Senate
29 September 1909

3rd Parliament · 4th Session



The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3850

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Parliamentary Lawn Party

The PRESIDENT:

– As honorable senators are aware, an entertainment is to take place within the precincts of this building this afternoon, and in order to enable them to attend, I propose to leave the chair until a quarter to 8 o’clock tonight. The Senate, therefore, will reassemble at that hour.

Sitting suspended from 2.32 to 7.45 p.m.

page 3850

PRIVILEGE

Suspension of Sitting

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Mr. President, I desire to draw attention to a question of privilege.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator to allow petitions to be presented.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I think, sir, that a matter of privilege is always in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may proceed if he desires.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I desire to draw attention to a matter which occurred after this sitting was opened. I find that the Standing Orders have not been observed to-day in proceeding with the business. I think it will be admitted that the maintenance of the Standing Orders is a duty which devolves upon every honorable senator, and that we should very jealously guard against any breach of them. Immediately after you read prayers this afternoon, sir, you announced that you would suspend the sitting of the Senate, and that it would reassemble at a quarter to 8 o’clock, and thereupon you proceeded to leave the chamber. I hold that your action was contrary to the Standing Orders and the procedure of the Senate, and a breach of the privileges of honorable senators. I am taking this step, not out of pique or any feeling of that kind, because I may explain that honorable senators generally had no intention of delaying the proceedings this afternoon to an extent which would have prevented any one from attending the party in the Parliament gardens. I am constrained to take this action, sir, because I hold that if a precedent of this kind were once established, the liberties or privileges of honorable senators might be encroached upon very seriously ; that you might, in fact, suspend the business of the Senate at any moment you chose. If von can act in this way to-day, why should you not do so tomorrow ? By that means the business could be brought into a state of confusion, and I think, therefore, that honorable senators will recognise that your action this afternoon should not be allowed to pass without protest. I take this opportunity of entering my protest against the manner in which the business of the Senate was interrupted this afternoon. I hold that the proper method of procedure was for you, sir. either to get the consent of the Senate to suspend the sitting or to leave it to the Minister in charge to submit a motion. As the consent of the Senate to an interruption of the business was not obtained, so far as I know, I hold that you took upon yourself a power which the Standing Orders do not vest in you. For these reasons I enter my protest, so that a bad precedent may not be quoted in the future.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I rise to a point of order, sir. I submit that if the honorable senator wishes to bring a question of privilege before the Chamber he must conclude with a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 point out that Senator de Largie has not yet finished his remarks.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– But he has stated his intention.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I shall save my honorable friend any doubt on the subject by stating that I intend to submit a motion when I have reached my concluding remarks, and I promise not to delay the Senate very long. I hold, sir, that the hours for interrupting the business, so far as you have that power, are fixed by the sessional orders, and that as the hour at which the business was interrupted this afternoon does not come within those orders, you took upon yourself a power which is not vested in you. I am proceeding under standing order 411, which reads -

Any senator may rise to speak “To Order,” or upon a matter of Privilege which has arisen since the last sitting of the Senate.

If you refer to standing order 58, sir, you will find that the only standing orders which empower you to interrupt the business are those which provide that when there is no quorum you can adjourn the Senate to the next sitting day. As those standing orders do not apply to the case in point, I hold that you did wrong. Senator Pearce reminds me that when the Senate is in a state of disorder you have the power to suddenly interrupt or close the proceedings- for the time being, but no one ,will say that that was the case this afternoon. I move -

That the action of the President in interrupting the business of the Senate this afternoon was a breach of the Standing Orders and of the privileges of honorable senators.

Senator St Ledger:

– Will the honorable senator tell us what standing order was violated?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– There is no standing order which applies to the case. I do not submit this motion with any desire to occupy the time of the Senate, but merely as a protest, in order to safeguard the rights and privileges of honorable senators, which, I hold, were infringed by the action of the President this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT:

– As the motion has been seconded, I should like to say a few words in reference to it before any debate is entered upon.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Does not debate upon the motion necessarily stand over until to-morrow?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not necessarily. A ruling of the Chair is not involved. I wish to point out that the circumstances which obtained this afternoon were of a peculiar character, and that there is no warrant for believing that the action which I then took involved any breach of decorum, order, or privilege, or that it was an interference with the rights of honorable senators. It is the duty of the Chair, as far as possible, to interpret the wishes of honorable senators, and, as far as possible, to. give effect to them. As honorable senators know, a lawn party, nominally at the invitation of the President and Mr.

Speaker, was held in the Parliament Gardens this afternoon. It was held on behalf of the Parliament, and a number of distinguished visitors were invited to attend it. To this party every honorable member of both Houses was also invited. I hold in my hand a list of the members of the Senate, and upon referring to it I find, that only three of them declined to avail themselves of the invitation. Two of these honorable senators are absent from this State, and a third, who is present, stated that he had no desire to interfere with the wishes of honorable senators. When I found that this garden party was to be held at 3 o’clock this afternoon, after an adjournment of the Senate for ten days, I most assuredly understood that I would be consulting the wishes of honorable senators by intimating that it was my intention to suspend the sitting until a quarter to 8 o’clock this evening. Possibly some honorable senators may consider that, under such circumstances, a motion for -an adjournment should have been submitted, but seeing that they had an opportunity of intimating whether they desired. to be in attendance at the Parliament Gardens this afternoon. I thought that, as President, I would surely be within my rights in acting as honorable senators had clearly indicated they desired me to act.

Senator de Largie:

– In defiance of the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– Not in defiance of the Standing Orders, but merely in conformity with a practice which has obtained in every State Parliament.

Senator de Largie:

– It has never been the practice here.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out to the honorable senator that it has been the practice here. There have been occasions when a hiatus has occurred in the consideration of business, and at such times, instead of the adjournment of the Senate having been moved, the President has merely said that he would suspend the sitting until a certain hour, when business would be proceeded with. That is the procedure which was adopted this afternoon. Regarding the period of the suspension of the sitting, I may say that I had ascertained that there was to be no meeting of the other Chamber this afternoon.

Senator Needham:

– It met this morning.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so. Honorable senators were well aware of this circumstance. They knew that, as the President had some duties to perform at the function to which I have alluded, it was quite impossible for the Senate to resume its sitting until some two or three hours had elapsed. Instead of meeting again at 5 or 6 o’clock-

Senator de Largie:

– This is all special pleading, Mr.. President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Instead of fixing the period for the resumption of the sitting at 6 o’clock, I had ascertained from the Government that it would be a convenience to honorable senators generally , if it were not resumed until a quarter to 8 o’clock. Senator de Largie has interjected that this is special pleading on my part. I wish to indulge in no special pleading. I desire to tell honorable senators a. plain, unvarnished tale regarding the reasons underlying the action which I took - reasons which I think will commend themselves to the Senate. Before determining to adopt the course which I took, I ascertained the wish of honorable senators, because I realized that if a considerable section of them were averse to a suspension of the sitting, it would not be fair for the Chair to take upon itself the responsibility of running counter to their wishes. But, in view of the replies received to the invitations which had been issued, and seeing that there was no opportunity before the Senate re-assembled to-day of consulting honorable senators as to what should be done, I certainly thought that I was adopting a course of action which would commend itself to them as being the simplest to take.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I am sure that the Senate will appreciate the tone adopted by Senator de Largie in placing this motion before it. If he assumes - as he evidently does - that there has been a violation of the privileges of the Senate, it was unquestionably, not merely his privilege, but his duty, to bring the matter forward. Consequently no one will resent his action. But I wish to point out that he appears to be under a slight misapprehension as to what has taken place. The whole of his statement was based upon the supposition that some violation of the privileges of the Senate had occurred - that in some way or other an effort had been made to frustrate the wishes of honorable senators. I. say that the action of the President this afternoon was clearly taken, not with a view to violating any privilege of honorable senators, or of frustrating their wish, but with a view to giving effect to their wish.

Senator de Largie:

– I did not say anything about the wish of the Senate having been frustrated.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator’s case rests on the supposition that in some way violence has been. done to the wish of the Senate.

Senator de Largie:

– No; to the privileges of honorable senators.

Senator MILLEN:

– 1 always experience a difficulty in dealing with the “ privileges “ of’ Parliament, because I recognise that they are an unknown quantity. But I take it that it is the privilege of the Senate to have effect given to its wishes. Now, the question is - What was the wish of the Senate this afternoon?

Senator de Largie:

– It was not consulted.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator is wrong. The wish of the Senate was ascertained - not in its collective capacity, because that was not possible-

Senator Needham:

– There was nothing to prevent the Vice-President of the Executive Council himself from submitting a motion for the suspension of the sitting.

Senator MILLEN:

– In view of what has transpired, I have no hesitation in saying that that might have been the better course to adopt. But I would remind the Senate that quite a number of honorable senators do not arrive here on Wednesday until within a few minutes before the commencement of the sitting.

Senator Needham:

– That is of no consequence.

Senator MILLEN:

– It may be of no consequence to honorable senators who sleep upon the door mat of .this building.

Senator Needham:

– That is not a reflection upon honorable senators who are here to do their duty. The members of the Senate are paid to be here-

Senator MILLEN:

– And they are here. The honorable senators to whom I refer are present when the sitting commences. But there is no obligation upon them to refrain from returning to their homes at the week end.’ There was really no opportunity of consulting honorable senators in any other way than that in which they were consulted. It was ascertained that a very large majority were agreeable -to the sitting of the Senate being suspended this afternoon.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Were there anT honorable senators who were opposed to that course? I was not.

Senator MILLEN:

– When we recollect the occasion for which a suspension of the sitting was sought, I cannot conceive that any honorable senator would have raised a protest against the adoption of that course. We were merely performing a simple act of courtesy to bur visitors. That being so, I get back to my original point. I assume that it was the clear wish and intention of the Senate to extend that act of courtesy to our visitors. Therefore, the most that can be said is that a wrong course was adopted to bring the suspension about. The President has stated very fully and frankly that, having made himself acquainted with the fact that a majority of honorable senators were desirous of having an adjournment to attend the little function, he assumed that the view of honorable senators generally was more or less known, although their opinion had not been taken collectively. Under the circumstances, we are. clearly entitled to accept the President’s statement - I for one do so - that he thought that he was falling in with the wishes of the Senate.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Did the honorable senator consult with the Acting-Leader of the Opposition?

Senator MILLEN:

– I did. There was clearly a general desire to adjourn this afternoon. The sole question is, then, What was the best method of giving effect to that wish? I have already stated that, in view of what has happened, I have no hesitation in saying that another course might well have been followed. But these are the thoughts which come to one from the knowledge that is acquired after the event. Clearly the President was of opinion that he was consulting the wishes of honorable senators. Senator de Largie has performed a duty that he con* sidered rested upon him in taking steps to place a protest on record. But, in view of the statement of the President, I would ask him not to press his motion -to a division. . It has served its purpose, and we have had an opportunity of hearing a frank statement from the President. T freely take some measure of responsibility upon myself. I made it my business to ascertain that honorable senators generally were in favour of an adjournment. The worst that can be charged against any one is that, it having been ascertained that the Senate wished to adjourn, the President took the most expeditious method of giving effect to that wish. Under these circumstances, I ask my honorable friend to withdraw his motion.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I am glad that both the honorable senators who have spoken to the motion have refrained from imparting any heat into the debate. The question before us is merely one of procedure. I consider that Senator de Largie has performed a service to the Senate in bringing the matter forward. It is always unpleasant to do a thing of this kind, and no man likes to undertake an unpleasant task’. It is much easier to be suave. But what has happened might have serious consequences if a precedent were to be established. We have to remember that it is by our practice we establish precedents ; and if what has happened to-day were permitted to go unchallenged, it might become a recognised custom. I have to complain that you, sir -acting, no doubt, with the best intentions, and, as you have said, with a desire to meet the wishes of a majority of the Senate - did not give someintimation to those of us who sit on this side of the chamber that you intended to take the course that you followed. The VicePresident of the Executive Council was good enough to intimate to me this morning that he proposed to move the adjournment of the Senate as soon as it met; and he asked me whether I could ascertain what honorable senators sitting on this side thought. I gave him the assurance that honorable senators who sit with me generally desired to fall in with the wishes of the majority, but that there were one or two who objected, and desired to voice their objections. I told him, however, that those honorable senators had assured me that they had no intention of extending their remarks beyond a few minutes. In view of that assurance, no time would have been lost if a motion for the adjournment had been moved in the ordinary way. I am sure that those whogave the assurance to me would not have departed from it. In about ten minutes the Senate would have adjourned. If the Leader of the Government had made up his mind not to submit a motion, I consider that it would have been an act of courtesy to those who sit on this side of the chamber, as well as to those who support the Government, if you, sir, had said that, by leave of the Senate, you intended to take the course that you did take. Had that been done, an opportunity would have been afforded to those honorable senators who objected to give voice to their objections, although it is probable that, had you asked leave, those honorable senators who were going to speak, would have waived their right. But you did not give any honorable senator an opportunity to make a protest. If Senator de Largie is to be asked to withdraw his motion, there should be an understanding. I feel sure that you, sir, are sufficiently jealous of the rights of the Senate to see the justice of the proposition I am going to make. I put it to you that it is only fair that, if the motion be withdrawn, you should give the Senate an assurance that you will not regard what has happened to-day as a precedent. If, at any time, it may be thought desirable, even bv a majority of honorable senators, that there should be a suspension of a sitting, I trust that it will be understood that the President, even with the knowledge that he has a majority behind him, will not, without leave, take that course.

Senator Dobson:

– I should think that that goes without saying.

Senator PEARCE:

– It does not. The practice laid down, to-day is that the President mav suspend a sitting without leave.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out that the object of what was done to-day was to meet the known wishes of honorable senators.

Senator PEARCE:

– I quite recognise that. But still, the practice that has been established is a very inconvenient one. I ask you, therefore, whether you do not think that you should state that you do not desire to regard what has occurred as a precedent, and that, in future, you will ask leave of the Senate before suspending a sitting. If a statement of that kind be made, I think that Senator de Largie might see his way to withdraw his motion. But if that is not to be done, and the precedent established to-day is to stand, I, for one, strongly object. I was one of those who desired to see an adjournment to-day ; but still I protest against a sitting being suspended without leave. I suggest, therefore, that we could get out of an awkward difficulty by an undertaking such as I have suggested being made.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have no hesitation in supporting the motion. I think that Senator de Largie deserves to be commended for bringing the question forward. I have listened carefully to your explanation, sir, but I am still under the impression that you took a course of action, which, if followed in future, would reduce theSenate to the position of being, instead of the most Democratic deliberative Chamber in Australia, really an autocratic one. The proper course to pursue, in my opinion, would have been for the Vice-President of the Executive Council to ask leave to submit a motion adjourning the Senate to a certain time. But he did not take that course.

Senator Chataway:

– The President rose in his place immediately after the sitting opened, and the honorable senator could not expect the Vice-President of the Executive Council to ask the President to sit down.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The course that I have indicated might easily have been followed. I do not wish to cavil at the reasons which you, sir, have given for your course of action. A reception was given to certain visitors from a distance, and it was only right that such a courtesy should be extended to them. Personally, I should not have raised my voice against the suspension of the sitting for such a purpose, but I believe that in arbitrarily suspending the business of the Senate as you did this afternoon, without allowing a question to be asked or a word to be said, and in defiance of the Standing Orders -

Senator Macfarlane:

– No.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I shall quote the standing order. I quote from decisions of the President of the Senate, laid down in 1908, page 6 -

Suspension of sitting. Duties of President. May suspend the sitting by an understanding, in the absence of sessional orders.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– That is not a standing order.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have looked through the Standing Orders, and the decisions of the President of the Senate, without finding any other provision dealing with the matter, and the President, in replying to Senator de Largie, did not quote any standing order giving him the power to take the action he took this afternoon.

Senator Sayers:

– The President has the power, but whether it is desirable that he should exercise it or not is another matter.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I donot think that the President has the power to take the action he took this afternoon.

Senator St Ledger:

Senator de Largie said that the President had the implied, but not the expressed, power.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– You, sir, said that you consulted the representatives of the Government in the Senate as to whether it would be convenient for the Senate to adjourn until a certain time. If it was wise for you to do that, it would, I think, have been wise if you had also recognised the head of the Opposition in the matter.

Senator Sayers:

– The President consulted every member of the Senate by sending him an invitation and getting his reply.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is true that the President sent out invitations for a certain function.

Senator Macfarlane:

– And they were accepted.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not care whether they were accepted or not. I remind honorable senators that when we met here in accordance with a motion carried by the Senate, the President summarily and arbitrarily suspended the proceedings.

Senator Pulsford:

– Is it worthwhile to suspend our business this evening for this kind of talk?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It was considered worth while to suspend the business of the Senate this afternoon for three hours for another purpose, but the honorable senator does not now consider it wise that we should devote some time to debating a question of privilege.

Senator Pulsford:

– It has been disposed of lone since.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council has himself pleaded guilty to a neglect of duty, and, personally, I do not think that the President is as much to blame in this n’atter as is the Leader of the Senate. It would have been wise for Senator Millen to ask leave to move for a suspension of the sessional orders to enable the sitting to te suspended until a quarter to 8 o’clock. You, sir, took the business out of the honorable senator’s hands, and out of the hands of the Senate. If this is to be regarded as a precedent, we do not know where it may land us. In another place, quite a different procedure was followed. Honorable members were consulted, and they agreed to meet this morning, in order to make up for the loss of time this afternoon. We assembled at half -past 2 o’clock, after a fortnight’s adjournment, and, instead of proceeding with business, you, sir, rose and arbitrarily suspended everything. You may have done so with the best intention, but you did not consult the members of the Senate, and that being so, I think it is right that a protest should be lodged against your action, and that Senator de Largie has taken the right course in calling your attention, and the attention of honorable senators, to what I believe was a distinct violation of the privileges of members of the Senate.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I thought that we should have had some announcement from you, Mr. President, in connexion with this matter. I thought we should have had an assurance that what was done this afternoon will not be regarded by you as a precedent. If that assurance is given, I shall be prepared to withdraw my motion, otherwise I shall be obliged to press it to a division. I view the matter quite apart from any question of lawn parties or of frustrating the wishes of honorable senators. I view it as a question affecting the rights and privileges of the Senate. I can assure honorable senators that I have not lightly raised the question, and I had no pleasure in submittingmy motion. I have taken action in the performance of what I hold to be a duty placed on the shoulders of every member of the Senates The Government may see the importance of the matter later. If the Standing Orders can be violated to-day, they may be violated tomorrow, and every other day, inthesame way.

Senator Chataway:

-They are always being violated.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is somewhat of areflection upon the honorable senator who presides over the Senate.

Senator Chataway:

– Or upon the honorable senators who violate the Standing Orders.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It is, of course, equally a reflection on them. However, I do not agree with the honorable senator, and though I have often felt disposed to dispute a point with the President, I have ever been ready to obey his ruling when he has called me to order. On this occasion, the violation of the rules hasbeen so obvious that I consider we should have been neglecting our duty if we did not protest against the action taken by the President this; afternoon. Some honorable senators may think that, as the intention of themajority of honorable senators had bttn made known by the replies receivedto a certain invitation, that was sufficient to justify the disregard of the Standing Orders, but I am far from faking that view. There is nothing in the Standing Orders which refers to matters outside the business of this House.. We have no standing order dealing with garden parties, or anything of that kind, and the desire of honorable senators in such a matter does not affect the question. When you, sir, took the action you did this afternoon, I was not sure whether it was a greater violation of the duties of the Leader of the Senate or of the privileges of honorable senators. I naturally looked to the Leader of the Senate to move in the usual way. If a motion had been submitted for a temporary adjournment, there would have been little or no opposition. to it. I think that it was the duty rather of the Leader of the House than my duty to take the action I have taken this evening. Though some honorable senators may have desired to attend this party, those of us who did not intend to be present-

Senator Millen:

– Did the honorable senator not mean to be present?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Those of us who did not intend to be present had nowish to act the part of kill- joys, or to prevent other honorable senators from attending. That, however, is not the point. The point is that the Standing Orders have been disregarded, and they are our only guide in matters of this kind. It may suit honorable senators on the other side to ignore the violation of the Standing Orders on this occasion, but this is a boomerang, which may come home to them.

Senator Chataway:

– Then every time the President suspends the sitting on a “ stone-walling “ night for supper he is breaking the Standing Orders? Where is the honorable senator’s privilege then?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is a wellestablished custom.

Senator Chataway:

– “ Stone-walling” is not an established custom, and, apparently, supper is not an established custom now.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Surely honorable senators will not say that when the President obtains the leave of the Senateto suspend a sitting when we sit late, theposition resembles that we are discussing.. I cannot see any similarity between the two cases.

Senator Chataway:

– The President does not ask the leave of the Senate to leave the chair in the circumstances referred to.

Senator Pearce:

– If, on any occasion, the Government have not a majority, the

President can suspend the sitting until a majority arrives.

Senator Chataway:

– A very good thing, so far as we are concerned.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– -The honorable senator may treat this matter in his light and airy fashion for the time being, but the position may not always suit him. On another occasion he may squirm and growl when he has awakened to the fact that he was a party to the establishment of a precedent which, I think, will act like a boomerang. I do not wish to see the Standing Orders played fast and loose with. It is the duty of honorable senators generally to see that they are given effect to. I object to any infringement of them, and intend to enter a protest this evening, unless I get an assurance from the President that his action this afternoon is not to be taken as a precedent.

Senator Millen:

– Cannot the honorable senator let the matter rest with a protest?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Certainly not.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator sees the danger of forcing a division if his motion is beaten.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That will be the fault, not of myself, but of the majority. That is a matter for those who intend to vote against the motion to consider. It is not my funeral.

Senator Chataway:

– It will be the honorable senator’s funeral if he is beaten. .

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am prepared to stand alone when I know that I am right. I am prepared to do the right thing, even if I am in a minority of one. I have already stated that I have not taken this step in any spirit of heat or with any personal feeling towards the Chair. In the circumstances, no matter who was in the chair, I should have felt it to be my duty to make this protest.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I have been invited to say a few words further, I desire to state that I do not propose to give the assurance which Senator de Largie and the Acting Leader of the Opposition have asked me to give. I have already explained the circumstances in which I acted as I did this afternoon. I assumed that, after my explanation, honorable senators would have realized that I had fully recognisedtheir rights, and was only endeavouring to facilitate their wishes. A question has been raised as to the power of the Chair to suspend a sitting. There is no standing order which gives that power, directly or indirectly. The President is supposed to use a certain amount of discretion and judgment in any course of action which he may take, always having regard, of course, to the fact that the wishes of honorable senators must, substantially, be complied with. In the Senate a suspension of a sitting has on many occasions taken place, as I have stated, where it was necessary, in order to fill up a certain amount of time for which no business was available, or because it was not desirable to proceed. I hold in my hand a copy of our Hansard, which shows that the convenience of honorable senators was similarly consulted on one occasion when they were invited to a luncheon at Government House. It is recorded here that the sitting was suspended from 12.45 to 3 p.m.

Senator Needham:

– By whom?

The PRESIDENT:

– By the President.

Senator Pearce:

– By leave.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am simply quoting from the record in Hansard. I have referred to the practice in the State Parliaments. The Victorian Hansard for the session of 1856-7 reports a question of Parliamentary procedure -

The Speaker said the practice was perfectly clear that the Speaker could leave the chair at any moment when it was thought by him necessary to do so, and resume it when necessary.

That was laid down probably before many honorable senators were born.

Senator Needham:

– That was an autocratic day ; this is a democratic day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I also hold in my hand the Parliamentary Debates of Victoria for the session of 1889, which brings the mattermore into touch with Democracy -

Mr. Mclellan said that the power of leaving the chair had often been exercised by the Speaker of the House, though, on the present occasion, the interval lasted a little longer than usual.

I am only concerned to quote these few extracts. I have not had time to get the matter investigated more fully, in order that honorable senators may see that this is not a new practice which is creeping in. I also want to point out that if the President, whoever he might be, agreed to abandon a course of action which he considered was fairly within his rights, and in the interests of honorable senators, in order to insure the withdrawal of a motion which naturally it is unpleasant, at any rate to the Chair, to have submitted, he would be unworthy of the position which he occupied. My attitudeI have explained fully, and I did hope that honorable senators would have accepted my explanation as a reasonable one, and that even if exception could be taken to it, an adverse motion would not be pressed. If I felt that I had been unduly interfering with the position of honorable senators, I should Say at once that they would be perfectly right in passing the motion, unless I was prepared to say that I had made a mistake. But I cannot honestly say that I think my action was improper in the circumstances.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3858

PETITION

Senator MACFARLANEpresented a petition from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of Tasmania praying the Senate to amend the Defence Bill by leaving out the clause providing for the regular military training of males over the age of twelve years.

Petition received and read.

page 3858

POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [8.38]. - I desire to postpone notice of motion No. 1, Private Business, until to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have not reached that stage yet.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I beg your pardon, sir. Under the Standing Orders it is competent for an honorable senator to move the postponement of a motion standing in his’ name just as he gives notice of a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to the honorable senator that the routine of business is laid down in standing order 6z, which reads as follows -

The Senate shall, unless otherwise ordered, proceed each day with its ordinary business, in the following routine : - 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices, and questions without notice. 3. Questions on notice. 4. Formal motions. 5. Postponement of business. 6. Motions and orders of the day, or vice versâ, as set down on the notice-paper.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

- Mr. President, if you will kindly look at standing order 102, you will find that I am strictly in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– That standing order says -

A senator desiring to change the day for bringing on a motion, may give notice of such motion for any day subsequent to the firstnamed, but not earlier, subject to the same rules as other notices of motion.

The usual course is to take the business in the order which I have indicated. I think it would be better to adhere to standing order 62, which provides for the routine of business.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I would direct your attention, sir, to the fact that what I have sought todo under standing order 102 has been the practice of the Senate hitherto. I desire to put my notice of motion upon the business-paper for a different day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not know why the honorable senator wishes to do that at the present moment.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– For the simple reason that I desire to embrace the earliest opportunity of setting down my notice of motion for consideration. If I defer action - as you wish me to do - till a Inter period of the sitting, other notices of motion may be given priority to it. What I seek to do has been done many times in this Chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator insists upon his right, it appears to me that it is quite within his power under standing order 102 to do what he wishes, although I think that it is very much more desirable to follow the routine which is laid down in standing order 62. Ap parently there is a conflict between these two standing orders, and it therefore becomes my duty to read them together as well as I can.

Notice of motion postponed.

page 3859

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, in view of the inordinate delay that is being experienced in dealing with the claims of applicants’ for old-age pensions in Western Australia, the Government will consider the desirableness of appointing additional officers to expedite that work ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I am in a position to inform the honorable senator that some time ago instructions were issued that additional officers should be appointed wherever it was found that the number of officers at present authorized to deal with those claims was not sufficient. I am not able to say exactly what has transpired as the result of those instructions, but if the honorable senator will ask me the question to-morrow I will endeavour to ascertain what has been clone up to date.

Senator HENDERSON:

– The position is that out of 1,883 applications only 813 have been dealt with.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out to the honorable senator that the object of asking a question is not to supply information, but to elicit it.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I wish to give the Vice-President of the Executive Council the information that is in my possession with a view to subsequently asking him a question relative to it.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator thinks that it is necessary for him to explain his question he may do so.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Then I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, having regard to the figures I have quoted, he will consider the desirableness of appointing additional special officers with a view to securing that expeditious treatment of applications for old-age pensions which the Government desire.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether it is a fact that officers in our Public Service in Western Australia are working overtime in order to deal with the applications of claimants for old-age pensions; if so, is that one of the reasons why delay is being experienced in disposing of the claims, and will the Government furnish extra assistance so as to obviate the necessity for officers working overtime?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have no knowledge of the matters upon which the honorable senator seeks an assurance. If he will give notice of a question relating to them I will endeavour to ge,t the desired information.

page 3859

QUESTION

NAVAL COLLEGE

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council -

  1. Has an offer of£85,000, collected in Sydney for a Dreadnought, been made to the Federal Government? 2.If so, what was the action of the Government?
  2. If the Federal Government refused the offer, has it since been decided that the money thus privately subscribed should be expended in the construction of a Naval College in Sydney, to be taken over eventually by the Federal Government ?
  3. If such a decision has been arrived at, will it be submitted to Parliament for its ratification cr rejection?
Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. No.
  2. None.
  3. According to the press, some of the subscriptions promised to the Lord Mayor of Sydney are likely to be devoted to that purpose.
  4. Any proposal for Government expenditure must necessarily be submitted to Parliament.

page 3859

INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Senator PEARCE:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council -

In reference to the Government’s proposal to appoint an Inter-State Commission to carry out the principle of New Protection in connexion with State Wages Boards, has the Minister noticed -

That the Victorian Legislative Council has rejected a motion for the establishment of a Wages Board in the paper manufacturing industry ?

That it was stated during debate on the motion that adult females were receiving wages of from 13s.9d. to 18s. per week, and urged in defence of this that boys could be got to do the work at even cheaper rates?

Is it not a fact that the paper manufacturing industry is a highly protected one?

Will the Inter-State Commission have power to create a Wages Board where a State Parliament refuses to do so?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

I cannot speak as to the accuracy or otherwise of the above statements. Moreover, the honorable senator can hardly expect me to disclose the contents of a Bill not yet introduced, but which I hope to introduce within the next few days.

page 3850

QUESTION

POSTAL COMMISSION

Senator MACFARLANE:

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council -

Will the Government make inquiry and give the Senate information as to when the Postal Royal Commission will present its report to Parliament?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

Inquiry is being made of the Chairman of the Commission.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Arising out of that answer, I desire to ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether he will inform the Senate immediately a rep.lv is received?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall be glad to do so. If the honorable senator will repeathis question in a few days I may be able to give him an answer to it.

page 3850

QUESTION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND FREE IMPORTS

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the Minister of Trade and -Customs -

  1. What quantities of dutiable commodities were delivered free of duty to the tobacco industry of the Commonwealth during the financial year 1908-9?
  2. What would be the aggregate amount of revenue on such commodities according to the present Tariff?
  3. If, instead of such commodities used in the manufacture of tobacco, imported unmanufactured tobacco to a corresponding weight had been used, what would have been the (1) approximate amount of duty on such unmanufactured tobacco, and (2) the approximate amount of the duty had the imported unmanufactured been mixed with the average weight of Australian tobacco ?

Senator MILLEN (for Senator Sir

Robert Best)- - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Spirits, 12,145of. gals.; sugar, 184 tons; saccharine, 1,120 lbs. ; spices, 40,169½ lbs. ; Starch,1,120 lbs. ; glucose, 18,620 lbs. ; liquorice, 264,552 lbs.; orange peel, 4,111 lbs.; flavourings, 25 gals. ; glycerine and vaseline, £9,319 15s.; tags, £1,7979s. 4d. ; paper, n.e.i., £2,272; cork, manufactures of, £3,616 13s. 5d.
  2. £18,338 16s.11d. 3. (1) £79,44913s.6d.;(2)66,5234s.3d. It must be added that Excise duty, which would amount to, approximately, £60,000, is charged on the total weight of the commodities specified above and delivered free of duty in the first instance for purposes of flavouring, &c.
Senator PULSFORD:

– Arising out of that question I wish to ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether the Excise duty would not have been equally payable if the tobacco had been made entirely of tobacco leaf?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I can only express the opinion that under those circumstances there would be no Excise duty collected, because in the absence of the commodities enumerated, nobody would smoke tobacco.

page 3850

PAPERS

Senator Millen laid upon the table the following papers -

Defence Acts 1903-1904 - Financial and Allowance Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - Amendment of Regulation 158 and new Regulation 158 (a). - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 101.

Public Service Act 1902 -

Fifth Report of the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner.

Amendment (Provisional) of Regulation 142. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 105.

Repeal of Regulations 156, 257-62, and substitution of new Regulations in lieu thereof. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 106.

Papua - Ordinances of 1909 -

No. 10. - Criminal Procedure Amendment.

No. 11. - To provide for the appointment of a Deputy-Chief Judicial Officer.

No. 21. - Supplementary Appropriation 1908-9, No. 10.

No. 22. - Supply Ordinance (No. 1)1909-10. Précis of correspondence relating to the chartering of a suitable vessel to search for the missing s.s. Waratah.

Memorandum by Senator Sir R. W. Best, K..C.M.G., Minister of State for Trade and Customs, on Australian Tariff Preference to British goods.

page 3850

COMPANIES RESERVE LIABILITIES BILL

Order of the Day (further consideration in Committee) read and discharged.

page 3850

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the Inter-State Commission.

page 3850

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH :

page 3850

ANSWER TO ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to report to the Senate that on Monday last, 27th September, accompanied by several honor- able senators, I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General, and presented to him the address of the Senate in reply to his speech on the opening of Parliament, agreed to on 27th May ; and that His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply -

Mr. President and Gentlemen,

It is with great pleasure thatI receive from you the address adopted by the Senate in reply to the speech delivered by me on the occasion of the opening of the fourth session of the third Commonwealth Parliament ; and it affords me very great pleasure to notice the expressions of continued loyalty to the Throne and Person of His Majesty the King.

Dudley.

page 3861

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)

Assent reported.

page 3861

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Millen) read a first time.

page 3861

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS) BILL

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator Colonel Neild), read a first time.

page 3861

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 15th September, vide page 3449) :

Clause 18 -

The whole of Part X. of the principal Act is repealed, and the following part substituted in lieu thereof. 109. (1) An elector who -

has reason to believe that he will not during the hours of polling on polling day be within seven miles of any polling place for the division for which he is enrolled, or

being a woman, will on account of illhealth be unable to attend the polling place on polling day to vote ; or

will be prevented by serious illness or infirmity from attending the polling place on polling day to vote, may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.

The application . . . must be made and sent … to the Returning Officer for the Division for which the applicant elector is enrolled. …. 109a. The following persons are authorized witnesses withinthe meaning of this Act : -

All Commonwealth Electoral Officers for States …. all head teachers of State schools …. all legally qualified medical practitioners …. all telegraph line repairers permanently emploved . . . , who are in charge of working parties . . . .

Upon which Senator Pearce had moved, by way of amendment -

That paragraph a of proposed new section 109 be left out.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– It may be well that I should state the position with regard to this clause as it presents itself to me. The discussion on the last occasion when the Bill was before us made it appear that a number of honorable senators were anxious to abolish voting by post. Others were apparently desirous of introducing some modification or safeguard. Senator Pearce’s amendment distinctly raises the question whether or not voting by post should be retained. I merely desire to point out to the honorable senator that if his amendment be defeated, paragraph a of proposed new section 109 will have to stand as at present.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- I regard voting by post as a privilege possessed by electors, and I regret that some honorable senators desire to take it away. I have had experience, as a returning officer, of four contested elections.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator’s State has had a good deal of experience of voting by post.

Senator SAYERS:

– I take the honorable senator’s sneer for what it is worth, and shall deal with it. I happened to be present, as a spectator, at Charters Towers when a great outcry was made about postal voting. I saw what took place. At that time a Labour Government was in power in Queensland, and special magistrates were appointed by telegraph.

Senator Needham:

– Why make this a party question?

Senator SAYERS:

– I want to state the facts, because Senator Pearce has said, in a sneering way, that Queensland knows a good deal about postal voting. I shall show what Queensland does know. The first Kidston Labour Government, I say, appointed magistrates by wire.

Senator Needham:

– Does the honorable senator call Mr. Kidston a Labour man?

Senator SAYERS:

– He was then the Leader of the Labour -party in Queensland. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to repudiate now what they gloried in then.

Senator Needham:

– Did honorable senators here glory. in Mr. Kidston?

Senator SAYERS:

– The Labour party, as a whole, did. As I say, the Labour -party at that time was in power, and. was led by Mr. Kidston.

Senator de Largie:

– Misled.

Senator SAYERS:

– The Labour party was then solidly behind Mr. Kidston. What they have done since does not affect the matter.

Senator Needham:

– Has this anything to do with postal voting ?

Senator SAYERS:

– It has. Magistrates were “appointed specially for the purpose of witnessing postal votes. Each party at that time naturally desired to poll as many votes as possible. The Labour party were not able to get as many votes as they wanted in the ordinary way, and they went round and tried to get votes by post. Both parties did the same sort of thing. If a party is beaten, however, I do not think that it is right for it to cry out and try to put blame on the other side. 1 admit that postal voting was worked by both parties to the utmost. As many votes as possible were secured. A sufficient number of persons had not been appointed Vo witness postal votes, and the Government of the day appointed special magistrates. I make that statement without fear of contradiction.

Senator Needham:

– If the honorable senator will support the amendment, what he has complained of will not occur again.

Senator SAYERS:

– I do not approve of the amendment. In the interior of Queensland, and no doubt in many districts in the other States, settlers have taken il selections distant. 30 or 40 miles from the nearest polling-place. Is it reasonable to ask a selector so situated, or his wife, to attend at the polling-place to record his or her vote? Do honorable senators opposite desire to enable the electors of Australia to vote, or is it their intention to prevent them from voting? I believe that every elector should be afforded an opportunity to record his vote, and many in remote districts, at a great distance from the polling-places, will be prevented from doing so if they are not permitted to vote by post. I thought that honorable senators opposite were anxious that every elector should be able to record his vote, and if they are they will not do away with the postal voting provisions. Are they prepared to tell their constituents that they tried to prevent people living at a distance from a pollingplace from recording their votes? I agree that in this matter we should consider the interests of sailors employed on our coast, but we should consider also the electors who, but for the existence of the postal voting provisions, might have to lose two days in travelling 30 or 40 miles to record their votes.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– - Postal voting suits the wealthy man splendidly.

Senator SAYERS:

– It suits the poor man just as well. I hope that Senator W. Russell does not wish to prevent a poor settler, who has taken up a selection 30 or 40 miles from the nearest polling-place, from recording his vote. There might be hundreds of persons in a town who would be unable, on the day of an election, to attend at a polling-booth to record their votes, and why should they not be allowed to vote by post? Why do honorable senators opposite wish to prevent electors from voting in this way ?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We wish to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

Senator Lynch:

– And to preserve the purity of the ballot.

Senator SAYERS:

– The postal voting provisions need not affect the secrecy or the purity of the ballot. I have witnessed many postal votes, and I never knew, or tried to know, how the electors voted. If a person witnessing a postal vote tried to discover how the elector voted, he would be false to his oath, and whether he were a. justice of the peace or a civil servant, he should be hounded out of the. country. I say that the electors in the back-blocks of Australia are justly entitled to vote by post; that is in fact a right. To de- prive them of that right would be a Conservative, and not a. Democratic, measure. They are the people . who are opening up the country, and we have to depend upon them more than upon the residents of the cities and towns.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator quotes purely imaginative cases.

Senator SAYERS:

– I am speaking of what I know to be facts from my experience as a returning officer at the first Federal elections, and on many other occasions. Though I was not in accord with the political views of some of the candidates, they all complimented me upon the way in which I carried out my duties. A returning officer who knows- his duty takes no side at an election, and an electoral official who does take a side at an election, and tries to discover how an elector has voted should, if he is a justice of the peace, be removed from the Commission, or, if he is a civil servant, be discharged from his office. The number of electors who would be prevented from recording their votes if they were compelled to attend at a pollingbooth is greater than honorable senators opposite imagine. Honorable senators rightly ask why the seamen on our coast should not be able to exercise the franchise. They can do so under the postal voting provisions, but if these are repealed they will be deprived of that right. I am surprised that honorable senators who call themselves Labour men and Democrats should wish to do anything which would deprive electors of their right to vote.

Senator Chataway:

Senator Guthrie recognises the value of the postal vote to seamen.

Senator SAYERS:

-I am aware of that. I also recognise its value to seamen, but I say that it is of even more value to settlers in the back country. Why should honorable senators propose to penalize settlers in outside districts by making it necessary for them to lose two days in travelling to the nearest polling-place to record their votes? In my own district there are men and women who would have to travel 50 or 60 miles if they were obliged to record their votes at a polling-place. I hope the Committee will not agree to deprive the electors of the right to vote by post, and that the Minister will adhere to the Bill as it stands.

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

AYES: 10

NOES: 13

Majority … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That after the word “Officer,” in sub-section 2 of proposed new section 109, the words “ or Electoral Registrar “ be inserted.

The object of my amendment is to provide additional facilities for those in the back country whom these provisions of the Act were intended to serve. Figures have been quoted here which showed very clearly that the postal voting provisions have been mostly availed of by town residents, which, of course, was contrary to the intention of Parliament. My desire is to meet the case of those who have experienced the greatest difficulty in recording their votes on polling day. I have in my mind the case of a new centre in the Black Range district of Western Australia which had no polling place. In order to get facilities far voting the residents, who numbered considerably over one hundred, had to make application to the returning officer at Coolgardie, which in itself occupied a week. Next they had to wait until their ballot-papers were posted and returned, which again occupied a week; and then they had to send down their votes, which occupied a further week. In short, they had to think about the election three weeks prior to the polling day. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment so as to enable such persons to apply to the nearest electoral registrar, and thus save three weeks. In the case I cited over one hundred persons were disfranchised simply because they failed to take action three weeks before polling day. As a rule people have quite enough to do to wrestle with their own difficulties and problems without having time to think of an event three weeks before it is to happen. I believe that if this amendment is made it will provide a great convenience to electors in remote situations whom the postal voting provisions were intended to accommodate. I do not think that any difficulty could possibly arise from its adoption. At present the electoral registrars are intrusted with the custody of ballot-papers and have to account for them. There should be no material difference between intrusting them with the issue of postal voting certificates and postal votes and intrusting them with ballot-papers on polling day.

Senator Sayers:

– They will have to be made deputy returning officers.

Senator LYNCH:

– Even that can be done under the Act. I appeal to the Minister to favorably consider my proposal.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– There is a good deal in what Senator Lynch says as to the necessity of giving greater facilities to people in remote districts to get postal votingpapers. Take a place like Mareeba, which is away over the ranges at the back of Cairns. If a woman, for reasons best known to herself, wants a postal ballot-paper she has to send an application from Mareeba to Cairns, which, roughly speaking, takes about twenty-four hours by fail. Then the application has to be transmitted from Cairns to Townsville, which takes fortyeight hours by steamer. The registrar in Townsville, who is in charge of an immense area, will probably take a little time to deal with the application. Assuming, however, that he acts in the shortest possible time, he will have the ballot-paper sent forward perhaps within two or three days,, because steamers do not leave everyday for Cairns. From Cairns it has ia go a long journey by railway over the ranges. IT the applicant happens to live on the outskirts of Mareeba, which is occupied by a b’ig scattered mining population, she has .to seek for a justice of the peace or other ‘ qualified person to witness the ballot-paper before it can be used. Next it has to .be .posted at Mareeba, from whence it is forwarded by railway to Cairns, and thence by steamer to Townsville, arriving there by polling day. Surely that case will enable honorable senators to realize how,, in many instances, it’ is an absolute physical impossibility for an elector to obtain the benefit of the postal voting provisions unless the postmaster is not to miss a moment and the registrar at Townsville is waiting almost on the wharf for the application to arrive so that he can stamp it and send it back. It rr.ay be suggested that the case I have put is rather far-fetched, but I know that at the last election in Queensland seventy or eighty voters in the Wide Bay district were unable to get postal ballot-papers and return them in time. They were living at some distance from the head of a railway line, and the result was that a considerable number of them had to remain on their farms and look after their. homes while the other half drove to the nearest polling place to vote. I have made a suggestion to the 1 Department, which I believe it is willing

I to accept. I suggest that while we cannot allow everybody to issue postal voting certificates, the date on which the post-office stamp is put on a postal vote should be considered the date on which that vote was recorded, and that it should be so accepted at the office of the registrar for the district. Once a post-office stamp is affixed the vote is in the hands of the Government, and cannot be- touched, and the elector should be treated as having voted before the -ballot actually closed,

Senator Findley:

– That would not remove the difficulty of the elector getting a certificate in ample time.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No. It .would not make it easier for a person to get a certificate, but it -would get rid of the difficulty of getting the certificate back to the registrar for the division.

Senator Lynch:

– But it would only save a third -of the time.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I -do not think that honorable senators want to save much more time. We cannot expect that certificates -can be issued with safety in extensive divisions unless considerable time is occupied.

Senator Findley:

– What is the honorable senator’s objection to the amendment empowering the local registrar to issue certificates ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I heard some eloquent speeches on the dangers of the improper use of the postal vote. It seems to me that if we give carte blanche to a considerable number ©f persons ito issue voting certificates we may increase those dangers.

Senator Millen:

– That will be the effect of the honorable senator’s proposal.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No ; that will be the effect of the amendment. My suggestion does not deal with the person who issues certificates, but if adopted it would enable the person to whom a certificate was issued to put his vote into the nearest post- box, when, as soon as it had been stamped . by the postmaster, he would be deemed to have voted.

Senator Findley:

– Is there any greater danger in allowing a postmaster to affix a post-office stamp than in allowing the local registrar to. issue a voting certificate?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I do not think the honorable senator will suggest that a postal official cannot be trusted to put an ordinary post-office stamp on a letter containing a voting-paper.

Senator Findley:

– I did not say that, but the honorable senator assumed that the electoral registrar could not be trusted.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No. I confess that at one time I favoured the proposal which’ is now under consideration. But since then I have come to recognise the danger that is inherent in it. If we cannot facilitate the issue of postal vote certificates we can facilitate their return to the registrars of divisions. I suggest that as soon as an elector has voted by means of the postal vote certificate he should be called upon to deposit that certificate in the post-office, and that the date stamped upon it should be regarded as the date upon which it was returned to the divisional registrar. In the absence of such a provision the electors at Mareeba, for instance, who delayed posting their ballot-papers for a few days, would find themselves disfranchised, because, in the ordinary course, those papers could not reach Townsville before the poll had closed. I would suggest that Senator Lynch should consider that aspect of the matter.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I am rather surprised to find that those who have hitherto opposed postal voting on the ground that it offers facilities for corrupt practices, should now desire to increase those facilities. It seems to me a little illogical that Senator Lynch, after having opposed an evil, should seek to increase the facilities for perpetuating it.

Senator Lynch:

– I have never contended that the postal vote was abused in thinlypopulated districts.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then the honorable senator evidently desires to penalize those who live in sparsely-populated districts because of the corrupt practices of persons resident in more densely -populated areas. I would point out that there is a great danger underlying his proposition. He seeks to insert in this clause the words “ Electoral Registrar “ with a view to enabling an application for a postal vote to be directed either to a returning officer or to an electoral registrar for a division. Is he aware that in. some divisions there are twenty-six electoral registrars.

Senator Needham:

– And more.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not say that there are not more. But I know of at least twenty-six electoral registrars in one division. To which of these officers is the application for a postal vote to be sent?

Senator Lynch:

– Naturally to the nearest.

Senator MILLEN:

– A large number of electors in sparsely-populated districts would not know who was the nearest electoral registrar: As a matter of fact, quite a number of them are unaware of the particular subdivision for which they are enrolled. Senator Lynch affirms that an elector who desires to exercise the postal vote should be permitted to send his application to the nearest electoral registrar. Suppose that he made a miscalculation and did not forward it to the nearest registrar, would his vote be regarded as formal or informal ?

Senator Findley:

– Could not a list of the electoral registrars be posted in a conspicuous place?

Senator MILLEN:

– There are no conspicuous places in districts such as those alluded to by Senator Lynch.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– It could be posted in a place at which there is no postoffice.

Senator MILLEN:

– Take the ordinary isolated farmstead. Is it suggested that we should send round an officer to post lists in every hamlet throughout Australia?

Senator Findley:

– They might be posted in every place where there are a hundred inhabitants.

Senator MILLEN:

– I assure the honorable senator that Senator Lynch’s amendment is not intended to convenience electors who are living in hamlets where there are 100 inhabitants, but is designed to convenience those who have to travel, perhaps, 100 miles in order to see the smoke of their nearest neighbours. In such circumstances, how is it possible to post notices showing the particular subdivisions for which persons are enrolled? It is obvious that only one postal vote certificate should be issued to any elector. Senator. Lynch desires that the elector should be permitted to apply to the nearest electoral registrar. Can he not conceive of two such officers being equi-distant from an elector, and of both, in the best of good faith, issuing postal vote certificates ? Manifestly some officer must be charged with the duty of determining whether an .elector* has obtained more than one postal ballot-paper. Proposed new section no reads- -

The returning officer who receives the .application, if he is satisfied that it is properly signed by an elector and is properly witnessed, and that no postal vote certificate or postal ballot-paper for the same election has been previously issued to the applicant, shall deliver or post to the elector a postal vote certificate.

It is impossible for, say, twentysix electoral registrars in a division to know that no postal vote certificate or postal ballot-paper for an election has been previously issued to ar. applicant, and such a knowledge is essential to the integrity of the postal voting system. Having adopted that system, we do not wish to introduce into this Bill provisions which will practically constitute an invitation to corrupt practice, and which will permit of things taking place which ought not to take place. Under Senator Lynch’s proposal there would be a possibility of more than one postal vote certificate, being issued to an elector. Further, not one elector out of one hundred would know to which registrar he should apply.

Senator Lynch:

– Would not that contingency arise on polling day if an elector chose to vote more than once?

Senator MILLEN:

– But where impersonation is attempted the individual has to present himself in person, and he is thus always in danger of being detected. The position, however, is very different in dealing with forms which are signed by electors and dropped into the post. There, the opportunity for detection is not nearly so great. The reason why it is proposed to limit these applications to returning officers is that they are the individuals who ought to have charge of the ballot-papers, and who ought to be saddled with more responsibility than ought a great many of our electoral registrars. They are in a position to know better than is anybody else whether more than one postal vote certificate has been issued to an elector. The postal ballotpaper is not intended to convenience the officers who are intrusted with the control’ of our electoral machinery, but is intended to convenience the elector himself. What is the objection urged by Senator Lynch to the provision which is contained in the Bill? He has pointed out that because electors are prone to put off till to-morrow what might be done to-day, their postal votes may not reach the returning officer before the poll has closed. Now, under the existing law, the time allowed to elapse between the issue of the writ for an election and polling day is about 35 days. I venture to say that if it were extended to 350 days some electors would not post their ballot-papers until the last moment, and others would not return them until they were too late. The Bill provides electors with every reasonable facility for exercising the franchise.

Senator St Ledger:

– But there is an interval between the issue of the writ and nomination day.

Senator MILLEN:

– That necessarily reduces the time within which electors may exercise the postal vote; but I hope that it does not weaken my argument that the human family is prone to procrastination - to putting off till to-morrow what might easily be done to-day. I repeat that the Bill offers the elector every reasonable facility for exercising the franchise, and I ask the Committee not to insert in it a provision which contains an element of danger.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– It is not often that the Vice-President of the Executive Council and myself have “the misfortune to agree. But on this occasion we are in perfect harmony, and I am sincerely sorry that Senator Lynch has submitted this amendment.

Senator Needham:

– It marks a departure from the path of virtue.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It marks a departure from the path of rectitude. 1 desire the entire abolition of postal voting. The proposal of Senator Lynch presents all the dangers to which the Vice-President of the Executive Council has directed attention, and seeks to extend a system which I regard as absolutely unholy. Even if it were adopted, it would not meet the position that the honorable senator desires to meet. The man outback is the person for whom Senator Lynch desires to provide facilities. But my experience of the man outback is that he is interested in elections, and is the least likely person to allow the opportunity of exercising the franchise to go by default.

Senator Needham:

– Why should he be compelled to travel 20 miles to register a vote ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I do not desire that he should. I would have polling booths established to meet the convenience of persons in the distant parts of the country. But the postal voting system encourages the organization of agencies for canvassing the city slums, with the consequence that the greater number of postal votes are recorded in the densely populated places, and not in the back country.

Senator Chataway:

– Postal votes are naturally used in the big centres, because seamen and commercial travellers live there.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am prepared to make special arrangements for seamen.

Senator Chataway:

– What about women ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I’ am prepared to provide every facility for women to vote. As for sailors, a vessel on which a man is working is for the time being his city, and, therefore, a special ballot-box should be provided for his convenience. Passengers also could record their votes on board. But I object to the extension of postal voting in a manner that is likely to lead to corrupt practices. Under Senator Lynch’s amendment grave dangers would arise. There are districts in which there are twenty or more electoral registrars. Under this amendment it would be possible for one elector to write to three or four electoral registrars, not one of whom would know what the others had done, and, consequently, one person might exercise two or three postal votes. So anxious am I that this system should not be abused that I should even be prepared to make one person entirely responsible for postal votes throughout the Commonwealth. In any case I must vote against the amendment.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Iquite agree with Senator Henderson that there is a danger in Senator Lynch’s amendment, much as I should like to extend the facilities for postal voting. But there is a suggestion which I should like’ to make to the Minister. The vast distances which have to be traversed in Queensland make postal voting almost a necessity. In order to increase the facilities the suggestion has been thrown out that a postal vote should be allowed to be counted even if it reached the returning officer some days after the close of the poll, provided it bore upon it the postal stamp of the date of the election, or a date previous to the election. If that suggestion could be adopted it would meet the case of electors in the sparsely populated portions of States vast in area, and of those electors who are likely to be ill and consequently unable to go to the poll on election day.

Senator Needham:

– Can anybody say that he is likely to be ill?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The honorable senator must have very little experience of human beings if he is not aware that some persons do know on occasions when they are likely to be ill. There may not be sufficient time for an application for a postal certificate to go to the returning officer, for the certificate to be received by the elector, and for it to be transmitted again to the returning officer, before the declaration of the poll. But if the suggestion that has been thrown out could be adopted, the convenience of electors in such situations would be met. There are places like Chillagoe, Irvingbank, and Cooktown, which are very far removed from the central polling places of the electorates to which they belong. Though the names of those towns may be merely geographical expressions to some honorable senators, there are many places so situated in Queensland, and I da.re say also in Western Australia.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator’s suggestion is that we should allow a vote to be counted if it reached the returning officer some days after the close of the poll.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Yes.

Senator de Largie:

– How long does the honorable senator suggest ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It is not necessary to mention a time.

Senator Chataway:

– We might impose a limit of fourteen days after the close of the poll.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Precisely. If it commended itself to the judgment of the Committee to impose a time limit, that might be done. But the adoption of such a suggestion would afford considerable facilities to many of our electors in the scattered districts. We trust the honesty and integrity of our post-office officials in the handling of thousands of pounds. Surely, then, we can trust the officers to do their duty in carefully stamping postal certificates ; and when the postal stamp is duly impressed on a certificate, notwithstanding that it is received after the close of the poll, the vote should, in such instances as I have mentioned, be permitted to be counted.I do not know whether an amendment to carry out this idea can be moved at present ; but, if not, I shall at the proper time press the suggestion upon the Minister.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I should like to remind Senator Lynch that in some electoral divisions there are twenty or thirty electoral registrars. Under the existing Act, the returning officer is the only person entitled to strike from a roll the names of electors who have applied for postal votes, and the roll must be marked in this way at least a week previous to an election. No other person can do this work.

Senator Henderson:

– No other person should be allowed to do it.

Senator SAYERS:

– I agree with the honorable senator. At present, the returning officer is made responsible, and all postal votes must be issued by him. If every electoral registrar were permitted to issue postal votes, one would not know what votes had been issued by another, and a man who had obtained a postal vote certificate from an electoral registrar might later on record a vote at a polling booth, or some one else might record a vote in his name. I am satisfied that neither Senator Lynch nor any other member of the Senate desires to open the door to impersonation, but I am afraid that, if the amendment were carried, opportunities would be afforded for impersonation and fraud. I hope that after the discussion which has taken place, the honorable senator will not press his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

.- I move -

That the words “of State schools,” in paragraph a of proposed new section 109a, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof “ in the employment of a State Education Department.”

The effect of the amendment would be that the head teacher, whether of a temporary, a provisional, or a State school, would be an authorized witness to an. application for a postal vote certificate. In Queensland, and I believe also in Western Australia, because of the technical difference between a State school and a provisional school, some doubt arose as to whether the head teacher of a temporary or provisional school could attest an application for a postal vote certificate, and, in consequence, some electors were unable to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the postal voting provisions.

Senator Findley:

– Are not these temporary teachers in the employ of the State Governments ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– They are, but a distinction is made between State, temporary, ana provisional schools. My amendment is submited to give effect to the intention of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That after the word “ practitioners” in paragraph a of proposed new section109a the words “all Officers in charge of Railway Stations; all Officers in charge of Public Works “ be inserted.

My reason for moving the amendment is that our State Departments often carry out public works far from any settlement, and in such places the other authorized witnesses provided for in the proposed new section would not be available to men engaged on these works who might desire to take advantage of the postal vote. A boring party or a surveying party might have to carry out works a hundred miles from any settlement. During the last election, public works on which a number of electors were engaged were being carried out in Western Australia at places far distant from any settlement.

Senator Millen:

– How would the honorable senator define an “officer”?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– A man in charge of a graig employed on a public work would be an officer.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator does not say so in his amendment. Would the ganger of a road party be an “officer”?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I should say. so. So many public works are being carried out in remote districts by the State Departments that I admit it is difficult to define an officer in charge of these works, but without some such provision as Idesire to make by the amendment, a number of electors may be disfranchised. The necessity for some such amendment was made very evident at the last election in Western Australia. Unless we extend the list of authorized witnesses in the way I have suggested, the facilities afforded by the postal voting provisions will be denied to those who are best entitled to them. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I shall be very glad to listen to any suggestion with a view to improving the form in which it is submitted.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It appears that Senator de Largie and I have been thinking somewhat along the same lines. I believe that the amendment submitted by the honorable senator is more comprehensive than that which I have circulated. There might be some difficulty in defining “officer” under the honorable senator’s amendment, and it might, perhaps, be better if the word were qualified, as I have qualified it in my proposed amendment, by the addition of the words “ permanently employed.” Perhaps with that addition the Vice-President of the Executive Council might have no objection to the amendment.

Senator Millen:

– I think that the honorable senator should adhere to his own proposal.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– While both amendments are good, I think that Senator de Largie’s is the more comprehensive. I have suggested that all railway station- masters and night officers-in-charge permanently employed in the Railway Departments in any of’ the States should be authorized witnesses for the purpose of the postal voting provisions. My reason for making the suggestion is that in many of the sparsely populated districts of Australia it would be possible to secure the services of a station-master or officerincharge of a station, where the services of a justice of the peace, a State school teacher, or of any of the other competent witnesses provided for in the proposed new section, would not be available.

Senator Guthrie:

– Justices of the peace ‘ are the worst witnesses we could have, because they owe their appointments to political influence.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I will not say that they are the worst witnesses we could have, but they are not .always the most available. Senator de Largie. goes further than I proposed to go by including all officers in charge of public works amongst the persons who should be authorized witnesses. In such States as Queensland and Western Australia, where the centres of population are often very far apart, officers permanently in the employ of public Departments are frequently in charge of numbers of men engaged in carrying out public works. Their services might be availed of to enable the men working under them, at a distance, from any railwaystation, to record their votes by post, and that is why I think Senator de Largie’s amendment would be an improvement on my own. Of course, if I had my way, there would1, in future, be no postalvoting at all. But now that the Committee, in its wisdom, has determined .that the provision shall remain, I think that there is a chance of widening the scope and the utility of the clause. T believe that the Minister is willing to accede to our desire to afford these greater facilities, and that if the two suggested amendments were embodied in one proposal it might be accepted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– For reasons which I will briefly state, I am unable to accept the amendment of Senator de Largie, though, if it is negatived, I shall be only too glad to support the proposal of Senator Needham. My objections to the present amendment are summed up in the word “comprehensive,” used by Senator Needham. It is so comprehensive that I think that when Senator de Largie looks into it a little more he will hardly persist in it. The latter portion of his proposal refers to all officers in charge of public works. I asked him to define what he meant by an officer, and when I inquired whether he called a maintenance man an officer, he said, “certainly.” r think that he was quite right in giving that answer. But that means that a single maintenance man - not a man in charge of a gang of men, but a man working entirely on his own, as many men have to do - would, under the amendment, become an authorized witness. I cannot conceive that Senator de Largie meant that, because if we agreed to his proposal we might as well abolish the whole list of authorized witnesses and simply say that anybody may be a witness.

Senator Guthrie:

– A man working “ on his own “ would not be ari officer.

Senator MILLEN:

– What is the definition of an officer here?

Senator Guthrie:

– A man in, charge of others.

Senator MILLEN:

-. - A single maintenance man is in charge of public work.

Senator Guthrie:

– But not in charge of other men.

Senator MILLEN:

– This amendment does not say that the man is to be in charge of other men. The sole thing is that he is to be in charge of a public work. It may . be a State public work, because in New South Wales it’ frequently happens that a carpenter or a painter is despatched’ up -country to repair a postoffice. For the time being he is in charge of that work, but, under this amendment, is he to be regarded as an authorized witness ? I do not think that Senator de Largie meant that. I wish to show what a wide interpretation it is possible to apply to- the words of the amendment.

Senator de Largie:

– It is extremely difficult to frame an apt amendment.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes. I ask the honorable senator to withdraw his amendment and the Committee to accept the proposal of Senator Needham, which will make a very useful addition to the list of ‘ authorized witnesses. When it is accepted I think it must be allowed that the list is fairly ample and liberal. Experience, of course, may suggest that some additions are necessary, but at present I think that we should not put in additions which contain in themselves a possible element of danger.

Senator de Largie:

– I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Needham) agreed to -

That after the word “ parties,” in sub-clause a of proposed new section109a, the following words be inserted : - “ all railway station-masters and night officers-in-charge who are permanently employed in the Railway Department in any of the States.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 -

Section two hundred and nine of the Principal Act is amended by adding thereto the following sub-sections : - “ (4) The regulations may permit the use of any repealed form for any prescribed period, notwithstanding that a new form has been prescribed in lieu of it.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I move -

That the following words be added : - “ and without any alteration or witnessing further than is provided for in the repealed form.”

The object of this amendment is to save an elector who may have used a form which, by reason of the issue of a new regulation, has become obsolete. Many, indeed hundreds of forms, are in use today, but a new regulation may be issued to-morrow, bringing in a new form and an elector may in all innocence use a form’ which he thinks is good, but which by reason of the new regulation, has become obsolete.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 and schedule agreed to.

Postponed clause 5 (Claims for enrolment).

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVice President of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– It will be remembered that this clause contained a point which caused some rather close reasoning, and that its consideration was adjourned with an assurance that I would consultthe authorities on the matter. I have done so, but I anticipate that there is material for a debate perhaps a little longer than we should like to undertake to-night, and, therefore, I ask the Committee to report progress.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.37p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 September 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090929_senate_3_52/>.