, when it takes place before an individual of average intelligence. There is going to be some difficulty in this proposal from the party point of view also. I admit that, if it becomes the law, I have no objection whatever to being grouped with the candidates with whom I have fought on the platform, election after election, but in some States the power of the machine is such that it selects only that number of. candidates which is sufficient to fill the vacancies.
– The candidates of the machine have been returned in every instance.
– Not always.
– Yes; of late years they have.
– Some people regard that as a necessary evil. Machine politics are a very modern development, and whether they are a wholesome development or not, I am not inclined to bay. A certain amount of party discipline with regard to big sections of public opinion is undoubtedly necessary, and perhaps desirable, but if too strongly stressed the evils of the system become apparent.
In Tasmania the people have had a very early acquaintance with proportional representation and preferential voting. The two principles are not the same. Proportional representation has been rejected by the Senate, and I am not going to discuss it now, although I am still as strongly in favour of it as ever, because I believe that minority opinion should be proportionately represented. The party to which I subscribe allegiance, to a. certain extent, has never been foolish enough, unless the electoral system required it, to practise the selection of candidates. There will be three Senate; vacancies, so far as we can see, for Tasmania to fill at the next Federal election. Those of the retiring senators, who agree to stand, may do so, and if they have not committed any political sins of a serious character, or adopted an attitude which shows an abandonment of the political principles favoured by the Nationalist party, I have no doubt that their candidature will be indorsed. Indorsed, that is all. They will not be selected, if I understand the Tasmanian Nationalist party’s organization aright, and ten or twenty candidates may come forward for the purpose
Of standing for the three vacancies. So long as they profess adherence to the Nationalist principles, their candidature will be indorsed also, and we may have twenty candidates from the Nationalist party to fill the three Senatorial seats. That may not happen in the other States, because of the intervention of the machine, but the proposal now under consideration will provide for the powerof the machine to be extended right on to the ballot-paper. The actual name of the political machine in any particular State isnot to be placed on the ballot-paper, but the medicine is being tried by the adoption of a letter.
– Are you not a member of a party ?
– Yes; but in the first place I am a member of the Senate of the Australian Parliament, and I will not hesitate at any time to vote in a way which I regard as in the interests of the nation, even though I may have to adopt a different course from that advocated by the Nationalist party. The very first time I went on the political platform, I stated that, if elected, I would do as I liked; and so I always will. If a proposal is put upon the platform of my party that I consider to be pernicious, is it imagined that it will receive my support ? The party claims a certain amount of allegiance from me, and receives it; but I do not intend to sink my individual opinions, and support the attitude of any political party, if I consider it to be opposed to the welfare of the nation.
– The honorable senator belongs to the most hide-bound party in existence - the Tory party.
– That is only the honorable senator’s personal opinion. The grouping system has, to a certain extent, been abandoned by the Labour party in Tasmania, and at the last election the selection of candidates was not made according to the number of seats to be filled, but all who cared could stand, so long as they were Labourites. It is very singular that this Government should be bringingdown a proposal that has the commendation of a representative of what I have always thought was the premier political machine in Australia. We are told that the Act already on the statute-book is for the purpose of giving the poor, ignorant, and unreasoning elector additional information with regard to the candidates, of whom his knowledge will be so little as to hardly justify him in voting at all. This is to give him that additional information that will enablehim to pick out from the various groups the candidates for whom he desires to vote, thus enabling him to avoid exercising his franchise informally. I think the political organizations at the back of this proposal will be surprised at the result of the first election at which it is put into operation. If there were fifteen candidates belonging to the Nationalist party grouped under a particular letter, would not an elector be in just as difficult a position in selecting from those fifteen the three for whom he wished to vote? All he would know would be that they were all of the Nationalist party. Is he going to vote for the lot? Some of the electors will. I have known a man go year after year to record his vote, and it became evident that he always did one thing - put his ballot-papers into the box without making a mark on them. I know another case where an elector, a very intelligent person - she happened to be a lady - always refused to’ record her vote in any other way than by writing on the ballot-paper, “ I wish to vote for Mr. So-and-so and Mr. So-and-so.” If the system were altered 150 times, she would always vote in the same way.
We are not very anxious to educate the elector at all. We provide pains and penalties for those who try to do so in certain circumstances. If they come near the polling booth, they are liable to be fined. What could be more educational on the part of a political party than to leave a card in the polling booth indicative of the candidates of the organization which the party wishes to see supported; but such a procedure, although more educational than the proposal in this Bill, is against the law, because it is provided in section 165 of the existing Act that “ a person shall not exhibit or leave in any polling booth any card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction “as to how an elector should vote, or as to the method of voting.”
– It is like the leading quotation of a lawyer?
-Does the honorable senator wish to annul section 165 ?
– It is an attempt to use undue influence.
– We are very careful that the elector should not be importuned in any way, but this importunity is always with the object of educating him. There are plenty of educators about on polling day anywhere outside of an area of 20 feet from the polling booth.
– We cannot get them in New South Wales at election time.
– I have seen people pushed away by the police for endeavouring to exercise an educational influence on the electors.
– Did the honorable senator say educator or agitator?
– Agitators at times may be good educators. Let honorable senators remember how we have designedly eliminated from our Electoral Act all provisions which, hampered the electors in what I might term the cool, calm, exercise of the franchise. Why, it is hardly permissible for candidates to engage vehicles to take electors to- the poll.
– Or give them a beer.
– If they are thirsty we cannot give them a drink. We must not give them any refreshment. We must leave them alone, and must not solicit their support by any material inducement. Notwithstanding all this, it is proposed to permit this insidious method to project itself on to the ballot-paper. We are elected to serve a State, and not any party, and, surely, we are not such hypocrites as to hide from ourselves that it is the intention in regard to this proposal to use the ballot-paper for party purposes. That is the intention. Why deny it? Certainly I do not.
– I come here as the representative of a party.
– And I come here as a representative of the nation. I have received votes from all political parties. We come here to represent the ideal condition of affairs which, unfortunately, owing to numerous imperfections in our present system of legislation and government, cannot be completely realized. We represent the ideal of all for the State and none for party. I can assure honorable senators that I come here as a representative of the whole of the people. The fortunes- of my political party do not deserve or receive particular consideration, but the fortune of the people of Australia as a whole.
– Is not the honorable senator justified in supporting the principles of his party?
– That interjection surely indicates the great gulf which separates us as politicians. The whole object of the legislation we have enacted is to prevent electors from being influenced or interfered with when they desire to record their votes. We are not allowed to educate the electors in the polling booth.
– Where do you find that?
– In section 165 of the Electoral Act, sub-section 1 of which I have just referred to. Is not that embodied in our electoral law to prevent electors being enlightened and’ receiving assistance in voting for the candidates whom they wish to support ? Can it be said that there is nothing particularly penal in that? There surely is. Do hon-. orable senators forget the care that has to be exercised in connexion with electoral advertisements? They cannot be anonymous.
– Has the honorable senator read sub-section 2 of the provision he has just quoted?
– Yes, I have, and the honorable senator can quote it if he desires in Committee. I shall now quote section 17 1, which reads - 171. The following Acts are, on polling day, and on all days to which the polling is adjourned, prohibited at the entrance of or within a polling booth, or in any public or private place within twenty feet of the entrance of a polling booth, namely : -
Penalty : Twenty-five pounds.
I ask honorable senators what is the intention of the people whose conduct is regarded as reprehensible under this clause? It is to educate the elector as he steps across the threshold of the booth. They do not desire to take his life, to rob or maim him, or to commit a criminal offence. They are there for the purpose of educating him in the interests of a political party. That, is decreed by the law as reprehensible, and yet in face- of this we find honorable senators - they may be right, but I do not think so - favouring such a foolish thing as grouping candidates, and bringing the political machine,, the? existence of which is tolerated rather than admired, into such close proximity to the ballot-box. I intend. even, if I have not any support, to record a negative vote on this provision. I shall not have an opportunity of speaking when, the measure is in Committee; but. a measure- which embodies such a provision deserves, to be- rejected in toto.
– One of the objectionable features of this measure is- the proposed system of grouping candidates, which, I think, the Government should reconsider before coming to a definite decision. The proposed system provides, that the candidates of a political, party shall be grouped on the ballot-paper to enable electors to more easily record- their votes in favour of the representatives of a particular party. The practice in the past has been that candidates submitting their names for selection must agree to sign the programme of the party, and also to stand down if not selected. I remember on one occasion being selected as the third candidate for the Senate; but Professor Nansen suggested an improved method of counting, which resulted in my name being placed seventh instead of third in a list of twenty -three candidates. Under the so-called improved system it was an average, and not a majority, vote which placed me seventh on the list ; but I was elected to the Senatebefore the discovery was made. A little over two years ago the National party advertised for three candidates. I did not nominate, because I understood that a selection was to be made by vote; but that method was subsequently abandoned. Senator Elliott and Senator Guthrie nominated, and when I was asked why I did not submit my name, I said I had had enough of selection by vote, because the branches were “ stuffed,” and I would sooner be out of Parliament than submit to selection on that basis. I said that I would face the electors as a supporter of the Hughes Government, and if they wished to support me I would appreciate it; and they did so. Since that time the party has been making the same blunder as the Labour party, by asking candidates to sign the platform of the party and support the policy of that party whether they liked it or not.
– The honorable senator has become enlightened.
– I have had considerable experience since then. I was expelled from the Labour party by a clerk in the office without the executive considering my position because I was in favour of a referendum on the question of conscription. At that particular time the question of conscription was not really before the country. I told the executive of the party that as a majority in both. Houses of Parliament were apparently in favour of conscription it would have general support, and that I believed that under the War Precautions Act effect could be given to such a policy. The members of the executive sent me to Cabinet with a direction to support a referendum ; but within two or three- days they said, “ Here is your chance to oppose the referendum.” How couldI do it when I was committed to vote for it? 1 would not have been regarded as an honorable man. The next action on the part of the executive was to notify me by letter that I was expelled from the Labour movement after twenty years’ faithful service. No questions were asked. At one election I was returned with a majority of 50,000 in the metropolitan districts, and later with 68,000 votes, after there had been a decided attempt to secure our scalps by adopting bad tactics and displaying a lack of judgment. I am not prepared to sign the platform of the National party, and if at the next elections nominations are sought under present conditions, my nomination will not be forthcoming. The three candidates who are prepared to -sign the platform will be selected, and under the proposed grouping system I shall be dubbed an Independent Nationalist. I am not that. I am a Nationalist, and, in consequence of ignorance on the part of certain electors, the support which I would otherwise receive may not be forthcoming.
– This is using political machinery.
– Yes, and it may affect me considerably. Although I have been expelled from the Labour party, I have been a unionist- for twenty years, and am still a member of an industrial organization. I have been asked why I left the Trades Hall and ceased to be a member of a union; but when such questions have been, put to me I have produced my book showing that I have been a financial member for over twenty years. If the names of candidates are arranged alphabetically my namewill, unfortunately, be well down on the list. It is said that that does not affect me. I remember that at the time of the double dissolution we all walked out like heroes; but now we. think that we were fools.
– Does the honorable senator really think that ?
SenatorRUSSELL. - We- did not even read the Bill that was before us. Senator Gardiner and Senator Rae called, for a division. They made two in the Senate, and we had to abide by the decision. The division was on the issue of preference to unionists; We would not do it again to-morrow in the same way. It ought to have been referred to a Committee, and a Conference should have been, held between; the two Houses. If. the Nationalists select three candidates against me at the next elections, the public will vote against me, because they want to preserve the solidarity of the party. I must vote against this proposal because it is an experiment. If Parliament was clear-cut into two parties, it would be a sounder Parliament, and I would not then object to grouping. I know a man who, at the last election, got 100 to 1 about my chances. He was the member for Fremantle (Mr. Burchell) in the House of Representatives. I- could have made a fortune by backing myself at that time. After the counting had been proceeding for about three days, I calculated that I was going to win by at least 60,000 votes. There were 27,000 men and women who voted for me as No. 1, and I remained for nine weeks with only 27,000 votes to my credit. It was a ridiculous waste of time. The Labour party divided the electorates into districts. In one district they asked their supporters to vote for Barnes, in another district for Barker, and in another for Findley. Only Mr. Watt and I were here at the time, and he said, “ We shall have to take this alphabetically, and place your name third on the National ticket.” I replied that it would only make a difference for a day or two, and would not matter. He said, “ I think it will affect you.” Consequently, the order of the names was “Elliott, Guthrie, Russell.” I voted for that ticket myself, but 27,000 other electors voted for me as No. 1. My own wife voted for me as No. 1. The counting went on for nine weeks, while my total of 27,000 did not -alter. They were betting in the racing clubs on the result of the election. I believe I polled 99 per cent, of the votes of the soldiers, because I was in charge at the Defence Department for about eighteen months. They did not give me their political support, but I am sure that I got 99 per cent, of their votes. Most of the soldiers voted No. 1 for General Elliott, which they were entitled to do, because of his war services. He was loved by the boys, who voted for “Pompey” and not for General Elliott. The votes were counted as though there were three separate elections. I was not in the first, and I was not in the second, and the public had such a hazy conception of the position that the betting against me went up to 100 to 1.
I was quite satisfied that I was going to win by 60,000. The process is expensive, and a waste of time. There is an army of officers engaged on the work. As soon as the third votes had been counted, I got confidential information that I was polling 20 to 1 in the third count against any other candidate, and there were about five candidates at that time. The fact that I had won by 60,000 votes was known for weeks before the result was announced. The President of the Senate (Senator Givens) was in the same position, and I think Senator Pearce was several weeks before he knew his total vote. The votes for tho three seats ought to be counted at tho same time. After I had won by 68,000 in the final count, I asked the electoral officer to let me have a list of results in each of the electorates. I went to a complimentary dinner to General Birdwood at Bendigo, and the Mayor said he was glad to see me present, because I had topped the poll for Bendigo. I did not know it, and eight weeks after the election had to be told this fact by the Mayor. Such things make one feel a fool. I replied to his remarks, and got out of the difficulty as best I could. When I came to Melbourne the electoral officers stated that they could not give me the figures, and I said <$hat I would bring the matter up in Parliament. I was proud to learn that I had won in every wheat-growing district in the State. This was because of my association with the Wheat Pools. The farmers did not vote for the Country party candidates, who lost their deposits, and I got a majority of the farmers’ votes. Half the money now spent on a Senate election could be saved if the continual, useless counting was done away with. In the interests of economy, something of the sort ought to be done. The electoral officers say that they cannot do as I suggest under the preferential system, but I defy them to prove it. I hope the Government will take the matter into consideration. I cannot vote for the group system with more than two parties in Parliament, because of the position that I and some others would be placed in. I support the National party, and I am a financial member of it, but I do not want to sign the platform. I am satisfied that if I have three National opponents at the next election, and I am placed at the bottom of the list as an Independent Nationalist, I shall lose, because 10 per cent, of the electors have discretion, and 90 per cent. of them follow the party leaders. Every party is led by eight or ten men, and what they say is accepted by the crowd, who believe in their politics, but know little or nothing of the principles on which an election is fought. Such big questions as White Australia, Protection and Free Trade are what inflame the minds of the electors. I have hoard people speaking as if the Commonwealth Bank was the greatest asset we had, and as if it had £1,000,000)000 behind it. It was faith that saved Australia from a financial crisis during the war. There was no panic because there was faith and credit, which were established mostly by the reputation for honesty held by the Government and the Commonwealth Bank. I hope the Government will take into consideration the economic effect of counting the first, second, and third votes as a single vote.I know that under the group system it would be optional for me to get two others to join me as a group ; but if these others were not the National selected candidates, I believe I should lose the election. I shall move definitely in Committee to give effect to my views. I shall vote against the group tickets, because I believe that such a system would do injury to the candidates.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.
– I regret very much that circumstances suddenly arising prevent me addressing myself to this motion as lengthily as I otherwise would. I wish to take advantage of the few. moments during which I can speak at this stage of the Bill to register my protest against provisions in the measure designed to introduce the system of group voting for this Chamber. I could understand provisions of that kind being applied to elections for this Chamber by Senate abolitionists who do not regard the Senate as a necessary part of the. parliamentary machinery of the Commonwealth. I do not think that it would be possible to forge a stronger instrument for the hands of Senate abolitionists than the provision to which I refer will be if it is enacted. I shall not attempt at present to fully analyze the provision; but it seems to me that it will be a very difficult matter to formulate any machinery by which groups are to be arranged. If an individual who offers himself to the choice of the electors wishes to associate himself with a certain group of candidates, who will not have him associated with them, what is ho to do?
– Will they not have as much right as he has?
– But the electors have rights that are over all.
– Their rights will not be interfered with.
– They will; and it is intended that their rights shall be interfered with. That is the purpose, and will be the result, of this measure if it is passed. It seems , to me that the provision to which I take exception postulates the ignorance or incompetence of the great proportion of the electors. Wo are to assume that they are incapable of going through a list of candidates presented to them on a ballot-paper, and deciding which of them professes opinions in which they believe. We are to assume that they need assistance to enable them to return candidates en bloc, wholesale, rather than in detail, I do not think that we can assume that the electors are so incompetent or so ignorant of the political views of those who may offer themselves for their choice.
– It is a terrible reflection upon us if they are.
– Exactly. If the electors are so incompetent and ignorant what is the value of their voice in the regulation of the country’s affairs. I shall have an, opportunity of addressing myself more fully to the matter at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill.So far as the mere machinery clauses of the Bill arc concerned there is a good deal to commend them; but I am very sorry that the Government should have associated these purely machinery provisions with the radical alteration in the principle of election comprised in the provision for the group system of voting.
No matter what we may say here and now in the shape of reasons for the adoption of this new principle, honorable senators may take it from me that the public will not believe us. They will not consider that this Bill has been introduced for the benefit of the unfortunate elector who may require instruction as to how he should voile, but they will consider that it is introduced, as prima facie it seems to be, for the benefit of political organizations outside. They will consider, if the measure is passed, that it is passed for the benefit of sitting members, and we can never escape the odium of criticism of that kind.
– I do not think that we should either, if we pass this provision.
– No, we should not. If we are to divide the electors of this country into two parties, we shall find that they are represented in the Senate by thirty-four on one side and by two. on the other. What will be said if a Senate so constituted enacts so radical an alteration in the system by which elections are to be conducted? The system that applied at the last general election was a radical departure from the system previously existing; but that, at least, had the merit that it was carried in a Senate where the disproportion between the strength of the two political parties was nothing like as great as it is in ‘the Senate to-day. Holding the opinions I do on this subject, I feel that I am right in warning honorable senators of the criticism which they will certainly be subjected to if tho provisions of this Bill arc passed.
– Did the Labour party in 1919 oppose the- group system? I do not think that they did.
– I have not looked through the division lists, and I do not know whether they did or not ; but I say that what is proposed in this Bill is such a radical departure from anything that. has previously existed in the Commonwealth or in the States that a Senate constituted as this is should be very hesitant, especially just before an election, about enacting such a principle.
– In considering the Bill, undoubtedly the first principle that strikes one is that which has been discussed by Senator Keating. Listening to some of the criticism we have heard to-day, one would think that there is nothing to recommend it, and that the practical results in ordinary elections do not point in any way to the necessity for the adoption of such a system as is proposed. Scrutineers who have gone through hundreds of thousands of ballot-papers will tell us that a very large number of votes are cast in the order in which the names of candidates appear on the ballot-paper, beginning at the first. That surely indicates that, speaking generally, the elector has some difficulty in selecting from the multitude , of names of candidates those for whom he desires to vote. Whatever may be said to the contrary, we do now group ourselves together as party men or as men entertaining certain political opinions.
– By the measures we advocate.
– Senator MacDonald stands as a representative of the Labour party, and we on this side stand as representatives of the National party. Another honorable senator may stand as a representative of the Country party. How, therefore, can it be argued that we should not on the ballot-paper facilitate the marking of the paper by electors in accordance with the views of the political group to which they belong. The argument has been that we must be wedded to the old system, but I contend that if it was found necessary in times past to make a change from what was known as the block vote system and substitute for it the preferential vote, it may now be argued with equal force that it is necessary at the present time to group together candidates who stand on a common political ground. It has been said that we postulate tho ignorance of the elector, but one has only to come in contact with the electors to find that, whilst they are clear as ‘ to their desire to vote for a certain party, they find it difficult, especially where names are somewhat similar, to pick out on a ballot-paper the names of the candidates for whom they desire to cast their votes. There can be nothing wrong in so preparing the ballot-paper as to enable the elector to more easily vote as he wishes to do. It has been suggested that under this Bill it is proposed to project the party system on to the ballot-paper. I deny that, because selection as to who shall be included in a particular group will rest with the candidates themselves. The Bill provides that if, for instance, six candidates have, a common political ground each can apply to be included in the same political group. Will any honorable senator contend that they should not be permitted to do so? I say that the three first applying to be included in a group have no right to say that a fourth candidate shall not be admitted to that group.
– If the honorable senator happens to be the fourth candidate for a particular group in the State which he represents he will find that he will be kept out.
– I do not wish to discuss the matter from that point of view. The difficulty suggested by the honorable senator is, perhaps, more likely to occur in New South Wales than in South Australia. I make my deductions entirely from the Bill as it appears before us. In my opinion, every candidate holding certain opinions is entitled in all fairness to be included in the group of candidates professing those opinion’s.
– There is nothing in the Bill to provide for any agreement as to party groups.
– There is no provision in the Bill to prevent such an agreement. Some honorable senators are obsessed with the idea that the Bill will cast the shadow of the party system on to the ballot-papers. It leaves it open to all who are of the same opinion to be included in one group.
– Unless some object to the inclusion of others. .
– That may be a matter for consideration in Committee.
– I fail to follow the honorable senator. If any candidate is to be permitted to have his name included in a group, it will not be a group from a party point of view.
– I did not say that it would, but my honorable friend has insisted that the proposal is to group candidates for party purposes. If he holds at the next election the same opinions as those which he held three years ago, he will have a right to be included in any group of candidates holding similar opinions. Group voting is not necessarily indorsed by the provisions of this Bill at all, because the elector will have the right to select or reject any candidate included in the group.
– Does the honorable senator not think that a group should be limited to the number required to be elected ?
– The Bill does not limit a group in that way Or provide any machinery for that purpose.
– It might be so prescribed.
– The honorable senator has directed attention to a danger that arises from our method of legislation, much of which is not done in Parliament, but by prescription or regulation. This is a matter which should not be left to officials to prescribe. We should say what we mean concerning it here and now while the Electoral Bill is before us.
I do not consider that an elector’s vote is inherent in his property, but I agree with those who say that the vote belongs to his manhood. If an elector happens to be away from home, he should not exercise the franchise in any other interests than those of the district where he lives and is enrolled. The Bill does not suggest taking away from him the power to vote, but it does seek to prevent a man from interfering with the election in another division. We make enrolment compulsory, and an elector should recognise that, having placed his name on a roll in a given locality, he has indicated that that is where he desires his influence to be felt. A man who resides in a southern portion of Australia, and who goes north for a few months, should not be permitted to take part in an election away from his home district, but he should exercise the franchise as an absent voter.
I do not favour the numbering of the ballot-paper. For many years we struggled for the secrecy of the ballot, and anything calculated to undermine that secrecy is undesirable. Otherwise, the Bill is purely of a machinery nature, and greater attention can be centred upon it when it reaches the Committee stage.
– As far as possible we should keep the question of government by party out of the deliberations of the Senate. I understood that this was to be a States House, but here we find legislation suggested by the Government that would very largely impoverish the rights of the Senate. The grouping system as proposed in the Bill would greatly encourage block voting, and I do not consider that to be advantageous. “Unfortunately for the public life of Australia the personality of the candidate does not count in an election as much as one might desire. The standard attained by public men has not improved in the last few years, because the average citizen is not prepared to lend himself to the party manoeuvring that is necessary to enable him to get into public life.
– Is party manoeuvring a new thing?
– It has been a growth in various parties, and in the different States. Senator Keating has very wisely put it that this proposal would provide ammunition for those who believe in the abolition of the Senate.
– A very extravagant statement!
– We should preserve the Senate as a States House, and legislation of this description will not help in that direction. When three South Australian senators retire next year the other two may say that they do not want me in their block. They may tell me to line up and enter a secret room, and sign acertain policy that may not suit me personally.
Sentaor Drake-Brockman. - That applies only to the Labour and Country parties.
– The honorable senator is quite wrong in assuming that the parties other than the Nationalist party have a monopoly of pledges. One of the most useful men ever seen in this Chamber - Sir Josiah Symon - went out of public life because of that very principle. He stated in his speech in the Adelaide Town Hall that if he were to be compelled to sign a pledge to a few people he would sooner go out of public life altogether.
– What was the answer of the electors?
– Party politics, unfortunately for Australia, lost the services of a very able man.
– He decided to run as a free lance, and the electors said they wished to know definitely where he stood.
– The electors knew the principles he advocated. My name is very low on the alphabetical list, but the electors found their way down to me.
– Your electors are in the Capital city, where the newspapers get them,.
– That is quite wrong. Is it contended that the electors of New South Wales are not intelligent enough to follow the names of candidates in their alphabetical order?
– There has been no question as to the intelligence of the electors, but as to the information furnished to them.
– I maintain that the average elector is quite capable of going through a list of names and picking out the men for whom he desires to vote ; if not, he is incapable of casting an intelligent vote. Reference was made by Senator Macdonald to the possibility of an elector, who had had too much to drink, requiring some assistance in voting.
– Why pick out merely the” drunk”? I referred to the short-sighted, the aged, and the infirm as well.
– The Bill can best be dealt with in detail in Committee. I cannot agree with the grouping system, and unless the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen), who appears to think that it has much to commend it, can bring forward a tremendous weight of evidence to show that it is an improvement, the proposal will not have my support.
– Undoubtedly the principal discussion on this measure will be on the proposed grouping of party candidates on the ballot-paper; but the party system is with us, and I do not see how we can eliminate it. The people of Australia regret that the Senate has become as much a party House as the other branch of the Legislature, but that has been brought about by the franchise under which honorable senators are elected. It would be preferable to introduce a system of proportional representation for this Chamber which would result in all sections of the community being represented. During the 1913 elections, approximately 51 per cent. of the votes cast were in favour of the Labour party, and, approximately, 49 per cent. in favour of Liberals, and although there was a difference of only 2 per cent. in favour of the Labour party that party received 85 per cent. of the representation. At the last Federal elections only one Labour member was returned to this Chamber, and it has been stated by some that that gentleman found his way here owing to an accident. Under a system of proportional representation for the Senate better results would be achieved, and the electors would have more adequate representation than at present. I have had a fair amount of experience in connexion with elections, and I believe the grouping provision will not be found to be unfair to individuals or parties. It does not emphasize the party system more than it is emphasized at present, and it will, I think, simplify voting.
– With a cipher against the name?
– The electors can be informed that their candidates will be found in group A, B, or C, as the case may be.
– Fifty per cent. of the electors do not belong to any organization.
– And that section is most bitter in its complaints concerning organizations.
- Senator Wilson may be correct; but a great majority of the people support some organization. With one or two exceptions, independent candidates have failed to secure a seat in Parliament ; and much as we deplore the party system, it is here, and we must make the best of it. The grouping system would not only assist the electors, but would be of benefit when the scrutiny is being conducted. I support the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator he Largie) adjourned.
page 915
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, Sc.- No. 13 of 1922 -Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.
Lands Acquisition Act - land acquired for Postal purposesin Queensland at - Nobby; Yeronga.
page 915
Secondreading.
.- I move-
That this Bill be now read a second time.
This measure is being introduced owing to some slight disability which rests upon persons resident in our Territories in respect to naturalization. It extends the provision of the Commonwealth Nationality Act 1920 to the Territories of Papua and Norfolk Island, and to any Territory ‘brought under the authority of the Commonwealth by a proclamation of the Governor-General. As regards Papua and Norfolk Island, the Commonwealth has adopted Part II. of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914, and for the purposes of that Act the ‘Commonwealth of Australia is deemed to include the two Territories mentioned, as shown by the second schedule of the Nationality Act 1920. There is already an Ordinance in force in Papua, entitled the Aliens Ordinance 1911, which empowers the LieutenantGovernor to grant certificates of naturalization, but naturalization granted under that is local only. The Ordinance has to be repealed by the Legislative Council of Papua; but the repeal of that Ordinance will not take effect until the provisions of this Bill become law. There must nob be any hiatus, and the rights of persons naturalized under that Ordinance would be safeguarded in this measure.
There is no law in force in Norfolk Island at present under which naturalization can he granted, toan alien, and considerable hardship is ‘being experienced in one. particular instance by a very worthy and deserving resident on the. island, who is suffering disability because he cannot obtain naturalization. This measure will overcome that difficulty.
Clause 7 contains an amendment to section 12 of the principal Act, and substitutes “Minister” for “GovernorGeneral.” The object of this amendment is to obviate the necessity of notices under the section being issued by the GovernorGeneral in Council, which is an unusual procedure. Another amendment is to remove any inconsistency in the provisions of the Act relating to the revocation of certificates of naturalization, and to make itclear that the Governor-General may revoke a certificate granted under a State- Act or an Ordinance of a Territory.
SenatorDrake-Brockman. - What is’ the position in regard to the Mandated Territories?
– I hardly think we have authority to grant naturalization in Mandated Territories, where our rights are not sovereign. At any rate, this measure does not affect those Territories.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 916
– I desire to inform you, Mr. President, and honorable senators, that a communication has been received from His’ Excellency the Governor-General, stating that he is now on an official visit to the Northern RiversDistrict and Queensland, and it will not be possible for him to receive the Address-in-Reply from the Senate until his’ return to Melbourne in September. His Excellency suggests, therefore, that the presentation of the Address-in-Reply be deferred until then.
Senate adjourned at 3.12 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 July 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220728_senate_8_99/>.